Tuesday, December 16, 2025

Vitamin C and Dandelion Root Killing Cancer Cells — as Former CDC Director Calls for COVID-19 mRNA “Vaccine” Elimination





Producing dandelion essence is done by grinding up the root along with alcohol and letting it soak for days. water and glycerin vworks as well.  somehow we can blend this with grapefruit peel extract as well.

all this is workong toward a multi ingredient elixer.  all promising and we do have core useful components.  Including a heaping teaspoon of ascorbic acid..

The grapefruit extract makes it fit to consume.

Vitamin C and Dandelion Root Killing Cancer Cells — as Former CDC Director Calls for COVID-19 mRNA “Vaccine” Elimination

Epidemiologist Nicolas Hulscher on Brannon Howse Live


Dec 10, 2025





Yesterday, I joined Brannon Howse Live to share some long-overdue good news. We discussed emerging breakthroughs in cancer research, the extraordinary promise of natural compounds like dandelion root and high-dose vitamin C, and a major development in the mRNA arena:

Dandelion Root Extract: A Common Weed With Anti-Cancer Power





·
Dec 9

A remarkable peer-reviewed study found that aqueous dandelion root extract kills 95% of cancer cells in vitro and reduces human colon tumor growth by over 90% in mice — with zero toxicity.

Tumors in untreated mice grew aggressively.


Tumors in the treated group barely grew at all.


Human trials were planned but mysteriously never funded — likely because a common backyard plant is not profitable for the chemo-industrial complex.

This study fits into a larger body of over 1,100 peer-reviewed papers showing anti-cancer effects from natural, non-toxic compounds — an entire therapeutic frontier long ignored because it threatens the economics of conventional oncology.

High-Dose Vitamin C: Four Distinct Anti-Cancer Mechanisms





·
Nov 28

We also discussed new research showing that high-dose intravenous vitamin C has multiple anti-tumor mechanisms backed by mechanistic and clinical evidence.

Pharmacologic intravenous vitamin C is a multi-mechanistic, tumor-selective anti-cancer therapy that has been under-dosed, under-studied, and consistently underestimated.


Human trials already show improved survival and reduced symptoms for patients receiving high-dose vitamin C alongside conventional therapy.


Vitamin C kills cancer cells through four well-documented mechanisms, while sparing healthy tissue: pro-oxidative tumor cytotoxicity, epigenetic reprogramming, suppression of oncogenic signaling pathways, and powerful immune activation.


It is safe, inexpensive, and widely accessible — which helps explain why many oncology centers resist offering it.

Former CDC Director Dr. Robert Redfield Calls for Eliminating COVID-19 mRNA “Vaccines”


Dr. Robert Redfield — former CDC Director — has publicly called for the market removal of COVID-19 mRNA shots, telling The Epoch Times, “I’d like to see it eliminated.”

·
Dec 7


by Nicolas Hulscher, MPH


With rapidly accumulating evidence — including glaring cancer signals, widespread heart damage, transgenerational harms, immune collapse, and prion-like amyloid microclots found in 100% of vaccinated individuals tested — regulatory pressure is approaching a breaking point.

While four years too late, this marks the first time a former CDC Director has explicitly aligned with the call for removal.

Posted by at No comments:

A microbial cleanup for glyphosate just earned a patent. Here’s why that matters




to start with roundup is a problem long suppressed by industry.  It should never be used continously ,yet it is.

Problem is that agriculture has a chronic weed problem without it.  so working without it at all is a poor solution.  here we have a tool able to reduce residues heavily.  this matters.

The future of agriculture will involve successful management of chemistry   this is a good example.

There is plenty to complain about, but there was way more to complain about a century ago and with rotational grazing and proper nutrient support, we can look toward to steady production of high nutrient foods.

A microbial cleanup for glyphosate just earned a patent. Here’s why that matters


December 10, 2025 | Jennifer Marston

https://agfundernews.com/a-microbial-cleanup-for-glyphosate-just-earned-a-patent-heres-why-that-matters


Glyphosate is still the most cost-effective way to manage weeds for the vast majority of U.S. farmers.
Image credit: iStock


The U.S. patent is another validation for Ancient Organics Bioscience‘s mission to clean up glyphosate-contaminated soils through bioremediation.

At the same time, it highlights another option for broad-acre row-crop farmers still relying on glyphosate-based herbicides, which remain the most cost-effective option for weed control.

Why it matters:

Nothing kills weeds quite like glyphosate, but the herbicide and its byproducts also adversely impact soil health, according to Ancient Organics.About 55% of the native beneficial microorganisms in soils contain the gene glyphosate targets.

Glyphosate suppresses beneficial bacteria and fungi in the native soil microbiome.

It binds to (chelates) key soil nutrients, making them unavailable to plants.

Ancient Organics’ product PaleoPower is designed to degrade chemical residues from those glyphosate-based herbicides.

Robin Steele, cofounder and director at Ancient Organics, says this emphasis on soil health and degrading environmental contaminants is a unique strength.

“Most of the biologic companies are focusing on plant health, nitrogen fixation, nitrogen-use efficiency. But without healthy soil you are not going to have healthy crops or healthy food,” she tells AgFunderNews.

“Our objective is to provide farmers with organic biological solutions that enable them to produce cleaner foods, with reduced levels of environmental toxins, and healthier foods, with higher nutrient content,” notes Steele.




Ancient Organics microbial inoculant PaleoPower. Image credit: Ancient Organics Bioscience
How it works:

A consortium of microbes within PaleoPower produces enzymes that can degrade the chemical bonds of glyphosate, accelerating the herbicide’s destruction and setting soil macronutrients free, notes Ancient 
Organics founder and CEO Raul Cano.After application of PaleoPower, the glyphosate breaks down, while nutrients it previously bound are released.

The native soil bacterial community can then recover and re-establish itself.

Ancient Organics estimates glyphosate degradation of between 75% and 90% in 90-120 days on average.

Typical application of PaleoPower is once during pre planting and once more after harvest.

Ancient Organics has done a limited commercial release of the PaleoPower in the United States and has registration pending in Canada (expected to go through in 2026).
PaleoPower by the numbers:

Across multi-state field trials, PaleoPower “delivered consistent and dramatic reductions in glyphosate residues,” says the company.87% of residues in a Wisconsin corn field

75% in Alabama cotton
50% in Illinois soybeans

Almost 96% in a California vineyard

Because PaleoPower increases soil microbial diversity, trials also saw yield increases in some crops:

28.6% in corn
38% in carrots
48% in onions

Average boosts of 25% to 36% in organic vegetable cropsFrom left: Ancient Organics’ Raul Cano (founder & CEO) and Robin Steele (cofounder & Director)
Zoom out:

The new patent arrives as glyphosate once again takes over the headlines:The U.S. federal government recently backed Bayer’s efforts to limit litigation claiming the weedkiller Roundup (inherited by Bayer after it acquired Monsanto) causes cancer.

A favorable ruling from the Supreme Court of the United States would diminish or eradicate many of the 67,000-plus lawsuits Bayer currently faces.

This month also saw the retraction of a landmark study on glyphosate safety, published in 2000 and widely cited, due to “serious ethical concerns.”

Last month, Europe’s General Court found EU regulators had “bent pesticide rules” over the years to keep glyphosate (and other chemicals) available in the market longer than allowed by law.

Politics and regulation aside, Ancient Organics says it’s hyper-focused on what farmers need—and what they’ll realistically buy when it comes to crop-protection products.

“Farmers are somewhat reluctant to give up their chemical crutches, because they work,” explains Steele.

“We have started to embrace that, suggesting, ‘If you are going to use glyphosate, you may want to use our product as a companion product to help at least mitigate perhaps some of the damage to the soil.’

That message seems to be resonating with those that are not pure regenerative or organic farmers, that are still embracing their chemicals.”
Posted by at No comments:

Electric vs hydrogen vehicles explained: Efficiency, impact and future use


I still do not see hydogen tech while battery tech is very much here.  it may well be too hard.

Our most efficient source of high density energy is hydrcarbons of course and this is why we used it to build modernity.and we have gotten way better at using it.

We do have long term energy sources which become efficient with the present application of battery tech.  We really do not need hydrogen to move energy.  Yet folks still talk the talk about hydrogen.


Electric vs hydrogen vehicles explained: Efficiency, impact and future use

Electric and hydrogen vehicles, their strengths, challenges and the science shaping the future of sustainable transport.


https://interestingengineering.com/transportation/electric-vs-hydrogen-cars-explained


The debate between battery-electric vehicles (EVs) and hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles (FCEVs) often sounds like a tech rivalry where only one can win. In reality, both are electric drivetrains trying to solve the same problem. How to move people with far fewer emissions than petrol and diesel, but they take very different routes to get there.


At the same time, both technologies aren’t merely alternatives. They represent different infrastructures, investment paths, and assumptions about how society will generate, distribute, and store clean energy in the decades ahead. Whether one prevails or both find their place will depend not only on engineering but on economics, policy choices, and how rapidly the world can build the systems each technology requires.


How battery-electric cars work

Battery-electric cars store energy as electricity in a large battery pack. You charge that battery from the grid (or from rooftop solar), and an electric motor turns that stored energy into motion.


Technically, this is a very short chain. Electricity to battery to motor to wheels. Because there are relatively few conversion steps, modern EVs can turn roughly 70-90% of the electricity from the battery into motion on the road, with the rest lost as heat and other inefficiencies.

This simplicity is why EVs feel so responsive. High efficiency, few moving parts, and instant torque. It is also why charging infrastructure can piggyback on something we already have everywhere. The electricity grid.

How hydrogen fuel-cell cars work

Hydrogen cars are also electric, but they carry their energy as compressed hydrogen gas. Inside the vehicle. A fuel cell combines hydrogen with oxygen from the air to produce electricity, which then drives an electric motor. The only tailpipe output is water vapour.



The challenge is everything that must happen before hydrogen reaches the car. If you start with renewable electricity, you must first split water into hydrogen and oxygen via electrolysis, compress or liquefy the hydrogen, transport and store it, then convert it back into electricity in the fuel cell. Each step wastes some energy.

Studies that track this full “electricity-to-wheel” chain typically find that hydrogen fuel-cell cars use about two to three times more energy per kilometre than battery-electric cars, ending up with an overall efficiency somewhere in the 25-45% range. So hydrogen cars offer zero tailpipe emissions like EVs, but with a more complex energy pathway.

Climate impact: it’s not just the tailpipe

Both EVs and hydrogen cars look clean from the exhaust pipe, yet the real climate story is in how their energy is produced and how the vehicles are built. Lifecycle analyses consistently show that battery-electric cars emit much less greenhouse gas over their lifetime than petrol cars. Recent research in Europe estimates that emissions are around 70–75% lower, even on today’s imperfect grid.



When hydrogen cars are added to the comparison, battery EVs generally come out ahead again, primarily because they use energy more efficiently and can plug directly into a grid that is slowly decarbonizing.

Hydrogen cars can match or beat EVs in lifecycle emissions, but only under strict conditions. The hydrogen must be “green,” produced from renewable electricity rather than from natural gas (which still dominates hydrogen production today).

With green hydrogen, fuel-cell vehicles can approach the low emissions of battery-electric cars. With fossil-based hydrogen, their climate advantage shrinks drastically, sometimes barely improving on conventional engines.

Infrastructure, cost, and convenience

This is where reality kicks in. EV charging infrastructure has scaled rapidly. Globally, more than 1.3 million public charging points were added in 2024 alone, and countries such as the UK now have tens of thousands of public chargers. Fast-charging networks along highways are expanding, and many drivers charge at home or work, which is impossible with petrol or hydrogen.



Hydrogen refuelling, by contrast, is still rare. Even in advanced markets, hydrogen stations are counted in the dozens or hundreds, not the tens of thousands. The UK, for example, has tens of thousands of EV charging locations but only a few public hydrogen stations. Globally, clusters exist in places like Japan, South Korea, Germany, and parts of China, but coverage is patchy. Building each hydrogen station is also capital-intensive and technically demanding.

On costs, battery-electric cars benefit from mass-produced lithium-ion batteries, falling prices, and simple drivetrains. Fuel-cell systems and hydrogen storage tanks remain expensive, and green hydrogen itself is generally pricier per kilometre than grid electricity, especially once you factor in their lower efficiency.


Hydrogen’s main convenience advantage is refuelling time. Filling a tank in 3-5 minutes feels much closer to petrol, whereas even fast DC charging usually takes 20-30 minutes to get a substantial charge. For drivers who make frequent long-distance trips, that difference matters.


Where hydrogen might still shine

If battery EVs look like the clear winner for daily passenger cars, why are so many engineers and policymakers still interested in hydrogen? One reason is that not all vehicles are small cars doing short trips.

Hydrogen is becoming more attractive for heavy trucks, long-distance buses, and possibly ships and trains. These are situations where you need long-range, quick refuelling, and where carrying a very large, very heavy battery is a problem. In these niches, the higher energy density of hydrogen and the ability to refuel quickly can outweigh the efficiency penalty.

Hydrogen is also being explored as a way to store seasonal surplus renewable electricity and as a feedstock for industries like steel and fertilizers, which could create a broader “hydrogen economy” that transport can tap into. In that world, fuel-cell vehicles might depend on an infrastructure built primarily for trucks, industry, and shipping rather than for private cars.



So which technology wins?

If the question is “What will most people drive in the next couple of decades?”, the physics and economics both point strongly toward battery-electric cars. They are far more energy-efficient, easier to power from an increasingly renewable grid, cheaper to run, and supported by infrastructure that is already scaling worldwide.

Hydrogen cars are less likely to dominate the family driveway, but that does not make them irrelevant. Their advantages, rapid refuelling, higher energy storage per kilogram, and compatibility with emerging hydrogen supply chains, position them well for sectors that demand long range and operate under heavy loads.


Rather than framing the debate as hydrogen versus batteries in an all-or-nothing battle, it is more accurate to see them as complementary tools. For everyday passenger cars, the battery-electric roadmap already looks promising. For the really tough parts of transport, moving heavy things very far, very quickly, hydrogen may still earn a significant, if more specialised, place in the clean-mobility future.
Posted by at No comments:

The Next World Order: How the Great Powers Are Dividing the Globe





The thinking is so conventional and so wrong and leads to conflict.  Yet no one can imagine another way.

i show the RULE of TWELVE to end all conflict.  know that this is possible.

Yesua, a great genius showed us the RULE but others assidously ignored it.  Is anyone smart enough to understand this?

The Next World Order: How the Great Powers Are Dividing the Globe





For more than a century, the United States has treated Latin America as its sphere of influence—its so-called “backyard.”

Research by Columbia University historian John Coatsworth shows that the US has overthrown or intervened in at least 41 governments across the region, often using military force or covert operations to shape outcomes in its favor.

From CIA-backed coups and failed assassination attempts on leaders like Fidel Castro to full-scale military invasions in places like Panama and Grenada, Washington’s influence in Latin America has been constant and far-reaching.

Now, under President Trump’s renewed vision of American power, that influence is being reasserted in a dramatically changing world.

The world order that defined the last three decades is shifting. The unipolar dominance the US enjoyed after the Cold War is giving way to a multipolar reality—one where Russia and China demand their own spheres of influence.

Trump appears to recognize that maintaining total global supremacy is no longer sustainable. Instead, he is steering the US toward a strategy of controlled retrenchment: accepting a multipolar world but trying to ensure America remains the biggest power within it.

The new global boundaries have yet to be defined, and the situation remains volatile and dangerous. Whether this transition occurs without descending into greater conflict remains an open question.

On a smaller scale, this mirrors how powerful criminal organizations—such as mafias and street gangs—operate within a city. Ideally, a gang or mafia would eliminate all rivals. However, when certain rivals prove too strong to destroy, the conflict shifts toward defining boundaries until a formal arrangement is reached that divides territories.

The same dynamic is now unfolding on a global scale between the US, Russia, and China.

Each side is maneuvering to expand its power and influence until a new arrangement is reached that defines the balance of the multipolar world.

Determining the precise boundaries of various spheres of influence in a multipolar world—and formalizing them into an agreement—will be a complex and prolonged process. It won’t happen overnight.

While a direct kinetic war between the US, Russia, and China cannot be entirely ruled out, it remains an unlikely scenario.

Instead, we are likely to see a continued mix of proxy wars, economic conflicts, financial warfare, cyber attacks, biological warfare, deniable sabotage, and information warfare as these powers compete to expand their spheres of influence—until a formal agreement is reached.

Some boundaries are relatively clear. The Western Hemisphere will undoubtedly be under US influence. Russia’s sphere will include Eastern Europe and parts of Central Asia, while China’s will center on East Asia.

However, where exactly the lines will be drawn within these zones remains a significant question.

Take East Asia, for example.

Taiwan is almost sure to be reunited with China in some form. The US cannot prevent this, and Washington will likely acknowledge Taiwan as part of China’s sphere of influence.

But what about South Korea, Japan, and the Philippines?

The US is unlikely to abandon its alliances with them completely.

Can China accept South Korea, Japan, and the Philippines remaining US allies? If not, what actions will Beijing take?

While it seems clear that Eastern Europe will fall into Russia’s sphere, the fate of Western and Central Europe remains uncertain.

Losing the Ukraine war will be a bitter pill for supporters of the unipolar world order. Yet, it was always inevitable they would face a harsh reality check after wagering so much blood, treasure, and credibility on a conflict they were never positioned to win.

Russia’s victory in Ukraine will carry enormous downstream consequences—particularly for Europe and NATO.

The existential question for Western Europe is: What will happen to NATO?

I believe there’s a strong likelihood that NATO is either headed for a major restructuring or could even be dissolved entirely. The political will in the US to continue subsidizing Western Europe’s security has significantly diminished.

Western European nations are unlikely to welcome these shifts, but their reliance on US security through NATO for decades has left them vulnerable.

They are likely to move away from EU integration and back toward national sovereignty.

The war in Ukraine offers a valuable lesson: never bet big against a great power in its own backyard.

Just as it was unwise for the US to gamble against Russia in neighboring Ukraine, it would be equally foolish to bet against China in Taiwan—or for Russia and China to believe they can prevail over the US in the Western Hemisphere.
The Next World Order Won’t Just Be Political—It Will Be Financial

Just as great powers test their limits on the world stage, individuals are confronted with their own moment of reckoning. Geopolitical realignments of this scale are never abstract—they ultimately reshape economies, rewrite the rules of trade and finance, and alter the conditions under which ordinary people live, work, and preserve their wealth. The shift toward a multipolar world is not simply a geopolitical story; it is an economic and personal one as well.

What comes next will not be determined solely by treaties or territorial boundaries but by how prepared we are for the second-order effects already set in motion. Markets are recalibrating, currencies are being weaponized, and the systems that underpinned global stability for decades are under visible strain. The consequences of this transition will touch every portfolio and every household.

If you want a deeper understanding of the economic risks emerging from these geopolitical shifts—along with the three strategies most essential to protecting your money and personal freedom during this volatile period—you can access my free PDF special report by clicking here: The Most Dangerous Economic Crisis in 100 Years… the Top 3 Strategies You Need Right Now.
Posted by at No comments:

Monday, December 15, 2025

Spider-like robots are literally walking across China's deserts planting trees with every step.


this is realy a beginning but also the low hanging fruit. understand that every square foot of desert on earth requires intelligent augmentation.  At least the chines are getting a runnig start.  And as solar farms have shown us we can assively harness shade from solar cells to assist us.

Ample energy, shade inducing robust biology and integrated animal husbandry can produce a full on blanket of quality soils.  While employing Chinas entire population.

The same for india ,all the middle East and the Sahara and half the USA.  space enough for well over 10,000,000,000 folks.

understand folks will mostly live in tower satacks using an acre of land usuzally integrated with ample undergroung refugia as well all of which husbands a thousand acres.  along with multilayered greenhouses.  it is all there and inputs can be minimal

Spider-like robots are literally walking across China's deserts planting trees with every step.

Powered entirely by the sun, these AI-driven machines are doing something no human army could achieve at this scale. They're turning one of Earth's harshest landscapes green again, one sapling at a time.

This is what happens when cutting-edge technology meets climate action.



These ecological warriors are rewriting the rules of desert restoration.

Each robot uses ground-sensing technology to identify ideal planting locations, measuring moisture levels and sand composition before deploying seeds with protective capsules. The AI systems allow them to adapt in real-time, adjusting planting depth and spacing based on terrain conditions that change with every gust of wind.

In Inner Mongolia and other vulnerable regions, desertification has been advancing at an alarming rate, swallowing farmland and threatening communities. Traditional reforestation efforts require massive human resources and often yield low survival rates in extreme conditions. These robots flip that equation completely. They can work through sandstorms, extreme heat, and terrain too dangerous for human teams, all while running on clean solar energy with zero emissions.

The swarm intelligence is perhaps the most fascinating aspect. Multiple robots communicate wirelessly, sharing data about soil conditions, coverage patterns, and successful planting zones. They coordinate like a digital ecosystem, ensuring no area is over-planted or missed entirely. Early pilot programs have shown survival rates exceeding 80% for saplings planted by these machines, compared to 40-50% with conventional methods.

China's goal is ambitious but achievable with this technology. The Green Great Wall initiative aims to plant nearly 90 billion trees across 4,500 kilometers by 2050. With these solar-powered planters scaling up production, what once seemed impossible is becoming reality. Every step these robots take is a step toward reversing decades of environmental damage.

📌Sources and References:
South China Morning Post coverage of desert reforestation robots, Chinese Academy of Sciences environmental technology reports, Green Great Wall Project documentation, IEEE Spectrum robotics innovation features.

✓Read and learn more:













✓Peer-Reviewed Scientific Publication:



📌 "Note: The image is AI-generated and intended for illustrative purposes only. It is not to scale."




Posted by at No comments:

Nasa's wise scientist finally 'finds the Star of Bethlehem'





to start with, this observation in time and pace is impossible to impeach and certainly may have been a natural comet and something which  scholars really paid attention to then.  you als0 do not make this up.  so locating a related reference in chinese records fully conforms and 5 BC is truly close enough to the necessary time line which then makes Yesua around 36 years of age.  It also intercepts the last two years of Herod the Greats rule as well.

even if the nativity itself is a write in which by the way is highly plausible. these were the known external dates and facts to which such a story could be attached.  understand that the central recorded fact regarding Yesua was his ministry.

Now let us recall #I/ATLAS and Cloud cosmology.  Understand a socalled comet shifting it mass and rolling in from deep space  at a significant percentage of light speed and then setting up to put on a visible display from the corect direction.  imagine 3I/ATLAS doing just this.

My take home is that this can be intentional



    Nasa's wise scientist finally 'finds the Star of Bethlehem'


    Published: 20:36 EST, 8 December 2025 | Updated: 20:36 EST, 8 December 2025

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-15365769/Nasa-scientist-finds-star-Bethlehem-Christmas.html

    A Nasa astronomer has claimed there is scientific evidence explaining the strange movement of the Star of Bethlehem that led the three wise men to the infant Jesus.

    Mark Matney, a planetary scientist, pointed to an object recorded by the Chinese from 5BC - a bright comet that was visible for more than 70 days.



    His analysis in the Journal of the British Astronomical Association comes as the spectacle - also known as the Christmas Star - has proved a subject of debate amongst astronomers for centuries.




    In the Gospel of Matthew the star shows the way to the baby Jesus - first appearing 'in the east' before it 'goes before' them on a short journey from Jerusalem to Bethlehem.

    According to the Biblical narrative, it then 'stands over' the place where Jesus was born.

    While many have chosen to see the star as a miracle or a myth, Mr Matney has now suggested it did in fact exist - as a comet that nearly struck the earth some 2,000 years ago.

    With historians typically placing Jesus's birth somewhere between 6BC and 5BC, Mr Matney analysed an object from Ancient Chinese records, identifying a range of possible orbits consistent with the observations.

    One reconstruction of the object's movement suggested it would have become visible on a June morning in 5BC.



    Mark Matney (pictured), a planetary scientist, pointed to an object recorded by the Chinese from 5BC - a bright comet that was visible for more than 70 days


    In the Gospel of Matthew the star shows the way to the baby Jesus - first appearing 'in the east' before it 'goes before' them on a short journey from Jerusalem to Bethlehem


    Mr Matney analysed an object from Ancient Chinese records (pictured), identifying a range of possible orbits consistent with the observations

    'This is the first astronomical candidate for the Star ever identified that could have had apparent motion corresponding to the description in Matthew, where the Star "went before" the Magi on their journey to Bethlehem until it "stood over" where the child Jesus was,' Mr Matney wrote in his study.

    He said a comet that had passed so close by might 'easily have been visible in the daytime' and would have been 'extraordinarily bright'.

    At least 400 scholarly attempts have been made to explain the truth of the Star of Bethlehem, among them, claims of a supernova or an exploding star that would have appeared suddenly.

    Others have simply brushed off its existence as either a miracle or a myth.



Posted by at No comments:

The Kinship of Producers



and our ultimate engaged producers are mothers.  The persistent effort to produce effectively useless individuals is just stupid and even dangerous.  everyone needs to be raised inside a productive engaged culture.

The wastage needs to dissapear.

and we need to stop selling the illusion of the idle rich, if they ever truly existed.  An active mind is never idle ,and even stupid demand validation through routime and effort.

The Kinship of Producers


https://freemansperspective.com/the-kinship-of-producers/

There is a kinship between productive humans; one that spreads all across this planet. It may be invisible to power and hierarchy, but we productive people recognize it.


When we drive into a new town, we know, almost by instinct, that we can trust the hard-working carpenter further than someone permanently on the dole. It’s possible that the guy on the dole is a saint, but the hardworking man shares our specific ethics, and we are tuned to them. And even if this carpenter is a negative exception, we’ll be able to tell soon enough.



I’ve felt this kinship on multiple continents and among people of many flavors; not just on construction sites, but in truck stops, offices, grocery stores and trains. Productive people carry a specific ethic, and it’s consistent not only over distance, but over time. If you were somehow dropped into ancient Rome, the people you’d want to join wouldn’t be the senators or the people in the bread lines, but the people who built and maintained the aqueducts.




Ethics Born of Work

The ethics I’m referring to are those which are spawned by work… by productive, dedicated, creative work. And yes, even sweeping a floor becomes creative if you take it seriously. A shop floor is complex, and complexity must be overcome with creativity.




Work requires things of us; things like continuous cooperation, holding in mind what others are doing, and working toward a shared, final goal. It requires us to make a long chain of decisions, by ourselves and without stopping our work flow. In this way it’s a lot like team sports.




From the practice of production spring the virtues of persistence, dedication, reliability and endurance. We learn to do things that are hard, because they need to be done, and because there’s no one but us to make sure they get done.




We learn responsibility, because if we fail to do the hard things, dozens or hundreds of people will be in trouble. We also learn about earned self-pride. When we work hard, long and effectively, we learn that we are beneficial and necessary beings in the world. Legitimately.




Here, in brief, are the values of producers:




We believe that everyone should be treated fairly, including a certain level of respect and politeness.

We believe in voluntary interactions; that coercion is wrong.

We believe that people should keep their agreements.

We believe in cooperation and good faith.

We believe that everyone should be able to do what they want, so long as they don’t intrude on others.

We accept that life can be hard, and we work through it as best we can.

We believe that good decisions must include concern for the long term.

Establishing this as a good list is easy, and the proof is this: These are things we complain about when others fail to uphold them. We wouldn’t complain if we didn’t hold them as values.




So…

What I’d like all productive people to realize is this: We have every right to live our way; to express our will in the world. And more critically, we shouldn’t sacrifice our ethics to people and systems who claim to be higher and more important. Consider this, please:




Any system that can’t survive within our ethics (something that corner stores, nurses and contractors do every day) is a system that has passed its time and should be left behind.




Our ethics are good and we’re the people who make the world work. We need to believe this.
Posted by at No comments:

Saudi Arabia Didn't Learn Anything From China's 'Ghost Cities'



ah yes, just who will live there?  What are these folks thinking.?  and where are the folks?

did the deathly secret of china's popupation collapse remain known only to several admin types/

and all sorts of top guns built on the basis of false information.

This may well be the price paid for secrecy.  and just what were the saudis thinking/


Saudi Arabia Didn't Learn Anything From China's 'Ghost Cities'


Monday, Dec 08, 2025 - 04:15 PM



You can’t build a castle on sand, and you can’t build a city on assumptions. Saudi Arabia unveiled The Line in January 2021 as a perfect, linear utopia stretching 170 kilometers across the desert. Three years later, the castle is already sinking.


When Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman announced The Line on January 10, 2021, he promised a radical reimagining of urban life. “We need to transform the concept of a conventional city into that of a futuristic one.”


Tucked into the upper corner of the kingdom’s Tabuk province, the city would run like a ruler through the Neom region, housing nine million people, the population of Austria, within just 34 square kilometers, all powered by renewable energy. It imagines a world where every need sits within a five-minute walk, yet one can cross the entire city in twenty minutes. But even in a country wealthy enough to seed rain clouds and bankroll vast infrastructure, reality is colliding with ambition. The city that promised to “deliver new wonders for the world” is struggling to deliver its own foundation.

By 2030, only 2.4 kilometers of the 170-kilometer project will be completed, with the rest delayed as the government prioritizes energy infrastructure and scrambles for funding. The project’s leadership has been reshuffled, with the head of the sovereign wealth fund, The Public Investment Fund, now steering the effort amid deepening financial uncertainty. This is unsurprising. The Line was imagined as an engineering object, an architectural marvel, rather than a city that must grow from real human demand. The economic foundation beneath that vision is equally unstable. Saudi Arabia’s fiscal fortunes depend on oil, a commodity that swung from over $110 a barrel in 2012 to $42 in 2020 and now hovers near $70. The financial bedrock for this trillion-dollar city is, like the desert beneath it, shifting.

As urban planner and George Mason scholar Alain Bertaud reminds us, cities are foremost labor markets, not works of art. “Planning,” he argues, “is based on the illusion that a city is a complex building that needs to be designed in advance by competent professionals.”

While the glossy Neom videos present a pristine, drone-filled future, they do so without answering the most basic question: who will live here? There is no target population beyond the slogan of “nine million,” no industries identified, no international firms committed to office space. The Line sells a vision of technological abundance while omitting the people needed to make a city function. Additionally, the BBC reports that construction has already displaced local communities, some labeled as rebels, and that Saudi authorities justified lethal force against those resisting eviction. The Line lacks the basics, let alone the advanced futurism it advertises: no jobs lined up, no residents committed, and human rights violations overshadowing its image.

For years, Saudi Arabia has attracted foreign workers with the promise of zero income tax and a reputation for safety. But these incentives, however appealing, are not in and of themselves a foundation for long-term economic growth. As Nobel laureate Daron Acemoglu argues, it is institutions, not tax perks or security guarantees, that sustain prosperity. On this front, Saudi Arabia functions less like an open society and more like a modern caste system, granting its citizens far broader rights and protections than the millions of residents, roughly 40 percent of the population, who live and work there. Citizens benefit from public goods such as public schools, where non-Saudis are capped at just 15 percent of enrollment, as well as welfare programs universally free for nationals. Foreigners, by contrast, are routed into private institutions and face sharply limited paths to citizenship waiting 10 years to apply, and even then nothing is guaranteed. This is a separation not only of services, but of ideas and talents. Even the labor market reflects this hierarchy.

Saudization quotas ensure that nationals are favored for desirable jobs: in many sectors, at least 30 percent of employees must be Saudi, and entire professions are reserved exclusively for citizens. A system built on quotas and exclusion cannot produce genuine meritocracy; talent competes at a disadvantage when citizenship, not ability, is the deciding factor. But the clearest institutional divide is not economic, it is political. Freedom of speech, the most fundamental inclusive right, remains unavailable to citizens and residents alike. The fate of journalist Jamal Khashoggi underlines the risks of dissent in a system built not on participation, but on silence.

History has shown that governments cannot simply erect structures and call them cities. In China alone, dozens of newly built towns stand largely empty. Anticipating rapid growth, the country produced more cement between 2011 and 2013 than the United States did during the entire twentieth century. One showcase city in China’s interior was designed to house more than one million people, but “currently houses less than 100,000, and it is still less than halfway toward the district’s goal of housing 300,000 people by 2020.” Government planning and reality rarely align.

Yet China’s ghost cities illustrate only the surface of the problem. The deeper issue lies in what a city fundamentally is.

Aristotle taught that a city requires three things: a functioning politeia, citizens capable of ruling and being ruled; autarkeia, an economic base that allows people to sustain themselves; and koinōnia, a shared conception of the good life that binds people into a community. The Line satisfies none of these conditions. Its residents will not form a politeia, because most will be non-citizens without political rights. It lacks autarkeia, with no industries, no labor market, and no economic ecosystem. Furthermore it cannot produce koinōnia, a communal life, in a system where people remain transient workers rather than members of a civic community. The Line attempts to design a polis without the very ingredients Aristotle believed made a city possible.

Aristotle reminds us that “the city exists by nature,” and that “man is by nature a political animal.” A city, polis, he taught, may come into being for the sake of living, but it endures for the sake of living well. Yet there can be no such good life in The Line without a community capable of shaping its own future, deliberating, dissenting, and holding its leaders accountable.

Cities grow from freedom, choice, and bottom-up demand, not from architectural decree. Saudi Arabia confronts an irony of its own making. A nation whose modern borders were once drawn from afar now seeks to draw a perfect line of its own. Yet it overlooks the oldest lesson in the desert: drawing lines is easy; living within them is not. Steel and glass can build walls, but they cannot build a city where the foundations of civic life are forbidden to take root.
Posted by at No comments:

Saturday, December 13, 2025

US Unveils First Autonomous Microwave Weapon Robot to Defeat Drone Swarms in Seconds




This is getting microwave tech down to combat scale and can counter drones.  not lasers which demand shipboard energy.

we are describing an anidrone umbrella over a wide front allowing infantry and even armor to move forward.  drones will still be low and slow and effective there.

It will sheild assets from destruction. 


US Unveils First Autonomous Microwave Weapon Robot to Defeat Drone Swarms in Seconds


The U.S. defense sector has introduced a major breakthrough in counter-drone warfare: Leonidas Autonomous Robotic (Leonidas AR), the world’s first high-pulse microwave–armed robot. Developed by Epirus and General Dynamics Land Systems (GDLS), the system blends cutting-edge electromagnetic weaponry with an AI-enhanced unmanned ground vehicle to neutralize drone swarms instantly and without kinetic fire.

A New Class of Counter-Drone Capability

• Leonidas AR integrates Epirus’ Leonidas high-power microwave (HPM) system onto GDLS’s 10-ton TRX tracked robotic vehicle.

• The HPM weapon emits bursts of weaponized electromagnetic interference capable of disabling the electronics of multiple drones simultaneously.

• Software-defined controls allow operators to adjust frequency bands, avoid friendly systems, and remotely update capabilities.

• The system offers one-to-many engagement, making it far more efficient than interceptor-based air defense systems.

Next-Generation Robotic Mobility

• The TRX platform is hybrid-electric, autonomous, and built for all-terrain operations, with a 300-mile range and 45-mph top speed.

• Its 360-degree sensing, advanced computing stack, and remote-operation modes allow deployment in high-risk, GPS-contested, or EW-dense environments.

• A wheeled variant is under development to expand future Army mobility options.

Strategic Shift in Defense Innovation

• Leaders at Epirus and GDLS describe Leonidas AR as a model for the future: pairing “neo-prime” agility from emerging tech companies with the scale and sustainment of traditional primes.

• The platform follows the earlier Leonidas Stryker integration, extending the Army’s non-kinetic counter-UAS ecosystem into autonomous systems.

• Companies highlight the electromagnetic spectrum as the “Sixth Domain,” signaling that dominance in EM warfare will shape the outcome of future conflicts.

Why This Matters

Leonidas AR represents a decisive shift toward scalable, non-kinetic air defense—an answer to the exponential growth of drone swarms on modern battlefields. By merging AI-driven mobility with high-pulse microwave firepower, the U.S. is fielding a system capable of neutralizing massed unmanned threats at unprecedented speed and precision. It reflects a broader strategic alignment: combining industry disruptors with established primes to accelerate the Army’s transformation and secure electromagnetic superiority.
Posted by at No comments:

Glyphosate “Safety” Study Ghostwritten by Monsanto Retracted After 25 Years of Deception





and just like that roundup is a dangerous fraud.  Yet this movie ran as safe from 1965 unti today or a full sixty years.  The truth is that thosands died from exposure.  mostly farmers of course.

I am hardly amused and do wonder if we have a properly safe protocol for its use.  We also need one for DDT other than outright banning.

most pesticides are bdangerous because they are applied best as aerosols which is way to easy to breathe.  We do have the air can systems that need to be improved into open masks along with shedding overalls that allows clothed showers.


Glyphosate “Safety” Study Ghostwritten by Monsanto Retracted After 25 Years of Deception



https://publichealthpolicyjournal.com/glyphosate-safety-study-ghostwritten-by-monsanto-retracted-after-25-years-of-deception/

In a long-overdue move, Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology has formally retracted the landmark 2000 glyphosate “safety” review by Williams, Kroes, and Munro — a paper Monsanto and global regulators have relied on for decades to assert that Roundup poses no carcinogenic risk to humans.

Crucially, the Editor-in-Chief confirms that Monsanto employees likely secretly wrote substantial portions of the paper, despite never being listed as authors or acknowledged — a revelation uncovered through U.S. litigation.

The retraction states that the article’s integrity has collapsed entirely, citing undisclosed corporate authorship, omitted carcinogenicity data, financial conflicts of interest, and a complete failure by the surviving author to respond to the journal’s investigation.





THE RETRACTION

1. Based almost entirely on Monsanto’s unpublished studies
The review’s “no cancer risk” conclusion relied solely on Monsanto-generated data. Even worse, the authors ignored multiple long-term mouse and rat carcinogenicity studies that already existed at the time — including multi-year toxicity studies showing tumor signals. None were incorporated.

2. Evidence of ghostwriting by Monsanto
Litigation records revealed that Monsanto employees secretly co-wrote portions of the paper, despite never being listed as authors or acknowledged. This alone violates the most basic principles of scientific integrity.

3. Undisclosed financial ties
The authors appear to have received direct compensation from Monsanto for producing the paper — again undisclosed, again violating journal standards.

4. Misrepresentation of authorship and contributions
By hiding Monsanto’s role, the paper created the illusion of independent scientific evaluation — even as corporate employees shaped the conclusions.

5. Regulatory capture revealed
This paper heavily influenced global risk assessments — including U.S. EPA, WHO/FAO, and Health Canada evaluations — setting the tone for “glyphosate is safe” messaging for more than two decades.


While I am strongly opposed to politically motivated retractions and scientific censorship, this retraction was unquestionably warranted. The integrity failures were not ideological — they were structural, factual, and undeniable.

And the independent evidence that has emerged since 2000 only underscores how dangerous that original “all clear” truly was.

A recent controlled animal study demonstrated that glyphosate and Roundup can induce rare, aggressive, and fatal cancers across multiple organs — even at doses considered “safe” by U.S. and EU regulatory thresholds. These findings directly contradict the original review’s core conclusions.
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Comments (Atom)