5/5/20: PROTEINS – WHERE’S THE BEEF? W/ JOHN S. NALIVKA

MONOLOGUE WRITTEN BY CLYDE LEWIS

Usually it is a difficult task as a conspiracy theory researcher to convince people that psychological operations are real and effective tools that elite use to steer the public and the public consciousness to an approximated goal.

Well, there is a massive psychological operation underway and when I point it out to you it will convince you that there is most certainly a manipulative project underway where neurolinguistic programming, neuromarketing, micro targeting, and other methods of grooming has sparked a meme that exposes just how easy it is to brainwash Americans and move them towards a desired outcome.

I believe that if it can be pointed out early on – we can identify it before virtue signalers use it to vilify people who are just being normal in times where we are told that we need to abide by what is called “the new normal.”

It was supposed to be a big year for America’s meat industry. As recently as late February, a USDA livestock analyst predicted record-setting red meat and poultry production as economic growth and low unemployment boosted demand for animal protein. Then came COVID-19. By the end of April, the pandemic changed the economic and agricultural landscape so drastically that Tyson Foods, one of America’s biggest meat producers, warned in a full-page New York Times ad that the “food supply chain is breaking.”

America’s farms are still packed with animals raised for meat production. The problem is that the virus has made it increasingly hard to turn those animals into store-ready packs of pork chops or ground beef. That’s because Tyson and many other meat processing companies across the country have paused operations at a number of plants where workers have tested positive for COVID-19. According to the USDA’s weekly report from April 27, beef production was down nearly 25% year-over-year, while and pork production was down 15%.

In an effort to curb the problem, President Donald Trump signed an executive order on April 28 aiming to keep meat processing plants in operation. But many say Trump’s order will be unlikely to eliminate the threat that COVID-19 poses to American meat processors, and, by extension, the food supply. It’s hard, after all, to protect workers from a highly contagious virus in the frequently tight quarters of a processing plant. At least 20 meatpackers have already died from COVID-19, and more than 5,000 have been hospitalized or are showing symptoms, according to labor union United Food and Commercial Workers.

All of this of course is part of the never ending tragedies and calamitous activity happening with COVID-19 but what is most disturbing is that most people will forget that prior to the news cycle capitalizing on the virus – there were already plans to try and curtail the consumption of animal protein –and there was also talk of even banning it completely last year.

Prior to the COVID-19 outbreak, there was a campaign to vilify the consumption of red meat.

During the Democratic National Committee debates there were people planted in the audience asking questions about how new guidelines for the green economy would affect meat eating and what the candidates would do to curtail meat consumption. Most everyone who were behind the campaign to vilify meat eating were greatly exaggerating the studies linking meat eating to poor health. The studies vilifying the health effects of meat were based on observational epidemiology, which can’t show actual cause, only associations. 

Remember this was all being brought up at the end of 2019 and the reason the meat was being vilified was because of what they were calling science –and that science was all about Climate Change and the coercing of the population into following the new green deals proposed by the United Nations at the 2030 Summit.

CNN decided to give it a marathon-length town hall: seven hours in which 10 top contenders for the Democratic presidential nomination shared their plans for cutting carbon emissions, dealing with potentially catastrophic weather, and saving the planet for the generations to come.

The conversation turned to the discussion of whether or not a person has a right to consume a cheeseburger.

While discussing red meats, dietary requirements, and beef production, it seemed they were debating whether the Democrats would uphold the right to backyard barbecues or require draconian enforcement of meat rationing to save the planet from greenhouse gasses.

Asked about climate activism and her stand on the beef and cheese industries, Amy Klobuchar, went out big. “I am hopeful that we’re going to be able to [cut carbon emissions] in a way—especially when I am president—that we can continue to have hamburgers and cheese.”

Kamala Harris, lest Americans think otherwise, conceded she loves cheeseburgers. She didn’t seem too proud of it—feigning her meat guilt in front of some militant climate change vegan.

But she went even bigger stating if she were president she would definitely change the dietary guidelines “to reduce red meat specifically or to ban its consumption all together.”

She then later stated that meat production has a detrimental impact on the environment and that there should be plans in place to curtail the consumption of meat so that it will improve the environmental impact. 

This is in line with the new Codex Alimnetarius plan that was proposed in 2015 during the 2030 summit where the United Nation’s stated that there should be dietary guidelines in place for the entire world which includes the regulations of animal based proteins.

Last year, there was a push by Climate Change adherents to limit or even ban the eating of dairy and beef products – there was a trend on social media of what is called steak and dairy shaming of people saying that it harms the environment.
Before Climate debate was replaced with the COVID-19 debate there was a push for the 2030 ideal diet proposed by the technocrats which literally limits and then virtually eliminates animal proteins from the human diet.

The thing that is most disconcerting is at least one in five people could not afford science’s ‘ideal diet’ designed to feed 10 billion people without hurting the planet, according to a study.

It recommended people double their intake of nuts, fruit, vegetables, and legumes, and eat half as much meat and sugar to prevent millions of early deaths, cut greenhouse gas emissions and preserve land, water, and biodiversity.

Agriculture, forestry and other land use accounted for 23% of total net man-made greenhouse gas emissions from 2007 to 2016, soaring to 37% when pre- and post-production activity were factored in, according to the United Nations.
The ‘ideal diet’ projected to be in place and mandatory by 2050 would keep people and planet healthy according to the United Nations plan.

But it would cost an average $2.84 per head per day, said researchers from the International Food Policy Research Institute and Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University.

This amounts to nearly 90% of a household’s daily per capita income in poorer countries, pushing the regime beyond reach for nearly 1.6 billion people, mostly in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia.

“The actual number must be higher, since people need to spend at least some money on other things such as housing and clothing, as well as education, healthcare, and transportation,” senior author Will Masters told the Thomson Reuters Foundation.

“For the poorest people, solutions to malnutrition will require economic change,” said Masters, citing higher incomes and lower food costs.

Beans, lentils, snow peas, some vegetables and cereals are easier to find and cheaper in most countries. Eggs, fish, meat, and fruits, will be harder to obtain and so some countries may need to find alternatives—like insects in order to get an inexpensive diet.

This UN “2030 Agenda” document is a blueprint for so-called “sustainable development” around the world. This document describes nothing less than a global government takeover of every nation across the planet.

The “goals” of this document are nothing more than code words for a corporate-government fascist agenda that will imprison humanity in a devastating cycle of poverty while enriching the world’s most powerful globalist corporations like Monsanto Foods and other pharmaceutical companies.

Some of the chief proposals outline what the future holds for the planet.

One of their goals is to end world hunger, eliminate famine and food scarcity by providing sustainable agriculture that is carbon-free and “green-friendly.” This means that our future foods will include genetically modified plants to boost specific vitamin chemicals while having no idea of the long-term consequences of genetic pollution or cross-species genetic experiments carried out openly in a fragile ecosystem.

Other oddities that will be introduced into our foodstuffs are modified proteins from other sources.

Therefore, schemes are needed and are being actively pursued by Billl Gates, mercenary scientists, academia, and governments to collapse global food webs and replace them with alternative protein and vegetable foodstuffs.

In order to do this people, have to be groomed into eating such foods and if they don’t there are schemes in play that will engineer scarcity of common foods. Engineered global food web collapse affecting both ocean-based and land-based ecosystems can be achieved through geoengineering.

We are now seeing the engineered food web collapse of animal proteins and it is being done under the cover of COVID-19.
This is obviously another manufactured crisis that the media is now beginning to push as COVID-19 is now flattening its curve.

Toilet paper was the first product to disappear from retailers’ shelves at the start of the coronavirus outbreak in the United States, but the nation’s meat and poultry producers warn the strain on the supply chain could result in shortages and cost increases.

Now with some workers getting COVID-19 meat manufacturers are warning that meat shortages are coming – and it seems that in some way we knew this was going to happen as it all seems like it was part of some devious plan.

As pork, beef and chicken plants are being forced to close, even for short periods of time, millions of pounds of meat will disappear from the supply chain. As a result, there will be limited supply of these products available in grocery stores until facilities that are currently closed are reopened.

In addition to meat shortages, there will be a serious food waste issue. Farmers across the nation simply will not have anywhere to sell their livestock to be processed, when they could have fed the nation. Millions of animals — chickens, pigs and cattle — will be have to be culled because of the closure of our processing facilities.

While hundreds of plants in the Americas are still running, the staggering acceleration of supply disruptions will certainly affect the cost of bringing meat to the dinner table. Taken together, the U.S., Brazil and Canada account for about 65 percent of world meat trade.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture said late last week that it expects beef prices to climb 1 percent to 2 percent this year, poultry as much as 1.5 percent and pork between by from 2 percent and 3 percent.

The agency acknowledged that consumer buying patterns change weekly and that some products face supply-chain disruptions that could affect prices. But the USDA said its planned $3 billion purchase of fresh produce, dairy and meat should help stabilize prices. The government will work with food distributors to provide the purchased products to food banks, community and faith-based organizations and other nonprofits serving the needy.

The USDA last week reported 921 million pounds of chicken in storage and 467 million pounds of boneless beef, including hamburger, roasts and steaks. Before much of that meat could be sold at markets, it would need to be repackaged because restaurants buy in greater bulk than individuals. Some of the meat would need to be cut by grocery store meat cutters and packaged for customers to take home.

In late March, the USDA eased restrictions to allow for meat that had been intended for commercial food use to be diverted into the grocery store channels for consumers The industry sought these changes in mid-March after brief meat shortages caused by the coronavirus panic sent people scurrying to grocery stores.

Stay-at-home orders and social distancing mandates have severely limited operations or closed restaurants, schools and stores, leading to farmers in California, Florida and other Gulf states, where most of the country’s produce comes from this time of year, with no market.

In the Midwest, it’s still early in the planting season, but farmers in the region have another issue to deal with, milk.
Even though there is no one to buy it, cows still need to be milked. Dairy farmers can’t keep the milk and so they’re dumping it because, they’ve invested so much money to produce it already, Money and labor and goods to get it done, that they can’t sell it.

The biggest buyer of fluid milk in the United States is the National School Lunch Program. Those buyers just aren’t out there anymore.

Wisconsin farmers have been among those forced to dump milk. Some were being paid to do so for a while, but it’s unclear how long that will last.

Nearly 2 million chickens at farms in Maryland and Delaware will be destroyed instead of processed for meat, a result of coronavirus-related staffing shortages at processing plants.

The extermination methods to be used on the 2 million chickens have been approved by the American Veterinary Medical Association for handling cases of infectious avian disease.

However, the Chickens are healthy and there is really no way of knowing if the impact of COVID-19 gives an excuse to euthanize the poultry.

If the movement to eliminate meat now has an excuse – it is a health concern linked to COVID-19. Those who are behind the grooming of the world knew that the massive effort required to change American culture would simply network and so now they are using COVID-19 as their excuse and of course they will pull the science card when people resist.
The movement to end meat consumption is not just about health concerns. 

The “Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine” (PCRM) is actually an Orwellian-named for a radical anti-animal protein group. PCRM spends over $15 million a year on efforts to end animal agriculture.

It has invested nearly 35 years and countless millions of dollars in pushing this agenda. PCRM was so afraid of letting Americans see the results of scientific studies showing that healthy meat consumption is beneficial to the human diet that , it filed a petition with the Federal Trade Commission seeking a gag order to keep the journal from even publishing them.

Americans should be trusted to make their own choices about how they want to live, what news to read, and what food to eat.

The U.N. has demanded in the past that farming and dairy consumption be limited but the IPCC does not enforce dietary needs and consumption, however, militant technocrats can use mercenary scientists to push their agenda and use COVID-19 as an excuse to enforce the shutdown of meat packing facilities and farms.

The IPCC warned of more disruption to global food chains because of Climate Change – but since the science is showing its flaws the fear generated by a virus has now given them carte blanche to develop a kind of food terrorism in order to generate scarcity that only they can cure with their draconian guidelines.

In the coming weeks, grocery stores may have a smaller variety of meat, and less meat overall. Whether or not you find meat on your next shopping trip could come down to timing — whether you come in five minutes after the truck was unloaded, so to speak, versus 12 hours after it was unloaded.

While the COVID-19 dangers and shutdown are part of our now grim reality, the conversation of the Codex Alimentarius plan of the United Nations should not be ignored and how there will be a push for repugnant consumption of alternative proteins like worms and insects are still in the works for our future.

The Plan B proposals in the 2030 agenda, of course, do not outline how they can feed the earth but as we see science is preparing us for what the New Green Deal will eventually entail.

Not only will we reduce populations, but we can also use the dead as resources in order to improve on the environment and carbon pollution.

These programs proposed will not only disrupt our lives but will also tightly control all agriculture through a corporate-corrupted government bureaucracy whose policies are determined almost entirely by Monsanto while being rubber-stamped by the USDA.

Responses

New Report

Close