Three Little Graphs That Say It’s All One Big Lie

TL;DR – This post explains three graphs which all gave me “AHA” moments when I saw them. They all reveal lies in public science, which are used to manipulate humanity. Strategic and fundamental lies in climate science and planetary history are used to justify more tactical lies in energy and medicine. Together, these three graphs indict the sabotaged and weaponized public science which is being used against humanity.

All of this conforms to a concise and remarkably prescient warning by President (and former General) Dwight D. Eisenhower.

While there is much deep science in each graph, certain basic principles are easily seen without a technical background. Those ideas provide the “wait a second” thought needed for proper scientific skepticism.

If you want to get the “executive tour” and finish this in under 5 minutes, just read through anything that says TL;DR in bold, and the images next to the headline text. If you have 30 minutes, watch the videos next to TL;DR. If you have an hour or two, read everything.

If you read THIS paragraph, then consider the slow route. Or consider doing the TL;DR fast track first, and then coming back for the full ride.

Mood Music


I wanted to keep this short, but I know that’s almost impossible. I’ve put off this post until I was ready, but I wasn’t ready until I heard this music (see above), while reading over an older post that aged well in a variety of ways.

The Molnupiravir Contradiction

Why would we mass treat a virus with a drug which forces the virus to mutate, when mutation is how the virus creates new variants that reinfect the vaccinated? Before I explain the title contradiction, let me start with an admission. Most of my life, I have been very friendly with the pharmaceutical industry. I …

The point I saw was that mass formation psychosis has been used at all levels of science, and the only way for us to fix science now is


Be part of it. NOW.


(The equation is a bit of a joke – but you are welcome to elaborate it humorously, fellow nerds.)

I had thought that maybe I was putting off this post until the last post was done, but the next post was always the last one, and I knew that I would always find just one more post to do first.

Nope. Now is the time. The last “Wheatie” post is in the can, strengthening my soul, and in hearing this song that I used for it, while knowing that we are on the right path, I’m suddenly ready.

There is a certain beautiful sadness in knowing that I’ve remained silent about even ONE lie for far too long. And now, with THREE beautiful lies – three FURIES against mankind – it’s time to take them all on.

More Mood Music

(A song literally about mass formation psychosis.)

It’s The Jabs

TL;DR – The Ethical Skeptic analyzed CDC data for causes of death in the US. By looking at deaths caused by blood and immune disorders, but not by COVID itself, vs. projections from pre-COVID data, two things show up – more “late” deaths related to COVID, and a MUCH BIGGER group of similar deaths that started precisely with the jabs.

You can see this in the graph as space between the two curves, widening first in Spring 2020 (twice), and much more in April 2021, coincident with the biggest deployment of the jabs.

I’m pretty sure Ethical Skeptic doesn’t believe in God, but that does nothing to keep me from saying “Thank God for Ethical Skeptic”. When Truth is an unyielding goal of individuals, they don’t need to agree on what Truth is, to create a world of good faith.

It was gil00 who brought me this tweet, wondering if it was important. I told her at the time that I needed to do a post on it, but that is just the beginning of its importance. Tradebait, Gail Combs, and the rest of the gang, also saw that this was a biggie.

The fact that it contains one of three graphs that “change everything”, should give you an idea of exactly how important I think it is.

ALL Americans need to understand this graph.

No – I take that back. All intelligent life within the sphere of influence of this planet and this moment need to understand this graph. THEY THE PEOPLE need to understand exactly who they’re dealing with.

Let’s blow that up a bit…..

Before telling you WHY, let me assure you that there are MANY more graphs like this, which will all say roughly the same thing – IF one is honest enough to let the data talk. I choose this graph because it’s probably the clearest and simplest that I’ve seen so far – due in large part to its creator, The Ethical Skeptic, or “TES” as I will refer to him now.

We have talked about TES’s work before, since he emerged as one of the most skillful and impossible-to-censor critics of what might be called “Fauci science”. I may quibble with minor points on his more far-reaching hypotheses and theories, but I always find that his general and bigger principles “age spectacularly well”, and are best taken very seriously at the earliest possible moment.

Again, hence the need for this post.

Here is what I said originally – it was my “initial reaction”. You don’t have to follow it too closely, unless you find it all obvious. I’m going to explain this in detail.

By looking just at blood and immune disorders, and comparing mortality of 2018-2019 (pre-COVID) as a baseline (which was then extended by seasonal extrapolation into 2020, 2021 and 2022, with normal population increase meaning a slight increase in deaths), and then looking at 2018-2022 actual for all years, using the actual figures, but removing COVID, one can see the population reduction effect of the jabs, as the excess cardio and immune mortality, which just keeps increasing with time.

It’s clear as a bell in the data, when one compares to the “expected deaths based on the last two years of pre-COVID times”.

The striking thing is how STRONGLY the sum which includes 2020 and 2021 deviates away from the prior years, starting exactly with the jabs.

2020 includes TESTING of jabs.
2021 includes DEPLOYMENT of jabs.
2022 includes BOOSTING of jabs.

It’s a depop shot. And it works. All they would have had to do is dial up the dose just enough, while normalizing the deaths with the media, and it’s totally tunable to the rate of depop that one desires.

OK – so what does all that mean?

Let’s take it slower.

First of all, at any time, you can go to and check out his article on this topic, which does not YET have THIS particular graph (except in the comments), but which will likely have said graph in the next two parts of the article.


I also call your attention to this highlighted point made near the beginning of the article.

Nonetheless, by the end of 2021 it had become abundantly clear that US citizens were not just dying of Covid-19 to the excess, they were also now dying of something else, and at a rate which eventually became higher than that of Covid itself.

The Ethical Skeptic, Houston, We Have a Problem (Part 1 of 3)

If you just read that, where TES couches his words VERY carefully, and you know what he’s hinting at, then you know why I said this is one of the three big graphs you need to understand. He ain’t lyin’. My only quibble is that I suspect that his estimate of “decades” of damage to health policy may be conservative, and “centuries” is a horrifying possibility.

Are you ready to dig into the graph?

GOOD. Here we go.

Let’s start with some ACRONYMS.

  • NHCS = National Center for Health Statistics
  • MCD = MCoD = Multiple Cause of Death
  • UCoD = Underlying Cause of Death
  • ICD-10 = International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision
  • MMWR = Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report
  • wk = week
  • M-Avg = moving average (see:
  • Dnm (n = 5-8, m = 0-9) = Death codes

This is enough to understand it fully.

The basic graph is DEATHS going up on the left, and TIME going across from left to right, over a period of YEARS.

The DEATHS on the left are showing from 350 per week (at the bottom left) to 950 per week (at the top left). That means that we are not seeing the 0-350 region, which is featureless and below the portion of the graph that we can see. It’s a legitimate suppression – it’s not hiding anything except relative magnitudes of the changes to a SMALL extent, and it helps us see the differences in those changes better. It’s a magnifier – just remember that it’s there.

The title says that this is US-NCHS data for Multiple Cause of Death, meaning it’s looking at all causes of death listed on death certificates in the US and then databased by the National Center for Health Statistics, which is part of the CDC. This database is then searchable online.

The title also says that this data is for SELECTED cause-of-death codes listed in the ICD-10 system. The data runs up to week 29 of 2022, and is adjusted for the lag in reporting to CDC at the end (see right-hand side).

Let’s jump briefly to the topic of those codes.

Using the drop-down buttons you can see in the image, TES has chosen death codes 50-89, but has excluded COVID-19. Those codes are briefly described as “diseases of the blood and blood-forming organs” (but excluding COVID-19). TES has also selected ALL ages.

In the lower left you can see several descriptions of that different groups of the D-codes mean. Generally speaking, these are related to blood, blood-forming organs, and some immune problems. We will quote from TES himself about these later.

This does NOT include cardiac arrests, strokes, and certain other “stereotypical” clot-shot diseases, but it DOES include more “obscure” diseases that we can intuitively expect would be affected by both COVID and the CLOT SHOT. Thus, it serves as a kind of sensitive test for “something bad in the blood”.

A critical point for understanding is in the subtitle below the title.

2020/21/22 Compared to Baseline 2018/19

What this means is that what we are really doing OVERALL is looking at the 3 years of data “from and after Wuhan COVID”, 2020-2022, and comparing those numbers to “before Wuhan COVID”, 2018-2019. This explains why there are TWO curves on the graph. But in order to do this VALIDLY, we have to PROJECT the numbers from 2018-2019 FORWARD into the next three years, since the baseline would automatically increase on its own. Thus, we have TWO CURVES that run for all 5 years.

It helps to look at the red dashed curve first. This is listed as 2018-2019 Baseline 5 week moving average. Don’t worry about the “moving average” stuff. What this does is to take a bunch of scattered points and smooths them into closer points that can be used to draw a curve through them. It’s a neat trick to create the “best curve through scattered points”.

You can see that this is a bumpy “sawtooth” curve, higher in the winter, lower in the summer, and slowly rising over time. Typically, over time, this is what you see. Every year can be predicted largely from one or more prior years. You just take the past, find all the patterns you can, and project them all into the future.

There is a related red note in the lower left corner of the graph that says “1.4% baseline growth rate”. This is the annual growth in the baseline numbers from 2018-2019. The numbers vary rather strongly from month to month, but not much year from year, meaning that it’s easy to predict what they SHOULD look like in future years, such as 2020, 2021, and 2022. Each year will look pretty much like the last, months and weeks will go up and down, but day to day it will be 1.4% higher than the previous year, following the patterns of previous years.

This idea works remarkably well.

OK – so what is the pink solid line? THAT is the ACTUAL NUMBERS, for all five years, from week to week, using a 7-week moving average, and reporting it as the LAST week of the seven weeks. This is where we’re going to find any interesting phenomena.

The use of a DIFFERENT number of weeks for the multi-week moving average serves as a kind of sanity check in the region where both curves derive from the same ACTUAL data (2018-2019). The curves will not be much different, and the differences are just an artifact of the methodology, but if you see a big difference in that region of the same actual data in both curves, it’s probably meaningful, and probably something WRONG in your processing of the data.

Any minor differences you DO see in the region of actual data vs. itself (2018-2019), serve as a nice comparison of SCALE to any systematic differences you see in the 2020-2022 region, which is the region of ACTUAL DATA (pink solid) versus PROJECTED DATA (red dashed).

For example, if TES has a similar graph for some code like automobile accidents or choking on food, you can confidently predict that ACTUAL data for 2020-2022 should match the curve for PROJECTED DATA from 2018-2019 fairly closely – apart from any unexpected societal effects of COVID such as lockdowns, but those would then appear rationally in the data.


TL;DR – the actual deaths begin to exceed the projected deaths in stages, with a lesser jump happening due to COVID itself, but a far bigger jump (over 2.5 times as big) happening after people began taking the jabs in a big way in April of 2021.

Looking at the two curves with the innocence of a child, we see them separating in stages. We see them separate a certain amount (call it 1X) during spring and early summer of 2020 (call this region 1), then separating about twice as much (2-3X) during summer, fall and winter of 2020, and early spring of 2021 (region 2). Then, in late spring of 2021, the separation grows suddenly and substantially (7-10X) (region 3), and it just keeps growing into 2022 (15X+).

This is NOT an accident. TES knew that the vaccines began being given in a big way around week 14 of 2021 (early mid-April), as shown by this graph.

TL;DR – this additional graph shows how the slope (derivative) of total jab doses given is used to see when most of the jabs were administered. This is near the beginning of dosing, and explains the sudden rapid widening between the two curves in the primary graph. It’s a “pandemic of vaccination” much like COVID itself.

Based on this date, TES looked for ICD codes which show a dramatic WIDENING at “Critical Inflection 1” – meaning when the jabs were introduced (what I called the beginning of region 3), VERSUS any prior widening in spring of 2020, when COVID-19 of the Wuhan strain was introduced (what I called the beginning of “region 1”).

Stated differently, TES is only counting things which appeared dramatically MORE for the jabs, than they did for COVID itself.

Basically, TES is being “too fair” to the jabs. We know that there are many causes of death by both COVID and the JABS, “because spike protein”, but if it’s not overwhelmingly obvious IN THE DATA that they’re significantly and primarily due to the jabs, he’s not counting them.

He’s letting a bunch of jab deaths “get away”, to make sure that he’s indicting only real jab deaths.

As a side-note, this is what Gregg Phillips did with True The Vote’s geospatial data, by only counting the most blatant and obviously organized mule data (10 drop boxes and 5 stash houses). It becomes almost impossible to criticize the science, when data is winnowed down to exclude even the most marginally debatable data.

Deny the unethical skeptics even a foothold, and they cannot even begin to raise an unethical argument.

Pretty BOSS LEVEL if you ask me.

Here is what TES has to say about the ICD codes that he used.

With regard to these select ICD-10 codes, I have endeavored to highlight only those which have exhibited a stark difference between their arrival patterns during the 2020 pandemic period, and that period after MMWR Week 14 2021. While there are indeed increases in deaths incumbent inside the other ICD-10 codes, those increases appeared to plausibly conform to their same arrival patterns for 2020 as well. In other words, they appeared to be heavily Covid-related in their dynamics, both before and after the Week 14 2021 inflection.

Of particular concern, are those deaths which relate to body-wide regulatory systems as opposed to specific organs or causes. In other words, cancer and lymphomas, heart, autonomous myocarditis/pericarditis/conductive disorders, injuries to the liver and kidneys, etc. These are not only the canaries in the coal mine in terms of pathology, but may serve to indicate as well that a pervasive systemic disruption is at play inside the average US citizen human physiology, especially over the last 71 weeks. These are the death groups which exhibit the most stark trend of increase post MMWR Week 14 2021.

There have nevertheless been some attempts to “take down” TES’s analysis, but after two of them were burnt to a crisp on Twitter, it’s pretty clear that these attacks were not “ethical skepticism”, but in fact beautiful examples of what has happened to science in the wake of politicization and corruption. One academic was even outed by a sharp Twitter user as a practiced shill for the Faucism narrative, referred to humorously as “a regular on the fact-check circuit”.

NOW, knowing what the graph means – that the cure turned out to be worse than the disease (something which Trump said could not happen, thus forcing a coup to maintain the plot) – it is really worth it to go back and read TES’s article, if you have not already.


It’s tough science, but even if you just “kinda get it”, it’s WORTH IT.

It is important to read the comments at the end, too. Not only does TES have links to his Twitter defenses, and the graph highlighted in this article appears – there is comment by somebody who did a rough calculation based on mRNA therapies that have failed human trials in the past. Based on his calculations…. well, let me just quote.

Great work. I did a small quick model using a Gaussian Distribution over 9 years to see what the numbers would be each year for “events” given 80% of the total population vaccinated had active ingredients and would develop events similar to past other mRNA failed trials. 7,887 deaths per week is about 179% above my model for 2022. If the past is indeed playing out here, this excess deaths per week will increase by a factor of 9 over the next year. Most adverse events in past similar trials did not take place until year three. By year six, 84% of the cohort was positive for adverse events.

TL;DR – It’s now very likely that these late jab deaths will increase dramatically during the next few years, based on mRNA therapy trial information which was available but seemingly ignored.

Watch this video if you have 3 minutes.

I would even go so far as to say that this highly censored video of an alleged mRNA trial participant from several years ago (see above), breaking his NDA and claiming serious cardiac problems affecting almost all of the people in his trial, may not be a fraud.

If that video is entirely true, then based on his numbers, my assessment is that his trial was very likely a secret depopulation trial flying under the false flag of a secret mRNA therapy trial. Which may then make COVID-19 and the jabs, the mother of all false flags.

In my opinion it is important to force the finding and recognition of the truth, so that we can begin saving the people who are not lucky.

Any effort to work toward #TeamHeadsOnPikes to prevent the next one of these incidents from happening, is a separate problem I leave for others. I’m a bit too good at forgiving.

TL;DR – There has been plenty of data telling us that the jabs are problematic, but now we are faced with very clear proof that CDC must easily see in their own data, yet pretends not to see. Combine these two memes.

The illogical arguments conceal real goals and tactics.

Buckle up. They know we know, and they have a plan for it.

Even More Mood Music

(Because you must FEAR CARBZILLA!)

Carbon Dioxide Is Life’s Friend and Savior

TL;DR – This graph shows terrestrial life’s remarkably high tolerance for carbon dioxide (which is basically recirculating plant life), but poor tolerance of meteoric impacts during times of low CO2 and preliminary glaciation. We are being severely gaslit, to see climate science backwards, and to operate from reflexive fears which prevent full, true and larger understanding.

The graph you see above is NOT the first one that I saw, which blew my mind, but it’s very similar. The one I saw was basically the orange line, and may have been GEOCARB III or a comparable study. It had the exact same principle features, which told me the same things.

Apparently I missed the “mass formation psychosis” in climate science, and just happened to walk in with my “They Live” glasses on.

Let me state for the record that “I am neither a professional geologist nor an earth scientist, but I have loved the subjects my whole life, and I can read a graph.”

More crucially, I have always been an “allied science fan” of geology and earth science – in part because earth chemistry and earth biology happen on this wonderful planet called Earth. Follow either of these sciences back to the basics, and earth science matters.

Back to the graph.

It’s worth explaining the basics of the scale across the bottom, which is time.

We are at the very end of the graph – a slice so thin that our lives will not show up even under a magnifier. Bring out a microscope and see a tiny hair’s breadth under it. That’s us.

We are at the most recent edge of the Neogene – which is the N on the bottom of the graph. That N is 23 million years. The “preparatory ancestry” of anything strongly resembling our kind easily fits into that, as best as we can tell. You might call it “the age of man“, where man includes pre-men and barely men.

Probably even these guys and gals.

Humans trying to understand climate science.

Next to the left is the Paleogene, abbreviated Pg. This is the “age of mammals“. You will note that while it is much bigger than the Neogene, it is still a VERY SMALL fraction of the history of life on the planet.

Let’s blow it up a bit, using a DIFFERENT type of graph, which is more of a timeline. More recent is at the top.

The three most significant climate events of that time period are on the right. They all bear explanation.

First, Antarctica got its first RECENT permanent ice sheets only a bit over 50 million years ago, near the END of this prior period, and the start of the “age of man”. When you see NOVA specials about Antarctic dinosaurs, or read about fossil specimens from Antarctica, this is why you see them. Antarctica used to be WARM, and gradually cooled down.

Interestingly, Antarctica has never* (*not settled) strayed far from the South Pole. It has not wandered “north-south” as much as many other land masses.

LIFE has at most times covered the entire globe. Life had not RETREATED from the poles to the extent that is has now. Indeed, polar life may have assisted in recovery from some mass extinctions, where prompt damage occurred primarily at the middle latitudes due to normal circulation patterns.

Next, look at the event called “PETM”, which stands for Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum. It’s actually a SPIKE that looks like the thin spike in THIS graph.

This graph is looking at global temperatures (green curve) as determined from oxygen isotopes, VERSUS time, across the “age of mammals”. Recent is on the right.

WOW. Will you look at how much temperatures have fallen. And look at that crazy chaotic glaciation in the lower right, flirting repeatedly with the snowball Earth of the Permian Extinction (to be discussed in a bit).

I don’t know about y’all, but if I had to be concerned about something, it might be that.

TL;DR – it is impossible to look a graphs which show life bottoming hard against planetary freeze, in the big picture of carbon dioxide (recirculating plant life) bottoming hard in conjunction, and walk away with any true sympathy for worries about increasing CO2 and warming. CO2 in times of its relative absence is either not a problem, or a “good problem”. It appears to me that a cultivated science error has been used to create a social hysteria and then a mass formation psychosis.

In a sense, we are ALL the “polar bears of the dinosaurs”. Is that a good thing? I think it’s worth asking, even just theoretically, never implying the need to “do something” about it.

Anyway, that little SPIKE you see in the spiky curve to the left, is an actual example of a “climate change crisis”. It was probably due to sudden period of massive volcanic activity throwing a bunch of CO2 into the air, although that’s not “settled science”. If there was a weird “solar excursion”, or undersea heating of the oceans (see extremely useful “non-eruptive volcanism” proposals by TES for part of recent global warming), then it could have been something else. Whatever it was, it seems to have been sharp enough to have probably been a single thing.

Note also that Earth got to the same point some years later, anyway.

Don’t fear the seasons. They’re not the reaper.

Lastly, we see in the timeline, at the beginning of the Paleogene, the K-Pg mass extinction, (also called, in its evidentiary form, the K-T boundary) which was almost certainly due to an asteroid impact, but possibly also reinforced by subsequent volcanism.

You may recall Steve’s post about this, but if you don’t, then take a quick detour and refresh your memory on the details.

Iridium: The Smoke From The Smoking Gun

4.567 billion years ago, our solar system began to “condense” from the nebula. Clumps of dust particles began to come together, part of a poorly-understood process that eventually led to the planets. The nebula had a potpourri of “stuff” in it. Mostly elements up to iron, with a heavy leavening of ones after iron, created in supernovas or even neutron star collisions. (Most gold is believed to have come out of neutron star collisions…next time you admire that gold coin or your wedding band…think about where that stuff has been! Any of it not from a collision got blasted out of a supernova at 70,000,000 miles per hour.)……

Steve explained that while most of paleontology favors the “impact theory”, there has been a long-standing volcanic theory of the extinction, and even a group who believes that BOTH theories are not only correct, but connected.

With my taste for “AND logic”, you can predict where I would most likely fall in that debate – in the “it’s both of them, and they’re connected” camp.

Does that sound sketchy? Maybe a little too much of a coincidence? Is Wolf going out on a limb here?

Notice that by mentioning that Steve had mentioned this “theory of both”, I used PEER INFLUENCE to change your minds. Now I will use MSM acceptance to further change your minds.

TL;DR – Theories about impacts leading to increased volcanism also implicated in extinctions, are quite appealing to me, personally, as a kind of “general volcanism” (impact + rebound), but the whole thing is NOT settled science by any means. Just remember what I always say about “AND logic”. It solves scientific divisions, too.

But wait – I want to make a point about the Fake News in action, spinning science to keep it divided.

Yes, you see the “AND” logic right in the title. And if you read the article, the whole point is that there is increasing evidence of a causal connection between the impact and the volcanism.

But notice the wording in the title versus the subtitle. The title tells you, but does not emphasize, that the conjoint, causatively connected, unified theory brings two scientific camps together, both being correct. Then the subtitle tries to shift things over to one of the explanations, and to minimize the role of the impact.

The 160 million-year reign of the ‘terrible lizards’ may actually have ended due to events in India rather than an asteroid crashing into the sea off the coast of Mexico as previously thought


“Rather than” an asteroid the size of Mount Everest?

It’s very clear folks – THEY WANT YOU DIVIDED.

By now you know, it’s just what they do. DIVIDE AND CONQUER. Indeed, I tend to think it’s what they’re TRAINED to do.

The FAKE NEWS controls science FAR MORE than most scientists are willing to admit.

But let’s get back to our story of the unified theory of impact AND rebound volcanism.

The primary CLIMATIC effects of the asteroid impact are believed to have been blast heating, followed by an “impact winter”, followed by chaotic climate, possibly including a greenhouse due to vaporized CO2 and SO2, followed by the same thing from further classic volcanism. The whole planet was definitely MESSED UP.


HOT (impact). COLD (darkness). HOT AGAIN (greenhouse).

Then repeat the latter two for post-impact volcanism.

A constant, unified pattern of impact extinctions, layered on the preexisting, livable climate, at a surprisingly wide range of levels of carbon dioxide.

So what was there before that?

THE DINOSAURS. That is “K”, the Cretaceous Period (in English).

You will notice that T (or Tr), J and K are the three big periods of the dinosaurs with which most of us are familiar – the Triassic, Jurassic, and Cretaceous.

Let’s look at our graph again.

Yes. This “age of dinosaurs” was a period of warm temperatures and high carbon dioxide. Both much higher than what we have now, but – bear with me – there was a lot of LIFE, too – am I not right?

Well, what’s that stuff to the LEFT of the “age of dinosaurs” – around the end of “C” (Carboniferous) and the beginning of “P” (Permian – the “age of reptiles”)?

Why, it looks like low carbon dioxide, almost as low as we have now. In FACT, if you look even further back in time to the left – at the ages of sea organisms (Cm, O, S), fishes (D), and amphibians (C), what you’re basically seeing is a CRASH of carbon dioxide, ending in LOW CO2 around C and P.

And interesting that this slide had already resulted in massive glaciation of the planet, which existed at the beginning of the Permian.

Interesting that there were THREE BIG EXTINCTIONS along that slide, at O, D, and finally at P.

There is a LOT of debate about these extinctions, and particularly the near-total Permian (P) Extinction, also sometimes known as the P-T extinction event, because it occurred at the END of the Permian and the beginning of the Triassic.

Of course, global warming explanations of this event are favored by the single-minded corporate media, but IMO some of the best theories of the P-T extinction are actually based on an “iceball Earth” scenario, for which there is some interesting geological evidence.

The idea that an already glaciated Earth (Permian) was sent into deep freeze by an impact and response volcanism makes sense, and we would expect the extinctions to be more extensive than with the less glaciated or non-glaciated Cretaceous extinction of the dinosaurs, which happened to a generally warmer planet, thus sparing mammals and birds.

TL;DR – As the most significant extinctions have occurred at times of low CO2 and high glaciation, the main danger to life on Earth seems not to be global warming from CO2, which protects life from near-total extinctions. The main threat is solar blocking (see Bill Gates) and deep cooling, caused by meteoric impacts and rebound volcanism, which is more dangerous during times of low CO2 and high glaciation, like now or during the Permian Extinction.

In fact, I find the idea that we can use a single extinction mechanism repeatedly – a mechanism of “impact plus response volcanism, leading to plant death and further crises”, with the differences in outcome depending upon the size and location of the impact, plus the prior state of the climate, to be very satisfying – particularly in explaining why we find evidence for ALL of the various divided theories.

Furthermore, if response volcanism is a correct theory, then the general warmth and higher carbon dioxide of the “age of dinosaurs” may be explained by a truly massive impact being not only the cause of the P-T extinction, but also creating hundreds of millions of years of increased volcanism in its wake.

But all of that is debatable.

The big picture is this. Look at the graph again.

TL;DR – The Earth has supported life easily for eons because of MORE carbon dioxide, not less. There is no “climate emergency”, and certainly not one related to increasing carbon dioxide for ANY reason at this point. If anything, incipient normal solar cooling and periodic ice age glaciation are actual climate concerns for society. But that is another story for another time.

One More Bit of Mood Music

(Real World by Matchbox 20)

Green Energy Is Pol Pot Madness

TL;DR – Even if there was a “climate emergency” (which there is not, see above), and even if “green energy” worked (which it does not, see graph), and even if green energy could “save the environment” (which it absolutely does the opposite, due to energy density fundamentals), what we are doing by forcing a sudden transition to a non-working energy infrastructure, is so utterly preposterous, wrong, and irrational, that it must be stopped.

This graph is the smoking gun of an intentional civilizational crash. It is our duty to grab the steering wheel and stop it.

This graph is probably the simplest to explain because it does not depend on the truth or falsehood of the underlying bad science that has been used to justify what is being done now.

There are some things you just don’t do.

It’s like an insane person coming into your house screaming “DANGER, DANGER” and pointing a gun at you. Even if there is some reason, it doesn’t matter – an insane person is pointing a gun at you, and THAT is the immediate danger. The evil person or people who SENT the insane person to your house must be dealt with, too, or this will keep happening. But that can happen after we survive the insane attack.

Humanity is being “swatted” by people made insane by – you guessed it – mass formation psychosis.

TL;DR – One cannot move humanity from the top curve in red, to the bottom curve in yellow, without killing most of them. It’s impossible. It means poverty, chaos, and destruction. The closest thing to what “somebody” is forcing on the West, is what China and the CIA did the the people of Cambodia, using the highly deluded Khmer Rouge, who insisted that all Cambodians had to leave cities and become agrarian.

Khmer Rouge Flag (Pol Pot)

Forcing humanity to “quit realistic energy now” is perfectly analogous to Pol Pot saying “We all have to become farmers now” at gunpoint, which killed millions of Cambodians in a horror of totalitarian brutality and systematic societal error.

If you don’t think we have a deluded set of Americans who could carry this out, just look at Antifa, filled with mentally ill “trans” males, all of them “politically fluid” and ready to serve the craziest causes, and then politically reverse on orders, the very next day. Antifa is being protected by the DOJ and FBI, which are also ready to stop or hinder any groups which oppose Antifa.

Now you can understand why Antifa and FBI helped each other on January Sixth.

They’re both on the same side – the side of the genocide.

And now Biden wants 87,000 federal “IRS Police”?

What this graph shows is the equivalent of telling a patient addicted to barbiturates that they must quit cold turkey, which is always fatal.

It’s like telling a lifelong juvenile diabetic that they must quit insulin NOW because insulin didn’t come from their own pancreas, and so it’s “foreign”, and no good. They must transition to “mRNA injections in the pancreas” right now! RIGHT NOW!!!

Yup. It is THAT insane – that malevolent – to say “quit all non-green energy now”. To even say “do it in the next century” is foolishness of historic proportions.

We are already seeing the effects of the insanity in the beginning energy problems we are having now. But we have seen NOTHING yet.

Add to THAT insanity, what amounts to yet another foolish collectivization of agriculture, which “error” of communism has repeatedly killed millions, in the Soviet Union and China, as well as in Cambodia, and you can see that the errors of a misled scientific elite are always catastrophic, whether intentional or accidental.

TL;DR – Eisenhower predicted that, in addition to the military industrial complex (MIC), a scientific and technological elite (STE) would become a danger to America and the world, and he even understood and predicted that this very moment might arrive.

If you have time (16 minutes), this presentation is critical to understanding the moment. Every second is worth hearing.

If you get the sense that somebody of malevolent intent was listening to Eisenhower’s speech, and began figuring out how to sabotage his vision of balance and sense, by pursuing a course to enhance and take advantage of precisely the dangers that Eisenhower warned about, then you are not alone.


Text of the Eisenhower Farewell Speech


My fellow Americans:

Three days from now, after half a century in the service of our country, I shall lay down the responsibilities of office as, in traditional and solemn ceremony, the authority of the Presidency is vested in my successor.

This evening I come to you with a message of leave-taking and farewell, and to share a few final thoughts with you, my countrymen.

Like every other citizen, I wish the new President, and all who will labor with him, Godspeed. I pray that the coming years will be blessed with peace and prosperity for all.

Our people expect their President and the Congress to find essential agreement on issues of great moment, the wise resolution of which will better shape the future of the Nation.

My own relations with the Congress, which began on a remote and tenuous basis when, long ago, a member of the Senate appointed me to West Point, have since ranged to the intimate during the war and immediate post-war period, and, finally, to the mutually interdependent during these past eight years.

In this final relationship, the Congress and the Administration have, on most vital issues, cooperated well, to serve the national good rather than mere partisanship, and so have assured that the business of the Nation should go forward. So, my official relationship with the Congress ends in a feeling, on my part, of gratitude that we have been able to do so much together.


We now stand ten years past the midpoint of a century that has witnessed four major wars among great nations. Three of these involved our own country. Despite these holocausts America is today the strongest, the most influential and most productive nation in the world. Understandably proud of this pre-eminence, we yet realize that America’s leadership and prestige depend, not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches and military strength, but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment.


Throughout America’s adventure in free government, our basic purposes have been to keep the peace; to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity and integrity among people and among nations. To strive for less would be unworthy of a free and religious people. Any failure traceable to arrogance, or our lack of comprehension or readiness to sacrifice would inflict upon us grievous hurt both at home and abroad.

Progress toward these noble goals is persistently threatened by the conflict now engulfing the world. It commands our whole attention, absorbs our very beings. We face a hostile ideology-global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method. Unhappily the danger it poses promises to be of indefinite duration. To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us to carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle-with liberty at stake. Only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation, on our charted course toward permanent peace and human betterment.

Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small, there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties. A huge increase in newer elements of our defense; development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture; a dramatic expansion in basic and applied research-these and many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may be suggested as the only way to the road we which to travel.

But each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs-balance between the private and the public economy, balance between cost and hoped for advantage-balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable; balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual; balance between action of the moment and the national welfare of the future. Good judgment seeks balance and progress; lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration.

The record of many decades stands as proof that our people and their government have, in the main, understood these truths and have responded to them well, in the face of stress and threat. But threats, new in kind or degree, constantly arise. I mention two only.


A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.

Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peace time, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United State corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence-economic, political, even spiritual-is felt in every city, every state house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been over shadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system-ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.


Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society’s future, we-you and I, and our government-must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.


Down the long lane of the history yet to be written America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be, instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect.

Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral, economic, and military strength. That table, though scarred by many past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of the battlefield.

Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose difference, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment. As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war-as one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization which has been so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years-I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight.

Happily, I can say that war has been avoided. Steady progress toward our ultimate goal has been made. But, so much remains to be done. As a private citizen, I shall never cease to do what little I can to help the world advance along that road.


So-in this my last good night to you as your President-I thank you for the many opportunities you have given me for public service in war and peace. I trust that in that service you find somethings worthy; as for the rest of it, I know you will find ways to improve performance in the future.

You and I-my fellow citizens-need to be strong in our faith that all nations, under God, will reach the goal of peace with justice. May we be ever unswerving in devotion to principle, confident but humble with power, diligent in pursuit of the Nation’s great goals.

To all the peoples of the world, I once more give expression to America’s prayerful and continuing inspiration:

We pray that peoples of all faiths, all races, all nations, may have their great human needs satisfied; that those now denied opportunity shall come to enjoy it to the full; that all who yearn for freedom may experience its spiritual blessings; that those who have freedom will understand, also, its heavy responsibilities; that all who are insensitive to the needs of others will learn charity; that the scourges of poverty, disease and ignorance will be made to disappear from the earth, and that, in the goodness of time, all peoples will come to live together in a peace guaranteed by the binding force of mutual respect and love.

Final Musical Selection

(Dedicated to Trump’s friend Shinzo Abe.)

President Trump & Melania share traditional Japanese dinner with Prime Minister Abe & wife.
5 3 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

SteveInCO · Thermonuclear MAGA

Our current low-CO2 situation is what we’re used to, what we’ve built our infrastructure and industry around.

So let’s say CO2 goes up…for whatever reason. And the icecaps melt and sea level rises. Or something else happens and sea level falls. Would it destroy all life on earth? Certainly not; your info suggests we’d have more life on earth (absent a celestial turd smacking our planet).

[Note: someone tried to suggest the other day that the icecaps melting would lower sea levels because ice is bulkier than than the same weight of water; that sounds like compelling logic (like a lot of pseudoscience, actually) but on digging a bit deeper it’s simply wrong. There are three cases: 1) Ice floating in water. When the ice melts, the volume change is simply the volume of what sticks up above the surface–that volume disappears, but leaves the water level unchanged. 2) Ice above the water–icecaps, and the like. When that melts, the runoff will raise the sea level, you’re adding more water to the ocean. 3) Ice held down in the water…yes, when THAT melts the volume change lowers the sea level…but I literally cannot think of any case where that’s true for a significant large body of ice. You’d have to be actively pushing ice down in the water for this to be the case.]

On the other hand, would it inconvenience us? Greatly. We’d have to move our seacoast settlements, either downslope (if the oceans retreat) or upslope (if they rise). (The latter option would be more destructive.) We’d have to adapt, improvise and overcome. But we’ve done that plenty of times in the past. And certainly nothing that justifies killing 13 out of 14 people (if you’re in a rush) or just cutting the birthrate below replacement levels (if one is patient–the current crop of assclowns certainly isn’t). But you know, if we end up with more arable land as part of it (instead of all the dang deserts we have on Earth right now), we may even be better off, net, afterwards.

But there’s at least some reason to think sea levels wouldn’t change much at all. They don’t appear to have changed at all even during the Medieval maximum–a time of general prosperity (a relative term) that ended when the maximum ended, right around the time the Black Death came along to put the icing on that cake.

SteveInCO · Thermonuclear MAGA

More nukes, less kooks.


Just like using slutty chicks to market fancy cars.

It’s gonna take me some time to really digest all this, Wolf.

Thanks for taking it on! Great stuff.


Yep. I get all of that.

I think TPTB know a whole lot of stuff they don’t want us to know. And I think they want to kill most of us off so they don’t have to share resources when they are reduced by a coming ice age.

The thing they don’t seem to get is, humans are persistent in their desire to live. We don’t usually just give up and die.

SteveInCO · Thermonuclear MAGA

Actually there’s a possible counterargument for point 2.

Apparently just as a natural consequence of aging, our sun has been growing brighter at a rate of 10 percent every billion years. So 500 million years ago it was producing 5% less light and heat than it is today.

If you can imagine the consequences of the Sun’s output dropping today by 5 percent–well, we’d be an iceball. No question about it. So it would have been an iceball then too…without significantly greater greenhouse gases.

(Note, it’s not “settled” but there appear to have been at least two periods of the earth being entirely covered by ice, back in the Precambrian. In fact one of the new (well, adopted in 1990) “periods” that has been defined within the NeoProterozoic era is named the “Cryogenian,” and ran from 720 to 635 Ma.)


Great content. This is going to take awhile to digest and I do want to do the thorough read for the understanding. Thanks for the brain cells that went into this one, Wolf.

I do agree with you and Steve on CO2. My logic meter has always said Nay on that one. But what do I know? I’m just a redneck, hillbilly, deplorable, ultra MAGA enemy of the state.


In that vein I am going to make a statement that may be controversial. I just read a recent “debate” between Francis Collins and Richard Dawkins with the interviewer, Justin Brierley, asking strawman and factually incorrect set-up questions that were so frickin’ obvious on “Christian” radio in the UK. I am unconvinced. Yet, I know a whole nation is being deceived.

Here is one of the many things they fail to cover and/or have an explanation for per Gavin Cox who covered the “event.” I’m going to leave out Collin’s meaningless drivel to get to the meat.

Cox – “Collins doesn’t tackle the biological design argument, which was brilliantly summed up by Michael Behe in his 1996 book Darwin’s Black Box (and in numerous other books since). Behe demonstrated how Darwinian evolution singularly fails to explain the origin of biochemical systems that are ‘irreducibly complex’, i.e., they need all their parts to work. For instance, multicomponent molecular machines like the bacterial flagellum motor, the ATP synthase, the kinesin motor, or topoisomerases (DNA winding engines) cannot be explained in terms of gradual ‘descent with modification.’ Behe’s later books have only strengthened the case for design (e.g., see reviews of The Edge of Evolution and Darwin Devolves). No evolutionist has advanced any workable hypothesis for how such biochemical and molecular systems could evolve in a step-by-step fashion. For instance, it can be calculated that a chain of 200 amino acids (a chain much smaller than required to construct the above mentioned machines) would take 10130 trials before the correct functioning sequence would be selected for. Therefore, even in the supposed 13.8 billion year age of the universe, Dawkins’ ‘Mount improbable’ could never be climbed.
Brierley lets Collins’ answer go unchallenged and passes the soft-ball question to Dawkins, who in turn poses a most serious challenge to theistic evolution:

DAWKINS: …let’s just stick to evolution for the moment. I think if I were God and I wanted to create life, maybe even human life, which is part of the expectation of a religious person, I think I would not use such a wasteful, long, drawn-out process. I think I would just go for it! I mean, why would you choose natural selection, which has the possibly unfortunate property that it could have come about without you? Why would God have chosen this mechanism to unfold His design? He chose the very mechanism which actually makes Him superfluous! Admittedly, He could have started it off? … God the experiment is another matter, if His aim was an experiment: “I wonder what would happen if I set up a primeval self-replicating molecule and then leave it to see what happens?”—that would be a really interesting experiment! And if God’s an experimenter, I sympathize with that. But if you wanted to make complex life, I think I wouldn’t choose that astonishingly wasteful, profligate, cruel way—natural selection is cruel!

Cox – Dawkins’ first theological argument is weak: “if I were God”—fallen, fallible humans cannot assume to know what was in the mind of the Creator (Isaiah 55:8-9). However, Dawkins’ second theological argument is fatal to Collins position, that God wouldn’t use evolution to create! Why? Because evolution requires the death of the unfit, and survival of the fittest, suffering, bloodshed; as Dawkins ably puts it: “that astonishingly wasteful, profligate, cruel way—natural selection is cruel!” Christians compromising with evolution should read Dawkins’ statement and take note, as he squarely hammers the theological nail on the head—evolution is not compatible with the goodness, holiness, and perfection of God. 

Although Dawkins doesn’t quote Scripture at this point (he doesn’t recognize its authority), he is biblically correct to recognize that the God of the Bible would not use evolution to create. Scripture makes clear that death, suffering, and bloodshed came as a result of the Fall of Adam into sin. Before this, God’s creation was not marred with such horrible things. The relationship between the Fall, the Curse, and the Gospel, makes it incompatible with theistic evolution. Dawkins’ quip, that God would just “go for it” makes a profound point in terms of Creation, which sounds a lot like Dawkins sympathises with Christians who believe six-day Creation and deny evolution. As he once stated in an interview on Christian TV, such people have got it right in “seeing evolution as the enemy, whereas the more … sophisticated theologians are quite happy to live with evolution—I think they’re deluded!” 

Me – Evolution is not creation, never has been, never will be. We can debate there being no God (Creator) as foolish as even that may sound. But a process does not create, it modifies and adapts. Something different may come out of the process like Frankenstein. But the parts necessary to do that were first created. Nothing is nothing. Something is something.

Debate the observations of species evolution till the cows come home. It almost matters not what Darwin claimed. He observed and recorded during a day when there was no knowledge of RNA, DNA, genetics, and other biochemical systems. Computations and recording of events were done by hand. He may have been on the historical equivalent of LSD for all we know. My gosh, there was little knowledge of the facts about and effects of the natural environment, climate and such. The standard Kelvin unit for a thermometer did not happen until the mid-1800’s. Just use what Darwin did of value for the benefit of science and move on.

Instead it became a religion of its own used to divide people and an attempt to destroy the works of the Creator. How utterly stupid that we would continue to fall for that. Christ died on a Cross for the unfit and least likely to survive. Pick one, Collins. Walking in both worlds is fatal.

Which is why I continue to say Collins is playing the part of a charlatan whether he realizes it or not.

And with that I go to my dumb hillbilly corner and bow to the gods of science who claim to have all of the answers (not really – I bow to no man, only the Savior). Collins “claims” to be a Christian. God will make that final decision. I wish him well.


Well said. If you have not already read it, I suggest Tom Wolfe’s The Kingdom of Speech, which is both entertaining and enlightening. Wolfe briefly covers how Darwinism immediately became quasi-religious (via Thomas Huxley).

Wolfe’s main point, though, is the significance of speech in assessing evolution.

Happy go lucky

Great stuff, Wolf. I like how you tied in CO2 levels and extinction/nonextinction events. I had personally never given it this much thought. Michael Mann refusing to release his (not really his) hockey stick data told me all I ever needed to know about this pile of you know what.

However, one needs cogent elevator pitches, and this info can be neatly and truly, succinctly and memorably summarized. I’ve always said “this planet has been covered in ice FIVE TIMES and it all melted without man’s intervention “. Maybe it’s only four times 🤔 Point is that the alarmists don’t know either, but are still dumbstruck.

Happy go lucky

Actually I only read through Eisenhower video due to a smashing headache, because Ta-Daaa…I have the effin’ wu-flu.

So that effin’ clot-shot I got by coercion to keep my effin’ job that I dislike, almost as much as Ralph the dweeb Northram, didn’t prevent the effin’ bull$h!T. I mean go figure…🤨

What I’m unable at this time to figure out from the graph, how many weeks from the shot (the one dose) until the peak deaths? I’m pretty sure it will be stroke or heart attack. I felt the shot material flow down my am to my hand and then up through my arm pit to my heart and then my neck, so I surmise she hit a vessel directly. Look away if you don’t like gross things, I’m having massive nosebleeds since I got sick and there are huge (actually long and kinda thick) blood clots. Sorry 🤢

I hated myself at the time for being weak and not standing on principle and having too little faith in God to provide. And I wished I would die from the shot. It was wicked and knew it, but what I meant was for it to be there on the interstate where they’d have to write about it in the news being related to the shot.

Anyway…my faith is so much stronger now. I refused to get the mandatory second dose even if it meant losing my job, and God provided by putting Youngin in office and shutting that crap down. I’ll follow Him and His ways forever now. So I’m not afraid to die if it happens, but I need to clean the house and get some freezer meals prepped for my menfolk.


You need to be on Ivermectin, NOW. And zinc and a few other things. Follow the Front Line Doctor’s protocol, here:

And after you are well, you need to follow the protocol from the website above for people who had the shot.

You need nattokinase also. It breaks up fibrin clots in the blood. You can get it at the health food store.

Please don’t give up. There are things you can do for yourself. And it’s not your fault. These bastards should rot in hell for the pressure they put on people, and the coercion and the lies.

Happy go lucky

Thank you for your help 😘


Anytime! I hope you are better.

Happy go lucky

Thank you for your help 😘


These were recommended by my doctor. I’ve shared my stash with friends and family that became ill from the shot and recurring COVID. All agree that they are effective and bring relief.

Lung support:

Spike Protein deactivator:

Gail Combs


I am going to share with a friend/neighbor who is now having trouble breathing.

Happy go lucky

Thank you for your help 😘

Happy go lucky


Happy go lucky

Y’all have been my favorite people ever and I would always say yes to sitting around the campfire with you 😘

Last edited 1 year ago by Happy go lucky
Happy go lucky

Thank you! I’ve made it through to the other side.


Ole Dwight David was a visionary.

Wow. As a young kid I had no idea what it was about, I just knew Dad thought it was important to watch.


After that, I can understand. Thanks for bringing all of this. The wheels are spinning…


Interesting thought! I would love to know what JFK thought of the speech.


Makes sense. He was naïve about the consequences. And ironically it is his death which made/makes many far less naïve.


Great analysis!

Brave and Free

Thanks again Wolf, your perspective is always appreciated. I’ll dissect this over time like a good book.


Looks like TES might subscribe to Aubergine’s razor: “As a former intelligence officer and strategist for nations facing some pretty tough corruption challenges, I am a skeptic of power, and no eager subscriber to Hanlon’s Razor.”

Never watched the Eisenhower speech. Listening in 2022 is almost an eerie experience. He knew.

God have mercy on us all. Technology and barbarism were going to intersect some day, and the day is now.


In a way, exactly what Eisenhower was talking about.



As always…..

THANK YOU… for taking the time to do it…and for continuing to do it !


thanks for asking.

I’ve been busy searching for a new job (Once your past 60 yrs is very hard to find a job….)

also been reading lots of vaccine-injury types of substacks (Steve Kirsch, Jessica Rose, Sage Hana, etc)….lots of good statistics about how the vaccine is killing so many people….

I need to get back to visiting/reading the QTree EVERY day….instead of every 3 days….

Gail Combs

At 60+ you are stuck with WallyMart greeter, fast foods or if you are lucky, you can find a small business that needs help.

Gail Combs

As requested:

If we look at your THREE LITTLE GRAPHS KNOWING the Elite LIE; Add in the Nixon’s concerns about the ‘Population Bomb’ and the 1969 FOOD CRISIS and fear of a coming ICE AGE…. leading to the Rockefeller Commission Report the National Security Study Memorandum and Kissinger’s 1974 Plan for Food Control Genocide
and the discovery that


….archaeologists and climatotologists document a rather grim history… There is considerable evidence that these empires may not have been undone by barbarian invaders but by climatic change… has tied several of these declines to specific global cool periods, major and minor, that affected global atmospheric circulation and brought wave upon wave of drought to formerly rich agricultural lands…. 1974 CIA Report

Then Population Control and De-Industrialization of the USA makes sense.

National Security Study Memorandum 200

….. “Federal funding for domestic population control began in earnest with the 1970 passage of Title X, which funnels millions and millions of dollars into ‘family planning’ (a euphemism for ‘population control) and established the OFFICE of POPULATION AFFAIRS. This office STILL EXISTS….


Perhaps the REAL negotiations between Kissenger/Nixon and the Chinese Communist had to do with shifting MANUFACTURING to China while “A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States…” the Ehrlichs and Obama’s future science adviser wrote. (Think the re-wilding project and the Elite buying up farmland…)


comment image


At the most extreme stage of the last glaciation, most of Canada and much of the northern USA were covered by an ice sheet thousands of metres in thickness. Colder and often drier than present conditions predominated across most of the USA. The eastern deciduous and conifer forests were replaced by more open conifer woodlands with cooler-climate species of pines and a large component of spruce. The open spruce woodland and parkland extended somewhat further west than present, into what is now the prairie zone. As a result of aridity and lowering of sea level (which lowered inland water tables), much of Florida was covered by drifting sand dunes. Notably moister than present conditions occurred across much of the south-west, with open conifer woodlands and scrub common in areas that are now semi-desert.

comment image


This map concentrates on the time window slightly after the LGM, when aridity seems to have reached its most extreme point. Only slightly moister conditions prevailed for most of the period 22,000-14,000 14C y.a. (25,000-15,000 calendar years ago). A large area of extreme desert conditions existed across central Asia (dark red), surrounded by semi-desert (light red), under conditions much colder than the present-day. In the north, Siberia was colder and much more arid, with steppe-tundra (pink) and polar desert (grey). Ice masses (light grey) were present in north-western Siberia. In China, colder more arid conditions caused a retreat of forests, with grasslands (yellow) and open woodlands (medium green) in southern China and Japan. Forest steppe (violet) and conifer forest (blue green) may have predominated elsewhere. In south Asia, rainforest (darkest green) retreated and was replaced by grasslands (yellow) and monsoon forests and woodlands (lime-green). Scrub and open woodland (lighest green) probably existed in presently moist forest climates of Bangladesh and SW China.

comment image

page 22 of the 1974 CIA Report states: 

The climate of the 1800s was far less favorable for agriculture in most areas of the world. In the United States during that century, the midwest grain-producing areas were cooler and wetter and snow lines of the Russian steppes lasted for longer periods of time. More extended periods of drought were noted in the areas of the Soviet Union now known as the new lands. More extensive monsoon failures were common around the world, affecting in particular China, the Philippines and the Indian Subcontinent. 

The Wisconsin analysis questions whether a return to these climate conditions could support a population that has grown from 1.1 billion in 1850 to 3.75 billion in 1970. The Wisconsin group predicted that the climate could not support the world’s population since technology offers no immediate solution. Further world grain reserves currently amount to less than one month; thus any delay in supplies implies mass starvation. They also contended that new crop strains could not be developed over night… Moreover they observed that agriculture would become even more energy dependent in a world of declining resources.

Holdren and the other Malthusians from Stanford University are not alone. The US government has been behind them since BEFORE the book Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions (1973) was published. The book just echoed the real thoughts of the US government since the 1960s.


  :wpds_arrow: OPPOSING TRUMP and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN is for the GOOD OF ALL HUMANITY given the REAL impending CLIMATE DISASTER… saith the Global Elite.

Gail Combs

Our ‘Official’ History is full of falsehoods.

It is interesting to look at the geologic/ecologic maps of Africa.

Africa under full glaciation was very very DRY
comment image

Compare that to early Holocene 9.000 years ago
comment image

The Holocene Optimum 7 to 8,000 years ago (Eden Anyone?)
comment image

5,000 years ago
comment image

And now today
comment image

Is it at all hard to believe there were city(s) in what is now the Sahara desert ? I can not find the link I want any more. However this has a lot of other links: Satellite imaging and other evidence of a “Green Sahara” and an old Nile River

Another source is Stolen History ORG: 400 year old Sahara Desert, or why people forgot everything they knew about Africa

As an aside GOATS (think Muslim herders) are blamed for denuding the Sahara and also North Korea…

comment image

1714 book
As we can see, the presence of sand is not a requirement for the area to be called a desert. In other words the fact that this “desertum” word, in its various forms, is present on some of the maps, does not place mountains of sand in the areas where we can see them at today.

Tachort (river), rises from certain Mountains near Libya, waters the Town of that Name, and runs through a Forest into the Lake.

  • How many rivers, lakes and forests do we know today in this part of Libya?

1574 Map + 1603 Map
comment image

Here is one additional map with Techort on it.
comment image

1606 Map

There are other rivers, lakes and places from the above maps mentioned in this book. As far as I understand this book is a translation from Latin. The Latin version predates 1714 English copy.
comment image


Gail Combs

Since I have written about the coming cooling I want to make sure everyone knows.

  :wpds_arrow: 𝔾𝕝𝕒𝕔𝕚𝕒𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟 𝔻𝕆𝔼𝕊 ℕ𝕆𝕋 𝕙𝕒𝕧𝕖 𝕥𝕠 𝕓𝕖 𝕔𝕒𝕥𝕒𝕤𝕥𝕣𝕠𝕡𝕙𝕚𝕔. 𝕎𝕖 𝕒𝕔𝕥𝕦𝕒𝕝𝕝𝕪 𝕙𝕒𝕧𝕖 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕥𝕖𝕔𝕙𝕟𝕠𝕝𝕠𝕘𝕪 𝕥𝕠 𝕕𝕖𝕒𝕝 𝕨𝕚𝕥𝕙 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕡𝕣𝕠𝕓𝕝𝕖𝕞 𝕀𝔽 𝕨𝕖 𝕕𝕠 𝕟𝕠𝕥 𝕤𝕢𝕦𝕒𝕟𝕕𝕖𝕣 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕥𝕚𝕞𝕖, 𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕖𝕪 𝕒𝕟𝕕 𝕥𝕖𝕔𝕙𝕟𝕚𝕔𝕒𝕝 𝕖𝕩𝕡𝕖𝕣𝕥𝕚𝕤𝕖.

The Israelis have done miracles when it comes to growing food in a hostile environment.

The key is CHEAP POWER and that is NUCLEAR POWER!

Israel Proves the Desalination Era Is Here

One of the driest countries on Earth now makes more freshwater than it needs

Driven by necessity, Israel is learning to squeeze more out of a drop of water than any country on Earth…

That water stress has been a major factor in the turmoil tearing apart the Middle East, but Bar-Zeev believes that Israel’s solutions can help its parched neighbors, too — and in the process, bring together old enemies in common cause…

Desalination used to be an expensive energy hog, but the kind of advanced technologies being employed at Sorek have been a game changer. Water produced by desalination costs just a third of what it did in the 1990s. Sorek can produce a thousand liters of drinking water for 58 cents. Israeli households pay about US$30 a month for their water — similar to households in most U.S. cities, and far less than Las Vegas (US$47) or Los Angeles (US$58).

The top 12 ways Israel is feeding the world 

From drip irrigation to hardier seeds, Israeli innovations help fill hungry bellies everywhere, particularly in the developing world.
Here is just one:

…About one-third of the food produced for human consumption globally is lost or wasted each year. In low-income countries, most of that loss happens in the early and middle stages of the production chain. One problem is that the majority of newly harvested grains and pulses get ruined by pests and mold before reaching the market.

Israeli-designed GrainPro Cocoons provide a simple and cheap way for African and Asian farmers to keep their grain market-fresh.

The huge bags, invented by international food technology consultant Prof. Shlomo Navarro, keep both water and air out. They’re used in about 100 countries including in Africa, Latin America and the Middle and Far East….

We also have the ability to grab icebergs and tow them south to melt where the relatively salt free water can be used.

Another option is to add black dust to snow/ice so it will melt faster.

Combining coal fired or LG fired generator plants with green houses so the ‘waste’ CO2 and heat are captured and put to use is another possibility.

Curbing population growth, may be a necessity, but if people KNOW WHY and agree, then we do have the technologies to prevent conception…

Yeah it is a problem BUT Humans are GOOD at solving problems if they KNOW there IS a problem!

Gail Combs


That is why I wanted to point out WE HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY TO DEAL WITH THE PROBLEM!

Malthusianism and Global Warming (or Cooling) IS NOTHING MORE THAN AN EXCUSE for totalitarianism. It is used to get the lower level enablers on board by brainwashing them. Getting them to AGREE TO MURDERING PEOPLE…

Gail Combs

I am also going to add these political happenings from that late 60s into the 1970s crucial time period:

on Patrick Gunnels I saw this quote:

“People think that the FDA is protecting them.

It isn’t.

What the FDA is doing, and what the public thinks it is doing are as different as night and day

I looked up that quote and found THIS:

…These are the words of Dr. Herbert L. Ley Jr., spoken in an interview with the New York Times in 1969. Dr. Ley was appointed Commissioner for the Food and Drug Administration in 1968, but his tenure was cut short because his bold decision-making adversely affected the financial interests of the pharmaceutical industry. He tried to stop the market of pharmaceutical products approved between 1938 and 1962 that had no proof of efficacy.

Decades later, it is now obvious that the FDA is just a front of consumer protection, a vessel for the pharmaceutical industry to exert its power…..

“…Dr. Ley was appointed Commissioner for the Food and Drug Administration in 1968…” WIKI — “…Ley served as FDA commissioner for only a year and a half; he was ousted in December 1969…”

WIKI William Colby “…was Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) from September 1973 to January 1976…”

Who Whacked CIA Spy Chief William Colby? – CovertAction MagazineApr 27, 2022

On May 7, 1996, the Charles County Sheriff’s Office found the body of former CIA Director William E. Colby, 76, washed up on the shore of the Wicomico River near his canoe, about a quarter mile from his country home on Cobb Island, Maryland….

…During the 1970s’ Church Committee hearings, Colby helped reveal the CIA’s hidden history—in an attempt to save the Agency—which is what likely led to his death…..

Gail Combs

WHY do I want to see a CO2 level of about 1500 ppm?


How Many PPM of CO2 Is Dangerous? – Stamina Comfort

OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) has established a CO2 acceptable exposure limit (PEL) of 5,000 ppm over an eight-hour period and 30,000 ppm over a ten-minute period as a guideline

So that is the upper limit, 5,000 ppm.


What about for plant growth?
comment image

Originally the lower limit for C3 plants was 220 ppm. The Climastrologists played their usual games and show plants DID NOT DIE at lower ppm, BUT the seed does not SROUT, GROW or produce seed.

What is the optimum level of CO2 for plant growth?

Oaklahoma State University: Greenhouse Carbon Dioxide Supplementation
Published Mar. 2017|

…An increase in ambient CO2 to 800-1000 ppm can increase yield of C3 plants up to 40 to 100 percent and C4 plants by 10 to 25 percent while keeping other inputs at an optimum level. Plants show a positive response up to 700 to need of 1,800 parts per million, but higher levels of CO2 may cause plant damage (Figure 1)….

comment image

Carbon dioxide dosing in commercial greenhouses

Higher CO2 concentrations up to 2000 ppm have been used in greenhouses and hydroponics, but each incremental increase in CO2 levels above 700 ppm has diminishing benefit to the plants. Despite these diminishing returns, some operators control the CO2 levels at 1000 or 1200 ppm to fully exploit the potential of CO2 addition.

So you really want between 700 & 1200 ppm in your green house.


 Current CO2 increases in the atmosphere can be explained largely by the warming ocean and Henry’s law. As the earth cools the CO2 that was released will be reabsorbed. By how much I do not know but we can guestimate by 200 – 400 ppm therefore starting at 1500 ppm keeps you in the optimum range of 1000 ppm to 12000 ppm during glaciation.

Tansley review: Plant responses to low [CO2] of the past

Summary During the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM; 18 000–20 000 yr ago) and previous glacial periods, atmospheric [CO2] dropped to 180–190 ppm, which is among the lowest concentrations that occurred during the evolution of land plants. Modern atmospheric CO2 concentrations ([CO2]) are more than twice those of the LGM and 45% higher than pre-industrial concentrations. Since CO2 is the carbon source for photosynthesis, lower carbon availability during glacial periods likely had a major impact on plant productivity and evolution….

“…atmospheric [CO2] dropped to 180–190 ppm,…” except that is a bunch of Bull Schiff.

Carbon starvation in glacial trees recovered from the La Brea tar pits, southern California.
This is the study that was originally used to lower the level C3 starve at by relying on the ‘New’ Ice Core data derived from air bubbles within the ice cores.

“…The CO2 concentration found in air bubble and in secondary air cavities of deep Vostok and Bryd cores range from 178 and 296 ppm…

As Jaworowski proved CO2 LIKES WATER, especially COLD water and therefore the ice and the water within the ice latice will have a higher CO2 concentration while the air bubbles will have a lesser concentration (lower reading.) ClimAstrologists exploited this gradient to exaggerate CO2 rise.

According to Barnola et al (1987) the level of CO2 in the global atmosphere during many tens of thousands of years spanning 30,000 to110,000 BP were below 200ppm. If this were true then the growth of C3 plants should be limited at the global scale because their net Photosynthesis is depressed as CO2 concentration in air decreases to less than about 250ubar (less than about 250ppmv)(McKay et al 1991) This would lead to the extinction of C3plant species . This has however not been recorded by paleobotanists (Manum 1991).

 👉 The ice core analysis method switched from an analysis of the WHOLE SAMPLE to analysis of the CO2 left in the air bubble. 👈 

This newer method gives much lower CO2 numbers. that do not agree with the older numbers or with the plant stomata data.
Reconstructing Past Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations from Stomatal Density Measurements of Leaf Macrofossils

  :wpds_arrow: SEE: Questioning the CO2 Ice Hockey Stick
Introduction to paper below: Do glaciers tell a true atmospheric CO2 story? by Prof Z Jaworowski, Prof T V Segalstad and N Ono

𝕋𝕙𝕚𝕤 𝕚𝕤 𝕒𝕟 𝕒𝕓𝕤𝕠𝕝𝕦𝕥𝕖𝕝𝕪 𝕄𝕌𝕊𝕋 ℝ𝔼𝔸𝔻! Lots of graphs, diagrams and photos with simple to follow explanations as well as the scientific papers all in one place.


if the ClimAstrologists (and more importantly Henry’s law ) are correct, when the oceans cool down going forward the CO2 levels will fall. The ClimAstrologists are saying glacial CO2 is ~180 ppm to 200+ ppm.

A piece of less obvious evidence is while C3 plants may be able to just barely survive at ~200 ppm THEY CAN NOT GROW MUCH OR PRODUCE SEED! Also the less CO2 the slower the growth and the longer to maturity. During Little Ice Ages or true glaciation this means plants bump up against

#1. Lower CO2 due to colder oceans and Henry’s law.

#2. Last frost/first frost problems as the season shortens.

#3. More stomata and thus more water loss under the drier conditions and greatly expanded deserts during glaciation.

And the CAGW types never mention…

..About 85% of plant species are C3 plants. They include the cereal grains: wheat, rice, barley, oats. Peanuts, cotton, sugar beets, tobacco, spinach, soybeans, and most trees are C3 plants. Most lawn grasses such as rye and fescue are C3 plants…

Moore, et al. say that only about 0.4% of the 260,000 known species of plants are C4 plants…

Moore, et al. point to Flaveria (Asteraceae), Panicum (Poaceae) and Alternanthera (Amarantheceae) as genera that contain species that are intermediates between C3 and C4 photosynthesis. These plants have intermediate leaf anatomies that contain bundle sheath cells that are less distinct and developed than the C4 plants….

From: Systems of Photosynthesis – HyperPhysics
(Has a nice explanation of C3, C4 and CAM chemistry)

… these wide grasslands are an extremely recent feature in the region’s history. There isn’t solid evidence of animals consuming C4 plants until a scanty 10 million years ago (mya), and grasslands did not become widespread until the late Pliocene and Pleistocene. This recent birth of what is now a dominant feature of the landscape brings to mind many important questions. Specifically, after C4 plants started to become a food source in the Oligocene, how long did it take different herbivore species to adapt to eating this new type of greenery?

Which species were early adopters, and which made the most complete shift from C3 to C4 plants?

The process of adapting to a new resource—the relatively young C4 plants—had profound effects on community ecology of eastern Africa, as it provided new ways for large herd animals to both exploit new food sources and partition resources in order to facilitate coexistence and/or higher densities….

From: You are What You Eat: Using Stable Isotopes to Trace Dietary Shifts in Ancient African Hebivores

Gail Combs

I thought I would add this here because it took me WEEKS to finally remember.

Thanks to Dr Malone (and God) I finally remembered the NAME and even how to spell it correctly! (I can’t spell worth a darn  😔 )

Anyway the guy was University of Texas professor Eric Pianka. He illustrates how supporters of the De-Pop Shot were GROOMED into going along with the MURDER of fellow humans ‘For the GREATER GOOD of SOCIETY and EARTH.”

Dr Malone says there isn’t any evidence but that is because he is not looking in the correct places.

Forrest Mims was in the audience and this is what he reported about that 2006 speech.


I watched in amazement as a few hundred members of the Texas Academy of Science rose to their feet and gave a standing ovation to a speech that enthusiastically advocated the elimination of 90 percent of Earth’s population by airborne Ebola. The speech was given by Dr. Eric R. Pianka, the University of Texas evolutionary ecologist and lizard expert who the Academy named the 2006 Distinguished Texas Scientist.Something curious occurred a minute before Pianka began speaking. 👉  An official of the Academy approached a video camera operator at the front of the auditorium and engaged him in animated conversation. The camera operator did not look pleased as he pointed the lens of the big camera to the ceiling and slowly walked away. 👈 

This curious incident came to mind a few minutes later when Professor Pianka began his speech by explaining that the general public is not yet ready to hear what he was about to tell us.

Because of many years of experience as a writer and editor, Pianka’s strange introduction and the TV camera incident raised a red flag in my mind. Suddenly I forgot that I was a member of the Texas Academy of Science and chairman of its Environmental Science Section. Instead, I grabbed a notepad so I could take on the role of science reporter.

  :wpds_arrow: 𝕆𝕟𝕖 𝕠𝕗 ℙ𝕚𝕒𝕟𝕜𝕒’𝕤 𝕖𝕒𝕣𝕝𝕚𝕖𝕤𝕥 𝕡𝕠𝕚𝕟𝕥𝕤 𝕨𝕒𝕤 𝕒 𝕔𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕖𝕞𝕟𝕒𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟 𝕠𝕗 𝕒𝕟𝕥𝕙𝕣𝕠𝕡𝕠𝕔𝕖𝕟𝕥𝕣𝕚𝕤𝕞, 𝕠𝕣 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕚𝕕𝕖𝕒 𝕥𝕙𝕒𝕥 𝕙𝕦𝕞𝕒𝕟𝕜𝕚𝕟𝕕 𝕠𝕔𝕔𝕦𝕡𝕚𝕖𝕤 𝕒 𝕡𝕣𝕚𝕧𝕚𝕝𝕖𝕘𝕖𝕕 𝕡𝕠𝕤𝕚𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟 𝕚𝕟 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕌𝕟𝕚𝕧𝕖𝕣𝕤𝕖.

He told a story about how a neighbor asked him what good the lizards are that he studies. He answered, “What good are you?”

Pianka hammered his point home by exclaiming, “We’re no better than bacteria!”

Pianka then began laying out his concerns about how human overpopulation is ruining the Earth. He presented a doomsday scenario in which he claimed that the sharp increase in human population since the beginning of the industrial age is devastating the planet. He warned that quick steps must be taken to restore the planet before it’s too late.

Saving the Earth with Ebola

Professor Pianka said the Earth as we know it will not survive without drastic measures. Then, and without presenting any data to justify this number, he asserted that the only feasible solution to saving the Earth is to reduce the population to 10 percent of the present number.

He then showed solutions for reducing the world’s population in the form of a slide depicting the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. War and famine would not do, he explained. Instead, disease offered the most efficient and fastest way to kill the billions that must soon die if the population crisis is to be solved.

Pianka then displayed a slide showing rows of human skulls, one of which had red lights flashing from its eye sockets.

AIDS is not an efficient killer, he explained, because it is too slow. His favorite candidate for eliminating 90 percent of the world’s population is airborne Ebola ( Ebola Reston ), because it is both highly lethal and it kills in days, instead of years. However, Professor Pianka did not mention that Ebola victims die a slow and torturous death as the virus initiates a cascade of biological calamities inside the victim that eventually liquefy the internal organs.

After praising the Ebola virus for its efficiency at killing, Pianka paused, leaned over the lectern, looked at us and carefully said, “We’ve got airborne 90 percent mortality in humans. Killing humans. Think about that.”….

Yhe Banning of the camera was of course deliberate. It ALLOWED Pianka to ‘disavow’ the ‘INTERPRETATION’ of his speech by Forrest Mims.

This ‘walk back’ can be seen in this News Article:

Professor’s population speeches unnerve someHe says he’s issuing warning, but others see talk of pandemics as a threat.
By Laura Heinauer

Wednesday, April 05, 2006

University of Texas professor Eric Pianka’s enemies say he advocates wiping out 90 percent of the population and that his seemingly giddy obsession with death and disease coupled with power over young minds is dangerous and disturbing.

His supporters say while his rhetoric may be shocking at times, he’s just trying to get people to think about the consequences of uncontrolled population growth.

Eric Pianka, a UT professor since 1968, has given recent speeches where he says disease pandemics could wipe out 90 percent of the world’s population. Some critics say he’s promoting such a disaster.

“I’ve found that it takes courage to tell people what they don’t want to know,” Pianka, 67, said Tuesday, two days after a newspaper story in Seguin’s Gazette-Enterprise ignited a firestorm that has resulted in e-mail threats on Pianka’s life….