Your Stomach Is A Graveyard
Remember Who’s Really In Charge Of Extreme Weather Patterns
The masses of non-human animals you raise and slaughter en masse for the mass graves in your stomachs where your body processes them, then dumps them into a sewer system from your toilet in your living space, that irrigates plants and becomes your drinking water with a few minor or major alterations.
BREAK THAT CYCLE. YOU ARE EATING AND DRINKING coronaCOVID and all its mutated children. SARS-CoV2.
Reducing slaughter by only ten percent will exacerbate the negative effect on the planet and your stomach which is their burial ground.
Humans need to eliminate slaughter altogether and faster rather than slower to show the Universe we like it here.
The slaughter industry (SI) is being nudged to reduce slaughter to curb catastrophic climate change. Just say it’s ten percent for the sake of the argument/example.
Ten percent is like no percent, and no percent is a backslide from ten percent, so it’s a negative effect on climate change.
Slaughter grows by a certain percentage every year that reflects increase in human population and demand, that looks on paper the same as the year before, because it kept up with population growth and demand – improvements in distribution to outlying areas etc. But it isn’t the same as the year before if we do a body count, it’s more. We slaughtered more, even though the percentages were consistent with population growth and demand when compared to the previous year.
The world does not decrease slaughter by ten percent every year. Or does it? Percentages are swirling around the media; without explanation they don’t mean much to the reader.
So what’s the beginning and end date for that 10% to realize itself? Ten years? Two years? When? In how many years does the planet have to decrease slaughter by ten percent or fifteen percent to reduce effects of climate change? End and start date please.
If the world has five years to comply, then 10 percent total average? Or 10 percent of actual body count adding totals from five years?
Body count is what’s important to the environment, not percentages. The earth stays the same size. An increased body count changes the environment, not percentages. I mean, percentages of what? Body count to what? Body count to land mass? Body count to measured green gases? Who is doing the measuring and how is the method being manipulated?
- A greenhouse gas (GHG or GhG) is a gas that absorbs and emits radiant energy within the thermal infrared range, causing the greenhouse effect. The primary greenhouse gases in Earth’s atmosphere are water vapor (H 2O),
- carbon dioxide (CO 2),
- methane ( CH 4),
- nitrous oxide ( N 2O),
- and ozone (O3).
Technically, no one would have to move to meet the ten percent quota for slaughter reduction until the last part of the last year. Ten percent of all animals slaughtered including marine or no?
Ten percent of anything at that point would be a backslide, even if you included counts for all years. The method manipulation – all the variables that could be and would be manipulated – would be so intense and complicated that no one on this once green earth could trust them.
Okay okay, which gas are we talking about here, because there are many and they all interact with what’s happening on the ground and the living quarters of the animals in question, that’s important…
- What are the types of greenhouse gases?
- Carbon dioxide (CO2)
- Methane (CH4)
- Nitrous oxide (N2O)
- Industrial gases: Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) Nitrogen trifluoride (NF3)
And then begins the spin.
Even if nothing was manipulated in a perfect setting, no one is going to take ten percent of all the animals slaughtered in five years and reduce the slaughter by that number in a half a year.
Slaughter Industries (SI) need to stop conducting magic tricks with numbers and percentages and calling it science.
Who is counting? Again. How do they count? It should be easy, but they complicate it thinking they’re being fair to everyone, which proves the unfairness by the manipulation. Who decides what’s fair?
The way data is manipulated is to manipulate the method before the so-called count begins. So actually it’s METHOD MANIPULATION, not DATA MANIPULATION. It’s in the fine print, metaphorically speaking, that chaos reigns. Then they can truthfully say the data was not manipulated. That’s the truth in the lie.
No matter the percent, the process is going nowhere. Who, what organization is keeping track? Oh the slaughterers police their own? No one believes it. Yeah, but no one complains either. People are too busy going about their lives. Sure they care, but they can’t be policing all the data out there. What about all the data that never makes it to the internet?
Congress can’t keep track of it all or even a minute portion of it. The Jews (naturals at record keeping) can’t either. It’s too massive even for them.
It’s like a large company not making the same profit margin from one year to the next, is considered taking a loss, which means negative growth, which means loss. Even though they made a sizable profit, it wasn’t as much as the previous year. So they say they lost money last year.
Yes, but they still made a profit.
No, they lost money. They had negative growth, meaning backwards in profits. That’s them talking, not me.
The projection based on last years sales, profits and calculated growth fell short, so they lost. The cost of living and the cost of doing business went up. Sales were down, even though they were not in the red. It’s all in how the data is interpreted. But a loss is still a loss.
The kicker? If it was in the slaughter industries (SI) best interest to either show a profit or to show a percentage of reduction in slaughter they know how to accomplish that on paper. It could take a few years for others to conduct their own studies to prove them non-compliant, but that’s a few more years of sky high profits for the richest of the rich.
Anybody can turn black to red and red to black on paper if it’s complicated and large enough.
Eventually they have to show the proof on the ground. And of course science can be manipulated, so it takes more than one independent study, and even then, they could all be complicit in non-compliance. But at least the lawmakers did their job by making the demand.
I wonder if when they do write the bill requiring slaughter reduction if they’ll insert a monetary penalty for non-compliance? The feds could get a windfall.
Then it’s a deal.
In the meanwhile,
Don’t be a graveyard. It doesn’t suit you.
Your Truth vs Mine
Re: 4 stories Senator Lindsay Graham, South Carolina’s Pig Population, African Albinos and Chipotle