WEF and EU want new satanic sacrifices: 200.000 Cows shall be killed

[Theo Gottwald]

The mass culling of animals, particularly cows, is an issue that has sparked significant debate in recent years. The notion of killing 200,000 cows, or any large number of animals, without a justified reason raises serious ethical and environmental concerns.

From an ethical standpoint, the needless killing of animals is fundamentally at odds with the principles of animal welfare and respect for life. Animals, like humans, are sentient beings capable of experiencing pain and suffering. They have an inherent value that extends beyond their utility to humans. The mass culling of cows without a valid reason is an affront to their intrinsic worth and dignity.

Moreover, such actions can have profound implications for biodiversity. Cows, like all species, play a role in the ecosystem. They contribute to the cycling of nutrients in the environment and their grazing habits can help manage vegetation and support the health of pastures.

From an environmental perspective, the argument that mass culling of cows will significantly reduce CO2 emissions and combat climate change is overly simplistic and misleading.

Firstly, the process of culling itself can generate substantial emissions. The transportation of animals, the operation of slaughterhouses, and the disposal of carcasses all require energy and contribute to CO2 emissions.

Secondly, if the land previously used for grazing is converted to other uses, such as crop cultivation or urban development, this can lead to further emissions. For instance, the conversion of grasslands to cropland often involves the release of carbon stored in the soil, leading to increased CO2 emissions.

Thirdly, it's important to consider the broader food system. If we reduce the number of cows without changing our consumption patterns, we may simply shift the environmental impact elsewhere. For example, if the demand for meat remains high, we may end up increasing the production of other types of meat, such as chicken or pork, which have their own environmental impacts.

A more effective approach to reducing the environmental impact of livestock farming involves a combination of strategies. These include reducing the demand for using Privat Jets by US- / EU-Elites and also removing them from Top Positions that they can not kill unguilty animals anymore.

In conclusion, the mass culling of cows without a valid reason is not a viable or ethical solution to the environmental challenges we face. It overlooks the complex nature of ecosystems and the multifaceted impacts of our food system. A more holistic and compassionate approach is needed, one that respects animal life and seeks to balance our needs with the health of our planet.


More details on EU-/WEF-Idiotism

[José Roca]

How an Irish proposal has become "WEF and EU want new satanic sacrifices"?

[Theo Gottwald]

Take a closer look at the politicians involved in these decisions and consider their origins. It's hard to believe an ordinary individual would endorse the culling of 200,000 innocent animals - it seems it would require someone with a markedly different perspective, perhaps aligned with controversial organizations like the WEF.

In life, we are perpetually navigating between virtue and vice. Our world inherently provides us the freedom to lean towards goodness. The unnecessary slaughtering of innocent animals is never justifiable. There might be exceptions, like consuming for survival, but even then, it should be done with respect and gratitude.
However, to do so under the guise of climate agendas is absolutely unacceptable.

[Charles Pegge]

Animal slaughter was far worse during foot-and-mouth disease. This often involved destroying healthy nearest-neighbor herds of cattle and sheep. The animals were shot on the farm and burned in large pits. Hideous and traumatizing in every respect. Hens with bird-flu are dealt with in a similar way.

[José Roca]

> Take a closer look at the politicians involved in these decisions and consider their origins. It's hard to believe an ordinary individual would endorse the culling of 200,000 innocent animals - it seems it would require someone with a markedly different perspective, perhaps aligned with controversial organizations like the WEF.

As far as I know, it is a leaked proposal by the Irish Department of Agriculture, yet you say "WEF and EU want new satanic sacrifices". SATANIC. Do the W.E.F. and the E.U. worship Satan? Has Satan asked them to sacrifice all those cows?

You are going too far with your conspiracy theories.

[Theo Gottwald]

Killing 200.000 unguilty animals is what it is.
Its not something from heaven.
About devlish people. They are indeed not heavenly people if they do such things.
There is no such person like "Satan". This is just a stupid concept,
it makes use of brain aberations of people who are saying such things see below.
If people make this sort of stuff, you see their brain works quite against the normal society or is damaged.

[José Roca]

You continue to spread lies and conspiracy theories.

The real Kissinger's quote was:

"Whatever may be done to guard against interruptions of supply and to develop domestic alternatives, the U.S. economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad, especially from less developed countries. That fact gives the U.S. enhanced interest in the political, economic, and social stability of the supplying countries. Wherever a lessening of population pressures through reduced birth rates can increase the prospects for such stability, population policy becomes relevant to resource supplies and to the economic interests  of the United States."

Here is the National Security Study Memorandum (NSSM 200) in full:



You won't find the word depopulaton in it.

Regarding quoting Bill Gates out of context, Bill Gates and Melinda Gates have repeatedly said that increased access to vaccines and health care around the world would reduce child mortality and allow families to decide to have fewer children. That would slow the population growth rate.

Although I am convinced that you are not interested in the truth, only with the lies that feed your backward way of thinking.

[Theo Gottwald]

You mean he also did not say any of these?

[José Roca]

In 2009, Kissinger did not speak at a World Health Organization (WHO) event.

Reuters could not verify an event titled "WHO Council on Eugenics". A spokesperson for the WHO confirmed to Reuters via email that no such council or event exists.

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-henry-kissinger-quote-manda-idUSKBN22Y251

Although I've never liked Kissinger, he's smart enough not to say such nonsense.

There is also no hope that you will stop posting lies. You have turned what was once a respectable forum into a dump.