There is a new political movement demanding the elimination of cows as a threat to the planet from their CO2 and methane emissions. Can you tell us whether this is, or is not, a legitimate threat, and why?

As you know full well, the plan to eliminate use of beef as a food under the guise of protecting the planet is sinister in its makeup and intentions. It is a willful and deliberate and direct intervention of human thought on a mass scale, to plant the seeds for this, to support it with half-truths, and to instill a block in thinking to render people complacent in accepting this notion in spite of its implications, and then to deflect all opinions to the contrary, and they are simply not considered and passed on through, as though they are not heard. Their ears may detect the sound but the brain will not process nor think about the words and their implications, so it will be like talking to the wall, in effect, to disagree with this notion. All such programmed individuals will be able to think is that cows are a threat to survival and survival is all-important so therefore, cows must go, and anyone who does not believe this must be an idiot or a fool. This is the programming at work, when in fact there is much to discuss here, whether, first of all, cows are capable of producing an appreciable enough quantity of adverse chemical emissions to cause something so gigantic as the atmosphere to change in character, and then to consider whether those changes are in a harmful or even a beneficial direction. As we have discussed with you before, the whole concept of global warming (now described as climate change, an even more nebulous term that allows much to be lumped together, even things that do not fit because the term is so broad by definition that any change to the environment will fall under this umbrella) serves to confuse things and allow many poorly thought-out theories and suppositions to reign as official policy and to be accepted on their face, when in fact there are many gaps and many imprecisions in the thinking and the analysis. Cows are a natural part of the human biosphere and were intentionally created to provide meat and milk products for nutritional use and there are good arguments for the health and wisdom of this arrangement. Everything has advantages and disadvantages, and it is certainly true that it costs more to grow a cow than it does to grow a patch of wheat, when all you need for the latter is dirt, sun, and water, all of which are provided by nature, whereas cattle need large amounts of space and large quantities of food which also must be cultivated at a cost in time, energy, and manpower. So there are differences in the energy requirements in production, but that is a separate consideration from the overall value. The fact is that cows consist of nutritional materials in all levels of their being because they are not so different than other mammalian creatures, including human beings. This follows from logic that they are not going to represent a mixed blessing from having many internal toxic substances or foreign material that needs to be excreted from the body and will serve no useful purpose to ingest. Virtually everything in meat and milk can be processed and repurposed within the human body because the chemistry is so similar between what ends up in the cellular matter of cows and what needs to end up in the cellular matter of human beings. This is not at all true with plant materials, much of which represents various types of structural elements of a fibrous nature that are cellulose-based, none of which can be metabolized and utilized in a beneficial way, in addition to containing many toxic chemicals of all kinds that are of potential value to the plant defending itself from other encroaching plants, and so are defensive and are a kind of toxic warfare component and have no inherent nutritional value. Nor can they be used as such by human beings, but must be eliminated lest they achieve toxic levels within the human. There are useful calories to be obtained from many food source plants, but pound for pound it is meager compared to meat and milk, so it is a much poorer source of nutrition. In addition, plants are largely able to supply only carbohydrate, with some exceptions in the case of the legumes and the fruit and nut families that have other constituents and more complex carbohydrates and protein. We have discussed with you the difficulty in even maintaining normal health and well-being on a plant based diet, so to turn to degradation of the nutritional quality of the food chain supporting human health and well-being to fight global climate change is a hazardous undertaking in its own right, and to blithely accept this without challenge is a dramatic demonstration of mind control manipulation in action, to keep minds closed even as people are embracing their annihilation.