Category: Green & Peasant Land

Madness of jailing a farmer for saving homes from flooding

Post author By Philip Walling
Post date April 27, 2023
No Comments on Madness of jailing a farmer for saving homes from flooding

– April 24, 2023

IF YOU ever doubted our regression from Christianity to paganism, the latest genuflection to the great goddess Gaia will set you right. John Price is a 68-year-old farmer from Herefordshire who has been sentenced to 12 months in prison for clearing and dredging a stretch of the River Lugg to prevent it flooding houses in a nearby village.

His crime? To do the work on his own land without the say-so of the Environment Agency and Natural England and to do it on what the state has designated a Site of Special Scientific Interest. The district judge (aka stipendiary magistrate) at Kidderminster magistrates court, Ian Strongman, described Mr Price’s actions as ‘ecological vandalism on an industrial scale’ and recommended that he serve at least six months of his jail sentence. He was ordered to pay £600,000 ‘prosecution costs’, another £600,000 to ‘restore the river to its previous state as a haven for wildlife’ and banned from being director of his own company for three years.

A few weeks ago, the same judge declined to send a man to prison for a string of violent assaults on police and others, saying ‘it is right to say prisons are full at the moment and courts are being advised to suspend terms where possible’. It is hard to see the sentence imposed on Mr Price as anything other than vindictive, letting him and us know that the state is the boss, and intended to deter anyone from dredging on their own land to prevent flooding.

Nobody would contest the EA’s and NE’s claims that salmon run up the River Lugg, that otters live along its banks and that beetles and other creatures find its waters congenial. But it has to be accepted that the river flooded neighbouring houses during a storm in early 2020 and after Mr Price’s work there was no flooding during a similar storm a year later. Although none of the flooded villagers seems to have supported him at the sentencing hearing, many did approve of his action because the EA had refused their requests to dredge the river (partially obstructed by trees) to stop the flooding. Mr Price claimed he also had the support of the parish council. He was born in the parish and had watched the flooding getting worse over the years, caused he believed by the EA neglecting to dredge the river. He believed by dredging his part of the river he was acting in the best interests of the community.

Compare the two photographs below. The first sepia one is of the River Derwent Catchment Board doing proper dredging on the River Cocker on the edge of the Lake District in the 1950s. Since this has ceased under the rule of the EA, bridges have been washed away, acres of farmland inundated and in 2009 Cockermouth suffered dreadful floods. The coloured one is of some of Mr Price’s dredging and embanking work for which he has been sent to jail.

The unfortunate Mr Price cannot have been aware that no good deed goes unpunished. What was intended to be beneficial, deepening the river and raising levées, done since the dawn of time, no matter that it may have benefited the community, defied the prevailing orthodoxy of the British eco-state. It was a blasphemous outrage against the deities of biodiversity which the modern eco-priesthood so zealously protects.

After Mr Price was jailed, Emma Johnson of Natural England said that it was ‘devastating to see this wanton destruction’ and it had been ‘devastating for the abundance and range of species which thrived in the river’. She didn’t need to produce any proof of what species would be ‘devastated’ and fail to recover. Mr Price fell foul of the priesthood of eco-‘experts’ uniquely capable of interpreting the signs and wonders to which only they are privy. We ordinary mortals are required to believe without seeingany proof, simply on the say-so of these ‘experts’ who are not to be gainsaid. The chief executive of Herefordshire Wildlife Trust, Helen Stace, perhaps unwittingly, told the truth that Mr Price had committed a ‘crime against nature’. Never missing an opportunity, the great Monty Don got in his two penn’orth, saying the damage ‘broke his heart’.

There is a Swedish superstition that the old pagan gods, when ousted by Christianity, took refuge in the rivers, where they wait for their time to come round again. It seems that these old deities are waking from their long sleep, having undergone a remarkable metamorphosis, shedding their ancient Sanskrit and Brythonic names and replacing them with new ones which inspire devotion in their modern-day acolytes, children of Darwin, brought up on the dogmas of scientific realism. Although re-naming the River Lugg – probably named after the multi-talented Celtic god Lugh, who among other things dispensed justice, even over rulers and nobility (not, alas, for Mr Price) – a Site of Special Scientific Interest(SSSI) doesn’t have quite the same ring about it, it is a small price to pay for the god’s greatly enlarged cult and the intense devotion he inspires in his modern acolytes. And the tributes he receives more than make up for it: houses flooded by the score, land by the square mile, and oh, the people and livestock sacrificed to him are more than any god could desire.

Tags eco-tyranny

Green & Peasant Land

French Vaccine Resisters

It has been reported this week that a large proportion of French people will refuse to be vaccinated with the Covid vaccine. The French are right to be suspicious. France is the land of Bechamp, the great reproach to Pasteur, whose work has been ignored (even suppressed) by the western world for over a century, but it is truer to reality than anything Pasteur said.

Essentially – and I apologise if this simplification does too much violence to their respective theories – Bechamp held that a living organism, in good health, was capable of defending itself against assaults of illness. It was only when the health of the organism was compromised that disease naturally attacked it. That our bodies are teeming with bacteria good and bad, and the purpose of medicine is to get the body back into balance so it can repel disease and return to health.

Pasteur, on the other hand, held that ‘germs’, ie bacteria and viruses range around ready to attack and unless they are destroyed they will be dangerous to everybody irrespective of their health and habits.

This superficial ‘germ theory’ animates the western scientific establishment and ‘big pharma’. It has driven the last hundred years of vaccination and emphasis on ‘science’ being needed to protect us from disease. It has culminated in this currrent COVID hysteria.

Any mention of Bechamp now brings down a torrent of vitriol. He was subjected to all manner of attacks in his lifetime by Pasteur’s followers, many of whom stood to profit from Pasteur’s theories. A good many of Pasteur’s theories were plagiarised from the more subtle research of Bechamp and passed as truth, when at best they were partial and at worst downright false.

If Bechamp’s insight into the complexity and self-sustaining nature of life were to be accepted by big pharma and the medical establishment, they would be left high and dry. That’s why they are so fierce in their denunciation of Bechamp and to this day, anybody who expresses even mild support for his theories.

But when people talk of ‘herd immunity’ and the efficacy of Vitamin C or D, or zinc, or fresh air and exercise, or washing your hands, they are relying, whether they know it or not, on the natural processes that Bechamp identified as sustaining life.

A quick Google search will show the bitter insults that Bechamp attracts: he is a ‘crank’, in bed with ‘anti-vaxxers’, and ‘those who believe that food is medicine’, practitioners of ‘alternative medicine’, ‘climate change deniers’ and ‘Covidiots’.

This begs the question why modern ‘scientists’ are so keen to rubbish and ‘cancel’ Bechamp?

Might it be that he’s on to something that threatens them? And might it be that if we took notice of his advice most of the scientific establishment and their big-business accolytes would not only look foolish, but would find themselves in need of alternative employment?

I ask one simple question of the followers of Pasteur’s germ theory. If Bechamp is wrong, as these ‘expert scientists’ claim, how is that most people not only survive, but are mostly not affected by the myriad bacteria and viruses that assail us daily?

Tags Bechamp, big pharma, COVID, Pasteur, Vaccine Resisters

Green & Peasant Land

Antoine Béchamp -v- Louis Pasteur

Post author By Philip Walling
Post date September 27, 2020
No Comments on Antoine Béchamp -v- Louis Pasteur

Is the West’s almost complete acceptance of Pasteur’s ‘germ theory’ damaging our economy and our health and driving us mad?

Throughout all the hysteria over corona virus, hardly any scientific voice has been raised to question the Pasteurian theory of disease that has been the dominant narrative in the West for the last hundred and fifty years. Not only is there astonishing unanimity among the ‘experts’ over ‘the science’, but any attempt to question it is either suppressed or ridiculed. All those advising various governments only have one point of reference – Louis Pasteur.

Pasteur’s ‘germ’ theory is that microorganisms – pathogens – are liable to attack anybody at any time irrespective of whether or not the individual is in good health and takes care of himself. Pasteur discounted this and said that to protect us from harmful organisms they must be destroyed or we must be kept away from them.

But there is another way of looking at it which makes a good deal of sense and seems to accord with the reality of living. Throughout the nineteenth century Pasteur’s great rival was Antoine Béchamp. Béchamp contended that microorganisms, Pasteur’s ‘germs’, are not so much the cause of illness and disease as its result. Béchamp held that what he called ‘microzymas’ of the body, which he found to be the ultimate units of life, present throughout the cells of the body, both maintain its life (metabolic) and aid in its disintegration (catabolic) if it is injured or dies. These microorganisms are capable of changing themselves into different kinds of pathogens when their normal functions and conditions of life are disturbed. This happens in disease and in the decay that follows death.

Béchamp accepted that external microorganisms may contribute to illness and decomposition, but that was only half the story. The destructive and morbid influence of these is in addition to that already faced by an organism’s internal microorganisms which have the power to initiate decay or maintain health. A healthy body is protected against infection and illness unless something goes wrong with it to cause it to succumb. This is the crucial distinction from germ theory. If it were otherwise we would have no protection against the myriad pathogens and microorganisms that assail us throughout our lives. Béchamp showed that bacteria also develop internally in an organism without any external influence by using the example of a bruised apple whose internal cells started to rot without its skin being broken.

This ‘holistic’ view lays the responsibility for his own health squarely upon the individual, who must take measures to protect himself from illness. This is in stark contrast to the prevailing modern approach in the West that makes a person a victim to be saved by medical science and drugs. It is one of the reasons why the medical profession is largely ignorant of nutrition and there is almost no concern in Britain and the US over the quality of food served in hospitals. Germ theory ignores or denies the benefit to the health of the patient from proper cooking and eating well.

Pasteur’s theory suggests that the body is simply a collection of inert chemicals, and therefore after death there ought to be nothing living in it. When it was pointed out to him that there was life in dead organisms, he was forced to the erroneous conclusion that it resulted from pathogenic invasion from without, even when the organism was isolated from any source of contact. Either he understood, but would not admit, or he simply could not fathom, that microorganisms are inherent in all life on the planet – all of which are composed of and have developed from living microzymas.

The people of the broadly Protestant countries in the West seem to be those most attracted by Pasteur’s germ theory. The medical establishment in Britain and North America, in particular, talks about ‘waging war’ on viruses and diseases, ‘battling’ against illness and so on. And this attitude has been eagerly exploited by the pharmaceutical industry to make vast profits from medicalising the population by frightening them that its products are necessary to keep them free of illness. It is hard to understand why a theory that has delivered so many people into the hands of the medical profession and kept them there, should have gained such widespread acceptance.

Over the decades the Pasteurian approach has not gone unchallenged. There has always been an undercurrent of alternative health treatment that promoted Béchamp’s ideas even if its practitioners didn’t quite know where they came from. Osteopaths, chiropractors, homeopaths, herbalists and so on, whose aim is to make the body healthy to protect itself from disease, have made great strides to shake off the criticism of conventional doctors that their treatment is little more than witchcraft. People are beginning to grasp that what we eat affects our health and our immune system. The trouble is that big food manufacturers and the pharmaceutical industry are aware of this and have started to cater to the mood but not to the need behind it.

At the bottom of all this lies Pasteur’s superficial research which, tragically, was preferred over Béchamp’s profound, often mystical and subtle understanding of the workings of life and pathology. Even now, those who dare to question the prevailing narrative based on Pasteur’s germ theory are attacked as being ‘germ theory denialists’ even though most of Pasteur’s theories were plagiarized from Béchamp’s early research work. The irony is that towards the end of his life, Pasteur himself doubted the germ theory and is supposed to have declared on his deathbed that Béchamp was right all along: ‘The terrain is everything.’

It is not too much of an exaggeration to say that Pasteur’s influence on Western scientists and our clueless politicians has turned out to be such a disaster for our economy and our society.

Tags Bechamp, big pharma, Corona virus, germ theory, Lockdown, Pasteur

Green & Peasant Land

Is Glyphosate safe?

Last November, Thailand resolved to ban glyphosate because its government was not convinced that the weedkiller is safe. Certain countries are certain it’s a carcinogen and pollutant, others are not too sure, while USDA (the US Department of Agriculture) insists it’s completely harmless. But USDA can hardly be classed as disinterested because the herbicide is a fantastic money-spinner for its manufacturer, the US chemical giant Monsanto, owned by Bayer, and brings in billions of dollars a year to the US economy. It is the most widely used weedkiller and crop desiccant in the world, sold under a number of proprietary names – Roundup in Britain – and is routinely sprayed on genetically modified crops to kill every green thing in the field except the crop. Its use eliminates the need to control weeds by any other means, such as hoeing or rotational cropping. Almost all the crops of soy beans in both north and south America are sprayed with glyphosate first to kill weeds and then to desiccate the stems and leaves to make it easier to harvest the beans.

But Bayer was not about to allow the Thai public health authorities to kill off one of their highly lucrative markets. By doing nothing they would be tacitly admitting there might be some danger to health. The US Under-Secretary in USDA, under pressure himself from Bayer, applied heavy pressure – some would say blackmail – to the Thais to reverse their proposed ban, even though the country’s health authorities advised a ban was necessary to protect the public. The Americans made it clear that a ban would ‘severely impact’ imports into Thailand of American soybeans, wheat and other agricultural products. In other words, if Thailand banned glyphosate it would be unable to import American crops which are laced with residues of glyphosate.

There is growing concern around the world that glyphosate is a dangerous chemical whose residues are being found in almost every part of the globe due to its routine use on staple crops that make up a large part of the diet of every person in the world. There is hardly any soya, wheat, palm oil, maize or sugar cane, grown in westernised nations that has not been sprayed with glyphosate. It is noteworthy that Russia has banned its use, not just for political reasons. Bayer is fighting hard against growing evidence that the product is far from ‘completely safe for human consumption’. There are tens of thousands of lawsuits pending against the company claiming that glyphosate causes non-Hodgkin lymphoma, a type of blood cancer. And if it should be shown to be a harmful substance, America has too much invested in this weedkiller and the GM seed Monsanto has patented to be sown in combination with it, for the financial, agricultural and public health repercussions to be anything other than catastrophic for the US economy and society.

That USDA is prepared to act as Bayer’s enforcer in suppressing other countries’ opposition to glyphosate hardly inspires confidence in its integrity or the honesty of its assertion that it is safe. But American agriculture is so far down the road of dependence on glyphosate and GM seed that it would be ruined by a ban.

Tags Bayer, Glyphosate, Health, Monsanto, USDA, Weedkiller

Green & Peasant Land

Clapping for the NHS

We’ve seen some strange things over the last few months. One of the oddest was the weekly nationwide clapping and banging of pots and pans on doorsteps during the early part of the ‘lockdown’. It resembled nothing more than the rituals that took place in pagan times to chase away evil spirits from a village, to protect them against some epidemic, or to expel demons from the fields before the sowing of crops or before harvest. On a certain day, the whole community was expected to turn out to make as much noise as possible, shouting, blowing horns, ringing bells, clattering pots and pans and parading through the streets to make what the Irish call a hullabaloo. This was a common ritual in many societies across the world. The noise was believed to frighten off the evil spirits and protect the community.

It struck me that the banging and clapping was a remarkable revival of this practice, taking us right back to pagan times. The nation had been terrified by the government into believing that hundreds of thousands of people were going to die from an evil spirit, a plague the like of which we hadn’t seen since the Spanish flu a century earlier. Hundreds of thousands were destined to die. Then someone suggested we come out to ‘clap for the NHS’ which is the nearest thing we have to a deity in modern Britain. The clapping was then accompanied by banging pots and pans, exactly the thing our pagan ancestors did to chase away demons that might do them harm. People came out in their droves all across the country and those failing to appear on their doorstep in solidarity with their neighbours were subject to public disapproval, just as they were in pagan times.

It was a remarkable demonstration of a pagan practice we might have thought we had grown out of, but that lives on, just below the surface of our modern world, ever ready to resurge.