Bombshell Secret Documents Show Monsanto Knew About Glyphosate Link To Cancer Over 35 Years Ago
+ How You Can Have Yourself Tested For Glyphosate Contamination June 20 2015 | From: AllHealthWorks / FeedTheWorld
Research Scientist Dr. Anthony Samsel has a long history of studying the damaging effects of glyphosate, the main ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup, on the human body.
Recently, Samsel’s work led him to a place few have ever gone before: inside the pages of files containing safety tests on glyphosate that had been sealed away since 1981 as a “Trade Secret” by the request of the Monsanto Company.
Dr. Samsel was able to get the EPA to finally unseal these secret files, which contain information the public was never meant to see (at least according to Monsanto).
And while Samsel is legally not allowed to show anyone else the files, he is allowed to share his thoughts on them, as well as information that could implicate the company in a cancer cover-up of epic proportions.
Samsel sat down for an interview with journalist Tony Mitra; you can hear the bombshell interview in the video below.
A Disturbing Pattern of Cancer, Long Before the WHO Knew
Recently the World Health Organization weighed in on the safety of glyphosate, calling it a “probable human carcinogen” in a study that made world headlines, and added up to a PR nightmare for Monsanto.
But according to the files obtained by Samsel, these effects, and perhaps ever worse effects in general, were known by Monsanto decades ago.
In the bombshell video below, Samsel is interviewed by journalist Tony Mitra about what he found - shocking evidence that showed “significant incidences of cell tumors of the tests and tumor growth in multiple organs and tissues” in lab animals, for starters.
Feed the World has set up the first ever validated glyphosate testing (LC/MS/MS) for the general public worldwide, which will be provided in the U.S. with the support of the Organic Consumers Association (OCA).
If you live in the U.S. and would like to test your urine, breast milk or tap water for glyphosate contamination please order and pay for the test in the form below.
If you live outside the U.S. you can send your urine or tap water samples (not breast milk) to the U.S. for testing, however our aim is to form partnerships with labs in your country to enable our validated testing to be made available to you at a cheaper price.
Other disturbing findings within these secret files include evidence that glyphosate enters bone marrow almost immediately, which prevents the formation of new cells in living organisms.
In fact, in every single instance, Samsel noticed a higher incidence of adenomas (benign tumors) and carcinomas (cancerous tumors that begin in outer tissues).
In other words according to Samsel, Monsanto knew that glyphosate caused cancer 35 years ago according to these files, and the truth is just now coming out.
In in the interview below (just under 20 minutes) with Mitra, Samsel discusses his findings, and makes the case for why Monsanto’s Roundup should not be merely considered a “probable” carcinogen, but an “unequivocal” carcinogen.
Samsel is legally bound not to show the documents to anyone, but he is allowed to say how he feels about them:
For more from Mitra you can subscribe to his Youtube Channel by clicking here. He also just released part two of his interview with Samsel which can be seen below.
Shocker: The Dangers Of Ultrasound June 19 2015 | From: JonRappoport
Jim West has released his unprecedented Bibliography of critical ultrasound research, as a book, available at Amazon.com. Ultrasound is a highly controversial topic. It can now be said, without hyperbole, that an understanding of its mysteries are essential to the well-being of the individual and the human species.
The word “ultrasound” commonly refers to diagnostic ultrasound, an acoustic technology utilized to view images of the fetus in real time, its position within the mother, and to view the mother’s reproductive organs. It is an economic boon to medical practitioners who advocate its routine use.
Every time Jim West releases a new finding, it is a revelation. Some years ago, I wrote this about Jim:
“I always find it riveting to come across an independent investigator who is breaking new ground, against all odds. Jim West is such a person. His meticulous analysis of West Nile Disease [in fact caused by toxic pollution, not a virus] has turned the establishment on its head. We should all thank him for his work.
If I were the king of Pulitzers, I would give him a dozen. He is what truly deep reporting is all about. In a sane world, his revelations would bring about the firing of scores of so-called medical journalists and disease researchers, and he would be sitting at the top of the heap — not in order to exercise arbitrary power, but simply because he has trumped the lazy and the incompetent and the lying professionals who are supposed to tell us what is going on.”
There are many other things I could say in praise of Jim’s work. Instead, I’ll present an excerpt from the notice of his new book. It’s a book you should have and read. It’s a book that should receive wide notice. It’s a book that should change standard medical practice. It’s a book that can save many lives.
Prenatal Ultrasound: A New Bibliography of Human Studies Conducted in Modern China
Jim West has released his unprecedented Bibliography of critical ultrasound research, as a book, available at Amazon.com.
Ultrasound is a highly controversial topic. It can now be said, without hyperbole, that an understanding of its mysteries are essential to the well-being of the individual and the human species.
The word “ultrasound” commonly refers to diagnostic ultrasound, an acoustic technology utilized to view images of the fetus in real time, its position within the mother, and to view the mother’s reproductive organs. It is an economic boon to medical practitioners who advocate its routine use.
Diagnostic ultrasound is widely declared to be “harmless” to the fetus (*), despite some mothers describing via online forums such as The Thinking Mother’s Revolution, vaginal bleeding and pain, and others describing every detail related to ultrasound and pharmaceutical or vaccine associated damage to their child. Ultrasound is now being applied to most of the entire world population during its fetal stage. The health implications are vast in terms of physical and psychological health for the individual and society.
Ultrasound appears to have set the human specie on a tragic path, due to the subtle and not-so-subtle effects of ultrasound exposure. Critics argue, for example, that the exponential rise in autism incidence is a product of fetal exposure to ultrasound. If they are correct, then it may take many generations to recover from this misguided application of medical technology.
Ultrasound imaging technology for diagnostic examinations evolved from a type of echo-imaging, originally developed as SONAR, a technology invented to detect submarines by pinging sound waves off the submarine hull and electronically measuring the echo, the duration required to reflect ultrasound from the submarine hull back to the source of the ultrasound.
In the medical field, ultrasound has been in use for many decades, employed to generate “echo images” of the fetus. Ultrasound is not ordinary sound, however.
It is a highly unusual form of sound when used for the purpose of prenatal or obstetric diagnostic examinations. Humans ordinarily are capable of hearing sounds in the range of 20 to 20,000 cycles per second (hertz). Ultrasound for fetal examination carries a frequency in the range of 3 to 9 megahertz, millions of cycles per second, above the EMF frequencies of the AM radio band.
Ultrasound imaging technology has supplanted, to an extent, the earlier imaging technology, X-rays. That older technology is now known publicly to be hazardous, to be carcinogenic, however, it took decades for this knowledge to become public. The history of medical X-ray imaging may be a parallel for ultrasound history. X-rays were previously known to be a risk though continuously advocated as harmless by the medical profession.
Ultrasound is known to have the potential to produce harmful biological effects in the fetus. This has been found via animal and cell studies. However, these hazards have supposedly not been confirmed by human studies. Funding for ultrasound studies has virtually disappeared since the late 1980s. despite the FDA raising ultrasound intensity limits in 1991.
Cibull et al (2013) provides definitive assurance.
“Although laboratory studies have shown that diagnostic levels of ultrasound can produce physical effects in tissue, there is no evidence from human studies of a causal relationship between diagnostic ultrasound exposure during pregnancy and adverse biological effects to the fetus.”
- Sarah L. Cibull, BS, Gerald R. Harris, PhD, and Diane M. Nell, PhD. “Trends in Diagnostic Ultrasound Acoustic Output From Data Reported to the US Food and Drug Administration for Device Indications That Include Fetal Applications.” J Ultrasound Med 32 (2013): 1921–32.
Confirmed in China:
Unknown to Western scientists, the hazards of ultrasound have been confirmed in China since the late 1980s, where thousands of women, volunteering for abortion, thousands of maternal-fetal pairs, were exposed to carefully controlled diagnostic ultrasound and the abortive matter then analyzed via laboratory techniques.
From these human studies, Professor Ruo Feng, of Nanjing University, published guidelines in 2000:
“Commercial or educational fetal ultrasound imaging should be strictly eliminated. Ultrasound for the identification of fetal sex and fetal entertainment imaging should be strictly eliminated. For the best early pregnancy, avoid ultrasound.”
Feng is very clear. He is also gentle. He could have written bluntly, “For a lesser quality pregnancy, use ultrasound.” He could have written “fetus” or “child” instead of “pregnancy”.
This is the most important bibliography and commentary ever compiled for the field of ultrasound criticism, though for legal reasons, its conclusions and implications should be suspended, pending trustworthy authoritative review.
The book presents human studies conducted in modern China, which examine the results of in utero fetal exposure to diagnostic ultrasound. They far exceed Western science in terms of technical sophistication, era relevancy, volume of work, and number of subjects. They bring empirical evidence for ultrasound hazards.
These studies involve the exposure of over 2,700 maternal-fetal pairs to diagnostic ultrasound. The number of scientists involved are approximately 100. Pregnant women were carefully selected and then exposed to controlled ultrasound sessions. Ethical concerns were carefully observed. Abortive matter was examined via state-of-the-art technology, e.g., electron microscopy, flow cytometry, and various biochemical analysis (immuno- and histo-). The results were compared against the results of sham-exposed pregnant women (exposed at zero intensity).
Chinese scientists measured damage to the brain, kidney, cornea, chorionic villi, and the immune system. They determined the amount of ultrasound exposure required to produce damage to the human fetus, and that amount was found to be very low. Ultrasound hazards to the human fetus were confirmed without doubt.
Western scientists had previously found hazards via animal and cell studies, however, their findings were deemed inconclusive because they were not confirmed by human studies.
Human studies can be of two types:
1) epidemiological studies, i.e., population reviews, and,
2) in utero exposure studies, where abortive matter is evaluated in a laboratory following diagnostic ultrasound exposure to the fetus in the mother.
Western scientists have conducted only a few epidemiological studies, and virtually no human exposure studies. Epidemiological studies are complex, have many statistical variables, and are thus highly vulnerable to biased interpretation. They are often published as moot or statistically insignificant, despite finding patterns of ultrasound damage.
Due to abortion ethics, in utero exposure studies were virtually banned in the Western realm. Within the entire world population, the medical industry has not reported one case of human damage. Thereby, without certain proof, authorities continued on with the assumption that humans were resistant to ultrasound toxicity.
The Chinese studies were unknown in the Western realm and little known even in the East. These represent 23 years of critical research, from 1988 to 2011. Unfortunately, these studies were overwhelmed by a tremendous flood of studies that promote medical and therapeutic innovations for ultrasound.
The Chinese studies have remained disconnected from the Western realm, beyond discussion outside of China, being the casualty of cultural and language gaps, and lacking a benefit for industry.
These studies are not generally available through global search engines or medical databases. Even if a researcher knew the titles, the studies would not be found, however, they are available through internal links within the Chinese databases.
The Research Path:
As of 2013, Jim West began his research out of frustration. He had experienced the impossibilities of discussion whenever the topic of ultrasound hazards was attempted, even with his nearest friends. He always brought eloquent documentation, though to no avail. He was met with reflexive blocks. These were passive and aggressive, apparently out of fear of the birth process and a belief that ultrasound would provide assurance.
Realizing that people require authoritative statements, Jim searched for a simple statement of empirical evidence that could not be denied.
After several months of intensive research within the Western scientific realm, he, like others, realized there was little definitive evidence that would satisfy the strict industrial requirements, that is, there were few human studies of any kind.
Human studies had been deemed by authorities to be essential for confirmation of hazards. He was aware of the hundreds of animal and cell studies, but they were known to be ill-designed and inconclusive. Excellent critical studies were contradicted by competing studies that declared ultrasound safe. Jim did find a few very strong animal studies that had not been contradicted, but they were ignored or rejected by mere authoritative assertion.
As a working research theory, Jim hypothesized that the ideal modern ultrasound study would utilize a very sensitive type of chromatography, called “electrophoresis”, to detect cell damage caused by ultrasound exposure. Electrophoresis is a simple technology, the moving of electric current through a sample of biological matter in order to draw its various components through a gel-covered plate.
The various components separate out through the gel, creating visual patterns for analysis. Electrophoresis is used to analyze biological complexes such as nucleic acid (DNA or RNA). It is employed, for example, in DNA fingerprinting, to identify people, their DNA, to detect their prior presence at a location, by examining samples of blood, hair, or tissue and matching those analytical results with suspects who had been similarly analyzed.
Jim’s focus on electrophoresis lead to a Chinese electrophoresis study of ultrasound causation for DNA fragmentation in abortive matter. The study is published in pristine scientific format and published in English. The study’s references lead to an expanding tree of studies located in Chinese online databases such as CNKI. Though these studies are primarily in Chinese language, many contained an Abstract, translated into English manually or by machine software.
Many studies were reviewed by professor Ruo Feng, of the Acoustic Institute at Nanjing University. He determined guidelines from the studies, stipulating that routine ultrasound be avoided. Only if there were exceptional medical indications should ultrasound be allowed, and at minimum intensity. Sessions should be very brief, no more than 3 minutes, 5 minutes at most. Multiple sessions should be avoided because hazards are cumulative. Sensitive organs were found damaged at 1 minute exposure.
Currently, the medical industry loudly claims that ultrasound is “harmless” while it advocates routine ultrasound for pregnant women and even prepubescent girls. It is not uncommon for ultrasound sessions to use intensities and durations far above those used in the Chinese studies.
Jim has done the math and graphically illustrates the evidence, for example, this comparison of Western critical studies and Chinese studies in terms of durations to damage, when subjected to the average device intensity for a common diagnostic ultrasound session in B-mode. These durations are approximated extrapolations.
Jim’s ultrasound causation model is fully compatible with the vaccine model, because it includes the concept of toxic synergy, and ultrasound is an effective synergist. Ultrasound is theoretically capable of initiating fetal vulnerabilities to subsequent toxic exposure.
Thus the risk of subsequent exposure to vaccines, birth drugs, antibiotics and other environmental stressors would be raised by prenatal ultrasound, not in addition, but as a multiplier.
The Telegraph: Perhaps The World's Conspiracy Theorists Have Been Right All Along June 18 2015 | From: TheTelegraph / Various
We used to laugh at conspiracy theorists, but from Fifa to banking scandals and the Iraq War, it seems they might have been on to something after all, says Alex Proud. [Okay - so this is an article from the heart of the mainstream media and so there is an element of gerrymandering. But just look at what they are actually covering here these days - the dialogue is growing].
'I want to believe': Mulder and Scully (David Duchovny and Gillian Anderson) in The X Files
Conspiracy theories used to be so easy. You’d have your mate who, after a few beers, would tell you that the moon landings were faked [some were faked and some did take place] or that the Illuminati controlled everything or that the US government was holding alien autopsies in Area 51. And you’d be able to dismiss this because it was all rubbish.
Comment: Some additional notes and links have been added to the orignal article for clarity, elaboration and edification.
Look, you’d say, we have moon rock samples and pictures and we left laser reflectors on the surface and... basically you still don’t believe me but that’s because you’re mad and no proof on earth (or the moon) would satisfy you.
It’s true that there was always the big one which wasn’t quite so easily dismissed. This was the Kennedy assassination - but here you could be fairly sure that the whole thing was a terrible, impenetrable murky morass. You knew that some things never would be known (or would be released, partially redacted by the CIA, 200 years in the future).
[There has even been a study done on the psychology of conspiracy beliefs: It goes through the importance of belief systems in the acceptance or rejection of ‘conspiracy theories.’:
And you knew that whatever the truth was it was probably a bit dull compared to your mate’s flights of fantasy involving the KGB, the Mafia and the military-industrial complex. Besides, it all made for a lot of very entertaining films and books.
Look carefully at the image in the visor, they say
This nice, cozy state of affairs lasted until the early 2000s. But then something changed.
These days conspiracy theories don’t look so crazy and conspiracy theorists don’t look like crackpots. In fact, today’s conspiracy theory is tomorrow’s news headlines.
It’s tempting, I suppose, to say we live in a golden age of conspiracy theories, although it’s only really golden for the architects of the conspiracies. From the Iraq war to Fifa to the banking crisis, the truth is not only out there, but it’s more outlandish than anything we could have made up.
Rather, they’re more like John Le Carre books. Shady dealings by powerful people who want nothing more than to line their profits at the expense of others.
The abuse of power. Crazy ideologues who try and create their own facts for fun and profit. Corporations supplanting governments via regulatory capture.
So, what are some of our 'biggest' conspiracies?
The Iraq War
The most disgusting abuse of power in a generation and a moral quagmire that never ends. America is attacked by terrorists and so, declares war on a country that had nothing whatsoever to do with the attacks, while ignoring an oil rich ally which had everything to do with them.
The justification for war is based on some witches’ brew of faulty intelligence, concocted intelligence and ignored good intelligence. Decent people are forced to lie on an international stage. All sensible advice is ignored and rabid neo-con draft dodgers hold sway on military matters. The UK joins this fool’s errand for no good reason. Blood is spilled and treasure is spent.
The result is a disaster that was predicted only by Middle Eastern experts, post-conflict planners and several million members of the public.
Thousands of allied troops and hundreds of thousands of blameless Iraqis are killed, although plenty of companies and individuals benefit from the US dollars that were shipped out, literally, by the ton. More recently, Iraq, now in a far worse state than it ever was under any dictator, has become an incubator for more "terrorists", which is a special kind of geopolitical irony lost entirely on the war’s supporters.
And yet, we can’t really bring ourselves to hold anyone accountable. Apportioning responsibility would be difficult, painful and inconvenient, so we shrug as the men behind all this enjoy their well-upholstered retirements despite being directly and personally responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths and trillions of wasted dollars [although these are the outcomes that the NWO was aiming for].
And the slow drip, drip of revelations continues, largely ignored by the public, despite the horrendous costs which (in the UK) could have been spent on things like the NHS or properly equipping our armed forces.
The conspiracy du jour. We always knew Fifa was shonky and bribery, but most of us thought the more outlandish claims were just that. Not so. As it turns out, Fifa is a giant corruption machine and it now looks like every World Cup in the last three decades, even the ones we were cool about, like South Africa, could have been fixes.
On the plus side, it seems that something may be done, but it’ll be far too late to help honest footballing nations who missed their moment in the sun. For those who say "it’s only a stupid sport", well, recently we’ve heard accusations of arms deals for votes involving... wait for it... Saudi Arabia.
The Saudi connection makes me wonder if, soon, we’ll be looking a grand unified conspiracy theory which brings together lots of other conspiracy theories under one corrupt, grubby roof.
The Banking Crisis
A nice financial counterpoint to Iraq. Virtually destroy the western financial system in the name of greed.
Get bailed out by the taxpayers who you’ve been ripping off.
No jail, no meaningful extra regulation, the idea of being too big to fail as much of a joke as it was in 2005. Not even an apology. In fact, since the crisis you caused, things have got much better for you – and worse for everyone else.
Much like Iraq, no-one has been held responsible or even acknowledged any wrongdoing. Again, this is partially because it’s so complicated and hard – but mainly because those who caused the crisis are so well represented in the governments of the countries who bailed them out.
Oh, and while we’re at it, the banks played a part in the Fifa scandal. As conspiracy theorists will tell you, everything is connected [And well, more often than not that is the case].
But yet - this pivotal development has been subjected to enormous media noise, so as to try and detract from the gravity of the situation - that the banking system as it stands is desperately requiring your awakening to it; such that you can save yourself and yours. - and all of us.
In exchange for their services, top financial regulators are almost universally provided with high-paying positions in Wall Street after their stints with the government.
Could this not possibly be an indication that there is a systemic problem - that the banks that post multi-billion dollar profits each year to their offshore shareholders are doing finf, while the people of New Zealand and every other country are bing milked dry by way or Mortgages and 'condensed loans that they can barely afford!?
Wake Up! You are being financially raped and you are too docile and stupid to see it? But it's okay, because the news says so.
But it wasn’t. Now, it’s a slow-motion train crash and an endless series of glacial government inquiries. The conspiracy theorists point out that a lot of real stuff only seems to come out after the alleged perpetrators are dead or so senile it no longer matters.
It’s hard to disagree with them. It’s also hard to imagine what kind of person would be so in thrall to power that they’d cover up child abuse.
[These 'people' and their Luciferian religion leave them with no other assumption other than what they do is justified as in ends to their means by order of their 'masters'].
[It is widely known in 'conspiracy circles' - or that is, people who are actually informed about what is going on in this world, that paedophilia is used in both widespread satanic abuse and rituals that the 'elite' Khazarian Illuminati Zionists use as part of their religion - and also it is used to entrap and blackmail people in places of influence, to control them and make them do the bidding of the Illuminati.]
And the rest
Where do you start? We could look at the EU and pick anything from its rarely signed-off accounts to the giant sham that let Greece join the Euro in the first place. We could look at UK defence procurement – and how we get so much less bang for our buck than France.
We could peer at the cloying, incestuous relationship between the UK’s political class and its media moguls and how our leaders still fawn over a man whose poisonous control over so much of our media dates back to dodgy deal in 1981 that was denied for 30 years.
We could look at the NSA and its intimate/ bullying relationship with tech companies:
But actually what we should be thinking is that a lot of this is what happens what you dismantle regulatory frameworks. This is what happens when you let money run riot and you allow industries to police themselves. This is what happens when the rich and powerful are endlessly granted special privileges, celebrated and permitted or even encouraged to place themselves above the law.
And this is what happens when ordinary people feel bored by and excluded from politics, largely because their voices matter so little for the reasons above. Effectively, we are all living in Italy under Silvio Berlusconi. What’s the point in anything?
[And then you have the typical pahtetic and predictable statements from the likes of New Zealand's spineless Zionist Cabal Illuminati sellout 'Prime Sinister' John Key; who has tantrums when stand-up members of the mainstream media dare to take him to task:
- Some assert that John Key manhandled MediaWorks TV3 management to have John Campbell taken off air.]
But actually, there is some hope. While the number of rich and powerful people who think they can get away with anything has undoubtedly grown, technology has made leaking much easier. Wikileaks may not be perfect, but it’s a lot better than no leaks at all.
The other thing that gives me succour is the public’s view of the bankers. We still hate them, which is absolutely as it should be. And slowly this contempt is starting to hurt the masters of the universe. It’s notable that, recently, banking has started tumbling down the down the list of desirable careers.
So, I suppose the solution is simple: we need more regulation, we need more transparency and we need more public shame and disgust. We might even get the last two; I’m less hopeful about the first.
[And in the case of the French government, who seem to be so scared of baseless "Conspiracy Theories" - that they want to ban them by law:
This protein, dubbed "WNT16B," is taken up by nearby cancer cells, causing them to "grow, invade, and importantly, resist subsequent therapy," said Peter Nelson of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle. He's the co-author of the study that documented this phenomenon, published in Nature Medicine.
This protein, it turns out, explains why cancer tumors grow more aggressively following chemotherapy treatments. In essence, chemotherapy turns healthy cells into WNT16B factories which churn out this "activator" chemical that accelerates cancer tumor growth.
The findings of the study were confirmed with prostate cancer, breast cancer and ovarian cancer tumors. This discovery that chemotherapy backfires by accelerating cancer tumor growth is being characterized as "completely unexpected" by scientists.
The chemotherapy fraud exposed
As NaturalNews has explained over the last decade, chemotherapy is medical fraud. Rather than boosting the immune response of patients, it harms the immune system, causing tumors to grow back.
This latest researching further confirms what we've known for years in the holistic health community: That chemotherapy is, flatly stated, poison. It's not "treatment," it's not medicine, and it's not prevention or a cure. It's poison with virtually no medicinal value except in perhaps one to two percent of cancer cases.
The No. 1 side effect of chemotherapy is, by the way, cancer. Cancer centers should technically be renamed "poison centers" because they are in the business of poisoning patients with a toxic cocktail of chemicals that modern science reveals to be a cancer tumor growth accelerant!
Secret War On Cash: “Discussions At Bilderberg Centered Around Capital Controls, Abolition of Cash” June 17 2015 | From: SHTFplan
According to some, a very quiet stealth war on cash has begun. May your bank account, debit card and gold reserves be on guard…
The world’s elite met in secret this week at the Bilderberg meeting, set at a luxury resort in Telfs-Buchen, Austria.
Investigative journalists have confirmed that the private discussions among top power brokers across the globe include arrangements to restrict currency and penalize – or ultimately even ban – cash.
Read the attendees list… real power and wealth are running with the movers and shakers. With bankers, equity giants and financiers all present, the agenda is quite in line with recent reports, aslong reported.
The powerful Bilderberg Group will discuss imposing more capital controls on average citizens while HSBC, whose Group Chairman will attend the conference, is set to pay more than $40 million dollars for illegal money laundering involving arms dealers and helping the wealthy avoid taxes.
It’s very much a case of do as we say, not as we do.
Ironic therefore it is that HSBC representatives will be party to discussions at Bilderberg centered around moving towards the abolition of cash and the imposition of capital controls on ordinary citizens in the name of stopping tax fraud and allowing more state control over people’s finances.
During the conference, Bilderberg will set the consensus for green lighting economic restrictions under the justification of stopping financing for terror groups like ISIS. Bilderberg will also discuss new controls on the sale of precious metals throughout Europe.
Numerous influential voices have recently called for eliminating physical currency altogether, giving central banks and governments the power to directly control your finances under the justification of preventing an economic collapse and bank runs.
If it involves “too big to jail” bankers and secrecy, it can’t be good for ordinary people.
If cash is criminalized, then everyone will be forced to be on the grid, and using what is essentially a digital currency inside a system controlled and watched from beginning to end by the banking industry.
The insiders will then have total power, information on and profit from every transaction.
That, surely, is the mark of the beast… a world in which free men are outlawed, and compliance is the only acceptable form of payment.
Protesters Slam Bilderberg Big Boss Elitist Summit For Lack Of Transparency June 16 2015 | From: RT
The Bilderberg conference, which bills itself as a “forum for informal discussions” held by the world's top brass, has drawn fire from protesters gathered near the Interalpen-Hotel Tyrol in Austria, accusing the attendees of corruption and elitism.
Good question. Any study of the history of that time informs us that it was primarily a struggle between whether a King could impose his sovereign will, especially in the field of taxation and law, without any justification or consultation of the people. The Barons, feudal landlords objected strongly, and in essence forced King John to accept the provisions they demanded.
After a rally on Friday, anti-Bilderberg activists re-emerged on Saturday afternoon to protest what many of them refer to as a gathering of criminals. Thousands of protesters are expected to assemble outside the hotel where the Bilderberg group meeting is taking place.
Some like it hot, but those gathered for the Bilderberg meeting in Austria seem to prefer it “top secret.” According to the published agenda, a total of around 140 participants from 22 countries have confirmed their attendance this year, including German Defense Minister Ursula van der Leyen, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg, UK Chancellor George Osborne and former President of the European Commission José Manuel Barroso, just to name a few.
One of its past participants is the former managing director of the International Monetary Fund, Dominique Strauss Kahn, accused of sexual assault by a New York hotel maid in 2011.
The key rule of participation is the so-called “Chatham House Rule”, which states that while attendees are free to use the information received, “neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s) nor of any other participant may be revealed.”
A protester sits on the ground next to a police check point prior to the Bilderberg meetings at Interalpen Hotel in the Austrian village of Buchen, June 11, 2015.
American journalist Rob Dew, news director at Infowars, told RT his crew suffered from what he called “police brutality.”
“At the beginning they were very brutal and rude to us. They saw we're from Texas, pulled us out of the car and searched us. So the next time we go to the checkpoint we start video taping because that's what we do in America – when we're feeling tyranny, we start video taping.
And we actually went to the police station live on Skype during the Alex Jones show and confronted them because they were calling our hotel manager asking where we were, when we're going to be back. We were fed up with it because we'd already shown them our papers and we have nothing to hide, but we're not going to take humiliation.”
According to the published agenda, the Bilderberg conference will discuss a range of issues – from artificial intelligence and chemical weapons threats to the US elections and European strategy regarding Iran, Russia and NATO.
Investigative journalist Tony Gosling told RT the Bilderberg conference tries to “make sure it's as difficult as possible to cover the meetings.” He says the mainstream media are actually part of the group.
“We're given the minimum information and it's very high security. There are thousands of police and security services in Austria keeping journalists away. The reason journalists don't often go is because their bosses are there and want the secrecy.
You're not going to upset your boss by trying to break their vow of silence,” Gosling said. “We've got around about 20-22 media barrens in there. These are generally controlled private media corporations, senior editors, managers or owners of the big media corporations and they are actually the fourth-largest contingent at Bilderbergs.
They are not far behind the bankers and the politicians and the owners of big industry. Essentially, media has become something so you can buy and sell,” he added.
Today, on June 15th this year 'Western Democracies' celebrate the 800th Anniversary of the signing of Magna Carta in 1215. Just what does a document written in Latin by Feudal Barons 800 years ago have to do with our New Zealand [and elsewhere] of today?
Good question. Any study of the history of that time informs us that it was primarily a struggle between whether a King could impose his sovereign will, especially in the field of taxation and law, without any justification or consultation of the people. The Barons, feudal landlords objected strongly, and in essence forced King John to accept the provisions they demanded.
Let us not run away with the idea that it at once gave the freedoms we enjoy today immediately to the “common” people. Fundamentally it was written by the Barons for the Barons, but this one document cracked the walls of feudalism, and subsequent generations prised open those cracks further, which led consequently, to the gaining of the right of every person to vote in free elections without fear or favour.
Magna Carta was re-issued over the centuries resulting in change. Those changes have in essence brought forth Western Democracy, in a practical evolutionary Charter adopting to new circumstances; but still retaining the critical essentials of individual freedoms. One of its greatest strengths is that it remains the basis of very different democratic systems, especially so in electing the many varied types of “Parliaments”.
We in this country need to take a very good look at our own position as it relates to democracy in our elections. No longer can we elect ALL OUR MPs to Parliament under the present M.M.P. situation.
We have given away that right and now we are, in practical terms, half way along the road to dictatorship. In reality that is what an appointment process of non elected Members to our House of Representatives is all about.
A 19th century artist's rendering of the signing of the Magna Carta on June 15, 1215
Especially so, when those List MP's are just party political appointees with no loyalty to any electorate and merely serve to ensure numbers for each Political Party.
Magna Carta unlike the Treaty of Waitangi, cannot be re written for the convenience of any particular group, whose aims are to gain both political and economic domination. For 800 years it has evolved from a document signed by a few on the banks of the River Thames at a place called Runnymede.
For centuries it was barely marked, but now it is commemorated by Nations who respect the rule of law and democratic rights. Fittingly on the hill above Runnymede is another memorial to the RAF and Commonwealth countries, whose service men and women died in the 1939/45 War.
It would be far more beneficial for our school children to be taught the impact that Magna Carta has had on the history of democracy, and on our development as a modern nation; than using the Treaty of Waitangi to promote division and separatism in New Zealand.
It has been said that:
“If you do not know history you are like a leaf that does not know it is part of a tree.”
Monday, June 15, 2015, is the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta. In his book, Magna Carta, J.C. Holt, professor of medieval history, University of Cambridge, notes that three of the chapters of this ancient document still stand on the English Stature Book and that so much of what survives of the Great Charter is “concerned with individual liberty,” which “is a reflexion of the quality of the original act of 1215.”
Monday June 15th 2015 is the 800 th Anniversary of King John signing the Magna Carta
There's never been a holiday or a festival commemorating the Magna Carta. Do you think they just might be trying to get us to forget that it's one of the most inspiring feats that changed the whole world?
Lest we Forget, the Magna Carta is the very foundation of the Supremacy of common law jurisdiction over Maritime Law, it gave us Habeus Corpus, the right to a judge and jury trial, basically all fundamental freedoms like we're all equal before and under the law and all kinds of real human rights that Maritime Law won't stop trying to take away.
Local communities should hold some kind of yearly event, after all; if they celebrate St. Valentine's Day and St Patrick's Day, then there's no excuse for not commemorating that millions of soldiers died to protect.
Just look at the obvious: There's never had been a Magna Carta Day, or we would have a yearly reminder asto why it's so important.
In 1915 they did not want us to celebrate its 144 th anniversary when they just formed the Federal Reserve.
n 1815 they should have celebrated it, because the war of 1812 was billed as taking back all basic Magna Carta rights.
In the 17th century Sir Edward Coke used the Great Charter of the Liberties to establish the supremacy of Parliament, the representative of the people, as the origin of law.
A number of legal scholars have made the irrelevant point that the Magna Carter protected rights of the Church, nobles, and free men who were not enserfed, a small percentage of the population in the early 13th century. We hear the same about the US Constitution - it was something the rich did for themselves. I have no sympathy for debunking human achievements that, in the end, gave ordinary people liberty.
At Runnymede in 1215 no one but the armed barons had the power and audacity to make King John submit to law. The rule of law, not the rule of the sovereign or of the executive branch in Washington acceded to by a cowardly and corrupt Congress and Supreme Court, is a human achievement that grew out of the Magna Carta over the centuries, with ups and downs of course.
Blackstone’s Commentaries in 1759 fed into the American Revolution and gave us the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
The Geneva Conventions extended the rule of law to the international arena:
Beginning with the Clinton Administration and rapidly accelerating with the George W. Bush and Obama regimes and Tony Blair in England, the US and UK governments have run roughshod over their accountability to law.
Both the US and UK in the 21st century have gone to numerous wars illegally under the Nuremberg Standard established by the US and UK following Germany’s defeat in WWII and used to execute Germans for war crimes. The US and UK claim that unlike Germany they are immune to the very international law that they themselves established in order to punish the defeated Germans. Washington and London can bomb and murder at will, but not Germany.
Both governments illegally and unconstitutionally (the UK Constitution is unwritten) spy on their citizens, and the Bush and Obama executive branches have eviscerated, with the complicity of Congress and the federal courts, the entirely of the US Constitution except for the Second Amendment, which is protected by the strong lobby of the National Rifle Association. If the gun control “progressives” have their way, nothing will be left of the US Constitution.
Washington and its European satellites have subordinated law to a political and economic hegemonic agenda. Just as under the heyday of colonialism when the West looted the non-white world, today the West loots its own.
Greece is being looted as was Ireland, and Italy and Spain will not escape looting unless they renege on their debts and leave the EU.
Western capitalism is a looting mechanism. It loots labour. It loots the environment, and with the transpacific and transatlantic “partnerships” it will loot the sovereign law of countries. For example, France’s laws against GMOs become “restraints on trade” and subjects France to punitive law suits by Monsanto.
If France doesn’t pay Monsanto the damages Monsanto claims, France is subject to punitive sanctions like Washington applies to Russia when Russia doesn’t do what Washington wants.
A new slave existence is being created in front of our eyes as law ceases to be a shield of peoples and becomes a weapon in the hands of government. Eight hundred years of reform is being overturned as Washington and its vassals invade, bomb, and overthrow governments that are out of step with Washington’s agenda.
Formerly self-sufficient agricultural communities are becoming wage slaves for international agribusiness corporations. Everywhere privilege is rising above law and justice is being lost.
The concentration of wealth and power is reminiscent of the aristocratic era and of Rome under the Caesars.
The demise of the rule of law has stripped ordinary people of security and dignity. Peoples of the world must protect themselves by acting in defense of the Great Charter’s principle that governments are accountable to law. Governments unaccountable to law are tyrannies whatever they might call themselves, no matter how exceptional and indispensable they declare themselves to be.
Monday in Westminster in London, the International Tribunal for Natural Justice is forming. If my understanding of this work of Humanitad is correct, we have a cause for hope.
Perhaps the Tribunal will try the criminals of our time, almost all of which are “leaders” of Western governments, on the Internet with juries and prosecutors so that populations everywhere can witness the evil that every Western government represents.
Once the West is perceived as the evil force that it is, it will have to reform and again embrace Edward Coke’s vision of the Great Charter or become an unimportant backwater while the rest of the world goes on to better things.
The world is saved once the world ceases to bow down to the American Caesar.
The Rise Of Scientific Fundamentalism June 14 2015 | From: GreenMedInfo
Contrary to the beliefs of some, science is not an impenetrable body of settled fact that must be defended at all costs in the name of truth.
When science becomes a worldview - a philosophy of life, a metaphysical framework that explains existence - it is no longer science; it is scientism.
Anti-Holistic Conspiracy or Reality?
Contrary to the beliefs of some, science is not an impenetrable body of settled fact that must be defended at all costs in the name of truth. It is not a means by which to determine truth or to achieve absolute certainty. Neither is science a worldview. When science becomes a worldview - a philosophy of life, a metaphysical framework that explains existence - it is no longer science; it is scientism.
The common thread is that these events were fueled by extremist elements within the scientific world whose intent is to control the narrative of what is and what is not considered to be acceptable or "real" science.
These fundamentalist and corporate agitators, who act ostensibly in the name of science, can be likened to religious zealots who seek to impose their version of sacred scientific dogma upon the general public while at the same time prohibiting what they believe to be new heretical ideas from receiving a fair hearing.
It is instructive to reflect upon the complex and long standing historical tension between science and religion, a phenomenon that lies at the heart of what has come to be known as our modern culture wars. Caught in the crossfire of this unholy war is a wide array of holistic therapies, many of which are backed by a great deal of both experimental and experiential evidence. Nevertheless, they tend to be regular targets for defamatory rhetoric from extremist detractors on both sides of the polarized divide.
The example most commonly cited by historians of science is that of Galileo's contention that the earth revolves around the sun, a fact that directly contradicted Church dogma of the time. Fast forward to the contemporary debate over the origins of the universe and the evolution of life on our planet.
With equal fervor both sides dispute opposing views with absolute certainty as to their convictions, whether scientific or religious. It is believed by many that there is room for only one position, as if it is not possible for elements of both to co-exist. Apparently it is not believed possible that a higher power could have set the evolution of the universe into motion.
"To assert that the Earth revolves around the Sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin."
- St. Bellarmine at the trial of Galileo, 1615.
On the surface, the culture wars appear to break down along partisan political lines, however, the field of holistic health can make for some strange bedfellows. Holistic therapies are generally embraced by more educated, liberal leaning persons who distrust Big Medicine on the grounds that medical treatment can be accompanied by a lot of side effects that place one's health at risk.
On the other hand, some on the right have also defended holistic medicine as a symbol of self-determination, especially libertarians who distrust Big Medicine as a threat to theirpersonal freedoms.
Reflecting a similarly unusual mix, some vaccine critics are holistically oriented liberals, some are right-wingers who mistrust government interference, and not a small number represent those who have seen first-hand the dangers of vaccines.
It is also true that vaccine critics are often lambasted by liberal elites who place their faith in what they perceive to be the science that supposedly supports vaccines, a position that runs contrary to their general suspicion regarding the motives of PhRMA and Big Medicine. In other words, there is no bright line that divides holistic supporters and detractors.
In contrast to Galileo's era when Church authority had the final say on matters of "fact," the modern culture wars often break down into shouting matches over who is on the side of science and who is not - as if to say that science is always on the side of truth while all others base their views on unreliable and/or superstitious sources of information.
Galileo was sentenced to house arrest for the last years of his life on the grounds of religious heresy. One gets the distinct feeling that some in the scientific establishment would like to charge vaccine critics and holistic medicine supporters with scientific heresy.
Public internet forums are often dominated by partisan extremists who have little tolerance for opposing views. Self-appointed defenders of science, for example, paint GMO critics as anti-science, regardless of the fact that there is growing evidence that GMOs are creating a number of problems for the environment, the food chain, and the health of the populace.
Defenders of science tend to get away with their partisan rhetoric largely because we live in a highly scientific age. Most people who haven't stopped to give serious consideration to these issues tend to passively assimilate the general cultural zeitgeist, which is the belief that science is correct simply by virtue of the fact that it is science.
All one has to do is make a statement, then claim that it is supported by science, and most people will tend to believe it. It's a perk that comes with acquiescence to conventional cultural consensus.
Faith-Based Scientific Skepticism
Public opinion regarding controversial scientific topics is heavily influenced by an increasingly superficial media that fails to dig deeply and instead chooses to amplify views held by corporate stakeholders. The media also tends to parrot opinions espoused by those who make the most noise. Such noisemakers often represent small but very vocal minorities.
One such minority is a growing community of scientific skeptics who see themselves as the guardians of science, ready to protect it from imaginary forms of scientific blasphemy or, as skeptics call it, pseudoscience. Organized skepticism is fast becoming a malignant force that masquerades as science but functions as a very deceptive and effective form of scientific thought police.
Its purpose is to undermine all perceived threats to what it believes to be the one and only true form of legitimate science. In the process of attacking, among other things, holistic therapies like homeopathy, acupuncture, herbalism, and even nutrition, skeptics inadvertently besmirch the reputation and credibility of genuine science itself.
It is important to understand how and why we have come to this impasse. Most people are not aware of the differences between science, pseudoscience, and scientism. Even the most well educated, including many scientists themselves, are not familiar with the issues involved.
The culture war between science and religion, also known as the science wars, is largely a function of misinformation. At bottom, it is a function of a blurring of the lines between scientific fact and scientific faith.
As a society that has forsaken its spiritual roots, American culture instead tends to increasingly place its faith in science, technology, medicine, and what has been referred to by many as the myth of scientific progress. Bolstered by our collective faith, science and technology march on, usually to the benefit of corporate interests, but often without critical review, without ethical restraints, and at the expense of our environmental and personal well-being.
Those who dare to question science are likely to be the recipients of a great deal of scorn.
So, how can we extricate ourselves from this blind allegiance to science that isn't really science? It will require self-education and discernment, starting with an examination of the very nature of science itself. The definition of science, that discipline that we all think we understand, is not as clear-cut as it seems.
Even philosophers of science disagree over the definition of science. It turns out that science isn't as scientific as one would think, primarily because it is based upon a number of very important foundational beliefs that, paradoxically, are not capable of being scientifically verified.
Few would deny that conventional medical science operates from a materialist paradigm. It assumes the physical body to be the foundation of all health. All illnesses of body and mind are presumed to have their origins in the physical body. Medicine focuses its resources on learning how to manipulate the material body as a means of curing illness.
Holistic healing operates from a very different paradigm. It assumes body, mind, and spirit to be integrated facets of the whole person. Holism recognizes, therefore, that material interventions alone are not sufficient to heal all illness. Additional routes to healing include techniques that involve an understanding of human consciousness, bioenergetics, and other factors that play a role in the development and treatment of disease.
Both paradigms utilize a variety of scientific methodologies. No one disputes that conventional medicine is a science. It is also true that acupuncture, homeopathy, Ayurveda, and Traditional Chinese Medicine, for example, are sciences in their own rights. They are, however, very different sciences in the sense that, just like conventional medical science, they begin with different scientifically unverifiable foundational assumptions.
It can be said that conventional medicine is not a pure science because it must begin with metaphysical propositions. Conventional medicine assumes the physical body to be the foundation of its metaphysical worldview (even as it gives lip service to the power of mind), while holistic medicine views illness as a more complex phenomenon involving material and immaterial factors.
It is not possible to prove that one philosophy is any truer than the other. One can only judge them by the results that they produce. It is clear to me that each has its strengths and weaknesses and that, together, they form a more complete system of healing.
Differentiating Science From Scientism
Why is it, then, that conventional medicine is the one faction that consistently puts forth the view that it is the only viable scientific approach to illness and healing?
The answer to this question is to be found in our definition of science. Science is a methodology by which we attempt to understand the natural world. Scientific method is a means of investigating natural phenomena. Science is a very practical tool for acquiring knowledge. It is not rigid and inflexible. Science changes over the course of history. And I believe that science will continue to change along with the evolution of human consciousness.
Scientism, on the other hand, is an ideology that has many similarities to fundamentalist forms of belief. The common denominator to all fundamentalist positions is the absolute certainty of the rightness of their claims. They leave no room for dissent or differences of opinion.
The fascist impulses of scientific fundamentalism serve first and foremost to restrict freedom of thought. Scientism is an abuse of scientific authority that justifies just about any claim that one wishes to make, all in the name of science.
Scientism is, in actual fact, anti-science. Mainstream medicine would do itself a big favor by separating itself from all scientistic influences.
Problems naturally arise when one is unable to discern the differences between science and scientism. This is precisely the loophole that skeptics seek to exploit. It is not enough to simply engage in scientific activities; skeptics believe they must go out of their way to invalidate or, as they like to say, "debunk" all competing sources of information and knowledge.
The hallmark of scientism is its need to discredit perceived threats to its worldview. This is accomplished by sowing confusion about the nature of science, what it is, and what it is not. Scientism makes claims that sound scientific but that have no actual basis in science. Skeptics understand the power of real science and they co-opt that authority to advance their unscientific agenda.
That agenda is aimed primarily at maligning three main targets:
All forms of holistic medicine and healing, and
Fields of knowledge seeking to understand human consciousness e.g. parapsychology, psychic studies, spirituality.
For example, scientistic propaganda is used to silence critics of vaccines and GMOs as if their concerns have no basis in science, an idea that is patently absurd. Scientism also seeks to counter religious beliefs regarding the origins of the universe as if to say that the Big Bang is a proven scientific fact.
Of course, the Big Bang is a theory, a theory perhaps as speculative as any higher intelligence-mediated theory of creation. Neither position is provable via any scientific methodology. Scientism even attempts to refute religious belief itself on the grounds that there is no scientific proof for any god.
Skeptics seem to have forgotten that there is no way to disprove the existence of a god either. It should be noted that a large percentage of skeptics are atheists who find solace in the illusion of certainty that their worship of science provides.
Given the rising tide of scientistic fervor in technologically advanced cultures, it is easy to see why the culture wars have intensified. Spiritually inclined persons are rightly concerned about scientific imperialism and its general disrespect for religious freedom of thought. Some religious leaders who are unable to differentiate science from scientism understandably direct their criticisms at what they perceive to be the lack of appropriate boundaries of science in general.
Genuine science acknowledges that its domain is limited to things of the natural world. Serious scientists understand that religion lies outside the bounds of scientific knowledge. The real culprits, therefore, are skeptical promulgators of scientism. Skeptics fail to respect these bounds and make it their business to violate them - in the name of science.
As a consequence, issues of real scientific concern such as climate change get muddled in the minds of the general public and mixed up with fabricated scientistic concerns like the supposed lack of safety of homeopathic medicines or the so-called irrational beliefs of citizens who demand that foods with GMO ingredients be labeled.
Holistically minded patients have similar concerns regarding scientistic imperialism. So do holistic medical practitioners, perhaps even more so, because their activities pose a direct threat in the minds of those who place their faith in the authority of materialist medicine.
Dishonourable Strategy and Tactics
Skeptics are known to resort to a variety of deceptive, unethical, and malicious tactics in order to achieve their goals. One such tactic is to claim that the idea they wish to discredit is simply not scientific. If it is not scientific, the argument goes, then it must be discounted.
Taking the logic a step further, if it is not scientific, then it must be pseudoscientific. "Pseudoscience" is nothing more than a medical swear word used to silence heretical ideas. It is a bogus, fabricated term that conveys the message:
"Your science doesn't play by the rules of our science."
The real pseudoscientists are skeptics who promote unscientific ideas in the name of science.
I will use my own profession of homeopathic medicine as an example here. Skeptics have been known to repeat ad nauseum the mantra that homeopathy is not a science because there is no scientific evidence to support it. Any reasonable person with an open mind will fast discover that this is simply untrue.
Homeopathic methodology is quite rigorous and there is a growing mountain of research that confirms its biological activity and efficacy. To state otherwise is an outright unscientific falsehood. Similar claims as to the lack of evidence in support of many nutritional and herbal treatments are also baseless.
But this doesn't stop skeptics from intentionally making such claims.
When skeptics are reminded of the existence of numerous homeopathic studies, their next tactic is to find fault with the quality of those studies. They scour the research looking for the tiniest of flaws, which are then magnified beyond all reason. If the same critical eye were turned toward conventional medical research, there would be nothing left standing. The entire foundation of scientific medicine would burn to the ground.
When unsuspecting persons challenge skeptics by sharing their personal success stories involving homeopathic treatment, they are excoriated for being naïve, unscientific amateurs whose experiences constitute invalid evidence in the court of scientific opinion.
This, to me, is perhaps the most insidious consequence of scientistic fundamentalism. It has programmed many, professionals and laypersons alike, to believe that their personal experiences are "merely" anecdotal and count for nothing.
But "anecdotal" is really just another one of those disparaging medical swear words. It is used to denigrate first-hand experience as unredeemably biased, as if to say that nothing can compete with pristine research studies conducted by objective-minded scientists. How else would it be possible for doctors to ignore first-hand accounts by parents who report the regression of their previously normal children into autistic states with hours or days of being vaccinated?
The irony is that those purportedly unbiased research studies turn out to be the same ones funded by vested corporate interests, the findings of which are routinely overturned by the latest studies also sponsored by Big Medicine. The not so secret secret is that randomized controlled trails (RCTs) have been elevated to their undeserved superior status largely to serve the pharmaceutical industry.
Such studies allow tiny increments of statistical difference to justify the value of drugs that are oftentimes quite dangerous. The goal is FDA approval. Once side effects are acknowledged and the damage has been done, the monetary returns have been maximized. The cost of liability constitutes only a small percentage of drug company profit margins.
When skeptics are desperate they resort to the final tactic, which is to claim that homeopathy is not scientific because it cannot be explained in conventional medical terms. The blatant silliness of such a proposition should be clearly evident. By this standard, all scientific investigation of poorly understood phenomena would come to a halt. And a drug like aspirin would have to be taken off the market on the grounds that scientists don't really understand how it works.
What really bugs the medical thought police is that holistic medical theory is actually onto something very important. And that poses a threat to medical sovereignty in the sense that holism has developed effective methods of dealing with mind-body problems in ways that conventional medicine is unable to emulate.
By virtue of its materialist philosophy, conventional medicine has no ability to understand the mind-body connection and its role in the development of illness. And its dogmatic nature ensures that an ever-growing array of holistic methods for influencing the psyche, consciousness, and the bioenergetic life force remain off limits to mainstream medicine.
Short of changing its metaphysical framework, the only thing left for medicine to do is to downplay the role of mind in illness while simultaneously imposing its outdated views on the scientific world by a variety of unsavory means. That translates into a growing tendency to embrace fundamentalist scientistic tactics in order to maintain its grip on power.
To recap, modern technological medicine plays a distinct role in health care that it has legitimately earned. It deserves that status so long as it acknowledges its own limitations and respects the roles that other forms of medicine and healing can play.
The minute medicine seeks to impose its views, it loses its status as a science and becomes an ideology.
The mainstream media and general public are often confused by misinformation spread in the form of scientistic propaganda. That propaganda can be spread by unwitting mainstream practitioners, by corporate interests, by avowed skeptics, and by confused laypersons. Organized skeptics exploit this confusion in order to advance their anti-holistic medicine agenda.
As a consequence, most people's opinions regarding holistic medicine are based upon a spectrum of information ranging from deliberate lies to trustworthy information.
A great deal of discernment is required to sort fact from fiction but, for those who make the effort, it can translate into potential rewards in terms of personal health and well-being.
2-Billion-Year-Old Nuclear Mega-Reactor Discovered In Africa June 14 2015 | From: TheEventChronicle
Two billion years ago, parts of an African uranium deposit spontaneously underwent nuclear fission - but the evidence suggests intelligent design.
In 1972, a worker at a nuclear fuel processing plant noticed something suspicious in a routine analysis of uranium obtained from a normal mineral source from Africa.
As is the case with all natural uranium, the material under study contained three isotopos - i.e. three forms with different atomic masses: uranium 238, the most abundant variety; uranium 234, the rarest; and uranium 235, the isotope that is coveted because it can sustain a nuclear chain reaction.
For weeks, specialists at the French Atomic Energy Commission (CEA) remained perplexed.
Elsewhere in the earth’s crust, on the moon and even in meteorites, we can find uranium 235 atoms that makes up only 0.720 percent of the total. But in the samples that were analyzed, which came from the Oklo deposit in Gabon, a former French colony in West Africa, the uranium 235 constituted only 0.717 percent.
That small difference was enough to alert French scientists that there was something very strange going on with the minerals.
These small details led to further investigations which showed that least a part of the mine was well below the normal amount of uranium 235: some 200 kilograms appeared to have been extracted in the distant past, today, that amount is enough to make half a dozen nuclear bombs. Soon, researchers and scientists from all over the world gathered in Gabon to explore what was going on with the Uranium from Oklo.
What was fund in Oklo surprised everyone gathered there, the site where the uranium originated from is actually an advanced subterranean nuclear reactor that goes well beyond the capabilities of our present scientific knowledge.
Researchers believe that this ancient nuclear reactor is around 1.8 billion years old and operated for at least 500,000 years in the distant past.
Scientists performed several other investigation at the uranium mine and the results were made public at a conference of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
According to News agencies from Africa, researchers had found traces of fission products and fuel wastes at various locations within the mine’s area.
Incredibly, our modern-day nuclear reactors are really not comparable both in design and functionality with this huge megareactor.According to studies, this ancient nuclear reactor was several kilometers long. Interestingly, for a large nuclear reactor like this, thermal impact towards the environment was limited to just 40 meters on all sides.
What researchers found even more astonishing, are the radioactive wastes that have still not moved outside the limits of the site as they are still held in place tanks to the geology of the area.
What is surprising is that a nuclear reaction had occurred in a way that the plutonium, the by-product, was created and the nuclear reaction itself had been moderated, which is considered as a “holy grail” for atomic science.
The ability to moderate the reaction means that once the reaction was initiated, it was possible to leverage the output power in a controlled way, with the ability to prevent catastrophic explosions or the release of the energy at a single time.
Researchers have dubbed the Nuclear Reactor at Oklo as a “natural Nuclear Reactor”, but the truth about it goes far beyond our normal understanding.
Some of the researchers that participated in the testing of the Nuclear reactor concluded that the minerals had been enriched in the distant past, around 1.8 billion years ago, to spontaneously produce a chain reaction.
They also concluded that water had been used to moderate the reaction in the same way that the modern nuclear reactors cool down using graphite-cadium shafts preventing the reactor from going into critical state and exploding. All of this, “in nature”.
However, Dr. Glenn T. Seaborg, former head of the United States Atomic Energy Commission and Nobel Prize winner for his work in the synthesis of heavy elements, pointed out that for uranium to “burn” in a reaction, conditions must be exactly right.
For example, the water involved in the nuclear reaction must be extremely pure.
Even a few parts per million of contaminant will “poison” the reaction, bringing it to a halt.
The problem is that no water that pure exists naturally anywhere in the world.
Several specialists talked about the incredible Nuclear Reactor at Oklo, stating that at no time in the geologically estimated history of the Oklo deposits was the uranium sufficiently rich (i.e. Uranium 235) for a natural nuclear reaction to occur.
When these deposits were formed in the distant past, due to the slowness of the radioactive decay of U-235, the fissionable material would have constituted only 3 percent of the total deposits - something too low, mathematically speaking, for a nuclear reaction to take place.
However, a reaction took place mysteriously, suggesting that the original uranium was far richer in Uranium 235 than it is found in a natural formation.
Behind Bilderberg 2015, Trilateral Commission: The Globalists Have A Major Problem +
Bilderberg 2015: Full Attendee List & Agenda June 13 2015 | From: JonRappoport / Infowars / The Economist
You can roll up Bilderberg, the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations, the World Trade Organization, NAFTA, and the several current trade treaties nearing completion… you can insert all these Rockefeller Globalist forces into one great corporate agenda, and…
There is a problem. A problem for Globalism. This is, behind the scenes, what the titans of control are whispering about.
It starts here: understand that mega-corporations are the instruments of world domination. They move into countries where cheap labor, land, and resources are abundant, and they take over. This is what they’re meant to do. This is the plan.
The top three or four hundred corporations are responsible for at least 25% of all world trade.
However - here is the rub. As Globalist policies allow corporations to shut down domestic factories in industrialized countries and open up those same factories in places where slave wages are the order of the day; as tariffs on imported goods are canceled, killing off businesses that try to compete with mega-corporations; as leading economies decline…
The consumer base for these mega-corporations shrinks. To put it simply, the corporations sell products. They need buyers. All over the world.
The top manufacturing corporations are running their assembly lines at about half-capacity. They could produce much, much more of what they sell.
But only a tenth of the world population has the means to buy these products.
There are partial fixes for the problem: profit-making wars; sales of corporate products to governments; governments basically paying citizens so they can buy certain products. But, in the long run, that solution doesn’t cut it. The mega-corporations are still lacking consumers. You can create only so many artificial buyers. Beyond that, the market system irretrievably heads downward.
Mega-corporations have the potential to produce and sell more and more; the consumer base is shrinking.
Globalism, the very system that is determined to elevate the power of mega-corporations, is diminishing the number of people who can consume what the corporations make.
The snake has been eating its tail for some time now. Mega-corporate CEOs and their advisors aren’t completely stupid. Some of them see the handwriting on the wall. World Bank and IMF fixes aren’t going to make this problem go away.
Neither is some drastic depopulation program. That would be heading in the wrong direction. Fewer consumers.
What about a radical re-set involving a new global currency? Suppose, for example, every inhabitant of the planet were outfitted with a free credit card carrying substantial buying power? Theoretically, that might work, if you discount what people who actually earn a living are going to do when they see billions of their fellow humans who don’t work outfitted with comparable consuming power. And that rumbling class warfare would be just the stormy beginning of the trouble.
Creating money out of thin air to satisfy the avarice of banks, to pay off governments’ soaring debt, to boost corporate bottom lines is one thing. Creating money out of nothing to make six or seven billion brand new consumers is quite another thing. In that case, the corporate-welfare gifting would lead to pollution and destruction of the environment on a scale that makes current levels look like a few leaking picnic baskets on a Sunday park outing.
And over the course of several generations, populations would descend into a nightmare of side-by-side buying power and increased unemployment. If you think, psychologically speaking, that’s a marvelous idea, and would bring peace and contentment, you need a brain transplant.
There is another factor to consider: technological innovation. For mega-corporations, that means robots/machines replacing humans as employees. More unemployment—unless the corporations hold back and refrain from implementing the “automation revolution.”
The corporate thrust, however, is always about moving forward. More robots in the workplace. Bigger assembly lines. Higher production.
It turns out that the Globalist agenda has an expiration date. Beyond it, the system comes apart at the seams.
The normal solution to a problem of this magnitude is: think short-term; avoid the inevitable; pretend all is well; leave the answers to the next generation.
Consider how hard-charging greed-head mega-corporate masters would react to the following proposition: “Look boys, we know you have the ability to produce goods for two or three planets the size of Earth. But we want you to service only a tenth of one planet, and that base will shrink further. Okay? Don’t worry, be happy. Everything is fine.”
They’re not worried about escalating the level of their political control over populations.
It’s the economics that don’t add up, no matter how many holes in the dam are temporarily plugged. There is one extremely radical solution I haven’t mentioned.
You could call it depopulation-repopulation.
Via some vast plan, the numbers of people on Earth would be enormously reduced - and then over, say, the next hundred years or so, those numbers would be built up again with humans who, in some Brave New World fashion, are conditioned / programmed to be avid workers and consumers, who would be paid far more than a subsistence wage. These living androids / robots would satisfy the hunger of mega-corporations to produce and produce and sell and sell…
The multiple risks of trying a plan like that would amount to an open confession of an agenda so heinous it would create open-ended global revolution, from Tierra del Fuego to the North Pole.
Every present Globalist agenda-item does two things: a) it aims at tighter control of populations, and b) it enforces and progressively lowers a ceiling on mega-corporations.
It reveals a future in which the number of those corporations will be drastically reduced. And that’s the rub. That’s the hidden factor.
Yes, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. But everyone who thinks that analysis is the core of the current crisis is looking no farther than the end of his nose. Because the rich, up the road, will get poorer, too. They’ll sink in the Globalist swamp.
The mega-corporate leaders are ultimately on both the sending and the receiving end of a long con. It’s a con perpetrated by their own system, a system built to make them kings forever.
How little they know.
It turns out that decentralization of power, on every level, is more than just the hope and dream of a relative few. It’s a planet-wide imperative; and survival is at stake.
The greatest economic matrix ever devised is blowing its engine.
The official Bilderberg Group website has released the full attendee list and agenda for this year’s conference. As ever, the list of topics to be discussed is so vague as to almost be meaningless. Infowars will have full coverage of Bilderberg’s detailed agenda later today and for the rest of the week.
63rd Bilderberg conference to take place from 11 – 14 June 2015 in Telfs-Buchen, Austria
Telfs-Buchen, 8 June 2015 – The 63rd Bilderberg conference is set to take place from 11 – 14 June 2015 in Telfs-Buchen, Austria. A total of around 140 participants from 22 countries have confirmed their attendance. As ever, a diverse group of political leaders and experts from industry, finance, academia and the media have been invited. The list of participants is available on www.bilderbergmeetings.org
Keep in mind there is more on the agenda but they only share a piece of what they’ll be discussing….at least what they admit to be discussing.
Founded in 1954, the Bilderberg conference is an annual meeting designed to foster dialogue between Europe and North America. Every year, between 120-150 political leaders and experts from industry, finance, academia and the media are invited to take part in the conference. About two thirds of the participants come from Europe and the rest from North America; approximately one third from politics and government and the rest from other fields.
The conference is a forum for informal discussions about major issues facing the world. The meetings are held under the Chatham House Rule, which states that participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s) nor of any other participant may be revealed.
Thanks to the private nature of the conference, the participants are not bound by the conventions of their office or by pre-agreed positions. As such, they can take time to listen, reflect and gather insights. There is no desired outcome, no minutes are taken and no report is written. Furthermore, no resolutions are proposed, no votes are taken, and no policy statements are issued.
Telfs-Buchen, Austria 11 – 14 June 2015 - Final list of Participants
Chairman: Castries, Henri de Chairman and CEO, AXA Group FRA
Achleitner, Paul M. Chairman of the Supervisory Board, Deutsche Bank AG DEU
Agius, Marcus Non-Executive Chairman, PA Consulting Group GBR
Ahrenkiel, Thomas Director, Danish Intelligence Service (DDIS) DNK
Allen, John R. Special Presidential Envoy for the Global Coalition to Counter ISIL, US Department of State USA
Altman, Roger C. Executive Chairman, Evercore USA
Applebaum, Anne Director of Transitions Forum, Legatum Institute POL
Apunen, Matti Director, Finnish Business and Policy Forum EVA FIN
Baird, Zoë CEO and President, Markle Foundation USA
Balls, Edward M. Former Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer GBR
Balsemão, Francisco Pinto Chairman, Impresa SGPS PRT
Barroso, José M. Durão Former President of the European Commission PRT
Baverez, Nicolas Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP FRA
Benko, René Founder, SIGNA Holding GmbH AUT
Bernabè, Franco Chairman, FB Group SRL ITA
Beurden, Ben van CEO, Royal Dutch Shell plc NLD
Bigorgne, Laurent Director, Institut Montaigne FRA
Boone, Laurence Special Adviser on Financial and Economic Affairs to the President FRA
Botín, Ana P. Chairman, Banco Santander ESP
Brandtzæg, Svein Richard President and CEO, Norsk Hydro ASA NOR
Bronner, Oscar Publisher, Standard Verlagsgesellschaft AUT
Burns, William President, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace USA
Calvar, Patrick Director General, DGSI FRA
Castries, Henri de Chairman, Bilderberg Meetings; Chairman and CEO, AXA Group FRA
Cebrián, Juan Luis Executive Chairman, Grupo PRISA ESP
Clark, W. Edmund Retired Executive, TD Bank Group CAN
Coeuré, Benoît Member of the Executive Board, European Central Bank INT
Coyne, Andrew Editor, Editorials and Comment, National Post CAN
Damberg, Mikael L. Minister for Enterprise and Innovation SWE
De Gucht, Karel Former EU Trade Commissioner, State Minister BEL
Dijsselbloem, Jeroen Minister of Finance NLD
Donilon, Thomas E. Former U.S. National Security Advisor; Partner and Vice Chair, O’Melveny & Myers LLP USA
Döpfner, Mathias CEO, Axel Springer SE DEU
Dowling, Ann President, Royal Academy of Engineering GBR
Dugan, Regina Vice President for Engineering, Advanced Technology and Projects, Google USA
Eilertsen, Trine Political Editor, Aftenposten NOR
Eldrup, Merete CEO, TV 2 Danmark A/S DNK
Elkann, John Chairman and CEO, EXOR; Chairman, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles ITA
Feldstein, Martin S. President Emeritus, NBER; Professor of Economics, Harvard University USA
Ferguson, Niall Professor of History, Harvard University, Gunzberg Center for European Studies USA
Fischer, Heinz Federal President AUT
Flint, Douglas J. Group Chairman, HSBC Holdings plc GBR
Franz, Christoph Chairman of the Board, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd CHE
Fresco, Louise O. President and Chairman Executive Board, Wageningen University and Research Centre NLD
Griffin, Kenneth Founder and CEO, Citadel Investment Group, LLC USA
Gruber, Lilli Executive Editor and Anchor “Otto e mezzo”, La7 TV ITA
Guriev, Sergei Professor of Economics, Sciences Po RUS
Gürkaynak, Gönenç Managing Partner, ELIG Law Firm TUR
Gusenbauer, Alfred Former Chancellor of the Republic of Austria AUT
Halberstadt, Victor Professor of Economics, Leiden University NLD
Hampel, Erich Chairman, UniCredit Bank Austria AG AUT
Hassabis, Demis Vice President of Engineering, Google DeepMind GBR
Hesoun, Wolfgang CEO, Siemens Austria AUT
Hildebrand, Philipp Vice Chairman, BlackRock Inc. CHE
Hoffman, Reid Co-Founder and Executive Chairman, LinkedIn USA
Ischinger, Wolfgang Chairman, Munich Security Conference INT
Jacobs, Kenneth M. Chairman and CEO, Lazard USA
Jäkel, Julia CEO, Gruner + Jahr DEU
Johnson, James A. Chairman, Johnson Capital Partners USA
Juppé, Alain Mayor of Bordeaux, Former Prime Minister FRA
Kaeser, Joe President and CEO, Siemens AG DEU
Karp, Alex CEO, Palantir Technologies USA
Kepel, Gilles University Professor, Sciences Po FRA
Kerr, John Deputy Chairman, Scottish Power GBR
Kesici, Ilhan MP, Turkish Parliament TUR
Kissinger, Henry A. Chairman, Kissinger Associates, Inc. USA
Kleinfeld, Klaus Chairman and CEO, Alcoa USA
Knot, Klaas H.W. President, De Nederlandsche Bank NLD
Koç, Mustafa V. Chairman, Koç Holding A.S. TUR
Kogler, Konrad Director General, Directorate General for Public Security AUT
Kravis, Henry R. Co-Chairman and Co-CEO, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. USA
Kravis, Marie-Josée Senior Fellow and Vice Chair, Hudson Institute USA
Kudelski, André Chairman and CEO, Kudelski Group CHE
Lauk, Kurt President, Globe Capital Partners DEU
Lemne, Carola CEO, The Confederation of Swedish Enterprise SWE
Levey, Stuart Chief Legal Officer, HSBC Holdings plc USA
Leyen, Ursula von der Minister of Defence DEU
Leysen, Thomas Chairman of the Board of Directors, KBC Group BEL
Maher, Shiraz Senior Research Fellow, ICSR, King’s College London GBR
Markus Lassen, Christina Head of Department, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Security Policy and Stabilisation DNK
Mathews, Jessica T. Distinguished Fellow, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace USA
Mattis, James Distinguished Visiting Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University USA
Maudet, Pierre Vice-President of the State Council, Department of Security, Police and the Economy of Geneva CHE
McKay, David I. President and CEO, Royal Bank of Canada CAN
Mert, Nuray Columnist, Professor of Political Science, Istanbul University TUR
Messina, Jim CEO, The Messina Group USA
Michel, Charles Prime Minister BEL
Micklethwait, John Editor-in-Chief, Bloomberg LP USA
Minton Beddoes, Zanny Editor-in-Chief, The Economist GBR
Monti, Mario Senator-for-life; President, Bocconi University ITA
Mörttinen, Leena Executive Director, The Finnish Family Firms Association FIN
Mundie, Craig J. Principal, Mundie & Associates USA
Munroe-Blum, Heather Chairperson, Canada Pension Plan Investment Board CAN
Netherlands, H.R.H. Princess Beatrix of the NLD
O’Leary, Michael CEO, Ryanair Plc IRL
Osborne, George First Secretary of State and Chancellor of the Exchequer GBR
Özel, Soli Columnist, Haberturk Newspaper; Senior Lecturer, Kadir Has University TUR
Papalexopoulos, Dimitri Group CEO, Titan Cement Co. GRC
Pégard, Catherine President, Public Establishment of the Palace, Museum and National Estate of Versailles FRA
Perle, Richard N. Resident Fellow, American Enterprise Institute USA
Petraeus, David H. Chairman, KKR Global Institute USA
Pikrammenos, Panagiotis Honorary President of The Hellenic Council of State GRC
Reisman, Heather M. Chair and CEO, Indigo Books & Music Inc. CAN
Rocca, Gianfelice Chairman, Techint Group ITA
Roiss, Gerhard CEO, OMV Austria AUT
Rubin, Robert E. Co Chair, Council on Foreign Relations; Former Secretary of the Treasury USA
Rutte, Mark Prime Minister NLD
Sadjadpour, Karim Senior Associate, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace USA
Sánchez Pérez-Castejón, Pedro Leader, Partido Socialista Obrero Español PSOE ESP
Sawers, John Chairman and Partner, Macro Advisory Partners GBR
Sayek Böke, Selin Vice President, Republican People’s Party TUR
Schmidt, Eric E. Executive Chairman, Google Inc. USA
Scholten, Rudolf CEO, Oesterreichische Kontrollbank AG AUT
Senard, Jean-Dominique CEO, Michelin Group FRA
Sevelda, Karl CEO, Raiffeisen Bank International AG AUT
Stoltenberg, Jens Secretary General, NATO INT
Stubb, Alexander Prime Minister FIN
Suder, Katrin Deputy Minister of Defense DEU
Sutherland, Peter D. UN Special Representative; Chairman, Goldman Sachs International IRL
Svanberg, Carl-Henric Chairman, BP plc; Chairman, AB Volvo SWE
Svarva, Olaug CEO, The Government Pension Fund Norway NOR
Thiel, Peter A. President, Thiel Capital USA
Tsoukalis, Loukas President, Hellenic Foundation for European and Foreign Policy GRC
Üzümcü, Ahmet Director-General, Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons INT
Vitorino, António M. Partner, Cuetrecasas, Concalves Pereira, RL PRT
Wallenberg, Jacob Chairman, Investor AB SWE
Weber, Vin Partner, Mercury LLC USA
Wolf, Martin H. Chief Economics Commentator, The Financial Times GBR
Wolfensohn, James D. Chairman and CEO, Wolfensohn and Company USA
Zoellick, Robert B. Chairman, Board of International Advisors, The Goldman Sachs Group USA
Help Finish "The 5th Eye" Feature Documentary June 12 2015 | From: GiveALittle
Through the story of the Waihopai 3, New Zealand's role in the global Five Eyes spy alliance is examined.
A teacher, farmer and priest break into the Waihopai spy base deflating a giant radome in an act of disarmament, against New Zealand’s role in the US-led War on Terror.
A millionaire internet mogul and alleged copyright pirate fights extradition to the US only to discover he was illegally spied on by the same shadowy agency that runs the base, on behalf of the American FBI.
With the rise of the surveillance state in the digital age, new battle lines are drawn in new territories, and the enemy is sought out closer to home.
Nicky Hager, Paul Buchanan, Murray Horton, the Waihopai 3 and others.
Independent documentary-makers Errol Wright and Abi King-Jones have produced three feature-length films together;
OPERATION 8 (2011), The Last Resort (2006) and Te Whanau o Aotearoa - Caretakers of the Land (2003).
Abi also edited three feature documentaries with Alister Barry; Hot Air (2014) - which she also co-directed, The Hollow Men (2008) and A Civilised Society (2007).
Filming began in 2008, around the Waihopai Ploughshares action, and has continued since as local and international events reveal more to the story of the Five Eyes alliance.
Editing began mid-2014 and will hopefully be completed in time for a release later this year.
We are aiming for $20,000 to help us finish the film.
The funds will enable us to work full-time on the edit and cover key post-production costs, such as score composition and archive transfers.
Your donation is eligible for a tax credit - we are a registered charitable trust.
Donors will receive a thank you credit at the end of the film.
You may also donate anonymously.
The Key To Ending Mass Surveillance? Maths June 12 2015 | From: TheNation
Encryption is a better safeguard of our civil liberties than the law. In the wake of Edward Snowden’s revelations about government surveillance, Laura Poitras, director of the Oscar-winning documentary Citizenfour, and many Internet-freedom activists and security engineers have told the public to trust math - encrypti - not politics or law to protect their privacy.
Our track record of reining in surveillance through the law is abysmal: To date, there are no proven instances of a law permanently removing an operational, cost-effective, productive foreign-surveillance capability on human rights or constitutional grounds.
If compelling the NSA to respect human-rights obligations is unlikely, it must be clear how much harder regulating Israel’s Unit 8200, Russia’s FSB, or the Third Department of the Chinese army’s General Staff will be. Americans - not to mention the other 95 percent of humanity - are just as vulnerable to Russian, Chinese, or Israeli surveillance as they are to the NSA’s.
Even closer to home, domestic abusers, racist law enforcement, and organized crime also aim to violate individuals’ privacy. Much of what the NSA can do now will soon be in other hands. Surveillance technology, like the rest of the digital world, is often adapted for sale to the rest of us.
Surveillance gets cheaper by the day. In the 1970s, three minutes of voice traffic between New York City and London cost about $40 (adjusting for inflation) for the US government.
But by 2005, the rise in Internet calling made conversations so cheap that the cost is difficult to meter - well under a pen - and the cost to monitor them has dropped fast. Intelligence budgets have grown massively over the past 40 year - Australia’s, for example, increased a shocking 600 percent - but are difficult to measure because they’re classified.
But this is nothing compared to the thousandfold decrease in the cost of collecting information.
Information collected through surveillance has two useful components:
The content of communication - what is said during a phone call, for example
Its context, or “metadata,” which includes time, location, and identities
While the former is what we usually think of as surveillance, it’s often less revealing. Take a sudden burst of SMS traffic between two coworkers who have never previously communicated on their personal phones, followed by a set of calls to an abortion clinic and a PayPal transfer between them six weeks later.
The content of the communication adds relatively little to the story. Despite resistance from analysts worried about their careers and (much) wasted money, the past 20 years have seen the deployment of automated analysis systems on the communications metadata of most of the world in an attempt to keep up with the flood that NSA surveillance has unleashed.
Gen. Michael Hayden
It’s unclear if the intelligence from these efforts is accurate or useful, but as the former director of the NSA, Gen. Michael Hayden, said in reference to the CIA’s drone program;
"We kill people based on metadata.”
So, if the law has failed to protect us from giant NSA sweeps of our metadata, and these operations cost the government little, what can encryption do to help?
Encryption is a category of mathematical operations in which one string, a key, is used to transform another, the plain text, in an encoded version according to a specific algorithm. Once the text is transformed, reversing the transformation without a key takes tens or hundreds of orders of magnitude longer than the encryption did.
A secure, unsurveilled Internet depends on widely shared protocols between different systems - two smartphones, for example, or a smart meter and the local electrical substation - and all secure protocols depend on encryption and related operations.
Correctly encrypted content is generally not something that can be spied on. Intelligence agencies are not magic; we have no reason to believe that the NSA boasts mathematical advances relevant to decryption beyond what the unclassified world has.
Intelligence agencies tend to rely on legal coercion of big centralized providers, theft of encryption keys or data from those providers, or taking advantage of errors in security in order to watch the exchanges occurring between systems. Any of these tactics can give them access to the content and metadata of all communications at that provider - even, as we’ve seen, for giants like Google.
What if all of this data was properly encrypted? If this were the case, the individual communicating hosts would have to be individually compromised. This is an active attack, only feasible against small numbers of targets instead of all of us at once in giant sweeps. The cost and risk of discovery relegates it to high-value targets - exactly the situation we want. Protecting metadata is more complex, but the same pattern applies.
Commercial businesses are already implementing better encryption to protect their information from spying, as seen with Apple’s decision to encrypt data stored on iPhones by default and Google’s improvements in security between its data centers.
However, privacy should be easily accessible for everyone, and most of these changes neither protect communications metadata nor stop companies from snooping on their customers for advertising purposes, which still allows the government to collect data in bulk.
The challenge of protecting the average citizen’s metadata is currently best handled by tools like the Tor project, an international network of volunteer proxies with an associated browser and other client software. Tor is used by journalists, activists, domestic-violence victims, and even US government investigators - all groups for whom surveillance can have serious consequences.
Tor encrypts traffic and bounces it between several relays, ensuring that the relay a user connects to doesn’t know where the traffic is going, and the relay passing the traffic to its final destination doesn’t know the source. Decentralized approaches like Tor’s, in which security is designed into the system and there is no central party to coerce or subvert, are as necessary a response to surveillance as encryption is.
Tor is a small project, but the resources required to run it are still significant. It grew out of ideas first developed inside the US Naval Research Labs, and when folks outside of the Department of Defense picked up the project, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or DARPA, decided it was worth funding as basic research.
The code for Tor is open-source (meaning anyone can read and copy it) and thoroughly reviewed, and the operating relays are independent, so the Net-freedom community at large generally doesn’t worry about this arrangement.
Not all government funding is so unproblematic, but alternatives are hard to find.
Note: A number of email encryption services based in countries with strong privacy laws have emerged recently (for example unseen.is (Iceland) and protonmail.ch (Switzerland)) which are worth checking out.
Some of these services also offer Skype-like messaging along with audio and video calling - all from either a browser or mobile app. For maximum security a browser such as Tor should be used.
Exact numbers are hard to come by, but globally, the intelligence activities of governments and corporations consume hundreds of billions of dollars.
The cost to protect individuals and communities from surveillance is also hard to estimate, but such projects are funded primarily by grants from NGOs and the State Department - a tiny fraction of the money spent by governments and corporations, and hardly enough to cover all of the necessary work on this issue around the world, of which Tor is just one small part.
Internet-freedom funders, like all organizations that need to justify their budgets, have a bias toward simple fixes that make good stories - the “there’s an app for that” school of countersurveillance. While tools matter, they are large, long-term infrastructural investments that require research and professional support.
The current funding model - waving a fistful of checks around and seeing who jumps in with a shiny idea - has resulted in no coherent solutions for defending against mass surveillance, in the United States or globally. Shaping these solutions will require technical competence and long-term vision, not just more money.
The changes to infrastructure that we need to protect ourselves from surveillance are a social good, but the decentralized mind-set required does not come naturally to companies or governments.
In the end, the culture change already taking place in the commercial-technology sector will determine whether we live under surveillance or get to retain our privacy.
As demonstrated by the reaction of Google engineers to the revelations of NSA spying on their infrastructure, tech workers often understand this, but eventually management must lead. The current advertising-driven business model for many online services depends on capturing massive amounts of personal information in order to target the ads.
In addition to being invasive in its own right, this has enabled a lot of government surveillance.
Silicon Valley companies must recognize that the law won’t do this work for them, and that if they want to avoid undermining freedom globally, it’s time to ditch the dated and dangerous ad model and start building decentralization and content and metadata privacy into everything they create.
The result would be a more secure Internet for everyone. Collecting our data would become much more difficult and expensive for the government. We would be able to communicate without worrying that all of our content and metadata was being sorted through by the NSA.
As Poitras has claimed, encryption does work, and it’s time that we put our faith, and our funding, toward math instead of our battered privacy regulations to keep us safe from prying eyes.
British Media Acknowledges Toxic Impacts Of Vaccines - MSM Censorship On Behalf Of Big Pharma Is Crumbling?
+ The Vaccine Racket: Amazing Infographic Reveals Financial Connections Behind Criminally-Run Vaccine Industry June 11 2015 | From: Global Research / NaturalNews / iHealthTube
The censorship Berlin Wall on vaccine injuries is starting to crumble… in the UK, at least, where mainstream media outlets there are suddenly covering the thousands of young girls and boys who are routinely damaged by toxic vaccines.
The pharma-controlled, vaccine-worshipping U.S. mainstream media, of course, hilariously pretends vaccines cause no damage to anyone. That’s part of the reason why no one believes the mainstream media anymore, which explains why mainstream media readership is plummeting while New Media readership is exploding.
Junk science media outlets like the Washington Post - now entirely controlled by Monsanto - attack vaccine skeptics as anti-science people for pointing out that children are being maimed and sometimes killed by vaccines.
It makes me wonder: Will the junk science mainstream media in the United States now ridiculously condemn the UK mainstream media as “anti-science” for reporting on the thousands of children being neurologically damaged by vaccines? Does the lamestream media in the USA even remember what journalism is in the first place?
Major media outlets across the UK now practicing actual journalism on the vaccine issue
Check out what’s happening in the UK press now all of a sudden. No doubt the vaccine industry is pushing hard to censor all these stories, so you might want to check them quickly while they still exist online: (h/t to Health Impact News for pointing these out)
“Emily is one of the thousands of teenage girls who have endured debilitating illnesses following the routine immunisation. She is yet to recover and has no idea when her health will return to normal.”
”In the 10 years to April this year the agency received almost 22,000 ‘spontaneous suspected’ adverse drug reaction (ADR) reports in 13 routine immunisation categories including flu, MMR, tetanus, diphtheria and polio, according to a Freedom of Information response released earlier this month.”
PoTS and fibromyalgia are among the diseases he believes have developed after HPV vaccination, and that clinicians should be aware of the possible association between HPV vaccination and the development of these ‘difficult to diagnose’ painful syndromes.”
“Side effects including chest and abdominal pains, exhaustion, breathing difficulties, fibromyalgia and postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome.”
”Some have been left wheelchair-bound by apparent effects of vaccine.”
“Worried mothers have told how their previously healthy daughters have suffered fits, extreme tiredness and even been left wheelchair-bound after being vaccinated in their early teens. In some cases, the girls started to feel ill on the day they were vaccinated. Others became sick several weeks later.”
Even France is now covering the vaccine debate with a sense of logic
In the US, Canada and the rest of the English-speaking world, questioning vaccine safety is a taboo subject, one the mainstream press fears to touch, let alone to debate. Not so in France…
“Should we have doubts about vaccines?” asked a popular radio program last month, marking European Immunization Week. The program, which ran on France Inter, a major public channel that is part of Radio France, introduced the subject by acknowledging the “doubts and concerns about the usefulness of vaccines” that have led the French to have “less and less confidence in vaccines.” France Inter then held a no-holds-barred debate between a controversial proponent of increased vaccine use…
[Another] example comes from Le Figaro, France’s second largest daily. After the French press last month reported that two infants died and hundreds had been injured after receiving rotavirus vaccines, Figaro examined the various issues at play, including conflict of interest — government regulators have had pharmaceutical industry ties — and the wisdom of having these vaccines recommended by public health authorities.
Vaccine violence against children totally ignored by the pharma-controlled U.S. media
All this vaccine violence being committed against children worldwide is purely imaginary, according to the U.S. mainstream media.
Anyone even citing such statistics is automatically labeled “anti-science” by pathetic vaccine pushers who profit from the continued medical mutilation of innocent children.
That’s how loony the corporate-controlled media has become: They label you a “conspiracy theorist” if you practice good science and good medicine by observing biological reactions to a routine medical intervention. Meanwhile, what they report as “facts” are actually fairytale delusions… such as the idea that vaccines harm no one and can be safely given to children in essentially unlimited quantities.
The real anti-science kooks, it turns out, are the blindly obedient vaccine pushers! (They also happen to be extremely angry egomaniacs who reek of vile hatred for humanity… and of children specifically.)
UK media has realized journalistic integrity requires the practicing of actual journalism
While tens of thousands of injured young children is no laughing matter, it is rather hilarious that the U.S. mainstream media’s obedience to the total quackery of “vaccine safety” is causing its own rapid loss of credibility, readership and revenues. That’s why the value of old media publishers is rapidly collapsing while, at the same time, alternative media websites are exploding in popularity.
THANK YOU, lamestream media, for creating the journalism vacuum now being filled by independent media outlets like Natural News — websites that never would have grown at all if the media had been doing its job in the first place.
And what do we want to see with vaccines here in the New Media? We’re not opposed to the theory of immunization, and we most certainly aren’t opposed to good science (I’m the science lab director of the Natural News Forensic Food Lab, conducting PhD-level atomic spectrometry analysis and original research on heavy metals in foods).
We merely want to see all toxic chemicals and heavy metals removed from vaccines and for government to respect parents’ rights in deciding what medical interventions are best for their own children. It doesn’t sound like much of a demand, really. It’s just a demand for protecting children and respecting fundamental civil rights.
I never thought I’d see the day that demanding we stop poisoning children with mercury in flu shots is called “anti-science.” But here we are, and that just tells you how insane the monopoly-run, criminal-minded vaccine industry has become these days. No wonder the public craves truthful reporting on this subject!
BOTTOM LINE: Any media outlet that tells you vaccines are safe is knowingly committingjournalistic malpracticeand lying to your face. They are paid by Big Pharma to tell such lies, and they knowingly put children in harm’s way for their own selfish profits.
Even the ethically challenged vaccine pushers they roll out to push vaccines - people like Paul Offit - totally abandon ethics by failing to disclose their own financial ties to the vaccine industry when they’re interviewed on TV.
Don’t get your news on the USA from mainstream media within the USA
Here’s an important takeaway point on all this: Never read the U.S. mainstream media for any purpose other than tabloid entertainment. Most mainstream outlets are totally clueless, compromised and corrupted.
Although there are intelligent reporters who work inside the U.S. media, they are handcuffed by censorship and editorial directives that prevent them from reporting the truth on GMOs, vaccines and other important topics.
(I know this because many of them have come to me asking for work and explaining the kind of Orwellian censorship under which they operate. You would not believe the number of formerly mainstream media reporters who now work for Natural News… and the number is growing by the week right now as we keep expanding…)
If you want news about the USA from a mainstream source, start reading the Daily Mail (UK). Or check out Der Spiegel, Al Jazeera, RT, Sputnik News or The Intercept. You’ll never get accurate news about the U.S. vaccine industry from the U.S. sellout media.
They are just propaganda tools of the drug makers, and they’re more than willing to see children harmed and even killed as long as they get their precious ad revenue from Big Pharma.
The Vaccine Racket: Amazing Infographic Reveals Financial Connections Behind Criminally-Run Vaccine Industry
This Vaccine Racket Infographic details the financial connections behind the criminally-run vaccine industry.
The infographic documents the nefarious players of the vaccine industry: the mainstream media, the CDC, deceitful vaccine propagandists like Paul Offit, the secretive vaccine court, the cover-up of vaccine-injured children, mainstream media propaganda that programs the public to worship vaccines, and much more.
I first sketched out this Vaccine Racket Infographic after observing the behavior of all the key players in the contrived Disneyland measles outbreak, which was used as a public panic springboard to launch a series of government-enforced vaccine mandate legislation efforts across the country.
Every player in the vaccine racket played its role in that "medical theater" episode, displaying uncanny coordination and a well-funded ability to gin up the kind of fear mongering that's only pursued when corporate profits are at stake.
Here's a scaled-down edition of the infographic. Click it to view a larger image:
Another CDC-linked fugitive from justice, Poul Thorsen
While you're examining the runaway criminality of the vaccine racket, don't forget the CDC-linked fugitive from justice known as Poul Thorsen, who absconded with millions of dollars in federal vaccine research funds (after faking vaccine research for the CDC to downplay the links between vaccines and autism).
She Did the Vaccine Research-You Won't Believe What She Found!
Dr. Sherry Tenpenny has spent many hours studying the effects of vaccines. The list of side effects is long, and that's just for one vaccine she mentions here! Find out what she found and what potential dangers might be!
Network: Howard Beale, The Last Sane Man In The World: Television As A Form Of Knowledge In The New Age June 10 2015 | From: JonRappoport
The best film ever made about television’s war on the population is Paddy Chayefsky’s scorching masterpiece, Network (1976). Yet it stages only a few minutes of on-air television.
The rest of the film is dialogue and monologue about television. Thus you could say that, in this case, word defeats image.
"The media have substituted themselves for the older world… The new media are not bridges between man and nature - they are nature…
The new media are not ways of relating us to the old world; they are the real world and they reshape what remains of the old world at will… In television, images are projected at you. You are the screen. The images wrap around you. You are the vanishing point…
The whole tendency of modern communication… is towards participation in a process, rather than apprehension of concepts.” (Marshall McLuhan)
Even when showing what happens on the TV screen, Network bursts forth with lines like these, from newsman Howard Beale, at the end of his rope, on-camera, speaking to his in-studio audience and millions of people in their homes:
"So, you listen to me. Listen to me! Television is not the truth. Television’s a god-damned amusement park. Television is a circus, a carnival, a traveling troupe of acrobats, storytellers, dancers, singers, jugglers, sideshow freaks, lion tamers, and football players. We’re in the boredom-killing business…
We deal in illusions, man.None of it is true! But you people sit there day after day, night after night, all ages, colors, creeds. We’re all you know. You’re beginning to believe the illusions we’re spinning here.
You’re beginning to think that the tube is reality and that your own lives are unreal. You do whatever the tube tells you. You dress like the tube, you eat like the tube, you raise your children like the tube. You even think like the tube.
This is mass madness. You maniacs. In God’s name, you people are the real thing. We are the illusion.”
Beale, coming apart at the seams, is a mad prophet. And because he shines with brilliance and poetry, he can affect minds. Therefore, the television network can make use of him. It can turn him into a cartoon for the masses.
It is Beale’s language and the passion with which he delivers it that constitutes his dangerous weapon. Therefore, the Network transforms him into a cheap religious figure, whose audience slathers him with absurd adoration.
Television’s enemy is the word. Its currency is image.
Image from a scene in "Network"
Beale breaks through the image and defiles it. He cracks the egg. He stops the picture-flow. He brings back the sound and rhythm of spoken poetry. That is his true transgression against the medium that employs him.
The modern matrix has everything to do with how knowledge is acquired.
Television, in the main, does not attempt to impart knowledge. It strives to give the viewer the impression that he knows something. There is a difference.
Knowledge, once established, is external to, and independent of, the viewer. Whereas the impression of knowing is a feeling, a conviction, a belief the viewer holds, after he has watched moving images on a screen.
A basic premise of New Age thinking is: “everything is (connected to) everything.” This fits quite well with the experience of watching film or video flow.
Example: we see angry crowds on the street of a foreign city. Then young people on their cell phones sitting in an outdoor café. Then the marble lobby of a government building where men in suits are walking, standing in groups talking to each other. Then at night, rockets exploding in the sky. Then armored vehicles moving through a gate into the city. Then clouds of smoke on another street and people running, chased by police.
A flow of consecutive images. The sequence, obviously, has been assembled by a news editor, but most of the viewing audience isn’t aware of that. They’re watching the “interconnected” images and listening to a news anchor tell a story that colors (infects) every image.
Viewers thus believe they know something. Television has imparted that sensation to them. That’s what news is all about: delivering a sensation of knowing to the audience.
There is no convenient place where the ordinary viewing audience can stop the flow of images or the story being told. They are inside it. They don’t have the leverage of a crystalized idea or the power of reasoning to get out.
They are inside the story. Knowledge thus becomes story.
The viewer is transfixed by the sensation that he is “inside” watching story.
This fixation produces a short circuit in his reasoning mind (if he has one). No time to stop, no time to think; just watch the flow.
When you take this pattern out to a whole society, you are talking about a dominant method through which “knowledge” is gained.
"Did you see that fantastic video about the Iraq War? It showed that Saddam actually had bioweapons.”
“Really? How did they show that?”
“Well, I don’t exactly remember. But watch it. You’ll see.”
And that’s another feature of the modern acquisition of knowledge: amnesia about details.
The viewer can’t recall key features of what he saw. Or if he can, he can’t describe them, because he was in the flow. He was inside, busy building up his impression of knowing something.
Narrative-visual-television story strips out and discards conceptual references. And lines of reasoning? To the extent they exist, they’re wrapped around and inside the image-flow and the narration.
Ideas aren’t as interesting as images. That’s the premise.
To grasp the diminishment of language, consider the current use of the word “text.” Suddenly it’s become a verb; it means a process of sending words. It also refers to paragraphs or pages of writing, as opposed to pictures. “Text” makes “writing” seem like nothing more than one functional (and machine-like) method of delivering information.
And since bone-dry information (e.g., “genetic sequences”) these days is practically considered a synonym for life, when a writer infuses his words with passion, they automatically become a “rant.” “Rant” was formerly applied to describe what a person did when he was totally unhinged to the point of making no coherent sense.
Image, not the word, is the now preferred means of acquiring what passes for knowledge.
McLuhan: “Media are means of extending and enlarging our organic sense lives into our environment… My main theme is the extension of the nervous system in the electric age.”
All our electronic devices operate as extensions of our senses. In the process, image predominates, and through feedback, the majority of those pictures are produced by media. As if knowledge were being transferred.
Retired propaganda master, Ellis Medavoy (pseudonym), once told me in an interview:
“If you wanted to try a real revolution, you would produce thousands of videos consisting of written words on screens, with someone speaking those words.
You would try to reinstate language as a medium. Poetry, formal arguments and debates, great speeches, dramatic readings. You would go up against image and try to relegate it to its proper place…”
The degree of outrage, so far, is on the order of a bonfire in a park.
If this were happening in the American colonies of the 18th century, where several hundred thousand copies of Tom Paine’s pamphlet, Common Sense, were distributed among a total population of only 2.5 million people, the earth would shake.
The word meant something then; thousands of pages of words, held in secret, determining the shape of the future, would have instigated a revolution.
Today, that secrecy of words causes minor flames, because generations of Americans have been suckled on images.
Howard Beale:“…we know that democracy is a dying giant, a sick, sick dying, decaying political concept, writhing in its final pain…
What is finished is the idea that this great country is dedicated to the freedom and flourishing of every individual in it.
It’s the individual that’s finished. It’s the single, solitary human being that’s finished. It’s every single one of you out there that’s finished. Because this is no longer a nation of independent individuals.
It’s a nation of some two hundred odd million transistorized, deodorized, whiter-than-white, steel-belted bodies, totally unnecessary as human beings and as replaceable as piston rods.”
Paddy Chayefsky’s words. He made his pen a sword, because he was writing a movie about television, against television. He was going up against image as the primary form of knowledge. He was the man for the job.
When a technology (television) turns into a method of perception, reality is turned inside out. People watch TV through TV eyes. They observe their blessings the way crowds suck in the tautologies of a tinpot dictator.
Mind control is no longer something merely imposed from the outside. It is a matrix of a self-feeding, self-demanding loop. Willing devotees of the image want images, food stamps of the programmed society.
Are We All Terrorists Now? Russell Brand The Trews June 10 2015 | From: TheTrews
Russell Brand takes a look at the new powers brought in by David Cameron to supposedly aid in counter terrorism, but instead, turns us all into suspects. [Some people consider Brand to be a hypocrite and / or controlled opposition; but whatever the case the points he makes here are 100% valid].
This video also looks at how the mainstream media is completely ignoring the new legislation being put into place in all western countries that further erodes our rights
on an invcrementalist path towards government / corporate tyranny.
Basically the upshot is that the governments of the west are now saying: "You are a terrorist as soo as you don't do what you are told."
A highly respected Australian doctor, currently in remission from brain cancer, is speaking out on his belief that radiation from wifi, cell phones and their towers is a major factor in increasing brain cancer rates.
Dr. John Tickell is attempting to raise awareness and is calling for more funding for brain cancer research, as it has become the number one most deadly cancer for young people in Australia. According to the Australian government, there are 35 new cases of the cancer discovered each week with four out of five cases being fatal in the first five years.
"Leukaemia was once the leading causes of cancer deaths in Australia for under 40s but it now has a five-year survival rate of over 80 per cent. Breast cancer is around 90 cent compared to brain cancer which is around 20 per cent," Tickell told the Herald Sun.
The Australian Mobile Telecommunications Association is denying any detrimental health effects from their radiation, but the World Health Organization has recently upgraded the radiation threat to category B2, meaning "possibly carcinogenic."
"You can say you can't prove it — in my mind it is proven looking at the studies that are unfunded by industry," he said.
The largest study to take place so far was conducted among 5000 cancer patients. The study found that there was no increased risk of overall cancer, but cellphone use was linked to patients having a 40% increased likeliness of developing Glioma, a common type of brain cancer.
Tickell also blasted the United States’ Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and the fact that they have seemingly left all investigation to the telecommunications companies themselves.
"The telco-funded studies say they’re safe but the FCC has not done any tests on radiation from phones in 20 years,"Tickell lamented.
"There's a million more times radiation in the air today than there was fifty years ago — that is frightening,"he said.
This Video Follows the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency's advice (ARPANSA Factsheet 14 - updated June 2013) on reducing wireless radiation - and explores the implications of children using wireless devices such as iPads, at home and at school.
The video includes an explanation of SAR values, a real life test of iPads vs iPhones and ARPANSA's practical advice on how to reduce exposure from mobile and other wireless devices.
Let's educate children on how to use wireless technologies safely.
Protect children from (RF EME) wireless radio frequency microwave electro magnetic radiation (EMR) until long-term exposure is proven harmless.
‘Safe use of technology – Your guide’ by WiFi in Schools Australia raises awareness on the new recommendations from the Queensland Department of Education, Training and Employment (DETE) for the safe use of wireless radiation emitting technologies.
As of 12 December 2014 DETE’s Safe use of technology documents have still not been posted on their website and made publicly available.
Therefore, WiFi in Schools Australia have produced this video with links below to DETE’s documents. The World Health Organisation’s (WHO) International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) have classified all radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” - wireless technologies are now considered as a possible cancer causing agent.
In the absence of conclusive scientific evidence or safety standards that take into account biological effects from prolonged exposure, we need to use wireless technology consciously. Educate children on the safe use of technology and reduce wireless radiation exposure.
WiFiInSchoolsAustralia Posted by Blushield Global on Oct 9, 2014 This is the URL to the wi-fi in schools Australia website. It is fantastic, you must have a look at it.
Is Wi-Fi Making Your Child Ill?
As France bans Wi-Fi in nursery and primary schools, a British expert who has given up using wireless gadgets says we should do the same.
Six years ago, Dr Erica Mallery-Blythe moved to the country, stopped carrying a mobile phone and sacrificed a successful career in emergency medicine to focus on a new medical interest – radiation emitted by Wi-Fi, mobiles and other wireless devices.
She is now one of the country’s few professional advisers on medical conditions related to radiofrequency (RF) radiation and other electromagnetic fields (EMFs).
"I was using wireless devices before most people I knew – I loved it,” says Mallery-Blythe, who was ahead of the tech trend even in 1985 when she was handed her first mobile phone, aged 10.
“But as soon as I started digesting the literature on EMFs it was a no-brainer,”she says of her decision to relinquish wireless gadgets.
“I wasn’t willing to take that kind of risk for something that was purely convenient.”
Her interest in EMFs started in 2009 after she began noticing increasing trends in certain symptoms – headaches, insomnia, fatigue and palpitations, but also more serious conditions including brain tumours in young people, fertility problems and accelerating neurological diseases such as early onset Alzheimer’s and autism.
As yet there is still no scientific proof that relates these diseases to radiation, but Mallery-Blythe is among a not insignificant number of scientists and practitioners concerned by those studies that do highlight cause for more precaution.
Dr Erica Mallery-Blythe discusses the effects of Wi-Fi radiation with a class of schoolchildren
Over the past few years, as Wi-Fi, laptops and iPads have become increasingly prevalent in classrooms, Mallery-Blythe says “hundreds” of families have sought her help with what they believe to be EMF-related diseases and health issues.
One such case is that of nine-year-old Jessica Lewis’s family. In the autumn term of 2011, Jessica started to complain that she was getting bad headaches at school.
She was also feeling overly tired, developed rashes on her legs and her parents said she looked “completely washed out” after school, particularly on Mondays. A quick internet search threw up a forum where parents had written that their children complained of similar symptoms after installing Wi-Fi.
"I ignored it. We didn’t know anything about Wi-Fi then,” says Jessica’s father, Paul Lewis.
“We didn’t think her school had it.”
Later that term, at a parents’ evening, he noticed a Wi-Fi router near Jessica’s desk in her new form classroom. As it turned out, Monday was the day of the week the whole class worked on laptops.
When a local GP backed up Lewis’s suspicions about Wi-Fi being the probable cause of Jessica’s headaches, he went to some lengths to try to convince Spotbrough Copley Junior School in Doncaster to use wires instead of Wi-Fi, even offering to pay for the school building to be wired with cables.
The school pointed out that a government report advised that Wi-Fi exposures were well within internationally accepted standards. Guidelines were reviewed in 2011 and still stand today.
"We do not think the balance of available scientific evidence on radiofrequency has shifted and, as such, our position remains that PHE [Public Health England] sees no reason why Wi-Fi should not continue to be used in schools and in other places”
Dr Simon Mann at PHE, the [UK] Department of Health’s agency in charge of health protection.
Dr Mallery-Blythe tests radiation levels at a school internet router
“That just didn’t add up,” says Lewis.
Now Jessica is home-schooled, much to her frustration, because symptoms resurface when she’s exposed to Wi-Fi.
As well as founding the Physicians’ Health Initiative for Radiation and Environment (PHIRE) to inform doctors of the issues and advise on best health practice, Mallery-Blythe gives talks to teachers around the country, in which she presents scientific studies that reveal both short and long-term effects of EMF exposure.
One of the talks (below) has had more than 15,000 views on YouTube since last November. It’s an engaging summary of the issues that concerned scientists are discussing.
“I try to present the facts the authorities aren’t highlighting,” says Mallery-Blythe.
I was surprised to find myself glued to it. Particularly eye-opening are the number of widely held misconceptions about radiation safety that Mallery-Blythe sets about busting. Standing a good distance away from a Wi-Fi router may reduce radiation intensity, for example, but low-intensity windows of radiation have been shown to be more harmful in some studies than higher-intensity exposures.
"At the moment people think their children are safe because the router is far away – or we don’t have to worry about the phone because it’s not near the brain. That’s common sense but unfortunately we now know it’s not quite true,” she says, pointing out that the brain is better protected than some more vulnerable parts of the body.
“They’ve issued a caution saying children under 16 shouldn’t be using mobile phones except for essential calls, but they’ve been quite happy to support the one-to-one iPad scheme, though an iPad can have an equivalent or higher SAR (the rate at which energy is absorbed by the human body when exposed to a radio frequency) than a phone.”
Switch your phone to flight mode or turn it off as often as you can, advises Dr Mallery-Blythe
Associate Professor Olle Johansson, a neuroscientist at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden, compares putting an iPhone near a baby’s head to “putting it next to several electric train engines”, pointing out that working with train engines is Sweden’s highest occupational exposure allowance.
Johansson has been researching the biological effects of radiofrequency (RF) wireless radiation for more than 30 years, but says it has become “extremely hard to get funding” in this area.“Given the importance of the subject I’d say that’s more than enigmatic.”
He predicts a “paradigm shift” in attitudes towards EMF. We are currently living in an environment estimated to contain more than 10 billion times more RF radiation than it did in the Sixties.
“If this environment is safe we’re talking about in the order of 15,000 to 25,000 papers – in peer-reviewed scientific journals – all being wrong. That has never happened before.”
“We just want to see some precautionary action put in place, and we’re not seeing it".
Wi-Fi at home: Dr Erica Mallery-Blythe’s advice
Try to keep your mobile switched off and don’t use it unless you need to. Keep it in flight mode when it is on and never carry your mobile close to your body, even on standby.
Don’t use Wi-Fi for internet. Instead use an Ethernet cable and buy a router with no wireless capacity or disable it. Disable Wi-Fi on your computer or tablet by disabling the wireless card via the control panel or putting it into flight mode.
Replace cordless landlines with corded ones. Most cordless telephones give off radiation whether they’re in use or not.
In February the French government banned Wi-Fi in nursery schools and restricted use in primary schools. The German government has recommended that the use of Wi-Fi in the workplace or home should be avoided where possible. LA has reduced student exposure to Wi-Fi radiation to 10,000 times below US government standard.
In 2000, a report commissioned by the Government concluded that no school should fall within 100 metres of a mobile phone mast; in 2007 a BBC Panorama programme found that the readings next to a classroom laptop showed radiation at double the level only 100 metres from a mobile phone mast.
A five-year-old absorbs up to 60 per cent more radiation than an adult due largely to their thinner skulls and the high water content of a young body. In Western countries brain tumours have overtaken leukaemia as the most common cause of cancer in children.
A 2008 study found a fivefold increase in the risk of glioma (a form of brain cancer now recognised by the World Health Organisation as being linked to mobile phone usage) for those starting mobile phone use under 20 years of age, indicating that the age group at first use is highly significant.
BRICS Have Won - Folker Hellmeyer: US To Lose Its Ground Under BRICS Pressure June 8 2015 | From: Sputnik
This is according to Folker Hellmeyer, chief economist of the German Bremer Landesbank in an interview just recently.
Blind adherence to US policies and the introduction of anti-Russian sanctions have turned fatal for Europe; the axis of Russia-China-BRICS is set to overturn the global economic system and to prevail over the hegemony of the US, according to the chief economist of the German Bremer Landesbank.
The real damage to the EU countries caused by the launch of anti-Russian sanctions is much more comprehensive than that estimated by the statistics, Folker Hellmeyer, chief economist of the German Bremer Landesbank told in an interview with Deutsche Wirtschafts Nachrichten.
“The slump in German export volume by 18 percent in 2014 and by 34 percent for the first two months of 2015 is just the tip of the iceberg,” he said. “There are much more of the side-effects.”
“European countries, like Finland and Austria, who have strong developing businesses in Russia, place fewer orders within Germany. Moreover, the European corporations evade sanctions and create high-efficient production facilities in Russia. We, therefore, lose this potential capital stock, which is the basis of our prosperity, and Russia wins.”
The relationship of trust between Russia and Germany and the EU is somewhat broken. And it will take years to rebuild it.
As the result, such companies as Siemens and Alstom have lost major projects in Russia, he said. The potential damage not only for Germany but for the whole of the EU, therefore, is much more comprehensive than what is being shown by current figures.
Meanwhile, Moscow, Beijing and other BRICS countries are looking forward to building the largest projects of the modern history: the construction of new Eurasian infrastructure from Moscow to Vladivostok, in South China and India.
Participation of the Western countries in these mega-projects looks quite uncertain, Hellmeyer said.
“For me, the conflict has already been set,” he said. “The axis Moscow-Beijing-BRIC has won. The West had enough. In 1990 th, these countries accounted for about 25% of world economic output. Now, they represent 56% of world economic output, and account for 85% of world population.
They control about 70% of the world’s foreign exchange reserves. They grow annually by an average of 4% — 5%. Since the United States has not been prepared to share the power worldwide, nor to build the emerging market sector on its own financial system, it lost.”
Neither problem in the world nowadays can be solved without Moscow or Beijing, said the economist.
The lack of its own agenda makes the EU and Germany look like a loser.
“The longer we pursue this policy in the EU, the higher is the price. The less one will take us seriously as an interlocutor,” he added.
Within a fortnight, the government closed the heavy doors of Relationships Aotearoa and opened up a new floodgate for “private investment” into mental health [This is incrementalism in action - and most of the 'Sheeple' are too stupid to notice]
Health Minister Jonathan Coleman and Prime Sinister John Key
This is the culmination of five long years of deep funding cuts to various agencies and NGOs tasked with helping the most vulnerable: Relationships Aotearoa, which had 60,000 clients nationally and treated 30,000 Cantabrians for post-earthquake trauma, shut. Access to WINZ disability benefits has been narrowing for years. Women’s Refuge safehouses have been crowdfunding their operating hours. Rape Crisis centres close, as do local community NGOs such as New Plymouth’s Like Minds which shuttered last week.
To counteract these cuts and still retain a look of sincerity in the face of genuine pain, the government revealed its plan to privatise and commoditise mental health.
Social bonds, although cluttered with wretched biz-speak, are fairly simple to understand: An NGO partners with investors (banks, philanthropists) and signs a contract to deliver a particular service. If the “outcome” is favourable, the investor gets their money back. If not, the investors lose out.
Such an apparently radical scheme looks like a win-win-win for all involved. However, the first of four social bonds announced will ‘encourage’ mental health patients into work – not treatment.
Some very pressing questions arise from the idea: Has it been tested before? Will investors have sway over how people are treated? Isn’t this just selling out the most vulnerable?
Under Health Minister Jonathan Coleman, social bonds have come to fruition. Publicly, he has justified them by citing a tiny test case – about which nothing has been revealed. No figures, no data, no “outcomes”.
In a statement last weekend, Coleman referred to a;
“small and successful pilot delivering employment services to people with mental health conditions.”
This is the same pilot he again referred to on Morning Report, claiming it was “Very successful [in getting] people with mental health issues into work. It’s working.”
When asked about this pilot Coleman’s office refused to give details, insisting only that it was run from a single GP practice.
They would not say where in the country it was, nor how many patients it worked with. They claimed “confidentiality” when declining to reveal what type of employment the patients were encouraged to perform.
The obvious question should be asked: if the Minister wants to sing the praises of the very idea from which the wider social bonds plan takes its inspiration, why not reveal just how “successful” it is?
Of course, there is no reason at all why social bonds must be tested on mental health “guinea pigs” (as Annette King put it).
Instead, both the cabinet paper and the NZI report notes the trialling of social bonds in other countries to stop criminals reoffending. Recidivism has been the focus in the UK, three states in the US, and Canada. Mental health is not mentioned at all.
Inevitably, the focus on “outcomes” and “targets” for mentally unwell citizens casts aside any consideration of treating them in the long term. It is about employment, not treatment. Work, not genuine improvements in their lives. Paying tax, not ensuring they remain functioning members of society.
There is a clue to this mindset in the 2013 cabinet paper mentioned above. It says “government agencies are now focusing on what is being achieved, not how services are delivered.” [their italics]
Such abrasive commoditisation produces only one thing: human beings with very real and genuine sensations become statistics. Their reality is ignored in favour of slotting them into a spreadsheet which might earn an investor a nice five percent return on their cash.
In the UK, this monetised and numericised kind of existence has led to some very real humiliation. When the British government outsourced a scheme to get people with disabilities into work, some very troubling things happened:
A Falklands veteran with one leg and terminal cancer was deemed fit for work.
Absurdly, a woman in a coma was told she was suitable for “intensive job-focused activity.”
Doctors were told to keep quiet about work assessments while whistleblowers called attention to strict interpretations of what it meant to be able to perform work.
When investors are given sway over how services are delivered, this exploitation is likely. To his credit, Coleman has stated in parliament that mental health patients will not be abused, and investors will not be allowed to “fudge results”, but this is very faint assurance indeed.
There is also a larger point to be made here about language: the words and terminology that agencies, businesses, and ministries use to discuss complex problems, the weight of which cannot be understated.
Just like job cuts are referred to as “restructuring” and “disestablishment”, the lives of people living with disabilities are reduced to throwaway obfuscations like “social outcomes” and “performance targets”. The KPI-sation of society’s most pressing concerns should be very troubling for anyone who wants to treat real people as exactly that: real people.
The latest double-hand of funding cuts and privatisations are yet more evidence that this government has no intention of either treating mental illnesses with genuine compassion or sincerity.
The end goal, according to Jonathan Coleman, is “to help them get back into work”, and nothing more. Compassionate conservatism indeed.
The Government is set to give private investors the opportunity to invest in and make money from social services, beginning with our mental health sector.
These so called ‘social impact bonds', which the Government are using to privatise the mental health sector, have failed around the world. Kyle MacDonald, an expert from the New Zealand Association of Psychotherapists, explains: “our concern is that as we have seen in other areas profit becomes the primary motivation of funders, not optimal care”.
The mental health sector doesn’t need experiments - it needs more direct funding from the Government.
We can’t let our most vulnerable citizens be the subjects of this unproven experiment.
Social Bonds allow for private investors to invest in Government services - in this case contracts that involve getting people with mental health problems “back to work.” While this may sound like a good objective, experience overseas has shown that it carries risks such as people being pushed into work prematurely, and regardless of whether it suits their individual needs.
There is no evidence that this approach works, and in fact it has been shown to cause services to focus on profit not better outcomes for consumers.
We need to send a strong message to the Health Minister Jonathan Coleman that we do not want this funding experiment to put the wellbeing of Mental Health consumers at risk and that any spending on Mental Health needs to address the underfunding of core Mental Health services.
So what exactly is proposed? Social service providers and NGOs will be asked to team up with private investors to carry out their work. Later, that money is reimbursed to the investor by the Government, with interest, if the organisation meets specified performance targets.
This can lead to perverse incentives, where for example only “easy” clients are taken on, or organisations “game” the system. In New Zealand, we have already seen examples of this. To achieve elective surgery targets, District Health Boards removed people from waiting lists, creating a situation where individual health outcomes were made worse, but the target was achieved.
Experts, allies and advocates throughout New Zealand are speaking up to say issuing social bonds for mental health services risks being an unfortunate experiment undertaken with society's most vulnerable.
This Is What The Medical Profession Hopes You Never Find Out - Dr. Edward Group June 7 2015 | From: iHealthTube
Dr. Group discusses the brainwashing that goes on in University Medical Schools - and how Med Students are not taught how to analyse and break down pharmaceutical medications and analyse them; just how to prescribe them.
Dr. Group recounts his awakening whereby he realised that everything he was going to be taught was wrong - that all of the pharmaceutical medications were causing more and more problems in the human body; hence requiring more pharamaceutical medications - meaning phenomenal profits for the drug companies, from a perpetually sickened population.
He then goes on to talk about how he came to understand what causes disease and as a result, the very successful holistic approach that he uses to this day that prevents and eliminates all degenerative diseases, including cancer.
Reserve Bank Funding Agreement Ratified - But Who / What The Hell Is "The Reserve Bank Of New Zealand"? June 6 2015 | From: WakeUpKiwi / ReserveBankOfNewZealand
A new five-year Funding Agreement for the Reserve Bank was ratified by Parliament yesterday. But what is the Reserve Bank of New Zealand, who owns it - and why are they selling us our own currency?
What Do Central Banks Actually Do? Central banks all make convoluted cover statements in order to justify their existence. That is not to say that all of the staff are in on it, but those who are at the top of each reserve bank know exactly what they are doing.
They are either part of the cabal, or minions of it under bribery and or threat.
What Central Banks Say They Do:
“Ensure that, throughout the economy, money works as well as possible as a mechanism for making transactions, storing value, and keeping account.
The Bank also promotes a sound and efficient financial system. To fulfil these functions, the Bank carries out a wide range of tasks, from operating monetary policy to monitoring and supervising the health of the financial system, maintaining foreign reserves, operating in the financial markets if necessary, and issuing currency as required.”
– Quote excerpt from The Reserve Bank of New Zealand
The first and most important question that arises with regards to central banks is:
“Why is a privately owned and run banking institution issuing and controlling the currency of my country?”
It is interesting to note that within the very large Reserve Bank of New Zealand coat of arms, located on the wall to the rear of the reception area of said central bank, you will see a red shield. As we know, in old German, red shield translates to Roth-schild (red-shield).
What Central Banks Actually Do:
Central banks do more harm than good. From obscuring the true cost of credit to causing confusion about good investments, central bankers end up papering over economic problems.
And when they send the wrong messages to savers and consumers trying to coordinate their plans, boom and bust cycles lengthen and worsen.
In effect, the central banks have almost complete control of a country’s economy, and can create and control boom and bust cycles.
“There are a number of ways the Reserve Bank helps to maintain financial stability, including through the regulation and supervision of banks, non-bank deposit takers and insurers, promoting the smooth operation of financial markets, and building sound financial market infrastructure.
It is also important to understand developments that could make the financial system vulnerable to instability, and respond appropriately. The Reserve Bank conducts regular surveillance of financial risks and reports on its assessments in the six-monthly Financial Stability Report.”
– Quote excerpt from The Reserve Bank of New Zealand
This is an important point, because it ties us back into our shareholder investigation:
All of the financial institutions of virtually every country are registered with, regulated by and supervised by their local central bank.
Central banks and central bankers are the reason why the world is in economic and martial turmoil and why many millions of people languish in the pits of poverty and financial ruin.
They operate for the exclusive profit of a small group of powerful families whose death grip on global finance can be traced back generations. They control governments, monarchies, and multinational organisations like the UN, the WHO, the World Bank, and a host of other influential bodies.
Using massive wealth accumulated fraudulently over generations they’ve managed to co-opt or illicitly influence political parties, trade unions, the law courts, medical associations, religious hierarchies, universities & academies, mass media, and the like, to promote their policies and to eradicate all opposition.
They wield their inordinate global control by indoctrinating chosen “leaders” into powerful secret societies and insider groups like the Freemasons, Bilderberg, Council on Foreign Relations, just to name a few.
Three essential pillars of their domination of the world economy and global finance are the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the Bank for International Settlements. The first two were set up at Bretton Woods in 1944 to plunder and loot and enrich a handful of bankster dynasties.
The latter is known as the central bank to the world’s central banks. It was set up by British and American banksters in conjunction with the Nazis in 1930 and was guilty of appalling war crimes for which it was never ever punished.
Quigley was an insider in the exclusive world of the corporatists and the international bankers and had access to private research material. For some unknown reason, the original publisher Macmillan only printed 9,000 copies.
Professor Quigley wrote:
“The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole.
This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences.”
- Tragedy And Hope, (see Chapter 20).
Read more on dentral banking and how far it goes here.
And so the Reserve Bank of "New Zealand" press release continues;
“The Funding Agreement ensures that the Bank has sufficient resources to meet its expanded role and obligations while maintaining tight control of costs,” Governor Graeme Wheeler said.
The Funding Agreement is an important instrument for maintaining the Bank’s operational independence in that it provides multi-year funding and specifies how much of the Bank’s income may be used to fund the Bank’s operating expenses. The new Funding Agreement is valid from 1 July 2015 to 30 June 2020.
The new agreement sees the Bank’s core operating expenditure increase marginally from $49.0 million in 2014-15 to $49.6 million in 2015-16, and then increase to $52.1 million by the final year, 2019-20.
Funding for the direct costs of issuing banknotes and coins is separate within the agreement, and amounts to $14.4 million in 2015-16 and $20.2 million in 2016-17 before reducing to $11.1 million in 2019-20.
“The increase in core operating expenditure over the five years is modest, averaging 1.3 percent per year,”said Mr Wheeler.
The Bank has a number of important projects underway, including those related to issuance of new banknotes, development of the Bank’s treasury systems, and an upgrade of its payment and settlement systems.
Mr Wheeler said the new Funding Agreement has been made in an environment of fiscal constraint. Productivity improvements, which include some reductions in staffing levels that began in February 2015, will restrain the growth in costs.
“The Reserve Bank’s responsibilities have expanded considerably since 2008, including prudential supervision of insurers and anti-money laundering supervision, and it has developed its macro-prudential policy capabilities and toolkit.”
New Zealanders are taxed to fund the Corporate New Zealand Government [controlled by "The Crown'];
Which in turn funds a privately owned central bank, that then creates the New Zealand dollar -
Which then proceeds to sell that currency to the New Zealand Corporate Government - WITH INTEREST CHARGED;
The hoodwinked New Zealand public are mostly oblivious to this and are fiscally raped by a malfeasant, degenerate would-be 'elite ruling class'.
A set of 'leaders' that are so corrupt and compromised that they fall all over one another in their attempts to keep their hideous transgressions from seeing the light of day; and thereby from being held to account for them.
But the inevitable time of publicised truth, is just about to arrive for these criminals.
And if you are stupid enough to still not see the smokescreen that they have put then shame on you.
Flying Sheep & Dodgy Deals: The NZ Government Paid $11 Million In Taxpayer Funded Hush Money To An Influential Saudi Businessman To Prevent A ‘Possible’ Lawsuit June 5 2015 | From: Actionstation
The Government paid $11 million in taxpayer funded hush money to an influential Saudi businessman to prevent a ‘possible’ lawsuit over a false promise the National Party made to the businessman before they were in Government.
Minister of Foreign Affairs, Murray McCully, has been caught paying what looks very much like a bribe to a Saudi businessman called Hamood Al-Ali Al-Khalaf whose live sheep exporting business was damaged by this country’s ban on such exports back in 2003.
This demands a serious investigation by the Auditor-General to get to the bottom of what looks very much like a bribe.
When the Labour-led government first banned the live exports of sheep, Al Khalaf allegedly contacted the National Party to express his opposition to the change. The National Party then made a promise to Al Khalaf that once they were in Government they would reverse the ban on live exports.
When National won the election in 2008, Al Khalaf is said to have invested tens of millions of dollars in New Zealand farmland and a ship that could transport sheep to Saudi Arabia.
But National didn’t change the law.
Using Cabinet papers obtained under the Official Information Act, NBR’s Jamie Ball raised a number of questions about whether proper processes had been followed. He has also uncovered evidence that appears to confirm that the deal making has been carried out in order to advance negotiations for a trade deal with the Gulf states. 
As part of the deal the Minister even flouted NZ law and had 1000 live sheep flown over to the Middle East.
Only the Auditor-General can get to the bottom of this deal with a full investigation to work out how the Minister can justify this highly unorthodox use of taxpayer money.
The Minister seems to be taking taxpayer money, giving it wholesale to private business in Saudi Arabia in order to smooth the way for a trade deal. If this is completely true it sets a dangerous precedent for international business.
Ironically, Parliament has just passed the second reading of the Organised Crime and Anti-Corruption Legislation Bill . The legislation includes new measures “Making both fines and imprisonment available as sanctions for the offence of foreign bribery”.
Denmark The First Country To Ban Cash June 5 2015 | From: Pravda
In the last few weeks there has emerged a great deal of chatter in both the alternative and mainstream media about efforts to reduce the use of cash or ban it altogether - from many different sources and countries. Denmark looks to be the first to ban cash.
The government has already declared it as part of cost-saving measures. It is directed at taxes securing and preventing banks from complete collapse that is possible due to bank runs.
People should be ready that they won't be able to pay in cash in stores, restaurants and petrol stations within the territory of the country in the near future. There will be also considered some measures in order to prevent the capital flight from other countries. Otherwise, there may be a major capital disturbance unless all nations abolish cash simultaneously.
This appears to be the big issue that is likely to unfold with the ECM turning point at the end of September 2015.
Pravda.Ru has already reported on the economic totalitarian regime that will lead to the total control of money by the state. No ability to buy or sell anything without government approval will be provided.
Freedom of movement and travel will be restricted in Rome, if you owe money to the state.
The USA has already introduced passport revocation practice in case you owe the government more than $50,000.
Rule By The Corporations - Paul Craig Roberts June 5 2015 | From: PaulCraigRoberts
"Free Trade" Agreements = The Corporate Empowerment Act. The Transatlantic and Transpacific Trade and Investment Partnerships have nothing to do with free trade. “Free trade” is used as a disguise to hide the power these agreements give to corporations to use law suits to overturn sovereign laws of nations that regulate pollution, food safety, GMOs, and minimum wages.
The first thing to understand is that these so-called “partnerships” are not laws written by Congress. The US Constitution gives Congress the authority to legislate, but these laws are being written without the participation of Congress. The laws are being written by corporations solely in the interest of their power and profit. The office of US Trade Representative was created in order to permit corporations to write law that serves only their interests. This fraud on the Constitution and the people is covered up by calling trade laws “treaties.”
Indeed, Congress is not even permitted to know what is in the laws and is limited to the ability to accept or refuse what is handed to Congress for a vote. Normally, Congress accepts, because “so much work has been done” and “free trade will benefit us all.”
The presstitutes have diverted attention from the content of the laws to “fast track.” When Congress votes “fast track,” it means Congress accepts that corporations can write the trade laws without the participation of Congress. Even criticisms of the “partnerships” are a smoke screen.
Countries accused of slave labor could be excluded but won’t be. Super patriots complain that US sovereignty is violated by “foreign interests,” but US sovereignty is violated by US corporations. Others claim yet more US jobs will be offshored. In actual fact, the “partnerships” are unnecessary to advance the loss of American jobs as there is nothing that inhibits jobs offshoring now.
What the “partnerships” do is to make private corporations immune to the laws of sovereign countries on the grounds that laws of countries adversely impact corporate profits and constitute “restraint of trade.”
For example, under the Transatlantic Partnership, French laws against GMOs would be overturned as “restraints on trade” by law suits filed by Monsanto.
Countries that require testing of imported food, such as pork for trichnosis, and fumigation would be subject to lawsuits from corporations, because these regulations increase the cost of imports.
Countries that do not provide monopoly protection for brand name pharmaceuticals and chemical products, and allow generics in their place, can be sued for damages by corporations.
Corporations have paid US senators large sums for transferring Congress’ law-making powers to corporations.When these “partnerships” pass, no country that signed will have any legislative authority to legislate or enforce any law that any corporation regards as inimical to its bottom line.
Yes, the great promiser of change is bringing change. He is turning Asia, Europe, and the US over to rule by the corporations.
According to news reports, both of France’s main political parties have sold out to the corporations, but not Marine Le Pen’s National Front Party. In the last EU elections, the dissident parties, such as Le Pen and Farage’s, prevailed over the traditional parties, but the dissidents are yet to prevail in their own countries.
Marine Le Pen objects to the secrecy of the agreements that establishes corporate rule. As Europe’s only leader, she speaks:
“It is vital that the French people know about TTIP’s content and its motivations in order to be able to fight it.
Because our fellow countrymen must have the choice of their future, because they should impose a model for society that suits them, and not one forced by multinational companies eager for profits, Brussels technocrats bought by the lobbies, and politicians from the UMP [party of former president Nicolas Sarkozy] who are subservient to these technocrats.”
It is vital that the American public also know, but not even Congress is permitted to know.
How does it work, this “freedom and democracy” that we Americans allegedly have, when neither the people nor their elected representatives are permitted to participate in the making of laws that enable private corporations to negate the law-making functions of governments and place corporate profit above the general welfare?
UK’s Independent Newspaper Blows The Lid Off Vaccine Damages June 4 2015 | From: ActivistPost
Finally it’s happened! A member of the mainstream press has the intestinal fortitude to publish the carefully ‘kept secret’, secret about vaccines and vaccinations: They cause dramatic life-altering damage and more frequently than “evidence-based medicine” or “consensus science” owns up to or MDs, the medical profession, public health agencies and pro-vaccine acolytes acknowledge.
The UK’s Independent Newspaper published some extremely damning vaccine adverse drug reaction (ADR) information on May 31, 2015 that said:
“In the 10 years to April this year the agency received almost 22,000 “spontaneous suspected” adverse drug reaction (ADR) reports in 13 routine immunisation categories including flu, MMR, tetanus, diphtheria and polio, according to a Freedom of Information response released earlier this month."
However, the vaccine ‘ante’ has just been upped on vaccines’ adverse events/damages according to the Freedom of Information (FOI) documentation dated May 14, 2015, according to the chart below.
Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency FOI Response 14 May 2015
The vaccine with the most ADR reports was the Human papillomarivus (HPV) for which there are three vaccines:
Gardasil®, Cervarix®, and recently licensed Gardasil 9® with 8,228 ADRs.
Next in line is the annual Influenza virus vaccine with 2,994 ADRs.
The MMR (Measles, mumps and rubella) with 1,594 ADRs is third highest.
Fourth highest ADR reporting count is Pneumococcal disease (PCV) with 1,560 ADRs.
Diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, polio and haemophilus influenza type B with 1,309 ADRs is fifth.
Sixth highest ADR is for Diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis and polio with 1,190.
Seventh is Tetanus, diphtheria and polio with 1,076 ADRs.
Those ADRs represent health damage from what’s called “multi-valent” vaccines, meaning more than one disease active is contained in a vaccination or jab, as it’s called in the UK. Six other vaccines had ADRs reporting fewer than one thousand, which should not be regarded as insignificant.
The above information demonstrably demonstrates – and validates – what vaccine-safety-advocates (often referred to as anti-vaxxers) have been beating the drums about:
Vaccines cause irreversible damage and, as the U.S. VAERS reporting system - similar to the UK’s ADR reporting system - even deaths and for which the U.S. Vaccine Court has settled claims.
So, it’s indisputable that vaccines cause adverse health problems, which undeniably increase healthcare costs for everyone involved, plus promote more Big Pharma patented ‘products’ to deal with those ADRs. Can that be one of the hidden ‘aspects’ for promoting vaccines as assiduously as government health agencies do?
The UK is not unique in ADRs from vaccines.
Every country in the world that has any vaccine program reports serious ADRs.
However, what is unique is that in the USA those ADRs are not permitted to be discussed in the mainstream press and media.
The Independent’s report truly is refreshing insofar as the “cat is out of the bag” definitely, and let’s make certain it stays out; that journalists globally report vaccine damage, and especially in the supposed ‘free’ press of the United States of America.
Back in May of 2013, the U.K. revealed via FOI documents that there were 30 years of secret official documents showing that U.K. government vaccine/medical experts have:
1) known the vaccines don’t work;
2) known they cause the diseases they are supposed to prevent;
3) known they are a hazard to children;
4) colluded to lie to the public; and
5) worked to prevent safety studies!
Can you imagine how many children worldwide would have been saved from lifelong health problems - or even premature deaths - caused by vaccines IF any one of the governments colluding on the above vaccine skullduggery would have had the integrity to tell the world the scientific facts about vaccines:
That Big Pharma’s vaccines actually cause harm; do not prevent disease but cause the very diseases in vaccines? Vaccines preventing diseases probably is the BIGGEST lie ever told! Why?
Because it’s been perpetuated for so long, that most gullible people believe it.
Please check out the Resources section below for additional information, which is only a fraction of what’s going on about vaccines that readers may not know about due to the controlled ‘free’ press in the USA.
The press and media are beholden to Big Pharma, probably because of all the advertising dollars Pharma spends in their daily newspapers and especially on TV. All those erectile dysfunction ads add up to advertising profits! The U.S. FDA also is beholden to Big Pharma for all the funding and consensus science it gets from them.
One last word about vaccines: They are not safe; never have been tested for the ability to cause cancer, interfere with reproduction or fertility, or their ability to cause birth defects (teratogenic). It states that right there on every vaccine package insert.
Next time your MD, employer or school wants to vaccinate you or your child, ask to see the vaccine package insert section that documents in print that the vaccine has never been tested for what was just discussed in the above paragraph.
Ask him/her if he/she knew that, plus why would he/she want to inject you with toxins that can harm, as it explicitly states in the rest of the vaccine package insert, especially when every MD is sworn to do no harm.
This website is optimised for viewing in Mozilla Firefox