A Conversation On Race And Identity Politics April 23 2018 | From: PaulCraigRoberts
We often hear that we need a conversation on race.
Considering that Americans are a brainwashed people living in a false history, such a conversation would resemble the one the Russians were expected to have with the British in regard to the Skripal poisoning: “Yes, we are guilty. We will pay reparations.
Related:Is Identity Politics Brewing a Holocaust?
Where would you like us to send Putin for trial?” In other words, the only acceptable race conversation in the US is one in which white people accept the accusation that they are racist and offer to make amends.
Considering that the only slavery experienced by any living black or white person is income tax slavery, race is an issue only because it has been orchestrated as an issue along with gender and sexual preference.
These divisive issues are the products of Identity Politics spawned by cultural Marxism.
In real Marxism, conflict is class conflict. Workers and capitalists have different interests, and history is a struggle between material interests. The capitalist is the villain and the workers are the victims.
In the pseudo Marxism of Identity Politics, the white race is the villain, especially the white heterosexual male, and racial minorities, women, and homosexuals are the victims.
There is, of course, no such thing as a white or black race. There are many different nationalities of whites, and they have done a good job throughout history of killing each other. Similarly, there are many different black tribes and Asian ethnicities who also have fought more among themselves than with others.
But all of this goes by the wayside, along with the fact that in the world the “racial minorities” are actually majorities and the “white majority” is actually a minority. There are more Chinese or Indians alone than there are white people.
But orchestrated histories are not fact-based.
The working class, designated by Hillary Clinton as “the Trump deplorables,” is now the victimizer, not the victim. Marxism has been stood on its head.
The American ruling class loves Identity Politics, because Identity Politics divides the people into hostile groups and prevents any resistance to the ruling elite. With blacks screaming at whites, women screaming at men, and homosexuals screaming at heterosexuals, there is no one left to scream at the rulers.
The ruling elite favors a “conversation on race,” because the ruling elite know it can only result in accusations that will further divide society. Consequently, the ruling elite have funded “black history,” “women’s studies,” and “transgender dialogues,” in universities as a way to institutionalize the divisiveness that protects them. These “studies” have replaced real history with fake history.
For example, it was once universally known that black slavery originated in slave wars between black African tribes. Slaves were a status symbol, but they accumulated beyond the capacity of tribes to sustain. The surplus was exported first to Arabs and then to English, Spanish, and French who founded colonies in the new world that had resources but no work force.
The socialist scholar Karl Polanyi, brother of my Oxford professor Michael Polanyi, told the story of the origin of the African slave trade in his famous book, Dahomey and the Slave Trade.
The first slaves in the new world were white. When real history was taught, this was widely understood. Movies were even made that showed that in King George III’s England, the alternative to criminal punishment was to be sold as a slave in the colonies.
Among the first New World lands to be exploited by the Europeans were the Carribean Islands, which were suitable for sugar and rice production.
The problem was that the white slaves died like flies from malaria and yellow fever. The Spanish lack of success with a work force of natives of the lands they conquered led those in search of a work force to the slave export business of the black Kingdom of Dahomey.
The demand for black workers rose considerably when it was discovered that many had immunity to malaria and resistance to yellow fever. This meant that a plantation’s investment in a work force was not wiped out by disease.
A relevant historical film is Cecil B. DeMille’s “Unconquered” starring Gary Cooper and Paulette Goddard. Here is the scene of the sentence of slavery:
The movie opens with the starring actress, a beautiful redhead, being sentence to the gallows in an English court in the 1700s. A press gang had seized her brother. In a fight that ensued a royal officer along with the brother were killed. As she was present and apparently part of the fight, she is sentenced to death on the gallows.
She protests and the judge says it is in his power to sentence her instead to be sold as a slave in the colonies. If those readers, who opened the article as soon as it was posted and perhaps clicked the link to the movie, remember the name of the movie and/or the names of the female and male stars will send an email to this website, I can probably locate the movie.
In the meantime, another movie about white English people being sold into slavery is Captain Blood, starring Errol Flynn and Olivia de Havilland, which was made in 1935. In 17th-century England, Irish doctor Peter Blood (Errol Flynn) is summoned to aid Lord Gildoy, a wounded patron who participated in the Monmouth Rebellion.
Arrested while performing his duties as a physician, he is convicted of treason against King James II and sentenced to death by the infamous Judge Jeffreys. By the whim of the king, who sees an opportunity for profit, Blood and the surviving rebels are transported to the West Indies to be sold into slavery. You can read a synopsis of the movie on Wikipedia
Slavery existed in the New World long before the United States came into existence. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson are today written off by Identity Politics as racists simply because they were born when slavery was a pre-existing institution.
Slavery had existed for many centuries prior to the Confederacy. Yet, in some accounts today one comes away with the impression that the South invented slavery.
As the tale sometimes goes, Southern racists so hated blacks that they went to Africa, captured blacks at great expense, only to return them to the South where they whipped and abused their investments to the point of death and demoralized their work force by breaking up black families, selling children in one direction and wives and husbands in the other.
This tale is not told as an occasional abuse but as the general practice. Economically, of course, it makes no sense whatsoever. But facts are no longer part of American history.
Northern states held slaves as well. However, the predominance of slaves were in the South. This was not because Southerners hated blacks. It was because the land in the South supported large agricultural cultivation, and there was no other work force.
The South, like the United States, inherited slavery from the work force that European colonists purchased from the black Kingdom of Dahomey.
Why wasn’t there an alternative work force to slaves? The reason is that new immigrants by moving West could take land from the native Americans and be independent as opposed to being wage earners working on someone else’s land. The Western frontier did not close until about 1900.
At the time of the War of Northern Aggression the Plains Indians still ruled west of the Mississippi River. It was Lincoln’s Northern war criminals, Sherman and Sheridan, who were sent to exterminate the Plains Indians. Ask the American natives, or what is left of them, who the racists are: the Northerners or the Southerners.
Black studies has even corrupted other aspects of history. Consider the so-called “civil war.” The name itself is an orchestration. There was no civil war. There was a War of Northern Aggression. A civil war is when two sides fight for control of the government. The South had left the union and had no interest whatsoever in controlling the government in Washington. The only reason the South fought was that the South was invaded by the North.
Why did the North invade the South? As was once understood by every historian and every student, Abraham Lincoln invaded the South in order, in Lincoln’s own words, expressed time and time again, “to preserve the Union.”
Why did the South leave the Union? Because it was being economically exploited by the North, which, once the North gained the ability to outvote the Southern states, imposed tariffs that benefited the North at the expense of the South.
The North needed protection from British manufactures in order for the economic rise of the North. In contrast, the South’s economy was based on cotton exports to England and on cheap manufactures imported from England.
Tariffs would bring the South higher cost of manufactured goods and retaliation against their cotton exports. The economic interests of the North and South did not coincide.
Slavery had nothing whatsoever to do with the war. Lincoln himself said so over and over. Prior to his invasion of the South, Lincoln and the Northern Congress promised the South Constitutional protection of slavery for all time if the Southern states would stay in the Union.
Historians who have read and recorded the war correspondence of both Union and Confederacy soldiers to relatives and friends at home can find no one fighting for or against slavery. The Northern troops are fighting to preserve the union. The Southern ones are fighting because they are invaded.
Nothing could be clearer. Yet, the myth has been established that Abraham Lincoln went to war in order to free the slaves. In fact, Lincoln said that blacks were not capable of living with whites, who he said were superior, and that his intention was to send the blacks back to Africa. If America ever had a “white supremacist,” it was Abraham Lincoln.
What about the Emancipation Proclamation? Didn’t this order by Lincoln free the blacks? No. It was a war measure on which hopes were placed that, as almost every able-bodied Southern male was in the front lines, the slaves would revolt and rape the Southern soldiers’ wives and daughters, forcing the soldiers to desert the army and return home to protect their families.
As Lincoln’s own Secretary of State said, the president has freed the slaves in the territories that the Union does not control and left them in slavery in the territory that the Union does control.
Why did Lincoln resort to such a dishonorable strategy? The reason is that Lincoln had run through all the Union generals and could not find one that could defeat Robert E. Lee’s vastly outnumbered Army of Northern Virginia.
The character and generalship of Robert E. Lee, who is dismissed by Identity Politics as a white racist, is so highly admired by the United States Army that the Barracks at West Point are named in Lee’s honor. Not even “America’s first black president” was able to change that.
Black history also covers up the fact that Robert E. Lee was offered command of the Union Army. In those days Americans still saw themselves as citizens of their state, not as citizens of the US. Lee refused the offer on the grounds that he could not go to war against his native country of Virginia and resigned his US Army commission.
If Lee had been in command of the Confederacy at the First Battle of Bull Run when the Union Army broke and ran all the way back to Washington, Lee would have followed and the war would have ended with the South’s victory.
But Lee wasn’t there. Instead, the Southern generals concluded, watching the fleeing Union Army, that the Northerns could neither fight, retreat in order, or ride horses, and were no threat whatsoever. This conclusion overlooked the superior manpower of the North, the constant inflow of Irish immigrants who became the Union’s cannon fodder, the Northern manufacturing capability, and the navy that could block Southern ports and starve the South of resources.
During the first two years of the War of Northern Aggression the Union Army never won a battle against Lee’s vastly outgunned army. The North had everything. All the South had was valor. Lincoln was desperate. Opposition to his war was rising in the North.
He had to imprison 300 Northern newspaper editors, exile a US Congressman, and was faced with the North’s most famous general running against him on a peace platform in the next election. Thus, Lincoln’s vain attempt to provoke a slave rebellion in the South. Why didn’t such allegedly horribly treated and oppressed slaves revolt when there was no one to prevent it but women and children?
Everything I have written in this column was once understood by everyone. But it has all been erased and replaced with a false history that serves the ruling elite.
It is not only the ruling elite that has a vested interest in the false history of “white racism,” but also the universities and history departments in which the false history is institutionalized and the foundations that have financed black history, women’s studies, and transgender dialogues.
It was Reconstruction that ruined relations between blacks and whites in the South. The North stuffed blacks down the throats of the defeated South. Blacks were placed in charge of Southern governments in order to protect the Northern carpet baggers who looted and stole from the South.
The occupying Union Army encouraged the blacks to abuse the Southern people, especially the women, as did the Union soldiers. The Klu Klux Klan arose as a guerrilla force to stop the predations. Robert E. Lee himself said that if he had realized how rapacious the North would prove to be, he would have led a guerrilla resistance.
The generations of Americans who have been propagandized instead of educated need to understand that Reconstruction did not mean rebuilding southern infrastructure, cities, and towns destroyed by the Union armies. It did not mean reconstructing southern food production.
It meant reconstructing southern society and governance. Blacks, who were unprepared for the task, were put in control of governments so that carpetbaggers could loot and steal. Whites lost the franchise and protection of law as their property was stolen. Some areas suffered more than others from the Reconstruction practices, which often differed from, and were worse than, the policies themselves.
Reconstruction was a contentious issue even within the Republican Party. Neither president Lincoln nor Johnson would go along with the more extreme Republican elements. The extremism of the Reconstruction policies lost support among the northern people. When the Democrats regained control of the House of Representatives in the 1870s, Reconstruction was brought to an end.
In the South, and most certainly in Atlanta, where I grew up, schools were neighborhood schools. We were segregated by economic class. I went to school with middle class kids from my middle class neighborhood. I did not go to school with rich kids or with poor kids. This segregation was not racial.
When the North again got on its high moral horse and imposed school integration on the South, it disrupted the neighborhood school system. Now kids spent hours riding in school busses to distant locations. This destroyed the parent-teacher associations that had kept parental involvement and displinine in the schools.
The South, being a commonsense people, saw all of this coming. The South also saw Reconstruction all over again. That, and not hatred of blacks, is the reason for the South’s resistance to school integration.
All of America, indeed of the entire West, lives in The Matrix, a concocted reality, except for my readers and the readers of a handful of others who cannot be compromised. Western peoples are so propagandized, so brainwashed, that they have no understanding that their disunity was created in order to make them impotent in the face of a rapacious ruling class, a class whose arrogance and hubris has the world on the brink of nuclear Armageddon.
History as it actually happened is disappearing as those who tell the truth are dismissed as misogynists, racists, homophobes, Putin agents, terrorist sympathizers, anti-semites, and conspiracy theorists. Liberals who complained mightily of McCarthyism now practice it ten-fold.
The brainwashing about the Russian and Muslim threats works for a number of reasons. The superpatriots among the Trump deplorables feel that their patriotism requires them to believe the allegations against Russia, Syria, Iran, and China.
Americans employed in the vast military/security complex understand that the budget that funds the complex in which they have their careers is at stake.
Those who want a wall to keep out foreigners go along with the demonization of Muslims as terrorists who have to be killed “over there before they come over here.” The Democrats want an excuse for having lost the presidential election. And so on. The agendas of various societal elements come together to support the official propaganda.
The United States with its brainwashed and incompetent population - indeed, the entirety of the Western populations are incompetent - and with its absence of intelligent leadership has no chance against Russia and China, two massive countries arising from their overthrow of police states as the West descends into a gestapo state.
The West is over and done with. Nothing remains of the West but the lies used to control the people. All hope is elsewhere.
Indeed, as part of an ongoing investigation about Antifa and white supremacist groups, the journalist sent a request to the Washington State Fusion Center, a Department of Homeland Security, which specializes in counter-terrorism, detecting criminal activity, disaster planning, cyber-security and other threat assessments.
Along with standard documents such as emails, intelligence briefings, and bulletins, the journalist received a bizarre filed named “EM effects on human body.zip”.
One document describes the effects of “psycho-electric weapons” including “forced memory blanking”, “forced rigor-mortis” and even “forced orgasm”.
Although these documents were sent by the WSFC, they do not appear to be created by a government agency. The first image “Psycho-Electric Weapon Effects” appears to be part of a 1996 article from Nexus Magazine which describes a lawsuit brought by John St. Clair Akewi against the NSA.
The 1992 lawsuit claimed that the NSA had the “ability to assassinate US citizens covertly or run covert psychological control operations to cause subjects to be diagnosed with ill mental health”. The article states:
“A lawsuit filed against the U.S. National Security Agency reveals a frightening array of technologies and programs designed to keep tabs on individuals.
The following document comprises evidence for a lawsuit filed at the U.S. Courthouse in Washington, DC, by John St Clair Akwei against the National Security Agency, Ft George G. Meade, Maryland (Civil Action 92-0449), constitutes his knowledge of the NSA’s structure, national security activities proprietary technologies and covert operations to monitor individual citizens Ed.”
The image also contains the web address www.raven1.net which is now offline. The author of the second document appears to go by the name Supratik Saha a “Software And Electronics & Comm. Engg”.
The Muckrock journalist has no idea how he ended up with these documents.
“It’s entirely unclear how this ended up in this release. It could have been meant for another release, it could have been gathered for an upcoming WSFC report, or it could even be from the personal files of an intelligence officer that somehow got mixed up in the release.
A call to the WSFC went unreturned as of press time, so until we hear back, their presence remains a mystery.”
While these documents were probably not created by the government, they appear to be relevant enough for the WSFC to keep them archived.
Could these documents explain the mysterious Cuban “sonic attacks” where 24 government officials suffered “hearing loss, dizziness, sleep and vision problems, tinnitus, headaches, fatigue and brain damage”? Nearly all of these symptoms can be found in the first document.
It doesn’t even hide its intentions, anymore. The intentions are clear: to destroy all of its opponents, be they in Russia, China, Iran or in any other patriotic and independent-minded state.
To silence all the media outlets that are speaking the truth; not the truth as it is defined in London, Washington, Paris or Berlin, but the truth as it is perceived in Moscow, Beijing, Caracas or Teheran; the truth that simply serves the people, not the fake, pseudo-truth fabricated in order to uphold the supremacy of the Western Empire.
Huge funds are now being allocated for the mortal propaganda onslaught, originating predominantly in both London and Washington.
Millions of pounds and dollars have been allocated and spent, officially and openly, in order to ‘counter’ the voices of Russian, Chinese, Arab, Iranian and Latin American people; voices that are finally reaching ‘the Others’ – the desolate inhabitants of the ‘global south’, the dwellers of the colonies and neo-colonies; the modern-day slaves living in the ‘client’ states.
The mask is falling down and the gangrenous face of Western propaganda is being exposed. It is awful, frightening, but at least it is what it is, for everyone to see.
No more suspense, no surprises. It is all suddenly out in the open. It is frightening but honest. This is our world. This is how low our humanity has sunk. This is the so-called world order, or more precisely, neo-colonialism.
The West knows how to slaughter millions, and it knows how to manipulate masses. Its propaganda has always been tough (and repeated a thousand times, not unlike corporate advertisements or the WWII fascist indoctrination campaigns) when it originates in the United States, or brilliantly Machiavellian and lethally effective when coming from the United Kingdom.
Let us never forget: the U.K. has been murdering and enslaving hundreds of millions of innocent and much more advanced human beings, for many long centuries and all over the world.
Due to its talent in brainwashing and manipulating the masses, Great Britain has been getting away with countless genocides, robberies and even managing to convince the world that it should be respected and allowed to retain both a moral mandate and the seat at the U.N. Security Council.
The Western regime knows how to lie, shamelessly but professionally, and above all, perpetually. There are thousands of lies piling up on top of each other, delivered with perfect upper-class ‘educated’ accents: lies about Salisbury, about Communism, Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, Syria, Yugoslavia, Rwanda, South Africa, Libya, refugees. There are lies about the past, present and even about the future.
Nobody is laughing, seeing such imperialist thugs like the U.K. and France preaching, all over the world and with straight face, about both freedom and human rights. Not laughing, yet. But many are slowly getting outraged.
People in the Middle East, Africa, Asia and Latin America are beginning to realize that they have been fooled, cheated, lied to; that the so called ‘education’ and ‘information’ coming from the West have been nothing else other than shameless indoctrination campaigns.
For years I worked on all continents, compiling stories and testimonies about the crimes of imperialism, and about the awakening of the world, ‘summarized’ in my 840-page book: “Exposing Lies Of The Empire”.
Millions can now see, for the first time, that media outlets such as BBC, DW, CNN, Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, have been encoding them mercilessly and thoroughly, for years and decades.
Reuters, AP, AFP and several other Western press agencies, have managed to create a uniformed narrative for the entire planet, with local newspapers everywhere in the world now publishing identical fabrications that originate from Washington, London, Paris and other Western capitals.
Totally false pictures about such important subjects as the Soviet Union, Communism, China, but also freedom and democracy, have been engraved into billions of human brains.
The main reason for the opening of the eyes of people of the world which is still oppressed by Western imperialism, is, the relentless work of media outlets such as the Russian-based New Eastern Outlook (NEO), RT and Sputnik, as China-based CGTN, China Radio International and China Daily, Venezuela-based TeleSur, Lebanese Al-Mayadeen, and Iranian Press TV.
Of course, there are many other proud and determined anti-imperialist media outlets in various parts of the world, but the above-mentioned ones are the most important vehicles of the counter-propaganda coming from the countries that fought for their freedom and simply refused to be conquered, colonized, prostituted and brainwashed by the West.
One mighty anti-imperialist coalition of truly independent states has been forming and solidifying. It is now inspiring billions of oppressed human beings everywhere on Earth, giving them hope, promising a better, optimistic and just future. Standing at the vanguard of many positive changes and expectations is the ‘new media’.
And the West is watching, horrified, desperate and increasingly vitriolic. It is willing to destroy, to kill and to crush, just in order to stop this wave of ‘dangerous optimism’ and strive for true independence and freedom.
There are now constant attacks against the new media of the free world. In the West, RT is being threatened with expulsion, brilliant and increasingly popular New Eastern Outlook (NEO) came just recently under vicious cyber-attack from, most likely, professional Western hackers.
TeleSur is periodically crippled by sanctions shamefully unleashed against Venezuela, and the same banditry is targeting Iranian Press TV.
You see, the West may be responsible for billions of ruined lives everywhere in the world, but it is still faces no sanctions, no punitive actions.
While countries like Russia, Iran, China, Cuba, DPRK or Venezuela have to ‘face consequences’ mainly in the form of embargos, sanctions, propaganda, direct intimidation, even military bullying, simply for refusing to accept the insane Western global dictatorship, and for choosing their own form of the government and political as well as economic system.
The West simply doesn’t seem to be able to tolerate dissent. It requires full and unconditional obedience, an absolute submission. It acts as both religious fundamentalist and a global thug. And to make things worse, its citizens appear to be so programmed or so indifferent or both, that they are not capable of comprehending what their countries and their ‘culture’ are doing to the rest of the world.
When being interviewed, I am often asked: “is the world facing real danger of WWIII?”
I always reply “yes”. It is because it appears that both North America and Europe are unable to stop forcing the world into obedience and to virtual slavery. They appear to be unwilling to accept any rational and democratic arrangement on our Planet. Would they sacrifice one, tens or hundreds of millions of human beings, just in order to retain control over the universe? Definitely they would!
They already have, on several occasions, without thinking twice, with no regret and no mercy.
The gamble of the Western fundamentalists is that the rest of the world is so much more decent and much less brutal, that it could not stomach yet another war, another carnage, another bloodbath; that it rather surrenders, rather gives up all its dreams for a much better future, instead of fighting and defending itself against what increasingly appears to be an inevitable Western military attack.
Such calculations and ‘hopes’ of the Western fanatics are false. Countries that are now being confronted and intimidated are well aware what to expect if they give up and surrender to Western insanity and imperialist designs.
People know, they remember what it is like to be enslaved.
Russia under Yeltsin, collapsed, being plundered by Western corporations, being spat at, in the face, by the European and North American governments; its life expectancy dropped to sub-Saharan African levels.
China survived unimaginable agony of “humiliation period’, being ransacked, plundered and divided by French, British and the U.S. invaders.
Iran robbed of its legitimate and socialist government, having to live under a sadistic maniac, the Western puppet, the Shah.
The entire ‘Latin’ America, with its open veins, with ruined culture, with Western religion forced down its throat; with literally all democratically-elected socialist and Communist governments and leaders either overthrown, or directly murdered, or at least manipulated out of power by Washington and its lackeys.
North Korea, survivor of a beastly genocide against its civilians, committed by the U.S. and its allies in the so-called Korean War.
Vietnam and Laos, raped and humiliated by the French, and then bombed to the stone ages by the U.S. and its allies.
South Africa… East Timor… Cambodia…
There are living carcasses, decomposing horrid wrecks, left after the Western deadly ‘liberating’ embraces: Libya and Iraq, Afghanistan and Honduras, Indonesia and the Democratic Republic of Congo, to name just a few. These are serving as warnings to those who still have some illusions left about the Western ‘good will’ and spirit of justice!
Syria… Oh Syria! Just look what the West has done to a proud and beautiful country which refused to fall on its knees and lick Washington’s and London’s feet. But also, look how strong, how determined those who truly love their country can be.
Against all odds, Syria stood up, it fought foreign-backed terrorists, and it won, surrounded and supported by the great internationalist coalition!
The West thought it was triggering yet another Libyan scenario, but instead, it encountered an iron fist, nerves of steel, another Stalingrad. Fascism was identified, confronted and stopped. At an enormous cost, but stopped!
The entire Middle East is watching. The entire world is watching.
People now see and they remember. They are beginning to remember clearly what happened to them. They are starting to understand. They are emboldened. They clearly comprehend that slavery is not the only way to live their lives.
The Anti-Western or more precisely, anti-imperialist coalition is now solid like steel. Because it is one great coalition of victims, of people who know what rape is and what plunder is, and what thorough destruction is.
They know precisely what is administered by the self-proclaimed champions of freedom and democracy – by the Western cultural and economic fundamentalism.
This coalition of independent and proud nations is here to protect itself, to protect each other, as well as the rest of the world.
It will never surrender, never back up. Because the people have spoken and they are sending clear messages to their leaders:
“Never again! Do not capitulate. Do not yield to the Western intimidations. We will fight if attacked. And we will stand, proudly, on our own feet, no matter what, no matter what brutal force we have to face.
Never on our knees, comrades! We will never again fall to our knees in front of those who are spreading terror!”
And the media in these wonderful countries that are resisting Western imperialism and terror is spreading countless optimistic and brave messages.
And the Western establishing is watching and shaking and soiling its pants.
It knows the end of its brutal rule over the world is approaching. It knows those days of impunity are ending. It knows the world will soon judge the West, for the centuries of crimes it has been committing against humanity.
It knows that the media war will be won by ‘us’, not by ‘them’.
The battlefield is being defined. With some bright exceptions, the Westerners and their media outlets are closing ranks, sticking to their masters. Like several other writers, I had been unceremoniously kicked out from Counterpunch, one of the increasingly anti-Communist, anti-Russian, anti-Syrian and anti-Chinese U.S.-based publications.
From their point of view, I was writing for several ‘wrong’ publications. I am actually proud that they stopped publishing me. I am fine where I am: facing them, as I am facing other mass-circulation media outlets of the West.
The extent of Western ideological control of the world is degenerate, truly perverse. Its media and ‘educational’ outlets are fully at the service of the regime.
But the world is waking up and confronting this deadly cultural and political fundamentalism.
A great ideological battle is on. These are exciting, bright times. Nothing could be worse than slavery. Chains are being broken. From now on, there will be no impunity for those who have been torturing the world for centuries.
Their lies, as well as their armor, will be confronted and stopped!
Taking shape in the United States and throughout the world in recent history is the gradual transformation of how media, particularly journalism, is created and distributed. Independent media companies have been folded into larger corporations, and virtually all “local” television stations have been purchased by giant corporations.
The end result is hundreds upon hundreds of entities suffering from a troubling lack of autonomy.
Ben Swann - an Emmy-winning investigative journalist and the founder of Truth In Media and Reality Check series - is fully aware of this transformation, as he has spent the majority of his career devoted to remaining a completely independent journalist not bound to any influence or higher authority.
Over the last 20 years across multiple stations, Swann amassed awards for his investigative reports, yet found himself at odds with executive leadership seeking to maintain more routine reporting.
This clash was particularly apparent when Swann began a series called Reality Check that discussed current US and international events while providing critical context missing from traditional mainstream media reports on those same issues.
For example, during the early years of Reality Check Swann covered the 2012 Republican Presidential primary and opted to scrutinize issues in the US electoral process and the methods used by mainstream media to gloss over overlooked aspects of the system.
Also during the early stages of Reality Check, Swann took unprecedented action as a journalist by directly confronting President Barack Obama about the Constitutionality of his little-known “kill list,” and went on to grill Mitt Romney about using coercion on delegates during the 2012 Republican National Convention.
Despite being advised to take a conventional approach to reporting, Swann continued to stay true to his principles and founded the Truth In Media Project in 2013, where he created two seasons of episodes that closely examined the Federal Reserve, police militarization, crony capitalism, the origin of ISIS, the government’s grip on cannabis, the conflict in Syria, and more.
Along with continued Reality Check episodes and a network of additional independent journalists creating content for the Truth In Media Project, Swann has attracted an audience of tens of millions of people spanning the political, geographical and social spectrum.
In early 2017, his commitment to sovereign reporting clashed with limitations handed down to him in his “day job” as a news anchor; by February of 2017, Ben’s independent endeavors ground to a halt. For the remainder of the year, Swann sought and ultimately discovered the key to true independence: decentralization and an organization known as a DAO.
Decentralization means that there is no single person, or group of people, that has control over an organization. A DAO is a decentralized autonomous organization; in a DAO, an organization operates within a set of guidelines but is free from any ruler or group of rulers, and operates with all aspects of the organization funded by the network itself.
A DAO is the antithesis of a centralized corporation that is often suppressed by layers upon layers of bureaucracy. The DAO of Dash, a revolutionary digital currency, features a treasury in which a network of participants may vote to allocate portions to a number of projects submitted through a proposal process.
The structure is similar to a sponsorship, but the key distinction of a DAO is that there’s no central authority to mandate terms. The Dash DAO has funded numerous proposals, with Swann’s Reality Check Series and Truth In Media Project being among the most significant proposal in Dash’s history.
Independent media is often incredibly difficult to pull off successfully, especially when reporting on issues that powerful conglomerates don’t want discussed.
There is no doubt that Swann has always aimed for disruptive, informative journalism, which is embraced by citizens yet often unwelcome in most media corporations.
As Swann has aimed to disrupt the media, the Dash DAO has disrupted the financial industry. The unique harmony between the Dash DAO and Swann has eliminated journalistic constraints previously laid out by corporate media, and is the world’s most detailed illustration of how decentralization is able to put the power back into the hands of the creator.
Decentralization is an immensely powerful element, and it’s not limited to the financial sector. It can be applied to virtually any industry, and the Dash DAO is responsible for a historic, revolutionary transformation in media with Swann becoming the first journalist in the world to be powered by decentralization.
'Alien' Mummies From Peru Have Human Chromosome Numbers, But Not Anatomy – Scientists April 22 2018 | From: RT
Russian researchers have analyzed tissue samples from one of the mysterious alien creatures uncovered in Peru last year. The mummy, with an elongated skull and only three fingers, has excited ufologists since its discovery.
A professor of the National Research University in St. Petersburg, Konstantin Korotkov, and Natalya Zaloznaya, radiologist and specialist in computer tomography at the International Biological Systems Institute, collected the tissue samples in Peru and brought them back to St. Petersburg for analysis.
Professor Korotkov is known for his research into dubious scientific phenomena. He is, among other things, a proponent of the use of 1930s photography techniques to create images of peoples' auras, which he claims can be used to diagnose illness in place of X-ray scans and tomography.
He also claims to have found proof of life after death and filmed the activity of a dead person's soul.
Korotkov believes Maria could be a representative of a certain race that evolved much earlier than we did, “maybe thousands of years earlier,” he said. The professor hypothesized that this race may have perished as a result of a flood or a comet strike.
The team is now keen to find out how Maria’s composition resembles that of people in South America, Africa or elsewhere. “Right now we are making a detailed analysis to see if the position of all the chromosomes, of all the amino acids, coincides with ours,”said Korotkov to Mir 24.
X-ray and computer tomography showed Maria has a very different rib structure to that of humans. Keel-shaped in the upper part with a handful of semicircular ribs, the cage protects the creature’s internal organs, which do resemble those of humans.
"We clearly see the contours of the trachea and the bronchi, of the heart and its chambers; we can even see the shape of the valves. We can also see quite clearly the contours of the diaphragm, the liver and the spleen," explains Zaloznaya.
Scientists also found Maria was embalmed in a cadmium chloride white powder, the antibacterial effect of which has preserved Maria to this day.
The researchers are now working closely with their Peruvian colleagues to continue deciphering the genome and break its DNA code, reports Mir 24. They’re even hopeful of one day convincing authorities to bring the mummy to Russia.
Aside from Maria, Professor Korotkov witnessed four more mummies in Peru, all male with a DNA of 23 pairs of chromosomes, like us. However, “they appear human but they are not. Their anatomic structure is different” says Korotkov.
An Honest Assessment Of Putin + Kremlin Publishes Full Megan Kelly Putin Interview - NBC Cut The Best Parts April 21 2018 | From: PaulCraigRoberts / RussiaInsider / Various
Here is an assessment of Putin by Sharon Tennison who for 20 years ran a NGO in Russia funded by USAID and the US Department of State.
From the questions Tennison asks at the end about the US projecting its own bad behavior onto Putin, it is obvious that Tennison is unaware that Russia is targeted for two main reasons. One is that the military/security complex needs an enemy to justify its enormous budget and power. The other is that the neoconservatives who control US foreign policy believe in US hegemony over the world, and Russia is able to block US unilateralism.
Related:Megan Kelly, as silly as she is, has ended up being a conveyer of Russian truth to Americans
Nevertheless, Tennison’s assessment of Putin is honest. It demonstrates clearly the lies we are told by “our” government and “our” media.
An Honest Assessment Of Putin
As the Ukraine situation has worsened, unconscionable misinformation and hype is being poured on Russia and Vladimir Putin. Journalists and pundits must scour the Internet and thesauruses to come up with fiendish new epithets to describe both.
Wherever I make presentations across America, the first question ominously asked during Q&A is always, “What about Putin?” It’s time to share my thoughts which follow:
Putin obviously has his faults and makes mistakes. Based on my earlier experience with him, and the experiences of trusted people, including U.S. officials who have worked closely with him over a period of years, Putin most likely is a straight, reliable and exceptionally inventive man.
He is obviously a long-term thinker and planner and has proven to be an excellent analyst and strategist. He is a leader who can quietly work toward his goals under mounds of accusations and myths that have been steadily leveled at him since he became Russia’s second president.
I’ve stood by silently watching the demonization of Putin grow since it began in the early 2000's - I pondered on computer my thoughts and concerns, hoping eventually to include them in a book (which was published in 2011). The book explains my observations more thoroughly than this article.
Like others who have had direct experience with this little known man, I’ve tried to no avail to avoid being labeled a “Putin apologist”. If one is even neutral about him, they are considered “soft on Putin” by pundits, news hounds and average citizens who get their news from CNN, Fox and MSNBC.
I don’t pretend to be an expert, just a program developer in the USSR and Russia for the past 30 years. But during this time, I’ve have had far more direct, on-ground contact with Russians of all stripes across 11 time zones than any of the Western reporters or for that matter any of Washington’s officials.
I’ve been in country long enough to ponder on Russian history and culture deeply, to study their psychology and conditioning, and to understand the marked differences between American and Russian mentalities which so complicate our political relations with their leaders.
As with personalities in a family or a civic club or in a city hall, it takes understanding and compromise to be able to create workable relationships when basic conditionings are different. Washington has been notoriously disinterested in understanding these differences and attempting to meet Russia halfway.
In addition to my personal experience with Putin, I’ve had discussions with numerous American officials and U.S. businessmen who have had years of experience working with him - I believe it is safe to say that none would describe him as “brutal” or “thuggish”, or the other slanderous adjectives and nouns that are repeatedly used in western media.
I met Putin years before he ever dreamed of being president of Russia, as did many of us working in St.Petersburg during the 1990s. Since all of the slander started, I’ve become nearly obsessed with understanding his character. I think I’ve read every major speech he has given (including the full texts of his annual hours-long telephone “talk-ins” with Russian citizens).
I’ve been trying to ascertain whether he has changed for the worse since being elevated to the presidency, or whether he is a straight character cast into a role he never anticipated - and is using sheer wits to try to do the best he can to deal with Washington under extremely difficult circumstances.
If the latter is the case, and I think it is, he should get high marks for his performance over the past 14 years. It’s not by accident that Forbes declared him the most Powerful Leader of 2013, replacing Obama who was given the title for 2012. The following is my one personal experience with Putin.
The Year Was 1992
Putin with Anatoly Sobchak, Mayor of St. Petersburg, early 1990s. Putin was one of Sobchak’s deputies from 1992-96
It was two years after the implosion of communism; the place was St.Petersburg.
For years I had been creating programs to open up relations between the two countries and hopefully to help Soviet people to get beyond their entrenched top-down mentalities. A new program possibility emerged in my head. Since I expected it might require a signature from the Marienskii City Hall, an appointment was made.
My friend Volodya Shestakov and I showed up at a side door entrance to the Marienskii building. We found ourselves in a small, dull brown office, facing a rather trim nondescript man in a brown suit.
He inquired about my reason for coming in. After scanning the proposal I provided he began asking intelligent questions. After each of my answers, he asked the next relevant question.
I became aware that this interviewer was different from other Soviet bureaucrats who always seemed to fall into chummy conversations with foreigners with hopes of obtaining bribes in exchange for the Americans’ requests. CCI stood on the principle that we would never, never give bribes.
This bureaucrat was open, inquiring, and impersonal in demeanor. After more than an hour of careful questions and answers, he quietly explained that he had tried hard to determine if the proposal was legal, then said that unfortunately at the time it was not. A few good words about the proposal were uttered. That was all. He simply and kindly showed us to the door.
Out on the sidewalk, I said to my colleague, “Volodya, this is the first time we have ever dealt with a Soviet bureaucrat who didn’t ask us for a trip to the US or something valuable!”
I remember looking at his business card in the sunlight - it read Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin.
U.S. Consul General Jack Gosnell put in an SOS call to me in St.Petersburg. He had 14 Congress members and the new American Ambassador to Russia, Thomas Pickering, coming to St.Petersburg in the next three days. He needed immediate help.
I scurried over to the Consulate and learned that Jack intended me to brief this auspicious delegation and the incoming ambassador.
I was stunned but he insisted. They were coming from Moscow and were furious about how U.S. funding was being wasted there. Jack wanted them to hear the”good news” about CCI’s programs that were showing fine results.
In the next 24 hours Jack and I also set up “home” meetings in a dozen Russian entrepreneurs’ small apartments for the arriving dignitaries (St.Petersburg State Department people were aghast, since it had never been done before - but Jack overruled).
Only later in 2000, did I learn of Jack’s former three-year experience with Vladimir Putin in the 1990s while the latter was running the city for Mayor Sobchak. More on this further down.
December 31, 1999
Boris Nikolayevich Yeltsin leaves the Kremlin on the day of his resignation, December 31 1999. Prime Minister Putin (second left) became acting president
With no warning, at the turn of the year, President Boris Yeltsin made the announcement to the world that from the next day forward he was vacating his office and leaving Russia in the hands of an unknown Vladimir Putin.
On hearing the news, I thought surely not the Putin I remembered -he could never lead Russia. The next day a NYT article included a photo.
Yes, it was the same Putin I’d met years ago! I was shocked and dismayed, telling friends, “This is a disaster for Russia, I’ve spent time with this guy, he is too introverted and too intelligent - he will never be able to relate to Russia’s masses.”
Further, I lamented:
“For Russia to get up off of its knees, two things must happen: 1) The arrogant young oligarchs have to be removed by force from the Kremlin, and 2) A way must be found to remove the regional bosses (governors) from their fiefdoms across Russia’s 89 regions”.
It was clear to me that the man in the brown suit would never have the instincts or guts to tackle Russia’s overriding twin challenges.
Almost immediately Putin began putting Russia’s oligarchs on edge. In February a question about the oligarchs came up; he clarified with a question and his answer:
“What should be the relationship with the so-called oligarchs? The same as anyone else. The same as the owner of a small bakery or a shoe repair shop.”
This was the first signal that the tycoons would no longer be able to flaunt government regulations or count on special access in the Kremlin. It also made the West’s capitalists nervous.
After all, these oligarchs were wealthy untouchable businessmen - good capitalists, never mind that they got their enterprises illegally and were putting their profits in offshore banks.
Four months later Putin called a meeting with the oligarchs and gave them his deal:
They could keep their illegally-gained wealth-producing Soviet enterprises and they would not be nationalized …. IF taxes were paid on their revenues and if they personally stayed out of politics.
This was the first of Putin’s “elegant solutions” to the near impossible challenges facing the new Russia. But the deal also put Putin in crosshairs with US media and officials who then began to champion the oligarchs, particularly Mikhail Khodorkovsky.
The latter became highly political, didn’t pay taxes, and prior to being apprehended and jailed was in the process of selling a major portion of Russia’s largest private oil company, Yukos Oil, to Exxon Mobil. Unfortunately, to U.S. media and governing structures, Khodorkovsky became a martyr (and remains so up to today).
I arrived in St.Petersburg. A Russian friend (a psychologist) since 1983 came for our usual visit. My first question was, “Lena what do you think about your new president?” She laughed and retorted, “Volodya! I went to school with him!”
She began to describe Putin as a quiet youngster, poor, fond of martial arts, who stood up for kids being bullied on the playgrounds. She remembered him as a patriotic youth who applied for the KGB prematurely after graduating secondary school (they sent him away and told him to get an education).
He went to law school, later reapplied and was accepted. I must have grimaced at this, because Lena said:
“Sharon in those days we all admired the KGB and believed that those who worked there were patriots and were keeping the country safe. We thought it was natural for Volodya to choose this career.”
My next question was:
“What do you think he will do with Yeltsin’s criminals in the Kremlin?”
Putting on her psychologist hat, she pondered and replied:
“If left to his normal behaviors, he will watch them for a while to be sure what is going on, then he will throw up some flares to let them know that he is watching. If they don’t respond, he will address them personally, then if the behaviors don’t change - some will be in prison in a couple of years.”
I congratulated her via email when her predictions began to show up in real time.
Throughout the 2000's
St.Petersburg’s many CCI alumni were being interviewed to determine how the PEP business training program was working and how we could make the U.S. experience more valuable for their new small businesses. Most believed that the program had been enormously important, even life changing. Last, each was asked:
“So what do you think of your new president?”
None responded negatively, even though at that time entrepreneurs hated Russia’s bureaucrats. Most answered similarly, “Putin registered my business a few years ago”.
To a person they replied, “Putin didn’t charge anything”. One said:
“We went to Putin’s desk because the others providing registrations at the Marienskii were getting ‘rich on their seats.’”
Into Putin’s first year as Russia’s president, US officials seemed to me to be suspect that he would be antithetical to America’s interests - his every move was called into question in American media.
I couldn’t understand why and was chronicling these happenings in my computer and newsletters.
Jack Gosnell (former USCG mentioned earlier) explained his relationship with Putin when the latter was deputy mayor of St.Petersburg. The two of them worked closely to create joint ventures and other ways to promote relations between the two countries. Jack related that Putin was always straight up, courteous and helpful.
When Putin’s wife, Ludmila, was in a severe auto accident, Jack took the liberty (before informing Putin) to arrange hospitalization and airline travel for her to get medical care in Finland. When Jack told Putin, he reported that the latter was overcome by the generous offer, but ended saying that he couldn’t accept this favor, that Ludmila would have to recover in a Russian hospital.
She did - although medical care in Russia was abominably bad in the 1990s.
A senior CSIS officer I was friends with in the 2000s worked closely with Putin on a number of joint ventures during the 1990s. He reported that he had no dealings with Putin that were questionable, that he respected him and believed he was getting an undeserved dour reputation from U.S. media.
Matter of fact, he closed the door at CSIS when we started talking about Putin. I guessed his comments wouldn’t be acceptable if others were listening.
Another former U.S. official who will go unidentified, also reported working closely with Putin, saying there was never any hint of bribery, pressuring, nothing but respectable behaviors and helpfulness.
I had two encounters in 2013 with State Department officials regarding Putin:
At the first one, I felt free to ask the question I had previously yearned to get answered:
“When did Putin become unacceptable to Washington officials and why??
Without hesitating the answer came back:
"The knives were drawn’ when it was announced that Putin would be the next president.”
I questioned WHY? The answer:
“I could never find out why - maybe because he was KGB.”
I offered that Bush # I, was head of the CIA. The reply was:
“That would have made no difference, he was our guy."
The second was a former State Department official with whom I recently shared a radio interview on Russia. Afterward when we were chatting, I remarked, “You might be interested to know that I’ve collected experiences of Putin from numerous people, some over a period of years, and they all say they had no negative experiences with Putin and there was no evidence of taking bribes”. He firmly replied:
“No one has ever been able to come up with a bribery charge against Putin.”
From 2001 up to today, I’ve watched the negative U.S. media mounting against Putin - even accusations of assassinations, poisonings, and comparing him to Hitler.
No one yet has come up with any concrete evidence for these allegations. During this time, I’ve traveled throughout Russia several times every year, and have watched the country slowly change under Putin’s watch. Taxes were lowered, inflation lessened, and laws slowly put in place.
Schools and hospitals began improving. Small businesses were growing, agriculture was showing improvement, and stores were becoming stocked with food.
Alcohol challenges were less obvious, smoking was banned from buildings, and life expectancy began increasing. Highways were being laid across the country, new rails and modern trains appeared even in far out places, and the banking industry was becoming dependable.
Russia was beginning to look like a decent country - certainly not where Russians hoped it to be long term, but improving incrementally for the first time in their memories.
My 2013/14 Trips to Russia
In addition to St.Petersburg and Moscow, in September I traveled out to the Ural Mountains, spent time in Ekaterinburg, Chelyabinsk and Perm. We traveled between cities via autos and rail - the fields and forests look healthy, small towns sport new paint and construction. Today’s Russians look like Americans (we get the same clothing from China).
Old concrete Khrushchev block houses are giving way to new multi-story private residential complexes which are lovely. High-rise business centers, fine hotels and great restaurants are now common place - and ordinary Russians frequent these places. Two and three story private homes rim these Russian cities far from Moscow.
We visited new museums, municipal buildings and huge super markets. Streets are in good repair, highways are new and well marked now, service stations look like those dotting American highways. In January I went to Novosibirsk out in Siberia where similar new architecture was noted.
Streets were kept navigable with constant snowplowing, modern lighting kept the city bright all night, lots of new traffic lights (with seconds counting down to light change) have appeared.
It is astounding to me how much progress Russia has made in the past 14 years since an unknown man with no experience walked into Russia’s presidency and took over a country that was flat on its belly.
So why do our leaders and media demean and demonize Putin and Russia???
Like Lady MacBeth, do they protest too much?
Psychologists tell us that people (and countries?) project off on others what they don’t want to face in themselves. Others carry our “shadow” when we refuse to own it. We confer on others the very traits that we are horrified to acknowledge in ourselves.
Could this be why we constantly find fault with Putin and Russia?
Could it be that we project on to Putin the sins of ourselves and our leaders?
Could it be that we condemn Russia’s corruption, acting like the corruption within our corporate world doesn’t exist?
Could it be that we condemn their human rights and LGBT issues, not facing the fact that we haven’t solved our own?
Could it be that we accuse Russia of “reconstituting the USSR” - because of what we do to remain the world’s “hegemon”?
Could it be that we project nationalist behaviors on Russia, because that is what we have become and we don’t want to face it?
Could it be that we project warmongering off on Russia, because of what we have done over the past several administrations?
Some of you were around Putin in the earlier years. Please share your opinions, pro and con …. confidentiality will be assured. It’s important to develop a composite picture of this demonized leader and get the record straight.
I’m quite sure that 99% of those who excoriate him in mainstream media have had no personal contact with him at all. They write articles on hearsay, rumors and fabrication, or they read scripts others have written on their tele-prompters. This is how our nation [the West] gets its “news”, such as it is.
There is a well known code of ethics among us: Is it the Truth, Is it Fair, Does it build Friendship and Goodwill, and Will it be Beneficial for All Concerned?
It seems to me that if Western leaders would commit to using these four principles in international relations, the world would operate in a completely different manner, and human beings across this planet would live in better conditions than they do today.
Megyn Kelly: So, thank you very much for doing this, Mr President. I thought that we’d start with some of the news you made today at your State of the Nation Address, then we will move into some facts about you in preparation for our long piece that we are putting together, and then tomorrow when we will have a longer time together, we will talk about more substantive issues together, if that is ok with you.
Vladimir Putin: Fine.
Megyn Kelly: You announced today that Russia has developed new nuclear-capable weapons systems, including an intercontinental ballistic missile that you say renders defence systems useless. Several analysts in the West have said this is a declaration of a new Cold War. Are we in a new arms race right now?
Vladimir Putin: In my opinion, the people you have mentioned are not analysts. What they do is propaganda. Why? Because everything I spoke about today was done not on our initiative, it is a response to the US ballistic missile defence programme and Washington’s unilateral withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002.
If we speak of the arms race, it began at that very moment, when the United States pulled out of the ABM Treaty. We wanted to prevent this. We called on our American partners to work together on these programmes.
Firstly, we asked them not to withdraw from the treaty, not to destroy it. But the US pulled out. It was not us who did this but the US.
Yet we again suggested we work together even after this. I told my colleague then, “Imagine what would happen if Russia and the US joined forces in the crucial area of strategic security. The world would change for a long period to come, and the level of global security would rise to an all-time high.” The reply was, “This is very interesting.” But they ultimately rejected all our proposals.
Then I said, “You understand that we will have to improve our offensive arms systems to maintain a balance and to have the ability to overcome your BMD systems.” They replied that they were not developing the BMD systems to counter us, that we were free to do as we pleased, and that they would not view our actions as spearheaded against the US.
Megyn Kelly: That happened right after 9/11, three months after 9/11.
Vladimir Putin: No, it was after the US withdrew from the ABM Treaty in 2002, and the conversations I mentioned were in 2003–2004.
Megyn Kelly: At the time that happened, I believe you were quoted as saying that you thought it was a mistake on the part of the United States, but not a threat. Do you perceive the United States as a threat today?
Vladimir Putin: We have always said that developing the missile defence system creates a threat to us. We have always said that. Our American partners would not publicly admit it, claiming that the system was spearheaded mainly against Iran. But eventually, in conversations and during talks they admitted that, of course, the system will destroy our nuclear deterrence potential.
Imagine the situation. What was the point of signing the treaty back in 1972? The United States and the Soviet Union had only two regions that they defended from missile attacks: one in the United States and one in the Soviet Union. That created a threat for a potential aggressor who would be struck in response. In 2002, the United States said, “We do not need this anymore. We will create anything we want, globally, all over the world.”
Megyn Kelly: Again, it was in the wake of 9/11, just to make it clear. 9/11 happened on September 11, 2001, and the United States was reassessing its security posture in the world for good reason, wouldn’t you admit?
Vladimir Putin: No, not for good reason.This is complete nonsense. Because the missile defence system protects from the kind of ballistic missiles that no terrorists have in their arsenal. This is an explanation for the housewives watching your programme. But if these housewives can hear what I am saying, if you show it to them and they hear me, they will understand that 9/11 and the missile defence system are completely unrelated. To defend themselves from terrorist attacks, the major powers must join their efforts against the terrorists rather than create threats for each other.
Megyn Kelly: About the weapon that you announced today, the ICBM, have you actually tested it and it works? Because some analysts are suggesting that you have tested it, and it failed. And that is why you only showed animations of it today, and have not yet produced any actual videos.
Vladimir Putin: I spoke about several systems today. Which one are you referring to, the heavy-duty intercontinental ballistic missile?
Megyn Kelly: Yes, the one that you claimed renders defence systems useless.
Vladimir Putin: All the systems I mentioned today easily overcome missile defence. Each one of them. This is the point of all these developments.
Megyn Kelly: But you have tested it?
Vladimir Putin: Yes, of course.
Megyn Kelly: And it worked?
Vladimir Putin: It did, very well.
Some of these systems require additional work. Some of them are already deployed. Some are in serial production.
Getting back to the beginning of our conversation, there is a missile defence system deployed in Alaska. The distance between Russia’s Chukotka and Alaska is only 60 kilometres.
Two systems are being deployed in Eastern Europe. One is already in place in Romania. Construction of another one is almost finished in Poland. There is also the navy. US ships are based very close to Russian shores both in the south and the north.
Imagine if we placed our missile systems along the US-Mexico or the US-Canada border in their territories on both sides and brought our ships in from both sides. What would you say? Would you take action? Meanwhile we would respond that you are escalating the arms race? Ridiculous, isn’t it? This is exactly what is happening.
Megyn Kelly: Just to come back. Are you saying that we are in a new arms race?
Vladimir Putin: I want to say that the United States, when it withdrew from the ABM Treaty in 2002, forced us to begin developing new weapon systems. We told our partners about it, and they said, “Do whatever you like.” Fine, that is what we did – so enjoy.
Megyn Kelly: You disclosed that Russia was developing an intercontinental ballistic missile that was powered by nukes that could render defence systems useless?
Vladimir Putin: Of course not. I did not know at the time how we could respond, to be honest. So it seems that our partners believed we would have nothing to respond with. Our economy was is dire straits, as well as the defence sector and the army. Therefore, I do not think anobody could have thought that in such a short period of time we would be able to make such a gigantic leap in the development of strategic weapons. I think the CIA must have told the US President that we would not do anything in response. While the Pentagon said something like, “And we will develop a powerful cutting-edge global anti-missile system.” So they did.
But I will answer your question directly. I can tell you what we told our American partners, what I said personally at the time.
Megyn Kelly: Just to clarify, do you mean George W. Bush?
Vladimir Putin: Who was President in 2002, 2003 and 2004?
Megyn Kelly: But did this happen continuously or just during that timeframe?
Vladimir Putin: Actually, we kept going on about it for 15 years. I said, almost literally, that we would not develop a system of anti-missile defence the way you are doing. Firstly, because it is too expensive, and we do not have the resources. And secondly, we do not know yet how it would work: you do not know, and we certainly do not either.
But, to preserve the strategic balance so that you would not be able to zero out our nuclear deterrence forces, we will develop strike systems that will be able to break your anti-missile systems.
We said this plainly and openly, without any aggression, I just told stated we would do. Nothing personal.
And the response was, “We are not doing this against you, but you do whatever you want and we will presume that it is not directed against us, not against the United States.”
Megyn Kelly: Let us talk about present day and going forward, because what you said today was that you would use these weapons if Russia or her allies come under attack. And the question is whether you meant any attack or only a nuclear attack on Russia or its allies?
Vladimir Putin: I heard you.
I would also like to say that in 2004 – I mentioned this today –I said at a news conference that we will be developing weapons and even mentioned a concrete missile system, Avangard as we call it.
It is called Avangard now, but then I simply spoke of how it would work. I openly said how it would work. We hoped that this would be heard and the US would discuss it with us and discuss cooperation. But no, it was as if they had not heard us. Strategic offensive arms reduction and an antimissile defence system are different things.
Megyn Kelly: So, you didn’t feel like you needed to disclose.
Vladimir Putin: We will be reducing the number of delivery vehicles and warheads under the New START Treaty. This means that the numbers will be reduced on both sides, but at the same time, one party, the United States, will be developing antimissile systems.
This will ultimately lead to a situation where all our nuclear missiles, Russia’s entire missile potential will be reduced to zero. This is why we have always linked this. This is how it was in the Soviet-American times; these are natural things, everyone understands this.
Megyn Kelly: But is it your contention that the 4,000 nukes that Russia now has cannot penetrate the existing military defence system?
Vladimir Putin: They can. Today they can. But you are developing your antimissile systems. Antimissiles’ range is increasing, and so is their accuracy. These weapons are being upgraded. This is why we need to respond to this appropriately, so that we are able to penetrate the system not only today but also tomorrow, when you acquire new weapons.
Megyn Kelly: That is why it would be a big deal if you really did have a nuclear-powered ICBM, which people are questioning, whether you have a usable one right now. When you said earlier that you have some that had tested positively and were excellent, you said others had not. So, for the record, right now, do you have a workable ICBM that is powered by nukes that you have tested successfully?
Vladimir Putin: Look, I did not say that the testing of some of these systems had been unsuccessful. All the tests were successful. It is just that each of these weapon systems is at a different stage of readiness. One is already on alert duty in line units. Another is in the same status. The work is proceeding on schedule with regard to some systems. We have no doubt that they will be in service, just as we had no doubt in 2004 that we would make a missile with the so-called cruise glide re-entry vehicle.
You have been referring all the time to intercontinental ballistic missiles, new missiles…
Megyn Kelly: You keep mentioning ICBMs.
Vladimir Putin: No. I am saying that we are developing just one brand of new heavy missile, which will replace a missile that we call Voyevoda, and you have dubbed it Satan. We will replace it with a new and more powerful missile. Here it is: a ballistic missile. All the other missiles are not ballistic.
Therein lies the entire meaning of this, because any antimissile defence system operates against ballistic missiles. But we have created a set of new strategic weapons that do not follow ballistic trajectories and the antimissile defence systems are powerless against them. This means that the US taxpayers’ money has been wasted.
Megyn Kelly: But again, you say that you are going to use these weapons, these nuclear-powered weapons if Russia or its allies come under attack. Any attack or only a nuclear one?
Vladimir Putin: There are two reasons why we would respond with our nuclear deterrence forces: a nuclear attack on the Russian Federation or a conventional attack on the Russian Federation, given that it jeopardises the state’s existence.
Megyn Kelly: That is consistent with the existing Russian doctrine on the use of nuclear weapons.
Vladimir Putin: Exactly, there are two possible reasons for a nuclear retaliation.
Megyn Kelly: Are you interested in new talks to extend the new strategic arms control treaty?
Vladimir Putin: The START-3 Treaty will expire soon. We are ready to continue this dialogue. What do we consider important? We agree to a reduction or to retaining current terms, to a reduction in delivery vehicles and warheads. However, today, when we are acquiring weapons that can easily breach all anti-ballistic missile systems, we no longer consider the reduction of ballistic missiles and warheads to be highly critical.
Megyn Kelly: So will these weapons be part of those discussions?
Vladimir Putin: In the context that the number of delivery vehicles and the number of warheads they can or will carry should, of course, be included in the grand total. And we will show you from a distance what this will look like.
Our military experts know how to conduct these inspections. In this sense, there are fine-tuned mechanisms and a sufficiently high level of trust. Generally, military experts are working together professionally. Politicians talk a lot, but military experts know what they are doing.
Megyn Kelly: You are a politician
Vladimir Putin: I am also an officer, and I am the Commander-in-Chief. I also served as a military intelligence officer for 17 years.
Megyn Kelly: Are you proud of that fact? Do you like the fact that you were in the KGB? Do you like people to know that?
Vladimir Putin: I do not see it from an emotional perspective. This gave me a lot of experience in the most diverse fields. I found it useful when I moved on to the civilian sector. Of course, this positive experience helped me in this sense.
Megyn Kelly: How so? How did it help?
Vladimir Putin: You know, after I left the intelligence service, I worked as Assistant Rector at St Petersburg University. I worked with people, established contacts, motivated people to act and brought them together. This is very important in the academic environment. Later, I was Deputy Mayor of St Petersburg. I assumed even greater and broader responsibility. I dealt with St Petersburg’s international ties, and that is a metropolis with a population of five million people. While working in this capacity in St Petersburg, I first met Henry Kissinger. Of course, all this helped me in my work at that time, and my additional experience later helped me in my work in Moscow.
Megyn Kelly: Do you think it gives you an advantage over your adversaries and your allies?
Vladimir Putin: It is hard for me to say. I have no other experience. The only thing I know is that my partners, including heads of state and government, are exceptional and outstanding people. They have gone through stringent selection and elimination procedures. There are no chance people at this level. And each of them has his or her own advantages.
Megyn Kelly: What about that? You have been in power for a long time here in Russia, poised to go into another term as president. You have had four American presidents come and go during that time. I am wondering if you had a favourite, if there was one you liked more than the others?
Vladimir Putin: I am sorry, but this is not a very tactful question. Each of my partners is good in their own right. In all, we had good relations with practically all of them. With Bill Clinton, though he was leaving office, we were able to work together for several months. Then with presidents Bush, Obama, and with the current President too, but to a lesser extent, of course. All of them have something to respect them for. At the same time, we can argue and disagree with each other, and it happens often, we have diverging views on many issues, even on key ones, but we nevertheless managed to maintain normal, human relations. If it were not for that, it would have been not only harder, but much worse for everyone.
Megyn Kelly: How important do you think it is to project strength as a President?
Vladimir Putin: It is important not to project strength, but to show it. It is also important how we understand power. It does not mean banging the table with a fist or yelling. I think power has several dimensions.
Firstly, one should be confident that he is doing the right thing. Secondly, he must be ready to go all the way to achieve the goals.
Megyn Kelly: I wonder this because one of the images that we see of you in the United States is without the shirt on a horse. What is that about?
Vladimir Putin: Well, I have breaks. There are your Russian colleagues, there is the internet. But we do not do this on purpose. They take the photos they like. I have lots of photos of me in the office, working with documents, but nobody is interested in them.
Megyn Kelly:(Laughs.) You are saying they like the shirtless photos?
Vladimir Putin: You know, I have seen “photos” of me riding a bear. I have not ridden a bear yet, but there are such photos already.
Megyn Kelly: Now what about you personally? Your elections are coming up in two weeks. You are 65 years old now. Most people would be slowing down a little in their lives. Do you see that for yourself at all in the future?
Vladimir Putin: First, there are many politicians around the world who are older than I am and who are still working active.
Megyn Kelly: Including in my country.
Vladimir Putin: Not only in the United States, in other countries, too. There are many such people, in Europe and everywhere in the world. But if a person assumes the highest offices, he must work as if he is doing it for the first and last day of his life.
There is the Constitution. I have never violated it and have never changed it. Of course, if voters give me the opportunity to serve another term, I will do it to the best of my ability
Megyn Kelly: Last question for tonight, it is late. Forgive me; this may be a long one. What do you see as your greatest accomplishment as president and what do you see as your biggest mistake? And what did you learn from it?
Vladimir Putin: You know, these would be very close.
Our biggest achievement is that our economy has changed radically. It has almost doubled in scale. The number of people living below the poverty line has decreased by half.
At the same time, the number of people living below the poverty line remains large, and we must work on that. We must remove the gap between people with very high and very low incomes. In this context, we have many achievements and many unresolved issues.
Back in the early 2000s, our population shrank by nearly a million people a year. Can you imagine the scale of the disaster? Almost 900,000 people. We have reversed this trend. We have even achieved a natural population increase. We have very low infant mortality, and we have reduced maternal mortality to almost zero. We have prepared and are implementing a large-scale programme of supporting mothers and children. Our life expectancy is growing at a high rate.
Much has changed in our economy. But we have not achieved our main economic goal: we have not yet changed the economic structure as we need to. We have not yet reached the required growth of labour efficiency. But we know how to do it, and I am confident that we will do it. The thing is that we had no opportunity to do this before, because until recently we did not have the macroeconomic conditions for taking specific measures in these areas.
At the beginning of our path, inflation was about 30 percent, but now it is 2.2 percent. Our gold and currency reserves are growing, and we have achieved macroeconomic stability. This offers us an opportunity to take the next step towards enhancing labour efficiency, attracting investment, including private funds, and changing the structure of our economy.
I am talking in large blocks. There are also more specific areas, such as modern technology and artificial intelligence, digitalisation, biology, medicine, genome research, and so on.
Megyn Kelly: Much more on the economy and how Russia is doing – tomorrow, and on your re-election. Thank you so much for your time. You have had a long day. I look forward to meeting up with you in Kaliningrad.
Vladimir Putin: Thank you.
* * *
Part 2, Kaliningrad, March 2, 2018
Megyn Kelly: Mr President, good to see you again.
Vladimir Putin: Good afternoon.
Megyn Kelly: So, we are here in Kaliningrad. Why is that? This is a port that, I am told, could not be more threatening to NATO, to Europe. It is a Russian military base. It is a Russian military port. It is home to some of your nukes. Are you trying to send a message?
President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Why Kaliningrad? Because I regularly visit Russian regions. This is one of these regions. This time, I came here to attend a conference of the regional media, which they decided to hold here. It was not my decision but theirs, your colleagues from the Russian regional media. I have an agreement with them that I attend such meetings once a year and meet with them, and that is why I am here today. It does not have anything to do with any external signals; it is our domestic affair.
Megyn Kelly: Understood. So, the last time we met in June, I asked you about the conclusion of our American intelligence agencies that Russia interfered in our presidential election. You told me that there was nothing specific in these reports, that if there is anything specific, you said, then there will be something to discuss. You told me, as they used to say in the KGB: addresses, houses, names. Since then, 13 Russians and three Russian-owned companies have been indicted by a special prosecutor named Robert Mueller in the United States for interfering in our election. The IRA agency, Yevgeny Prigozhin and others running a cyber warfare operation out of an office at 55 Savushkina Street, St Petersburg, Russia. Addresses, houses, names. So, can we have that discussion now?
Vladimir Putin: Of course. We not only can but I think we must discuss this issue if it keeps bothering you. But if you think that the question has been asked, I am ready to answer it.
Megyn Kelly: Why would you allow an attack like this on the United States?
Vladimir Putin: What makes you think that the Russian authorities and I gave our permission to anyone to do anything? You just named some people; I have heard about some of them, some of them I do not know, but they are just individuals, they do not represent the Russian government. Even if we suppose, though I am not 100 percent certain, that they did something during the US presidential election campaign (I simply do not know anything about it), it has nothing to do with the position of the Russian government. Nothing has changed since we spoke last time in St Petersburg. There are some names, so what? It could just as well be some Americans who while living here, interfered in your own political processes. It has not changed anything.
Megyn Kelly: But it was not Americans. It was Russians. And it was hundreds of people, a monthly budget of 2.5 billion dollars, all designed to attack the United States in a cyber warfare campaign. You are up for re-election right now. Should the Russians be concerned that you had no idea this was going on in your own home country, in your own hometown?
Vladimir Putin: You know, the world is very large and diverse. We have rather complicated relations between the United States and the Russian Federation. And some of our people have their own opinion on these relations and react accordingly at the level of the Russian Government and at the level of the Russian President. There has never been any interference in the internal political processes in the United States.
You have named some individuals and said that they are Russian. So what? Maybe, although they are Russian, they work for some American company. Maybe one of them worked for one of the candidates. I have no idea about this, these are not my problems. Do you know that, for example, after the presidential election in the US, some Ukrainian officials sent messages congratulating Hillary Clinton, even though Trump had won? Listen, what do we have to do with this?
Now, in my opinion, Mr Manafort, that is his name, he was initially accused of having something to do with Russia’s interference in the presidential election in the United States. It turned out that just the opposite was true: in fact, he had connections to Ukraine. And he had some issues with Ukraine. What do we have to do with this?
You know, we have no desire to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries. But if you are interested in talking about this, I would like to widen the scope of our discussion.
Megyn Kelly: I want to go through it. I do want to go through it. If we can do it step by step that would be more clear for the viewers who are following us. Let me ask you this: you say the Russian Federation did not order it. Do you condone these activities?
Vladimir Putin: We do not condone or order. But I say that there are internal political processes in the United States itself and there are people who wanted to achieve some result. They could have used some tools in other countries: such technologies exist. They could have sent relevant information from France, from Germany, from Asia, from Russia. What do we have to do with this?
Megyn Kelly:But it was not the Russians.
Vladimir Putin: Well, all right, Russians, but they were not state officials. Well, Russians, and so what? The are 146 million Russian people, so what?
Megyn Kelly: What have you done to satisfy yourself with that fact?
Vladimir Putin: What fact?
Megyn Kelly: What have you done to satisfy yourself that it was not Russians? You suggest maybe it was Americans, maybe it was the French. What have you done to satisfy yourself that the 13 Russian nationals who have just been indicted, those three Russian companies, including, as you pointed out, some of your close friends, were not behind this? This has caused an international incident.
Vladimir Putin: I know that they do not represent the Russian state or the Russian government. And I have no idea what they did and what they were guided by. Even if they did something, then our American colleagues should not just say something in interviews with the media but give us specific data, with proof. We are ready to consider it and talk about it. But you know what I would like to say…
Megyn Kelly: That would be great. Will you extradite them to the United States?
Vladimir Putin: Never. Just like the United States, Russia does not extradite its citizens anywhere. Have you ever extradited any of your citizens? This is my first point.
Second, I do not believe anything illegal was committed.
And, third, we have repeatedly suggested that the United States and Russia establish relations in this area and sign a corresponding interstate treaty on extraditing criminals. The United States has evaded this proposal and does not want to sign it with Russia. What are you hoping for? That we will extradite people to you whereas you will not? This is not a proper way to go about international affairs.
There is more to it. Please listen to me and take to your viewers and listeners what I am about to say. We are holding discussions with our American friends and partners, people who represent the government by the way, and when they claim that some Russians interfered in the US elections, we tell them (we did so fairly recently at a very high level): ”But you are constantly interfering in our political life.“ Would you believe it, they are not even denying it.
Do you know what they told us last time? They said, ”Yes, we do interfere, but we are entitled to do so, because we are spreading democracy, and you are not, and so you cannot do it.“ Do you think this is a civilised and modern approach to international affairs?
Yesterday, you and I talked about nuclear weapons, and that once the United States and the Soviet Union realised that they were moving towards possible mutual destruction, they agreed on rules of conduct in the security sphere given the availability of weapons of mass destruction. Let us now agree on how to behave in cyberspace, which never used to have such a big role and scope.
Megyn Kelly: Okay, so let me ask you: you have stated explicitly you believe that America interfered in Russian elections, right?
Vladimir Putin: We made a proposal to the United States, our partners back during President Obama’s watch: let us agree on how we build our relations, develop common rules acceptable for all, and adhere to them in cyberspace.
The first reaction of the Obama Administration was negative, but then, at the very end of his presidential term, they told us: ”Yes, it is interesting, let us talk about it.“ But again, everything disappeared and vanished in some swamp. Well, let us agree on this, we are all for it.
Megyn Kelly: Okay, so let me ask you: you have stated explicitly you believe that America interfered in Russian elections, right?
Vladimir Putin: The US does this all the time.
Megyn Kelly: But Russia did not interfere in America’s election?
Vladimir Putin: No, and there are no plans in Russia to do so. It is impossible. It is impossible for us.
Megyn Kelly: Why not? Why wouldn’t you?
Vladimir Putin: First, we have principles whereby we do not allow others to interfere in our domestic affairs and do not poke our noses into other people’s business. This is a principle we have. This is the first point I wanted to make.
My second point is that we do not have a comparable number of tools.
Megyn Kelly: Come on. Come on.
Vladimir Putin: No, we simply cannot do that.
Megyn Kelly: You told me just yesterday, because we were amping our missile defence systems, we have to respond in kind with increased nuclear technology. Now you want me to believe that we attacked your Russian elections and you say, we are going to take that road.
Vladimir Putin: This is not a matter of missiles. This is a completely different area.
In addition, we lack the necessary instruments.
Megyn Kelly: Cyber warfare.
Vladimir Putin: This is a completely different area of activity. It has nothing to do with cyber warfare. Russia does not have the kind of tools the US has. We do not have global media outlets comparable to CNN. You think we do? We have Russia Today, and nothing else. This is the only Russian media outlet, and even then, it was designated…
Megyn Kelly: Is that cyber tools?
Vladimir Putin: You keep interrupting me, this is impolite.
Megyn Kelly: Forgive me, sir.
Vladimir Putin: We have one media outlet, Russia Today, and even it was designated as a foreign agent so that it is unable to do its work properly. It is the only media outlet of this kind, while the US has a whole range of outlets, and immense possibilities online. The internet is yours. The United States control all the internet governance tools, all located on US territory. Do you think that a comparison can be made in any way? This is simply impossible. Let us come together and agree on the rules of conduct in cyber space. But it is the US who refuses to do so.
Megyn Kelly: David and Goliath. The Mueller indictment is very specific about what the Russians were doing. There is a specific email, a damning email that is cited therein by a female Russian who appears to have been caught red-handed. She says as follows, “We had a slight crisis here at work. The FBI busted our activity. Not a joke. So I got preoccupied with covering tracks together with the colleagues. I created all these pictures and posts and the Americans believe that it was written by their people.” And now you want to sit here and say you do not have the tools to do it? That we have the market cyber interference? This is just not true.
Vladimir Putin: I do not even understand what you are talking about. You see, this is just nonsense. The US Congress analysed the information from Russian sources that appeared online. The information coming from media outlets like Russia Today was also analysed and turned out to be one hundredth of a percent of the overall information flow in the United States, just one hundredth of a percent. Do you think that this fraction had any impact on the election? This is just nonsense, don’t you see? This is the same old business when the people who lost refuse to admit it. You see, I have commented on this on a number of occasions. It has yet to be seen what the US policy toward Russia will be like under the current administration. Many things remain unclear, since we have not yet been able to start working or to establish normal contacts.
However, it is absolutely clear that the current US President adopted a specific stance in terms of domestic policy, and decided to reach out to the people who were ready to support his campaign promises. This is what led to his victory, not any kind of outside interference. To claim otherwise makes no sense. Will anyone believe that Russia, a country located thousands of kilometres away, could use two or three Russians, as you have said, and whom I do not know, to meddle in the elections and influence their outcome? Don’t you think that it sounds ridiculous?
Megyn Kelly: Now you are talking about causation. But I am still on whether you did it. And it is not true that you do not know the individuals who were accused of conducting this. One of your good friends is actually accused of helping conduct this. His name is Yevgeny Prigozhin. Do you know him?
Vladimir Putin: I know this man, but he is not a friend of mine. This is just twisting the facts. There is such a businessman; he works in the restaurant business or something. But he is not a state official; we have nothing to do with him.
Megyn Kelly: After you heard about him being indicted, did you pick up the phone and call him?
Vladimir Putin: Certainly not.I have plenty of other things to worry about.
Megyn Kelly: He is your friend. He has been indicted.
Vladimir Putin: Did you hear what I just said? He is not my friend. I know him, but he is not a friend of mine. Was I not clear? There are many people like that. There are 146 million people in Russia. That is less than in the US, but it is still a lot.
Megyn Kelly: He is a prominent businessman.
Vladimir Putin: A prominent businessman? So what? There are many prominent people in Russia. He is not a state official, he does not work for the government; he is an individual, a businessman.
Megyn Kelly: Some people say his real job is to do your dirty work.
Vladimir Putin: Who are those people? And what dirty work? I do not do any dirty work. Everything I do is in plain view. This is your prerogative; some people in your country enjoy doing dirty work. You think we do the same. That is not true.
Megyn Kelly: It is a) the fact that you know him, you admit that. He is a prominent Russian businessman. And he is specifically accused of running this operation; b) this is the same man who has been accused of sending Russian mercenaries into Syria and they attacked a compound held by American back militia. This guy gets around.
Vladimir Putin: You know, this man could have a wide range of interests, including, for example, an interest in the Syrian fuel and energy complex. But we do not support him in any way. We do not get in his way but we do not support him either. It is his own personal initiative.
Megyn Kelly: You did not know about it?
Vladimir Putin: Well, I know that there are several companies, several Russian companies there, maybe his among others, but this has nothing to do with our policy in Syria. If he does anything there, he does not coordinate it with us; he probably coordinates it with the Syrian authorities or the Syrian businesses he works with. We do not interfere in this. Does your government interfere in every step your businesses take, especially small businesses? It is essentially a medium-sized business. So, does your president interfere in the affairs of every medium-sized US business? That is just nonsense, isn’t it?
Megyn Kelly: If the 13 Russian nationals plus three Russian companies did in fact interfere in our elections, is that okay with you?
Vladimir Putin: I do not care. I do not care at all because they do not represent the government.
Megyn Kelly: You do not care?
Vladimir Putin: Not at all. They do not represent state interests. If you are worried about anything, state it officially, send us documents proving it and explain what exactly those people are accused of. We will see if they have violated Russian laws…
Megyn Kelly: I did that.
Vladimir Putin: No, this is not true. If they violated Russian law, we will prosecute them. If they did not, there is nothing to prosecute them for in Russia. But after all, you must understand that people in Russia do not live under US law but under Russian law. This is how it is. If you want to reach an agreement with us, let us negotiate, choose the subject, make an agreement and sign it. But you refuse to do this. I am telling you for the third time: we have proposed working together on cyberspace issues. But the US refuses to work like this and instead throws 13 Russians to the media. Maybe they are not even Russians, but Ukrainians, Tatars or Jews, but with Russian citizenship, which should also be checked: maybe they have dual citizenship or a Green Card; maybe, the US paid them for this. How can you know that? I do not know either.
Megyn Kelly: I will give you one piece of evidence. Andrei Krutskikh is an advisor to the Kremlin when it comes to cyber issues. In his speech to an information security forum in February 2016, he reportedly said, quote, “I am warning you. We are on the verge of having something in the information arena which will allow us to talk to the Americans as equals.” What do you think he meant? Because it certainly sounds like a threat right before an election hack.
Vladimir Putin: Sometimes I think you are joking.
Megyn Kelly: No, I am deadly serious.
Vladimir Putin: A man says something about how he sees our contacts and our work with our foreign partners, the US in this case, in a certain area. I have no idea what he said. Ask him what he meant. Do you think I control everything?
Megyn Kelly: He is an advisor to the Kremlin on cyber.
Vladimir Putin: So what? There are 2,000 people working in the administration; do you think I control everyone? Peskov is sitting in front of me, he is my press secretary and he sometimes says things that I see on television and think, what is he talking about? Who told him to say this?
I have no idea what he said. Ask him. Do you really think I can comment on everything administration or government personnel say? I have my own work to do.
Megyn Kelly: I think when it comes to our two countries you know exactly what is going on. And this is Russia’s problem now. It is. The heads of the US intelligence agencies just testified to Congress that Russia, Russia poses the greatest threat in the world to the American security, greater than ISIS. You cannot get the sanctions lifted. The relationship between our two countries is nearly non-existent right now. Did not this interference, whether you knew or you did not know about it, backfire against Russia?
Vladimir Putin: Listen, you are exaggerating. I do not know about someone saying something and I am not going to comment on it, and neither do I follow what is going on at your Congress.
I am more interested in what is going on at the State Duma, if they have approved a bill on a healthcare or utilities issue; if they delay certain discussions or not. Is a special interest lobbying against a nature conservation, or forestry, or environmental law? This is what I am interested in. You should follow what they are discussing in Congress; I have enough on my plate without that.
Megyn Kelly: You know that the sanctions have not been lifted. You know that the relationship between our two countries is at not an all-time low but is getting there. And this is in part the reason. And so, Russian interference in the American elections is important.
Vladimir Putin: Listen, sanctions have nothing to do with the myth of some Russian interference in the US election. Sanctions are about something else entirely: the desire to halt Russia’s progress, to contain Russia. This policy of containing Russia has been pursued for decades, on and off. Now it is back. It is a misguided policy, which not only affects Russian-US relations but also US businesses because it frees up space for their competitors on our market.
You and I were at the St Petersburg Economic Forum. The largest business delegation was from the US. People want to work with us, but they are not allowed to; they are contained in order to contain Russia. They have been contained and contained so that our defence industry cannot develop, among other things. We discussed this yesterday. Did they manage to achieve anything? No, they did not: they have never managed to contain Russia and never will. It is simply, you know, an attempt with tools that…
Megyn Kelly: Can we contain Russia in cyber warfare?
Vladimir Putin: I think it is impossible to contain Russia anywhere. You need to understand this. Listen, you cannot even contain North Korea. What are you talking about? Why would you do that? Why do we have to contain, attack or cast suspicion on each other? We are offering cooperation.
Megyn Kelly: That is my question to you. That is my question to you. Why, why would you interfere in our election time and time again? And why would not you, for that matter? Let me put it to you that way. You have spent a day, every time I have seen you, in St Petersburg, in Moscow and now here in Kaliningrad, telling me that America has interfered in Russia’s electoral process and that Russia has a robust cyber warfare arsenal. And yet you want us to believe that you did not deploy it. Do you understand how implausible that seems, sir?
Vladimir Putin: That does not seem implausible to me at all, because we do not have such a goal, to interfere. We do not see what we have to gain by interfering. There is no such goal. Let us suppose this was our goal. Why, just for the sake of it? What is the goal?
Megyn Kelly: Creating chaos. That is the goal.
Vladimir Putin: Listen to me. Not long ago President Trump said something absolutely correct. He said that if Russia’s goal was to sow chaos, it has succeeded. But it is not the result of Russian interference, but your political system, the internal struggle, the disorder and division. Russia has nothing to do with it whatsoever. Get your own affairs in order first. And the way the question is framed, as I mentioned – that you can interfere anywhere because you bring democracy, but we cannot – is what causes conflicts. You have to show your partners respect, and they will respect you.
Megyn Kelly: You once said, Mr President, that you believed the interference in our election was done by some patriotic Russians. An answer like that, you understand, will lead people to ask, are you the patriotic Russian?
Vladimir Putin: I am the President of the Russian Federation. It is my constitutional duty to address a host of issues concerning the protection of Russia’s interests. When I spoke of patriotic people, I meant that you can imagine that, in the face of a deteriorating Russian-US relationship, people – and people use cyberspace – will express their points of view, their opinions, including on this global network. Of course, they are free to do so. How can we really prohibit it? But we cannot control it and, most importantly, we are not directing it. Please note that this is not the position of the Russian state.
Megyn Kelly: You cannot? The Russian intelligence services cannot find out who is doing this, bring it to your attention? You are unable to stop it?
Vladimir Putin: Perhaps if we looked into it carefully we would find those people, if they exist. But we have no such goal. We propose holding official talks and you refuse. So what do you want? For us to open investigations just because Congress said so? Let us sit down, sign an agreement on working in cyberspace and comply with it. How do you want to do it? There is no other way of conducting international affairs.
Megyn Kelly: So you have no goal to stop it. So what does that mean for our elections in 2018 and 2020? We can expect more of the same?
Vladimir Putin: I did not say that stopping it is not a goal. I said we had…
Megyn Kelly: You just said that.
Vladimir Putin: No, I did not. I said we do not interfere in our people’ private lives and cannot stop them from expressing their opinion, including on the internet. But I also said that Russia’s official position is that we do not interfere in the political processes of other countries as a state. That is the most important part. I want it to be recorded in our conversation today, for people in the US to understand this.
Megyn Kelly: And forgive me, but I am trying to get to one level below that, whether you have the goal of stopping your own citizens from behaving in this manner, which has undermined relationships between our two countries?
Vladimir Putin: I want to say that we will stand in the way of everything that violates Russian law or our international agreements. For the third or fourth time, I will say that we are ready to sign a corresponding agreement with the United States. You still refuse. Let us sit down at the negotiating table, identify what we consider important, sign the document and comply with it with proper verification.
Megyn Kelly: You are the President, sir. Respectfully, I still did not hear an answer about whether you want to crack down on the Russians who committed those crimes. It sounds like the answer is no. If I am wrong, please correct me. I understand you want a negotiation with the United States directly. But internally, you could put a stop to this if you had the desire.
Vladimir Putin: I want you to listen to me. We will counter anything that violates current Russian law. If the actions of our citizens – no matter what they are and whom they target – violate current Russian laws, we will respond. If they do not violate Russian law, we cannot respond.
Megyn Kelly With this?
Vladimir Putin: With anything. If no Russian law has been broken, no one can be held accountable.
Megyn Kelly:Will this violate Russian law?
Vladimir Putin: I must look at what they have done. Give us the materials. Nobody has given us anything.
Megyn Kelly: You know this. Hacking into the Democratic National Committee, hacking into John Podesta’s email, creating interference in our election by creating bots that spread false information on Twitter, on Facebook. Spreading this information when it comes to Black Lives Matter, when it comes to the shooting we just had in Parkland, Florida, when it comes to our presidential election. Spreading fake news in order to alter the course of the presidential race. That is what I am talking about.
Vladimir Putin: With all due respect for you personally and for the body of the people’s representatives, the US Congress – and we treat all these people with respect – I want you to really understand this. Do you have people with training in law? Of course, you do. One hundred percent. Highly educated people. We cannot even launch an investigation without cause. Our conversation today or an inquiry in the US Congress is not sufficient cause. Give us at least an official inquiry with a statement of facts, send us an official paper. After all, a conversation on air cannot be grounds for an investigation.
Megyn Kelly: The intelligence agencies in the United States, now a special prosecutor with a criminal indictment – that is not enough for you to look into it?
Vladimir Putin: Absolutely not. If you do not have legal training, I can assure you that an inquiry is required for this.
Megyn Kelly I do.
Vladimir Putin: Then you should understand that a corresponding official inquiry should be sent to the Prosecutor-General’s Office of the Russian Federation. That said, we do not even have a treaty on how to proceed. But send us something in writing at least.
Megyn KellyVladimir Putin could not order an investigation into whether this was done in a way that undermines its relations with a major partner, the United States of America?
Vladimir Putin: Give us something in writing, an official inquiry. We will look at it.
Megyn Kelly: You said that the last time and now I am back with an indictment.
Vladimir Putin: There is nothing in writing. Send an inquiry to the Prosecutor-General’s Office. It is necessary to go through official channels rather than with the help of the media and harsh words in the US Congress, levelling accusations against us that are totally unsubstantiated. Give us something in writing.
Megyn Kelly: Let me ask you this: you were President back in 2001 when the FBI arrested one of its own, Robert Hanssen, for spying for the Russian Federation. In retaliation, President George W. Bush kicked 50 illegit Russian spies out of the United States, and the Kremlin did the same, throwing 50 Americans out of the US Embassy in Moscow immediately. This is a tradition that goes back for decades. December 2016: after our intelligence agencies agreed that Russians interfered in our election President Obama expelled dozens of Russians and seized two Russian-owned properties. And yet, you did nothing, you did nothing in response. Why not?
Vladimir Putin: We believed andI still believe that there were no grounds for this whatsoever. This is the first point.
Secondly, this was done in clear violation of international law and the Vienna Convention on DiplomaticRelations. The totally groundless seizure of our property constitutes a flagrant violation of international law. We were strongly hoping for a response from the new Administration. But since none is forthcoming – and I have already said this and the Foreign Minister repeated this – we will turn to the appropriate courts of the United States to protect our interests.
Megyn Kelly: Let me ask you about President Trump. Any time he says anything about you it is supremely deferential. Never a harsh word for you. Although if you look at the ways he speaks about members of his own party, even members of his own staff, never mind of the other political leaders, he frequently personally insults them. Why do you think he is so nice to you?
Vladimir Putin: This is not about being nice to me personally, in my view. I think he is an experienced person, a businessman with very extensive experience and he understands that if you need to partner with someone, you must treat your future or current partner with respect, otherwise nothing will come of it. I think this is a purely pragmatic approach. This is my first point.
Second, even though this is his first term as President, he is a quick study, and he understands perfectly well that trading accusations or insults at our level is a road to nowhere. It would just mean depriving our countries of their last chance for dialogue, simply the last chance. This would be extremely unfortunate.
You may have noticed that I, for my part, show respect to him and all my other colleagues, not only in the United States, but also Europe and Asia.
Megyn Kelly: You may, but the truth is our President has referred to the leader of North Korea as “little rocket man.” So he is not quite as diplomatic depending on who he is talking about. I am sure you saw that, yes?
Vladimir Putin: Yes, I did. You are aware of our position on that account. We urge everyone to show restraint.
Megyn Kelly: So what do you think of President Trump?
Vladimir Putin: The question is not entirely appropriate, because President Trump’s work should be assessed by his constituents, the American people. There is one thing I would like to say: like it or not – we may dislike certain things as well – he does his best to keep the election promises that he made to the American people. So, he is consistent in this sense. I think that, in fact, this is the only proper way to show respect for the people who voted for him.
Megyn Kelly: He has praised your leadership. Is he an effective leader?
Vladimir Putin: Well, again, this is up to the American people to decide. He has strong leadership qualities, of course, because he takes responsibility when he makes decisions. To reiterate, whether some people like his decisions or not, he still goes ahead and does it. This, of course, is a sign of leadership qualities.
Megyn Kelly: Do you ever read his tweets?
Vladimir Putin: No, I do not.
Megyn Kelly: Do you ever tweet?
Vladimir Putin: No.
Megyn Kelly: Why not?
Vladimir Putin: I have other means of expressing my point of view or making decisions. Well, Donald is a more modern person.
Megyn Kelly: Would you say he is more colourful than you are?
Vladimir Putin: Maybe.
Megyn Kelly: Let me ask you one question going back to the election interference issue. There are two theories on you at least. One is that when Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State you felt that she interfered with the elections here in 2011 and 2012, inciting protests here, including against you and it made you angry. Two is when the Panama Papers were leaked showing a massive money trail that led to you and some of your associates that that was the last drop for you. Do either of those things make you angry?
Vladimir Putin: This is complete nonsense. Speaking about Hillary, I know her personally, and we generally always maintained a good dialogue every time we met. I cannot understand why at some stage… Her advisers probably suggested that she focus part of her election campaign on criticising developments in Russia. Well, it was their choice. I never took it personally. It was just their policy.
As for all those files, this is complete nonsense. They mention some of my friends. So what? As you know, this has had no effect whatsoever. This is nothing but nonsense and media chatter. I have forgotten all about it. I do not remember what it was all about. Actually, nothing of this kind can make me angry. I am guided by pragmatic considerations, not emotions.
Megyn Kelly: Since you mention it, a friend of yours was mentioned in those Panama Papers. Let me ask you about him. Sergei Roldugin. Legend has it that this guy introduced you to your ex-wife, that he is the godfather to one of your daughters. He is a cellist by trade, right?
Vladimir Putin: Yes, I know him very well. He is a friend and a wonderful musician. He has devoted his life to art and music. By the way, many artists here are also involved in business one way or another. Apart from me, Sergey also has other ties in the country, including business people who have involved him in this work. He has made his money legally. He has not made hundreds of billions [of dollars]. Everything he earned he has spent on the purchase of musical instruments abroad, which he has brought to Russia. He uses some of these instruments personally, for example the cello. He plays the cello.
Megyn Kelly: A $12 million Stradivarius.
Vladimir Putin: Yes, something like that. But it is a unique instrument.
Megyn Kelly: That is a lot of money.
Vladimir Putin: Yes, it is. He must be eccentric, but then, all artists are eccentric. To spend all this money on musical instruments. I think he bought two cellos and two violins. He plays one himself and has given the others to other musicians, who are playing them. He has brought all these instruments to Russia.
Megyn Kelly: According to the Panama Papers, this mass of series of leaked documents about offshore bank accounts, he has got assets, this cellist, of at least a $100 million, including a one-eighth stake in Russia’s biggest TV ad agency, a $6 million yacht, a stake in a truck manufacturer, a 3-percent interest in a Russian bank. He must be one heck of a musician.
Vladimir Putin: Well, I know nothing about his business, but I do know that he has only enough money to buy these musical instruments. All the rest is on paper. He does not have anything else apart from what he has bought. Maybe he does have something else, but you should ask him about it. I do not control his life.
Megyn Kelly: But the question is how a cellist makes that much money? People ask it because many people believe that is really your money.
Vladimir Putin: Listen, just look at many Russian art figures, and probably there are people like this in your country as well. After all, there are art personalities in the US, including Hollywood celebrities who either run restaurants or own some stock. Aren’t there many people like this in the US entertainment industry and art world? I am sure that there are many people of this kind, and more than in Russia. In Russia, there are also quite a few art figures who do business apart from their creative work. In fact, there are many such people, and he is just one of them. So what? The question is not whether he runs a business or not or whether he made a profit or not. The question is whether there were any violations. As far as I know, he did not commit any violations.
Megyn Kelly: That is right. There is no issue with making money. I am an American, we are capitalists. The question is whether that is really your money.
Vladimir Putin: This is not my money, that is for sure. I do not even know how much Mr Roldugin has, as I have already said. As far as I know, he has not committed any violations in his business and creative undertakings, he did not violate any Russian law or norm.
Megyn Kelly: Speaking of money, back in the 1980s and 1990s, in the wake of multiple bankruptcies, the Trump Organisation found it hard to secure loans in the United States and looked elsewhere. Mr Trump’s son, Donald Trump Jr., said that ten years ago and I quote, “Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets. We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia.” Were you aware of the degree of Russian money flowing into properties?
Vladimir Putin: This is all nonsense. There were no investments in Trump properties in Russia, as far as I know. I do not even know if there were any serious plans for making these investments.
Megyn Kelly: Come on.
Vladimir Putin: Look, you keep thinking that the whole world revolves around you. That is not the way it is.
Megyn Kelly: It is not about me. It is about what Donald Trump Jr. says.
Vladimir Putin: Do you think we know everything what Donald Trump’s son has said? You see, this is not the way things are. Donald came here to Russia when he was not even nominated. I did not even know that he had been to Russia. I learned about it only afterwards, when I was told that as it turned out he had been to Russia. By the same token, I ignore what his son said on this occasion. Did Donald Trump’s son infringe on any rules or laws? If so, charge him. If he did not, why do you keep picking on every word?
Megyn Kelly: Years ago, before Donald Trump ran for president, he said he knew you and he spoke with you a lot. Is that true?
Vladimir Putin: No, I had never met him. You mean before he became President and before he decided to run for President, right?
Megyn Kelly: Before he ran.
Vladimir Putin: No, we had not met. We never talked to each other, neither by phone or otherwise.
Megyn Kelly: You are poised to be re-elected for your fourth term as president here in Russia, right?
Vladimir Putin: We will see what the Russian voters decide.
Megyn Kelly: How does somebody like Vladimir Putin, who is as popular as you are here in Russia, feel any threat from Navalny? I realise he has got in legal trouble, but could you pardon this guy and let him mount a meaningful challenge to you?
Vladimir Putin: As for the question about whom I could work together with and whom I would not want to work together with, I can tell you in all honesty that I would like to and am ready to work with people who want Russia to become a stronger, more effective, competitive and self-reliant country. But to achieve that, the people we are talking about should have a clear plan of action designed to promote national development in today’s environment. There are people like that, including …
Megyn Kelly: But Navalny is such as man and has a fair amount of popularity here in Russia.
Vladimir Putin: Any person can be pardoned if he deserves it.
Megyn Kelly: Why don’t you?
Vladimir Putin: If he deserves it. There are no exceptions for anyone. No exceptions. But we are not talking about pardon now; we are talking about certain political forces. They do not have a development programme for the country. What do they have that is positive and what I like? That they expose problems, and this is actually good, this is the right thing to do, and it needs to be done. But this is not enough for the country’s progressive development, simply not enough. Because focusing on problems is not enough; moreover, it is even dangerous, because it can lead to destruction, while we need creation.
Megyn Kelly: Our political analysts tell me you are exactly right about your chances in the upcoming election, that you have no meaningful opponents so you will likely win. What is next after that? The Chinese President just abolished term limits. Is that something you would ever do?
Vladimir Putin: I do not think that I should talk about my political plans with you now at this meeting, in this conversation, in this interview for American television. But I think I told you yesterday, I never changed the Constitution or adjusted it to my needs, and I do not have any such plans today.
As for China, before criticising decisions in a country like China, you need to think and recall that there are 1.5 billion people living there and, after thinking about it, you need to come to the conclusion that we all are interested in China being a stable and prosperous state. How it should be done best, it is probably up to the Chinese people and the Chinese leadership.
Megyn Kelly: Can you leave power? Because some of the experts that we have spoken to have said it would be near impossible for you because someone in your position would likely either be thrown in jail by your adversaries or worse. They say it is actually sad that you will have to stay in power in order to stay well.
Vladimir Putin: What your so-called experts say is their wishful thinking. I have heard a lot of nonsense like this. Why do you think that I will necessarily be succeeded by people ready to destroy everything I have done in recent years? Maybe, on the contrary, a government will come to power determined to strengthen Russia, to create a future for it, to build a platform for development for the new generations. Why have you suddenly decided that some destroyers would arrive and wipe out whatever they can? Maybe there are people who would like this, including in the United States. But I do not think they are right, because the United States, I think, should be more interested in the other option – in Russia being a stable, prosperous and developing country, I mean if you really can look at least 25–50 years ahead.
Megyn Kelly: Have you groomed a successor? Is there anyone in mind?
Vladimir Putin: I have been thinking about this since 2000. Thinking is not a crime, but in the end, the choice will still be up to the Russian people. Whether I like or hate someone, other candidates will run for president and eventually the citizens of the Russian Federation will make the final decision.
Megyn Kelly: Let me ask you a bit about Syria. Do you believe the chemical weapon attacks in Syria are fake news?
Vladimir Putin: Of course.
Firstly, the Syrian Government destroyed its chemical weapons long ago.
Secondly, we know about the militants’ plans to simulate chemical attacks by the Syrian army.
And thirdly, all the attempts that have been made repeatedly in the recent past, and all the accusations were used to consolidate the efforts against Assad. We are aware of these goings-on, and they are not interesting. One wants to say, “Boring.”
Megyn Kelly: The bodies of dead children thanks to sarin gas attacks? That is boring?
Vladimir Putin: Are you sure that these deaths are the result of chemical attacks by the Syrian Government? I, on the contrary, blame this on the criminals and radicals, on the terrorists who are staging these crimes in order to lay the blame on President Assad.
Megyn Kelly: That is not what the United Nations has concluded. They autopsied the bodies of the dead children. Your Foreign Minister suggested it was all made up. Do you believe that?
Vladimir Putin: Of course. I am absolutely sure that it was. Because there was no serious investigation.
Megyn Kelly: There were no dead bodies?
Vladimir Putin: Maybe there were dead bodies, which is to be expected in a war. Look how they liberated Mosul: it was razed to the ground. Look how they liberated Raqqa: the dead have not yet been removed from the ruins or buried. Do you want to talk about this?
Megyn Kelly: That is what we call whataboutism. That is you pointing to somebody else’s bad behaviour to justify your wrong or that of your ally. We are talking about Assad and dead children thanks to sarin gas. Sarin gas. And you are telling an international audience it never happened?
Vladimir Putin: Look here, to be sure that this was indeed how it happened, a thorough investigation must be conducted and evidence must be gathered at the site. Nothing of this has been done. Let us do this.
Megyn Kelly: Let us do it. They wanted to investigate the helicopters and the UN wanted to go and check the helicopters that were on site. And Russia said no. Russia said no. Why?
Vladimir Putin: There was nothing of the kind. Russia did not say “No.” Russia is for a full-scale investigation. If you do not know this, I am telling you this now. It is not true that we are against an objective investigation. That is a lie. It is a lie just as the vial with the white substance that allegedly proved that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, which the CIA gave to the US Secretary of State. He later apologised, but the damage had been done, the country had been ruined. This is yet another piece of fake news, which has no substance behind it. An investigation should be conducted to gather the substance. We are in favour of such an investigation.
Megyn Kelly: Since the beginning of the year, there have been at least four chlorine-based chemical weapons attacks in Syria. Our Secretary of State Tillerson just said that Russia bears the responsibility for this given your earlier promises to reign in chemical weapons attacks in Syria. Your response?
Vladimir Putin: I will tell you that a) we have nothing to do with this, and that we demand a full-scale investigation.
As for crimes, go back to Raqqa and at least bury the dead bodies, which are still lying amid the ruins after the air strikes at residential neighbourhoods there. And investigate these attacks. This will give you something to do.
Megyn Kelly: One of the questions that our audiences have is how do we walk this back? How do we get to the place where these two great nations are less adversaries and something closer to allies, which we clearly are not right now. Do you agree we are not?
Vladimir Putin: Unfortunately, we are not. But we were not the ones who made the US our adversary. It was the US, the US Congress, who called Russia its adversary. Why did you do that? Did Russia impose sanctions on the United States? No, it was the US that imposed sanctions on us.
Megyn Kelly: You know why.
Vladimir Putin: No, I do not. Can I ask you a different question? Why did you encourage the government coup in Ukraine? Why did you do that? The US directly acknowledged spending billions of dollars to this end. This was openly acknowledged by US officials. Why do they support government coups and armed fighting in other countries? Why has the US deployed missile systems along our borders?
Listen, Russia and the US should sit down and talk it over in order to get things straight. I have the impression that this is what the current President wants, but he is prevented from doing it by some forces. But we are ready to discuss any matter, be it missile-related issues, cyberspace or counterterrorism efforts. We are ready to do it any moment. But the US should also be ready. The time will come when the political elite in the US will be pushed by public opinion to move in this direction. We will be ready the instant our partners are ready.
Megyn Kelly: Before I leave you, what do you hope your legacy will be?
Vladimir Putin: I strongly believe that my legacy would be to create a powerful development momentum for Russia, and make the country a resilient and balanced democracy that is able to benefit from the latest advances of the technology revolution. We will keep up our efforts to improve our political system and the judiciary. And I am certain that all this, taken together, would strengthen the unity of the Russian Federation and the unity of our people, and enable us to move forward with confidence for years to come.
Megyn Kelly: Mr President, thank you very much for having us here.
The Real Joy Of Giving And Receiving April 21 2018 | From: SorenDreier
Some people have trouble giving, some people have trouble receiving. Rarely do these two poles meet, fall in love and form a happy relationship.
Since I won’t approach this on a psychological level but more a metaphysical level, I will just say that underneath those conditions there obviously can be some psychological issues to work on.
Related:Stop Seeking Revenge - Instead, Offer Forgiveness
We might need to consider why and how we give and how we receive, and in that we also have to look at the conditioning both in the giver and in the receiver.
Society will have us believe that we somehow will get rewarded if we behave and we are good. Being good in that context means we fold to the demands of society, whether it be getting good school grades or doing what society wants, and we will get some kind of bonus.
Since the Vortex point in this is called punishment and reward, which stems from behavioral psychology, which is the most primitive form of conditioning there is, hence: Pavlov’s Dogs.
So, if we do not behave – we get punished, either expressed punishment by some kind of judgment or just the lack of reward, endorsement, a gentle look and what have we.
We get the cold or the silent treatment. The last is mean, since it often leaves us guessing as to what we did wrong or did not do to please our masters, bosses, teachers, parents and down that line.
Most of us are parents who were kids once, so we have to look really hard into ourselves to find out what we were conditioned to, and if it so much as slightly smells of Pavlov we might have to break the chains of conditioning. If you do not have children, it’s equally important to examine.
Well maybe our bad is really good and their good is really bad. So spiritually/metaphysically it does not make sense. For serving the system, it makes a lot of sense. All we do in our lives is to try to peel off the layers of either conscious conditioning, from whoever sets the parameter for good or bad, to find our own parameter of the same qualities.
The gifts are not real, since they come with a motive or on special occasions. The gifts are not real because they are bribes:
“If you do this and that – I will reward you.”
Any form of gift that comes with an alternate motive is not a gift, it is manipulation and it exposes the ‘giver’ and the giver’s agenda and once we see that, we will refuse the gift. Until we learn to do that, receiving a conditioned gift is both embarrassing and awkward.
That is the reason that we do not want gifts because we know we are being bought. Not to be confused with any trouble in receiving. It’s a question of awareness.
A lot of people are onto that, and yet having not seen the programming consciously, they become very suspicious of gifts and rightfully so. Often, they would say to themselves, and I talked to some recently: Why am I having so much trouble receiving? The metaphysical answer is: Because you are onto the programming.
In its extreme, this is how pedos maneuver to groom a child, and in its less extreme it’s showing both kids and adults what the giver condones or disapproves of.
The power these fake givers have is enormous and if we doubt that, well, we can just take a look at how the school system works through its system of grades. If you do not solve this assignment you will get an anti-gift, which is a low grade, and if you repeat what we taught you, you will receive the gift of good grades.
Even bloody social media picked this up through its stupid ‘like’ or ‘dislike’ system, so it’s not easy to shake off. It’s massive.
Well, maybe the kid wrote a really interesting essay, which parents and teacher didn’t approve of since the wicked kid suddenly got creative and imagined life differently or gave some ideas that both judges thought were silly, but yet:
They came from the core of that kid – so let’s just dump the ideas and the forming of a mind with independent ideas into conformity. Well. Dead on Arrival.
I have worked a lifetime with people trying to come to terms with their past and the lack of love they were given, since a way of going anti gift is to take love out of the equation. Love is for us as children, attention, loving arms and a gentle look or just a kind word whispered. Not providing this intentionally is called: Ignoring. A tool used by many parents and teachers.
Then we have to understand the retail version of gifts. Manufactured events like Valentine’s Day, Mother’s Day, Father’s Day, Christmas and many more we all have to give gifts no matter what. That is very stressful because it is so hyped up and maybe we´re not in a gift mood or in a receiving mood, but we have to ‘act’.
If we are in tune with giving for just giving, we become immune to the main stream ‘special occasion’ hype and leave this kind of programming.
We need to tune our compass of giving into the Celestial idea of giving.
Some have that programming still, that if they are good – they will get rewarded by the Uni. Let me translate that:
I have done so and so, and now I want my reward. Well, if you want a reward for being good – was that the reason you were good?
Some think that the Celestial is a franchise of behavioral psychology and every time they do right a bone will fall from the skies… I watched the news on TV some years ago, where they had this Tibetan doctor in the studio because she worked for free. She didn’t charge anything but took some minor donations.
She answered the question: Why are you doing this for free, with: Because in my next life all these people will have to help me and I reap the good karma. What!
She didn’t do it for anyone other than herself. I´m very sure that the Celestial, the Uni sees through that and she has several lives in front of her working as a doctor for the good of others.
A true gift goes beyond the reason for it. Beyond reason for giving on account of deserving it. It just manifests but in order to manifest it needs a creator of that manifestation.
We can walk down a shopping street and spot something in a window and think: Well, my beloved would certainly go wow if I gave that. We do not have to wait for the manufactured occasion; we need to manifest the Principle of Gifts and just give, because we know it would make the other person happy.
Our kids might have gone on about this particular toy or clothes and we might spot it and just get it for them.
Sometimes physical gifts are a physical manifestation of love, if it’s for the right reason, and the right reason is beyond second agenda intention.
Every time we give we have to be in a position of some kind of abundance, whether it is small or big. It should be free of ambition and it should be free of mainstream ambition like we´re being fed via main stream media on those manufactured special occasions, posting stories of the rich and ‘successful’ spoiling their youngsters with a Christmas wrapped up Porsche Cayenne.
Which obviously is a design to make the same mainstream people plugging into that stuff feel inferior.
Some people with money, they can have little or they can have much, have the power to free someone they are close with from financial stress with the stroke of a pen.
Sometimes that’s called for and sometimes this is called for: ‘It’s better to teach a man how to fish’. Teaching somebody to fish is also a gift, but just providing is to move the hurdle in one stroke and then he has the calm to fish.
This often Morphs into a parenting view of: No, I will not give my kid a gift since I do not want to spoil them. Nobody´s talking about spoiling. Spoiling is no good and it often comes via our own impact on our kids, that they should persecute their parents, if they want something. That is from adults or children who feel entitled and that is hardly any solution.
The second issue is: If we get stuff too easily, we (they) will not learn to fight for it. Well, Life was hardly meant to be a fight, even though that is the reality we´re in. We have to fight for our survival in these times and in our storyline as humans.
The solution if we want to step out of this programming ourselves and free the ones around us from it, is the joy of giving and igniting the joy of receiving.
What will happen if you choose to do this is that the ones you target for a gift will act suspicious and they might ask: Why are you giving me this? Looking for the agenda or the reason. There is none. It is not carpet bombing people with gifts, it’s occasional and often driven by intuition or the joy of having people, and kids are also people, in our lives.
The equation of them expecting it, feeling entitled to it, did not match as the system would have told us. It was a false equation transcending into: You are in my life and I love you and sometimes I need to manifest that love beyond the obvious of being kind, loving and supporting and lifting some weight off some weary shoulders as goes for gifts among adults.
What it will spark is gratitude, safety and feeling recognized.
I said that Gifts are sometimes physical manifestations of love. They are. I’m a bit reluctant to say that it will also make people feel loved, since that surfs the wave of programming of: If you get gifts you are loved, which is false in its premise. But as a metaphysical statement it is not false.
Few of us remember asking the God Force to give us life. But it did. Few of us remember asking the God Force to give our souls birth from the dawn of days. But it did. Without agenda, without motive. It just manifested.
If we cannot embrace that with gratitude or love, I´m afraid we bought into it coming with certain conditions. The System invented religion to serve that need.
A soul toned with gratitude is closer to the God Force than anything else.
A soul perceiving life as a gift, the eyes of the beloved as a gift, nature as a gift, is the embodiment of that same God force.
Unconditional love I believe is the term. Without any form or shape of stickiness.
Let Gifts for the right reasons be a physical manifestation of that love all year round.
Mainstream Journalist Visits Site Of Syrian Gas Attack, Questions Official Story April 20 2018 | From: AntiMedia
There are more than enough sound reasons to doubt the official narrative on the Syrian conflict and the alleged poison gas attack, according to the Independent’s Robert Fisk, who is currently on the ground in the Syrian city of Douma.
While in Douma, Fisk met with Dr. Assim Rahaibani, a Syrian doctor from an underground clinic that emerged as one of the sources of images of an alleged chemical weapons attack, which was then used by western powers as a pretext to launch strikes against the Syrian government over the weekend.
Related: After visiting Douma, western media begin to question ‘gas attack’ narrative
According to the doctor, the gas attack videotape the entire world saw was, in fact, genuine. However, Dr. Rahaibani was able to provide a little more context to the video, which the rest of the world continues to be clueless about.
Comment:It should be remembered that in these times many things are not as they seem. Perhaps the media reports of tactical strikes against chemical facilities in Syria are a cover for the removal of other Cabal threats by the Alliance (that is working to take the Cabal down) that cannot be publicly declared at this time.Time will tell.
“War stories, however, have a habit of growing darker,” Fisk explains. “For the same 58-year old senior Syrian doctor then adds something profoundly uncomfortable: the patients, he says, were overcome not by gas but by oxygen starvation in the rubbish-filled tunnels and basements in which they lived, on a night of wind and heavy shelling that stirred up a dust storm.”
“I was with my family in the basement of my home three hundred metres from here on the night but all the doctors know what happened,” the doctor stated, according to Fisk.
“There was a lot of shelling [by government forces] and aircraft were always over Douma at night – but on this night, there was wind and huge dust clouds began to come into the basements and cellars where people lived. People began to arrive here suffering from hypoxia, oxygen loss.
Then someone at the door, a ‘White Helmet,’ shouted ‘Gas!,’ and a panic began. People started throwing water over each other. Yes, the video was filmed here, it is genuine, but what you see are people suffering from hypoxia – not gas poisoning.”
Dr. Rahaibani also allegedly referred to Jaish al-Islam - a group that, not too long ago, was embroiled in a battle with the Syrian government in Eastern Ghouta - as “terrorists,” the same word the Syrian government uses to describe them.
Fisk also notes that the doctors who were present during the alleged incident on April 7, 2018, were already in Damascus giving evidence to a chemical weapons inquiry.
““Before we go any further, readers should be aware that this is not the only story in Douma. There are the many people I talked to amid the ruins of the town who said they had ‘never believed in’ gas stories – which were usually put about, they claimed, by the armed Islamist groups.
These particular jihadis survived under a blizzard of shellfire by living in other’s people’s homes and in vast, wide tunnels with underground roads carved through the living rock by prisoners with pick-axes on three levels beneath the town.
I walked through three of them yesterday, vast corridors of living rock which still contained Russian – yes, Russian – rockets and burned-out cars.”
Strangely enough, Fisk’s account and his experience in Douma appear to cast major doubts not only on the recent alleged chemical weapons incident but also on the overwhelming number of claims regarding the brutality of the Assad government in general.
The western media narrative is that the Syrian government is so ruthlessly violent and oppressive that millions of people have fled the violence and the relentless control of the state, whereas the rebels are fighting for the freedom of the Syrian people.
Fisk’s experience seems to suggest the opposite, at least in the case of Douma:
“So the story of Douma is thus not just a story of gas – or no gas, as the case may be. It’s about thousands of people who did not opt for evacuation from Douma on buses that left last week, alongside the gunmen with whom they had to live like troglodytes for months in order to survive.
I walked across this town quite freely yesterday without soldier, policeman or minder to haunt my footsteps, just two Syrian friends, a camera and a notebook. I sometimes had to clamber across 20-foot-high ramparts, up and down almost sheer walls of earth.
Happy to see foreigners among them, happier still that the siege is finally over, they are mostly smiling; those whose faces you can see, of course, because a surprising number of Douma’s women wear full-length black hijab.”
Why did thousands of residents in Douma choose not to evacuate when they most likely knew they were in the process of being besieged by Syrian government forces?
While there may be many answers to this question, on the face of it, it doesn’t seem to align with western media’s insistence that the Syrian people are solely seeking refuge from the Syrian government.
In fact, according to the U.N., hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees have already returned to areas now under the control of the Syrian government. Between January and October 2017, nearly 715,000 Syrians had returned to their homes, the vast majority of whom returned to Aleppo after Syrian and Russian warplanes had supposedly destroyed the entire city.
Perhaps the Syrian people have largely been fleeing the Syrian rebels supported by the U.S. and its allies - and not running solely from the Syrian government.
“They [Douma residents] talked about the Islamists under whom they had lived,” Fisk added. “They talked about how the armed groups had stolen civilian homes to avoid the Syrian government and Russian bombing.
The Jaish el-Islam had burned their offices before they left, but the massive buildings inside the security zones they created had almost all been sandwiched to the ground by air strikes.”
Fisk also reported that after talking to more than 20 people, he couldn’t find a single person who showed the slightest interest in the connection between Douma and the Anglo-alliance assault on Syria at the end of last week.
Two of the witnesses allegedly told Fisk that they didn’t even know there was a connection.
As the media hypes up the usual pro-war narrative against the sovereign state of Syria, we would do well to pay attention to the mainstream journalists who actually take the time to go see these areas for themselves rather than simply relying on the words of those who sit behind a corporate desks and peddle Washington’s claims without even bothering to verify them.
We need only look at the lies that led to the fall of Iraq, Libya, and Yemen, to name a few – not to mention the lies that brought us to this juncture in Syria - to learn that we can and should figure out alternative ways to bring about meaningful peace and dialogue to the Middle East.
How Rockefeller Founded Big Pharma And Waged War On Natural Cures April 20 2018 | From: YourNewsWire
Western medicine has some good points, and is great in an emergency, but it’s high time people realized that today’s mainstream medicine (western medicine or allopathy), with its focus on drugs, drugs, radiation, drugs, surgery, drugs and more drugs, is at its foundation a money spinning Rockefeller creation.
World Affairs reports: At the same time, around 1900, scientists discovered “petrochemicals” and the ability to create all kinds of chemicals from oil. For example, the first plastic - called Bakelite - was made from oil in 1907. Scientists were discovering various vitamins and guessed that many pharmaceutical drugs could be made from oil.
This was a wonderful opportunity for Rockefeller who saw the ability to monopolize the oil, chemical and the medical industries at the same time!
The best thing about petrochemicals was that everything could be patented and sold for high profits.
But there was one problem with Rockefeller’s plan for the medical industry: natural/herbal medicines were very popular in America at that time. Almost half the doctors and medical colleges in the U.S. were practicing holistic medicine, using knowledge from Europe and Native Americans.
Rockefeller, the monopolist, had to figure out a way to get rid of his biggest competition. So he used the classic strategy of “problem-reaction-solution.” That is, create a problem and scare people, and then offer a (pre-planned) solution. (Similar to terrorism scare, followed by the “Patriot Act”).
He went to his buddy Andrew Carnegie – another plutocrat who made his money from monopolizing the steel industry – who devised a scheme. From the prestigious Carnegie Foundation, they sent a man named Abraham Flexner to travel around the country and report on the status of medical colleges and hospitals around the country.
This led to the Flexner Report, which gave birth to the modern medicine as we know it.
Needless to say, the report talked about the need for revamping and centralizing our medical institutions. Based on this report, more than half of all medical colleges were soon closed.
Homeopathy and natural medicines were mocked and demonized; and doctors were even jailed.
To help with the transition and change the minds of other doctors and scientists, Rockefeller gave more than $100 million to colleges, hospitals and founded a philanthropic front group called “General Education Board” (GEB). This is the classic carrot and stick approach.
In a very short time, medical colleges were all streamlined and homogenized. All the students were learning the same thing, and medicine was all about using patented drugs.
Scientists received huge grants to study how plants cured diseases, but their goal was to first identify which chemicals in the plant were effective, and then recreate a similar chemical – but not identical – in the lab that could be patented.
A pill for an ill became the mantra for modern medicine.
So, now we are, 100 years later, churning out doctors who know nothing about the benefits of nutrition or herbs or any holistic practices. We have an entire society that is enslaved to corporations for its well-being.
America spends 15% of its GDP on healthcare, which should be really called “sick care.” It is focused not on cure, but only on symptoms, thus creating repeat customers. There is no cure for cancer, diabetes, autism, asthma, or even flu.
Why would there be real cures? This is a system founded by oligarchs and plutocrats, not by doctors.
In this month of breast cancer awareness, it is sad to see people being brainwashed about chemotherapy, radiation and surgery. That’s another topic - but here is a quote from John D. Rockefeller that summarizes his New World Order vision for America…
It has two divisions, each focusing on different parts of the world: SIGINT Seniors Europe and SIGINT Seniors Pacific. Both are led by the U.S. National Security Agency, and together they include representatives from at least 17 other countries. Members of the group are from spy agencies that eavesdrop on communications – a practice known as “signals intelligence,” or SIGINT.
Details about the meetings of the SIGINT Seniors are disclosed in a batch of classified documents from the NSA’s internal newsletter SIDToday, provided by whistleblower Edward Snowden and published today by The Intercept.
The documents shine light on the secret history of the coalition, the issues that the participating agencies have focused on in recent years, and the systems that allow allied countries to share sensitive surveillance data with each other.
The SIGINT Seniors Europe was formed in 1982, amid the Cold War. Back then, the alliance had nine members, whose primary focus was on uncovering information about the Soviet Union’s military. Following the attacks on the U.S. in September 2001, the group grew to 14 and began focusing its efforts on counterterrorism.
The core participants of the Seniors Europe are the surveillance agencies from the so-called Five Eyes: the NSA and its counterparts from the U.K., Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. As of April 2013, the other members were intelligence agencies from Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, and Sweden.
The alliance – which the NSA sometimes refers to as the “14 Eyes” – has collaborated to monitor communications during major European events, such as the Olympics in 2004 (hosted in Greece), the Winter Olympics in 2006 (hosted in Italy), and the soccer World Cup in summer 2006 (hosted in Germany).
Between 2006 and 2007, as part of a counterterrorism operation, the agencies began working on “exploitation of the Internet,” which was described by the NSA as a “huge step forward” for the group, because some members of the alliance had previously been “reluctant to acknowledge there was such a thing as the Internet.”
As of 2010, the agencies were focused on targeting suspected terrorists, sharing intelligence related to piracy in the Horn of Africa, and they were collaborating on the development of new surveillance tools and techniques.
According to the documents, the Seniors Europe had its own dedicated communication network called SIGDASYS, through which each agency can share copies of intercepted communications. The group also used a system called CENTER ICE to share intelligence about the war in Afghanistan.
The documents indicate that the Seniors Europe hold an annual conference, each time in a different location. In 2013, for instance, the group gathered in Sweden; in 2011, it met in the U.K; in 2010, in Germany; and in 2009, in Canada. In 2013, the NSA expressed an interest in creating a permanent facility that would host representatives from the Seniors Europe in a joint collaborative space.
The NSA discussed the idea with its U.K. counterpart, Government Communications Headquarters, or GCHQ. The British were “all in” on the proposal, according to the NSA. However, from some unnamed members of the SIGINT Seniors, there was “persistent pushback” on the plan.
The NSA thought the facility would be best hosted in the U.K., as this would “be optimal in terms of having the most flexibility in tuning the operation to benefit the Five Eyes.” The agency also suggested the idea of France potentially hosting the unit, but outlined its reservations about setting up the spy hub in continental Europe.
“Some European nations may be leery about hosting a facility in their nation,” the NSA noted, partly due to “associated concerns for European human rights laws.” (Both NSA and its British counterpart, GCHQ, declined to answer questions for this story. GCHQ issued a statement asserting that it adheres to “a strict legal and policy framework, which ensures that our activities are authorised, necessary and proportionate.”)
The Pacific division of the SIGINT Seniors is younger than the European branch. The NSA formed it in 2005, with the aim of “establishing a collaborative effort to fight terrorism in the Asia-Pacific region.” In March 2007, the NSA said that it was in the process of “raising ideas for expanding [SIGINT Seniors Pacific’s] intelligence focus beyond counterterrorism.”
“The NSA was passing the Indians selected top-secret material, and India began leaking some of the intelligence..”
The founder members of the Pacific alliance were the spy agencies from the Five Eyes, as well as South Korea, Singapore, and Thailand. By 2013, France and India had joined the Pacific group.
The NSA was particularly keen on having India on board as part of a broader U.S. government effort to improve relations with the country, and “felt strongly that India’s participation in multilateral intelligence sharing would help mature its Indian SIGINT agencies as well as provide regional [counterterrorism] expertise.”
In March 2008, then-NSA Director Gen. Keith Alexander led a delegation of officials – including representatives from Singapore and New Zealand – to New Delhi, where he asked India’s spy agencies if they would like to join forces. Three months later, the Indians accepted.
The Pacific group used a system called CRUSHED ICE to share information. According to an NSA document dated from November 2007, CRUSHED ICE is a secure network that enables sharing of secret intelligence, collected from intercepted communications, about counterterrorism.
“The system allows for collaboration by way of voice, binary-file/email exchanges, analysis and reporting, graphics and mapping, communities of interest, collection management, and other applications as needed,” the November 2007 document stated.
For the countries invited to participate in the SIGINT Seniors, there are obvious benefits. They can learn new surveillance techniques from the world’s most powerful spy agencies and at the same time, obtain information about their own countries or regions that they otherwise may have been unable to access.
But not all nations who have been invited to join the alliance have jumped on board. According to an NSA document from March 2007, Japan refused to sign up to the Pacific group, expressing concerns that “unintended disclosure of its participation would be too high a risk.”
A downside of SIGINT Seniors is the risk that a partner will mishandle sensitive information. This happened on at least one occasion with India. By the time terrorists had struck Mumbai in a series of attacks in November 2008, the country had been admitted to the Pacific group.
The NSA was passing the Indians selected top-secret material, such as interrogation reports and recordings of intercepted phone calls. In the weeks following the Mumbai incident, India began leaking some of the intelligence - “at times it seemed a daily occurrence,” the NSA’s country desk officer complained.
The NSA limited the provisioning of top-secret information to India after repeated warnings and meetings left it dissatisfied. Still, the NSA, which had deployed analysts to India, remained hopeful Indian intelligence agencies would “mature … into the partners NSA needs in South Asia.”
The SIGINT Seniors likely remains active today and has probably grown its capabilities in recent years.
According to the 2013 “black budget” – a portion of the U.S. federal budget dedicated to secret intelligence-gathering work – the NSA was that year working to bolster both the European and Pacific branches of the SIGINT Seniors, and planned to “expand the level of cooperation on [counterterrorism] and explore other potential areas of collaboration.”
An Objective Analysis Of The QAnon Phenomenon April 19 2018 | From: VigilantCitizen
Claiming to be a high-level government insider, “Q” has been posting cryptic messages on 8Chan, unveiling the extent of the “deep state” while claiming that it is about to be taken down. Here’s a look at this mind-boggling phenomenon.
At the center of it all: Hundreds of cryptic messages posted on a regular basis by an anonymous 8Chan user who claims to have “Q Clearance”, the “highest level of security within all departments”. (Although we don’t if Q is a man, woman or a group of people, the pronoun “he” will be used in this article for legibility).
Through short forum posts comprised of keywords, codes, riddles, questions, pictures, and bizarre computer commands, Q claims to be delivering the “biggest intel drop in known history”. Every few days, a piece is added to a gigantic conspiracy puzzle which, once understood, is said to unlock the truth about the powers that be. And nothing less.
Through his posts, Q describes a global elite that is evil, satanic, and bent on pedophilia. In his descriptions, this elite group deals with international human trafficking, it orchestrates false flag events to advance its agenda, and conducts occult rituals behind closed doors. It owns and uses Hollywood, mainstream media and social networks to control the narrative and to censor the truth.
Basics of the #QAnon Phenomenon
While the above might not surprise the average “truther”, Q’s message has a startling twist: Donald Trump is actually raging a silent war against this globalist elite and is even brewing a major “counter-coup” to retake the American government.
According to Q, Mueller’s investigation regarding Russian collusion is a front. In actuality, he’s about to indict hundreds of high-profile politicians and celebrities including the Clintons, Podestas, and Soros of this world. This operation is expected to cause intense turmoil and even riots.
Q followers refer to this period as “the storm” – a reference to Trump’s eyebrow-raising remark made on October 6th about a gathering of military officers being “the calm before the storm”. When asked what he meant, Trump responded: “You’ll see.”
Here’s a look at the main elements of the Q phenomenon.
Q uses 8Chan for his intel drops – a board that is virtually unmoderated and populated with users who love to sleuth online and obsesses over details. For this reason,
they refer to themselves as “autists”.
The “autistic” element is necessary because Q claims he cannot reveal things directly. He must use codes and questions to “reduce sniffer programs that continually absorb and analyze data”.
Q’s first post, made on October 28th, 2017, made a bold prediction about Hillary Clinton’s arrest, ensuing “massive riots” and the activation of the National Guard across the country on October 30th.
Evidently, October 30th came and went, and none of this happened. This did not stop Q from adding hundreds of additional posts in the following months.
The second crumb utilizes Q’s characteristic short questions and keywords to lay out the core of the plot.
Like many other Q crumbs, this post refers to lots people, theories, and concepts. “Mockingbird” is a keyword that is often used by Q. It most likely refers to the CIA project Operation Mockingbird:
“Operation Mockingbird was an alleged large-scale program of the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) that began in the early 1950s and attempted to manipulate news media for propaganda purposes. It funded student and cultural organizations and magazines as front organizations.”
- Wikipedia, Operation Mockingbird
Q’s crumb states that Trump is “isolated”, that he goes around the “three letter agencies”, that he relies on Military intelligence and that he purposely surrounded himself with generals. He adds that the battle is not about Democrats versus Republicans.
Post #133 details Q’s conception of the global elite which, in his words, is hard to swallow.
This post states that the “puppet masters” are based on 3 “sides”, like a triangle: The Saudis, the Rothschilds, and the Soros. At the center of the triangle, the “eye” is fed by governments worldwide using slush funds, wars, and environmental pacts.
Q then alludes to Satan worship and Epstein Island. More specifically, he mentions the bizarre temple on Epstein Island, which he believes has hidden levels below.
The temple on Jeffrey Epstein’s private Caribbean island Little St James.
Jeffrey Epstein is a highly influential billionaire who was known for organizing massive parties with high-profile politicians and celebrities. Flight records show Bill Clinton flew on Epstein’s plane 26 times. In 2008, Epstein was convicted of soliciting an underage “sex slave” for prostitution, for which he served 13 months in prison.
“Brought in on the billionaire’s private jets, nicknamed the Lolita Express by locals, numerous teenage girls were allegedly made to take part in depraved orgies at his US Virgin Islands bolthole.”
- The Telegraph, Stephen Hawking pictured on Jeffrey Epstein’s ‘Island of Sin’
Later crumbs allude to the importance of “spirit cooking” and mind controlled slaves in Hollywood.
Analyzing each crumb could fill an encyclopedia. Throughout his posts, Q touches on a variety of topics such as the Vegas shooting, the Saudi regime change, the North Korean negotiations, the tracking of Edward Snowden, a push for an Internet Bill of Rights and much more.
For many, these claims are hard to believe and “fake news”. However, Q’s “proofs” – evidence that he is directly connected with the POTUS – has turned many skeptics into believers.
To prove the fact that he is close to the POTUS, Q submitted revealing pictures and predicted some POTUS-related events. This led many to believe that he is indeed a White House insider. Some even believe Q is Trump himself. Here are some examples of proofs.
1. Do It Q
A Trump tweet posted on November 8th, which celebrated the one year anniversary of his election win, is said to contain clues relating to Q.
If one goes on Trump’s official Twitter account to this specific picture, the file name will be DOITQJ8UIAAowsQ.jpg. The fact that the first letters spell out “DO IT Q” is interpreted by some as clue confirming that Q is directly connected to Trump.
Also, the headline of the newspaper in front of Trump says: “Princes and tycoons arrested in Saudi crackdown on corruption” – a topic often brought up in Q crumbs.
Finally, this is one of the tweet’s replies:
2. Special Place
On December 10th, Q’s crumb said that they’ve picked out a “special place” for GS (possibly George Soros).
On December 17th, Trump posted a tweet using the words “special place” which was interpreted as another clue.
Q often insists on noting the similarity between his posts and the tweets sent out by the POTUS.
3. The Pen
On December 12th, Q posted a picture of a pen next to a White House stationery with the message “Merry Christmas”.
When an 8Chan user highlighted this connection, Q posted another picture of this mysterious pen.
In an interview, the journalist Jerome Corsi believes to have identified the mysterious desk.
“That’s the Laurel desk. It’s the one that Obama used and apparently Trump is also using at Camp David. That’s the desktop at Camp David.
The pen is a Montblanc ink pen that Trump has used for a long time. That’s Camp David over the weekend and that picture had to have been taken by somebody who was there with President Trump.
His pen on the desk; that pretty much authenticates that QAnon is very close to Donald Trump and present in some of these really important inner circle White House meetings.”
Obama sitting in the Laurel office in Camp David. Is it the same desk?
4. Consensual Tweet
On January 7th, a Trump tweet contained a mistake where the word “consensual” was used instead of “consequential”.
Left: The original tweet. Right: The corrected tweet
Although the mistake was corrected a few minutes afterward, it quickly made headlines and was widely ridiculed.
An example of a headline mocking the consensual tweet
However, according to Q followers, the typo was no accident. The fact that Trump omitted and then added a word with letter Q was interpreted as a message from Trump to Q followers. Q himself added that it was no accident.
In the evening of December 10th, Q’s drop contained the words Blunt & Direct Time. The next one mentioned “false flag(s)” and “fireworks”.
The next morning, a pipe bomb partially detonated in the New York City Subway’s Times Square–42nd Street/Port Authority Bus Terminal station. The suspected bomber was identified by police as 27-year-old Akayed Ullah, a Salafi Muslim immigrant from Bangladesh.
The following evening, Q explained what he meant by “Blunt & Direct Time”.
BDT is the currency of Bangladesh. Therefore, the crumb implies that Q was aware of the coming “fireworks” and of the nationality of the terrorist.
Several other proofs circulate around The Storm, all of which can be interpreted as undeniable clues from the POTUS himself or mere coincidences dreamt up by overactive minds.
As expected, media coverage about Q is extremely biased, partisan and opinionated. One of the first articles regarding Q appeared in NYmag. The article states:
“A new conspiracy theory called “The Storm” has taken the grimiest parts of the internet by, well, storm. the Storm conspiracy features secret cabals, a child sex-trafficking ring led (in part) by the satanic Democratic Party, and of course, countless logical leaps and paranoid assumptions that fail to hold up under the slightest fact-based scrutiny.”
At the other end of the spectrum, Alex Jones firmly believes in the authenticity of Q. On December 24th he stated:
“A lot of what QAnon has said, I had already gotten separately from my White House sources, my Pentagon sources, my CIA sources.”
Liz Crokin, a journalist for TownHall.com has stated in an interview that she believes that Q might be Trump himself.
“Now, I believe Q is President Trump, working possibly with Stephen Miller, to drop this information behind the scenes to get a campaign going, to red-pill people as to what is going on with The Storm, and their takedown of the Deep State, which includes the Deep State pedophile scene.
I’ve been telling people for a very long time the stuff that goes on with these elitists, these occult elitists, who literally are raping, sacrificing children, drinking blood, like eating babies literally. It’s too hard for an average person that has no idea that any of this is going on to take it in all at once.
So there’s been a very orchestrated effort behind the scenes by President Trump and his administration to slowly wake up the public as to what, that A), this goes on, that it’s real, and B), that they’re taking down these people.
When there are mass arrests, and there are names like Hillary Clinton that pop up, or thrown in prison for sex trafficking, there’s not mass hysteria. People will realize, ‘Oh my gosh, maybe this is real,’ or like, this isn’t just some kind of coup or whatever, this is real and this is really going on.”
While Q is an extremely polarizing figure, there are facts about the phenomenon that should be obvious to all. First, everything about Q is 100% pro-Trump and in full accord with Trump’s entire political agenda.
From a PR perspective, it is an effective and innovative way of bolstering support for Trump while bypassing mass media.
But is this all true? Is Trump truly taking down a network of globalist Satanists? Is this why 90% of the media coverage of Trump negative? Conversely, is The Storm actually a way of gaining the support of “truthers” while, in actuality, no storm is actually happening? Could it be the most elaborate LARP in human history, conducted by a brilliant troll?
One thing is for sure: There is something profoundly messianic about the Q phenomenon. Prophecies of great tribulations and promises of delivering the world from Satan’s followers indeed take on epic, biblical proportions.
Through “miraculous” tweets and pictures, Q has converted droves of skeptics into devout followers who are now believers and are ready to spread his word. Q himself adds to this mystique by often mentioning God and quoting the Lord’s Prayer.
So, is Q the real deal? As he says himself, “truth always wins”. Only time will tell if his prophecies of a Final Judgement will come to pass or if he’ll end up being another false prophet.
U.K. Is Lying: If Skripal Was Poisoned At His Home, The Agent Used Against Him Cannot Be Nerve Gas April 18 2018 | From: GlobalResearch
The United Kingdom unknowingly admitted that its government has been lying, accusing Russia of allegedly poisoning former spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia by the nerve agent Novichok on March 4 in Salisbury. The British government has already made two grave mistakes.
Previously, the same doctors stated that Sergei Skripal and his daughter have only 1% hope of survival and ‘will be invalids for life’. Moreover, former chemical weapons scientist and former Russian chemical weapons’ program whistleblower Vil Mirzayanov, who is currently a leading western expert on toxic agents, assured the British media that 2 grams of Novichok will be enough to kill 500 people instantly. He also told the Daily Mail:
“These people are gone - this man and his daughter. Even if they survive they will not recover.”
It seems that Mirzayanov made these statements under the direction of the mainstream European and American media with the aim of discrediting his former homeland in the eyes of the world community.
If Sergey and Julia Skripal were poisoned in front of their house, then they wouldn’t have been able to walk through Salisbury. Thus, this fact completely excludes the use of nerve agent Novichok.
(The earlier report that Skripal and his daughter had been attacked while sitting on a bench at a shopping mall has also been refuted by Scotland Yard (GR Editor)).
Let us remind you, Scotland Yard detectives came to a conclusion that Sergey Skripal and his daughter were poisoned at their house. A particularly high concentration of agent was detected at the entrance door. If Skripal was poisoned at his home, then the agent used against him cannot be a nerve gas.
A number of experts believe that such gases can kill people within a few minutes. Skripal simply did not have time to walk to a restaurant or shopping center, where he was eventually found.
There is no way that the agent used to poison Skripal and his daughter could be Novichok. More likely the victims received an overdose of painkillers that are used for anesthetics.
This show with the involvement of pseudo-experts and baseless allegations was specially staged by the British government to increase tensions in Europe and contribute much to the rise of Russophobic sentiments around the world.
Why Were The Heads Of NZ’s Department Of Conservation & Hong Kong’s Goldman Sachs Touring Parts Of Fiordland Recently In A Six-Helicopter Entourage? April 17 2018 | From: EnviroWatchRangitikei
And this fly over, one week before Obama’s visit? What was going on? This entourage consisted solely of international bankers from all over the world it’s reported.
One could be forgiven for being somewhat suspicious of this company of people. Call me conspiratorial if you wish but add to that the fact it’s all a bit timely, especially with the fast & furious sale of vast swathes of South Island property including Otago to offshore wealthy folk who are supposedly escaping the apocalypse they believe is coming, and it’s difficult to believe it’s a case of ‘nothing doing here’.
The common denominator for the better part of all the aforementioned is the US.
NZ & the US military have been cosying up for quite a while now especially since our former ‘esteemed’ PM ‘Sir’ John (now managing other monies) spent a good part of his dubious ‘service’ oiling the US war machine.
The info on the six helicopter entourage was posted on the no to 1080 use in NZ Facebook page by Carol Sawyer. The company of international bankers along with DoC’s Director General went flying over Fiordland, reliable word has it, on 14 March 2018, quoted here (with minor edits, go to the source to read the original):
Six Squirrel helicopters were chartered from Alpine Helicopters, Wanaka. They only have five Squirrels so one was chartered in by them.
Apparently, Director-General of Conservation Lou Sanson, and presumably other DoC people, took a pile of international bankers on a Tiki Tour. I am told the Hong Kong-based head of Goldman Sachs was one of them.
They went to Fiordland – landing in the Murchison Mountains, (Takahe), Chalky Island (Kakapo) in Chalky Inlet, and Resolution Island in Dusky Sound.
I have also been told this helicopter operation would have cost at least $80,000 to hire. I thought DoC was short of money? Did the big bankers pay for this trip? A Squirrel helicopter seats the pilot and six passengers, so with six Squirrels that is at least 30 people involved.
In the evening they were seen landing at Manapouri, where they had their evening meal … at the Manapouri Hotel, before the trip back to Wanaka.”
Was Lou Sanson’s “great ‘success’ “ with “DoC’s Battle for the Birds program, and the importance of Predator Free 2050” part of the discussion?
Carol has noted the remoteness of the areas they viewed in their flight from Wanaka to Fiordland. Fiordland is very remote and the places they were going could not be reached by road. Resolution Island is in Dusky Sound, Fiordland and has no road access. Chalky Island is in Chalky Inlet, Fiordland and also has no road access.
The pertinent question is asked: “What the heck are we giving these rich international bankers in return … land? mining rights? our souls? …” I would concur on those questions and would place my bet on all of them.
It’s been put to me before by some readers that that mining is the agenda for clearing off our lands with 1080 of all things living. There is more than one theory on that.
Returning to the TPPA & the military, looking at the big picture, hear Prof Jane Kelsey explain the global power play going on:
Study Shows Kids Are Born Creative Geniuses But The Education System Destroys Imagination April 17 2018 | From: BlacklistedNews
Dr. George Land and Beth Jarman were commissioned by NASA to help the space agency identify and develop creative talent. The two were tasked to research school children in an attempt to identify creative individuals from which the agency could pick to help with their many products.
It seems American [read: Western] schoolchildren lose their ability to think creatively over time. As students enter their educational journey, they retain most of their abilities to think creatively. In other words, children are born with creative genius. Employing a longitudinal study model, Land and Jarman studied 1,600 children at ages 5, 10, and 15.
Surprisingly, Land said they discovered if given a problem with which they had to come up with an imaginative, and innovative solution, 98 percent of 5-year-olds tested at the “genius” level. Simply put, their answers to how the problem should be solved were brilliant.
Upon entry into the school system, those numbers started to drop dramatically. When the team returned to test those same subjects at age 10, the percentage of genius-level imaginative and innovative thinkers fell to an unthinkable 30 percent.
The indicators led the researchers to believe the current educational system is to blame. Not only did 68 percent of those students lose their ability to think with imagination and innovation, the thought that only 30 percent could still do is unfathomable.
The downward spiral continued to be demonstrated at age 15. When the researchers returned, the percentage of genius-level students had dropped to an abysmal 12 percent. Gasps could be heard all around the room as the audience attempted to process how such a brilliant group of students could sink so low in their imaginations and ability to solve problems with innovation.
Land blames the Industrial Revolution and its burgeoning factories for the demise of creativity. During that era, Land said the natural approach to teaching and learning led educators to develop“factories for human beings, too, called ‘schools’ so we could manufacture people that could work well in the factories.”
From a qualitative perspective, teachers point to governmental intrusion into the dumbing down of the nation’s school children. Starting with the development of the Department of Education, the federal government’s handprint is all over some of the worst decisions regarding public policy and education.
From the Clinton Administration’s mandated federal testing guidelines, to Bush’s No Child Left Behind Act, to the disastrous Obama Administration’s Common Core Curriculum, teachers everywhere have complained they’re not teaching any longer.
They’re simply instructing students to achieve the minimum educational requirements necessary for them to pass a standardized exam.
Predictably, during those administration’s attempts to force a model of education upon the nation, the homeschool movement has flourished. Parents were forced to come to the conclusion their local public school was failing to provide an education sufficient for their children to be able to attend college.
As a result, Land’s team was not surprised to find only 2 percent of adults (Age 31) still retain their ability to think imaginatively, with creativity and innovation. He said:
“Look, folks, if we’re going to enter the future with hope, that’s not going to do it. We have to do something about it..”
Land says people can actually get back to thinking creatively with imagination if they will get rid of stinking thinking. He urges listeners to get rid of three aspects of education: judgment, criticism, and censorship.
When students come up with a brilliant idea they’re met with constant criticism, therefore they become conditioned to think like the masses, instead of coming up with an accepted alternative solution.
“Find the 5-year-old,” in yourself, Land implores.
He says it has “never gone away” and can be accessed at any moment. Land said “So, The Great Designer said, ‘I’m gonna put that mechanism in so they exercise it every day in case they ever need an idea.’ You’ve got that capability, absolutely!”
But Land says we only exercise that genius part of our brains when we’re dreaming. So dream big! Dream often. And don’t let naysayers rain on your imagination.
Using brain scan imaging, Land demonstrated how the brain is practically useless when it’s afraid. In contrast, the human brain is exceedingly active when it’s imagining.
Without specifically criticizing the educational system, Land addressed the major problem with teaching students to get the “right answer.”
He says, instead, students should imagine many possibilities to achieve innovation and problem-solving.
According to Land, in order for industry to survive, it must be continually innovating, and adapting to change, expecting the landscapes to evolve, and evolve with it. Instead of becoming fixated on one right solution, come up with 30-40 imaginative ones to become innovative.
The anchor is not a demanding voice on the air; therefore, the audience doesn’t have to be demanding.
The anchor isn’t hell-bent on uncovering the truth. For this he substitutes a false dignity. Therefore, the audience can surrender its need to wrestle with the truth and replace that with a false dignity of its own.
The anchor takes propriety to an extreme: it’s unmannerly to look below the surface of things. Therefore, the audience adopts those manners.
The anchor inserts an actor’s style into what should instead be a relentless reporter’s forward motion. Therefore, members of the audience can become actors shaping “news” about their own lives through Facebook.
The anchor taps into, and mimics, that part of the audience’s psyche that wants smooth delivery of superficial cause and effect. From their perch, the elite television anchors can deign to allow a trickle of sympathy here, a slice of compassion there.
But they let the audience know that objectivity is their central mission. “We have to get the story right. You can rely on us for that.”
This is the great propaganda arch of national network news. “These facts are what’s really happening and we’re giving them to you.” The networks spend untold billions to convey that false assurance.
The elite anchor must pretend to believe the narrow parameters and boundaries of a story are all there is. There is no deeper meaning. There is no abyss waiting to swallow whole a major story and reveal it as a hoax. No. Never.
With this conviction in tow, the anchor can fiddle and diddle with details.
The network anchor is the wizard of Is. He keeps explaining what is. “Here’s something that is, and then over here we have something else that is, and now, just in, a new thing that is.” He lays down miles of “is-concrete” to pave over deeper, uncomfortable, unimaginable truth.
The anchor is quite satisfied to obtain all his information from “reputable sources.” This mainly means government and corporate spokespeople. Not a problem.
Every other source, for the anchor, is murky and unreliable. He doesn’t have to worry his pretty little head about whether his sources are, indeed, trustworthy. He calculates it this way: if government and corporations are releasing information, it means there is news to report.
What the FBI director has to say is news whether it’s true or false, because the director said it. So why not blur over the mile-wide distinction between “he spoke the truth” and “he spoke”?
On air, the anchor is neutral, a castratus, a eunuch.
This is a time-honored ancient tradition. The eunuch, by his diminished condition, has the trust of the ruler. He guards the emperor’s inner sanctum. He acts as a buffer between his master and the people. He applies the royal seal to official documents.
Essentially, the anchor is saying, “See, I’m ascetic in the service of truth. Why would I hamstring myself this way unless my mission is sincere objectivity?”
All expressed shades of emotion occur and are managed within that persona of the dependable court eunuch. The anchor who can move the closest to the line of being human without actually arriving there is the champion. In recent times, it was Brian Williams - until his “conflations” and “misremembrances” surfaced.
The vibrating string between eunuch and human is the frequency that makes an anchor “great.” Think Cronkite, Chet Huntley, Edward R Murrow. Huntley was just a touch too masculine, so they teamed him up with David Brinkley, a medium-boiled egg. Brinkley supplied twinkles of comic relief.
The cable news networks don’t really have anyone who qualifies as an elite anchor. Wolf Blitzer of CNN made his bones during the first Iraq war only because his name fit the bombing action so well. Brit Hume of FOX has more anchor authority than anyone now working in network television, but he’s semi-retired, content to play the role of contributor, because he knows the news is a scam on wheels.
There are other reasons for “voice-neutrality” of the anchor. Neutrality conveys a sense of science. “We did the experiment in the lab and this is how it turned out.”
Neutrality implies: this is a democracy; an anchor is no more important than the next person (and yet he is - another contradiction, swallowed).
Neutrality implies: we, the news division, don’t have to make money (a lie); we’re not like the cop shows; we’re on a higher plane; we’re performing a public service; we’re like a responsible charity.
The anchor poses the age-old question about the people. Do the people really want to suck in superficial cause and effect and surface detail, or do they want deeper truth? Do the people want comfortable gigantic lies, or do they want to look behind the curtain?
The anchor, of course, goes for surface only.
The anchor is so accustomed to lying and so accustomed to pretending the lies are true that he wouldn’t know how to shift gears.
At the end of the Roman Empire, when the whole structure was coming apart, a brilliant and devious decision was made. The Empire would proceed according to a completely different plan. Instead of continuing to stretch its resources to the breaking point with military conquests, it would attack the mind.
It would establish the Roman Church and write new spiritual law. These laws and an overriding cosmology would be dispensed, in land after land, by official “eunuchs.” Men who, distanced from the usual human appetites, would automatically gain the trust of the people.
These priests would “deliver the news.” They would be the elite anchors, who would translate God’s orders and revelations to the public.
By edict, no one would be able to communicate with God, except through these “trusted ones.” Therefore, in a sense, the priest was actually higher on the ladder of power than God Himself.
In fact, it would fall to the Church to reinterpret all of history, writing it as a series of symbolic clues that revealed and confirmed Church doctrine (story line).
Today, people are believers because the popular stories are delivered by contemporary castrati, every night on the evening news.
If these castrati say a virus is threatening the world; and if they are backed up by neutral castrati bishops, the medical scientists; and if those medical scientists are supported by public health bureaucrats, the cardinals; and if the cardinals are given a wink and a nod by the President, the Pope - the Program is working.
And the news is spread to the people… But the true viruses are the anchors. They spread the illnesses.
New Study Finds Antidepressants To Be “Largely Ineffective And Potentially Dangerous” April 16 2018 | From: NaturalBlaze
The first two pharmaceutical antidepressants were clinically introduced in the 1950s, and the conditions they were supposed to treat would have at that time been found in about 50 to 100 persons per million.
As research develops, however, it is becoming clear that the truth about antidepressants is far different from the rosy picture painted by pharmaceutical marketers and biased or corrupt research journals.
In a recent study conducted at Zurich University of Applied Sciences in Switzerland, researcher Michael P. Hengartner came to the conclusion that, “antidepressants are largely ineffective and potentially harmful.”
“Due to several flaws such as publication and reporting bias, unblinding of outcome assessors, concealment and recoding of serious adverse events, the efficacy of antidepressants is systematically overestimated, and harm is systematically underestimated."
- Michael P. Hengartner, Researcher at Zurich University of Applied Sciences in Switzerland.
Remarking on the methodology of the study and the meaning of the statistical results is Peter Simons of Mad in America:
“Hengartner questioned why the “massive increase in antidepressant prescription rates over the last three decades did not translate into measurable public health benefits” in the treatment of depression.
Although meta-analyses tend to find a small difference between placebo and antidepressant effect, Hengartner argues that it comes nowhere near the “clinically significant” threshold of at least 7 points on the Hamilton Depression Scale.
Instead, a difference of 1 or 2 points is a meaningless numerical difference that would not be considered an improvement to a clinician or the person diagnosed with depression.”
Also noteworthy, the study’s author notes that long-term us of antidepressants actually increases the likelihood that the patient will have a relapse of depressive episodes.
This is one of many detrimental known side effects of antidepressants, which were also noted in this recent study, including higher risk of suicide.
“A growing body of evidence from hundreds of randomized controlled trials suggests that antidepressants cause suicidality, but this risk is underestimated because data from industry-funded trials are systematically flawed.
Unselected, population-wide observational studies indicate that depressive patients who use antidepressants are at an increased risk of suicide and that they have a higher rate of all-cause mortality than matched controls.”
Ron Paul: Assad Gassing His Own People Is “Total Nonsense” April 15 2018 | From: Antimedia
Former Congressman Ron Paul has strongly argued following the alleged chemical gas attack blamed on the Syrian government that it makes no logical sense for Assad to order a gas attack, and has called the accusations a telltale sign of a false flag attack meant to provide justification for the U.S. military to maintain a presence in Syria.
“Right now, recently, it’s all been in Syria, ‘Assad did it! Assad did it!’” explained the former congressman. “No proof at all.”
"The way the people that perpetuate these false flags [sic] say that Assad is gassing his own people, at the same time, he’s winning the war and the people are flocking back in to go to the territories that he has returned to the government of Syria,”explained Paul.
“But, nevertheless, he’s out there gassing his own people, which makes no sense whatsoever and fewer and fewer people are believing this.”
Paul, who founded the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity in 2013 after leaving the U.S. House, presented his analysis via the Ron Paul Liberty Report, describing how foreign policy goals related to Saudi Arabia and Iran, and Russia, as well as the influence of neoconservatives, oil interests, and the military-industrial complex play into the current paradigm we see playing out in Syria.
During an appearance on RT, Paul further elaborated. “This whole idea that all of a sudden Assad’s gassing his own people, I think, is total nonsense,” Paul said, pointing out that “over and over again” the US has claimed the Syrian or Russian government has been complicit in previous gas attacks in Syria – and the alleged poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal in London - but “nothing panned out.” Or as Paul put it, one “fake news” story after another.
The libertarian icon then reasoned that the rush to condemn the Syrian government without evidence is meant to provide a justification for those wanting the US to remain in Syria and topple the Syrian government in hopes of installing a more western-friendly regime that is not within Russia or Iran’s sphere of influence.
Paul argued that, while it provides little to no strategic benefit for Assad to gas his own people, it would greatly benefit those that are pushing for regime change – especially after Trump recently said he would like to remove U.S. troops from Syria.
Nearly all the requests were transferred to the Attorney-General Chris Finlayson, who declined Mr Dotcom's requests on the grounds that they were "vexatious" and trivial.
The Solicitor-General also said Mr Dotcom had not provided sufficient reasons for urgency. On Monday, the Human Rights Tribunal ruled that the Attorney-General unlawfully withheld information from Mr Dotcom, meaning he perverted the course of justice.
The Government and Ministers have been ordered to comply with the original requests and supply all relevant documents to Mr Dotcom.
Mr Dotcom was awarded damages for loss of benefit and loss of dignity. In a series of celebratory tweets, Mr Dotcom claimed this decision meant his extradition case is "over".
What Is Globalism And Where Is It Going? April 14 2018 | From: JonRappoport
“Above all, the Globalist elite considers the human being is nothing more than a biological machine - a machine that is badly programmed, desperately in need of a complete overhaul and restructuring at the level of mind.” - The Underground, Jon Rappoport
He brought back, for the public, the concept, which had receded from press coverage. You could say he let the cat out of the bag.
So here I thought I would publish, in a series, some of the important material I’ve written on the subject. People need to be aware of the elite movement called Globalism and its aims and strategies.
1. “Over the weekend, thousands of protesters across multiple countries condemned impending [Globalist] trade deals promoted by governments and their corporate partners.
Though the protests received little coverage from mainstream media, they stretched from Paris to Warsaw.” (Carey Wedler, Blacklisted News, 10/19/16)
Now that the election is over, it’s important to review a few facts about Globalism. It was a centerpiece of controversy during the run-up to the vote.
Globalism isn’t just an abstract word or idea. It gives survival to some, and tries to take it away from others. It lights on populations like a storm of locusts. It undermines jobs and work. It steals. It is designed to make chaos.
Globalism is based on the elite conviction that “the best people” should rule over everyone else for the greater good. “We’re not trying to do harm. We’re spreading the wealth.”
We can find the seeds of Globalism in Plato and his ancient dialogue called The Republic. Plato made his final philosophic stand on that work. Step by step, he establishes that The Good, which is highest concept in the universe, which exists in a realm of “pure ideas” apart from the daily round of existence, must be accessed and understood, if society is to meet up with its best destiny.
But, naturally, not all people are able to fathom The Good or translate it into action here in this human realm. Only the few can grasp it - and they must rise to the top and rule.
So, in the end, there is a fascist paradise. It rebuffs all attempts at dilution.
This is how Plato, the humane philosopher, the champion of the individual and freedom and independent thought, painted himself into a terrible corner. But never mind. Down through the centuries, “the wisest of men” have taken their cue from him and built nations and civilizations based on their (self-serving) version of The Good.
And in the process, they have used propagandists to convince populations that rule from above is only carried out as altruistic service…
When a system has been devised, planned, launched, and maintained by criminals to undermine a nation, they are naturally going to defend it by saying:
"It’s good for everyone AND THERE IS NO OTHER WAY TO MANAGE HUMAN AFFAIRS. BESIDES, WE CAN’T STOP IT NOW. THAT WOULD CAUSE WIDESPREAD CHAOS.”
In exactly the same way, a massive prison housing nothing but innocent people would superficially look like “chaos,” if the airtight security system were turned off.
The truth about the Globalist prison is simple. The underlying operation takes jobs away from America, in this instance, and sends them to Third World hell holes, where the same products are manufactured by the same companies, for pennies, using slave workers who labor in toxic environmental conditions that destroy their health.
Isn’t that easy to understand?
The American companies in those hell holes then sell the products back to Americans without paying taxes, tariffs, or penalties of any kind. The defenders of Globalism claim selling back the products cheaply is good for the American consumer. This is a lie, because many of those consumers no longer have jobs. Or they work at much lower wages than they used to, because the companies they worked for left America and went to the hell holes.
All in all, this arrangement is obviously designed to torpedo the national economy. It’s not an accident. It’s not an unintended consequence. The Globalists may be criminals, but they aren’t stupid criminals.
But what about the US companies who left America and set up shop overseas? Can’t they read the handwriting on the wall? Can’t they realize their base of consumers in the US is shrinking?
The companies are, in fact, stupid. They’re betting on short-term success vs. long-term collapse, and they’re going to lose. They plunge ahead with their eyes closed - because they can’t bring themselves to believe that the system they’re part of could have been fashioned with ultimate failure in mind.
The anti-Globalism movement is MUCH bigger than Trump, so no matter what you think of him, whether you believe in his honesty or not, the ideas he is bringing forward are having an immense impact on the populace - because the populace has figured out the Globalist game. They see and feel the destruction. They see and feel what is happening to jobs. Their jobs. They see the brutal reality, and they want no part of it.
They want America to endure. They want America to prosper. They want a free market. They don’t want their country reduced to Third World status.
All the politically correct humanitarian lingo in the universe is not going to change these basic realities. Globalism - the export of jobs, the rapid expansion of the Welfare State, the launching of senseless wars to pave the way for corporate plunder, the immigrant-flood through open borders - is a nation killer. It’s built to be a killer.
Decimating nations is an intentional precursor to ruling the planet from above by the Globalists-in-charge. “What we destroy we will resurrect on our own terms.”
No nation on Earth has a pure and clean history. But no nation deserves to be leveled and destroyed. The founding ideas of the original American Republic were and are the best ideas about government ever forwarded in human history. They imply:
Severely limited federal power. Free individuals. Independent individuals. Individuals who choose their own dreams and destinies. Individuals who work to achieve those dreams.
The so-called liberal press, and the academic institutions of America, have sold out completely. They are on board with what they can see of the Globalist agenda. The press will never challenge that agenda. They are grotesque cowards of the first order.
I have met some of them during my 30-plus years of working as a reporter. Behind their perfumed fronts, they give off a stench.
America is America. For the most part, its people are decent. Their leaders have betrayed them time and time again, without a second thought, without a shred of remorse.
The so-called populist movement which is growing by leaps and bounds, which got its legs under it with Ron Paul, must not come to a halt, no matter who sits in the White House, not matter what he does.
The future is now.
Globalist corporations are blind in the face of doom.
People don’t fully appreciate the capacity of mega-corporations. The 300 largest companies account for roughly 25% of all international trade.
And, even more startling, these behemoths are operating their production lines at half-strength. Why? Because only 1.5 billion people in the world have enough money to rate as true consumers.
So these corporations, which are the leading lights of the Globalist agenda, are looking and hoping for many more customers.
Meanwhile, Rockefeller Globalists are hyping the pseudoscience of manmade warming, in order to convince nations to cut their energy production. That plan, of course, would further erode the ability of mega-corporations to find new consumers. Indeed, Globalists are all for wrecking economies and deepening poverty - aims which infect the lifeblood of corporations.
We are looking at a huge crack - a contradiction - in the very foundation of the Globalism.
And if you want to take this farther, the notion of radical depopulation across the planet would do even graver harm to corporate dreams and ambitions. Far fewer consumers.
There are wild and woolly solutions. For example, provide a basic income to every human on Earth; or make governments the sole payer to corporations for their products, which are then dispensed to the population in a mad universal welfare scheme. In either case, you would have a new currency system.
Governments would openly and blandly create money out of thin air, as needed, to fund these harebrained schemes. Governments already invent money, but this would be occurring on a far larger scale, and without any pretense of legitimacy.
Given the propensity of governments to run their programs according to dizzyingly incompetent guidelines, I see no way the mega-corporations would welcome these “innovations.”
In short, the corporations are buying a pie-in-the-sky con. They insist on believing the favors and concocted advantages the Globalists are offering them in the marketplace are wonderful; but in fact, the long-term situation is a no-win. It’s a narrowing road, and a crack-up is coming.
Globalists are shrinking the worldwide consumer base. They want a chaos-ridden dystopia, which they will control with an iron hand. In that scenario, the mega-corporations will also shrink to shadows of their former selves. Their usefulness will rapidly decay.
Memo to CEOs: why don’t you try waking up? Your whole elite movement is a walking contradiction, and you’re on the downside.
Why don’t these CEOs awaken? Because their short-term greed exceeds their long-term vision. For them, it’s an easier way to live. Take the money and run.
3. "Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure - one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.” David Rockefeller, Memoirs, 2003
The man who wrote those words represents a family that has dominated banking, oil, modern medicine, behind-the-scenes politics, and powerhouses of Globalism (e.g., the Council on Foreign Relations) for a century.
Globalism asserts that no nation can be independent from “the family” of other nations, as if it were a matter of fact beyond dispute. A nation claiming its sovereignty thus becomes a lunatic traitor to the natural order of things.
What really binds nations to one another is propaganda, and treaties which are based on the same propaganda, resulting in (temporary) engorged super-profits for mega-corporations.
Globalism is a secular piece of messianic hype. A Disneyesque altruism is the prow of the ship. Spend 10 minutes educating any street hustler on Globalist principles, and he would recognize it as a standard con.
Obama’s warning to the Brits, that their withdrawing from the Globalist European Union would put them at the back of the line in negotiating a separate trade treaty with the United States, was sheer fiction.
Britain, or any nation, that has goods to sell and a desire to buy will find trade partners. An agreement could be scratched out on a napkin over dinner.
Impending trade deals like the TPP and TTIP are thousands of pages and take so long to negotiate, because the heavy hitters at the table are looking for new ingenious ways to cut and paste the world into larger profits for themselves.
Globalism, hiding behind thousands of academic analyses, picks up jobs from one nation, where wages are reasonable and working conditions are tolerable, and dumps them in hell holes where wages are nearly invisible and conditions are poisonous. It’s that simple, and any moron could see how the industrial nations like the US would suffer…if by nations we meant people.
Instead of criminal corporations and criminal investors. But all this is layered over with “share and care” sop.
The United States government could repeal the NAFTA, CAFTA, and GATT trade treaties tomorrow, and throw current TPP and TTIP negotiating documents out the window…and all would be well. Better. Much better.
For instance, without NAFTA, US producers wouldn’t have been able to flood Mexico with cheap corn, throwing 1.5 million Mexican corn farmers into bankruptcy, leading many of them to cross the border and come to the US to find work.
No US President since Nixon has disturbed the march of Globalist “free trade.” All Presidents since then have been on board with the Rockefeller plan. And the US economy - which is to say, jobs - has thus faltered.
The 2008 financial crash was only one factor in the decline. The promise of cheap imports for sale in the US - the justification for free trade - doesn’t work when people here have no jobs and no purchasing power.
Major media, fronting for free-trade, have panicked over Donald Trump’s claim that he’ll reject Globalism.
They would have panicked over Bernie Sander’s similar promise, if they thought he had any chance of defeating Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination. The media have their orders from on high - the deck is stacked, the cards were dealt long ago.
Hillary Clinton’s pathetic promises about creating jobs reveal nothing of substance. Small tax breaks for small businesses that “share profits with employees,” the “removal of government red tape,” “funding breakthroughs in scientific and medical research,” “expanding job training opportunities”- the truth is, her basic method for stimulating the economy has always been: find a war, any war, and fight it.
4. From GlobalisationGuide.org: “What does globalization mean to Australia?”
“Australian corporations participate in the oppression of workers and peasants in poor countries in Asia. Australian mining and forestry companies are involved in extracting wealth from countries such as Papua New Guinea, Irian Jaya and Indonesia, sometimes relying on military support to suppress local opposition.”
“The Australian support for trade liberalisation, particularly in agriculture, has been used to open up markets in poor countries where Australia’s commodity exports put local subsistence farmers out of work.”
“Australia has opened its own markets to goods made in countries that allow child labour, or forbid the formation of free trade unions.”
“The Australian government has opposed efforts to include environmental and labour protection clauses in World Trade Organisation agreements.”
“Australia should support reform of the WTO to make it more equitable for poor nations of the world.”
“Australia places few restrictions on the operations of transnational organisations, which take wealth from…[our] country, and are not managed in the interests of Australia.”
5. This is a bombshell. It’s a crucial piece of history that has been ignored by mass media.
I’ve published this interview before. Here I want to make new comments.
That glitch was President Richard Nixon. He began laying tariffs on certain goods imported into the US, in order to level the playing field and protect American companies. Nixon, a substantial crook in other respects, went off-script in this case and actually started a movement to reject the Globalist vision.
After Nixon’s ouster from the White House, Gerald Ford became president, and he chose David’s brother, Nelson Rockefeller as his vice-president. It was a sign Globalism and free trade were back on track.
But David Rockefeller and his sidekick, Brzezinski, wanted more. They wanted a man in the White House whom they’d created from scratch. That man was a peanut farmer no one had ever heard of: Jimmy Carter.
Through their media connections, David and Brzezinski vaulted Carter into the spotlight. He won the Democratic nomination (1976), spread a syrupy message of love and coming together after the Watergate debacle, and soon he was ensconced in the Oval Office.
Flash forward to 1978, the second year of Carter’s presidency. An interview took place.
It’s a close-up snap shot of a remarkable moment. It’s a through-the-looking-glass secret - in the form of a conversation between a reporter, Jeremiah Novak, and two Trilateral Commission members, Karl Kaiser and Richard Cooper.
The interview concerned the issue of who exactly, during President Carter’s administration, was formulating and controlling US economic and political policy.
The careless and off-hand attitude of Trilateralists Kaiser and Cooper is astonishing. It’s as if they’re saying, “What we’re revealing is already out in the open, it’s too late to do anything about it, why are you so worked up, we’ve already won…”
NOVAK (the reporter): Is it true that a private [Trilateral committee] led by Henry Owen of the US and made up of [Trilateral] representatives of the US, UK, West Germany, Japan, France and the EEC is coordinating the economic and political policies of the Trilateral countries [which would include the US]?
COOPER: Yes, they have met three times.
NOVAK: Yet, in your recent paper you state that this committee should remain informal because to formalize ‘this function might well prove offensive to some of the Trilateral and other countries which do not take part.’ Who are you afraid of?
KAISER: Many countries in Europe would resent the dominant role that West Germany plays at these [Trilateral] meetings.
COOPER: Many people still live in a world of separate nations [!], and they would resent such coordination [of policy].
NOVAK: But this [Trilateral] committee is essential to your whole policy. How can you keep it a secret or fail to try to get popular support [for its decisions on how Trilateral member nations will conduct their economic and political policies]?
COOPER: Well, I guess it’s the press’ job to publicize it.
NOVAK: Yes, but why doesn’t President Carter come out with it and tell the American people that [US] economic and political power is being coordinated by a [Trilateral] committee made up of Henry Owen and six others? After all, if [US] policy is being made on a multinational level, the people should know.
COOPER: President Carter and Secretary of State Vance have constantly alluded to this in their speeches.
KAISER: It just hasn’t become an issue.
SOURCE: “Trilateralism: The Trilateral Commission and Elite Planning for World Management,” ed. by Holly Sklar, 1980. South End Press, Boston. Pages 192-3.
Of course, although Kaiser and Cooper claimed everything being manipulated by the Trilateral Commission committee was already out in the open, it wasn’t.
Their interview slipped under the mainstream media radar, which is to say, it was ignored and buried. It didn’t become a scandal on the level of, say, Watergate, although its essence was far larger than Watergate.
US economic and political policy run by a Globalist committee of the Trilateral Commission - the Commission had been created in 1973 as an “informal discussion group” by David Rockefeller and his sidekick, Brzezinski, who would become Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor.
Shortly after Carter won the presidential election, his aide, Hamilton Jordan, said that if after the inauguration, Cy Vance and Brzezinski came on board as secretary of state and national security adviser, “We have lost. And I will quit.”
Lost - because both men were powerful members of the Trilateral Commission and their appointment to key positions would signal a surrender of White House control to the Commission.
Vance and Brzezinski were appointed secretary of state and national security adviser, as Jordan feared. But he didn’t quit. He became Carter’s chief of staff.
Flash forward again, to the Obama administration.
In the run-up to his inauguration after the 2008 presidential election, Obama was tutored by the Globalist co-founder of the Trilateral Commission, Zbigniew Brzezinski.
Four years before birthing the Commission with his boss of bosses, David Rockefeller, Brzezinski wrote:
“[The] nation state as a fundamental unit of man’s organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force. International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation state.”
Goodbye, separate nations. Hello, global government.
Any doubt on the question of Trialteral goals is answered by David Rockefeller himself, in his Memoirs (2003): “Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure - one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”
Patrick Wood, author of Trilaterals Over Washington and Technocracy Rising, points out there are only 87 members of the Trilateral Commission who live in America.
Obama appointed eleven of them to posts in his administration. For example:
Tim Geithner, Treasury Secretary;
James Jones, National Security Advisor;
Paul Volker, Chairman, Economic Recovery Committee;
Dennis Blair, Director of National Intelligence.
Here is the payoff. The US Trade Representative (appointed by Obama in 2013), who was responsible for negotiating the Globalist TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership) treaty with 11 other nations, was Michael Froman, a former member of the Trilateral Commission.
Don’t let the word “former” fool you. Commission members resign when they take positions in the Executive Branch of government. And when they serve in vital positions, such as US Trade Representative, they aren’t there by accident. They’re operatives with a specific agenda.
Flash forward one more time. Trump, who squashed the Globalist TPP treaty as soon as he was inaugurated, has been busy making staff appointments. Patrick Wood writes (2/6/17):
“According to a White House press release, the first member of the Trilateral Commission has entered the Trump administration as the Deputy Assistant to the President for International Economic Affairs, where he will sit on the National Security Council:
Kenneth I. Juster will serve as Deputy Assistant to the President for International Economic Affairs. He will coordinate the Administration’s international economic policy and integrate it with national security and foreign policy. He will also be the President’s representative and lead U.S. negotiator (“Sherpa”) for the annual G-7, G-20, and APEC Summits.”
Juster’s duties will take him into the heart of high-level negotiations with foreign governments on economic policy.
Keep your eye on Mr. Juster. Will he take actions in line with Trump’s avowed anti-Globalist stance? Or will Juster work as one more Globalist Trilateral operative in the center of American decision-making?
If the answer is “operative,” does Trump know this? Does he condone what Mr. Juster will do? Or is this a case of secret infiltration, on behalf of the most powerful Globalist group in the world, the Trilateral Commission?
6. Globalized media. It’s nice plan. Let’s examine it.
The new technocratic media is based on profiling users. There is no impactful news unless each member of the audience is surveilled and analyzed on the basis of what he already likes and wants.
Shocking? It’s to be expected. How else would technocrats parlay the untold hours they’ve spent sizing up their consumers/users? Several years ago, I wrote:
“Tech blather has already begun, since Jeff Bezos, CEO of Amazon, bought the Washington Post at a fire sale. Jeff Genius will invent new ways to transmit the news to ‘people on the go’ and make the Post a smashing success. Mobile devices. Multiple platforms. Digital taking over from print. Ads customized to fit readers’ interests (profiling). News stories customized to fit readers’ interests (more profiling).”
In other words, non-news. If you thought media were irrelevant and deceptive before, you haven’t seen anything. The “new news” will create millions of virtual bubbles in which profiled users can float contentedly, under the cozy cottage roofs of their favorite little separate paradigms.
The tech giant Apple has waded into this territory with an app that will deliver news to users.
“Apple News, part of the upcoming iOS 9 operating system, aims to be the primary news source for users of the iPhone and iPad… Apple says its news app ‘follows over a million topics and pulls relevant stories based on your specific interests’…
Joshua Benton of the Nieman Journalism Lab said the app will be important because ‘through the awesome power of default, Apple distribution puts it in an entirely other league. This [news] app will be on hundreds of millions of devices within 24 hours of its debut’.”
Translation: Profiling their users down to their toenails, Apple will present them with virtual bubbles of news they want to see and read.
Not just one overall presentation for all; no, different “news outlets” for Apple’s audiences.
This introduces a whole new layer of mind control.
“You’re an Obama fan? Here are stories confirming your belief in the Prophet.”
“You want neo-con on the rocks with a conservative Republican twist? Here’s some war footage that’ll warm your heart.”
“Do you believe ‘government gridlock’ is our biggest concern? Congress can’t get anything done? We’ve got headlines for that from here to the moon.”
“Tuned into celeb gossip? Here’s your world in three minutes.”
The idea: convince users, one day at a time, that what they already believe is important IS the news of the day.
It’s Decentralized Centralization. One media giant carving its global audience up into little pieces and delivering them a whole host of different algorithmically appropriate lies and fluff and no-context psyops.
And for “fringe users?” “You’re doubtful about GMOs? Well, look at what Whole Foods is planning for their healthier produce section. Cheer up.”
Nothing about Maui voters declaring a temporary ban on devastatingly toxic Monsanto/Dow experiments or the dangers of Roundup. “You’re anti-vaccine? Sorry, you don’t count. You’re not a recognized demographic. But here’s a piece about a little unvaccinated boy who was involved in car crash on the I5.”
Does this sound like science fiction? It isn’t. It’s the mainstream look of the near-future (if they could get away with it). Search engines are already “personalizing” your inquiries. US ABC national news is climbing in the ratings because it’s giving viewers “lighter stories,” and spending less time on thorny issues like the Middle East.
The mainstream news business is desperately looking for audience; and treating every “user” as a profiled social-construct-bundle of superficial preferences is their answer.
“Mr. X, we’ve studied the little virtual bubble you live in, and now we can sell you your own special brand of truth.”
“Hello, audience. We’re going to pitch you on becoming full-fledged obsessed consumers, as if there is no other worthy goal in life - and then we’re going to profile you from top to bottom, to find out exactly what kind of obsessed consumer you are, so we can hit you and trigger you with information that uniquely stimulates your adrenal glands…”
The one-two punch.
Any actual event occurring in the world would be pre-digested by robot media editors and profilers, and then split up into variously programmed bits of information for different audiences.
Who cares what really happened? In the new world, there is no ‘what really happened’. That’s a gross misnomer. A faulty idea. A metaphysical error. No, there is only a multi-forked media tongue that simultaneously spits out a dozen or a hundred variations of the same event…because different viewers want and expect different realities.
In 1984, Orwell’s Big Brother was issuing a single voice into the homes of the population. That was old-school. That was primitive technology. That was achieving unity by hammering unity into people’s skulls. This, now, is the frontier of unity through diversity.
“We want to make all of you into androids, through basic PR and propaganda and a pathetic excuse for education. However, we recognize you’ll become different varieties of androids, and we’ll serve that outcome with technological sophistication. Trust us. We care about what you prefer.”
User A: “Wow, did you see the coverage of the border war in Chula Vista?”
User B: “War? They had a fantastic exhibit of drones down there. At least a hundred different types. And then I watched an old WW2 movie about aerial combat.”
User C: “Chula Vista? They had a great food show. This woman made a lemon pie. I could practically taste it.”
User D: “That wasn’t a border war. It was a drill. And then afterwards, these cops gave a demonstration of all their gear. Vests, shields, communication devices, flash-bangs, auto rifles with silencers, batons. I watch drills all over the country. Love them.”
User E: “Chula Vista? The only thing I saw on the news was ‘sunny and mild’ this week. I watch all the weather channels. I love them.”
BUT when a Big One comes along, like the 2016 national election in the US, the separate tunes come together and ring as one. Then the overriding need to extend Globalism’s goals (in the person of Hillary Clinton) blot out every other priority. Then the major media twist whatever they need to twist. Then it’s the same bubble for everyone.
One problem, though. Major media have been lanced thousands of times by alt news sites, and by Wikileaks and Project Veritas. This attack has exposed the truth and the Clinton crimes.
And alt news reflects the growing interest of the public in what’s actually happening on many fronts.
The technocratic plan for the news is failing. It was a nice plan, but…It’s turning out to be a dud.
Alt media are forcing public awareness of one giant scandal after another: Hillary/Obama support for ISIS; pro-vaccine liars; the collapse of Obamacare; the GMO hustle; pesticide damage…on and on and on.
The result? Major media are being backed into a corner, where they must defend lies and build the same monolithic lies for EVERYONE all the time. The idea of creating separate news for each profiled user is ALREADY collapsing.
Major media are playing defense against the rest of the world.
It’s quite a party. And it has no expiration date.
A final note: Trump, Wikileaks, Project Veritas, Drudge, and many alt news sites created a perfect storm in 2016, raining down on major media. It was and is unprecedented. The mainstream press has been exposed down to its roots, as never before.
The lying, the collusion, the arrogant sense of entitlement, the desperation, the corruption - it’s all there to see, for anyone who has eyes and a few working brain cells. Expect more to come, regardless of the outcome of the election. The train has really left the station…
7. Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote, four years before birthing the TC with his godfather, David Rockefeller:
“[The] nation state as a fundamental unit of man’s organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force. International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation state.”
Several other noteworthy Trilateral members: George HW Bush; Bill Clinton; Dick Cheney; Al Gore. The first three men helped sink the US further into debt by fomenting wars abroad; and Gore’s cap and trade blueprint would destroy industrial economies, while vastly increasing the numbers of people in Third World countries who have no access to modern sources of energy.
Does all this offer a clue as to why the US economy has failed to recover from the Wall Street debacle of 2008, why the federal bailout was a handout to super-rich criminals, and why Obama took actions which prevented a recovery?
A closer look at Tim Geithner’s circle of economic advisers reveals the chilling Trilateral effect: Paul Volker; Alan Greenspan; E. Gerald Corrigan (director, Goldman Sachs); and Peter G Peterson (former CEO, Lehman Brothers, former chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations). These men are all Trilateral members.
How many foxes in the hen house do we need, before we realize their Globalist Trilateral agenda is controlling the direction of our economy?
The TC has no interest in building up the American economy. They want to torpedo it, as part of the end-game of creating a new international currency, ushering in a de facto Globalist management system for the whole planet.
8. Now consider the vast propaganda efforts of the past 40 years, on so many levels, to install the idea that all nations and peoples of the world are a single Collective.
From a very high level of political and economic power, this propaganda op has had the objective of grooming the population for a planet that is one coagulated mass, run and managed by one force. A central engine of that force is the Trilateral Commission.
How does a shadowy group like the TC accomplish its goal? One basic strategy is: destabilize nations; ruin their economies; ratify trade treaties that effectively send millions and millions of manufacturing jobs off to places where virtual slave labor does the work; adding insult to injury, export the cheap products of those slave-factories back to the nations who lost the jobs and undercut their domestic manufacturers, forcing them to close their doors and fire still more employees.
And then solve that economic chaos by bringing order. What kind of order?
Eventually, one planet, with national borders erased, under one management system, with a planned global economy, “to restore stability,” “for the good of all, for lasting harmony.”
The top Trilateral players, in 2008, had their man in the White House, another formerly obscure individual like Jimmy Carter: Barack Obama. They had new trade treaties on the planning table.
Obama was tasked with doing whatever was necessary to bring those treaties, like the TPP, home. To get them passed. To get them ratified. No excuses.
That’s why, over a year ago, when anti-TPP criticism and rhetoric were reaching a crescendo, when Obama was seeking Congressional fast-track authority for the treaty, he was in a sweat and a panic. He and his cabinet were on the phones night and day, scrambling and scraping for votes in Congress. This was the Big One. This was why he was the President. To make this happen.
His Trilateral bosses were watching. These men run US policy, when and where it counts. They don’t like failure.
This is also why, after Obama was inaugurated for his first term, he shocked and astonished his own advisors, who expected him, as the first order of business, to address the unemployment issue in America. He shocked them by ignoring the number-one concern of Americans, and instead decided to opt for his disastrous national health insurance policy - Obamacare.
Obama never had any intention of trying to dig America out of the crash of 2008. That wasn’t why he was put in the Oval Office.
He could, and would, pretend to bring back the economy, with fudged numbers and distorted standards. But really and truly, create good-paying jobs for many, many Americans? Not on the TC agenda. Not in the cards.
It was counter-productive to the TC plan: torpedo the economy further.
Obama is on the move. He’s traveling to far-flung places, trying to shore up global consensus on the TPP treaty. His people are working around the clock to round up the necessary votes for TPP ratification in Congress. Obama plans to sneak through the treaty during Congress’ lame-duck session after the November election, before newly elected Congressional members take office.
Pushing through Globalist trade treaties: this is why he was put in the White House. This is his appointed task. This is his real job. His bosses are watching.
“I pledge allegiance to the Trilateral Commission, and to the domination for which it stands, one planet, indivisible, with tyranny and poverty and top-down order for all…”
[Update: the TPP was dead on arrival, after Trump was elected].
9. "Technocratic human beings are spiritually dead. They are capable of anything, no matter how heinous, because they do not reflect upon or question the ultimate goal.” - Chris Hedges
“River and ocean turbines for electricity; hydrogen power; urban farms; massive water desalination—these are just a few of the means for making an abundant non-technocratic future. By any rational standard, technocratic idiocy is already obsolete.”
- The Underground, Jon Rappoport
Again, thanks to Patrick Wood and his book, Technocracy Rising, for expanding my insight into these areas.
Consider the term “scientific humanism.” The Oxford Dictionary offers this definition:
“A form of humanist theory and practice that is based on the principles and methods of science; specifically the doctrine that human beings should employ scientific methods in studying human life and behaviour, in order to direct the welfare and future of mankind in a rational and beneficial manner…Origin mid-19th century.”
That definition gives you a good general meaning for “technocracy.”
Understanding the mindset of Globalist technocrats is necessary; they believe that since they can plan the shape of society, they should plan the shape of society.
Politicians are outmoded along this new evolutionary path. They will fade into extinction. Instead, engineers will take their place.
Human beings (all eight billion) will be accounted for. They will receive energy quotas. Because a master map exists for the amount of global energy available at any moment, every human will be permitted to consume just so much energy during a defined time period.
This is the technocratic “big picture.”
Wherever you see the Surveillance State, you see technocracy. The claim that surveillance is being utilized to prevent terror attacks is a cover story. In fact, there can be no all-embracing technocracy without real-time tracking of every citizen’s energy consumption.
But technocracy goes much farther than this. Humans are viewed as mis-programmed biological machines in need of basic corrections. Their tendency to engage in conflict needs to be curbed. Whatever they do, say, or think that runs counter to the tight organizing of “peaceful and harmonious” society from above is, a priori, irrational and must be eradicated at the level of Mind.
The necessary reprogramming would be achieved through genetic, electronic, and chemical means. Though never admitting it publicly, dyed in the wool technocrats see no reason to maintain the human population at its current level. Elimination of large numbers of “biological machines” would make their job easier.
Heraldic fairy tales about “transhuman” transformation are used to put a wondrous face on technocracy. For example, we’re told that soon it will be possible to connect a human brain with a super-computer and download “spiritual wisdom, knowledge, and talents” directly to the human.
Technocratic premise: society itself is a game board, and someone has to be in charge; who better than engineers with an overall plan?
So-called “advances” in human life will begin by stating the basic “rights” people are entitled to. For example, “an optimum state of social existence.” What this really means is “pegs in holes.” People will be fitted into slots that yield up the “largest amount of possible collective happiness.”
Click on the image above to open a larger versioon in a new window
It’s all about The Plan. Freedom? Freedom to choose? Never heard of it. Instead, what the individual is given from above is satisfactory to him because he has been engineered to believe it is. That’s the plan.
Smart-grid, sustainable development, green economy, land use, community planning, climate change, education in values, and other campaigns are signals and steps toward the far shore of technocracy. They all point to putting “pegs in holes.” They all ultimately involve quotas for energy consumption.
They all involve the assumption that, since there is only so much to go around, a higher authority must decide who gets what. Food, water, shelter, jobs, luxuries, energy…
Clue: scientists and engineers can arbitrarily say what science is, and therefore they can say The Plan is “scientific.”
If you say, “Well, look, there are genuine ways to vastly increase the amount of available water and energy and clean food,” you would be running against the technocratic blueprint.
Opting for abundance is not welcomed. Abundance cuts the chords of The Plan. Scarcity must rule and it must be promoted. The lack of all essentials must be cited as the reason for imposing technocratic answers. There is no way around it.
The irony is, when you talk to really hard-core environmentalists about the means for achieving abundance through alternative technologies, they balk and grow angry.
They don’t want technological solutions - and yet, the powers behind them, where the big money is, are, in fact, all about technology - technology of a certain kind, which is based on planning out a society in which permanent and growing scarcity is MAINTAINED AND PROMOTED as the immutable reality.
It’s quite mad, quite insane. But when has that ever stopped the men who are quite sure they should sit on thrones?
Vast abundance is more than a vision. It is a reachable possibility. The history of actual science and technology confirms that both essential materials and available human innovation were always downplayed as shortages - until some individual came along and demonstrated that a new way of doing things would break through the shortage.
Corporations, governments, think-thanks, and universities try to limit, curb, and bury inventions that open up the future to abundance. Technocrats are in a race to “plan society” before those inventions leak out into the public and make them, the technocrats, obsolete.
But they are obsolete. They just haven’t figured it out yet.
But we can figure it out.
10. Elites who invent reality need an unimpeachable operation, headed up by people who are relentlessly promoted as the sanest, most intelligent, competent, and caring representatives of the human race. Guess who that would be?” (The Magician Awakes, Jon Rappoport)
In 1976, the great critic of 20th-century society, Ivan Illich, wrote:
“Modern medicine is a negation of health. It isn’t organized to serve human health, but only itself, an institution. It makes more people sick than it heals.”
The medical cartel is the answer to the question: what do you with the population of Earth once they are living under a Globalist oligarchy?
It’s all about managing lives, from womb to grave, and no institution serves that management better than Medicine.
First of all, you have a system that dispenses toxic drugs in an endless stream, killing in the US alone, by conservative estimate, 100,000 people per year. On top of that, medical drugs cause anywhere from two to four millions severe adverse effects annually.
Beyond this straight-out destruction, there is the turmoil, suffering, grieving, and confusion that extends in ripples, from each one of the deaths and injuries, to families, friends, and co-workers. The overall effect? Demoralization and the inability to see and think past the emotional pain - which is exactly what you want if you are a psychopath running a planet.
The medical cartel (drug companies, public health agencies, medical schools, doctors) wants to assure cradle-to-grave treatment of every person.
This means 30 or 40 diagnoses of illnesses and mental disorders during a lifetime, and treatment with toxic drugs. It also means medical issues are at the forefront of every person’s mind as he/she wends through life, believing that Disease is the most important aspect of living.
People become proud, yes, proud of their diagnoses and treatment. They wear the diagnoses like badges of honor, and every social communication is an occasion for displaying badges and discussing treatments and comparing notes.
“You know, at first my doctor thought it was ADHD, but then he did one of those new brain scans, and realized it was Bipolar with a trace of genetically inherited Oppositional Defiance Disorder. Once he had the ODD under control with a major tranquilizer, he could go after the Bipolar. But then I developed tremors. So he implanted a chip…”
It’s not only a sick society, it’s a society about sickness.
Medical care is free, if by free one means: paid for by extraordinary levels of taxation.
The basic collectivist slogan, “We’re all in this together,” achieves its most fervent support from the axiom that Disease is our primary opportunity to help each other by accepting awesome tax burdens.
Of course, huge segments of the world population won’t be able to participate in modern, up-to-date, cutting-edge “care.” For them, there are several solutions.
The first is vaccines seeded with chemicals and genes that reduce fertility and potency. As birth rates gradually decline, cover stories are invented to explain the phenomenon: stress; rising employment rates; the social effects of urbanization; the dissolution of the nuclear family.
The second solution is epidemics that purportedly kill off large numbers of people. These epidemics are routine frauds, based on concocted science.
In the poverty-stricken Third World, announced epidemics are nothing more than cover stories; people aren’t dying because of germs; they’re dying because their water is contaminated, because of overcrowding, lack of basic sanitation, generation-to-generation starvation.
They’re dying because their fertile growing lands have been stolen. While medical experts crow about attacking the germ of the moment with (toxic) drugs and vaccines, these actual causes of death can be ignored and even enhanced.
Meanwhile, in industrialized technological sectors of the planet, psychiatry ascends to new heights of control over the educated classes. Although no so-called mental disorder has ever been diagnosed by a real laboratory test, the experts who dominate the field continue to invent new disorders at the drop of a hat.
Psychiatric patients believe they have brain conditions that must be treated with (highly toxic) drugs. The patients also believe their own aspirations are limited by their disorders, and so they acquiesce to a psychiatric model that circumscribes their lives.
At the top-end of society, new medical inventions are applied to the wealthy. Genetic enhancement is the most highly touted of these. Despite the fact that, as yet, there are no genetic treatments for any disease that work across the board, experiments will be done to extend life, to seed the unborn with special talents, to cure a wide variety of illnesses.
There will be efforts to substitute technological components for biological nature. Limbs, organs, whole body systems, brains.
The workability of high-tech pieces is not really the issue. The aim is simply to involve the rich in the entire grand experiment, thereby swallowing them up as well in a medical paradigm of existence.
At the front door of medical cartel operations, a person will be enrolled in the system while in utero, and a path will be laid out that extends all the way to the grave. Once he is on record with a medical ID package, he will be tracked and treated and tweaked without let-up.
Finally, the inevitable proposal and program will come into view. Why risk natural birth, which is already considered a medical event? Why not create birth in a laboratory?
And if, at any point in life, a person experiences doubts and regrets about his membership in the universal medical control apparatus, he can obtain a prescription for drugs that target “pleasure centers,” and then check out of his worries and anxieties.
Huxley’s Brave New World would move in like a wave on a beach.
At every way-stop toward that day, sophistication, elegance, assurance, and concern will be the watchwords of the practicing doctor, the secular priest in this drama of human dismantling.
And yet, for those who remember, who know what the Individual is, who know what freedom is, who know what imagination and creative power are, the rigging and distorting and flattening and collectivizing will look like nothing more than a horrible cartoon.
And these people who remember will lead a revolution like no revolution ever seen before.
Or we can defect from, and withdraw our consent to, this mad matrix now.
The Global Fascist State: Physical Control Of The Global Population Is Impossible April 13 2018 | From: FinalWakeUpCall / Various
Centralised, controlled Global fascist state:The momentum for the completion of the New World Order (NWO) through centralised control of global politics, business, banking, military and media is gaining pace by the day, and is clearly evident through the large scale spying upon us.
Whenever a hidden agenda is about to be implemented, something occurs to scare the people, justifying the action for implementation. Our world is more and more becoming a recurrence of fascist Nazi Germany, before WWII. This is, in accordance with the plans of the Deep State Brotherhood, the new world that awaits the global population.
The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), and multinational corporations already control most Governments;promoting the one world government through their control of the media, foundation grants, and education; with power exerted over all issues of the day; they already control almost all avenues; they have the financial power to promote the “New World Order”.
The key to their success is the control and manipulation bythe international bankers of the money systems of almost every nation, while making it appear as though they are controlled by the government.
If you wish to live in a world that is “urbane” enough to be run by a world government, managed by the Brotherhood of the élite and global bankers, then by all means, continue to follow the mainstream media to get all your information.
If, however, the idea of a select coterie of a global intellectual-financial elites running the world does not sound like the ideal society for humanity’s future, then it is time to come into action.
By battling the tide of misinformation and by helping to expose the dangers of the ‘New World Order.’
People have neither the slightest idea, nor the insight of the restrain that is going to be put on them. They would rather ignore the obvious and go into denial of the truth that has already become reality. Instead, people prefer assuring each other that they would never take people’s freedoms away and make us serfs of the elite.
Humanity has on a large scale given away its mind and its responsibility – it is advisable to consider the broader consequences of this behaviour for human existence.
When we give away our mind and responsibility, we give away our freedom and hence, our lives.
If enough people do it, we give the world away, and that is precisely what has been done throughout history. We’re now entering a fascist society, as was the case before WWII. The leaders of this era, such as Benito Mussolini in Italy and Adolf Hitler in Germany embodied the state and they claimed indisputable power, transforming countries into fascist states.
Now history is repeating itself and soon the world will become a fascist society all over again. The only difference is that this time, a few families, alias – the elite – are manipulating the entire planet, through the globalisation of business, banking and communications.
The primary goal of their control is to keep the people in ignorance, fear and at war. Divide, rule and conquer and keep the most important information secret.
Those who have applied these methods to control humanity for thousands of years are members of the same force, following a long-term Brotherhood Agenda, which now is reaching its point of completion.
So, the global fascist state is upon us. People must wake up now – and see this as their “final wake up call” – to mobilise and organise themselves to rebel against this injustice, as the real power is still with the many of us, and not with the few of the elites!
Infinite Power is Within Every Individual:
Infinite power is within each and every individual. The reason we are controlled is not because we don’t have the power to decide our own destiny, it is that we unknowingly give that power away when we don’t take responsibility for our destiny on all fronts.
When something happens that we don’t like, we look for someone else to blame. When there is a problem, people think first what are they, our so-called leaders going to do about it.
But remember it is they who have secretly created most problems, and they consequently respond to people’s demands by offering a ‘solution’ that always entails more centralisation of power and erosion of our freedom.
Man Sends Audition Tape To Globalists To Be Crisis Actor in Next False Flag Hilarious Satire Skit
If you want to give more power to the police, security agencies and military, that is exactly what they want the public to ask for, then they ensure there is more crime, more violence and more terrorism, and so they increasingly get exactly what they want, ever-increasing control and power.
Once people are in fear of being attacked by terrorists, they will demand to have their freedoms taken away, to protect them from what they have been manipulated to become – ‘fearful’.
As Benjamin Franklin once so typically stated:
“Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
The 9/11 Twin Tower destruction in New York in 2001 and the Global warming meme are both classic examples of ‘Problem - Reaction - Solution’ manipulations.
Physical Control of the Global Population is Impossible:
In short it is a technique of ‘problem - reaction - solution’. Create the problem; encourage the reaction that something has to be done about, and then offer the solution, their solution. In other words:
Create chaos and then offer a solution to restore order on people’s request, a solution which serves their agenda.
The masses are herded and directed by emotional and mental control. This is the only way their rules can be implemented. However, the few elites cannot control billions of people physically, unless a large number of people are involved.
So physical control of the global population is impossible. But when you can manipulate the way people feel and think to the point that they decide to do what they want us to do, by demanding to introduce regulations that they want to have implemented, then the door is set open for Centralised Global Control, by making people believe that it is their own idea.
Consequently, humanity becomes mind-controlled.
People are Mind Controlled:
The question is not how many people are mind-controlled, but how few are not. When you believe the news stories in the media, and allow these to affect your perception of events, your mind is controlled.
The answer to freedom of thought and perception is to take your mind back to conclude and decide for yourself.
The choice of interpretations is yours and not someone else’s. Remember they always want to have your mind, because once they have it, they have you. So keep your mind objective under all circumstances.
Think for yourself and don’t allow others to think for you, and if we All do this, their Agenda will not be able to be implemented and we will keep our freedoms, it’s as simple as that. Come into action now in the interest of our children, future generations, and in our own interest.
Remember; the secret Agenda is a conspiracy of minds, of people and events to ensure that the plans of the elite are employed. They conspire to put their people into positions of power, with hidden, stringent instructions to make the agenda happen, by conspiring to create events which will make the public demand the Agenda be implemented in complete ignorance of the devastating consequences.
It is frightening that we have entered the world George Orwell envisioned and wrote about in 1984 of mass surveillance, as portrayed in the movie ‘The Truman Show’.
Stick Your New World Order Up Your Arse!
Recently numerous scandals have revealed the surveillance state of the West and put it up for show. Whistleblowers have been warning about this for years!
But saying you were right won’t help you in the long run. Now we know that the government is listening, recording, and duplicating everything we do online or over the phone, it’s time to start taking action. It’s time to take back our right to privacy.
Although we may not fear Chinese tanks rolling through our streets, make no mistake; our most basic rights are under attack: reporters are being investigated and suspended by Government officials for exposing scandals, legislation is designed to water down our privacy rights and the NSA acts like it was nothing more than a necessity to crack down on terrorists, while presenting the matter as though they have the authority to do so.
Watch the powerful explanation of Snowden; it’s a lot easier, as was put forth by him, to change this intrusion on civilisation as has been laid out in the above writing: Be objective and make up your own mind; deciding for yourself.
The British Empire Is Un-Masked, But Desperate April 12 2018 | From: LarouchePac
The British Imperial Lords are in a state of shock. Their frantic effort to save the Empire came crashing down Tuesday when the scientists at Porton Down refused to lie for the Empire - refused to say that the nerve agent in the Skripal case came from Russia.
As a scientist he refused to lie. Kelly was “suicided” as a result, and the illegal and genocidal war went on.
Dr. David Kelly. “Suicided” after testifying against Blair’s “sexed up dossier” that lead to the Iraq War
This time, neither George W. Bush nor Barack Obama are around to provide cover for the Empire’s lies. President Trump, to the dismay of the British and American oligarchs and press whores, has refused to say (or tweet) a word about the Russian role in the Skripal case.
[Comment: It pays to remember that things are not always as they seem and that in the efforts of the Alliance to bring down the Cabal, that moves reported in the public mainstream media 'arena' are not necessarily in parallel to what is going on behind the scenes.]
He spoke to Putin afrter the incident without mentioning it, and, just yesterday, told the press yet again that “getting along with Russia is a good thing, not a bad thing.”
The Empire is exposed, and badly wounded - but not yet dead, and therefore capable of anything to save itself.
Lyndon LaRouche has for fifty years warned Americans and others that the British Empire is not a thing of the past, but is at the center of the financial looting and speculation which has driven the western financial system to the brink of ruin, while manipulating the “dumb giant” in Washington to fight colonial wars on its behalf, first in Indochina, then in the Middle East.
He has also warned that the Empire would prefer a global war, even a thermonuclear war, rather than see their Empire disappear.
Helga Zepp-LaRouche today focused attention on this deadly reality. The Russiagate campaign collapsed, and its perpetrators in MI6 and in the Obama intelligence team are now facing criminal charges for their treasonous acts.
Theresa May’s controllers then desperately launched the Skripal incident, and demanded that the Western nations join in blaming Russia, with no evidence whatsoever.
Only half the EU nations went along, and, while Trump allowed his Administration to expel Russian diplomats, he himself laid no blame on the Russians, and announced that Moscow could replace their diplomats.
But now, the U.K.’s own chemical weapons experts have exposed the evil and dangerous lying of Prime Minister May and her buffoon of a Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson. Hysteria reigns in London today.
Will the Empire take even more desperate actions, by starting a war? Will they use the impending collapse of the multi-trillion dollar speculative bubble in the western financial system, which they created, to that end?
The LaRouche platform - for restoring American System methods and scientific progress in the U.S., and for the U.S. to join the New Silk Road, working with China and Russia in global nation building, as the United States once espoused - must be embraced and fought for now, today, by every person of good will.
The Empire is near defeat, but more dangerous than ever.
That is why this organization was founded, and the hard fought victory is within our grasp. As Helga said today: “Stay in reality - that’s what makes you sane, that’s what makes us unique. They never imagined that a genius like Lyndon LaRouche would be around to counter them.”
Do You Know What We Are Breathing In From Weather Geoengineering Efforts? April 11 2018 | From: ActivistPost
Air is one of the primary elements of life; without it for about three minutes, we cannot survive. If air is such an important biological and functional life component, why are weather geoengineers messing around with it?
Well, think again, since many independent and non-cabal-financially-sponsored “non-consensus scientists” are finding STUFF in the air we breathe that should not be there unless placed for nefarious reasons. What a mouthful! Is there any documentation to substantiate what I say? But of course! Would I say it, if there were none?
Well, I’m going to explain some things readers may find doubtful, interesting and even frightful, but cannot deny once you stop playing around with your iPhones, etc. and look up and study the sky, which no longer is the crystal clear gorgeous blue it used to be in my youth, since I was born during the Depression years.
“Nano particles and Smart Dust [is] being absorbed by all of us via inhalation of chemtrail fallout and from contaminated grocery store food (including organically grown food) where the crops pick up and absorb the same Nano particles and Smart Dust that we are breathing in.
In addition, food sources are intentionally being sprayed with Nano technology. I first became aware of “nanobots” as a component of chemtrails in 2005 when the topic of Morgellons first surfaced on the internet.
These nanobots were somehow integrating themselves with biological functions inside people’s bodies producing these colored fibers and wire-like threads that would ooze out of lesions on the skin.
I had no idea why some people produced the fibers and had the sensation of insects crawling under their skin, while other people had no symptoms at all.”
According to Tony Pantalleresco:
“[W]e’ve been breathing in Nano particles in the atmosphere since the 1960s and they’ve been adding Nano particles to food since the 1970s. The expresion [sic] “Nano particles” refers to the size of the particles.
A particle 1 micron wide is equivalent to one millionth of one meter, while 1 Nano is equivalent to one billionth of one meter. Our bodies can handle particles in the micron range, but Nano size particles in the 1-100 Nano range especially, cause a great deal of damage to the bodyl.”
Tony should know; he’s been making videos about them! Tony explained them in this podcast.
“He explains that many thousands of Nano particles are now residing in EACH human cell of all human beings (including you) and are integrating themselves with our biological functions to re-program our body (and our DNA) into an Android-like hybrid, that is part human biology and part Artificial Intelligence robotics.
These Nano particles inside our bodies are activated by (and programmable from a distance) using radio frequencies (microwaves) and ELF waves.
That means we are ALL being set up for a 21st Century version of enslavement employing electronic mind-control and body-control coercion harassment (which is what Targeted Individuals who call into the Ella Free podcasts are experiencing and talking about). l.”
Furthermore, there is much speculation the neurotoxic chemicals in all vaccines are part of that artificial intelligence robotics program.
There’s an amazing, astounding and seemingly unbelievable indication of what Tony contends, as a result of his research, being found in human bodies, and he demonstrates that using his arm and a special Anti-Nano Concoction protocol he created.
“Towards the end of the video, he immerses his arm in the anti-Nano bucket (after first adding vinegar, distilled water, salt, DMSO and a capful of olive oil) and following a few minutes, you can see the Nano metal dust particles coming out of the skin and sticking to the floating oil globules.
Jump ahead to 1:22 to see the Nano particles coming out of his skin.”
The above video, which I have watched in full and taken notes on, must be considered very seriously, as it deals with emerging protocols to counter Nano technology, which very few individuals know anything about, but all of us are exposed to and compromised by.
After watching more than an hour of his creating the electro-field bucket, Tony discusses the ‘recipe’ for the anti-Nano soaking mixture around 1 hour 12 minutes, more or less. The mixture includes cheap white vinegar, distilled water, salt, DMSO and oil, either olive or almond. The exact measurements are given.
At 1 hour 24 minutes “results” (Nano-dust particulates) start showing up emerging from Tony’s arm soaking in the anti-Nano mixture. Tony recommends soaking your feet, but with certain precautions.
If you have any electrical device implanted in your body, DO NOT use this method; it is NOT FOR YOU!
If you have a heart condition or pacemaker, this is NOT FOR YOU!
Tattoos use Nano-inks, which get into the bloodstream. The younger generations, who have gone bonkers over tats, are playing right into the NWO artificial intelligence agenda. Can that be why tattoos are not government regulated? Tattoo inks are neither regulated nor tested by the federal government and are considered a health risk . However, most states regulate “body art studios.”
“The American Red Cross requires someone who has had a tattoo to wait a year before donating blood if the tattoo was applied in Georgia, Idaho, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, Utah, Wyoming or the District - jurisdictions that do not regulate tattoo facilities.”
Nano-dust and particulates make all human bodies receivers and transmitters, a necessary component for control of humans because we can be controlled by microwaves transmitted to those frequency receivers residing within our bodies. Hard to believe, isn’t it?
Furthermore, it’s my understanding that special “matching” frequencies even can be “designed” for those who have given DNA and body tissues sample, e.g., blood tests, which have been collected by certain ‘vested interest’ agencies doing such AI/transhumanism technology work.
It’s part-and-parcel of global weather geoengineering or “chemtrails,” which literally rain down 43 known chemicals and metals, especially aluminum - the key “tagging” mineral/element, which also is a constituent in most, if not all, vaccines.
Homo sapiens literally are being redesigned into another species created by man-made-technology. Will it be called Homo Nano-particulatem?
Is that the reason why “Sophia,” the humanoid robot, officially was made a ‘citizen’ of Saudi Arabia?
A new study has revealed that stress can make you physically ill by hijacking your immune system.
The study carried out by researchers at the University of Michigan revealed how stress interacts with immunity cells that protect the body against diseases and manifests into physical illness.
It was found that stress impacts the response of 'defense chemicals' which are responsible for fighting off bacteria or viruses, and amplifies inflammatory and allergic reactions such as irritable bowel syndrome, asthma and autoimmune disorders such as lupus.
Stress management tools like breathing exercises and yoga are prescribed by doctors to treat disorders like asthma and symptoms of irritable bowel syndrome.
Stress receptors, known as corticotropin-releasing factor (CRF1), send signals to certain immune cells, called mast cells, and this controls the body's defence.
Mast cells are a type of white blood cell which get triggered during stressful situations and are also involved with inflammatory responses like hypersensitivity and allergic reactions when the immune system fights off an assumed threat.
The researchers conducted a mouse study to understand immune cell responses to psychological and allergic stress. There were two groups of mice with one having stress receptors in their mast cells, while the other group didn't.
It was discovered that the mice with stress receptors had high levels of disease, while those without had less disease and were protected against both psychological and allergic stress.
Associate professor Adam Moeser who specializes in stress-induced diseases explained to the Daily Mail that when mast cells are triggered during stressful situations they are susceptible to being controlled by stress receptors.
He added, "When this happens, CRF1 tells these cells to release chemical substances that can lead to inflammatory and allergic diseases such as irritable bowel syndrome, asthma, life-threatening food allergies and autoimmune disorders such as lupus."
So chemical substances like histamine, which is produced by mast cells to get rid of invading allergens can become life-threatening.
While the normal response to an allergen would be inflammation, itching, sneezing and runny nose, under stress the responses got intensified and escalated to trouble breathing, anaphylactic shock and even death.
According to the American Psychological Association sleep and stress are inversely proportional, when stress increases, length and quality of sleep decreases.
And this lack of sleep can leave a person feeling more stressed.
Stress causes several problems other than just affecting your sleep, it is also responsible for health concerns like insomnia, depression, high blood pressure, inabilty to make decisions and lack of concentration.
The study was published in the Journal of Leukocyte Biology.
Is The Eurozone In A Dead End? April 10 2018 | From: Geopolitics
It’s remarkable that the Euro and the Eurozone currency grouping hasn’t fallen apart until now. Greece could have done it in 2010 but it was avoided by extraordinary acts of the Euro governments and European Central Bank.
This is one major reason that the anti-Brussels parties that triumphed in recent Italian elections - 5-Star and Lega, suddenly dropped talk about leaving the Euro.
They are betting that Macron and Markel and their proposed new EU architecture will pull their debt chestnuts out of the fire at expense of German taxpayers. It’s a timebomb ticking ever louder.
Ten years into the greatest financial meltdown in the history of finance, triggered by the USA sub-prime real estate bubble collapse in 2007, the Euro and its 19 member central banks are at a dangerous crossroad. It’s clear from her recent address to the German Parliament that Chancellor Merkel intends to lure Germany into what she and Macron intend to become a “transfer union.”
In plain English that would mean the strong surplus economies of Germany and northern Europe including Holland, would have to “transfer” hundreds of billions of Euros to subsidize the deficit countries of Italy, Spain and southern Europe. The ultimate winner would be the shaky French and Southern Eurozone banks.
It’s not surprising that Merkel, a close ally of former banker Marcon of France, is not being open with her people on what is at stake.
Target 2 Trap
In 2011, in the wake of the manipulated Greek bond crisis that triggered a Eurozone contagion panic in markets, the European Central Bank initiated a highly controversial and poorly understood disguised bailout known as Target 2.
Without getting into the complex details of how Target 2 central bank balances function, they in effect allow the central banks of the Eurozone crisis countries, led by Italy and Spain, to issue state bonds which are in effect taken by the strong central banks of the Euro, notably Germany’s Bundesbank.
Since 2011 and the Greek crisis, Target 2 balances have been growing phenomenally to where today the total is estimated for the Bundesbank alone at € 914 billion.
This is about one third of German GDP.In 2011 the highly-respected German economist and then-head of Munich’s IFO Institute, Hans-Werner Sinn, called the ECB use of Target 2 “The ECB’s stealth bail out.”
He was the first to warn that the ECB Target 2 system for “Target balances constitute public credit relations in the same way as credit that is given via official rescue packages.”
In 2011 the sums involved were still a fraction of the present total. Today the sheer size of these little-publicized Target 2 central bank balances in the Eurozone, especially the Bundesbank, put enormous pressure on the more prudent northern EU countries, especially Germany, to finally drop resistance to adoption of George Soros’ plan to have the Euro countries issue common Eurobonds.
With such Eurobonds, the public debt of euro-zone countries would be pooled and converted into Eurozone “Eurobonds” with collective responsibility.
De facto that would mean German or other north EU taxpayers would support the debt of stressed countries like Italy or Portugal or Greece.
For strong reasons former Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble fiercely resisted any supranational issuing of bonds as a disguised forced German bailout of the countries such as Italy or Spain.
As Sinn points out about the covert bailout Draghi’s ECB has created via the little-understood Target 2 central bank credits, “And yet the Bundesbank’s Target claims (on Italy, Spain, etc) are essentially worthless, because they can never be called due, and are issued at an interest rate determined by the debtors, which hold the majority on the ECB Governing Council.
For the time being, they have set the interest rate to zero.” This is €914 today, alone for the German Bundesbank.
Merkel, SPD and Eurobonds
Now it becomes clear why Merkel elegantly pushed Schäuble aside by naming him CDU Parliamentary leader. His replacement, Social Democrat Olaf Scholz, is rumored to be privately favorable to French President Macron’s proposal for a European banking union and a transfer union.
In her first speech in March as Chancellor in the new Grand Coalition, Merkel suggested favoring plans to turn the €500 billion European Stability Mechanism, the eurozone’s crisis rescue fund since the crisis in 2013, into a permanent European Monetary Fund, an EU version of Washington’s International Monetary Fund.
In a transfer union, the healthier countries of the Euro will support the weaker. This is behind Macron’s call for a common Eurozone Finance Minister who would develop a common tax budget for the ECB member countries.
Under the Macron Plan, which Merkel and the SPD have endorsed, each euro transferred from a Northern to a Southern European country would reduce the Target claims and liabilities by one euro.
The deeper underlying problem in all these schemes is the fact that the countries of the ECB and Euro have done nothing fundamental to clean up their banking insolvency mess. Instead the ECB under Draghi has been used to create what is today a de facto insoluble problem for the German and other strong central banks of the Euro using Target 2 balances as a stealth bailout.
Now the Merkel-Macron axis in the EU is ready to spring the next step - Eurobonds, a common Eurozone Finance Minister and fiscal policy and a transfer union.
This is the real reason Italy’s “Euroskeptic” parties suddenly dropped election demands for a referendum on leaving the Euro or the EU. They realized Italy could be a huge benefactor by staying in and backing an EU Transfer Union. Bond market speculators like Soros will have a field day.
German and Dutch and other more prudent countries will de facto pay the bill. For Germany where the demographic reduction in working age population is already apparent and will accelerate in coming years, a growing pension obligation makes German debt obligation in the long run unsustainable.
To now add a fiscal transfer from Germany to the indebted Southern EU countries spells political and economic Tsunami.
Has The Australian Government Gone Stark-Raving Mad? + Basic Vaccine Lies In The World Of Fake News April 9 2018 | From: ActivistPost / JonRappoport / Various
Just when you think things can’t get any worse than they are regarding the suppression of human rights, denial of personal dignities and the right to self-determination regarding one’s health, the Government of Australia has pulled off what it probably thinks is a “hat trick” upon its citizens.
It’s denying them their Creator-given and natural rights of securing life, liberty and the pursuit of safety and happiness by mandating no contradictory information can be stated by any member of the medical profession regarding the horrendous history of current vaccines and vaccinations, or they will lose their licenses!
That and other apparent totalitarian aspects and implementations of governance caught the attention of the United Nations Human Rights Council, which issued a report titled “Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders on his mission to Australia,” a 21-page document that can be read here.
The Conclusions of the Rapporteur’s Report are self-explanatory:
106.The Special Rapporteur concludes the report by putting forward the following recommendations.
107.The Australian Government is recommended to:
(a) Consider adopting a federal human rights act to constitutionally guarantee human rights with a clause of precedence over all other legislation.
(b) Review and revoke laws that unduly restrict the right to free and peaceful assembly.
(c) Review secrecy laws, Crimes Act and the Border Force Act with a view to revising provisions that contravene international human rights norms and standards.
(d) Scrutinize and condemn violations of the rights of defenders and raise awareness of their legitimate role in the protection and promotion of human rights.
(e) Ensure sufficient funding and legal assistance to CSOs and refrain from introducing measures that reduce, obstruct or unduly control the funding for civil society.
(f) Restore adequate operational funding to legal, environmental and indigenous peak bodies and recognize their important role in advocacy and strategic litigation.
(g) Remove the ‘gagging clauses’ from all Federal and State funding partnership and funding agreements.
(h) Ensure prompt and impartial investigations into alleged threats and violence against defenders and trade unionists.
(i) Guarantee meaningful participation of defenders and civil society in government decision-making.
(j) Initiate a prompt and impartial inquiry into the attempts by public officials to intimidate and undermine the Australian Human Rights Commission.
(k) Ensure that future appointment of AHRC commissioners is made through public, transparent, merit-based appointment that are fully compliant with the Paris Principles.
(l) Formulate national action plan on business and human rights, in consultation with civil society.
(m) Ensure that environmental impact assessments are prepared in full transparency and with meaningful participation of affected communities prior to the approval of large-scale projects.
(n) Engage with investors and business enterprises to uphold their human rights responsibilities and sanction those companies associated with violations against defenders, both at home and abroad.
108.The Australian Human Rights Commission and other state-level human rights institutions are recommended to:
(a) Include, within the programme of work, specific activities on the protection and promotion of defenders.
(b) Compile and analyse data on the number of complaints received, cases monitored and recommendations adopted on the safety and security of defenders.
(c) Establish a focal point for defenders with decision-making power.
(d) At state levels, adopt and contribute to the preventive and protective measures for defenders, as well as develop means for their public recognition.
109.Business enterprises and other non-State actors are recommended to:
(a) Adopt and implement international human rights standards, including the Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights and the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights;
(b) Fulfil legal and ethical obligations, including rigorous human rights due diligence, and perform human rights impact assessments for large-scale projects, ensuring full participation with affected communities and defenders.
(c) Refrain from verbal attacks or legal intimidation against defenders and CSOs.
(d) Disclose information related to planned and on-going large-scale projects in a timely and accessible manner.
(e) Establish grievance mechanisms necessary to avoid, mitigate and remedy any direct and indirect impact of human rights violations.
(f) Ensure that subcontractors respect the rights of indigenous peoples and affected communities and establish accountability mechanisms for grievances.
As a journalist, it is not my place to tell the people of Australia how to run their country, but it is within my purview to point out the problems involved, especially those that affect Australians’ ability to protect and maintain their health and wellness as being shackled upon them by the current Turnbull Administration regarding vaccines and vaccinations, which are a total medical sham currently being documented around the globe, but suppressed.
Furthermore, I cannot take a position one way or another regarding the above Report, only point to its existence and as a forewarning of what probably can be expected as government over-reach to be copied and implemented in other western culture countries regarding vaccines and vaccinations!
According to Vaccination Update Newsletter, March 6, 2018 edition, published by Judy Wilyman, PhD:
“In Australia the Medical Board of Australia (MBA) has removed the autonomy of doctors and nurses to advise their patients on vaccination based on their experiences and knowledge of vaccines. This is being done by linking the promotion of government vaccination programs to their medical registration.
This is contrary to their own Good Practice Guidelines in medicine based on the Geneva Convention. [….]
The MBA is currently investigating doctors, some with 40 years experience of clinical practice in using vaccines, based on allegations that “they are undermining a protective health program”.
Yet the MBA and the Australian Government did not provide evidence for the necessity to use 16 vaccines when they linked financial benefits to this intervention and removed conscientious and religious exemptions at the same time.”
Has Australia inadvertently returned to its original intent as founded, a penal colony for the British?
“New South Wales, a state in southeast Australia, was founded by the British as a penal colony in 1788. Over the next 80 years, more than 160,000 convicts were transported to Australia from England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales, in lieu of being given the death penalty."
“The combined death rate from scarlet fever, diphtheria, whooping cough and measles among children up to fifteen shows that nearly 90 percent of the total decline in mortality between 1860 and 1965 had occurred before the introduction of antibiotics and widespread immunization. In part, this recession may be attributed to improved housing and to a decrease in the virulence of micro-organisms, but by far the most important factor was a higher host-resistance due to better nutrition.” - Ivan Illich, Medical Nemesis, Bantam Books, 1977.
In many previous articles, I’ve rejected, with evidence, a whole host of false claims about vaccine safety and efficacy. Here I want to look at basic flaws in the rationale for vaccination.
First of all, a child with a strong immune system will exile illnesses like measles or flu without incident. If he does become sick, his immune defense system will swing into high gear, mount a full inflammatory response, and the acute phase of illness will fade away. There are millions of such examples throughout recent history.
If a person has a weak and compromised immune system, vaccination is not going to cure that fact.
In the best presentation of conventional vaccine theory, a shot in the arm brings on antibodies, which are scouts for the immune system. They broadcast alerts: “Invaders detected.” But if the rest of the “immune army” is weak, what good are alerts? No good at all. Thus, a compromised immune system is a problem that can’t be solved by vaccination.
These are simple and basic realities - once you clear away pseudoscientific hocus-pocus.
Over the years, I’ve interviewed a number of people who grew up with no vaccinations. They were fed good clean food. They exercised. They had loving strong parents. They thrived. They rarely got sick, and when they did, the bout was over quickly. To them the idea of vaccination was a bizarre illusion. They never needed it. Period.
And as I say, the people with weak and compromised immune systems, who are basically unhealthy, are NOT going to be cured or protected by vaccination.
Many doctors know these facts, but are afraid to speak out. They also know about the dangers of vaccines, because they’ve seen children, whom they just vaccinated, fold up with devastating neurological injuries - but the doctors are silent about that, too.
The mainstream press, with non-stop pro-vaccination propaganda, is colluding with the medical establishment and governments to silence critics.
The press is fake news. We who point out fatal flaws in vaccination are actual news.
For example, now that the CDC schedule of “necessary” vaccines has greatly expanded, where are the proper studies proving that this increased load of chemicals and germs (in the vaccines) is safe? Where? Nowhere.
Does that sound acceptable? “Previously, we said X amount of chemicals and germs in vaccines was safe. Now that we’re piling on more of these substances, there is no need to prove safety. We just assume it.”
Can you name a single large mainstream news outlet that has devoted time and space to a complete and rational debate about vaccine safety and efficacy, representing both sides of the issue fairly? Can you?
Of course not. Does this seem reasonable? “The science is settled.” Only fools and unthinking minds would accept that position.
Who is the culprit here? Critics of vaccination, or the delinquent imperious press?
99.9% of mainstream reporters, news anchors, and medical bureaucrats know nothing about vaccine safety or efficacy. Their skill, such as it is, consists of pretending they have acquired knowledge.
In other words, if you were watching the evening news, and a parrot in a tree kept repeating, “Get your vaccinations, get your vaccinations,” would you trust the source?
Instead of treating mainstream news as a reliable fount of information, back up a step and realize this operation has been a heavily funded and protected monopoly - and all monopolies commit egregious acts to sustain their position. They cooperate with other would-be monopolies (e.g., the medical cartel) to improve their power.
By “egregious acts,” of course, I mean: crimes. Any criminal who is in the public spotlight, day in and day out, will bend, distort, fabricate, and concoct more lies to cover up his past offenses. This is common sense. Face this fact head-on. Don’t avoid it.
The horrendous SB277 bill was passed by the California legislation, in 2015, and signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown. It mandated an array of vaccines for all schoolchildren. During debate on the bill, did the legislature permit extended discussion about the dangers and ineffectiveness of vaccines?
No. Why not? Were these issues somehow automatically censor-able? Sweeping them into a garbage can is called a CLUE. Major players didn’t want certain information to see the light of day. Otherwise, why not turn on the light?
Let me explain how the game works with an example. In the mid-1990s, I sat in a courtroom in Los Angeles and watched the opening of a grotesque trial, in which the federal government was prosecuting a young man for selling a nutritional supplement. The man had made health claims for the product.
He told the judge he wanted to present evidence that:
a) The substance was produced naturally by the body, and
b) It had provably beneficial effects.
The judge refused to allow the defendant to present any evidence along these lines. No, the judge said. The only question was: had the defendant violated a federal rule about selling supplements? If so, he was guilty. Period.
And that was the verdict. The young man went to prison. Evidence be damned.
Who, in his right mind, would support such a ruling? A monopoly. That’s who. Truth, validity, facts? Out of bounds.
This is the same approach of the mainstream news establishment, when it comes to vaccination. It is the approach of inveterate liars.
For many reasons, a few of which I’ve listed here, the whole vaccination system is crashing. The oceanic sound of that crash hasn’t yet reached many ears tuned to the evening news.
When Life Gets Too Complicated: Minimalist Living: How To Enjoy Life More With Less April 9 2018 | From: TheUnboundedSpirit
If it feels like your life sucks, there are extreme chances that it's too complicated. On the other hand, if it feels like it doesn't suck, I bet your life is quite simple.
How do I know? Well, I've found my life sucking many times, and that was always when it became wildly complicated. Now that it doesn't suck anymore (or at least it feels like it doesn't), it's simpler than ever before
Of course, my life didn't just get simple on its own. I played my part in getting it the way it is. A BIG part, in fact.
How? By making a few small yet tremendously effective lifestyle changes. If you're entangled in the complexity of your own life, and would like to know what those changes were so that you can apply and benefit from them too, I have good news for you.
For most people, life has become a burden on their shoulders, and year by year its weight is growing heavier and heavier, until one day they can’t carry it anymore.
But does life have to be such a drudgery? No, it doesn’t. In fact, life can be stunningly great, if we allow it to be so.
How? Keep scrolling and I’ll show you.
Why is Life So Messed Up?
This is a question I get a lot from readers. I find it quite misleading, since life in itself isn’t messed up. Rather, we insist on making it look like it. Here’s how: By complicating it to such a degree that we can’t enjoy it anymore.
Let me give you a few examples: We do work we don’t enjoy, we buy stuff we don’t need, we say things we don’t mean, we eat food that doesn’t contribute to our health… you get what I mean.
Of course, no person is entirely to blame for that. From an early age, society has conditioned us to live this way. Just consider, for example, the advertising industry, which is constantly preying on our insecurities in order to make us want new products.
Or, contemplate on our school system, which is indoctrinating us with the belief that success is nothing but the result of getting good at things we don’t like just for the sake of an external reward. Or, lastly, think of our economic system, which is forcing us to work as wage slaves just so we can merely feed ourselves and sleep under a roof.
As you can understand, it’s not surprising that life seems messed up. But it’s in our hands to change this, if we want to, and make life worth-living again. There are various ways we can do so, and here I’m going to share with you some helpful ways you can create more space for peace, contentment, and health in your life.
Minimalism: A Turn Back to Simplicity
So how can we design a life that is less complicated and more meaningful? With minimalism.
If you haven’t heard of the term minimalism before, here’s it’s key idea: Getting rid of what isn’t adding value to your life in order make room for what does, such as removing clutter, distractions and unhealthy relationships, and allowing more space for things that are essential to our well-being, such as creativity, love, and play.
Therefore, minimalism or minimalist living is about intentionally focusing on what truly matters to you, and letting go of what doesn’t. Or, to put it differently, it’s about enjoying life more with less.
Now, this might sound like an easy thing to do, but it’s actually quite hard. Why? Because during the course of our lives most of us have lost touch with our true needs and wants.
This has resulted in a lack of inner fulfillment, out of which arises a desperate effort to fill our psychological void with physical, mental and emotional clutter, which, instead of making us feel better, actually makes us feel much worse.
The question is: How can one break free from this chaos we’re entangled in and which seems so out of hand?
If you’re trying to figure this out for yourself, I created the following guide to assist you in your journey to living a simpler yet fuller life. It consists of easy yet empowering tips and practices that you can apply in your everyday life in order to reap the incredible benefits of a minimalist lifestyle. Are you ready to dive into it?
A Guide to Minimalist Living: 10 Ways to Enjoy Life More with Less
1. Get Rid of Stuff that Doesn’t Serve Your Happiness
Most people’s living space is cluttered with myriads of things they never use and which don’t contribute to their well-being.
On the contrary, those objects are only standing in their way, distracting their attention and preventing them from finding calm, clarity and focus. Some of them even need regular maintenance, and hence require money, time and energy to be spent - or, to be more precise, wasted - on them.
Have a look at your possessions and ask yourself: Do I really need ALL of them? Separate the one’s you do need from the ones you don’t, and throw the latter right into the rubbish bin - or better, give them away to people who might actually benefit from them.
2. Resist Consuming Products You Don’t Need
Discarding things you don’t need is crucial to emptying your life from unnecessary stuff, but if you keep on acquiring new material possessions, it’s going to be filled up pretty soon again.
The solution? It’s simple: Stop buying things you don’t need.
However, the reality is that once we have enough to satisfy our basic human needs, products can’t improve our well-being in any way. They can only provide us with momentary gratification that quite soon vanishes into thin air, leading us in an even worse psychological state than before.
3. Appreciate all the Amazing Things You Already Have
In the day and age of Instagram, so many people are having terrific self-esteem issues. That’s because they constantly compare themselves to others who, in their eyes, always seem happier, more beautiful and way more important than them.
As they are, they feel like crap, and they try their best to imitate those they are jealous of, in a desperate effort to feel better about themselves. Yet no matter how much they try, they always fail.
If you’d like to stop feeling crappy, you need to learn to appreciate what you already have, instead of always being focused on what you don’t. That means you need to stop comparing yourself to others and embrace yourself for who you are, with all your flaws and imperfections. Only then will you be able to make peace with yourself, focus on what’s truly important and feel grateful for the amazing gift of life.
But you aren’t alone in that. In fact, nowadays most people are constantly fixated on an electronic screen, wasting hours upon hours everyday being carried away by a constant flood of information. They endlessly jump from one social media network to the other, from this article to that, from one picture to the next.
Don’t get me wrong, I adore the internet and spend much of my time online myself, but if we don’t learn how to use it mindfully, and instead let it use us, then it can play havoc with our mental health.
If you’d like to find more a peaceful state of mind, then you likely need to minimize your internet distractions.
To help you get started, here are some practical tips:
Close as many tabs you can.
Check your emails up to two times a day, filter and process them immediately, and clear out your inbox.
Spend as less time on social media as possible (I’d recommend not more than an hour per day).
Pick a handful of good sources and check them only once a day.
Set some hours offline each day.
After you’ve applied them for a month or so, shoot me an email at email@example.com and let me know about your progress and the impact this small minimalist lifestyle change has had on your well-being.
5. Build Intimate Relationships
What’s missing in the world more than anything else is human connection.
People feel disconnected from one another, and that’s for plenty of reasons, with the main being our economic system, which is compelling us to compete with and exploit each other in an endless effort to maximize our personal gain, and thus is constantly reinforcing the idea that others are inimical, or at best indifferent to us.
The result? Loneliness, insecurity, depression.
Every person - including you - is a social being with an emotional need to connect with other people. We all deep down want to be heard, understood, and embraced for who we are.
So whenever you find an opportunity for human connection, don’t shy away from it. Put your mobile phone aside for a while and take the time to look at someone in the eye, listen to their story, and open your heart to them.
One of the main reasons why our lives are so complicated is that we’re not quite honest with each other. We say things we don’t mean and we don’t say those things that we do mean, and this inevitably leads to plenty of misunderstandings and interpersonal conflict.
From now on, be sure to avoid uttering lies, and instead voice your sincere thoughts as well as express your feelings.
This way you’ll be able to form healthier and more genuine relationships, which will do wonders to simplify your day-to-day life.
7. Do One Thing at a Time
Minimalist living in essence means focused living, and focused living means making the most out of each and every moment.
The problem is that, because of the constant distractions we experience in the modern world, most of us haven’t learned to fully concentrate on one act at a time. Instead, we’re usually carrying out different tasks at the same time, and so whatever we are doing, our mind is partly wondering somewhere else.
Here are some examples:
We check our phones while we’re eating.
We are jumping between tasks in a browser.
We are lost in our thoughts when others are talking to us.
We are thinking of what thing to do next before finishing the current thing.
This way, not only aren’t we able to give our best to what we’re doing, but also we can’t enjoy the task at hand.
If you’re used to multi-tasking and would like to change that in order to be better at what you do as well as to get totally immersed in the things you like, make sure that you concentrate on a single thing or task at a time. For instance, when you’re eating, don’t check your phone at the same time and just focus on savoring every bite of your food.
Or when you’re talking to someone, don’t be preoccupied with what you’ll say next when your turn to talk comes - instead, give your full attention to your partner so that you can understand what he or she is saying.
8. Treat Your Body With Care
In order to be able to enjoy your life, you first and foremost need to be in good health. Hence, it’s vital that you treat your body with loving care.
Unfortunately, this isn’t how most people treat their bodies. They tend to consume toxic foods, they don’t exercise, they sleep less than needed, and do all sorts of other things that mess up with their health. Of course, they don’t do so on purpose.
Rather, they usually act like this either out of ignorance or because the stress of everyday life has led them to make poor lifestyle choices. But one thing is certain: They’ve stopped feeling connected to their bodies, and no longer understand how their actions are impacting their health.
As a result, they sooner or later end up experiencing all sorts of illnesses that could have been avoided if they payed more attention to their physical needs.
If you’d like to optimize your health, you need to turn your attention inwards, get in tune with your body, listen to its needs and act accordingly.
For example, if you feel like moving, move. If, on the other hand, you feel tired, stop moving your body to recharge your batteries. Or, to give you another example, if you feel hungry, eat to feed your body with fuel, but if you feel that your stomach is full, don’t eat any more and burden yourself with extra food.
The body has its own wisdom but we’ve lost touch with it. By starting to pay more attention to it, we can re-connect with it and allow it to lead us to a healthier and more fulfilling life.
9. Focus on Your Most Important Goals
People usually have a big number of goals they want to achieve, and often they are even opposing to each other. One day they want this thing, the next day another, and the next still another. No wonder they usually end up achieving nothing but complicating their lives.
A life that is simple has a clear purpose. To live such a life, you need to discover those few things that you’re most interested in and dedicate yourself to them.
Whatever they are, be sure to make them your top priority. By doing so, you’ll be able to live a life that is filled with meaning and purpose, without getting sidetracked by things that don’t matter to you.
Lastly yet perhaps most importantly, minimalist living requires a calm and undisturbed mind - that is, a mind that is free of conflicting thoughts and in tune with the present moment.
Unfortunately, in our busy, stressful lives, our minds are filled with worries - worries about what happened in the past or what is going to happen in the future, which don’t allow us to let go and enjoy the only moment that ever was, is and will be - the here and now.
To be able to regain a peaceful state of consciousness, you need to develop mindfulness. Mindfulness means fully attending what’s happening in the present, instead of dwelling in the past or the future.
It also means observing your thoughts and feelings without judging, resisting or feeding them. Lastly, it means consciously responding to situations instead of overreacting to them or being overwhelmed by them.
Every single person can develop mindfulness, and there are many ways one can do so. Perhaps the most common way is to sit for about 30 minutes somewhere comfortably with your upper back straight and pay full attention to your breath as it’s coming in and out through your nostrils, without allowing yourself to be distracted by your thoughts.
When, however, you feel that your mind has carried you away, make sure that you return your attention to your breath and continue your practice. By doing so, you’ll find that slowly slowly your thoughts become less and less, and as a result you’ll experience more clarity, focus and a sense of inner peace, which you can carry with you throughout your day.
Mindfulness is an ancient practice that is now backed up by science. By implementing it into your daily routine, you’ll be able to relieve yourself from the constant stream of thoughts that is flooding your mind and savor each and every moment of your life.
Former Facebook Executive: “You Don’t Realize It, But You Are Being Programmed” + Inventor Of The World Wide Web Warns Tech Giants Must Be Regulated, Or The ‘Net Will Plunge Into “Weaponization” That Harms Society April 8 2018 | From: Ideapod / NaturalNews “I think we have created tools that are ripping apart the social fabric of how society works. The short-term, dopamine-driven feedback loops we’ve created are destroying how society works,” former Facebook vice-president of user growth Chamath Palihapitiya, told an audience at Stanford Graduate School of Business.
His comments first emerged on Verge. Palihapitiya expressed regret for his part in building tools that destroy “the social fabric of how society works” and warned his audience: “If you feed the beast, that beast will destroy you. It’s time to take a hard break from some of these tools.”
The former Facebook executive who left Facebook in 2011 said: “The short-term, dopamine-driven feedback loops that we have created are destroying how society works. No civil discourse, no cooperation, misinformation, mistruth."
“And this is not an American problem. This is not about Russian ads,” he added. “This is a global problem … It is eroding the core foundations of how people behave by and between each other.”
“I don’t have a good solution. My solution is, I don’t use these tools anymore. I haven’t for years.
Bad actors can now manipulate large swaths of people to do anything they want. It’s a really bad state of affairs and we compound the problem. We curate our lives around this perceived sense of perfection because we get rewarded in these short-term signals (hearts, likes, thumbs ups) and we conflate that with value and we conflate that with truth.”
He warned his audience of bright Stanford graduates that whether they realize it or not, “you don’t realize it, but you are being programmed” (as are all of us). It was unintentional, he said, but now you have to decide how much of your intellectual independence you’re willing to give up, he told his audience.
Palihapitiya is not the only Facebook executive who has expressed belated insight into the consequences of the work they did at Facebook years ago. His comments are part of an ongoing debate about the seemingly unlimited power and reach of social media.
At an Axios event Facebook’s founding president, Sean Parker also sounded the alarm on how social networks purposely hook us and potentially cause mental damage.
Parker had said that he was “something of a conscientious objector” to using social media, and Palihapitaya revealed that he doesn’t use “that shit” anymore and neither are his children allowed to use it.
What Parker said at the Axios event is actually very damning.
“The thought process that went into building these applications, Facebook being the first of them, … was all about: ‘How do we consume as much of your time and conscious attention as possible?'”
“And that means that we need to sort of give you a little dopamine hit every once in a while, because someone liked or commented on a photo or a post or whatever. And that’s going to get you to contribute more content, and that’s going to get you … more likes and comments.”
“It’s a social-validation feedback loop … exactly the kind of thing that a hacker like myself would come up with, because you’re exploiting a vulnerability in human psychology.”
And to crown it all this acknowledgement:
“The inventors, creators - it’s me, it’s Mark [Zuckerberg], it’s Kevin Systrom on Instagram, it’s all of these people - understood this consciously. And we did it anyway.”
Interesting: Palihapitiya said it was unintentional, yet here Parker admits they all knew what they were doing – hook customer engagement through regular dopamine spurts.
These two executives echo the feelings expressed some time ago by Google, Twitter and Facebook software engineers who helped make technology so addictive, announcing that they are disconnecting themselves from the internet.
The group includes the likes of Justin Rosenstein, creator of the “Like” button, Tristan Harris former design ethicist at Google and founder of the advocacy group Time Well Spent, Loren Brichter who created Tweetie and the pull-to-refresh feature and James Williams, the ex-Google strategist who built the metrics system for the company’s global search advertising business.
The Clouds are Gathering
Social media companies have been in the dog box since it has become clear that their reach stretches as far as influencing political outcomes like the US presidential election and Brexit, through facilitating the spread of fake news, conspiracies and propaganda, effectively taking over the minds of an unsuspecting Facebook audience.
Most recently Facebook has been accused of allowing hatred against the Rohingya in Myanmar to escalate through newsfeeds that claim that there is no “ethnic cleansing” against Burma’s Muslim Rohingya minority.
Thing is, in a closed country like Myanmar, Facebook is the source of news. It’s the quickest way to find out what’s happening on the ground. If Facebook knows that, the company should start taking responsibility as a news provider just like any other and stop hiding pretending to be just “a social utility that connects people.” It clearly has become more than that.
Inventor Of The World Wide Web Warns Tech Giants Must Be Regulated, Or The ‘Net Will Plunge Into “Weaponization” That Harms Society
Inventor of the World Wide Web, British computer scientist Sir Tim Berners-Lee, is speaking out about how the internet is being weaponized against people. He believes that tech giants should be regulated so that free speech can be restored across the net. Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc., control a vast proportion of the information people receive.
The groupthink that dominates these organizations drives them to censor dissenting voices on the internet and favor the content that aligns with their goals.
In 2019, the internet celebrates its thirtieth birthday. What was once an open portal for communication and sharing information, the internet has slowly become a totalitarian hub of thought control. Tech giants now censor certain viewpoints while favoring the content they want people to consume.
Helpful information and contrarian viewpoints are a threat to specific authority figures and industries, and tech giants have the power to police this. For instance, 1700+ videos from the Health Ranger’s YouTube channel were taken down with no justification.
These videos teach critical thinking and self-reliance; the content penetrates the fragile philosophies and groupthink that pervades big tech culture. This leftist groupthink is so strong, Google will terminates employees for recognizing the fact there are only two genders and that male and female are inherently different.
“The web that many connected to years ago is not what new users will find today. What was once a rich selection of blogs and websites has been compressed under the powerful weight of a few dominant platforms.
This concentration of power creates a new set of gatekeepers, allowing a handful of platforms to control which ideas and opinions are seen and shared.”
Perhaps, Berners-Lee should consult the Social Media Neutrality Panel, which featured censored voices such as Pamela Geller of the Geller Report and Margaret Howell of Rightside Broadcasting.
The panel discussed social media bias, shadow banning and various other methods used to silence voices and restrict access to information on the web.
Berners-Lee is now working to make internet free, open, and affordable to more people around the world while advocating for decentralization of thought and information.
The web cannot welcome innovation and the free flow of ideas if a handful of tech giants have the power to control which ideas and opinions are shared. How can small, innovative online stores and bloggers get their products and message out if the most powerful players in the industry dominate what people see online?
Berners-Lee warns that these platforms become dominant by “creating barriers for competitors.” With their deep pockets and heavy-handed influence, these platforms may “acquire startup challengers, buy up new innovations and hire the industry’s top talent.”
These dominant platforms meticulously collect user data from people, which give them an extreme advantage in the online marketplace.
All the data that is being collected on internet users, including searches, connections, and interests, can be used against them to target market products, news, and information.
This predatory breach of privacy and target marketing is motivated by profit and is all about controlling what people read, so any voluntary changes made by the tech giants will not be done for the public good because any changes will be counterproductive to their financial mission. There must be a new incentive that changes the way platforms operate.
This incentive should stop tech giants from suppressing any competition or dissent. It should not give them more power to police content.
For example, Facebook cannot be trusted to weed out “fake news” from being shared on its platform; this only equates to censorship.
Regulations that empower the tech giants will only embolden the problem. New regulations should hold the tech giants accountable for violating freedom of ideas and freedom of expression, even if they disagree with the content or find it “offensive.”
The Outside And The Inside April 7 2018 | From: WakingTimes
We’re all outsiders and insiders in various respects. Social circles, generally speaking, are just one aspect but they often affect us to drastic degrees.
Acceptance by others and needing a sense of “belonging” are strong driving forces in most people’s lives. Sometimes these coincide with our need for a sense of purpose, but often what ultimately drives our heart can alienate us from previous surroundings as we progress through life.
I know for myself my close acquaintances that I still resonate with have narrowed down drastically, but then again I’ve had several drastic shifts. But this has always been the case in my life, with each new paradigm dissolution or correction, as many have experienced.
Going through what appears to be loneliness in taking a new direction and leaving the old life behind is a precious opportunity. In most cases we don’t see that as the case when we’re younger and learning about this earthly place and getting knocked around by this mechanistic matrix, but we get the hang of it as life progresses.
Social conditioning and group consciousness are weird things to integrate and fully grasp, and often even individual changes are part of a larger shift and new “collectives” form outside the old ones with new awarenesses arising.
These then gain their own group characteristics which in turn are broken out of in various ways, sometimes shifting the “group” think and status, and sometimes birthing another potential tectonic shift in awareness.
What’s evident in most collectives is the formation of new sets of stated or unstated control mechanisms, mores, and regulations for a host of reasons. Religions are a great example, how a system with the stated intention to liberate and empower actually becomes a highly controlled diversion from real truth, giving the illusion of freedom.
How we allow these encrusted, paralytic structures to do what they do is a massive subject, but we essentially draw these upon ourselves as a personal extension of our own lack of awareness of ourselves. We can be free, and are, at any and all given times, yet we succumb to external control for a wide variety of reasons.
These are fundamentally driven by fear – a literal fear of freedom, of what we consider to be the “unknown”, because it directly implies taking responsibility. This can be largely driven by fear of scarcity – being without our basic needs for food, shelter and community.
As long as that’s the driving force, humanity is a sitting duck for anyone seeking to manipulate the controls in any way possible.
The amazing and wondrous truth underlying any social system is that any and all control mechanisms can be easily thrown off in a heartbeat by not falling for the illusion of fear.
Fear is another huge subject as it permeates so many of our mental and emotional mechanisms and eludes recognition for what it is, being so deeply woven into the lower vibrational human fabric and our fascination for it which can lure us in without our realizing it.
Are You a True Outcast?
If so, treasure it. In fact cherish it. There’s freedom there. You don’t want to be “accepted” or on the inside of any confinement system in this low dimension. In fact, just about everything we experience in this realm of limitation is a potential trap, no matter how innocuous anything may seem.
Anything that limits or even hints at conditions and restrictions, watch out. If it encloses, encircles, is conditional and draws unnecessary boundaries, it’s not your friend and it’s time to make tracks outta there.
It’s just another control system within the overarching control matrix, no matter how cleverly disguised. We draw these conditions upon our unawakened selves. Layers upon layers of them. But we’re getting there as we work our way out of the cocoon we were born into and our wings of truly awakened flight develop.
Once we bend to conformity we’ve lost our edge. Living truly consciously is an open agreement to be freewheeling together, which is a whole different “story”.
That’s when what’s essential connects us and remains the focus. Otherwise any and every new normalcy bias will take control, pick up on social as well as negative spiritual rules and “norms”, and quash true freedom of expression individually and collectively.
Just look how imagination is treated like a fanciful flight into fantasy, when it’s actually our highest expression of creativity.
Being your true individual heart-led self might seem to be “lonely” at first but just give it time. A whole new world will open up to you. The seeming loss of old, restricting and conditional acquaintances and surroundings is a small price to pay to explore the boundless nature of existence.
So why do such an “uncomfortable” thing as to be your true sovereign self? It depends on where your head and heart are at and what your priorities are. What’s more important to you? Truth, or comfort just surviving in someone else’s construct, group or otherwise?
We live in our own shadows or that of others when we could be basking in the light, if we’re willing to step out. Aren’t you tired of the same old stories, including your own? It’s not that hard, it just takes a little honesty with yourself and you’re off and running. But don’t stop. There’s always new enclosures seeking to trip you off into another new construct.
It’s fear that keeps us confined. Fear of many things, most of which are intensely reinforced by this group agreement called society. And fear is all based on lies, complete lies.
It’s more obvious by the day that the world doesn’t need to be the way it is, yet the personal implications of our own responsibility regarding this group projection continue to escape most.
The wonderfully empowering reality is that as we honestly pursue truth these energizing and liberating dynamics take hold no matter what.
Truth is not popular, especially when it touches on cherished beliefs or sensitive personal issues. It’s very painful at first, even though it liberates the true essence of who we truly are.
No worries, it only means constant change. And wow, the worlds that open up are beyond comprehension!
Stay on the outside. The infinite knows no boundaries.
“Being an outsider to some extent, someone who does not “fit in” with others or is rejected by them for whatever reason, makes life difficult, but it also places you at an advantage as far as enlightenment is concerned. It takes you out of unconsciousness almost by force.”
- Eckhart Tolle
Science Is Broken, And The Peer-Review Process Produces “Utter Bulls##t” Parading Around As Real Science April 6 2018 | From: NaturalNews
Much of what gets published in so-called “science journals” or “medical journals” is actually complete “bulls##t,” warn many observers.
In recent years the defects in the peer review system have been the subject of a profusion of critical editorials and studies in the literature. It is high time that the world took heed of what the critics are saying, not least of all because of the medical and health ramifications.
The notion of peer review has long occupied special territory in the world of science. However, investigation of suppressed innovations, inventions, treatments, cures, and so on, rapidly reveals that the peer review system is arguably better at one thing above all others: censorship.
This can mean censorship of everything from contrarian viewpoints to innovations that render favored dogmas, products, or services obsolete (economic threats).
The problem is endemic, as many scientists have learned the hard way.
In truth, the systemic failure of peer review is one of science’s major, embarrassing open secrets.
As Dr David Kaplan tells us, “Peer review is known to engender bias, incompetence, excessive expense, ineffectiveness, and corruption. A surfeit of publications has documented the deficiencies of this system.”
Australian physicist Brian Martin elaborates in his excellent article Strategies for Dissenting Scientists:
"Certain sorts of innovation are welcome in science, when they fall within established frameworks and do not threaten vested interests. But aside from this sort of routine innovation, science has many similarities to systems of dogma. Dissenters are not welcome. They are ignored, rejected, and sometimes attacked."
Electric universe researcher and Big Bang critic Wal Thornhill (a REAL scientist) stated plainly in our GFM Media interview that the peer review system amounts to censorship. Fellow independent scientist Gary Novak agrees scathingly:
"Peer review is a form of censorship, which is tyranny over the mind. Censorship does not purify; it corrupts… There is a lot of junk science and trash that goes through the peer review process."
Brian Martin asks us rhetorically:
"What do [scientists] have to gain by spending time helping an outsider? Most likely, the alleged discovery will turn out to be pointless or wrong from the standard point of view.
If the outsider has made a genuine discovery, that means the outsider would win rewards at the expense of those already in the field who have invested years of effort in the conventional ideas."
Herein lies the problem in moving science forward and shifting paradigms. A paradigm is only as malleable (or mutable) as the minds and egos invested in it.
The Problem of “Experts”
The reality is (as any real scientist will tell you) that scientists are prone - just like lay people - to being cathected to their pet theories and opinions, especially if they have been visibly rewarded or publicly obtained accolades or financial remuneration as a result.
Scientists, like laypeople, have susceptible emotional bodies and often fairly hefty egos - partially due to their “expertise” and academic titles, qualifications, theories, etc.
Once those hefty egos - belonging to people generally known as “experts” - rise to positions of power and/or influence, they can calcify the flow of scientific progress as well as the understanding of new discoveries or theories - particularly if they end up acting as “peer reviewers” at high levels in prestigious publications.
In that capacity, too many become mere gatekeepers and seek not to facilitate innovation or vital new Copernican-scale revelations, but to maintain the status quo which got them there in the first place.
Dr Malcolm Kendrick comments in his excellent book Doctoring Data that, “by definition, anyone who is an ‘expert’ in an area of medicine will be a supporter of whatever dogma holds sway.” Close study of power dynamics in medicine bears this out.
The players with the deepest pockets have the funds to buy all of the “experts” they need to sell a bogus product or ideology to an unsuspecting public.
Consider the following words from The Lancet’s editor Richard Horton (pictured below):
"The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability - not the validity - of a new finding… We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller.
But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong."
Peer review, as a “quasi-sacred” process that somehow supposedly transcends the foibles and follies human nature has taken on sacred ritual status. Has the paper been blessed by the Peer Review Priest?
Peer review is held to be more than just pragmatically useful and functional (which clearly it is not, generally speaking) - it is held as a transcendent, almost magical, organizing force occurring in the heavenly ivory towers of Science, which somehow avoids falling prey to human weaknesses by virtue of those humans’ lofty qualifications as “scientists” or “experts.”
Scientists, of course, aren’t quite human - they are something more, something pure, something that the layman can never be. Students undergo a magical alchemical process as they proceed through educational institutions and emerge transformed from their chrysalis with their doctorates, masters, stethoscopes and equations.
They are the Chosen Ones, the purified, the holy, the redeemed, the righteous. They do not have to answer to the lowly non-scientific peasantry – let alone unbelieving heretics.
It is clear, however, that not only is the popular view of peer review misleading, but the most prestigious publications are some of the very worst offenders. Significant scientific publications - for example, the journal Nature - have a well documented history of prejudice against findings or hypotheses that run contrary to established scientific dogma.
Writing in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) in May 2000, Canadian-based researcher, David Sackett, said that he would “never again lecture, write, or referee anything to do with evidence based clinical practice,” over his concern that “experts” are stifling new ideas. He wants the retirement of experts to be made compulsory and I think it’s a brilliant proposition.
Sackett says that “…progress towards the truth is impaired in the presence of an expert.”
Trusting “experts” in oncology, for example, is generally a very good way to artificially speed one’s trip to the grave, particularly if one has metastatic cancer (allopathic medicine is notoriously ineffective in that realm). And yet “experts” are now on a rarified level that perhaps only popes and celebrities can understand - they are virtually demigods today.
In the main, “experts” are those people in the establishment who espouse the mainstream dogma and reify the politically correct belief structures. “Experts” are lionized because the world that made them experts promotes and validates them when they affirm the already established (and profitable) beliefs - and the media is complicit in this.
If you want to be horribly misled on any number of important issues, just head straight to just about any mainstream news media outlet and listen to the establishment’s “experts.”
Is it not time to get the crusty, rigidified, and corrupt Old Guard out of the way so we can let science move forward?
Harvard Medical School’s Dr. Marcia Angell is the former Editor-in-Chief at the New England Journal of Medicine, where she spent twenty years poring over scientific papers, saturated in the dubious practices that pervade the world of medical research. She states bluntly:
"It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine."
Most “experts” in medicine are, psychologically speaking, simply engaged in well-paid groupthink and confirmation bias exercises, vigorously affirming and defending their ego’s (lucrative) construction of the world. To paraphrase physicist Max Planck, medicine, like science, “advances one funeral at a time.”
Once the public has accepted the scientific establishment’s truths, narratives, and designated “experts” then researchers who yield findings deviating from the accepted norm can be immediately branded as crackpots, lunatics, fringe nuts, pseudo-scientists and so on, regardless of how meticulous their methods, and irrefutable their results.
The media is crucial in this control dynamic because it sells the establishment’s reality.
Thus is the politically correct status quo maintained.
Peer “Review” Lets Garbage Through - and Lots of it!
“Peer review” censorship exemplifies the neophobia in the world of science which serves to protect the status quo rather than improve knowledge by weeding out dubious epistemologies and results, as it is meant to.
This supposed mechanism of “quality control” has resulted not only in the dismissal of much important and credible research, but it has also let fraudulent research - and lots of it! - be published at the same time. Papers that appear to support fashionable ideas or entrenched dogmas are likely to fare well, even if they are badly flawed - or outright rubbish!
David Kaplan, a professor of pathology at the Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine in Cleveland, has stated that;
"Peer review is broken. It needs to be overhauled, not just tinkered with. The incentives should be changed so that: authors are more satisfied and more likely to produce better work, the reviewing is more transparent and honest, and journals do not have to manage an unwieldy and corrupt system that produces disaffection and misses out on innovation."
Is it any wonder that John Ionnidis reported in his famous 2005 paper that, “Most research findings are false for most research designs and for most fields”? Given the already outlined problems, is it really surprising that, in Ionnidis words, “Claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias”?
Dr. Marc Girard, a mathematician and physician who serves on the editorial board of Medicine Veritas (The Journal of Medical Truth), has written;
"The reason for this disaster is too clear: the power of money. In academic institutions, the current dynamics of research is more favourable to the ability of getting grants - collecting money and spending it - than to scientific imagination or creativity."
In general, peer reviewers - generally not time-rich - don’t try to replicate experiments and rarely even request the raw data supporting a paper’s conclusions. Who has the time for all that? Thus, peer review is, according to Richard Smith writing in Peer review in health sciences;
"Thought to be slow, expensive, profligate of academic time, highly subjective, prone to bias, easily abused, poor at detecting gross defects, and almost useless for detecting fraud."
What about fake peer review? This is where the corrupt and abysmal becomes the theatre of the absurd. For example, Berlin-based Springer Nature, who publishes the aforementioned Nature journal announced the retraction of 64 articles in 10 journals in an August 18th statement in 2015. This followed an internal investigation which found fabricated peer-review write-ups linked to the articles.
The purge followed similar discoveries of “fake peer review” by several other major publishers, including London-based BioMed Central, an arm of Springer, which began retracting 43 articles in March citing “reviews from fabricated reviewers”.
Yes, that means reviewers that don’t exist - recommended as “reviewers” by the people submitting their work for review.
Imagine writing a paper and being able to nominate a non-existent person to review your work, and the contact email supplied to the publisher for this purpose is actually one you made up, which routes the paper back to you (unbeknownst to the publisher), so that you can then secretly carry out a (favourable) review of your own work under a pseudonym!
It’s being done, folks, this is not a joke.
In response to fake peer review some publishers have actually ended the practice of author-suggested reviewers.
And now for the Conceptual Penis…
Recently two scientists performed a brilliant Sokal-style hoax on the journal Cogent Social Sciences. Under the pen names “Jamie Lindsay” and “Peter Boyle,” and writing for the fictitious “Southeast Independent Social Research Group,” Peter Boghossian and James Lindsay wrote a deliberately absurd paper loosely composed in the style of “post-structuralist discursive gender theory” - what exactly that is they made no attempt to find out.
The authors tell us:
"The paper was ridiculous by intention, essentially arguing that penises shouldn’t be thought of as male genital organs but as damaging social constructions…
We assumed that if we were merely clear in our moral implications that maleness is intrinsically bad and that the penis is somehow at the root of it, we could get the paper published in a respectable journal."
And they did. After completing the paper, and being unable to identify what it was actually about, it was deemed a success and ready for submission, which went ahead in April 2017.
It was published the next month after some editorial feedback and additional tweaking. To illustrate how deliberately absurd the paper is, a quote is in order:
"We conclude that penises are not best understood as the male sexual organ, or as a male reproductive organ, but instead as an enacted social construct that is both damaging and problematic for society and future generations… and is the conceptual driver behind much of climate change."
In plain English, they (seemingly) argued here that a penis is not a male sexual organ but a social construct; the “conceptual penis” is problematic for “gender (and reproductive) identity,” as well as being the “conceptual” driver of climate change. No, really. How this ever got published is something to ponder. The paper is filled with meaningless jargon, arrant nonsense, and references to fake papers and authors.
As part of the hoax, none of the sources that were cited were even read by the hoaxers. As Boghossian and Lindsay point out, it never should have been published. No one - not even Boghossian and Lindsay - knows what it is actually saying.
Almost a third of the sources cited in the original version of the paper point to fake sources, such as created by Postmodern Generator, making mock of how absurdly easy it is to execute this kind of hoax, especially, the authors add, in “‘academic’ fields corrupted by postmodernism.” (emphasis added)
The Spectacular Success of Hoax Papers and Non-existent Authors
In April 2010, Cyril Labbé of Joseph Fourier University in Grenoble, France, used a computer program called SCIgen to create 102 fake papers under the pseudonym of Ike Antkare. SCIgen was created in 2005 by researchers at MIT in Cambridge in order to demonstrate that conferences would accept such nonsense…as well as to amuse themselves.
Labbé added the bogus papers to the Google Scholar database, which boosted Ike Antkare’s h-index, a measure of published output, to 94 - at the time, making Antkare the world’s 21st most highly cited scientist. (emphasis added)
So a non-existent scientist has achieved the distinction of being one of the world’s most highly cited authors - while “authoring” papers consisting of utter gibberish. Congratulations are certainly in order. In February 2014 it was reported that Springer and the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE), were removing over 120 such bogus papers from their subscription services after Labbe identified them using his own software.
Going back at least as far as 1996 journalists and researchers have been getting spoof papers published in conferences or journals to deliberately expose weaknesses in academic quality controls.
“Physicist Alan Sokal (of the famous Sokal Affair) succeeded in the journal Social Text in 1996,” while Harvard science journalist John Bohannon revealed in a 2013 issue of Science that he had duped over 150 open-access journals into publishing “a deliberately flawed study.”
Bohannon organized submission of the flawed study (technically, many different but very similar variations of the study) to 304 open access journals worldwide over a period of 10 months. 255 went through the whole editing process to the point of either acceptance or rejection.
"Any reviewer with more than a high-school knowledge of chemistry and the ability to understand a basic data plot should have spotted the paper’s shortcomings immediately. Its experiments are so hopelessly flawed that the results are meaningless."
The hoax paper was accepted by a whopping 157 of the journals and rejected by only 98. Of the 106 journals that did conduct “peer review,” fully 70% accepted the paper.
If peer review was a transparent and accountable process, according to Gary Novak;
"There might be a small chance of correcting some of the corruptions through truth and criticism; but the process is cloaked in the darkness of anonymity…Due to the exploitive and corrupt process, nearly everything in science has official errors within it… A culture of protecting and exploiting the errors creates an official reality which cannot be opposed."
Returning specifically to the arena of (mainstream) medicine, a quote in PLoS Medicine, states:
"Journals have devolved into information laundering operations for the pharmaceutical industry”, wrote Richard Horton, editor of the Lancet, in March 2004.
In the same year, Marcia Angell, former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, lambasted the industry for becoming “primarily a marketing machine” and co-opting “every institution that might stand in its way”…
Jerry Kassirer, another former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, argues that the industry has deflected the moral compasses of many physicians, and the editors of PLoS Medicine have declared that they will not become “part of the cycle of dependency…between journals and the pharmaceutical industry”.
In the words of John Ionnidis, “Most scientific studies are wrong, and they are wrong because scientists are interested in funding and careers rather than truth.”
If most studies are wrong, and most scientists are more interested in their own careers and funding than getting at the truth - while journals daily allow bogus and flawed pharmaceutical research to be published and promoted - then why would anyone in their right mind believe the claims made by doctors about the efficacy of products based upon “peer review” or pharmaceutical “studies”?
What does a term like “safe and effective” even mean in this world of deception and subterfuge?
Clearly the problem of corruption and conflicts of interest have been increasingly on the radar of professional academics for some time now, so much so that it has been the subject of an increasing number of harshly critical articles and editorials. Conveying the depth and breadth of deception to the “uninitiated,” however, presents a unique challenge.
And it isn’t just conflict of interest and corruption to blame for the failure of peer review, there is human bias, shoddy review work, fake reviewers and fraud, and varying other human interests to factor in.
At the very least we need to cease indoctrinating students into the dogma that all good things have been peer reviewed, and the converse: anything that has not been peer reviewed is clearly blasphemous and crafted by the unholy hands of sinners.
In the meantime, the public needs to be warned: peer review is largely a sham and will not protect you or your family from medical pseudo-science or dangerous pharmaceutical products.
Your doctor’s word should not be blindly trusted, especially when we know that doctors rely absurdly heavily on information (read: propaganda) provided by the pharmaceutical industry itself (can you say “conflicted”?!) in developing their views and opinions.
I can’t help but cringe when I hear people ask if a study has been “peer-reviewed.” The response this question most often deserves is simply, “Who cares?”
"The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness."
- Richard Horton, Offline: What is medicine’s 5 sigma? The Lancet, 11 April 2015, thelancet.com (Horton is editor of The Lancet)
Shipp believes that this entire scandal, which will likely end up being the biggest in American history, could result in a Constitutional crisis. In an interview withUSA Watchdog‘s Greg Hunter, Shipp contends, “There could be a Constitutional crisis in that we could see Congressmen, Senators, former Directors of the FBI, and the CIA perp walked after they receive charges.
Could you imagine if senior DOJ officials were arrested, some Congressmen and Senators were arrested and other government officials were arrested on charges and walked out of office? That’s the Constitutional crisis I am talking about.
Those kinds of high-level arrests would shake up this nation. It would be huge, and that’s why it has taken so long and methodical in doing this.”
To begin, Shipp just lays it out, as plain as day, and it’s not difficult to understand.
"Hillary Clinton was running and is running a global financial criminal syndicate. She was using these secret servers to conduct Clinton financial money laundering business.
The shocking thing about that is all the former directors of the CIA that have come out to support her, from Clapper to Brennan to Morell even Robert Gates supporting her being elected, knew about this criminal syndicate.
Comey was protecting it. Lynch was protecting it. Weissmann was protecting it. And that is the big why. What’s she got on these people? Are they financial ties? They had to be aware of this, especially the counter-intelligence units.
We know it was hacked into by foreign intelligence services because it was just hanging out there. Hillary Clinton was running a secret server outside the Department of State for the purposes of laundering money through the criminal Clinton Foundation.”
"It’s not just an anvil, I think it is a mountain and the nexus of everything. This “Clinton Global Initiative” (CGI) is worldwide, and it’s been out there for a couple of decades. It has now, of course, intertwined former Directors of the CIA and FBI.
George Soros is a part of it. It’s connected to all kinds of global financial institutions…These people have been backing her, protecting her…James Comey protected Hillary Clinton from prosecution of multiple espionage laws…They have to be connected to this because they are completly witting of the whole thing.
[The global charity fraud is] at least a $100 billion and it connects into a whole lot of things…
All these people protecting and defending Hillary Clinton and knowing about her criminal syndicate, this goes into the so-called “Deep State” of our government, and it is connected, involved and intertwined in the global criminal crime syndicate called the Clinton Foundation. This is probably going to be the biggest scandal in U.S. history–once it’s busted.
I think they are quietly working on it now, and I think they have been for the last year. It is so huge the arrests and indictments could cause a Constitutional crisis with some people being removed. Maybe that’s why they are moving slowly. It all comes back down to the Clinton Foundation and the criminal syndicate.”
When Hunter asked who all was involved in this money laundering scandal, the regular players’ names surfaced, like George Soros. But Shipp also named Barack Obama as a culprit after Hunter specifically asked if the former president was also involved.
"Yes, I am absolutely convinced of it. George Soros gave $30 million to Obama’s campaign. Then he gave $27.1 million to Hillary Clinton’s campaign.
Both Obama and Clinton are tied directly into George Soros. Obama was put into office with millions of dollars that came out of nowhere. Yes, he’s part of this cabal. Yes, he’s part of this global syndicate, and in my opinion, the subversion of our government.”
In his article, Horgan rightly points out that today's so-called "science skeptics" are little more than dogmatic tribal cultists (my words, not Horgan's) who celebrate "skeptical" thinking concerning their selected philosophical targets while vehemently denying anyone's right to question their own beliefs on things like breast cancer screening, vaccine safety, global warming and genetically engineered foods.
As Horgan eloquently explains in his piece, real skeptics are skeptical of everything, not just selected topics that are targeted by the madness of status quo science crowds (i.e. the "cult of scientism").
Real Skepticism Means Questioning Everything... Especially the Status Quo
A real skeptic, in other words, would bring critical thinking to all of our science narratives and cultural beliefs, including those that cover the origin of the universe (cosmology), the origin of the human species, the nature of consciousness, the long history of indigenous botanical medicine, the cancer industry and mammography, homeopathy, antidepressant drugs, water filters, the existence of God and everything else imaginable.
But far too many of today's infamous "skeptics" (such as Richard Dawkins) are really just cultists who labor under the false banner of "science."
And they're offensive to real critical thinkers, it turns out.
"I don’t hang out with people who self-identify as capital-S Skeptics. Or Atheists. Or Rationalists," explains Horgan. "When people like this get together, they become tribal.
They pat each other on the back and tell each other how smart they are compared to those outside the tribe. But belonging to a tribe often makes you dumber."
I've seen this myself, on both ends of the medicine spectrum. I've seen insanely stupid pharmacology experts swear that statin drugs are such miraculous chemicals that they should be dripped into the public water supply. But I've also seen "raw foodies" at festivals swearing that their "water vortexer machines" could levitate water in defiance of the laws of gravity.
In both cases, my critical thinking alarms go haywire, and I shake my head in disbelief that so many people are so gullible, regardless of their level of academic education or technical mastery of certain subjects.
A highly trained doctor with an IQ of 200 can be just as functionally stupid as a high school dropout, I've observed. In fact, when it comes to medicine and health, many so-called "experts" are so ignorant of reality that they almost seem cognitively retarded.
My Experience as a Food Research Scientist Has Taught Me to Distrust Everything by Default
As a food scientist and lab science director of CWC Labs where I conduct food analysis via ICP-MS, LC/MS-TOF and other instruments, I've become even more skeptical of the mainstream natural products industry over the last few years.
Take note of the massive scam of commercial almond milk sold in grocery stores. Such products contain almost no almonds at all. Instead, they're thickened with carageenan and made to look milky white by the addition of an inorganic mineral compound called calcium carbonate - ground up rocks!
This calcium carbonate, when consumed in large quantities, can cause extreme bone pain, kidney calcification and may even contribute to the calcification of arteries. Yet it's added to a so-called "natural" health product that people are drinking in huge quantities while thinking they're being smart about their health. Truth be told, you'd be far better off drinking raw, unpasteurized cow's milk than commercial almond milk.
I've also seen so much pollution in "natural" products - including toxic heavy metals and alarming quantities of pesticides and herbicides in supposedly "clean" products - that I've reached the point where my own food manufacturing operation now rejects 80% of the raw material lots we test. (See my upcoming book Food Forensics for detailed ICP-MS analysis revealing the heavy metals concentrations in over 800 foods, supplements and spices.)
Similarly, I find myself rejecting 80% of the total B.S. science nonsense reported by the scientifically illiterate mainstream media... (and sometimes even the "science" media).
I've literally seen seemingly credible reports in the mainstream media that claim the most ludicrous science nonsense, including claims that cars can be "powered" by air and that cell phones can be "powered" by water. The air powered cars stories always neglect to mention that the air must be pressurized by some other energy source; usually coal-generated electricity that's used to power the compressors in the first place.
I've also seen the Associated Press falsely report that all mercury has been removed from all vaccines in America (blatantly false), and I've seen the obedient Monsanto-puppet media (i.e. Forbes.com, a propaganda rag steeped in utterly false journalism) report ridiculous claims such as asserting that glyphosate disintegrates quickly in the food supply.
In truth, this cancer-causing weed killer survives food processing and human digestion, showing up in both urine and breast milk, fully intact in its original molecular form.
So why is there no skepticism among "skeptics" about the food chain persistence of pesticides? The false diagnosis hoax of mammography? The lunatic quack medicine diagnosis of "psychiatric disorders" that are treated with mind-bending psychiatric drugs? Or even the scientifically proven fact that some children are seriously harmed by certain vaccines, most notably HPV vaccines?
As Horgan writes in Scientific American:
"The Science Delusion” is common among Capital-S Skeptics. You don’t apply your skepticism equally. You are extremely critical of belief in God, ghosts, heaven, ESP, astrology, homeopathy and Bigfoot. You also attack disbelief in global warming, vaccines and genetically modified food...
Meanwhile, you neglect what I call hard targets. These are dubious and even harmful claims promoted by major scientists and institutions. In the rest of this talk, I’ll give you examples of hard targets from physics, medicine and biology. I’ll wrap up with a rant about war, the hardest target of all."
What Horgan is doing is, dare we say, exercising REAL scientific skepticism. He's refusing to sign up for the "cult of scientism" that all the other closed-minded skeptics obediently follow as their dogmatic mental prison.
Horgan understands that legitimate science is a process, not a belief system. "Science" isn't belief in vaccines, GMOs, chemotherapy and global warming. Those are conclusions, not processes.
Real science is a process of discovery; and that process must be subjected to questioning and criticism, or it isn't science at all.
Let me repeat that for emphasis: Real science is a PROCESS, not a set of conclusions. Any "scientific" belief system which rejects critical questioning isn't based in real science at all. It's just dogma.
This explains why the entire vaccine industry - as it is fraudulently promoted today - isn't scientific at all.
Vaccine propaganda is founded in a dogmatic belief system that demands absolute obedience to political vaccine narratives while rejecting even the slightest questions or criticisms about vaccine ingredients, vaccine safety, vaccine adverse events or vaccine efficacy.
For example, merely asking the question of why flu shots still contain over 50,000 ppb mercury -- that's over 25,000 times the EPA limit of mercury in drinking water -- earns you widespread ridicule and condemnation. And yet the mercury is still being injected into children. Yet the entire vaccine propaganda establishment rejects even the hint of discussion of mercury in vaccines, pretending it doesn't exist.
The vaccine establishment, as Natural News readers well know, is practicing delusional thinking masquerading as science. It's just as delusional as so-called "psychic surgeons" who claim to pull diseased liver parts out of a patient's body (which later turn out to be chicken livers, go figure...).
Any real skeptic, upon observing the quackery, propaganda and blatant deception of the vaccine industry, would have to conclude that the way vaccines are formulated, approved and promoted today makes a mockery of science.
More "Science" B.S. is Readily Found in the Fields of Physics and Medicine, Too
Speaking on the subject of computing and AI systems, Horgan explains;
"The Singularity is an apocalyptic cult, with science substituted for God. When high-status scientists promote flaky ideas like the Singularity and multiverse, they hurt science. They undermine its credibility on issues like global warming."
Of course, Horgan may not yet understand that belief in man-made global warming as the primary cause for rising CO2 levels is also based on a politicized science cult. But that's not even the point. I don't expect other scientists to arrive at the same conclusions I've reached.
What I do expect, however, is that scientists should honor the process of critical scientific thinking. If they honor the process, they will eventually reach the correct conclusions on subjects such as man-made global warming, vaccine safety problems, the total con job of statin drugs and so on.
On medicine, Horgan nails it. He gets the fact that today's medical screening system is largely a fraud:
"Over the past half-century, physicians and hospitals have introduced increasingly sophisticated, expensive tests. They assure us that early detection of disease will lead to better health.
But tests often do more harm than good. For every woman whose life is extended because a mammogram detected a tumor, up to 33 receive unnecessary treatment, including biopsies, surgery, radiation and chemotherapy. For men diagnosed with prostate cancer after a PSA test, the ratio is 47 to one. Similar data are emerging on colonoscopies and other tests."
He's also right on the mark when it comes to psychiatric drugs and their fraudulent marketing:
"Over the last few decades, American psychiatry has morphed into a marketing branch of Big Pharma. I started critiquing medications for mental illness more than 20 years ago, pointing out that antidepressants like Prozac are scarcely more effective than placebos.
In retrospect, my criticism was too mild. Psychiatric drugs help some people in the short term, but over time, in the aggregate, they make people sicker.
He also exposes the total fraud of so-called "gene discoveries" that ridiculously claim genes have been discovered for things like gay-ness or intelligence:
Another hard target that needs your attention is behavioral genetics, which seeks the genes that make us tick. I call it gene-whiz science, because the media and the public love it.
Over the past several decades, geneticists have announced the discovery of "genes for" virtually every trait or disorder. We’ve had the God gene, gay gene, alcoholism gene, warrior gene, liberal gene, intelligence gene, schizophrenia gene, and on and on.
None of these linkages of single genes to complex traits or disorders has been confirmed. None!"
Much of What You'reTold Today Under the Banner of "Science" is Complete Bullshit
Horgan has come to the same conclusion that I've reached through a different path: Much of what we are taught today under the banner of "science" is complete bunk. Some of it is sheer hucksterism, and a lot of it qualifies as criminal fraud.
Check out my recent video compilation:
The 12 Biggest SCIENCE LIES You've Been Told by Corporations, Government and the Corrupt Media
At the top of that list of science frauds is, of course, vaccines. As I've exhaustively documented here on Natural News, many popular vaccines (flu shots, measles, mumps) simply don't work at all. Shockingly, outright admissions of a complete lack of scientific testing of the efficacy of such vaccines is admitted on their insert sheets.
Yet despite these extraordinary admissions of lack of efficacy, vaccine research fraud and the known toxicity of vaccine ingredients (which still include formaldehyde, mercury, aluminum and MSG), the systematic rejection of such evidence by vaccine promoting "science skeptics" borders on the fringe of mental illness.
As a real scientist, I've dared to ask 21 questions we're never allowed to ask about vaccines. Such questions are based on reason and rationality. They include commonsense questions such as, "If measles vaccines confer measles immunity, then why do already-vaccinated children have anything to fear from a measles outbreak?"
The government tells us that lead in water is bad, but mercury in vaccines is good...
It is notable that the entire vaccine establishment not only refuses to answer such questions; they consider the mere act of questioning vaccine dogma to be blasphemy. The demand for absolute obedience to the false narratives surrounding vaccines has reached such a fever pitch that anyone can now see it's no longer based in science at all.
It is a kind of religious fervor put on by deranged zealots who claim an intellectual monopoly over all things related to vaccines. This phenomenon is, in a very real way, a "scientific dictatorship" - an apt oxymoron to describe today's juxtaposition of conformist demands and so-called "scientific evidence."
Hint: If you aren't allowed to ask questions about the evidence, it isn't evidence at all. It's dogma, plain and simple. Vaccine proponents, as they operate today, are faith-based dogmatists who don't need any legitimate evidence because they BELIEVE in vaccines. Their belief is so strong that it outweighs all evidence contrary to their current beliefs. And in case you didn't notice, what I've just described here is a cult, not a science.
Vaccine "Science" is a Massive Con Job
The other huge con job found in vaccines is described thusly: Vaccines only "work" on those who don't need them. In other words, when vaccines do work, they do so by initiating an immune response to a weakened virus that's introduced into the body.
This response requires an active and complex immune system that's functioning well... the same kind of immune system, in other words, that could ward off an infection of a live virus encountered in the wild.
Meanwhile, people who have suppressed immune systems and are therefore extremely vulnerable to infections in the wild also happen to have extremely poor (and sometimes completely nullified) responses to vaccines. They don't build antibodies, in other words, so the vaccines don't work for them (they are non-efficacious).
In order to make vaccines "work" better on those with weakened immune systems, vaccine manufacturers add adjuvant chemicals that are irritants which cause excessive inflammation in the hope of eliciting a stronger immune response. While this may help some people, it also carries a very real risk of causing inflammatory damage to the neurology of some children who receive these vaccines.
The results, as borne out by the vaccine adverse events databases and Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, is a growing number of children who are maimed, neurological damaged, put into comas or even killed by vaccines.
The entire "skeptics" cult of modern medicine denies any of this is happening, and that's one reason why the skeptics are increasingly seen as high-functioning idiots who are possibly vaccine damaged themselves.
Zealotous hate-bloggers like Doctor David Gorski - a psychopathic, mentally ill vaccine promoter who also carries out cancer surgery on African-American victims in Detroit - now characterize the skeptics cult, a cabal of mentally deranged lunatics and gay sex fetish seekers like James Randi who was caught on tape soliciting sex from a young man.
Richard Dawkins, for his part, is also an anti-consciousness cultist who believes in the irrational dualism that no other humans on this planet are conscious beings other than himself. Everybody else, he claims, is an unconscious biological robot suffering under the illusion of self awareness.
Meet Three Real Scientists We Need to Empower to Ask More Questions of the Scientific Establishment
What kind of people do we really need to see more of in the realm of scientific skepticism? People like Rupert Sheldrake, author of Science Set Free. Sheldrake's work is transformative, as it challenges the underlying non-scientific assumptions of modern science.
We also need more people like Gilbert Welch, author of Less Medicine, More Health. This book challenges the seven false assumptions of modern medicine.
Dr. Lewis was maliciously attacked, discredited and ultimately thrown out of the government-funded scientific establishment for the simple reason that he questioned the safety of toxic biosludge -- recycled human and industrial waste that's sold as "organic fertilizer" to be spread on home gardens, childrens' playgrounds and city parks.
(I am currently investigating biosludge in my laboratory and will have some truly shocking, mind-blowing results to share with everyone this summer... you won't believe what's in this crap...) Check out Dr. Lewis's recent post entitled Inspector General dismantled scientific integrity at EPA.
The other thing we need, quite frankly, is independent scientists like myself who are conducting cutting edge, truly independent science, without any financial ties to governments, corporations or academia.
My science lab, which has now passed our ISO 17025 accreditation audit, is free to pursue precisely the kind of scientific analysis of food and medicine that is blackballed or censored in the government-funded scientific community.
Other scientists would lose their jobs if they pursued the kind of science I'm pursuing on a daily basis with absolute freedom.
Notably, this makes me a rare practitioner of real, independent science and a protector of the very kind of independent skepticism and scientific analysis that should be embraced by any system of knowledge that's based on legitimate science.
Yet the science I'm conducting is widely considered a threat to the scientific establishment, precisely because I'm willing to analyze vaccines for heavy metals and organic chemicals, for example.
Such research is simply not allowed by the cult of scientism (the vaccine zealots) because they depend on widespread ignorance of vaccine composition to continue parlaying their fraudulent lies about vaccine safety.
I Honor Scientists Who Pursue a Rigorous Process of Critical Thinking... and I Despise Obedient Status Quo Cultists
John Horgan might not yet be aware of the full story on vaccines, so he might disagree with me on such conclusions. But that's not the point. I honor Horgan's commitment to asking big questions. In fact, I honor those who vehemently disagree with me as long as they are following a process of authentic inquiry and open-minded skepticism.
What I despise is science cultists, dogmatic science propagandists and the worship of the "high priests" of science such as Neil DeGrasse Tyson, who can only be described as a "sciency" sleight-of-mind huckster who has more in common with stage illusionist David Copperfield than, say, Richard Feynman.
Tyson, like Dawkins, is a cultist. He has zero intellectual integrity and has sold out to the tribal dogmatists who spin tall tales of irrational mysticism that currently pass for "accepted science."
For my part, I don't claim to have all the answers - no human mind can possibly dare to claim a full understanding of the mysteries of nature (or the mind of God, for that matter). But as a real scientist, I'm willing to skeptically explore the evidence on just about anything.
I don't reject entire fields of scientific inquiry merely because they are taboo. It doesn't mean I'm a sucker for silly claims, just that I'm intelligent and humble enough to realize that nature is far more mysterious than any human mind can possibly grasp. And we have much more to learn... many more scientific discoveries to make in the years ahead.
For example, psychic phenomena are often called "paranormal." But what if they are so commonplace that they're actually normal? Why can't we study things like pets somehow anticipating the random arrivals of their owners many minutes in advance? Or mothers having a seemingly intuitive emotional connection to their children even when separated by distance? Why can't we study dream premonition?
Consciousness after biological death? Or even the possibility that the brain is a "quantum antenna" that can receive information transmitted from other conscious sources, transmitted by a quantum entanglement mechanism that Einstein described as "spooky action at a distance?"
If we are true scientists, we must at least BE CURIOUS about the nature of the universe and the apparent consciousness we seem to experience inside that universe. The minute we lose curiosity and decide we have all the answers, we cease being scientists at all.
At that point, we just become mentally incapacitated dogmatic fools... like Dawkins and Randi, two people whom history will judge as being not just unwise hucksters, but even for slowing the progress of human knowledge into realms of understanding that are viciously attacked by "skeptics" today.
I often wonder just how many people have died needlessly due to the malicious "skepticism" of info-terrorist David Gorski or the Quackwatch propagandist Stephen Barrett.
How many cases of cancer could have been prevented or reversed by natural and complementary medicine? How many studies might have been conducted in the pursuit of natural cures if not for the vicious, aggressive assaults on scientific curiosity being waged by "cult of scientism" intellectual bigots?
We'll never know the answer to that question, but at least a few people like John Horgan are willing to start asking some legitimate questions about the false assumptions of "skeptics." Have no doubt that Horgan himself will be maliciously slandered, attacked, defamed, censored and lied about for daring to ask such questions.
The one thing today's bullshit scientific establishment cannot tolerate is actual skepticism. It threatens the cultist beliefs of the faithful "scientism" worshippers, you see...
Willful Ignorance: Why We Stay Oblivious To Facts That Threaten Our Health And The Planet April 3 2018 | From: WakingTimes
How many times have you read or heard that refined sugar and processed meats are bad for you? Or how many pictures have you seen that show plastic pollution pervading the oceans?
But yet, many of us remain willfully blind to these fundamental facts. We make very little changes in our lifestyle even though our habits may be destroying our bodies and planet. Why does this happen?
Basically, we have to make ourselves disbelieve our initial belief. That, my friends, takes effort. Many of us are not willing to put in that effort.
Hence, we’re back to willful ignorance.
“People are about twice as likely to seek information that supports their own point of view as they are to consider an opposing idea.”
The Influencers of our Beliefs
What’s concerning is that many of our beliefs are shaped by corporations and media.
We do not give this much thought, because very few people are willing to talk about subliminal programming. (This is a perfect example of willful ignorance!)
Yet, most generations living today grew up in front of the TV. Newscasters, Hollywood producers, and advertisers have been feeling ideas of what is rights, what is acceptable and what should be ridiculed.
The problem is surmounted with the influence of religions, educators and governments. Most of these have their own agendas, unbeknownst to us during our childhood and young adulthood.
It’s OK to Change Your Mind
What’s exciting is that we now live is a completely different world than even 20 years ago. We have access to massive amounts of information. It is all at our fingertips.
Social psychologists, activists, and thought leaders, such as Hefferman, are able to share their knowledge, experience and wisdom with the masses.
Where the challenge lies is in our willingness to give thought to contradictions. It’s ok to consider information that oppose the official story you were fed in school or the marketing pitch of massive corporations. It’s ok to change your mind.
Perhaps milk “Does not do A Body Good.” When you’re drinking a Coke, you don’t “Catch the Wave”…instead you pollute the wave.
Maybe, just maybe, it’s not weird but smart to homeschool, opt out of politics, and stop reading/watching the news.
Ms. Hefferman writes in the book:
“Whether individual or collective, willful blindness doesn’t have a single driver, but many. It is a human phenomenon to which we all succumb in matters little and large. We can’t notice and know everything: the cognitive limits of our brain simply won’t let us.
That means we have to filter or edit what we take in. So what we choose to let through and to leave out is crucial. We mostly admit the information that makes us feel great about ourselves, while conveniently filtering whatever unsettles our fragile egos and most vital beliefs..”
It may be beneficial to reflect on what you’re filtering out because it intimidates your ego.
Next time something contradicts one of your beliefs, it may be a noteworthy practice to give these new ideas some thought.
As scheduled, the Shanghai International Energy Exchange (INE) started entertaining investors for its listed crude oil futures for a total of 23 overseas brokerage. In just a week, it already has a total of 278,234 transactions, worth 115.92 billion yuan.
China is currently the top energy user, and it is only fitting that it must dictate where it wants to go as far as the currency to use in its oil purchases from here on. This, of course, spells doom for the warmongering Petrodollar industry.
No, this is just a shift between two elements of the same world order.
In China today, there’s an ongoing construction of 33 highly advanced nuclear power plants, and its intermediate end goal is to export turnkey power plants around the world, at a price that only China could offer.
Even Donald Trump is forcing China to drink its more expensive hydrocarbons, hence the tariffs on Chinese steel. But the US has only shot itself in the foot, as the latter is much cheaper that the local counterparts. Why is that?
China is not playing on the same scarcity-based economic game of the West.
It wants to show the other side that there’s a better way to run the planet for everyone’s benefit.
It is wise enough to understand that the only way it can protect itself is to empower other nations on the planet by way of large scale development and the massive establishments of free energy systems via the peaceful use of nuclear power.
The British Empire is not happy with the latest defeat of its terror group in Ghouta Syria.
About 6,000 CIA employed militants got a safe passage again towards Idlib. But one journalist took it upon himself to confront some of them and question the wisdom of their senseless actions.
The militants were offered reconciliation by the Syrian government, but they refused it and chose instead to relocate themselves to Idlib, where they can be unified with the other defeated CIA stooges.
Highly volatile Trump, on the other hand, is hinting that the US is leaving Syria soon.
Clap, clap, clap for Trump. But really, the damage done in Syria cannot be undone with just one statement. Not to mention the fact that he just signed the highest Pentagon budget eve in his entire history, a few weeks ago.
The latest anti-Trump British coup attempt using Cambridge Analytica psyop is not working either.
Childish Behaviour from An Old Empire
Back in the UK, the immaturity in world affairs is manifested in the wanton use of its intelligence department to initiate poorly executed anti-Russian false flag, i.e. poisoning its own Russian asset, Sergei Skripal, and blame it on Russia.
This was followed by the massive EU and US expulsion of Russian diplomats, which is in some ways a huge improvement considering that more than a year back, they were actually assassinating them, openly and otherwise.
As of late, the Russians have responded with their own proportionate diplomatic expulsion of Western diplomats, due in large part to the latter’s failure to show evidence relevant to the Skripal poisoning case, and the UK’s refusal to cooperate in its investigation.
The British Empire’s desperation continues with the unannounced and unwarranted raid of one Aeroflot commercial airliner, and with the shutting down of Julian Assange’s internet access.
The Swedish government has no criminal case against the Wikileaks founder, Julian Assange, and therefore, the Empire has nothing to pin down the activist with. What crime is there when all that Julian Assange is doing is just what mainstream journalists worth their salt would have done, i.e. unearth and publish government wrongdoings?
The Deep State controlled governments around the world want to curtail our freedom of expression and intrude into our private lives, but the same cannot afford to open themselves up for public scrutiny.
Multipolarity is Gaining Ground; Leaving the West Behind
You have made the offer, but the other side is refusing your terms of mutual benefit. What are your options?
As the chips fall where it should be, the revival of the ancient Silk Road continues unabated as more African nations are availing themselves of the massive infrastructure projects facilitated and 70% financed by China.
This major economic lift is coupled with technology transfer that will a profound impact on the lives of the local population. Compare that to the shallow rock concerts for Africa, where the proceeds went only to the pockets of those who run the shady and bogus humanitarian NGOs.
All that the Western critics could do is to watch these developments, and malign China that it is only after the exploitation of the recipient’s natural resources, like the West is doing for last 500 years.
No, China’s participation in the construction of basic infrastructures in Africa is to make the entire continent truly independent from Western exploitation instead.
That is a far cry from the Western regime change, war, and biochemical attacks against the Africans.
The United States of America needs to remember also that in its infancy as a republic, it was China which financed its early economic development, with the same railroad constructions across the continent, using hardworking Chinese labor that in the American history books were labeled as slaves.
It is so good to watch that in Africa right now, they are already talking about how to intercourse with China through economic terms;
… rather than using their knowledge in mathematics counting dead bodies by Western injected wars. Remember how the Deep State controlled UN responded to the Rwanda genocide in 1994.
Who triggered that event if not the Western intelligence assets in the region?
As it stands today, the East is tired of dealing with the immaturity and exceptionalism of the West, and it is forging ahead with globalwide development, with or without, Western participation.
The West is not in a position anymore to dictate the terms by which mankind ascends towards shared prosperity.
The privileged position of the Parasitic Western Elite will become irrelevant soon, as their hosts gain more knowledge on how to decontaminate, detoxify and deconstruct the imaginary prison cells built around them.
There’s never been a theoretical and physical limits to what the human being can do.
The established, dogmatic limitations in Science are exactly where the Western hegemony derives its own power.
But the combined scientific achievements of the RIC Alliance between Russia, Iran and China, have effectively neutralized that.
All of the above is the real cause of the panic within the Deep State Empire.
A study [see article below] has documented the presence of vast quantities of water locked far beneath the earth’s surface. That study confirmed “that there is a very, very large amount of water that’s trapped in a really distinct layer in the deep Earth… approaching the sort of mass of water that’s present in all the world’s ocean” We have an abundance of water. Why would the corporate government agencies create the false science of water
scarcity and the fear we are running out of water?
The goal is control, money and creating compliance to water monitoring, required reduced water use and charging higher usage costs all based upon our ignorance of where water really comes from. Sadly, out of fear many
people will forfeit their ranches, farms and livelihoods believing they are out of water due to a drought.
Primary Water is in abundance and we MUST start looking down for water instead of up!
The evidence mad available via this article will provide you with the knowledge to combat the corporate media fear campaign. Spread this truth to everyone you know, and demand your cities access the Primary Water to recharge the ground water basins that have been over pumped.
We cannot continue to be tricked for the benefit of those that intend to privatize the water for profit and control.
Primary Water, The Original Source of Our Oceans, is Still Being Created by Geological Forces
That water, usually in a potable form, comes to the earth’s surface in thousands of places, some well known like Jericho and Bahrain where it has provided drinking water for thousands of people for thousands of years. It pours into deep mines all over the world.
Hundreds of houses on the rocky shores of Maine get their fresh water from wells drilled into the shoreline granite. Copenhagen gets all its water from a few wells. In Northern Europe, water that can be tapped by wells that do not depend on aquifers is called “ground water”.
The hallmark of new, or primary, water springs and wells is that they provide water at constant temperature and flow.
Click on the image above to view a larger version in a new window
But this world-wide source of “new water” has been ignored by geologists and laymen in most countries including the United States. They were taught that all potable water comes from the “hydrological cycle” which merely recycles water already on the surface of our earth.
Michael H. Salzman, an engineer and administrator, researched, wrote and published a book providing detailed information on “new water”. As published in 1960, it can be read and/or downloaded from this website. It is not readily available in libraries.
Mike handed us one of his last copies in 1970 and asked us to see if we could get some recognition for it. He told us some wealthy people wanting to get approval for funds to build an aqueduct to bring water from the Colorado River to southern California (they succeeded) had bought up and burned all the copies they could find.
They also tried (and failed) to have him fired as Director of the Los Angeles Housing Authority.
"It's actually the confirmation that there is a very, very large amount of water that's trapped in a really distinct layer in the deep Earth," said Graham Pearson, lead study author and a geochemist at the University of Alberta in Canada. The findings were published in the journal Nature.
The worthless-looking diamond encloses a tiny piece of an olivine mineral called ringwoodite, and it's the first time the mineral has been found on Earth's surface in anything other than meteorites or laboratories. Ringwoodite only forms under extreme pressure, such as the crushing load about 320 miles (515 kilometers) deep in the mantle.
What's in the Mantle?
Most of Earth's volume is mantle, the hot rock layer between the crust and the core. Too deep to drill, the mantle's composition is a mystery leavened by two clues: meteorites, and hunks of rock heaved up by volcanoes.
First, scientists think the composition of the Earth's mantle is similar to that of meteorites called chondrites, which are chiefly made of olivine. Second, lava belched by volcanoes sometimes taps the mantle, bringing up chunks of odd minerals that hint at the intense heat and pressure olivine endures in the bowels of the Earth.
In recent decades, researchers have also recreated mantle settings in laboratories, zapping olivine with lasers, shooting minerals with massive guns and squeezing rocks between diamond anvils to mimic the Earth's interior.
These laboratory studies suggest that olivine morphs into a variety of forms corresponding to the depth at which it is found. The new forms of crystal accommodate the increasing pressures.
Changes in the speed of earthquake waves also support this model. Seismic waves suddenly speed up or slow down at certain depths in the mantle.
Researcher think these speed zones arise from olivine's changing configurations. For example, 323 to 410 miles (520 to 660 km) deep, between two sharp speed breaks, olivine is thought to become ringwoodite. But until now, no one had direct evidence that olivine was actually ringwoodite at this depth. [What is Earth Made Of?]
"Most people (including me) never expected to see such a sample. Samples from the transition zone and lower mantle are exceedingly rare and are only found in a few, unusual diamonds," Hans Keppler, a geochemist at the University of Bayreuth in Germany, wrote in a commentary also published in Nature today.
Earth's Deepest Ocean
The diamond from Brazil confirms that the models are correct: Olivine is ringwoodite at this depth, a layer called the mantle transition zone. And it resolves a long-running debate about water in the mantle transition zone. The ringwoodite is 1.5 percent water, present not as a liquid but as hydroxide ions (oxygen and hydrogen molecules bound together).
The results suggest there could be a vast store of water in the mantle transition zone, which stretches from 254 to 410 miles (410 to 660 km) deep.
"It translates into a very, very large mass of water, approaching the sort of mass of water that's present in all the world's ocean," Pearson told Live Science's Our Amazing Planet.
Plate tectonics recycles Earth's crust by pushing and pulling slabs of oceanic crust into subduction zones, where it sinks into the mantle. This crust, soaked by the ocean, ferries water into the mantle. Many of these slabs end up stuck in the mantle transition zone.
"We think that a significant portion of the water in the mantle transition zone is from the emplacement of these slabs," Pearson said. "The transition zone seems to be a graveyard of subducted slabs."
Keppler noted that it's possible the volcanic eruption that brought the deep diamond to Earth's surface may have sampled an unusually water-rich part of the mantle, and that not all of the transition-zone layer may be as wet as indicated by the ringwoodite.
"If the source of the magma is an unusual mantle reservoir, there is the possibility that, at other places in the transition zone, ringwoodite contains less water than the sample found by Pearson and colleagues," Keppler wrote. "However, in light of this sample, models with anhydrous, or water-poor, transition zones seem rather unlikely."
Ride on a Rocket
A violent volcanic eruption called a kimberlite quickly carried this particular diamond from deep in the mantle. "The eruption of a kimberlite is analogous to dropping a Mentos mint into a bottle of soda," Pearson said. "It's a very energetic, gas-charged reaction that blasts its way to Earth's surface."
The tiny, green crystal, scarred from its 325-mile (525 km) trip to the surface, was bought from diamond miners in Juína, Brazil. The mine's ultradeep diamonds are misshapen and beaten up by their long journey.
"They literally look like they've been to hell and back," Pearson said.
The ringwoodite discovery was accidental, as Pearson and his co-authors were actually searching for a means of dating the diamonds. The researchers think careful sample preparation is the key to finding more ringwoodite, because heating ultradeep diamonds, as happens when scientists polish crystals for analysis, causes the olivine to change shape.
"We think it's possible ringwoodite may have been found by other researchers before, but the way they prepared their samples caused it to change back to a lower-pressure form," Pearson said.
As we learn and become wiser, we go through various stages of spiritual transformation, which, according to one of the most brilliant people in human history, Friedrich Nietzsche, could be boiled down to just three main ones.
In order to shed some light on what those stages are, I spent the last few days writing this article, with the intention to offer you some guidance on your spiritual path based on what I've learned so far from my own experiences
I consider myself to be extremely lucky, and one of the reasons why I do so is that at the age of 17 I had the chance to come across one of the greatest books ever written in human history.
Just mentioning its name, I can feel shivers running down my spine. Such a powerful effect it has had on my life.
Written by Friedrich Nietzsche, this book is a difficult read, filled with allegories and fragmented thoughts. Yet the insights contained in it are so profound that even now, nearly 15 years since reading it, I still carry them like a treasure in my mind.
One of the greatest ideas expressed in Thus Spoke Zarathustra is that of The Three Metamorphoses of the Spirit. According to Nietzsche, as humans grow and mature, they naturally go through three stages of spiritual transformation.
Most of them only make it to the first one where they are stuck for life, some are able to progress to the second, while only a few manage to pass through to the third. However, it’s only when the third and final transformation has been reached that one can realize his or her full potential and make the most out of life.
Now you must be wondering: which are those three spiritual transformations?
Well, let’s find out!
Transformation #1: The Camel
The first transformation of the human spirit is that of becoming a camel. The camel is a symbol that represents obedience and tolerance. Just like most people, the camel is living in harsh conditions that have been imposed upon it and which it has to endure.
Think of how a camel lives: it is day in and day out being loaded with heavy weights that it has to carry through the hot dessert merely for the sake of satisfying the wishes of its masters.
Now think of how most people live: they are constantly doing things they don’t enjoy doing just so as to satisfy the expectations of others, such as parents, teachers and employers, but they are sacrificing themselves in the process.
The camel is a carrier, a collector of burdens. It hasn’t learned to say no. Whatever it’s told to do, it does without objection. It kneels down and lets others place burdens upon it without offering the least resistance.
Doesn’t that sound similar to the way the majority of people behave? They follow rules and orders, doing whatever authority figures tell them to do, even if that is against their well-being. They are afraid to disobey and never gather the courage to go against the sick normalcy that society has forced them to fit in.
The camel has accepted hardship as its fate. In its eyes, life is a drudgery and nothing can be done to alter it. Yet the camel isn’t intimidated by discomfort or discouraged by the challenges life presents it on its way. On the contrary, it is ready to face head-on any difficulty it comes across and is willing to do anything it takes to go through it.
That’s because the camel feels a sense of duty to carry out the tasks that were given to it, and finds egoistic gratification in demonstrating that it can successfully do so.
So many of us do all sorts of things because we feel that we have to, without ever stopping for a moment to question our behavior.
We’ve been conditioned to believe that it’s our duty to live in a certain way, and that if we don’t then we aren’t good enough to be accepted by society. So we try to do whatever it takes to prove ourselves to others, and by achieving that we (temporarily) feel better about ourselves.
As it ages, the camel finds that the weights it is carrying on its back are growing heavier and heavier, and at some point starts to question its way of living.
Despite its great achievements, the camel feels empty of joy and purpose, and it deep down knows that if it continues existing this way, it will be filled with bitterness and regrets for having experienced such a painful and pointless life.
The camel finds itself limited by the duties and obligations that have been placed upon it. If it continues carrying them for much longer, their weight might break its spirit. If, however, it chooses to rebel against them, it can pass through the next stage of spiritual transformation - that of becoming a lion - and free itself from the burdens that have been keeping it down.
Just like the camel, we all desire freedom. Yet we’re confined within unconscious ideological cages that were handed to us from tradition, and unless we realize their existence, and take action to get rid of them, we’ll always remain prisoners of our own limiting beliefs.
The then camel, now lion, questions everything it knows, and soon finds out that its long-held values and morals are nothing but the result of years of brainwashing, as well as that ultimately there’s no universal truth or morality.
As a result, it rejects all beliefs and chooses to dedicate its life to fighting against the structures that have been restricting its freedom.
Only once we dare to doubt and scrutinize our beliefs, can we start our quest for truth. If we do so, however, we’re soon bound to discover that what was offered to us as truth by tradition isn’t quite the truth.
Consequently, this can lead us to experience immense anger for having been deceived since the very moment we were born, and, in turn, our anger can lead us to fight against anyone that has been trying to persuade us into believing untruths.
The lion symbolizes disillusionment, courage, and anger. Being the king of the beasts, it follows no one’s rules; rather, it creates its own and imposes them on the world. It doesn’t bow down to others or take orders - instead, it stands proud and follows its inner voice. In essence, the lion is a rebel - it rebels against the duties and moral codes that were forced upon it.
Yet, although it has renounced external values and obligations, it still hasn’t found true freedom. Because of its reactive nature, the lion’s freedom is negative, for its existence depends on battling tradition. The lion is totally focused on destroying existing structures, and not on creating new ones. In other words, it is living against something else, and not for itself.
This is exactly how people usually react under the influence of anger: instead of searching to find a solution to their problems, they are fighting against what created them.
For example, many fight against the established system of society, but they don’t seem to comprehend that, although fighting might be to some extent necessary for the progress of our civilization, it isn’t going to bring any positive change on its own unless it is coupled with the creation of a new system that will render the old obsolete.
Hence, they ultimately achieve nothing other than possibly causing further harm to themselves and the world.
Looked at this way, the lion is still, in a sense, a prisoner - a prisoner of its own mind. To escape this mental prison, it needs to let go of its past and start living afresh by creating a new way of life. For this to happen, however, it has to go through the next and last stage of spiritual transformation - that of becoming a child.
Spiritual masters from both the West and East point out again and again the importance of reconnecting with our “inner child.” Why? Because, as a symbol, the child represents all the good qualities that reside within each person, such as innocence, playfulness and creativity.
As we’ve seen, the lion has tremendous power to destroy, but it’s unable to create. It is stuck to its past - hence, it can’t move forward and make a new beginning. However, once it transforms into a child, it can at last create its life anew by making up its own values, meaning and purpose.
The child has achieved spiritual liberation from the unconscious forces that were keeping it tied to a fixed pattern of thought and behavior. Unlike the lion, the child isn’t emotionally reacting based on what happened in the past - instead, it mindfully responds to life according to what’s happening in the moment.
Thus, the child can shift its focus from destroying the old structures to creating new, better ones that will actually allow humanity to enter a brighter future.
To the child, life is neither a drudgery nor a struggle; it is a pure celebration, and the child immerses itself totally in it. It finds life so precious that it doesn’t want to waste a single moment. Whatever the child does, it does it with its whole heart. Not because of external reward or validation, but simply because it finds great joy in doing so.
And its joy is contagious - anyone who comes close to the child can experience it. Therefore, just by its innocent and playful presence, the child spreads peace and happiness to the world.
By letting go of the emotional and mental constraints of our past, we can come in touch with our inner child, and thus reconnect with our creative nature. Then, we’ll be able to build a new path of life that will serve our freedom and well-being.
In addition, we’ll be able to look at the world with fresh eyes and see all the beauty that it has to offer. As a result, we’ll want to stop fighting against it, and instead we’ll start using our energy to set up systems that will enable us to live in harmony with it.
When we develop a child-like mind, our spiritual journey will be completed. We started the journey as children, and we can reach to the end of it only as “children” again. But first we need to come back to the source of our being and rediscover who we truly are.
Or, to put it differently, we need to go through a new birth - a spiritual birth. Once we do so, we won’t be bothered by our past hurts anymore. On the contrary, we’ll feel cheerful and content, wearing a big smile on our face that will radiate joy all around us.
Colonizing The Western Mind April 1 2018 | From: Counterpunch
In Christopher Nolan’s captivating and visually dazzling film Inception, a practitioner of psychic corporate espionage must plant and idea inside a CEO’s head.
The process is called inception, and it represents the frontier of corporate influence, in which mind spies no longer just “extract” ideas from the dreams of others, but seed useful ideas in a target’s subconscious.
Inception is a well-crafted piece of futuristic sci-fi drama, but some of the ideas it imparts are already deeply embedded in the American [Western] subconscious.
The notion of inception, of hatching an idea in the mind of a man or woman without his or her knowledge, is the kernel of propaganda, a black art practiced in the States [West] since the First World War. Today we live beneath an invisible cultural hegemony, a set of ideas implanted in the mass mind by the state and its corporate media over decades.
Invisibility seems to happen when something is either obscure or ubiquitous. In a propaganda system, an overarching objective is to render the messaging invisible by universalizing it within the culture.
Difference is known by contrast.
If there are no contrasting views in your field of vision, it’s easier to accept the ubiquitous explanation.
The good news is that the ideology is well-known to some who have, for one lucky reason or another, found themselves outside the hegemonic field and are thus able to contrast the dominant worldview with alternative opinions.
On the left, the ruling ideology might be described as neoliberalism, a particularly vicious form of imperial capitalism that, as would be expected, is camouflaged in the lineaments of humanitarian aid and succor.
In a short span of time in the 1970s, dozens of think tanks were established across the western world and billions of dollars were spent proselytizing the tenets of the Powell Memo in 1971, which galvanized a counter-revolution to the liberal upswing of the Sixties.
The neoliberal economic model of deregulation, downsizing, and privatization was preached by the Reagan-Thatcher junta, liberalized by the Clinton regime, temporarily given a bad name by the unhinged Bush administration, and saved by telegenic restoration of the Obama years.
The ideology that underlay the model saturated academia, notably at the University of Chicago, and the mainstream media, principally at The New York Times. Since then it has trickled down to the general populace, to whom it now feels second nature.
Today think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, the Brookings Institute, Stratfor, Cato Institute, American Enterprise Institute, Council on Foreign Relations, Carnegie Endowment, the Open Society Foundation, and the Atlantic Council, among many others, funnel millions of dollars in donations into cementing neoliberal attitudes in the American [Western] mind.
The ideological assumptions, which serve to justify what you could call neocolonial tactics, are relatively clear: the rights of the individual to be free of overreach from monolithic institutions like the state. Activist governments are inherently inefficient and lead directly to totalitarianism.
Markets must be free and individuals must be free to act in those markets. People must be free to choose, both politically and commercially, in the voting booth and at the cash register.
This conception of markets and individuals is most often formulated as “free-market democracy,” a misleading conceit that conflates individual freedom with the economic freedom of capital to exploit labor.
So when it comes to foreign relations, American and western aid would only be given on the condition that the borrowers accepted the tenets of an (highly manipulable) electoral system and vowed to establish the institutions and legal structures required to fully realize a western market economy.
These demands were supplemented with notions of the individual right to be free of oppression, some fine rhetoric about women and minorities, and somewhat more quietly, a judicial understanding that corporations were people, too.
Together, an unshackled economy and an unfettered populace, newly equipped with individual rights, would produce the same flourishing and nourishing demos of mid-century America that had been the envy of humanity.
A False Promise
This ‘Washington Consensus’ is the false promise promoted by the West. The reality is quite different. The crux of neoliberalism is to eliminate democratic government by downsizing, privatizing, and deregulating it.
Proponents of neoliberalism recognize that the state is the last bulwark of protection for the common people against the predations of capital. Remove the state and they’ll be left defenseless.
Think about it. Deregulation eliminates the laws. Downsizing eliminates departments and their funding. Privatizing eliminates the very purpose of the state by having the private sector take over its traditional responsibilities. Ultimately, nation-states would dissolve except perhaps for armies and tax systems.
A large, open-border global free market would be left, not subject to popular control but managed by a globally dispersed, transnational one percent. And the whole process of making this happen would be camouflaged beneath the altruistic stylings of a benign humanitarianism.
Globalists, as neoliberal capitalists are often called, also understood that democracy, defined by a smattering of individual rights and a voting booth, was the ideal vehicle to usher neoliberalism into the emerging world. Namely because democracy, as commonly practiced, makes no demands in the economic sphere.
Socialism does. Communism does. These models directly address ownership of the means of production. Not so democratic capitalism.
This permits the globalists to continue to own the means of production while proclaiming human rights triumphant in nations where interventions are staged. The enduring lie is that there is no democracy without economic democracy.
What matters to the one percent and the media conglomerates that disseminate their worldview is that the official definitions are accepted by the masses.
The real effects need never be known. The neoliberal ideology (theory) thus conceals the neoliberal reality (practice).
And for the masses to accept it, it must be mass produced. Then it becomes more or less invisible by virtue of its universality.
A Pretext for Pillage
Thanks to this artful disguise, the West can stage interventions in nations reluctant to adopt its platform of exploitation, knowing that on top of the depredations of an exploitative economic model, they will be asked to call it progress and celebrate it.
Washington, the metropolitan heart of neoliberal hegemony, has numerous methods of convincing reluctant developing nations to accept its neighborly advice.
To be sure, the goal of modern colonialism is to find a pretext to intervene in a country, to restore by other means the extractive relations that first brought wealth to the colonial north. The most common pretexts for intervention depict the target nation in three distinct fashions.
First, as an economic basket case, a condition often engineered by the West in what is sometimes called, “creating facts on the ground.”
By sanctioning the target economy, Washington can “make the economy scream,” to using war criminal Henry Kissinger’s elegant phrasing. Iran, Syria, and Venezuela are relevant examples here.
Second, the West funds violent opposition to the government, producing unrest, often violent riots of the kind witnessed in Dara, Kiev, and Caracas.
The goal is either to capsize a tottering administration or provoke a violent crackdown, at which point western embassies and institutions will send up simultaneously cries of tyranny and brutality and insist the leader step aside. Libya, Syria, and Venezuela are instructive in this regard.
Third, the country will be pressured to accept some sort of military fettering thanks to either a false flag or manufactured hysteria over some domestic program, such as the WMD restrictions on Iraq, chemical weapons restrictions on Syria, or the civilian nuclear energy restrictions on Iran.
Given that the U.S. traffics in WMDs, bioweapons, and nuclear energy itself, insisting others forsake all of these is perhaps little more than racially motivated despotry. But significant fear mongering in the international media will provide sufficient moral momentum to ram through sanctions, resolutions, and inspection regimes with little fanfare.
Schooling the Savages
Once the pretext is established, the appropriate intervention is made. There’s no lack of latent racism embedded in each intervention. Something of Edward Said’s Orientalism is surely at play here; the West is often responding to a crude caricature rather than a living people.
One writer, Robert Dale Parker, described western views of Asia as little more than, “a sink of despotism on the margins of the world.” Iran is incessantly lensed through a fearful distrust of the ‘other’, those abyssal Persians.
Likewise, North Korea is mythologized as a kingdom of miniature madmen, possessed of a curious psychosis that surely bears no relation to the genocidal cleansing of 20 percent of its population in the Fifties, itself an imperial coda to the madness of Hiroshima.
The interventions, then, are little different than the missionary work of early colonizers, who sought to entrap the minds of men in order to ensnare the soul. Salvation is the order of the day. The mission worker felt the same sense of superiority and exceptionalism that inhabits the mind of the neoliberal.
Two zealots of the age peddling different editions of a common book. One must carry the gospel of the invisible hand to the unlettered minions. But the gifts of the enlightened interloper are consistently dubious.
It might be the loan package that effectively transfers economic control out of the hands of political officials and into the hands of loan officers, those mealy-mouthed creditors referred to earlier. It may be the sanctions that prevent the country from engaging in dollar transactions and trade with numberless nations on which it depends for goods and services.
Or it might be that controversial UNSC resolution that leads to a comprehensive agreement to ban certain weapons from a country.
Stipulations of the agreement will often include a byzantine inspections regime full of consciously-inserted trip wires designed to catch the country out of compliance and leverage that miscue to intensify confrontational rhetoric and implement even more far-reaching inspections.
The U.S. is currently sanctioning around 30 nations in some fashion; dozens of countries have fallen into ‘protracted arrears’ with western creditors; and entire continents are witnessing huge outflows of capital - on the order of $100B annually - to the global north as debt service.
The profiteering colonialists of the West make out like bandits. The usual suspects include Washington and its loyal lapdogs, the IMF, World Bank, EU, NATO, and other international institutions, and the energy and defense multinationals whose shareholders and executive class effectively run the show.
So why aren’t Americans [Westerners] aware of this complicated web of neocolonial domination?
Italian communist Antonio Gramsci, who pioneered the concept of cultural hegemony, suggested that the ruling ideologies of the bourgeoisie were so deeply embedded in popular consciousness that the working classes often supported leaders and ideas that were antithetical to their own interests.
Today, that cultural hegemony is neoliberalism. Few can slip its grasp long enough to see the world from an uncolored vantage point.
You’ll very rarely encounter arguments like this leafing through the Times or related broadsheets. They don’t fit the ruling dogma, the Weltanschauung (worldview) that keeps the public mind in its sleepy repose.
But French-Algerian philosopher Louis Althusser, following Gramsci, believed that, unlike the militarized state, the ideologies of the ruling class were penetrable. He felt that the comparatively fluid zones of Ideological State Apparatuses (ISAs) were contexts of class struggle.
Within them, groups might attain a kind of ‘relative autonomy’, by which they could step outside of the monolithic cultural ideology. The scales would fall. Then, equipped with new knowledge, people might stage an inception of their own, cracking open the cultural hegemony and reshaping its mythos in a more humane direction.
This seems like an imperative for modern American [Western] culture, buried as it is beneath the hegemonic heft of the neoliberal credo.
These articles of false faith, this ideology of deceit, ought to be replaced with new declarations of independence, of the mind if not the mainstream.
Good Hearts, Fooled Minds: 4 Fallacies Of The (Hijacked) Environmental Movement April 1 2018 | From: WakeUpWorld
The hijacked environmental movement is a symptom of the current general, collective state of humanity: good hearted but ignorant.
Many people in the environmental movement are in it for the right reasons: they see the ongoing poisoning and destruction of the planet, led by corporations, and are determined to defend and speak out for the Earth.
By continuing to push notions that carbon dioxide is a poison, that global warming exists and all of mankind is responsible for it, that we need a worldwide carbon tax and that we require Agenda 21-style global governance, these people are unknowingly promoting the New World Order program – and unwittingly placing elite controllers in power who don’t care about the environment and view it merely as a resource to be exploited.
Welcome to Planet Earth. If your opinion diverges too much from the mainstream, you could get locked up for thinking “wrongly”.
With the current focus being on the outcomes of the recent 2015 UN Summit, the hackneyed buzzword of sustainability is being thrown around like there’s no tomorrow. In this context, it’s worth revisiting how the environmental movement came to be so hijacked and co-opted.
Basis for the Hijack: Conspiracy Reports from The Iron Mountain and The Club of Rome
The basis for the hijacked environment movement lies within formerly secret military reports, and one of the elite Round Table groups that run the world: the Club of Rome.
The Club of Rome meeting in Salzburg in 1972. "The Club of Rome, the prestigious think tank founded in 1968, is for the first time meeting in the Dutch capital Amsterdam. Key guest is former Russian President Mikhail Gorbachov, who is to speak on Monday. Other guests include Queen Beatrix, former Dutch Prime Minister Ruud Lubbers and Environment Minister Jacqueline Cramer.The think tank, which comprises economists, scientists, politicians and business people, meets once a year to discuss environmental pollution, the depletion of natural resources and the growth of the world population." As pointed out by an astute reader, the man fifth from the left is the Prime Minister of Canada - Joseph Philippe Pierre Yves Elliot Trudeau.
I wonder if those who believe in AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) or Manmade Global Warming have any idea that the elite came up with the idea of using mankind itself as the global threat against which we are all supposed to gather behind a One World Government?
The 1966 Report from the Iron Mountain was commissioned by John F. Kennedy and considered by Lyndon B. Johnson as too dangerous to reveal to the public at the time when it was completed. This excerpt from it discusses how a global government could be imposed without war, and suggests the threat could instead be environmental pollution:
“The possibility of war provides the sense of external necessity without which no government can long remain in power… An effective political substitute for war would require “alternate enemies,” some of which might seem equally farfetched in the context of the current war system.
It may be, for instance, that gross pollution of the environment can eventually replace the possibility of mass destruction by nuclear weapons as the principal apparent threat to the survival of the species.
Poisoning of the air, and of the principal sources of food and water supply, is already well advanced, and at first glance would seem promising in this respect; it constitutes a threat that can be dealt with only through social organization and political power.
But from present indications it will be a generation to a generation and a half before environmental pollution, however severe, will be sufficiently menacing, on a global scale, to offer a possible basis… [however] the rate of pollution could be increased selectively for this purpose”.
The Club of Rome’s 1991 document entitled The First Global Revolution? contains this passage:
“In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together …
all these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then is humanity itself.”
Are You Being ‘Green Washed’?
The current environmental movement we see today was hijacked a long time ago. Let’s take a look at the top 4 fallacies the NWO conspirators have managed to get ‘greenies’ to believe.
The Hijacked Environmental Movement Fallacy #1: Carbon Dioxide is a Poison
Let’s start with the basics: carbon dioxide (CO2) is a nutrient, not a poison. We breathe out carbon dioxide every breath, but we also take some of it in on the inbreath. According to the IPCC (Interplanetary Panel on Climate Change), we are therefore poisoning ourselves every breath!
Think about it – if CO2 were really a poison, why does it help plants grow so much?
Why is it a key part of the fundamental equation of biology: sugar + oxygen = carbon dioxide + water + heat?
How is it that those in the environmental movement are ignorant of basic biology?
As the website PlantsNeedCO2.org states, the more CO2 around, the better plants grow:
“In Idso and Idso’s (1994) analysis of soil nutrient limitations, the percentage growth enhancement due to a 300-ppm rise in the air’s CO2 content actually did exhibit a slight (but statistically non-significant) decline, dropping from 51% to 45% when nutrients went from non-growth-limiting to limiting in a group of 70 experiments.
But when the atmospheric CO2 enrichment was 600 ppm, this slight negative trend reversed itself, going from a CO2-induced growth stimulation of 43% when nutrients were present in abundance to a 52% enhancement when their supply was sub-optimal.
And for a 1200-ppm increase in atmospheric CO2, the percentage growth enhancement jumped from 60% when the soil nutrient supply was adequate to 207% when it was less-than-adequate.”
It’s a simple equation: the more CO2 you have, the more the plants like it, and the faster they will grow.
The demonization of carbon dioxide is not about helping the environment.
The NWO idea has always been to attach the worsening condition of the environment to an individual’s energy usage – and even his or her breathing – so as to introduce a carbon tax.The Government literally wants to tax you for breathing – for merely being alive.
The Hijacked Environmental Movement Fallacy #2: The Manmade Global Warming Hoax
That is why the term global warming got changed to climate change – this way, no matter what happens with the weather, the IPCC can say the climate is changing. But climate change is a slick truism – you can’t argue against it. Of course the climate is changing. When has it not changed?
The Hijacked Environmental Movement Fallacy #3: The Carbon Tax and Global Governance as Eco-Solutions
As pointed out above, all this focus on carbon is for one reason: taxation. The whole scheme to get people and corporations fixated on their carbon footprint – rather than how much actual benefit or harm they are doing the environment – is to pave the way for more taxation and centralization of power.
To have a worldwide carbon tax, of course, you need a One World Government to enforce and collect it. The UN, ICLEI and its other subdivisions are constantly talking about global governance for this very reason.
It also means extending the reach of the United Nations so that local bodies such as local councils and municipalities that belong to ICLEI, (the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives, created in 1990 as a non-governmental spin-off of the United Nations) can implement its global directives and make it look ‘grassroots’, or like it was locally decided.
For further information on this topic, check out George Hunt’s work in exposing how Evelyn Rothschild and David Rockefeller were cooking up the cap-and-trade scheme in the 1980s. Hunt was present at some of the meetings where the carbon tax was first being discussed.
The Hijacked Environmental Movement Fallacy #4: Overpopulation
Mahatma Gandhi once said: “Earth provides enough to satisfy every man’s need, but not every man’s greed.” There is no doubt that rising populations can put a strain on resources, yet where is the proof that the Earth cannot support 7 billion people? Or 9 billion people? Is it really population that is the problem here, or is it rather self-centered greed and destructive environmental practices and technologies?
We can accept the world’s rising population not as a threat or a reason to justify killing (which goes by the euphemism of depopulation) but rather as a challenge. It can propel us into living more from the heart, to having more compassion for those less well off than us, to doing a better job of sharing, of distributing resources equitably.
It can stimulate us into better modes of efficiency. Could the rising population help a critical mass of people awake to the truth of free energy, and the fact that free energy or over unity devices already exist which provide practically unlimited energy for free or very cheaply?
When people gain a higher education, they organically choose to have less kids. If the conspirators really cared about the planet’s population, why not use their money to help everyone access better education? The answer is, of course, that they don’t.
Underpinning the propaganda of overpopulation is eugenics. It’s the idea that some humans are superior to others, and that some humans don’t deserve to be here.
This is really the philosophical and spiritual basis of the hijacking. As they have confessed, the conspirators in their delusions view the rest of the population as a virus that must be rid from the planet. Yet, the real virus is the fear mindset that runs the show in the brains of the elite controllers.
“In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation.”
Some of the most powerful and wealthiest environmental organizations have… led the climate movement down various dead ends: carbon trading, carbon offsets, natural gas as a “bridge fuel” - what these policies all held in common is that they created the illusion of progress while allowing the fossil fuel companies to keep mining, drilling and fracking with abandon.
Startling Evidence Indicates Funded Propaganda Campaign Responsible For War On Fake News March 29 2018 | From: TheMindUnleashed
“Is ‘fake news’ real?” asked investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson during a Tedx talk - posing the paradoxical question in the context of its explosion in popularity during the 2016 presidential election - or is the term, fake news, itself, a fabrication?
In its absurd extreme, identifiably fake news appears on supermarket shelves as tabloid magazines, in ‘reports’ on human births of alien hybrid babies and other blatant fabrications; while its more pernicious iteration, issued by traditional pillars of journalism - such as the New York Times and Washington Post, among many others - manifests in reports citing unsubstantiated sources and unnamed ‘officials,’ and often favors corporate sponsors as well as the political establishment.
Fake news isn’t new to the media landscape, in other words, but the catchphrase, as a descriptor, is.
Thus, what if fake news - peddled to the public as a pressing problem in need of solution - is itself a deception, intentionally constructed to silence legitimate critique, opposing viewpoints, and dissent?
Attkisson, who surmised the abrupt entrée of an artificial problem must have had assistance, investigated the origins of the phrase, ‘fake news,’ and its employment as accusation and insinuation, whether or not accompanied by substantiating evidence. And she was frighteningly on point.
“What if the whole anti-fake news campaign was an effort on somebody’s part to keep us from seeing or believing certain websites and stories by controversializing them or labeling them as fake news?” the seasoned journalist and winner of the Edward R. Murrow award for investigative reporting asks.
Weighing the evidence, timeline, and money trail Attkisson discovered - coupled with the resulting heavy-handed crackdown on social media and video-sharing platforms, as well as by search engines and advertisers, on the fictitious false information crisis - not only does it seem likely the term was premeditated and unleashed as a propaganda device, but as a loaded weapon inherently threatening to the future of the free press as protectively enshrined in the First Amendment.
“First Draft - a project of the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government - uses research-based methods to fight mis- and disinformation online. Additionally, it provides practical and ethical guidance in how to find, verify and publish content sourced from the social web,” the site’s About section states.
“The goal was supposedly to separate wheat from chaff,” Attkisson explains, “to prevent unproven conspiracy talk from figuring prominently in internet searches. To relegate today’s version of the alien baby story to a special internet oblivion.”
However innocuous-sounding that agenda, just one month passed before First Draft’s battle against fake news found a megaphone in the president, as Obama abruptly “insisted in a speech that he too thought somebody needed to step in and curate information of this wild, wild west media environment,”she notes.
But there hadn’t been a ruckus, much less a few lone voices, griping about fake news as an issue of any import - or even complaining, at all.
“Nobody in the public had been clamoring for any such thing,” Attkisson continues, “yet, suddenly, the topic of fake news dominates headlines on a daily basis. It’s as if the media had been given its marching orders.
“Fake news, they insisted, was an imminent threat to American Democracy.”
Aware “few themes arise” in the mass media environment “organically,” the seasoned investigator followed the money to First Draft’s funders - to discern which interested parties might be backing the rally against fake news.
Google, in fact, financed the group “around the start of the election cycle” - Google, whose parent company Alphabet’s CEO Eric Schmidt both acted as adviser and multi-million-dollar donor to the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton.
Mirroring Obama’s lament, Clinton soon championed quashing fake news as a priority - and her “surrogate, David Brock of Media Matters, privately told donors he was the one who convinced Facebook to join the effort,” she adds.
“I’m not the only one who thought that the whole thing smacked of the roll-out of a propaganda campaign.”
Indeed, the nascent fake news allegation almost exclusively centered around conservative-leaning outlets, journalists, and articles perceived as favoring then-candidate Trump - and repeatedly alongside allegations those media entities were acting directly, indirectly, or haplessly at the behest of the Russian government - while the majority of the mud-slinging was levied without proof or the flimsiest of supporting evidence.
To wit, a succession of pieces published by mass media dispensed with the indispensable journalistic protocols of source- and fact-checking - then shied away from accepting responsibility for the incendiary and damaging claims once a furious backlash ensued.
Although Attkisson did not mention them specifically in the roughly ten-minute Tedx talk at the University of Nevada, two lists published at the height of the Fake News Scare - both of which were either republished or alluded and linked to by multiple corporate outlets - came into public purview under highly suspect circumstances, each lending albeit indirect credence to the hypothesis a propaganda crusade was underway.
On November 13, 2016, Merrimack College associate professor Melissa Zimdars out of the blue made public a Google document entitled, “False, Misleading, Clickbait-y, and/or Satirical ‘News’ Sources,” she later described as essentially a worksheet intended for colleagues and students to offer one another tips for avoiding disseminating fake news.
“So … I posted it to Facebook to my friends, you know, ‘Hey, media and communication people, if you think of other examples you come across,’” she explained of the list’s creation to USA Today College in an interview, “and so many of them sent me Facebook messages or comments and emails and I looked through them or through some of the people sent me blogs or other sources.”
Admittedly, without vetting whether or not each (or even a few) of the sites conjured from that Facebook post deserved a place on the inflammatory list, Zimdars committed the precise journalistic fraud putatively motivating its formation in the first place - as did the Los Angeles Times, whose piece,
“Want to keep fake news out of your newsfeed? College professor creates list of sites to avoid,” let loose the unverified, unchecked, and unauthenticated aggregation, with its purely subjective guidelines, onto a populace stirred to frenzy over fake news, to expectedly viral results.
Critics and listees - many of which cogently included established if smaller conservative and pro-Trump outlets, as well as those covering the deluge of corruption allegations spawned from a series of leaks against then-candidate Clinton, John Podesta, and the Democratic National Committee - lambasted Zimdars, the Times, and other propagators for failing the integrity litmus test.
Slapped with requests for removal and a firestorm of fury, Zimdars temporarily revoked public access to the contentious list with vows to edit and update information as appropriate, and authored an editorial defense, appearing in the Post on November 18, titled, “My ‘fake news list’ went viral. But made-up stories are only part of the problem.”
Despite the mayhem and arguable damage it caused to myriad legitimate sources listed among the obvious disinformation outlets, Zimdars’ list is once again open to the public - on Google Docs.
After having established itself as a defender of the associate professor’s worksheet, the Washington Post took the L.A. Times’ lead, issuing an article on November 24 almost wholly pertaining to a list it failed to embed or even link - only the name of the problematic organization, PropOrNot, provided clues for readers dedicated enough to search on their own. And they did in droves.
But the Post’s reckless foray into tabloidesque journalism - perhaps wary of negative perception beginning to foment against the anti-fake news brigade - crossed several lines demarcating standards of journalism; and weaved another narrative of equally dubious stature into the already unraveling anti-disinformation war: Russia.
“Russian propaganda effort helped spread ‘fake news’ during election, experts say,” the outlet proclaimed in the title for the article - whose un-accompanying blacklist pegged hundreds of independent, conservative, pro-Bernie Sanders, pro-Trump, and even left-leaning and award-winning sites as suddenly verboten due to direct or indirect Russian influence, or for acting as Russia’s “useful idiots” - all while vocally preserving the anonymity of the “four sets of researchers” responsible. Among them, PropOrNot.
“The flood of ‘fake news’ this election season got support from a sophisticated Russian propaganda campaign that created and spread misleading articles online with the goal of punishing Democrat Hillary Clinton, helping Republican Donald Trump and undermining faith in American democracy, say independent researchers who tracked the operation,” the piece’s lede contends.
But, devoid named sources to question, transparency of methodologies, nor any other potentially mitigating factors which would have allowed independent verification contained in the original article, outrage this time included the Post’s competition.
In fact, several organizations listed as ‘allies’ by PropOrNot immediately disavowed the claim.
Eliot Higgins of research-focused Bellingcat, one of several entities named as such, tweeted that prior to the Post’s article, he had never heard of PropOrNot - incidentally indicating a lack of contact by reporters from the media organization - and, further, he “never gave permission to them to call Bellingcat ‘allies.’”
Fortune’s Mathew Ingram penned an incredulous response, entitled, “No, Russian Agents Are Not Behind Every Piece of Fake News You See.”
Effectively destroying every facet of the Post’s anathema piece, Ingram points out there is:
“Also little data available on the PropOrNot report, which describes a network of 200 sites who it says are ‘routine peddlers of Russian propaganda,’ which have what it calls a ‘combined audience of 15 million Americans.’
How is that audience measured? We don’t know. Stories promoted by this network were shared 213 million times, it says. How do we know this? That’s unclear.”.
Ultimately forced into addressing the resulting chaos, the Washington Postarticle eventually bore a note from the editor - not a retraction - asserting [with emphasis added],
“The Washington Post on Nov. 24 published a story on the work of four sets of researchers who have examined what they say are Russian propaganda efforts to undermine American democracy and interests.
One of them was PropOrNot, a group that insists on public anonymity, which issued a report identifying more than 200 websites that, in its view, wittingly or unwittingly published or echoed Russian propaganda.
A number of those sites have objected to being included on PropOrNot’s list, and some of the sites, as well as others not on the list, have publicly challenged the group’s methodology and conclusions.
The Post, which did not name any of the sites, does not itself vouch for the validity of PropOrNot’s findings regarding any individual media outlet, nor did the article purport to do so.
Since publication of The Post’s story, PropOrNot has removed some sites from its list.”
To reiterate, the Post did not retract the article abruptly conflating fake news with Russian propaganda - regardless the brazen if planned distancing of itself from the content therein - and has never divulged its justification for publishing such threadbare work, nor for allowing the empty allegations to remain available for the world to read online in perpetuity.
On January 8, 2017, amid continued outrage over specious and vapid fake news and Russian propaganda accusations, Washington Post columnist Margaret Sullivan declared the entirety of the outlet’s relentless anti-fake news jihad null, titling an article, “It’s time to retire the tainted term ‘fake news,’” positing the term’s mere monthslong duration may have served a purpose at its advent, but “its meaning already is lost.”
Attkisson notably emphasizes, however, the term never imparted a steel definition nor universally agreed-upon guidelines delineating precisely what it constitutes.
That ambiguity disputably explains placing the term front and center in a propaganda campaign - as it is sharply suggested by Attkisson’s funding investigation of First Draft with bulk of the aforementioned body of evidence - for doubt before persuasion wields power.
For its irresponsible reporting of the unsubstantiated blacklist, false claims Russia had hacked into Vermont’s power grid, and all-out push to - for all intents and purposes - vilify or discredit opposing but legitimate viewpoints, the Washington Post and its controversial owner Jeff Bezos, also CEO of Amazon, garnered praise from failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, who professed without a hint of irony to an audience May 31, 2017, at the annual Code Conference, as quoted byCNBC,
“I think Jeff Bezos saved The Washington Post. But newspapers, like the Post, the Journal, the Times, others - still drive news. … It was a very good use of his financial resources. Because now we have a very good newspaper again operating in Washington, and driving news elsewhere.”
All bold tit-for-tat back-patting aside, Clinton’s adoration for an ostensive news organization, which displayed an egregious lack of journalistic standards on several occasions might be only telling, were the audacious effort to mute dissenting and critical voices - who had reported factually on damning evidence of layers of corruption plaguing the former secretary of state’s campaign, officials, and party as divulged by Wikileaks - not also tandemly gaining momentum.
It has been theorized the work of journalists not employed by traditional, corporate mass media organizations had - in wading through the vitriol of election season to report the avalanche of information dumped in leaks and pivotal to outcome, yet ignored by mass media - assisted in stoking rage against the establishment and was responsible for the concurrent astronomical success of the Sanders campaign, to the detriment and consternation of Clinton.
Whether or not that hypothesis holds weight, that responsible reporting picked up mainstream’s slack, as the big-name outlets instead trained their audiences’ attentions on questioning Wikileaks, whistleblowers, and similar diversions.
In short, the widely-varied body of independent media became essential for the dissemination of accurate information.
But that vitality, under the vacuous premise of combating fake news, is being strangled by oppressive social media algorithms, yanked advertising and sponsor dollars, and other tactics perhaps comprising the truer imminent threat to vestiges of democracy: censorship, through suppression and omission, of a free press.
This debilitating loss - the neutering of media still upholding its duty to question government and report facts for their own sake - to a concerted effort to solve the manufactured fake news problem would be irrevocable tragedy.
Attkisson - a noted dissenting voice, critical of lapdog media, herself - stopped short of a definitive conclusion regarding a coordinated propaganda campaign, warning;
“What you need to remember is that when interests are working this hard to shape your opinion, their true goal might just be to add another layer between you and the truth.”
New Zealand's Privacy Commissioner Deletes His Facebook Account + It Begins: Facebook Under Federal Investigation For Use Of Personal Data March 31 2018 | From: TheGuardian / TheGatewayPundit
John Edwards accuses social media giant of flouting the country’s laws.
New Zealand’s privacy commissioner has accused Facebook of breaking the country’s privacy laws and has deleted his account on the site.
John Edwards released a scathing criticism of the social media giant, accusing it of breaching privacy laws after it refused to release personal information held about the accounts of other Facebook users.
Writing on the website the Spinoff, Edwards said that when his office had issued Facebook with a statutory demand to produce the information, the company said it was not subject to the New Zealand Privacy Act, and was therefore under no obligation to provide it.
A statement from the Edwards’ office said Facebook was “subject to the Privacy Act and had fundamentally failed to engage with the act”.
But Facebook has hit back at the commissioner’s findings, saying the request for information had been refused because it was “overly broad” and “intrusive”.
“We are disappointed that the New Zealand privacy commissioner asked us to provide access to a year’s worth of private data belonging to several people and then criticised us for protecting their privacy,” a spokeswoman for the company said.
“We scrutinise all requests to disclose personal data, particularly the contents of private messages, and will challenge those that are overly broad."
“We have investigated the complaint from the person who contacted the commissioner’s office but we haven’t been provided enough detail to fully resolve it.”
While acknowledging that beyond naming Facebook he was essentially powerless to force the company to hand over information, Edwards raised the spectre of a legal challenge.
He said he would:
“Continue to assert that Facebook is obliged to comply with New Zealand law in relation to personal information it holds and uses in relation to its New Zealand users”.
He wrote: “And in due course a case may come before the courts, either through my office, or at the suit of the company.”
“Every New Zealander has the right to find out what information an agency holds about them,” he said, adding:
“It is a right of constitutional significance, and even this week’s Dotcom case noted that the right of individuals to access, challenge and to correct personal data is generally regarded as ‘perhaps the most important privacy protection safeguard’.” .
“The U.S. Federal Trade Commission is investigating whether the use of personal data from 50 million Facebook users by Cambridge Analytica violated a consent decree the tech company signed with the agency in 2011, Bloomberg reported Monday. […]
“We are aware of the issues that have been raised but cannot comment on whether we are investigating. We take any allegations of violations of our consent decrees very seriously as we did in 2012 in a privacy case involving Google,” a spokesman for the FTC said Tuesday.
A violation of the consent decree could carry a penalty of $40,000 per violation, which could mean a fine conservatively estimated to be “many millions of dollars in fines” for Facebook, The Washington Post reported over the weekend, citing a former FTC official.”
“We reject any suggestion of violation of the consent decree. We respected the privacy settings that people had in place. Privacy and data protections are fundamental to every decision we make,” the social network giant said in a statement to the Washington Post over the weekend.
Facebook’s stock fell during pre-trading on reports of the probe.
“In a Sunday tweet thread, Carol Davidson, former director of integration and media analytics for Obama for America, said the 2012 campaign led Facebook to “suck out the whole social graph” and target potential voters. They would then use that data to do things like append their email lists.”
So many of the factors that are negatively influencing public heath could easily be prevented or removed from society, yet the decisions of the ruling class continue to ensure that our food supply is toxic, that our environment is compromised, and that our exposure to chemicals and industrial waste is total. Why?
With the stroke of a pen carcinogenic poisons like Monsanto’s Roundup could be banned. Industrial disasters like Fukushima or the Deepwater Horizon could easily get the attention they deserve from world powers, but the will to intervene on behalf of human and environmental health is zero, while the will to intervene militarily in corporate and political affairs is guaranteed.
People are suffering more than ever from a host of chronic conditions and illnesses that can wreck even the healthiest and strongest of us. To be sick is the new normal, and to be healthy is outstanding and unusual.
Concerned citizens are battling grass roots struggles on all fronts, yet, at the top levels of society the corruption, gross negligence, and seeming incompetence continue unabated, ensuring that important decisions always favor the health of corporations and special interests.
With such obvious disregard for life, it would be naive to presume that our national and global leadership have our best interests at heart, and also to assume that any of this could be accidental.
And when we look at comments and statements from some of the world’s most influential people, a dark philosophy is uncovered, and a shocking agenda to depopulate planet earth is revealed. See for yourself:
"The world today has 6.8 billion people. That’s heading up to about nine billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent.”
– Bill Gates
“Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.” – U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
“In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day.”
– Jacques Coustea
“If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.”
– Prince Phillip, the Duke of Edinburgh
“My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning throughout the world.”
– Dave Foreman, Earth First Co-Founder
“This planet might be able to support perhaps as many as half a billion people who could live a sustainable life in relative comfort. Human populations must be greatly diminished, and as quickly as possible to limit further environmental damage.”
– Professor of Biology at the University of Texas at Austin Eric R. Pianka
“Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.”
Make what you will out of these statements, but the fact remains that globally, human health and the environment are in critical condition and there is no sign of relief in sight.
Couple this with the fact that many of the world’s elite do publicly fantasize of culling the human population, and the realization is harsh: we are targets.
Our world simply does not have to be poisoned with chemtrails, radiation leaks, GMO’s, electro-magnetic pollution, frack wells, fluoride, mercury, vaccine adjuvants, depleted uranium, oil spills, antibiotics, endocrine disrupting chemicals, toxic food additives, agro-chemicals, pharmaceuticals, and so much more.
The aggregated, generations long effect of such total contamination is the explosion of a host of bizarre and life-altering illnesses and ‘conditions,’ that chronically sap our energy and vitality, slowly debilitating us, separating us from our power and putting us into the doctor’s office.
The following 11 common symptoms are signs that the global depopulation slow kill is in play and is effective, and that within a couple of generations the human race will no nothing of health, wellness and vitality.
1. Gut and Digestive Issues
The primary attack on the body’s immune system takes place in the digestive system where the body’s natural bacterial defenses live.
Chronic poor digestion, leaky gut syndrome, gastritis, colitis, inflammatory bowel syndrome, candida overgrowth, food sensitivities and other serious issues are become increasingly common, resulting from the consumption of denatured foods laden with chemicals and sugars, GMO poisoning and so on.
Roundup herbicide is known to kill healthy bacteria in the body after being ingested in only residual amounts. Antibiotic overuse and contamination in the water supply means that building a health but biome is nearly impossible.
2. Chronic Fatigue and Low Energy
The body’s natural store of energy is the first thing to become depleted when the body and mind are over-exposed to pollution and stress. The persistent exposure to toxic foods, poisoned spaces, electromagnetic radiation, psychological attacks, continually forces the body and psyche to be in a state of crisis.
The regular amount of energy needed to perform the ordinary rigors of life is not available, and as a result we become chronically tired, low-energy, lethargic and generally slowed down.
Even when we balance diet, exercise and meditation, maintaining personal energy is difficult, so many people are having to constantly dose themselves with caffeine and so-called energy drinks just to accomplish an ordinary day.
3. Dietary Diseases Like Obesity And Diabetes
Dietary illnesses such as the sweeping obesity and diabetes epidemics are a sign that the soft kill is greatly impacting public health. Public relations and social engineering have changed the public’s understanding of what food actually is, and as our consumption of crap corporate foods increases, so do our wastelines and our chances for getting getting chronic disease like diabetes.
Of course, both of these conditions are entirely curable with a proper diet, but in a country where raw milk is illegal, the truth about food and health is rarely spoken in the mainstream.
The maintenance of chronic illness is very profitable for the medical establishment, and obesity is a gateway to many chronic and life-threatening illnesses.
4. Disorientation and Brain Fog
Many people these days suffer from spells of disorientation and fogginess of the mind, without any clear cause or reason as to the mind should be functioning so poorly. Brain fog is a difficult to identify chronic condition where a person feels disconnected, confused and distant, almost an illness of consciousness.
A spell can last for a day, or it can last for years, often persisting until a person finally isolates the primary cause. Candida overgrowth, a condition where negative bacteria is being over-produced within the body, is the result of poor diet and a compromised gut biome, and is thought to cause disorientation and brain fog.
5. Chronic Inflammation
Chronic inflammation is part of a biological response to harmful stimuli and is increasingly being recognized as a serious silent killer because of the health problems it trigger.
The purpose of inflammation is to rid the body of any causes of damage or injury and to initiate repair. It is a defense mechanism that being constantly activated primarily consuming by inflammatory foods.
Modern wheat is an example of a food that has been so genetically altered that it now no longer provides nutrition, but rather instead irritates the tissues of the body, causing chronic inflammation, leading to bigger health problems.
People suffer more seriously from seasonal and random allergy attacks than ever before, and some attacks can be severe enough to temporarily disable a person. Everyone is watching pollen counts on the nightly news, but allergies simply weren’t this serious a generation ago.
Something has changed in the body and in the environment, and with the omnipresence of chemtrails and geo-engineering projects in the sky, suspicion that the respiratory system is being attacked is warranted.
Autism in children is rising frighteningly and without a precise indication of exactly what is causing it, we should be dramatically erring on the side of caution. It could be environmental, it could be vaccines, GMO’s, or household chemicals, but something is taking our children. Will autism rates have to get to one-in-two before a Manhattan Project like effort is initiated to end this?
It is predicted that soon at least 1 in 3 adults will have some form of cancer, which, as we know, has become a booming industry.
Alternative cures, treatments and therapies are targeted for extermination by the state, and the sick are corralled into risky, expensive treatments that fail to address the root causes of cancer and promote healthier living.
9 . Morgellon’s
This strange and scary disease appears to be an infection of sorts by some still unknown type of organic material. Manifesting as tiny living threads or worms that surface at the skin, irritating the patient, it is believed that no Morgellon’s patient has ever been able to undergo an autopsy due to an attempted global cover up.
With no clear answers available from science, many point to geo-engineering and chemtrail spraying as the source.
10. Dental Fluorosis
The public fluoridation of water in the US and other nations is medication without consent and without controlling dosages. This is a form of torture. The US government just admitted that Americans are overdosed on fluoride when they lowered the recommended amounts to put in public water supplies.
Fluoride is linked to many health problems including cancer and lowered IQ in children, yet the government still forces into just about everyone. Dental fluorosis is a sign of overexposure to fluoride, and a sign of deliberate poisoning.
11. ‘Chemical Imbalances’
Some will disagree, but mental health issues like ADD/ADHD, anxiety, insomnia, and depression can all be cured with proper diet, exercise and supplementation. In fact, these conditions are fairly new to the human population, and are on the rise, or at least diagnoses are on the rise.
Of course the medical establishment benefits greatly from having more and more patients consuming drugs to remedy mental health issues.
The soft kill is about distracting you from life, debilitating you, and getting you out of the game and into the pharmacy.
It would take very little to eradicate so much of the toxicity from our modern world, but the initiative of the ruling elite is to destroy, contaminate and compromise all that which is most fundamental to life on planet earth. A deliberate soft kill.
Is this an accident, or the global depopulation soft kill strategy working effectively for the world’s elite? What do you think?
On a NASA page intended to spread climate alarmism (climate.nasa.gov), NASA’s own data reveal that world-wide ocean levels have been falling for nearly two years, dropping from a variation of roughly 87.5mm to below 85mm.
These data, of course, clearly contradict the false narrative of rapid, never-ending rising ocean levels that flood continents and drown cities - a key element of the climate change “boogeyman” fiction that’s used to scare gullible youth into making Al Gore rich.
Check out the sea level chart for yourself, showing the downward trend across 2016 – 2017:
Even in the Worst Case, Sea Levels Will Only Rise About a Foot in a Century
Global warming alarmists might say this is only a “pause” in the rising ocean levels, and that the long-term trend is clearly in the direction of rising oceans. However, these people wildly exaggerate the degree of ocean level increases to the point of absurdity.
If you zoom out on the NASA chart, you’ll see a long-term trend of sea levels rising 3.4mm per year on average, according to NASA’s own analysis. This means that over an entire century, the oceans would rise 340mm, or 13.4 inches … a little over a foot.
Why do Climate Change Alarmists Hate Rainforests? A Wetter, Warmer World is More Lush and “Green”
Finally, there very idea that melting ice is somehow bad for the planet is total hokum and bunk. By what lunacy do climate alarmists arrive at the conclusion that a frozen, dry planet is somehow better than a wet, warm, lush planet with more rainforests and food production?
Planet Earth would actually be far more green with higher CO2 levels and warmer temperatures that promote more continental rainfall. Deserts would be restored to plains or forests. Sparse areas, now devoid of plant life, could become food production areas.
As I explain in these science education videos, “greening” the planet requires higher CO2, warmer temperatures and less ice.
That’s not a crisis, it’s a blessing for all plant life and ecosystems across the planet. It makes me wonder: Why do climate change alarmists hate rainforests so much that they want to freeze the planet and turn warm water back into frozen ice?
The answer is because they are all mindless cultists who don’t understand anything at all about climatology, science or botany.
They are nothing more than Programmable Life Forms (PLFs) who have been brainwashed by a wholly dishonest, globalist-run media that uses the climate change baloney to enslave and indoctrinate the masses.
The entire climate change hoax demonstrates just how incredibly stupid and gullible most humans really are, revealing that if they could turn Earth into a lifeless, cold, icy wasteland, they would consider that the ultimate success of the “green” movement.
Stupid beyond belief.
Dr. Tim Ball Crushes Climate Change: The Biggest Deception in History
President Trump was correct to withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement. He could have explained that the science was premeditated and deliberately orchestrated to demonize CO2 for a political agenda.
Wisely, he simply explained that it was a bad deal for the United States because it gave a competitive economic edge to other nations, especially China. A majority of Americans think he was wrong, but more would disagree if he got lost in the complexities of the science.
I speak from experience having taught a Science credit course for 25 years for the student population that mirrors society with 80 percent of them being Arts students.
Promoters of what is called anthropogenic global warming (AGW) knew most people do not understand the science and exploited it.
With a 50-year academic career focusing on Historical Climatology, Dr. Tim Ball is uniquely qualified to address man-made climate change, and he demonstrates that it is a flat-out hoax. Thinking people everywhere should get multiple copies of this book and hand them out to everyone they know.
The plants need more atmospheric CO2 not less. Current levels of 400 parts per million (ppm) are close to the lowest levels in 600 million years. This contradicts what the world was told by people using the claim that human production of CO2 was causing global warming.
They don’t know the UN agency, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), established to examine human-caused global warming, were limited to only studying human causes by the definition they were given by Article 1 of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
It is impossible to identify the human cause without understanding and including natural causes. Few know that CO2 is only 4 percent of the total greenhouse gases. They assume that a CO2 increase causes a temperature increase. It doesn’t, in every record the temperature increases before CO2.
The only place where a CO2 increase causes a temperature increase is in the computer models of the IPCC.
This partly explains why every single temperature forecast (they call them projections) the IPCC made since 1990 was wrong. If your forecast is wrong, your science is wrong.
I studied weather as aircrew with the Canadian Air Force, including five years of search and rescue in Arctic Canada. After the Air Force, I went to university to study weather and climate, culminating in a Ph.D., in Historical Climatology from the University of London, England.
When I began in the late 1960s global cooling was the consensus. I was as opposed to the prediction that it would continue cooling to a mini-Ice Age, as I later was to the runaway AGW claim. I knew from creating and studying long-term records that climate changes all the time and are larger and more frequent than most know.
I also knew changes in CO2 were not the cause.
The Club of Rome (COR), formed in 1968, decided that the world was overpopulated and expanded the Malthusian idea that the population would outgrow the food supply to all resources, especially the developed nations.
COR member Maurice Strong told Elaine Dewar in her book Cloak of Green that the problem for the planet were the industrialized nations and it was everybody’s duty to shut them down. Dewar asked Strong if he planned to seek political office. He effectively said you cannot do anything as a politician, so he was going to the UN because:
He could raise his own money from whomever he liked, appoint anyone he wanted, control the agenda.
Strong was using the U.N. as a platform to sell a global environment crisis and the Global Governance Agenda.
He created the crisis that the by-product of industry was causing global warming. Even Obama claimed that 97 percent of scientists agree. If he checked the source of the information, he would find the research was completely concocted.
It is more likely that 97 percent of scientists never read the IPCC Reports. Those who do express their concern in very blunt terms. Consider German meteorologist and physicist Klaus-Eckart Puls experience.
“Ten years ago, I simply parroted what the IPCC told us. One day I started checking the facts and data – first I started with a sense of doubt but then I became outraged when I discovered that much of what the IPCC and the media were telling us was sheer nonsense and was not even supported by any scientific facts and measurements.
To this day, I still feel shame that as a scientist I made presentations of their science without first checking it.”
He discovered what I exposed publicly for years. My challenge to the government version of global warming became increasingly problematic.
They couldn’t say I wasn’t qualified. Attacks include death threats, false information about my qualifications posted on the Internet, and three lawsuits from IPCC members. Most people can’t believe that such things occur about opinions in a democratic society.
Test the idea by telling people that you don’t accept the human-caused global warming idea. The reaction from most, who know nothing about the science, will invariably be dismissive at best.
I documented what went on in a detailed, fully referenced, book titled The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science. A lawyer commented that it lays out and effectively supports the case, however, it was “a tough slog.”
I recently published a brief ‘non-slog’ handbook (100 pages) for the majority of people, not to insult their intelligence, but to help them understand the science and its misuse for a political agenda.
It provides the motive and method for the corruption of science to substantiate and bolster Trump’s decision.
Google Exposé Reveals Scam Behind Climate Change
Professors get funding to push "global warming."
Google’s scheme of paying professors to influence public opinion is also how the “global warming” scam works.
“Google operates a little-known program to harness the brain power of university researchers to help sway opinion and public policy, cultivating financial relationships with professors at campuses from Harvard University to the University of California, Berkeley,” the WSJ reported.
In a similar fashion, politicians, foundations and corporate magnates also fund professors to perform “research” into “man-made climate change” which almost always reaches the existing consensus that it’s a threat only global government can handle.
The arguments claiming “the science is settled” and “97% of scientists believe in global warming” are appealing to authority fallacies that are easily debunked given the Google revelations.
And those were nearly the same arguments tobacco companies were making decades ago when they were funding scientists to downplay health risks associated with smoking.
“Research and other professional activities are professionally rewarded only if they are channeled in certain directions approved by a politicized academic establishment - funding, ease of getting your papers published, getting hired in prestigious positions, appointments to prestigious committees and boards, professional recognition, etc.,”revealed climatologist Dr. Judith Curry, who once held a tenured position at Georgia Tech before resigning in disgust.
Simply put, academia is not independent but is rather just one tentacle of a vast network of politicians and conformists in finance, media and entertainment who all work in unison to push agendas that originated from the private meetings of the world’s power players.
They’re motivated by the feelings of prestige that comes with joining the upper echelons of society that, unknown to them, only leads to decline of civilization thanks to the heavy burden this predatory class places on productive people who are the real sources of human innovation.
It’s an inherent maxim of social climbers to abandon independent thought out of fear of public disapproval, and that’s why the elites use them to push “global warming” and other propaganda meant to empower the state despite leading to an empty shell of civilization.
The Vatican Is A Criminal Hornets’ Nest March 29 2018 | From: FinalWakeupCall
The Jesuits and the Roman Church, dictate to the world:
The Vatican: The Holy See and the Vatican have been instrumental in converting all national governments on the planet into national corporations, deceitfully, with the same name in capital letters, operating under the international jurisdiction of the sea and the Roman Curia, that have forged all these fraudulent manipulations into a legal, fictional reality.
Now, it is the sole responsibility of the Holy See and Pope Francis to correct this breach of trust, and to stop the deliberate mismanagement of all corporate nations, as they are first and foremost responsible for their monstrous creation.
They pretend that we the living people are responsible for paying off our debts to them, while they created corporations by deception, while simultaneously creating a Trust with the same name in capital letters, to be plundered by the banking cartels.
The truth is that those that have created this mess are responsible for it. They are simply deceptively using similar names and holding positions in what appears to be public office for their private benefit.
Complex Fraud Scheme:
The Federal Reserve and central banks, are running the incorporated nations, as a bankrupt pass-through to purposefully advance vast sums of credit, based on people’s assets and their respective earthly nations, and use this fraud scheme to establish covert bonds against us the people.
Our property and assets serve as security, as part of the overall fraud, designed to usurp people’s assets and credit to the benefit of the cabal criminals. For this scheme they literally stole people’s identities, by using our names for the creation of companies in a claim to ownership and control of each individual person.
They made the fraud scheme complex, and long term, hidden by deceptive covers of shamming, creating lucrative fraud schemes carried out over decades and even centuries on a mindboggling scale.
The Federal Reserve and central banks, unlawfully converted private accounts of millions of people into corporate accounts, technically belonging to corporate contractors, simply named after living people.
This facilitates the seizure of these accounts that banks unlawfully convert into accounts belonging to the central banks, without the disclosure hereof.
Eventually these fraudulently acquired accounts are converted into assets of the IMF, all of this being executed without people’s knowledge or consent.
Fortunately, the Germans are beginning to understand, that their country is not sovereign as it should be, but instead, a corporate vassal state of Washington DC and that their chancellor Angela Merkel serves these crooks, their financial interests and the interests of the Roman Curia at large and certainly not the interests of the Germans.
The Holy See:
The abuse of the corporations continue, and has reached legendary proportions, while still there is no comprehensive statement from the Holy See revealing the fictitious nature of these entities that have been spawned under its auspices and without public denunciation of criminality, and there is no visible undertaking to punish, regulate, or liquidate them.
The Holy See has officially been informed for about a decade of the illegal and immoral actions against humanity and against humanity’s lawful governments, which has been ongoing since the 1800’s, as all these covert goals have been accomplished by fraud and deceit.
Click on the image above to open a larger version in a new window
All these illegally established corporations must be liquidated, without harming the millions of innocents who have been misrepresented, and mischaracterised by them, as willing contractors.
Unfortunately, many people still don’t have a clue what has been done in their names and assets, and have never had the opportunity to respond.
It is at the Pope’s discretion, that these evil men continue their actions unopposed, and each day drag more innocent people into the web as accomplices-after-the-fact and still many others fall victim to this system of lies.
The Jesuits are the Real Spiritual Potentates:
The Jesuit controlled Vatican, is the sole owner of all western corporate countries: Satan, through the Freemasons, owns the Vatican, while the Pope is his slave. Catholicism will be eradicated forever, probably sooner than later in the course of this decennium. Throughout history, the Satanic Luciferian Jesuit Order has been tied together with war and genocide.
The Jesuits were formally removed from many countries, including France and England, but are still widely present in Spain and Italy.
Researchers claim that the Jesuits are the real spiritual potentates of the New World Order. Their choice for President of The United States was Paul Ryan, which is why the Pope demanded he become inserted as Speaker of the House in October of 2015, as the Vatican was the sole owner of the United States of America Inc., which defaulted on it’s credit facility – the Federal Reserve Bank – in December of 2012 and came out of international bankruptcy in August of 2015.
All Nation-corporations are created by the Roman Curia. It is no problem to trace this back to the Pope. At the same time; virtually all governments and their agencies in the world are corporations and are tied to, and ultimately under the control of the Holy See.
Puppet-Pope Francis, a Jesuit and selected by the cabal as Roman Pontiff and leader of the Holy See, basically owns and operates worldwide all these “governments” and their sub-corporations. The Pope is the CEO in charge of this whole criminal fraudulent system.
The Jesuits and the Roman Church:
The Jesuits and the Roman Church have altered history and hidden the rest by fabricating fairy tales about the earth’s real history. One such lie was about Mary Magdalene, who was in truth, the wife of Jesus, and bore him two sons with the names Jesus II Justus, and Joseph, along with a daughter named Tamar.
This has been suppressed by the Roman Church. The Church began the procedure of killing scientists in 1600, to change the narrative to serve their goals.
The Holy Grail or Sangreal (Grail) is all about the blood of Jesus, and about the truth of who is a descendant of whom. Many have made false claims to certain Bloodlines, including the Rothschilds and the Monarchs.
Some believe that RH Negative blood comes from the Christ, and that a large portion of the Basques, have this blood type. Jesus was one of the few messengers sent to mankind to enlighten us about what and who we really are, and that if we are to grow in spirit, we must understand this information and drive out the negativity on the planet.
Major changes are occurring now to restore our standing, and teach us about what has been done to us by the Crime Cabal, which includes Draco Reptilians, Grays, and other creatures from a universe that has been intentionally hidden from us by these dark beings. Pope Francis preached recently that his god is Lucifer.
On earth the light workers have restored much of the truth, and it has rectified the Sangreal treaty of 300 A.D. proclaiming that all of earth’s people are sovereign, and should be treated as such.
This will be the end of the Phony Elites and their Slave-Scam that they have been running to the detriment of the people of the world for many centuries. – Scientists know that there were nuclear wars thousands of years ago, and that radiation still exists in small quantities in the Middle East as a result thereof.
Movies like “Close Encounters of the 3rd Kind” are true stories along with the alien abductions and the existence of multidimensional creatures, like Bigfoot and its ancestry, whose planet Marduk was obliterated and now forms our asteroid belt.
The Roman Pontiff and all his war criminals, some pretending to be Jews, who are in reality Khazarian Mafioso, Royalty, Nazis, and Pedophiles, are in truth Satanists. They hold office in the Vatican, the City of London, Washington District of Columbia, and the United Nations City State – located in New York City.
This information was received from an insider who, for obvious reasons, wishes to remain anonymous:
All those in positions of absolute power like the Queen of England, The Rothschilds, The Bushes, The Clintons, The Rockefellers, The Pope, the hidden Jesuit Hierarchy, etc. they are all ONE big happy blood family. They are all cousins, nephews, uncles and nieces to each other. I know some of these people so don’t let them fool you!
They are like Medusa, one single but intricate brain with many little serpent heads attached. The main figures are not even in the public eye.
The top of the pyramid is known as the black nobility – the Ancient Egyptian Ptolemaic Dynasty Rulers; The Saturnalia brotherhood, “The Real 13 Zoroastrian Bloodlines of the Illuminati”
The crime families are in total control of the company of Jesus – Jesuits, High Grey Council of Ten, the Black Pope, the White Pope, and everything else often talked about including all kingdoms around the globe.
These are the families that make up the intricate brain/head of the serpent. The self-designated Luciferian Demi-Gods who rule over their own G.O.D. (Gold-Oil-Drugs):
The Rothschilds were supposedly appointed by the Vatican, and that’s how it started. There are of course other powerful crime families like the Maximus Family, The Pallavicini – Maria Camila Pallavicini is more powerful than Queen Elizabeth.
Yes, indeed Queen Elizabeth is a subordinate to these people. The most powerful man in the world is The Grey Pope, his name is Pepe Orsini and he lives somewhere in Italy, most likely in Venice and The Vatican. He controls the Black and White Popes who are now both commoners. The Grey Pope always remains unseen!
The Knights of Malta, ostensibly a charitable organisation, are the oldest military order in the Catholic Church, and the fascist faction of that order has been secretly responsible for controlling world leaders through a combination of bribery, threats and murder.
In other words, they have been one of the main enforcement arms of the secret world government. They have also exercised strong influence over the US military, as many top brass are Knights of Malta.
Many of these top people now live in Asia, mainly China, India, Japan, Singapore, Indonesia and the Philippines. What does that tell you? Is this to create a New NWO with Asia at the helm? This is perhaps why they slowly moved all the US manufacturing infrastructure to Asia and China over the years.
In reality, the Black Pope is the President of this world, and the Bourbon King of Spain is the Monarch of the world – Not Queen Elizabeth as most believe. The King of Spain controls the Vatican through the Jesuits -The Spanish Borgia’s created the Jesuits.