Harm from exposure to sources of wireless radiation (cell phones, cell towers, utility “smart” meters, WiFi routers, etc.) continues to be debated despite multiple research studies that have actually proven harm over several decades. This includes:
1. Industry funded research.
2. Independently funded research.
3. Government funded research. (U.S. and elsewhere)
"…radiofrequency (RF) radiation from any source – such as the signals emitted by cell phones, other wireless and cordless and sensor devices, and wireless networks – fully meets criteria to be classified as a “Group 1 carcinogenic to humans” agent, based on scientific evidence associating RF exposure to cancer development and cancer promotion..”
According to other researchers, as many as 1/3 of the population is “sensitive” to wireless radiation and other sources of electrical pollution (Electrosmog) and 3% is clinically sensitive.
This “sensitivity” may not result in cancer; however, it may lead to a condition first discovered in the 1950s called “Microwave Sickness.”
Here are some “expert” quotes from the 1960s regarding the “health benefits” from smoking cigarettes:
Max Cutler, cancer surgeon of Chicago: “I feel strongly that the blanket statements which appeared in the press that there is a direct and causative relationship between smoking and cigarettes, and the number of cigarettes smoked, to cancer of the lung is an absolutely unwarranted conclusion.”
Sir Charles Ellis, Senior Scientist at British American Tobacco Company: “It is my conviction that nicotine is a very remarkable, beneficent drug that both helps the body to resist external stress and can as a result show a pronounced tranquillizing effect.” 
Ian MacDonald, a Los Angeles surgeon: “For the majority of people, smoking has a beneficial effect.” (Source)
Deranged pharma trolls in Australia have been pushing hard to outlaw herbal medicine and force all the citizens of Australia to use toxic, overpriced chemical prescription medications to treat everything.
Shocking Victory for Proponents of Alternative Medicine
Breaking: In Australia, an effort to label all alternative (traditional, complementary) medicine products as “based on pseudoscience” has failed.
Traditional remedies (much older than mainstream medicines) are defended as appropriate, and can include health claims.
The Crazz Files, a major defender of health freedom in Australia, reports: “In a major win, the Federal Government has ignored the Australian Greens and anti-complementary medicine activists like Doctor Ken Harvey…and passed a reform package that protects traditional medicine.”
“The Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2017 Measures No. 1) Bill, which passed Parliament on February 15, supports positive claims for complementary medicines based on traditional evidence, and abolishes the current complaints system.”
“Greens voters were shocked to learn Greens Leader and General Practitioner, Senator Dr Richard Di Natale was aligned with skeptics, whose platform is: ‘There is no alternative to [modern] Medicine’.”
“One of his [Dr. Di Natale’s] ‘concerns’ was that people were being ‘misled’ by traditional claims about the effectiveness of complementary medicine. He, and the skeptics, wanted labels on complementary and traditional medicines to state: ’this traditional indication is not in accordance with modern medical knowledge and there is no scientific evidence that this product is effective’.”
“The Minister for Rural Health, Senator Bridget McKenzie, told Di Natale: ‘I think it is offensive and disrespectful to those who practice traditional medicine’.”
“’For some, particularly those using Chinese medicine, the history of practising in that traditional medicine paradigm goes back thousands of years. It’s been extensively refined, practised and documented and in many cases incorporated into mainstream medicine.
So, a statement required by the Australian Government that the indication is not in accordance with modern medical knowledge and that there is no scientific evidence will be seen as arrogant and insensitive to those practising and using traditional Chinese medicines,’ Senator McKenzie said.”
All right. Now I want to treat readers to a brief analysis of “modern medicine,” the so-called scientific system that is the “only valid system.” It is the system employed in Australia, America, and virtually all countries in the world.
People who watch the news or read mainstream news have the impression that “scientific” medical research is remarkably valid and always progressing.
Doctors and medical bureaucrats line up to confirm and ceaselessly push this view.
But they are concealing a dark truth.
Let’s go to the record. Here are two editors of two of the most prestigious and respected medical journals in the world. During their long careers, they have read and scrutinized more studies than any doctor, researcher, bureaucrat, or so-called medical blogger. And this is what they have written:
One: “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.” (Dr. Marcia Angell, NY Review of Books, January 15, 2009, “Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption)
Two: “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…
"The apparent endemicity of bad research behaviour is alarming. In their quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often sculpt data to fit their preferred theory of the world. Or they retrofit hypotheses to fit their data. Journal editors deserve their fair share of criticism too.
We aid and abet the worst behaviours. Our acquiescence to the impact factor fuels an unhealthy competition to win a place in a select few journals. Our love of ‘significance’ pollutes the literature with many a statistical fairy-tale…Journals are not the only miscreants. Universities are in a perpetual struggle for money and talent…” (Dr. Richard Horton, editor-in-chief, The Lancet, in The Lancet, 11 April, 2015, Vol 385, “Offline: What is medicine’s 5 sigma?”)
There are many ominous implications in these two statements. I will point out one.
Incompetent, error-filled, and fraudulent studies of medical drugs - for example, published reports on clinical trials of those drugs - would lead one to expect chaos in the field of medical treatment. And by chaos, I mean: the drugs cause widespread death and severe injury.
Again, if a person obtains his news from mainstream sources, he will say, “But I see no evidence of such a vast scandal.”
That is a conspiracy of silence. Because this widespread death and grievous harm HAS been reported. Where? In open-source medical literature.
For example: On July 26, 2000, the US medical community received a titanic shock, when one of its most respected public-health experts, Dr. Barbara Starfield, revealed her findings on healthcare in America. Starfield was associated with the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health.
The Starfield study, “Is US health really the best in the world?”, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), came to the following conclusion, among others:
Every year in the US, correctly prescribed, FDA approved medical drugs kill 106,000 people. Thus, every decade, these drugs kill more than a MILLION people.
On the heels of Starfield’s astonishing findings, media reporting was rather perfunctory, and it soon dwindled. No major newspaper or television network mounted an ongoing “Medicalgate” investigation. Neither the US Department of Justice nor federal health agencies undertook prolonged remedial action.
All in all, those parties who could have taken effective steps to correct this ongoing tragedy preferred to ignore it.
On December 6-7, 2009, I interviewed Dr. Starfield by email. Here is an excerpt from that interview.
Q: What has been the level and tenor of the response to your findings, since 2000?
A: The American public appears to have been hoodwinked into believing that more interventions lead to better health, and most people that I meet are completely unaware that the US does not have the ‘best health in the world’.
Q: In the medical research community, have your medically-caused mortality statistics been debated, or have these figures been accepted, albeit with some degree of shame?
A: The findings have been accepted by those who study them. There has been only one detractor, a former medical school dean, who has received a lot of attention for claiming that the US health system is the best there is and we need more of it. He has a vested interest in medical schools and teaching hospitals (they are his constituency).
Q: Have health agencies of the federal government consulted with you on ways to mitigate the [devastating] effects of the US medical system?
Q: Are you aware of any systematic efforts, since your 2000 JAMA study was published, to remedy the main categories of medically caused deaths in the US?
A: No systematic efforts; however, there have been a lot of studies. Most of them indicate higher rates [of death] than I calculated.
Q: Did your 2000 JAMA study sail through peer review, or was there some opposition to publishing it?
A: It was rejected by the first journal that I sent it to, on the grounds that ‘it would not be interesting to readers’!
- End of interview excerpt -
Physicians are trained to pay exclusive homage to peer-reviewed published drug studies. These doctors unfailingly ignore the fact that, if medical drugs are killing a million Americans per decade, the studies on which those drugs are based must be fraudulent. In other words, the medical literature is suspect, unreliable, and impenetrable.
WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT THE TWO ESTEEMED MEDICAL EDITORS I QUOTED ABOVE—MARCIA ANGELL AND RICHARD HORTON - ARE SAYING.
If you know a doctor who enjoys sitting up on his high horse dispensing the final word on modern medicine, you might give him the quotes from Dr. Angell and Dr. Horton, instruct him to read them, and suggest he get in touch with Angell and Horton, in order to discover what has happened to his profession.
As in: DISASTER.
The Nostalgia Pendulum: A Rolling 30-Year Cycle Of Pop Culture Trends March 18 2018 | From: ThePatterning
You may have noticed that there’s been a fair amount of 80’s nostalgia hanging in the air for the past several years.
There’s a reason that the culture of the 1980’s is experiencing a resurgence right now. Just as there’s a reason that we’re in the early days of getting more build-up of 90’s nostalgia. It’s not all that complicated, but it is a pattern that has profound consequences for how art is created, how we conceptualize culture, and perhaps even what sort of political rhetoric comes into vogue.
The pattern is this: pop culture is forever obsessed with a nostalgia pendulum that regularly resurfaces things from 30 years ago.
How Memory Shapes the World
There are a number of reasons why the nostalgia pendulum shows up, but the driving factor seems to be that it takes about 30 years for a critical mass of people who were consumers of culture when they were young to become the creators of culture in their adulthood.
The art and culture of their childhood (e.g. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle comics in 1984) helped them achieve comfort and clarity in their world, and so they make art that references that culture and may even exist wholly within that universe (e.g. the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles 2014 film reboot, 30 years later).
Since most of the other fashionable creators around them also lived through the same period, they too indulge in the “new” nostalgic trend that’s being repurposed, creating a kind of feedback loop where all parties involved want to contribute more and more work that revives that same zeitgeist.
It can be explained equally well from the consumer side. After about 30 years, you’ve got a real market of people with disposable income who are nostalgic for their childhoods. So artists working in popular mediums are rewarded for making art that appeals to this audience.
Like many pop culture patterns, some aspects of this phenomenon are intentional, and some aspects are an organic product of the personal histories of the creators involved. Film studios and advertisers, for instance, often consciously use the nostalgia pendulum to build an audience’s emotional attachment with the release of something new.
On the flip side, the writers and toy makers and musicians who are creating the artifacts of culture really do have fondness and nostalgia for the themes of their childhood that they’re referencing.
So J.J. Abrams really was a kid during the summer of 1979 in which Super 8 is set. It just so happens that 1979 was 32 years prior to the film’s release in 2011, which means it also resonates with a broad market of newly financially solvent adults.
The nostalgia pendulum also matches up nicely with Walter Dean Burnham’s theory of critical realignment in U.S. elections. Building on previous theories of realigning elections, he posits that, due to demographic changes like the ones described above, every 30-38 years, a critical election occurs that drastically changes the dominant political framework.
In these realignments, the ideology tends to oscillate between a focus on private interest and a focus on public interest. There seems to be general agreement that 2016 was not a realigning election, but a rhetoric of nostalgia certainly played a crucial role in the outcome of the 2016 election.
Slogans like “Make America Great Again” coupled with racist dog-whistle politics that makes references to things like “law and order” hearkens back to the Reagan era of 30 years ago and its antecedents.
The nostalgia pendulum is a phenomenon I’ve been taking note of anecdotally for several years now, but I decided it was worth gathering some more evidence to support my hypothesis.
While all sorts of artistic mediums get remade, remixed, and adapted in this same 30-year cycle (hip hop beats reused in pop songs, comics turning into movies, books becoming plays, etc), film remakes are some of the most noticeable artifacts of this process.
I therefore decided to analyze over 500 film remakes from the past century to see if the nostalgia pendulum would rear its head out of the data [*]. Short answer: it did. The far left side of this graph shows that many films get remade only a few years after the original. This is a kind of bandwagon effect, which in its most benevolent form can be attributed to multiple discovery (people coincidentally arriving independently at the same idea by tapping into the same cultural themes), and in its most capitalist interpretation is clearly market-driven (using the success of the original to make a few extra bucks by iterating on the same story, characters, or ideas).
That cluster on the left-hand side is also why twin films are so often released only months apart (think of Dante’s Peak vs. Volcano, Antz vs. A Bug’s Life,The Illusionist vs. The Prestige, or (heaven help us) Unfriended vs. Friend Request).
However, it’s the next big cluster of remakes that concerns us here. If we include all the data, the average time-to-remake is 22.92 years, with the median at 24 years.
But, of course, those early bandwagon remakes skew things toward the lower end, masking that the next biggest cluster of remakes happens right at the next swing of the nostalgia pendulum - around 30 years after their original.
Prominent Examples of the Nostalgia Pendulum
Below, in order to drive this home with some examples you’ll recognize, I’ve included some famous remakes from the past 20 years that fit into the paradigm of the nostalgia pendulum.
The Parent Trap (1961 - 1998, 37 years) Star Wars (1977) -> Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace (1999) - 22 years Gone in 60 Seconds (1974-2000, 26 years) Planet of the Apes (1968-2001, 33 years) Carrie (1976-2002) — 26 years Strawberry Shortcake Doll (1979) -> Strawberry Shortcake TV series (2003) - 23 years Dawn of the Dead (1978-2004, 26 years) King Kong (1933-1976, 43 years; 1976-2005, 29 years) The Omen (1976-2006, 30 years) Halloween (1978-2007, 29 years) Raiders of the Last Ark (1981) -> Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008) - 27 years Fame (1980-2009, 29 years) Tron (1982) -> Tron: Legacy (2010) - 28 years Footloose (1984-2011, 27 years) RoboCop (1987-2014, 27 years) Jurassic Park (1993) -> Jurassic World (2015) - 22 years Ghostbusters (1984-2016, 32 years) Beauty and the Beast (1991-2017, 26 years)
As mentioned in the opening of this article, probably one of the most beautifully shameless culprits to intentionally exploit the nostalgia pendulum is the Netflix original series Stranger Things. In this case, it wasn’t just a few people gathered in a room that decided which retro TV shows and movies to hearken back to.
There’s a great side-by-side comparison video that shows just how exactly Stranger Things paid homage to its predecessors. For our purposes, here is a list of many of those influences and how long it was between their release and the release of Stranger Things (2016).
Dungeons & Dragons tabletop game (1974) - 42 years (reached popularity in late 70’s and early 80’s, which makes this closer to 30 years) Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977) - 39 years Alien (1979) - 37 years E.T. (1982) - 34 years The Thing (1982) - 34 years Poltergeist (1982) - 34 years Firestarter (1984) - 32 years A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984) - 32 years Explorers (1985) - 31 years The Goonies (1985) - 31 years Stand By Me (1986) - 30 years
Still, there is a certain comfort in watching these cultural patterns come back around. The wheel of time rolls forward, yet remains steady on its axle. [*] Notes (nerdy thoughts to follow, continue at your own peril):
My data source for comparing original and remake films was Wikipedia - List of film remakes (A–M) and List of film remakes (N–Z). Wikipedia can be a great resource for aggregated data, especially for non-controversial data like film release dates. And because there’s such a large community around Wikipedia, there are a number of export tools that can help you quickly grab the data from an article, no coding required.
In this instance, I used Wiki Table to CSV to get a CSV-formatted version of the table that displayed original and remake movies with their dates. After opening the CSV in Excel, I was able to use some FIND functions in Excel to extract the dates from between parentheses.
A little bit of clean-up, and voila! A nice, neat set of columns with a date for the original and a date for the remake of 533 titles. After that it’s just a subtraction function to get the difference between the year of the remake and the year of the original.
In the analysis, I always used the earliest original date listed, and if multiple remakes were listed, I tended toward using the date of the most famous remake (e.g. 12 Angry Men (1997) instead of 12 (2007)). In situations where I was less familiar with the film (certain foreign films, for instance) or there were 2 films of equal popularity, I chose the date of the earlier remake.
For the sake of my sanity I did not try to go through every film and figure out the month they were released and whether that impacted the number of years between original and remake. I therefore just subtracted one year from the other. Lastly, I made the histogram graph at Westa.net.
For anyone interested, the Excel spreadsheet with film data is here: film-remakes.xls
Transgenic Wars - How GMOs Impact Livestock And Human Health Around The Globe March 17 2018 | From: Mercola "Transgenic Wars," an award-winning film by French investigative journalist Paul Moreira, takes us on a journey through Europe and Latin America, looking at the effects of genetically engineered (GE) crops, both on livestock and human health.
It also delves into tangential concerns, such as the increased use of glyphosate-based herbicides, atrazine and 2,4-D, the latter of which was an ingredient in the devastating defoliant Agent Orange, used during the Vietnam War.
Coincidentally, Monsanto was a leading producer of Agent Orange during the war, and its war contributions, which began with its involvement in the Manhattan Project and the creation of the atomic bomb, help explain how Monsanto has managed to secure such staunch allegiance from the U.S. government.
It's a destructive and often incomprehensible allegiance that continues to this day, with the U.S. government's support of and involvement in spreading Monsanto's genetically engineered (GE) crops and toxic chemicals around the world - now repackaged as "necessary" for agriculture.
Monsanto, being a leader in GE seeds and the chemicals that go with them, receives a fair share of the attention throughout the film. Ecologist Patrick Moore, Ph.D., who made the unlikely transition from co-founder of Greenpeace to being a professional GE supporter and lobbyist, is also featured.
In a sensational video that has garnered more than 1.4 million views, Moreira suggested Moore drink a glass of Roundup to prove his assertion that the herbicide is completely harmless. Moore's refusal, saying he's "not stupid," is included in the film.
Danish Pig Farmers Struggle With Mysterious Swine Disease
The film starts off in Denmark, where pig breeders are struggling to determine the cause of a mysterious swine disease, simply referred to as "the yellow death." The disease causes violent diarrhea, and is often lethal to the affected pigs.
Virtually all feed their pigs GE soy, and many suspect this may be the source of the problem. Ib Pedersen is a long-time pig farmer in Denmark.
When he first started feeding his pigs GE soy in the 1980s, the mix contained about 20 percent GE soy. Over the years, the ratio increased, and by 2002, about 90 percent of the soy in the feed was GE.
Like other farmers, Pedersen struggled to contain "the yellow death," which would kill up to 30 percent of the piglets born each year, until one day he decided to remove the GE soy from the feed mix. Within two days, changes were noticeable. There was not a single case of diarrhea among his pigs.
In the three years he's been feeding his pigs all non-GE feed, he's never had a single case of "the yellow death" again. Pedersen single-handedly managed to raise doubts about the safety of GE soy among Danish farmers. Interestingly, Pedersen may have identified the problem even more closely.
He noticed two intriguing connections:
1. When GE soy was sourced from Argentina, all of the farmers who received it ended up with outbreaks of diarrhea among their pigs. What was it about this Argentinian GE soy that was so much worse than others?
2. He found images of deformed Argentinian children online, which local doctors and scientists insist are caused by pesticide exposure, as many villagers are surrounded by GE fields where toxic chemicals are sprayed with wanton abandon.
He was struck by how similar these deformities were to the deformities found in his piglets. Could pesticide-contaminated GE soy be the cause of the pig farmers' problems?
Trailer: Transgenic Wars
Transgenic Soy Destroying Argentina
Argentina is the third largest grower of transgenic crops in the world, and the second-largest producer of GE soy. GE crops have radically altered the face of the country.
Transgenic crops have eliminated the need for large workforces on the farm, eradicating entire villages and contributing to massive poverty.
Gone is the agricultural diversity Argentina used to boast, replaced instead by massive single-crop fields of GE corn, soy and cotton.
Moreira visits Avia Terai, a small rural village surrounded by GE fields. Here, children are born with strange maladies and degenerative diseases of unknown origin. One little girl has large brownish-black spots all over her face and body - marks she's had since birth.
Another is slowly wasting away from an undiagnosed degenerative disease thought to be genetic, aggravated by exposure to herbicides.
Many of the children are deformed in one way or another. Many of the elders are dying from cancer.
The villagers refer to Monsanto's Roundup as "the poison," and do their best to avoid getting sprayed. They all fear the large tractor that sprays one of two things on the fields: water or herbicide, and there's no telling what is being sprayed when.
One woman describes how she shuts herself and her children inside whenever she hears the tractor. Still, avoidance is difficult when you're surrounded by fields, and spray drifts in the wind, settling in water and on clothes hanging out to dry.
Argentinian Farmers Recognize GE Soy Cannot Be Used for Animal Feed
Tellingly, a GE farmer being secretly taped by Moreira reveals they do not feed this GE soy to any of their animals; "If you feed your chickens with it, you can no longer eat their eggs," he says. When asked why, he says because the eggs smell so bad you cannot eat them. This is why all of his GE soy is exported.
Meanwhile, the nearby villagers suffer, being regularly fumigated. Efforts to dialogue with the GE soy farmers have led to naught, and the companies that own the fields are so rich, fines do not dissuade them from spraying well within the illegal perimeter of residential housing.
In the 15 years that transgenic crops have been grown in Argentina, there have only been three convictions for illegal fumigation, despite it being a common occurrence. In the case of Avia Terai, the village is only 200 meters (656 feet) from the transgenic soya field.
By law, pesticides are not permitted to be used within 1.5 kilometers (just under 1 mile) of resident housing.
Their situation is not unique. In fact, the problem is so great, the Argentinian government has been forced to subsidize pesticide-induced disability centers to manage the growing health crisis.
These centers are now filled with children from villages where the parents were exposed to agricultural chemicals. Overall, birth defects are about 350 percent higher in areas where GE crops are grown, compared to the rest of the country.
As noted by one of the nurses at a disability center in Saenz Peña;
“We export our [GE] soy to your countries to feed the animals you are eating … But we are the ones truly paying the price for it."
Retired pediatrician Dr. Maria Del Carmen Seveso goes so far as to call it genocide, saying the situation is really serious.
Deformed Children, Deformed Pigs - Are Herbicides to Blame?
It was images of these deformed Argentinian children, posted on the internet, that got Pedersen, the Danish pig farmer, thinking. Like all other pig farmers, he had his fair share of deformed pigs being born.
He hadn't paid it much attention, other than to recognize that these things happen from time to time, but deformities had become more common, and he was struck by the similarities of the deformities he saw in the Argentinian children who'd been exposed to pesticides in utero.
When it comes to determining which pesticides are to blame, there are many open questions. As it turns out, glyphosate is not the only chemical being used on Argentina's GE soy fields. As resistant weeds flourish, many farmers have resorted to adding other chemicals to the mix, and it's unclear who's using what.
The synergistic action of chemicals will typically augment the toxicity of the mixture, compared to any given chemical on its own, but no studies have been done to determine the exact hazard level of various concoctions.
As Moreira comes across a tractor set to spray a field, he finds not only Monsanto's Roundup, but also atrazine - which is banned in Europe but extensively used in the U.S. - and 2,4-D, one of the main components of the military herbicide Agent Orange, extensively used over the jungles during the Vietnam War.
One thing's clear: The promise that transgenic crops would lead to "greener" agriculture and less chemicals has NOT come to pass. Instead, more and more chemicals are being used on our food and the feed we raise our livestock on.
As transgenic crops have taken over Argentina, herbicide-resistant weeds have become a serious problem. More than 30 million hectares (74.1 million acres) of GE soy is planted in Argentina, and glyphosate is applied to each field at least three or four times a year. This has spawned a whole new kind of weed - one resistant to glyphosate, just like the GE crop itself.
To address the problem, farmers not only apply more pesticides, they also mix different pesticides together to prevent the weeds from adapting to a single formula. As a result, anywhere from three to five additional chemicals are routinely added to the glyphosate. Newer GE seeds are also designed to resist even more toxic combinations.
As noted in the film, there's no definitive proof that agricultural chemicals are responsible for the health crisis in Argentina. But there's no evidence proving they're not responsible either. And the government has done nothing to determine the truth.
In fact, the government of Argentina has been and continues to be very supportive of the GE industry, and Monsanto ads are commonplace on Argentinian TV, assuring the people their products are safe and effective. Meanwhile, no studies have ever been done to ascertain whether all of these chemical cocktails create dangerous interactions or cause the severe health problems now seen among children raised in agricultural areas.
Staggering Increases in Cancer
The only independently organized investigation of the health impact of GE crops, conducted by students of the Rosario Medical University, found that cancer rates increased by 40 percent in a single year in one village.
In another, the cancer rate shot up by 250 percent. What these villages have in common is that they're surrounded by GE fields and the fumigation border is extremely close to where they live.
Sadly, Argentina's economy is now fully dependent on transgenic agriculture. According to Alejandro Mentaberry at the Ministry for Science, Argentina made about $65 billion on GE crops between 1996 - the year GE crops were introduced - and 2011. Mentaberry believes the country owes its "miraculous economic recovery" to the export of transgenic crops.
But at what price this miraculous economic boon? In April 2014, Argentinians took to the streets in Cordoba to protest against Monsanto and the use of their products. "Monsanto out! Yes to life, no to Monsanto! Monsanto is poison. Monsanto is corruption," the people chanted as they marched through the streets.
For example, Wikileaks revealed how U.S. government officials are secretly doing the chemical technology industry's dirty work, cajoling and threatening governments with retaliation as needed. U.K. government officials have also been caught acting like lobbyists and spokesmen for the GE industry.
Transatlantic trade agreements also stand poised to dismantle any remaining prohibitions against the free flow of GMOs and toxic chemicals into Europe, where laws protecting human and environmental health are stricter than in the U.S. Depending on the final outcome of these agreements, it's possible no country will be able to oppose GMOs in the future, no matter what the human or environmental cost.
Patrick Moore and Golden Rice
Moore, a former Greenpeace activist, has become a prominent adversary of the movement against GMOs. According to Moreira, Moore left Greenpeace 30 years ago on bad terms, and has since made a name for himself as a supporter of all things anti-nature, including the nuclear industry, the mining industry and the transgenic industry. "He also thinks global warming is great for the planet," Moreira notes.
He's been a leading advocate for GE Golden Rice, designed to contain high amounts of beta-carotene, ostensibly to combat vitamin A deficiency in Third World countries. There are problems though. For starters, beta-carotene is a fat soluble vitamin. According to the University of Maryland Medical Center, you need at least 3 grams of fat to ensure absorption of beta-carotene supplements.
This enriched rice is intended for impoverished nations where dietary fats are nearly impossible to come by with any regularity, thereby rendering this type of supplementation useless at best.
It's also unknown whether the beta-carotene in Golden Rice will hold up during storage between harvest seasons, or whether traditional cooking methods used to prepare the rice will destroy the beta-carotene. Last but not least, the rice is still under development, and all claims are therefore little more than wishful thinking.
Such facts should have shut down the Golden Rice fairy tale right from the get-go, but it hasn't stopped the likes of Moore from spending much time and effort to promote it, likening the refusal to approve Golden Rice to genocide and Greenpeace's opposition to the rice "a crime against humanity."
To Build a Saner, Safer Food System, Start Close to Home
The problems may seem insurmountable, but there are solutions. The fact of the matter is farmers do not have to use chemical cocktails to produce ample food. Many areas would need serious intervention to improve and rebuild soil quality, which has been destroyed by decades of mechanized farming and chemicals, but it can be done.
As an individual, you can help steer the agricultural industry toward safer, more sustainable systems by growing your own foods and buying what you cannot grow from local farmers you trust.
By far, processed foods are the most likely to contain GE ingredients, so avoiding processed foods of all kinds, including condiments, is one of the best ways to avoid them - and the chemical cocktails sprayed on these crops.
If everyone were to refuse to buy products containing GMOs, insisting on feeding their families pesticide-free, GMO-free foods, the food industry would have no choice but to respond.
They cannot stay in business if people don't buy their goods, and if food companies refuse to buy GE ingredients, the chemical biotechnology industry will lose its financial power to corrupt and manipulate governments.
It's really just a massive trickle-down effect, and the masses really do have the power, even though Monsanto and their allies would like you to think otherwise.
There's a way out of this mess, and it starts with each person making different purchasing choices for themselves and their families. While many grocery stores now carry organic foods, it's preferable to source yours from local growers whenever possible, as much of the organic food sold in grocery stores is imported.
Everything You Need To Know About The Trump-Kim Summit March 16 2018 | From: Infowars
Why cautious optimism is the best policy moving forward.
U.S. President Donald Trump agreed Thursday to meet with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un to discuss the country’s missile and nuclear weapons programs.
The message was delivered to the White House by South Korean national security adviser Chung Eui-yong, who met with Kim in North Korea on Monday. Kim has reportedly pledged to bring a halt to missile and nuclear weapons testing and accept the upcoming military exercise Foal Eagle, held annually by the U.S. and South Korea.
“He expressed his eagerness to meet President Trump as soon as possible,” Eui-yong said of the North Korean leader.
"President Trump appreciated the briefing and said he would meet Kim Jong-Un by May to achieve permanent denuclearization.”
Trump took to Twitter Thursday evening, noting that a time and date for the meeting was currently in the works.
“Kim Jong Un talked about denuclearization with the South Korean Representatives, not just a freeze,” Trump wrote. “Also, no missile testing by North Korea during this period of time. Great progress being made but sanctions will remain until an agreement is reached. Meeting being planned!”
While there is no reason to doubt South Korea’s account, North Korea has not yet publicly confirmed the comments surrounding denuclearization. In a statement to The Washington Post, Pak Song Il, North Korea’s ambassador to the United Nations, stated that by the “great courageous decision of our Supreme Leader, we can take the new aspect to secure the peace and stability in the Korean Peninsula and the East Asia region.”
“The United States should know and understand our position and should further contribute to the peace and security-building in the Korean Peninsula with [a] sincere position and serious attitude,” Pak added.
Pyongyang has attempted for well over 20 years to secure a face-to-face meeting with a sitting U.S. president. All previous presidents had refused the offer for numerous reasons, one being the fear that such a meeting would legitimize the rogue regime’s dictator as a credible world leader.
While both Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton at one point traveled to North Korea, both visits were made after leaving the Oval Office.
In fact, as noted by Jeffrey Lewis, director of the East Asia Nonproliferation Program at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies, the famous North Korean propaganda film “The Country I Saw” envisions a day when an American president, “compelled by North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs,” opts to treat Kim as an equal on the international stage.
This is not to say that Trump should reject the meeting. Instead, the White House should move forward with cautious optimism.
Although the precise calculus behind Kim’s decision for such a summit remains unknown, several factors are likely to have contributed to the decision, including the weight of sanctions on the regime, brought by the Trump administration’s “maximum pressure” campaign, and potential fears of a “bloody nose strike.”
And while Trump has injected a much-needed sense of urgency into the North Korea problem, Kim is entering into talks from a position of strength previously unseen from Pyongyang. Unlike during earlier attempts at a lasting détente, North Korea now has a nuclear and missile capability that has altered the balance of power and afforded the regime a greater bargaining ability.
How the summit will play out depends heavily on what both sides are aiming to achieve and willing to exchange.
Kim, despite allusions to an eventual denuclearization, will almost certainly never give up the very weapons North Korea has spent over four decades developing to ensure a deterrence to U.S. regime change.
North Korea has repeatedly made similar vows in the past, all which have ended in failure.
Both Koreas in 1992 signed the South-North Joint Declaration on the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, pledging not to “test, manufacture, produce, receive, possess, store, deploy or use nuclear weapons.”
In 1994 as part of the Agreed Framework, Pyongyang stated its intention to freeze its plutonium weapons program in exchange for aid. The U.S. withdrew from the agreement in 2002 after it was learned North Korea had continued the nuclear program in secret.
After North Korea stated in 2003 that it had withdrawn from the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which it originally signed in 1985, another attempt was made at negotiations that same year with the Six-Party Talks between China, Japan, North Korea, Russia, South Korea and the U.S.
As part of those talks in 2005, North Korea pledged to abandon “all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs” and return to the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. The pledge fell through in 2009 after a North Korean rocket launch and disagreements over verification.
All of these failures granted North Korea the time necessary to continue, and, now according to Kim, fully develop its nuclear forces.
North Korea could merely be attempting once again to run out the clock in pursuit of further aims. A long-term goal of Pyongyang has been to drive a wedge between the U.S. and South Korea. If Kim can bring the U.S. into long rounds of talks while increasing relations and cooperation with the South, any later attempts to coerce North Korea into a preferable U.S. position will be even more politically difficult.
Even if a deal is secured by the Trump administration, verifying North Korean compliance is still another story.
A senior administration official who spoke to reporters Thursday argued though that Trump’s unorthodox approach is exactly what could make all the difference this time around.
“President Trump has a reputation for making deals,” the official said. “Kim Jong Un is the one person able to make decisions in their uniquely totalitarian system, and so it made sense to accept the invitation with the one person who can make decisions instead of repeating the long slog of the past.”
North Korea’s initial offer will likely be sanctions relief in exchange for a weapons testing freeze, but other issues remain.
The Trump administration has repeatedly stated that such talks with North Korea could only begin on the condition of denuclearization.
Pyongyang has asserted that denuclearization would only be entertained if the U.S. could guarantee the regime’s safety. Based on previous comments from Kim, regime safety equates to an end of the U.S. military presence in South Korea, an almost certain non-starter for the U.S., and thus the end of the Washington-Seoul alliance.
As noted by Duyeon Kim, senior research fellow at the Korean Peninsula Future Forum, Pyongyang’s definition of “denuclearization” has historically differed from that of Washington’s.
“During the Six Party Talks (from 2003 to 2008), Pyongyang demanded that the language in agreements (between the Koreas, Japan, China, Russia, and the United States) refer to ‘denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula’ instead of ‘denuclearization of North Korea’ as originally planned,” Duyeon Kim writes.
A U.S. promise not to threaten the regime in the future is also unlikely to convince Kim, who has previously pointed to U.S. policy in Iraq and Libya as proof of America’s ill-will.
Taking into account the difficulties that lay ahead, the proposed talks still represent a positive step away from the nuclear brink. Even if denuclearization is unlikely, limiting North Korea’s program and restricting proliferation are more than worthwhile goals.
“But now, the hard work begins,” notes Daryl G. Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association. “Though President Trump deserves credit for being so bold as to agree to a summit meeting with North Korea by May, this is a process that will, if it is to succeed, require patience and persistence.”
“It is too much to expect that a single Trump-Kim summit no matter how intensively prepared will bring an immediate and lasting solution to the nuclear issue,” Kimball said. “But if the U.S. works closely and intensively with our South Korean allies in its approach to North Korea, a summit offers the potential for starting a serious process that could move us decisively away from the current crisis.”
The White House has rightfully pledged to keep its “maximum pressure” campaign in place for now ahead of any meetings. While the stakes are higher than ever, the Trump administration has a chance to achieve progress towards a long-sought peace on the Korean Peninsula.
The Dark History Behind Fluoride (That The Media Refuses To Report) March 15 2018 | From: NaturalNews
Did you know that the same chemical in municipal drinking water played a key role in producing the atomic bomb?
Were you aware that huge quantities of the chemical that supposedly protects teeth from cavities were needed to manufacture the bomb-grade plutonium and uranium for nuclear weapons during the Cold War?
There are plenty of reasons that fluoridated drinking water is the topic of such fierce debate throughout the country – and most people don’t even know about its dark origins.
According to WWII-era documents uncovered by journalists Chris Bryson and Joel Griffiths, fluoride quickly emerged as the top chemical health hazard of the U.S. atomic bomb program. Their documents show that it posed a huge health threat to workers and the communities surrounding the manufacturing plants.
Moreover, they maintain that the initial “proof” that fluoride doesn’t harm people in low doses was actually fabricated by scientists working on the atomic bomb program after being ordered to come up with evidence that would be useful in any potential future litigation from those who were poisoned by the chemical.
They also explained how the first lawsuits against the atomic bomb program were actually over fluoride damage and not radiation.
The biggest fluoride study was conducted from 1945 to 1956 in Newburgh, New York. The secret operation, which was known as Program F, saw tissue and blood samples collected from people living there through the New York State Health Department.
After comparing the published version of the study and the original one, the journalists found evidence that the negative effects of fluorides were suppressed by the Atomic Energy Commission for reasons of “national security.”
Scientist’s Fluoride Investigations 50 Years Later Hit Roadblocks
In studies on animals carried out in the 1990s by Dr. Phyllis Mullenix at Forsyth Dental Center in Boston, fluoride was found to be a strong central nervous system toxin that could adversely affect brain functioning in humans even at low doses.
Dr. Mullenix was rejected when applying for a grant to study it further by the National Institutes of Health and informed that fluorides do not affect the central nervous system.
This goes directly against a 1944 memo from the Manhattan Project which said: “Clinical evidence suggests that uranium hexafluoride may have a rather marked central nervous system effect…it seems most likely that the F [fluoride] component rather than the [uranium] is the causative factor.”
Dr. Harold Hodge, who was working on the Manhattan Project at the time, then requested a study on the effects of fluoride on the central nervous system. Although it was granted, the records of its results have gone missing.
It’s not a coincidence that Dr. Hodge was then called in 50 years later to “advise” Dr. Mullenix on her own investigations of the effects of fluorides. He never disclosed his past work on fluoride toxicity for the Manhattan Project to her, and she believes that he was enlisted to keep an eye on her and prevent her from sharing any damaging findings.
Dr. Hodge was also the author of a memo suggesting that fluorides be promoted as dental treatments after people started to consider lawsuits after a fluoride pollution incident that took place in New Jersey in 1944.
On that occasion, the tomato and peach crops of farmers were destroyed and animals were crippled after widespread fluoride contamination downwind from the Deepwater plant where the first atomic bomb was being worked on.
Declassified memos from an emergency meeting show they sought “evidence which may be used to protect the interest of the Government at the trial of the suits brought by owners of peach orchards in … New Jersey.”
So the next time someone tells you that fluoride in your drinking water is all about helping you maintain good dental health, keep in mind that there is so much more to the story.
The Khazarian Mafia’s System Of Cartels March 14 2018 | From: VeteransToday
There is no naturally occurring terrorism - it is only violence and wars engineered by the World’s largest organized crime syndicate.
The 'Khazarian Mafia' often resemble their 'global control' in the form of an Octopus. This was, ad nauseum, evidenced yet again in the latest James Bond film which was about a secret cabal running the world...
Thus, we now are aware that the so-called problem of terrorism is really a problem of organized crime that is initiated and deployed by the world’s largest organized crime syndicate.
Never before in history has an organized crime syndicate become so large with global reach, and never before so powerful and evil, specializing in the frequent mass-murder of innocent people solely to enhance its power and riches.
This largest global organized crime syndicate is best identified as the Khazarian Mafia (KM). This name is appropriate, because its origins go back in history to the period 700-1200 AD in the nation of Khazaria, which is approximately the same area as Ukraine.
The KM also mass-murdered at least that many Chinese during the Khazarian Mafia directed Maoist takeover in China in 1945.
Mike Harris also uncovered the longstanding blood feud of the Khazarian Mafia (aka the Bolsheviks, or Zionists) against the Russian people for destroying Khazaria in 1240 AD.
It is clear that the Khazarian Mafia has also had a longstanding blood feud against America the Constitutional Republic for breaking away from their City of London establishment that the KM had infiltrated and hijacked via the Rothschild banksters.
This KM blood feud against America has been conducted with the usual methods involving infiltration of key institutions, followed by their hijacking. This has been done within each of the largest US Corporations, which are further consolidated into several larger corporations that cooperate together against consumers and buyers of their products and services.
The application of several key KM processes have resulted in the hijacking and consolidation of most institutions and large corporations.
These key processes, infiltration, hijacking and consolidation of major institutions, corporations and even most governments worldwide, has been repeated over and over in many nations around the world.
This has resulted in the stealing of huge amounts of wealth from people and resulting in a worldwide KM hierarchy of control, best described as the Establishment Hierarchy.
In essence, these cooperating corporations function as a cartel or an illegal monopoly. This makes it quite easy for the KM to control entire industries and sectors of society, because they ensure that the leaders of the corporations have been initiated into their hierarchy of control and have a personally vested interest in following KM wishes and directives.
This same process has been enacted in every sector of American society after 1913, and we discover that every major institution of government and private industry, as well as most large church systems have been infiltrated and completely hijacked to be under the spell and control of the top leadership of the KM’s hierarchy.
Here is a brief list of the various interlocked Cartels that the Khazarian Mafia has created that control most of the world and have been placed under the control of the Establishment Hierarchy, (and not necessarily in the order of importance).
Each of these Cartels is organized into a large system best referred to as the Hierarchy, and the several wrinkled-up old men in wheelchairs that control it are called the “Select Few” by insiders.
The Money Cartel
Otherwise known as the Reserve Banking System - and in the US as the Federal Reserve System. It is nothing more than a fraudulent illegal unConstitutional system that prints fake money debt-notes instead of real Gold or Silver Certificates.
This is the epitome of RICO crime and fraud. Of course there is no statute of limitations on fraud, and all assets illegally asset stripped can be clawed back some day using the US military, if necessary.
The Petro Cartel which has provided the linchpin of the US Petro Dollar.
The Knowledge Cartel
Otherwise known as the educational system including public schools, private and public universities.
Rigid controls have been imposed which prevent free thought and investigation or teaching about certain forbidden subjects like the Federal Reserve System or all the secretly run illegal, unConstitutional practices of the Establishment Hierarchy.
4. The Military and Intel Cartel
This has served as the World’s policemen and used the soldiers of most countries as disposable cannon-fodder.
This itself is one of the most sinister crimes against all of us and is a well-planned attempt to destroy Goyim men and prevent them from defending America from the KM’s “final solution” and final revenge for ever leaving England which is the mass-murder of 90% of all people worldwide - not just Americans; a repeat of what they did in Russian in 1917 and China in 1945.
The Judiciary, Corrections and Police Cartel
is used to run interference and cover-ups for the Establishment Hierarchy.
It America it is staffed by mostly Israeli-American “Israeli-first” Dual Citizens and ex-Jag Officers who serve the Establishment Hierarchy no matter what.
6. The Big Medicine Cartel
Controls all medical schools, all medical, dental and nursing degrees, the CDC, the FDC and all health policies.
Like all other Establishment Hierarchy Cartels it serves the Hierarchy’s needs and serves up limited truth about all health problems and is oriented to making people sick in order to gain maximum profits and control of the masses by weakening them and asset stripping them.
The Big Pharma Cartel
This cartel has been designed to work closely with the Big Medicine Cartel in a symbiotic arrangement where each feeds the other and increases business for each other.
This is a sinister result of what good be an asset that has turned bad, becoming a tool to gain major profits at the expense of the health and financial well-being of people.
The Agricultural Cartel
This cartel has been created by infiltrating and hijacking corporations that buy, broker and process grains and produce.
It is associated with the banks in various financing schemes designed to result in the loss of family farms to become part of large corporate farms.
The Major Mass Media Cartel
This is best described as the Controlled Major Mass Media (CMMM). It uses an Intel proprietary to vet every single story carried by the news networks which actually function as a virtual and illegal Monopoly.
This KM proprietary is a major Investment House that claims to be on the Vanguard of progressive investments.
The Entertainment Cartel
This is based on the sophisticated mind-kontrol served up by Hollywood and the Television networks and movie theaters. It controls the culture, values and mores of the group mind and and keeps the massed sedated and satiated.
When folks experience frequent “shoot em up” action scenario’s sitting in front of large screen TVs and in movie theaters and frequently see the impossible, this satiates their expectations and exhausts their motivation to actually change society for the better.
Many have become so “programmed” mentally by the TV and movies that they have trouble distinguishing between fantasy and reality and easily accept their mind-kontrolled state.
The Bread and Circuses Cartel
This is Big Sports designed to keep the masses appeased so they don’t have time to become concerned about how the Establishment is ripping them off at every level nor any inclination to be motivated to stop them from doing so.
The Romans came up with the idea that if you keep the people fed, watered and entertained - distracted - the 'elite' can get away with anything, behind the scenes. Today we have professional sports hysteria, mass media movies, mindless reality TV and music filling that role nicely, while subconsciously programming the masses with the themes and thoughtforms the elite decide on to further their agendas
"Bread and circuses" (or bread and games; from Latin: panem et circenses) is metonymic for a superficial means of appeasement. In the case of politics, the phrase is used to describe the generation of public approval, not through exemplary or excellent public service or public policy, but through diversion; distraction; or the mere satisfaction of the immediate, shallow requirements of a populace, as an offered "palliative."
Its originator, Juvenal, used the phrase to decry the selfishness of common people and their neglect of wider concerns. The phrase also implies the erosion or ignorance of civic duty amongst the concerns of the commoner.
Much of the violence and filth we have to live with can be directly attributed to this powerful mind-kontrol system which operates by the power of 60 HZ conditioned susceptibility, hypnosis for many. Hollywood superstars are paid big money because what they do is important to the Establishment Hierarchy, in terms of mind-kontrolling the masses and much of the world.
The Religious Cartel
Sad to say that the KM has infiltrated and hijacked almost every major religion in the World, including the Vatican and Catholicism, Lutheranism and all the rest.
The illegal, unConstitutional tax exempt status regulation for churches has kept them in line and restricted them from getting involved in politics or preaching much truth related to evil in the highest echelons of their own governments, local, state and federal.
The Secret Society Cartel
The KM has established a worldwide network of secret occult-based societies which form the secret associations that control almost every major Institution from the top echelons.
This network is closely associated with Intel groups and actually has been secretly deputized as agents of national security which gives them immunity from any prosecution.
This Cartel uses various occult groups in its network such as satanic cults like the Process to do its dirty work, often assassinations, gang-stalking, secret break-ins and other crimes for the Intel Agencies who want distance and deniability.
There are cases where certain occult members who have embarked on missions to assassinate targeted individuals who have been clipped by a well-trained intended target and these incidents never get into the light of day for what really happened.
As more and more Americans are becoming armed under the new concealed carry “shall issue” laws, it is not so easy anymore for these occult groups to assassinate targeted individuals without getting clipped in the process.
The Government and Politics Cartel
This involves a coordinated system that controls all governments.
Various manipulations are used to bring conformity to the wishes and edicts of the Establishment Hierarchy such as political favors, bribery, human compromise and even harassment, threats and assassinations often disguised as medical illnesses.
15. The Arms Cartel
This is one of the biggest money makers for the wealthy KM families that own large blocks of stock in these defense contractors, especially those with no-bid contracts which are also involved in kidnapping and sex-slavery.
War is extreme profitable for the FRS Banks and these KM investor Families.
And that is why the Hierarchy pulls so many strings to hire mercenaries to conduct Gladio-style, inside-job false-flag attacks in order to start illegal, unConstitutional, unprovoked, undeclared, unwinnable, perpetual foreign wars.
Because the Russian Republic has checkmated this war-making process in the Mideast, it is likely that the KM is planning on transforming America into a large GAZA II war-zone and eventually into the World’s largest open-aired prison camp while they complete their goal to depopulate America by 90%.
The Narcotics Cartel
This is the most lucrative KM Cartel of all, next to the Money Cartel, which is the “head of the snake”. Retired DEA officials have privately spoken out and claimed that most of the large Wall Street banks would go under in a month unless they could launder the vast fortunes obtained from the Establishments with their international drug trafficking, especially into America.
The richest, top Establishment Hierarchy (KM) families who are in the upper crust dress with the most expensive clothes, live in big mansions, and attend charity events and give token amounts from their vast tax exempt charitable foundations pretending to be caring folks, when they are actually the most two-faced and evil of all, and directly gain from the enormous drug cartel profits which they hid in these tax exempt foundations and draw money out as long term loans and “operating expenses”.
This vast illegal drug income is split with the Intel agencies, who use it for black ops money and personal gain.
There is some good news with all this bad news.
Recently the KM has been completely checkmated for the very first time, and this has been accomplished in Syria by Putin and the Russian Federation with its use of superior state of the art air power at its ally Syria’s request.
Not only that, numerous new economic, trade and monetary coalitions have developed, which in time will sink the US Petro Dollar as the World’s Reserve Currency, maybe sooner than later.
Thus we see the BRICS Development Bank emerging, followed by the Chinese AIIB System and CIPS, the Chinese version of the Swift money-wire system.
Already most of the world’s governments (except the USA and Israel) have either signed up for BRICS or sent letters of intent.
Private trade deals have been negotiated between China, Russia and other nations, which are for the first time conducting trade without the use of the US Petro Dollar. Even Saudi Arabia is beginning to negotiate with the Chinese about mutual new trade deals without using the US Petro Dollar.
The die is set, and no matter how much the Federal Reserve System and its partner in crime the US Department of the Treasury monetize the US foreign debt by buying it back with newly issued but worthless debt-notes, it is only a matter of time until the whole global Reserve Banking system collapses under its own massive Ponzi scheme of financial fraud and fake money.
How can we stop this insidious monster the KM and its Establishment Hierarchy that has hijacked almost every American institution using the extreme power of its debt-note counterfeit money-magick? They have done this by buying or bribing almost every single government official and Judge including five of the now eight US Supreme Court Justices?
This is a difficult question to be sure. The best way is for the spontaneous emergence of a large scale mass populist awareness all over America at every level. This is in process now thanks to the increasingly negative economic situation and the alternative news on the Worldwide Internet, the World’s New Gutenberg Press. Worldwide now there are coodinated efforts to take this cabal down and recently huge advancements in these areas have been made that are not permitted to be spoken of in the mainstream media- yet.
As more and more people worldwide wake up to this and find out about the KM, the Establishment Hierarchy and the Select Few that run it, more and more of us will become motivated to dissent, protest and work hard to change this at every level instead of wasting most of their free time on TV entertainment and bread and circuses.
Abject secrecy is necessary for the KM’s survival and power. Up until recently, any presentation of such realities to one’s family or friends usually resulted in the accusation that such was conspiracy theory or crackpot Internet stuff.
Lately with all the government lies exposed even in the CMMM, especially when economic statistics are reported that everyone knows are clearly lies, folks are catching on and beginning to listen to such talk and believing it for the first time.
The best way would probably be for a patriotic faction of the US Military High Command to stage a coup d’état and cut the head off of the snake by arresting all of the top Hierarchy members for Treason, Sedition and RICO crimes against America, especially the Select Few.
The problem is that the Hierarchy’s control over all institutions has reached the point that we are possibly going to have to see the Hierarchy and the KM destroyed by the geopolitical and geo-economic manipulations of Russia, China and its new economic allies all around the world.
As this new reordering of monetary systems and trading nations emerges, the death of the US Petro Dollar is imminent, and when that happens the power of the KM and its Establishment Hierarchy and system of interlocked Cartels will collapse.
In fact, every single one of the KM Cartels listed above is being exposed and many are being checkmated by dissident people from all walks of life, including retired Intel, government officials and many of the now well-informed public.
In addition, the Russian Federation, China and their new associations with BRICS nations and AIIB participants are seeding the complete disempowerment and destruction of the KM and the Establishment Hierarchy.
The KM knows its end seems imminent, and had built Malaysia and China into economic powerhouses to later parasitize as their new hosts after they had reduced the USA to rubble and dead bodies.
But the Chinese have very long memories and their leaders have connected the dots and are hip to this and working closely with Putin and the Russian Federation to prevent this.
In the not too distant future, there will likely be no place to hide for the KM and their Establishment Hierarchy.
Stay tuned, because in a future article, an attempt will be made to explain why the KM members are so two-faced and so remarkably inhuman and evil. We need to explore why they are able to order individual murders and mass-murders of innocent civilians in war at the drop of a hat with absolutely no remorse.
We need to learn why they enacted extreme rules of engagement with We The People, while never expecting that someday the same rules of engagement could be directed back at them systematically at all levels.
Another Huge Vatican Linked Pedophile Ring Has Been Exposed March 13 2018 | From: CollectiveEvolution Pedophilia is a big problem these days, and has been for a while. For decades, and more recently with the Harvey Weinstein case, Corey Feldman’s revelations and more, people in positions of great power have been implicated in this type of activity, but it doesn’t stop in Hollywood.
Pedophilia and child trafficking has plagued the world of politics as well as the military industrial complex for a long time. The recent Pizzagatescandal involving long time high ranking politician Jon Podesta forced many people to look into it more.
Jeffrey Epstein is another classic example, or the fact that a recent NBC news report claimed that Hillary Clinton, while acting as secretary of state, shut down an investigation into an elite pedophile ring in State Department ranks in order to avoid scandal and protect the careers of high ranking officials and an ambassador.
James Grazioplene, a high ranking retired army general who worked in the Pentagon and as the Vice President of DynCorp, is currently facing six rape charges of underaged persons. As far back as 2005, U.S. congresswoman Cynthia Mckinney grilled Donald Rumself on private military contractor’s (DynCorp) child trafficking business of selling women and children.
The list literally goes on and on, from Hollywood, to politics and within the military industrial complex, all the way up to the hub which seems to be in charge of it all, the Vatican.
Many people have known about the problems of pedophilia, child abuse and violence that has plagued the vatican for a long time, but this information started to become more mainstream only a few years ago, and it coincided with Pope Benedict’s resignation, something that hasn’t happened for more than 600 years.
The amount of recent pedophilia cases is enough to make you cringe, which, apart from the examples mentioned above, include the FBI/Europol case, in which 350 pedophiles were busted soon after the arrest of Playpen creator, Stephen Chase; the prominent Vatican official Cardinal George Pell, who was found to be connected to child pornography and pedophilia; and the 70,000-member pedophilia ring uncovered in Norway.
Pell is a top Vatican official, and has been an advisor to Pope Benedict, as well as Pope Francis. He’s one of the Vatican’s most powerful officials, and is currently facing an Australian court, again, on charges of historic sexual assault.
Last June he was charged by detectives from Victoria Police, and is currently fighting multiple allegations of sexual abuse, despite the fact that the details of the charges have not been made public.
In even more recent news, a massive amount of decades of sexual abuse was reported in a choir that was led by the retired pope Benedict’s brother.
It’s interesting that all of these revelations and accusations of violence, child abuse and pedophilia coincided with the time of the pope’s resignation, when the people closest to him were being investigated and looked into, and at a time where it was becoming clear that child abuse within the Vatican is just a mere ‘conspiracy theory.’
Perhaps the most recent, is the case of approximately 600 members of a Catholic boys’ Domspatzen choir in Regensburg, Germany, where physical and sexual abuse ruled from 1945 to 1992. Georg Ratzinger, former Pope Benedict’s brother, was the choir’s head from 1964 to 1994.
In 2015, a lawyer by the name of Ulrich Weber was tasked with filing a report on what happened, and uncovered the startling fact that during the 30 years that the choir was run by Benedict XVI’s elder brother, approximately 600 boys with a “high degree of plausibility” were victims of sexual and physical abuse, or both.
The report identified 500 cases of physical abuse, and 67 cases of sexual abuse committed by a total of 49 people in a position of power.
“At the choir’s preschool, “violence, fear and helplessness dominated” and “violence was an everyday method,” it said.
“The whole system of education was oriented toward top musical achievements and the choir’s success, “the report said.” Alongside individual motives, institutional motives – namely, breaking the will of the children with the aim of maximum discipline and dedication – formed the basis for violence.”
The report implicated the pope’s brother for “looking away” and “failing to intervene.” It’s not far fetched to believe that he was actually involved, and perhaps this mounting pressure was the reason for Benedict’s early retirement, and shifted attention away from them and onto Pope Francis.
Ratzinger did not admit anything, except for slapping pupils after he took over the choir, and that these types of punishments and discipline were commonplace in Germany at the time. “He also said he was aware of allegations of physical abuse at the elementary school and did nothing about it, but he was not aware of sexual abuse.”
Most people reading this who have investigated elite level child abuse will find it hard to believe that Ratzinger was not heavily involved. Child abuse, murder, organ harvesting and more are a few of many rumours that plague the vatican, and it’s almost, literally, unbelievable to fathom that these types of things may actually be going on, and yet a large portion of the world looks to, not only them, but the entire political establishment to represent and guide them.
The vatican has announced plans to offer victims ‘compensation’ between 5,000 and 20,000 euros each by the end of this year, but there is no way to compensate for what’s been done, and it’s erie to think about how much as gone unreported, and the gruesome, horrifying details that may be involved.
Cleaning Products As Damaging As Smoking 20 Cigarettes A Day March 13 2018 | From: GreenMedInfo
A surprising new study on the long-term health effects of cleaning products found that inhaling sprays and other chemical cleaners at home or work may be as damaging to lungs as a 20-year, pack-a-day smoking habit.
Scientists at the University of Bergen in Norway led an international team of researchers on a mission to explore health risks associated with a very common task: housecleaning.
While the harms of chemical exposures are well known to science, little research has been done on the effects of repeated use of common household cleaners, such as those used by millions of people every day when cleaning the home or office.
These findings illustrate the unknowing risks we take with common chemicals, whose use has become so ubiquitous with “clean,” we don’t question the safety of occasional use. But what we might consider “occasional” could be more than enough to do lasting harm to the body.
The study, released in February 2018, investigated the long-term effects of cleaning with commercial products, on lung function and airway obstruction.
Numerous prior studies have linked inhalation of cleaning products with increased risk of asthma, prompting researchers to question the impact to average people from conducting routine cleaning, defined as more than one time per week, either at home or at the workplace.
The research, published in the American Thoracic Society's American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, tracked 6,230 middle-aged men and women over the course of twenty years. A questionnaire by the European Community Respiratory Health Survey (ECRHS) was given three times during the study, regarding cleaning activities and types and frequencies of products used.
Participants took an entrance screening that defined their cleaning activity as “not cleaning,” “cleaning at home,” or “occupational cleaning.” They were also asked if they used a “cleaning spray” and/or “other cleaning product” more than one time per week. B
aseline lung function measurements were taken at the start of the research period via spirometry, a basic lung function test that measures the amount and/or speed of air that can be inhaled and exhaled. Spirometry measured two factors: Maximum Forced Vital Capacity (FVC) and maximum Forced Expired Volume in one second (FEV1).
A bronchodilator test was performed to measure airway obstruction. Individuals with measurable airway obstruction were excluded from analyses. Upon conclusion of the study, data were analyzed and adjusted for potential confounders, such as impact of cigarette smoking on lung health.
The findings are alarming for what they show, and unexpectedly gender-specific. Women who cleaned at least once per week, whether at home or occupationally, suffered significantly more decline in overall lung function across all markers, as compared to women who did not clean.
This decrease in lung capacity was made worse by using sprays and other cleaning agents at least one time per week. The prevalence of doctor-confirmed asthma increased in women between the first and second phases of the study.
Airway obstructions increased between the second and third phase of the study period, although this did not appear correlated to use of chemical cleaning agents.
Other particulate that is disturbed during cleaning activities, such as household dust and debris, may be a factor in this increase.
Interestingly, cleaning was not significantly associated with lung function decline in men, or with airway obstruction. Researchers noted that this may be due in part, to men being under-represented in the sample group, at just 47% of participants.
They speculated that men are likely to experience different exposures than women, i.e., engaging in industrial cleaning, an activity researchers admitted their entrance questionnaire might not have captured, leaving the “occupational cleaning” category with few male participants.
Perhaps a better explanation lies in the fact that women do most of the household cleaning. Among the 3,298 female participants, a large majority (85.1%) reported that they are the person cleaning at home, compared to just 46.5% of the 2,932 male participants. Additionally, a significantly larger percentage of women reported occupational cleaning: 8.9% or 293 women, versus 1.9% or 57 men.
Finally, researchers noted that women have demonstrated in studies to be more susceptible to other mixed chemical exposures, such as tobacco smoke and wood dust, indicating that less exposure is needed for women to develop exposure-related illnesses.
Perhaps the most surprising finding in this study is the high-level of impact observed to overall respiratory function in women. Researchers summarized that the extent of measured damage for women who cleaned was equivalent to smoking a pack of cigarettes every day for twenty years.
It’s important to note that most of the persons cleaning at home had never smoked or had smoked less “pack-years” (determined by length-of-time and number of packs-per-day) than the other two exposure groups (“not cleaning” and “occupational cleaning”).
In this sense, men were less immune: men who cleaned at home had more doctor-diagnosed asthma than men in the other two groups.
And what about the cleaning chemicals at the root of this damage? According to researchers, “Cleaning agents have known irritative effects and potential for causing inflammatory changes in the airways.” This appears to be especially true for women.
The mode of chemical cleaner - be it spray or other liquid - was not statistically relevant, only that a chemical cleaner was used. Consider next that many people use multiple cleaning and freshening products in the course of a thorough housecleaning.
Windex for glass, Easy-Off for the oven, an antibacterial or bleach-spray for the counters, and let’s not forget the always-emitting, toxic air fresheners that keep the house smelling perpetually “clean.” We even wrap ourselves in chemical residues, thanks to toxic detergents and fabric softeners that are the standard operating procedure in most American households.
There are hundreds, maybe thousands of toxic threats lurking in our homes and workplaces, and most of us are blind to these ongoing micro-exposures. As this gripping research into housecleaning shows, even the most common, mundane task can conceal hidden dangers.
Women who cleaned with chemicals at least once per week had markedly decreased lung capacity after twenty years. It’s time to acknowledge that the threat of these chemicals is real and can lead to serious consequences for long-term health.
The good news is that natural alternatives are now easily accessible, even within mainstream channels. And not only are they far safer, they often contain botanical extracts that are more effective against chemical and antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria than conventional cleaning formulations.
Trump Administration First Shot Across Big Tech Giants’ Bow: Warns Them Of Censorship March 12 2018 | From: Infowars / Various
Trump 2020 campaign manager Brad Parscale warns them to stop censorship.
Brad Parscale, who was recently appointed as campaign manager for Donald Trump’s 2020 reelection bid, has warned Google, Facebook, and Twitter to maintain a “level playing field,” following a month of high-profile revelations of bias at big tech.
Brad Parscale’s comment came on the same day as the results of primaries for the Texas senatorial race in November were released. Google and Facebook both have the ability to significantly influence elections.
Facebook has previously boosted voter registration and turnout by significant margins, while research on search engine manipulation shows that services like Google Search have the potential to change the preferences of undecided voters by 20 percent or more.
Brad Parscale, current campaign manager for the president’s 2020 re-election bid, previously managed Trump’s digital campaign in 2016. In public interviews, Parscale has argued that social media, not traditional media, was the key to Trump’s victory in 2016, and identified Facebook as particularly critical to the president’s success.
His selection suggests that the digital campaigning will be given even greater emphasis in 2020.
His comment follows weeks of high-profile revelations about Silicon Valley openly limiting the reach of conservatives.
Last week, we reported that algorithm changes at Facebook have caused the President’s engagement on the platform to fall by 45 percent.
During the same week, YouTube launched a massive crackdown against conservatives and alternative media channels, taking down videos and banning channels. The channel for Alex Jones’ InfoWars, which interviewed the President during his 2016 election campaign, is now one strike away from a permanent ban on the platform.
Twitter also continues to be caught up in bias scandals: we recently reported that the platform is hiding tweets from President Trump and Donald Trump Jr. The platform also conducted a recent mass-lockout of Trump supporters, and has refused to apply their terms of service evenly, allowing a campaign of harassment against Pamela Geller’s daughters while banning right-wingers for stating facts.
Editor’s note: Parscale’s notice comes as tech companies have come under fire for wide-scale censorship of conservative opinions.
Twitter, for example, was recently accused of decreasing the number of followers subscribed to conservative authors. The social network has in the past also purged users who are reported to have overstepped speech boundaries, under the guise of enforcing bullying and harassment guidelines.
At a House Intelligence Committee hearing last November, a Twitter exec admitted the company downgraded an Infowars article which had beat the algorithm and made it to the top of its trending section.
During the 2016 presidential campaign, Facebook also shut down users who expressed support for Donald Trump, the military, the Second Amendment, strong borders and Christianity. Recently Facebook has taken their battle against conservative voices mainstream by targeting and flagging what “independent fact-checkers” deem “fake news.”
Google, likely the worst censorship offender, has in the past launched efforts to bury search results and block access to certain websites. Google News long ago censored Infowars from appearing in its feed, despite our website espousing libertarian, anti-war and pro-American political views.
Google subsidiary Youtube has also been heavily criticized for purging “right-wing” channels which they claim violate terms of service agreements. Even accounts with billions of views and millions of subscribers, which have been active for over a decade, such as The Alex Jones Channel, are not safe from overzealous censors.
Youtube workers admitted to censoring Infowars’ main Youtube channel last October during an undercover sting by Project Veritas, in which Brand and Diversity Curation Lead Earnest Pettie asserted Youtube regularly buries Alex Jones videos.
In recent weeks Youtube has undertaken an effort to ban Infowars’ main channel at the behest of cable network CNN, which flagged several videos for the company to review.
While President Trump has weighed in on breaking up monopolies like the one currently being built by tech giant Amazon, Parscale’s tweet is one of the administration’s first indications that social media networks are also being monitored.
Why is Mueller comfortable bringing a transparently false indictment?
The answer is, as Glenn Greenwald makes clear that Mueller knows there are large numbers of warmongering politicians and media whores who will seize on the fake indictment as proof that Russia has “committed an act of war equivalent to Pearl Harbor and 9/11.”
The fact that what Mueller has indicted is only a bait-click marketing scheme will never be mentioned by politicians and presstitutes shouting the military/security complex’s slogan that “Russia must be punished.”
Greenwald supplies the names of some of these reckless and irresponsible people who are willing to bring on war with their rants: politicians Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Jeanne Shaheen, Jerry Nadler, Marco Rubio - indeed almost all of Congress - Clinton aides such as Philippe Reines and John Podesta, and the legions of presstitutes such as Karen Tumulty, David Frum, Chuck Todd, Tom Friedman - indeed, the entirety of the print and TV media with the exceptions of Tucker Carlson and Pat Buchanan.
When a country armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons and overwhelmed by its own exceptionalism and indispensability has political and media lunatics equating a bait-click commercial marketing scheme with Pearl Harbor, that country is a recipe for the end of the world.
Note: Two presstitutes at Bloomberg, Lauren Etter and Ilya Arkhipov think that filming disadvantaged Americans in order to cast the US in a bad light is the same as interfering in the presidential election, and they think that a Russian food caterer is heading a Russian disinformation campaign.
This shows how utterly stupid the US media is. The entire article is based on nothing, just what some people say they think. Prigozhin’s business is a bait-click marketing scheme. What the utterly dishonest Mueller and the presstitutes are doing is turning a bait-click marketing scheme into an election interfering scheme. The only way this “indictment” could succeed in a court would be if no evidence could be presented, only Mueller’s absurd “indictment.”
Mueller’s “indictment” is not meant to go to court. It is just a propaganda device, and that is how the presstitutes are using it.
Western Propaganda - So Simple But So Effective March 11 2018 | From: JournalNeo
When some time ago Noam Chomsky and I met at MIT, in order to write a book “On Western Terrorism: From Hiroshima to Drone Warfare” and to produce a film with the same title together, the topic we mainly aimed at discussing was that of the countless genocides the West has committed all over the world since the end of the WWII. The second topic was impunity.
But no matter what atrocities we re-visited, our conversation kept slipping towards one crucial theme: the propaganda that has been manufactured in media centers like New York, Paris, London and other North American and European cities; the propaganda created in order to twist both the past and the present.
Without such brainwashing and the almost total indoctrination of the Western general public and the ‘elites’ in all of the ‘client’ states, no imperialist and neo-colonialist policies would have become truly successful.
We spoke about US commercial advertising and its influence on German Nazi propaganda, and about Nazi propaganda influencing by return both the US and European propaganda-makers.
Noam kept asking me about my childhood in socialist Czechoslovakia, and I explained to him, honestly, how indoctrinated I was as a teenager: not by the Communist dogmas, but by the BBC, the Voice of America and the Radio Free Europe – all of them relentlessly spreading the Western political and market gospel to all corners of the socialist world.
Both Noam and I have created dozens of essays on the topic, as well as several books. My latest one, basically written about all the corners of the world where the Empire is spreading destruction and followed by indoctrination, has more than 800 pages, and is called “Exposing Lies of the Empire”.
And I always feel that even this massive book just touches the tip of the iceberg, that it is only a beginning!
Western propaganda is actually a perfect apparatus! It is effective and it is almost fully ‘bulletproof’. It ‘works’! European empires have been refining it for many long centuries, and the European offspring – the United States – has elevated it to almost total perfection.
One precondition for its success is, of course, that the Western political and economic regime owns almost all the major media channels and distribution outlets of the world. Diversity can never be tolerated. It could smash the idiocy! Once this prerequisite is completed, things get relatively relaxed and cozy for the demagogues in Washington, London and Paris.
Here is just an example of how easy it is to smear a world leader who resists the imperialist designs of the Empire:
Imagine that one sunny morning, some 10 major newspapers and television stations declare that various anonymous but highly reliable sources in Moscow have informed them that the Russian President Vladimir Putin is a vampire!
This ‘news’ would fly all over the world. Many readers and viewers would at first roll around on the floor laughing, but some would not. And even several of those who found the information thoroughly bizarre and unbelievable would at some point realize that seeds of doubt were beginning to grow inside their brains: “OK, it is absurd, of course, but what if? What if? How awful that would be!”
But how can one really prove that he or she is not a vampire? Or how can one prove that he or she has not been visited by some evil extra-terrestrial flying saucers on several occasions?
At some point, the Russian President would feel that he had enough of the charade. He’d go to the best university clinic in Moscow, and ask for a certificate that clearly stated that he is not a vampire. Several leading academics and doctors would get involved and produce a complex and thorough scientific conclusion, resolutely stating that President Putin is not a vampire.
Shocked by and reacting to the vulgarity demonstrated by the Western propaganda tsars, most of the Russian media outlets would offer some commonsense and logic:
"Can’t we all see clearly that he cannot be a vampire? All his teeth are of approximately equal length, he socialized during the day, he does not sleep in a coffin, he eats garlic and he is not scared of crosses; be they Orthodox, Protestant or Catholic ones!”
Others would argue that there are actually no real vampires inhabiting our Planet.
This is when the Western mass media would go into overdrive. Sarcastically it would declare that the Russian academia, Russian doctors and Russian media cannot be trusted – they are all under the heel of the state, and on top of it they have been infiltrated by nation’s secret services and former KGB agents.
"And doesn’t ‘Vlad’ sound somehow similar to ‘Bran’, which is the castle in Romania, which in turn used to be the home base of the commander-in-chief of all militant vampires - Count Dracula?”
There would still be some rational resistance: “No, ‘Vlad’ does not really sound like ‘Bran’, and anyway, nobody in Russia calls Mr. Putin ‘Vlad’ – only the Western media does.” But such voices of reason would never reach the general public all over the world! And on it goes.
In the end, a few billions of human brains would register and subconsciously store the ‘vampire theory’, and they would never again look at the President of Russia, or at his country, with the same eyes!
Of course the Russian leadership is not the only one that the West is targeting. There is a relentless flow of ‘shocking’ rumors and derogatory remarks made by the mainstream media against the President of China, of Byelorussia, against the leadership of Iran, South Africa, Eritrea, Zimbabwe, Syria, and North Korea as well as against all the left-wing governments of Latin America.
After being repeated hundreds of times, the rumors, at least for many people, get confused with facts, and get accepted as facts.
When still leading Cuba, Fidel Castro was constantly ‘dying’ or ‘disappearing’. The North Korean government has been relentlessly portrayed as a desperate gang of bloodthirsty sexual maniacs, executing and raping all that moves.
The ANC and especially President Zuma have done ‘nothing to close that staggering social divide in South Africa’. In South America, the pro-Western media outlets invented and then perfected a new lucrative industry: manufacturing corruption scandals and implicating in them virtually all of the popular socialist leaders.
Nihilism, darkest ‘news’, and scenarios have been force-fed to the public, in order to eradicate all zeal and optimism that comes when one is building a great independent and egalitarian nation.
"I never forget that day,” an Eritrean cameraman exclaimed, during my visit to his country. “I had just finished an assignment inside the Presidential Palace. Then I met my friends and we were having coffee in front of the main gate. Suddenly the Western networks began broadcasting that ‘there is a coup in Asmara’.
Social media went bananas. It was the “Breaking News” story everywhere. And here we were, right there, on a lazy sunny afternoon, in front of the Palace… I had just seen the President…. All was quiet!
They just invented it, in order to get people out onto the streets! They were trying to manufacture a coup via their media outlets.”
It is mainly fear, implanted into the brains of its subjects and slaves; fear that allows the Empire to control almost the entire Planet. Often it is subconscious fear, but it is fear nevertheless. Fear can be that of the Empire as a whole, or of its might and brutality, or even of the alternatives, portrayed in the most unsavory and frightening colors by the propaganda.
In order to rule unopposed, one has to be feared! And one has to smear the alternatives. The task to spread fear, slander diversity and dissent, was given to the official media, academia and ‘artists’.
Of course the biggest ‘threat’ to the Empire has been the two sisters who were born under the same star, from the same mother called Humanism. Their names are Communism and Socialism. And I am not only talking about the Western Marxist concept. There are many great concepts that put life and the well-being of the people first, all over the world!
In fact, a few decades ago, it was becoming crystal clear that Western colonialism, imperialism and capitalism were finished. Their time was up! Socialism was the natural and logical way forward for most of humanity.
But then the West and its Empire fought back. They employed extreme violence and brutality, as well as cunning ‘divide and rule’ tactics. Tens of millions died, and progress was stopped, although hopefully, only for a limited period of time. And not everywhere!
One of many reasons why Russia is perceived as a great ‘threat’ is because it inherited the humanist and internationalist foreign policy of the Soviet Union. But, also because it itself is actually becoming socialist again (although it is moving in that direction by taking extremely short steps). Russia is recovering irreversibly from those dark days of the free marketer and West’s lackey, Boris Yeltsin.
Russia is also hated because it is setting the ‘wrong example’; proving to the world that one can develop and prosper without taking orders from the West, without serving its governments and corporations. Or more precisely: it can do it exactly because it broke itself free!
The demonization of Russia is relentless. Every little negative detail is multiplied and magnified by the mainstream media and film industry. The world’s public is being nourished by bizarre stereotypes and fabrications. And so one of the most compassionate, deep, artistic and passionate nations on Earth, Russia, is depicted as being cold, robotic, heartless and inherently evil.
Massive NATO military forces are now dispatched along Russia’s western border, and they include German troops. Periodically there are maneuvers and exercises, not far from the borderline.
It is clearly a provocation, and it all brings back the horrific memories of the years right before World War II, the war in which the Russian nation lost between 25 and 30 million lives. A few hundred kilometers south, an old ally, in fact a Slavic sister, Ukraine, is being forced to confront Russia by its Western handlers, something that is being done against the will of the great majority of the Ukrainian people.
The US is heavily involved in the destabilizing of Central Asia, including a group of nations that used to form part of the Soviet Union. But thanks to Machiavellian Western propaganda, it is actually Russia that is being portrayed as the aggressor and a danger to world peace!
And it is China, which is being depicted as some kind of a ruthless and unpredictable monster that is now ready to swallow the world! In fact China is an extremely predictable country, and any unbiased student of world history would clearly see how peacefully it has been behaving, for centuries!
But to ‘prove’ that China is not a Communist country, anymore, and at the same time that it is one of the greatest threats to world peace and ‘stability’ (read: to Western control of the World), is one of the most important tasks given to the Western media, academia and propaganda tsars by the Empire.
And they are succeeding! Indoctrination tactics are working flawlessly. The Western pubic is by now thoroughly brainwashed (at worst) or confused (at best) when it comes to China.
In recent years I engaged hundreds of French, Italian, Spanish, German, British and Czech people in discussions about China, just to receive (with extremely few exceptions) a barrage of standardized, patronizing, mass-produced ‘opinions’.
It often felt like talking to the people who were forced to live for decades under the Taliban or under the ‘spiritual guidance’ of some fundamentalist evangelical Protestant sect.
In fact, China is both Communist (Communism or Socialism, but with Chinese characteristics) as it is breathtakingly successful! Analyzing this marvelous country, together with my China-based colleagues and comrades, I am coming to the conclusion that Beijing often uses “capitalist means in order to achieve socialist goals” (to borrow a quote from Jeff J Brown, which is actually the sub-title’ of his latest book).
And an enormous, independent, successful Communist or Socialist country – that is absolutely the worst nightmare for the Empire! It is something that has to be stopped, derailed, destroyed, isolated and demonized by all means! China’s Communist success…
You would never hear about that on CNN, BBC or Fox TV! Just as you would never hear that Indonesia, India, Rwanda and any of the other Empire’s allies and client nations, are in fact the most brutal fascist ‘failed’ states, and that the genocides in Papua, Kashmir and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) are the bloodiest extermination campaigns anywhere in the world.
I have worked in all these countries, intensively, I can testify. As this is being written, the people of Kashmir are being murdered and tortured. Right at this moment! I am wondering how many of my readers are aware of it?
Perhaps I’m obsessed with “exposing lies of the Empire”. A second volume will soon follow my 820-page long book. I cannot stop travelling, investigating and amassing the evidence. Because I am shocked; because I am outraged and because there are so few, so desperately few people that are actually working in the most desperate parts of the world!
Virtually all stereotypes about the world that have been domesticated in the West are wrong, terribly wrong.
The story of the Russian Revolution is told in the most twisted way, and so is the story of the Ukrainian famine and of the gulags. Not everything is wrong, of course, but the facts and numbers are twisted. I will soon resume my work in the Russian Far East, to write on this subject.
The story of China is grotesquely wrong, from the Great March to the present day!
The story of Cambodia’s “Commie slaughter” under the Khmer Rouge is a thoroughly idiotic manipulation! The slaughter was there, but more people died from the US carpet-bombing, and then from being displaced from their farms by US mines and cluster ‘bombies’, than from Pol Pot’s atrocities.
The great majority of Khmer Rouge men and women had nothing to do with Communism. They were just settling scores with the capital, which they saw as responsible for selling the country to the US, and for the bombing of the countryside. In the jungle, I recently met Pol Pot’s personal guard.
He told me frankly that he was simply pissed off (the bombing killed his relatives), and had no clue what Communism was:
“Pol Pot came and said ‘Communism! Let’s fight the traitors!’ And we did. How could someone call us a Communist country if we did not even know what Communism was?”
What we hardly ever hear is the most important story of mankind: the story of Western colonial plunders, of imposed slavery, genocides that lasted for centuries, of British-triggered famines that killed tens of millions in the Sub-Continent, of virtually the entire Europe and Christianity systematically committing global holocaust.
We are not told that it actually happened, and that it is still going on and on and on! In order to ‘shelter’ the Western public from the horrendous truth about the past and the present of their countries and culture, new and newer stories about those “evil others” are being invented and circulated.
Perhaps, soon, we will be really told that Mr. Putin is a vampire, or that Kim Jong Un is eating Korean virgins for breakfast. We may not be far from such a new wave of propaganda zeal. It all makes sense: the more evil the Empire becomes; the more it has to smear its adversaries.
The mass media and Hollywood are asked to perform. And they do! Reality and fiction are now being systematically mixed, and everything gets blurred and finally the great confusion and intellectual chaos are managing to overwhelm both reason and logic.
The Empire is killing millions and destroying countries and continents. But California is falling off a cliff, and clouds of huge insects are invading the entire North America. While millions of alien terrorists are now engulfing the ‘tolerant’ and ‘democratic’ Europe! So what is more terrible?
Plus there are those sinister monsters like Count Vlad and Comrade Kim, waiting with their daggers behind a corner! Therefore, The Empire and its people have to ‘protect’ themselves. They have to be tough, even tougher than before! And to put their interests first! America (North America) first! Germany first! France first!
Primitive? Does it all sound primitive? Yes, certainly. But it works! At least for the Europeans and North Americans it does. And the rulers don’t give a damn what works or doesn’t for the rest of the Planet.
Unless We Kick Our Addiction To Growth, We’re Heading Towards A Debt-Fuelled Dystopia March 10 2018 | From: HuffingtonPost
We need to urgently reform money and banking.
We can’t sustain infinite economic growth on a finite planet, and it’s increasingly clear that governments’ attempts to do so are having devastating social and environmental consequences.
It’s been obvious for decades that our addiction to growth is unsustainable, so why aren’t governments getting the message?
GDP is a crude measure of economic activity. It represents the sum total of all the goods and services being produced in an economy. But it takes no account of those things’ true value, or of the cost of creating them.
As Robert Kennedy famously pointed out, it measures cigarette advertising and jails but not “the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages”.
Our determination to maximise growth has led to severe environmental degradation. It’s held us to extract the planet’s resources at an unsustainable rate, and induced a catastrophic increase in carbon emissions.
Nevertheless, it remains the most popular indicator of economic progress. A small uptick in growth is celebrated with fervent enthusiasm, even as more real-world indicators, such as real incomes - continue to stagnate, or household debt - continues to increase.
The growth narrative relies on the belief that “a rising tide lifts all boats” – that growth in the size of an economy increases the opportunities for all citizens.
Some writers have joked that a rising tide lifts only luxury yachts, while all the other vessels sink. As inequality and increasing levels of poverty become too big to hide, ‘inclusive growth’ is a term to ensure growth benefits all - but why do we have to stick to pursuing growth at all costs?
There are several reasons why governments think growth is beneficial and essential, and that if we didn’t focus on it so much there would be significant social and economic problems as a result. Some of the common ones are that growth is necessary to reduce poverty and raise living standards.
They’ve been widely debunked, and experts have shown that prioritising growth is an unnecessary - and even an unhelpful way to pursue these objectives.
But while there have been compelling reasons to reject many of these sources of “growth dependency”, one reason clearly is a cause for concern. Since households, businesses and governments are in debt to each other to such a significant extent, the only way to manage these debts is for the economy to grow.
A new report from Positive Money, published on Thursday, proposes two remedies for this last source of growth dependency, both of which involve reforms of the money and banking system upon which the rest of the economy rests.
The main source of money used by citizens is created by banks – over 97%. Though even most MPs aren’t aware of this, banks create new money when they make loans, and through this process, money is created as an IOU, or debt.
The vast majority - about 80% of these loans - go into property and financial markets. Wage decline has resulted in households having to take out more debt just to get by, meaning that in the UK, private debt stands at 219% of GDP.
Not only do such high levels of private debt pose serious financial stability risks, but they also fuel the government’s single-track focus on pursuing growth to make these debts manageable.
We could therefore make the power to create money a public good which works to serve society rather than burderning it with more and more debt. This could be done through Sovereign Money Creation, or “quantitative easing (essentially creating new money) for people”.
The Bank of England can create money without increasing public or private sector debt. So rather than using it to continue to create hundreds of billions of pounds to pour into financial markets, as it has done since 2009 through conventional QE, a smaller amount could be created and put straight into the real economy, via investment in green infrastructure or a citizens dividend to wipe out unsustainable debts.
But with some scientists forecasting that catastrophic climate change could be unleashed in a matter of years rather than decades, perhaps we need to be bold enough to also think about more systemic measures. [Comment: This article is from a mainstream website that has no clue about the man-made climate change scam.]
This is why another reform proposed is a Sovereign Money System, where private banks would lose their privileges to create money simply by lending.
This would pave the way for a new economy, no longer based primarily on endless debt and endless growth.
Such ideas may seem utopian, but as a debt-fuelled dystopia approaches, a world beyond growth dependency is not only necessary, but could be closer than we might think. It is worth remembering that economic growth itself was only introduced as a priority in the second half of the twentieth century. Just as ideas and the systems they produce have been changed before, we too have the power to change them again.
Why We’re Calling For The Regulation Of Google, Facebook, YouTube And Twitter To Halt Malicious Censorship And Create A Fair Platform For Public Debate March 9 2018 | From: NaturalNews
Today, I’m calling for the government regulation of Google, Facebook, YouTube and Twitter to halt these tech giants’ nefarious, malicious censorship, “shadow banning” and blacklisting of independent media content.
The focus of this regulation is not to order tech giants what content they must allow, but rather to enforce a level content playing field so that a free society can engage in debate, discussion and independent journalism without the constant threat of being bullied, blacklisted or shadow banned by the internet’s wildly biased, left-wing gatekeepers.
In essence, we need “content neutrality” enforcement that prohibits these tech giants from punishing or censoring content simply because the psychologically fragile “crybully” employees who work at those companies can’t handle a point of view they don’t like.
When tech giants protect one point of view while banning all opposing views, that’s extremely dangerous to any free society.
The fact that YouTube, Google, Facebook and Twitter are now picking one point of view while banning all contradictory content is not merely unfair, but dangerous to any democratic society. Who decides which point of view is the “correct” one? How does YouTube glean divine truth in order to justify such decisions in the first place?
More importantly, what is the cost to democracy when one side of every debate is never allowed to participate in any real discussion? Can democracy even exist in such an ecosystem where merely asking unpopular questions gets you permanently silenced and blocked from public discourse?
(Answer: The tech giants are following in the footsteps of totalitarian regimes, not freedom-oriented democracies or republics. They despise real debate for the simple reason that the irrational Left can never win any real debates if they’re rooted in facts and reason. Their only remaining tactic is to silence their opposition and thus “win” the argument by eliminating any disagreement.)
The fact that YouTube and other tech giants so easily and quickly decided they had the sole right to banish unpopular views without any real justification proves just how dangerous these techno-monopolies have become.
They have now demonstrated they’re willing to exploit and abuse their positions of power in order to systematically suppress information for purely political reasons which have nothing at all to do with genuine violations of “community guidelines.”
In essence, YouTube and other tech companies have decided that a “community violation” means “anything with which we disagree.” That’s not merely irresponsible; it’s dangerous.
The First Amendment protects speech from GOVERNMENT oppression, but not censorship inflicted by powerful corporations
The First Amendment was written to protect Americans from totalitarian government that might seek to abolish the right of an individual to express their own thoughts, ideas or religion. Unfortunately, the First Amendment does not restrict politically-motivated censorship by tech companies which are now more powerful than governments in terms of shaping the public debate “ecosystem.”
It’s now clear from the nefarious actions of the technology giants that First Amendment-like protections need to be extended to include protections from the oppression of free speech inflicted by technology corporations.
Because of a lack of such protections, myself and nearly every other member of the independent media have all been victims of deliberate, malicious, underhanded actions by Google, Facebook, YouTube and Twitter to silence our views.
We’ve all been shadow banned, blacklisted, punished, demonetized or selectively targeted in acts that can only be called severe civil rights violations by the technology giants.
These are malicious acts that surely qualify as criminal assaults on the civil rights of individuals, yet they continue to be carried out right now, seemingly immune to government regulation or lawsuits that merely seek content fairness.
Ultimately, I believe that every conservative voice or independent media content creator who has been targeted by these malicious censorship actions should take part in a nationwide class action lawsuit that demands billions in damages from the nefarious, deliberate violations of civil rights that have been maliciously carried out by our nation’s most powerful technology firms.
Class action lawsuit discovery would no doubt prove that Google, Facebook and Twitter have systematically and maliciously targeted content solely for reasons of political bias, and that they sought to conceal their malicious agenda through the use of “shadow banning” or search algorithm tweaking that was configured specifically to punish conservative or independent content producers.
Google is EVIL, and it’s time to defeat evil across the ‘net.
Simply stated, Google is pure evil. Facebook is evil. Twitter is evil. Worse yet, they are malicious in their intent, demonstrating no regard whatsoever for the very fabric of a democratic nation which is rendered utterly unsustainable when the voices of half the citizens are silenced by decree.
If these techno-tyrants are capable of such dangerous abuse of power that threatens the very fabric of our society, they must be heavily regulated and exposed for their vile Orwellian tactics.
Today, I call on all lawmakers and regulators across America to take aim at the technology giants that are threatening our democracy.
Force them to halt their deliberate, malicious censorship and hit them with multi-billion-dollar fines for their systematic abuse of the civil rights of targeted Americans. Enact legislation that demands a level playing field for content, perhaps calling it “content neutrality.”
It’s time that the techno-tyranny which has plagued the West for at least the last decade be brought to an end. It’s time to once again celebrate free speech… especially including speech which may be unpopular or run contrary to the status quo.
After all, if Google News is just a compilation of 1,000+ mainstream news sources that are all repeating the exact same fake news talking points, what use is it to society anyway?
Kim Dotcom Goes Scorched Earth On Obama, Hillary And The Deep State For Destroying Civil Liberties In The United States March 8 2018 | From:TheGatewayPundit
Recently, Internet entrepreneur Kim Dotcom accused former president Barack Obama, ex-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Deep State of bankrupting the U.S. of its civil liberties.
"The deep state favored a Clinton presidency because CIA & NSA powers massively expanded under Democrat leadership. They had laxity and wanted to maintain the status quo. The first black President did more harm to your rights than any other President, and he did it with a smile,” tweeted Dotcom.
On Saturday, Dotcom said he believes the Deep State is a larger foe to the American people than Russia and China.
“The biggest enemy of the US isn’t Russia, China or Trumps effort to have good relations with them. Your biggest enemy is a deep state that profits from conflict. CIA is a business. Every war, terror attack and crisis means more money for them. So they cause war, terror and crisis,” the internet entrepreneur tweeted.
“Every Hollywood movie about heroic spies & soldiers & the fantastic US military had CIA support either via direct funding, tax incentives or access to US military machinery. Hollywood is a CIA propaganda tool to brainwash the world into thinking the US Govt is righteous. It’s not,” he added.
Electric cars were already developed about 120 years ago, and were abandoned because of the limitation of energy that could be stored. Similarly, this time Electric Cars were dead on re-arrival – unless these cars would have had at least a similar recharging time to that of a gasoline car, which isn’t the case.
If the problem of energy storage isn’t solved, Electric Cars will never make money or be a commercial success.
Unless Free Energy is admitted into the market place, with wireless recharging facilities, as was envisioned by Nicola Tesla, over hundred-years ago, before he was killed by the Deep State, as his invention could have destroyed their business interests in Big Oil.
Why is it, that suddenly over the last twenty years electric cars are being hyped again? It’s because Electric cars are part of Agenda 21, now Agenda 2030.
The Deep State needs to control the populace not only through a cashless society, but also through people’s mobility. By 2030 free travel will belong to the past. If people do travel, then it will be allowed in restricted areas only. If people are not allowed to travel, the Deep State easily can switch off the electricity supply.
When governments start with subsidies for so called ‘innovation’, be suspicious.
A better idea would be to innovate the right things. The environment will suffer, from large scale implementation of electric cars. Although much has been written about tailpipe CO2 that should be reduced, which makes gasoline or diesel cars environmentally unfriendly.
For that reason, they should be replaced by fully electric-hybrids. Electric cars are the future, is stated everywhere by everyone, whether inside or outside of the car business. But this is pure nonsense.
Electricity is more often than not generated from coal, which in terms of CO2 emission is as bad as, or even worse than the CO2 gasses released by gasoline or diesel engines. Electricity is one of the least efficient ways to power cars yet to be shoved down our throats. Let’s first put engineering and math to paper.
The laws of thermodynamics say: Energy cannot be created or destroyed; it only changes form. The electricity used to power a car has to come from somewhere, at present still in the majority of cases from coal-powered plants.
Every time energy changes its form as in the case of battery power – used to spin the wheels of a car – energy is lost, due to inefficiencies in the system through friction, heat loss, drag, etc. Simply put, all of the available energy stored in a battery does not get used for its intended purpose: some, if not the majority, is lost due to these inefficiencies.
Electric cars, do not have the backup of a gasoline engine and a supply infrastructure of petrol stations over longer distances. If electric cars can only be charged at night, the range of such vehicles would be limited to a round trip of 150 km per day, or only half of that when the cars are driven at high speed.
There are some electric cars that have better mileage: 350 Km for the Tesla Roadster and 250 Km for the Mini E – but both have no back seats since that space is taken by the larger battery.
The standard answer to this drawback is that the average commute is only 50 km, so in most cases the limited range of electric cars is sufficient. However, these cars have to be recharged during the night at home. As the environment is more important. But how green are Plug-Ins? – The carbon impact of millions of electric vehicles will depend on the grids that supply them.
For example, a home charging system for a Tesla requires a 75amp service. The average house is equipped with 100amp service. In a small street, with approximately 25 homes, the electrical infrastructure would be unable to service more than 3 homes of people owning a single Tesla each.
For even half the number of homes to have electric vehicles, the system would be wildly over-loaded.
But the standard argument is: Electric motors are more efficient than gasoline engines, but the problem is not total energy consumption, it is peak load.
A complete conversion to plug-in hybrids would, in the USA require 640 extra large power plants, and an even larger number in the EU. The researchers do not specify what they consider to be a “large” power plant, but this must be around 1,000 megawatts, which boils down to the need for another 640 GW of power plants.
The Toyota’s Prius is the longest serving hybrid vehicle on the market and in practiceit has proved to have critical problems. Likewise, the gas mileage is far more favourably portrayed in the prospectus than consumers have experienced.
Most of the hybrid’s big mileage gains occur in stop-and-start city traffic. On an open road, the conventional engine actually gets better gas mileage. When you look at the Prius’ true mileage, there are plenty of conventional vehicles that do as well or even better.
Add in the high extra cost of the hybrid engine, and you have to drive the car for over a hundred of fifty thousand km’s to recoup the extra money you pay for the fancy technology, and most likely you will still come out worse. Frequent stops for refuelling are necessary and a pain in the neck.
Nevertheless, it is stated; Electric Avenues should be developed for ‘all Electric hybrids’. It is just food for policymakers, these cars are too expensive and not green at all! Electricity is mostly generated from coal, which as far as emission goes, is as bad as the CO2 gasses emitted by gasoline or diesel engine tail-pipes.
And here is the elephant in the room with electric vehicles. The residential infrastructure cannot bear the load. So, as our genius elected officials promote this nonsense, not only are we being urged to buy these things and replace our reliable, cheap generating systems with expensive, new windmills and solar cells, but we will also have to renovate our entire delivery system!
This latter “investment” will not be revealed until we’re so far down this dead-end road that it will be presented with an ‘OOPS!’ and a corresponding shrug.
Moreover, the manufacturing of batteries and the disposal of these batteries that have an average lifetime of 6 years, are bad for the environment too. Not to mention the extra car weight that has to be carried around.
Furthermore, biofuels do have an excellent future. If not derived from grain, then from algae that is plentifully available and which also during growth absorbs CO2 from the environment. Two important affairs are covered at once. If, Governments want to stimulate anything with their packages, they should spend it here.
The action radius per charge from a Hybrid is only about 100 KM – 150 KMs, which is not sufficient for daily common use. At least 500 KM or approx. 300 Miles is as a minimum requirement. So, in addition to all this, a conventional engine, albeit smaller, has to be added.
That is extra weight and makes hybrids far more expensive than conventional cars. In an economic downturn not many people are willing to pay this extra price. In the past decennia when the majority lived and spent beyond their means, it could have made some sense, but not anymore today or in the foreseeable future.
The battery manufacturing technology is highly specialised and the major producers, located in SE Asia, are keen to keep that knowledge to themselves with the result that heavy batteries have to be transported half way around the globe before these are mounted in a hybrid car.
One of the components of batteries is found and produced in Canada and is also sent half way around the world to Asia. And what about that extra environmental charge from ocean steamers and trucks, needed for transport?
Additionally, a country-wide infrastructure will have to be set-up worldwide, as a distribution chain for quick reloading of the batteries, which, in the most positive scenario is more time-consuming than filling up with ordinary fuel. Confirming the title of this essay and this should not be subsidised by tax payers’ money.
There are far better innovative ideas and applications in this field for financial support as the rest of this essay will cover.
A MIT study envisages the diesel hybrid that will outperform a hydrogen fuel cell engine on both fuel mileage and carbon emissions, within 10 years. In other words, the hydrogen fuel cell car may never get to market.
The auto industry is well on its way to becoming a replay of the airline industry. The competition is already cutthroat, with razor-thin margins. Now we’re going to see General Motors and Ford file for bankruptcy.
When that happens, they’ll walk away from the pension and health care obligations that are killing them. Their plants are in political battleground states so the politicians will help them stay afloat. They’re “too big to fail.”
Once they’re operating under Chapter 11, like the airlines, the automakers will launch profit-killing price wars that may last for decades, in which emissions will be the key to their profits.
The best way forward from the diesel revolution will be a filter technology that’s going to remove the final pollutants, the last obstacle that stands in the way of zero emissions.
Europeans have been quite successful in removing the last bit of filth from diesel exhausts, for the sake of fuel economy and lower carbon emissions. Whoever now comes first with the best exhaust filter to filter the particulate matter out of the tailpipe fumes, will become King in the automotive industry. But there is an even better plan:
Free Energy and Wireless Energy Distribution:
But of all of Nicola Tesla’s inventions, there was one that never saw the light of day. It was a revolutionary idea that had the potential to reshape our world in profound ways.
It was also an idea that was more than a century ahead of its time. But now, Tesla’s unfinished masterpiece is on the verge of becoming a reality.
If, about 120 years ago, Nicola Tesla was not obstructed by the Deep State-cabal with his invention of free energy generated from the magnetic fields around planet Earth, there wouldn’t have been any carbon emission at all!
Nikola Tesla is remembered for transformational inventions such as the induction motor, electrical power distribution, fluorescent lights, wireless communications, and the remote control of mechanical devices.
Wireless Power Transmission:
Conventional power lines are expensive, ugly and wasteful, they can lose up to 14 percent of their energy from the resistance of the copper cables. A major aspect of Tesla’s wireless energy grid is the distribution of electricity to remote areas, as well to densely populated urban locations.
Tesla constructed a quite unusual-looking tower for his time. Originally and officially he intended to use the facility to develop the technology to transmit wireless communications across the ocean to Europe. He also wanted to secretly use the tower to demonstrate wireless power distribution on a very large scale.
Tesla’s vision incorporated many of his towers emitting energy throughout the atmosphere. This energy would be utilised by airplanes, automobiles, and even ships designed with special receiving devices to collect the wireless power.
Tesla’s original idea of wireless communications has been with us for years. The mobile phone in your pocket is proof hereof. And while we may not yet be transmitting energy across the Atlantic Ocean, Tesla’s vision of wireless power distribution is happening now at a much closer range.
Today, behind the complex technology of wireless power distribution, something quite simple is happening: the ability to charge electronic devices without the need for a power cable for each device.
Once the Deep State cabal is defeated; Tesla’s unfinished masterpiece will be on the verge of becoming a reality.
The bottom line is that Tesla’s original idea of wireless power distribution may have been more than a century ahead of its time, but it’s quickly becoming a reality, not in the next few decades, but much sooner.
Agenda 21: Awareness And Activism + UN 2030 Agenda Decoded: Blueprint For The Global Enslavement Of Humanity Under Corporate Masters March 6 2018 | From: AmericanPolicyCenter / NaturalNews / Various
Sustainable Development: The Transformation of the Western World
Some think that the planet is in danger of global warming and over consumption. They really believe that the only way to fix the problem is to control the flow of resources and wealth, which literally means changing human civilization and the way we live.
The problem is, that requires a forced transformation of our entire society to comply, and that ultimately leads to a thirst for power and topdown control – that will eventually lead to tyranny.
In his book, Earth in the Balance, Al Gore warned that a “wrenching transformation” must take place to lead Western countries away from the “horrors of the Industrial Revolution.”
Click on the image above to open a larger version in a new window
The process to do that is called Sustainable Development and its’ roots can be traced back to a UN policy document called Agenda 21, adopted at the UN’s Earth Summit in 1992.
Sustainable Development calls for changing the very infrastructure of the nation, away from private ownership and control of property to nothing short of central planning of the entire economy – often referred to as top-down control.
Where and when did the term Sustainable Development originate?
The term “sustainable development” was born in the pages of “Our Common Future,” the official report of the 1987 United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development, authored by Gro Harlem Brundtland, Vice President
of the World Socialist Party.
For the first time the environment was tied to the tried and true Socialist goals of international redistribution of wealth. Said the report;
“Poverty is a major cause and effect of global environmental problems. It is therefore futile to attempt to deal with environmental problems without a broader perspective that encompasses the factors underlying world poverty and international inequality.”
The term appeared in full force in 1992, in a United Nations initiative called the U.N. Sustainable Development Agenda 21, or as it has become known around the world, simply Agenda 21. It was unveiled at the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), ballyhooed as the Earth Summit.
In fact, the Earth Summit was one of the provisions called for in the Brundtland report as a means of implementing Sustainable Development around the world. More than 178 nations adopted Agenda 21 as official policy. President George H.W. Bush was the signatory for the United States.
What is Sustainable Development?
The 1989 Webster’s Dictionary defines “Sustainable Yield” as a requirement that trees cut down in a forest area be replaced by new plantings to ensure future lumber supplies.” That’s what most people think Sustainable Development means.
Proponents of Sustainable Development argue that it is about preserving resources for future generations. What’s wrong with that? Nothing in theory.
That would be sustainable with a small “s.” Just common sense usage of natural resources. The problem is, major forces now promoting it intend for Sustainable Development to be spelled with a capital “S.” They intend for a Socio-economic political movement that probes, invades and changes every aspect of human civilization.
And that’s the problem.
Imagine a world in which a specific “ruling principle” is created to decide proper societal conduct for every citizen.
That principle would be used to consider regulations guiding everything you eat, the kind of home you are allowed to live in, the method of transportation you use to get to work, what kind of work you may have, the way you dispose of waste, perhaps even the number of children you may have, as well as the quality and amount of education your children may receive.
Sustainable development encompasses every aspect of our lives.
According to its authors, the objective of sustainable development is to integrate economic, social, and environmental policies in order to achieve reduced consumption, social equity, and the preservation and restoration of biodiversity.
Top Sustainability Fallacies:
Lie: Sustainability is about protecting the environment
Reality: It is a political movement to replace capitalism with governement control of everything
Lie: Free market capitalism is the principle cause of planetary degradation and is not sustainable
Reality: It is government control of the economy that is not sustainable
Lie: Private property is a source of social injustice, and too valuable to be subject to free markets
Reality: The right to own and use private property is a fundamental source of wealth creation
Lie: Green energy creates jobs
Reality: Green energy is unreliable, uncompetitive and renders industry unable to compete in world parkets
Lie: C02 is a pollutant
Reality: C02 is the gas that all plants and crops breathe. More C02 = better agricultural production
Lie: The sustainability movement isn't trying to take away anyone's property rights or freedoms
Reality: The sustainability movement is relentlessly attacking property rights and freedoms
Lie: Climate change is catastrophic and anthropogenic and must be addressed through C02 abatement schemes
Reality:Man made climate change is a hoax with numerous provable data points and thousands of scientists going on the record - which is ignored by the cabal-controlled mainstream media
Lie: Compact development reduces pollution
Reality:Reality: Dense development is always correlated with intense pollution levels
Lie: Subways and mass transit can replace cars
Reality: They cannot. If they could there would be no cars in Manhattan
Lie: Compact urban development is more affordable for government
Reality: Empirical evidence proves compace development requires higher tax rates. Urbanisation strains police, fire, educational and social services
Lie: Afforable housing for people of all income levels will ensure healthier better balanced neighbourhoods
Reality: Low income housing usually creates more problems than it solves thereby damaging communities
The Sustainablists insist that society be transformed into feudal-like governance by making Nature the central organizing principle for our economy and society, not human need or wants.
This idea essentially elevates nature above Humans [we are all on this planet, their premise is bullshit]. As such, every societal decision would first be questioned as to how it might effect the environment.
To achieve this, Sustainablist policy focuses on three components; land use, education, and population control and population reduction.
Here is a direct quote from the report of the 1976 UN’s Habitat I conference which said:
“Land... cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principle instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth, therefore, contributes to social injustice.”
Some officials claim that Sustainable Development is just a local effort to protect the environment and contain development -- just your local leaders putting together a local vision for the community.
Yet, the exact language and tactics for implementation of Sustainable Development are being used in nearly every city around the globe from Lewiston, Maine to Singapore.
In short, Sustainable Development is the process by which the world is being reorganized around a central principle of state collectivism using the environment as bait.
One of the best ways to understand what Sustainable Development actually is can be found by discovering what is NOT sustainable.
According to the UN’s Biodiversity Assessment Report, items for our everyday lives that are NOT sustainable include:
Grazing of livestock
Plowing of soil
Single family homes
Paved and tarred roads
Dams and reservoirs
Power line construction
Economic systems that fail to set proper value on the environment (capitalism, free markets).
Maurice Strong, Secretary General of the UN’s Rio Earth Summit in 1992 said;
“… Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work airconditioning, and suburban housing are not sustainable.”
This goal is exactly the policies that are written into such legislation as Cap and Trade, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act.
It is also the policy behind the many corporate commercials seen nightly on television which advocate “Going Green".
They are all part of the efforts to modify consumer behavior to accept less, deal with higher energy prices, restrict water use and place severe limitations on use of private property – all under the environmental excuse.
And one of the most destructive tools used to enforce Sustainable Development policy is something called the “precautionary principle.”
That means that any activities that might threaten human health or the environment should be stopped - even if no clear cause and effect relationship has been established - and even if the potential threat is largely theoretical.
That makes it easy for any activist group to issue concerns or warnings by news release or questionable report against and industry or private activity, and have those warnings quickly turned into public policy – just in case.
Many are now finding non-elected regional governments and governing councils enforcing policy and regulations.
As these policies are implemented, locallyelected officials are actually losing their own power and decision-making ability in their elected offices. More and more decisions are now being made behind the scenes in non-elected “sustainability councils” armed with truckloads of federal regulations, guidelines, and grant money.
According to its authors, the objective of Sustainable Development is to integrate economic, social, and environmental policies in order to achieve reduced consumption, social equity, and the preservation and restoration of biodiversity.
The Sustainable Development logo used in most literature on the subject contains three connecting circles labeled along the lines of Social Equity; Economic Prosperity; and Ecological Integrity (known commonly as the 3 E's).
Sustainable Development’s Social Equity plank is based on a demand for “social justice.” Social Justice is described as the right and opportunity of all people “to benefit equally from the resources afforded us by society and the environment.”
According to Sustainablist doctrine, it is a social injustice for some to have prosperity if others do not. It is a social injustice to keep our borders closed.
It is a social injustice for some to be bosses and others to be merely workers. Social justice is a major premise of Sustainable Development.
Another word for social justice is Socialism or Marxism. Karl Marx was the first to coin the phrase “social justice.”
Most recently the theory of social justice has been used to justify government takeover of health care. Today, the phrase is used throughout Sustainablist literature.
The Sustainablist system is based on the principle that individuals must give up selfish wants for the needs of the common good, or the “community.”
This is the same policy behind the push to eliminate our nation’s borders to allow the “migration” of those from other nations into the United States to share our individually-created wealth and our taxpayers-paid government social programs.
Say the Sustainablists, “Justice and efficiency go hand in hand.” “Borders,” they say, “are unjust.”
Under the Sustainablist system, private property is an evil that is used simply to create wealth for a few. So too, is business ownership. Instead, “every worker / person will be a direct capital owner.”
Property and businesses are to be kept in the name of the owner, keeping them responsible for taxes and other expenses, however control is in the hands of the “community” (government).
Under Sustainable Development individual human wants, needs, and desires are to be conformed to the views and dictates of social planners.
Harvey Ruvin, Vice Chair of the International Council on Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) said:
“Individual rights will have to take a back seat to the collective” in the process of implementing Sustainable Development.
Sustainable Development’s economic policy is based on one overriding premise: That the wealth of the world was made at the expense of the poor.
It dictates that, if the conditions of the poor are to be improved, wealth must first be taken from the rich.
[But this mandate does not apply to not the "elite" of course].
Consequently, Sustainable Development’s economic policy is based, not on private enterprise, but on public / private partnerships.
In the free-market of the past, most businesses were started by individuals who saw a need for a product or service and they set out to fill it. Some businesses prospered to become huge corporations, some remained small “mom and pop” shops, others failed and dissolved.
Most business owners were happy to be left alone to take their chances to run their businesses on their own, not encumbered by a multiplicity of government regulations.
If they failed, most found a way to try again. In the beginning of the American Republic, government’s main involvement was to guarantee they had the opportunity to try.
In order to give themselves an advantage over competition, some businesses -- particularly large corporations – now find a great advantage in dealing directly with government, actively lobbying for legislation that will inundate smaller companies with regulations that they cannot possibly comply with or even keep up with.
This government / big corporation back-scratching has always been a dangerous practice because economic power should be a positive check on government power, and vise versa. If the two should ever become combined, control of such massive power can lead only to tyranny.
One of the best examples of this was the Italian model in the first half of the Twentieth Century under Mussolini’s Fascism.
Together, select business leaders who have agreed to help government impose Sustainablist green positions in their business policies, and officials at all levels of government are indeed merging the power of the economy with the force of
government in Public / Private Partnerships on the local, state and federal levels.
As a result, Sustainable Development policy is redefining free trade to mean centralized global trade “freely” crossing (or eliminating) national borders.
It definitely does not mean people and companies trading freely with each other. Its real effect is to redistribute manufacturing, wealth, and jobs out of our borders and to lock away natural resources.
After the regulations have been put in place, literally destroying whole industries, new “green” industries created with federal grants bring newfound wealth to the “partners.” This is what Sustainablists refer to as economic prosperity.
The Sustainable Development “partnerships” include some corporations both domestic and multination. They in turn are partnered with the politicians who use their legislative and administrative powers to raid the treasury to fund and enforce the scheme.
Of course, as the chosen corporations, which become a new elite, stamp out the need for competition through government power, the real loser is the consumers who no longer count in market decisions. Government grants are now being used by industry to create mandated green products like wind and solar power.
Products are put on the market at little risk to the industry, leaving consumers a more limited selection from which to choose. True free markets are eliminated in favor of controlled economies which dictate the availability and quality of products.
“Nature has an integral set of different values (cultural, spiritual and material) where humans are one strand in nature’s web and all living creatures are considered equal.
Therefore the natural way is the right way and human activities should be molded along nature’s rhythms.” from the UN’s Biodiversity Treaty presented at the 1992 UN Earth Summit.
This quote lays down the ground rules for the entire Sustainable Development agenda.
It says humans are nothing special – just one strand in the nature of things or, put another way, humans are simply biological resources.
Funny that, the Cabal see us as "Human Resources" also. What a coincidence...
Sustainablist policy is to oversee any issue in which man interacts with nature – which, of course, is literally everything.
And because the environment always comes first, there must be great restrictions over private property ownership and control.
This is necessary, Sustainablists say, because humans only defile nature. Under Sustainable Development there can be no concern over individual rights.
Individual human wants, needs, and desires are conformed to the views and dictates of social planners.
The UN’s Commission on Global Governance said in its 1995 report:
“Human activity… combined with unprecedented increases in human numbers… are impinging on the planet’s basic life support system.
Action must be taken now to control the human activities that produce these risks.”
Under Sustainable Development, limited government, as advocated by our Founding Fathers, is impossible because, we are told, the real or perceived environmental crisis is too great.
Only government can be trusted to respond. Maurice Strong, Chairman of the 1992 UN Earth Summit said:
“A shift is necessary toward lifestyles less geared to environmentally-damaging consumption patterns. The shift will require a vast strengthening of the multilateral system, including the United Nations.”
The politically based environmental movement provides Sustainablists camouflage as they work to transform systems of government, justice, and economics.
It is a masterful mixture of socialism (with its top down control of the tools of the economy) and fascism (where property is owned in name only – with no individual owner control).
Sustainable Development is the worst of both the left and the right. It is not liberal, nor is it conservative.
It is a new kind of tyranny that, if not stopped, will surely lead us to a new Dark Ages of pain and misery yet unknown to mankind.
UN Report: Habitat I Conference:
"Land cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market.
Private land ownership is also a principle instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth, therefore, contributers to social injustice."
Six months after his inauguration, President Bill Clinton issued Executive Order #12852 which created the President’s Council On Sustainable Development (PCSD) on June 29 1993.
The Council’s Membership included:
Twelve Cabinet-level Federal Officials
Jonathan Lash, Pres. World Resources Institute
John Adams, Ex. Dir. National Resources Defense Council
Dianne Dillon-Ridgley, Pres. Zero Population
Michelle Perrault, International V.P., Sierra Club
John C. Sawhill, Pres. The Nature Conservancy
Jay D. Hair, Pres. World Conservation Union (IUCN)
Kenneth L. Lay, CEO, Enon Corporation
William D. Ruckelshaus, Chm., Browning-Ferris Industries & former EPA Administrator
Some of these members were representatives of the same groups which helped write Agenda 21 at the UN level, now openly serving on the President’s Council to create policy for the implementation of Sustainable Development at the federal level.
With great fanfare the Council issued a comprehensive report containing all the guidelines on how our government was to be reinvented under sustainable development.
Those guidelines were created to direct policy for every single federal agency, state government and local community government. Their purpose was to translate the recommendations set forth in Agenda 21 into public policy administered by the federal government.
They created the American version of Agenda 21 called “Sustainable America - A New Consensus”.
The Four Part Process Leading to Sustainable Development
So how is this “wrenching transformation” being put into place? There are four very specific routes being used. In the rural areas it’s called the “Wildlands Project.”
In the cities it’s called “Smart Growth.” In business it’s called “Public / Private Partnerships.” And in government it’s called “Stakeholder Councils.”
The Wildlands Project
"WE MUST MAKE THIS PLACE AN INSECURE AND INHOSPITABLE PLACEFOR CAPITALISTS AND THEIR PROJECTS... WE MUST RELCAIM THEROADS AND PLOWED LANDS, HALT DAM CONSTRUCTION, TEAR DOWNEXISTING DAMS, FREE SHACKLED RIVERS AND RETURN TO WILDERNESSMILLIONS OF TENS OF MILLIONS OF ACRES OF PRESENTLY SETTLEDLAND.”
- Dave Foremen, Earth First.
The Wildlands Project was the brainchild of Earth First’s Dave Foreman and it literally calls for the “re-wilding” of 50% of all the land in every state – back to the way it was before Christopher Columbus set foot on this land.
It is a diabolical plan to herd humans off the rural lands and into human settlements. Crazy you say! Yes. Impossible? Not so fast. From Foreman, the plan became the blueprint for the UN’s Biodiversity Treaty and quickly became international in scope.
But how do you remove people from the land? One step at a time. Let’s begin with a biosphere reserve. A national park will do. A huge place where there is no human activity.
For example, Yellowstone National Park, devoid of human habitation can serve as its center. Then a buffer zone is established around the reserve.
Inside the buffer only limited human activity is allowed. Slowly, through strict regulations, that area is squeezed until human activity becomes impossible.
Once that is accomplished, the biosphere is extended to the former buffer zone borders – and then a new buffer zone is created around the now-larger biosphere and the process starts again. In that way, the Biosphere Reserve acts like a cancer cell, ever expanding, until all human activity is stopped.
And there are many tools in place to stop human activity and grow the reserve.
Push back livestock’s access to river banks on ranches, many times as much as 300. When the cattle can’t reach the stream, the rancher can’t water them -- he goes out of business. Lock away natural resources by creating national parks.
It shuts down the mines -- and they go out of business. Invent a Spotted Owl shortage and pretend it can’t live in a forest where timber is cut. Shut off the forest.
Then, when no trees are cut, there’s nothing to feed the mills and then there are no jobs, and -- they go out of business.
Locking away land cuts the tax base. Eventually the town dies. Keep it up and there is nothing to keep the people on the land – so they head to the cities. The wilderness grows – just like Dave Foreman planned.
It comes in many names and many programs. Heritage areas, land management,wolf and bear reintroduction, rails to trails, conservation easements,open space, and many more.
Each of these programs is designed to make it just a little harder to live on the land – a little more expensive – a little more hopeless, literally herding people off their land and into designated human habitat areas – cities.
In the West, where vast areas of open space make it easy to impose such polices there are several programs underway to remove humans from the land. Today, there are at least 31 Wildlands projects underway, locking away more than 40
percent of the nation’s land.
The Alaska Wildlands Project seeks to lock away and control almost the entire state.
In Washington State, Oregon, Idaho, Montana parts of North and South Dakota, parts of California, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, Wyoming, Texas, Utah, and more, there are at least 22 Wildlands Projects underway.
For example, one project called Yukon to Yellowstone (Y2Y) – creates a 2000 mile no-man’s land corridor from the Arctic to Yellowstone.
East of the Mississippi, there are at least nine Wildlands projects, covering Maine, Pennsylvania, New York, West Virginia, Ohio, Virginia, Tennessee, North and South Carolina, Georgia and Florida. Watch for names of Wildlands Projects like Chesapeake Bay Watershed, Appalachian Restoration Project and Piedmont Wildlands Project.
How Did We Get Here? J. Gary Lawrence - Bill Clinton's Advisor for Sustainable Development:
"Participating in a UN advocated planning process would very likely bring out many... right wing conspiracy groups... who would actively work to defeat any elected official... undertaking Local Agenda 21.
So we call our process something else, such as "Comprehensive Planning", "Growth Management", or "Smart Growth.""
The second path is called Smart Growth. The process essentially puts a line around a city, locking off any growth outside that line.
Such growth is disdainfully labeled “Urban Sprawl.” The plan then curtails the building of more roads to cut off access to the newly created rural area. Inside the circle, concerted efforts are made to discourage the use of cars in preference to public transportation, restricting mobility.
Because there is a restriction on space inside the controlled city limits, there is a created shortage of land and houses, so prices go up. That means populations will have to be controlled, because now there is no room to contain more people.
Cities are now passing “green” regulations, forcing homeowners to meet strict guidelines for making their homes environmentally compliant, using specific building materials, forcing roof replacements, demanding replacement of appliances, and more.
Those not in compliance will be fined and will not be able to sell their homes. There are now efforts underway to impose so-called “smart meters” which replace thermostats in homes.
Homeowners will not have control of such meters. Instead, the electric company will determine the necessary temperature inside each home.
Government agencies or local policy boards will be tasked with the responsibility to conduct an energy audit in each home to determine the steps necessary to bring the home into energy compliance. In Oakland, California, such restrictions will cost each homeowner an estimated $36,000.
The Cap N Trade bill contains a whole section on such restrictions for the nation, and most local communities are now busy creating development plans that encompass many of the same restrictions.
There is now a new push to control food production under the label of Sustainable Farming. Food sheds are now being advocated.
These are essentially government run farms located just outside the smart growth area circling the city.
Food is to be grown using strict guidelines which dictate what kinds of food is to be produced and the farming practices to be used.
These are essentially based on the blue print of Chinese Agrarian villages that cannot possibly grow enough food to feed the community unless populations are tightly controlled. True Sustainable farming programs discourage importing goods from outside the community.
A Red Agenda Marked With a Pretty Green Name: "Sustainability"
Agenda 21 spread like an INFECTION: UN Agenda 21 > ICLEI > NGO's > Central / Regional Planners
Planning associations provide sample ordinances based on ECLEI doctin that originated in UN Agenda 21
Municipal plans become manifestos
Stake Holder Councils
Inside the cities, government is increasingly controlled by an elite ruling class called stake holder councils. These are mostly Non-governmental organizations, or NGOs, which, like thieves in the night, converge on the community to stake their claim to enforce their own private agendas.
The function of legitimately – elected government within the system votes to create a system of boards, councils and even regional governments to handle every aspect of day-to-day operation of the community.
Once in place, the councils and boards basically replace the power of elected officials with non-elected, appointed rulers answerable to no one.
The councils are controlled by a small minority in the community, but they are all - powerful. They force citizens to seek permission (usually denied) for any changes to private property.
They use such excuses as historic preservation, water use restrictions, energy use, and open space restrictions. They will dictate that homeowners must use special “green” light bulbs and force stores to only use paper bags, for example.
They over-burden or even destroy business, creating stiff regulations on manufacturing and small business in the community. They may dictate the number of outlets a business may have in a community, not matter what the population
demands. For example, in San Francisco there can only be seven McDonalds.
They can dictate the kind of building materials owners can use in their private home – or whether one can build on their property at all.
Then, if they do grant a permit for building, they might not decide to let the property owner acquire water and electricity for the new home – and they may or may not give you a reason for being turned down.
As part of Sustainable health care, they may even dictate that you get the proper exercise – as determined by the government. Again, San Francisco has built a new federal building – the greenest ever built.
The elevators will only stop on every third floor so riders are forced to use stairs – for their own health, of course.
These councils fit almost perfectly the definition of a State Soviet: a system of councils that report to an apex council and then implement a predetermined outcome. Soviets are the operating mechanism of a government-controlled economy.
So Many Things Making So Little Sense: (US)
EPA drives industries overseas where the pollution increases
EPA embraces ethanol while blaming farming for pollution
Master plans across America overtly ignore property rights
Environmental nooses rob property rights and individual freedoms based on unsettled science, distorted statistics and exaggerated predictions
Focus on Social Equity eclipsing life-liberty property (Why?)
Municipal master plans have become manifestos
People in tears across America
Public / Private Partnerships
The fourth path to imposing Sustainable Development is Public/Private Partnerships (PPPs). Unfortunately, today, many Conservative / Libertarian organizations are presenting PPPs as free enterprise and a private answer for keeping taxes down by using business to make a better society.
There are certain areas where private business contracts to do jobs such as running school cafeterias through a competitive bid system. That type of arrangement certain does serve the tax payers and provides better services. That’s not how PPPs are used though Sustainable Development.
In truth, many PPPs are nothing more than government-sanctioned monopolies in which a few businesses are granted special favors like tax breaks, the power of eminent domain, non-compete clauses and specific guarantees for return on their investments.
That means they can fix prices, charge beyond what the market demands, and they can use the power of government to put competition out of business. That is not free enterprise. And it is these global corporations that are pushing the green agenda.
If you can stomach reading this horse shit, click on the image above
PPPs were the driving force behind the Trans Texas Corridor, using eminent domain to take more than 580,000 acres of private land - sanctioned by the partnership with the Texas government. And PPPs are taking over highways and local water treatment plants in communities across the nation.
PPPs in control of the water system can control water consumption – a major part of the Sustainable Development blueprint.
Fueled by federal grant programs through the EPA, the auto industry has produced and forced onto the market “green” cars that no one wants to buy, such as the Chevy Volt.
For its part of the partnership, government passed regulations that keep gas prices high to make them more inviting.
The federal government has entered into many partnerships with alternative energy companies in a move to force wind power and solar power on an uninterested public. Again, such industries only exist though the power and of government determined to enforce a certain political agenda. They would never survive in an honest free market.
Using government to ban its own product, General Electric is forcing the mercury- laden green light bulb, costing 5 times the price of incandescent bulbs. Such is the reality of green industry, which depends more on government subsidy and grants than on customers.
The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is the root of the “Free Trade” process and the fuel for PPPs between international corporations and government, thereby creating an “elite” class of “connected” businesses – or what Ayn Rand called “the power of pull.”
Success in the PPP world is not based on quality of product and service, but on who you know in high places.
To play ball in the PPP game means accepting the mantra of Sustainable Development and helping to implement it, even if it means going against your own product. That’s why Home Depot uses its commercials to oppose cutting down trees and British Petroleum advocates reducing the use of oil.
It is not free enterprise, but a Mussolini-type fascism of government and private industry organized in a near impenetrable force of power. And it’s all driven by the Agenda 21 blueprint of Sustainable Development.
ICLEI: Charter 1.7 - Principles
The Association shall promote, and ask its individual members to adopt, the following Earth Charter Principles to guide local action:
6. Prevent harm as the best method of environmental protection and, when knowledge is limited, apply a precautionary approach.
7. Adopt patterns of production, consumption, and reproduction that safeguard Earth’s regenerative capacities, human rights, and community well-being. (Communitarianism with forced sterilization?)
(9) Eradicate poverty as an ethical, social, and environmental imperative.
9. Eradicate poverty as an ethical, social, and environmental imperative.
10. Ensure that economic activities and institutions at all levels promote human development in an equitable and sustainable manner.
11. Affirm gender equality and equity as prerequisites to sustainable development and ensure universal access to education, health care, and economic opportunity.
14. Integrate into formal education and life-long learning the knowledge, values, and skills needed for a sustainable way of life.
What Kinds of Groups Promote this in the U.S.A.?
Many people ask how dangerous international policies can suddenly turn up in state and local government, all seemingly uniform to those in communities across the nation and around the globe.
The answer – meet ICLEI, a non-profit, private foundation, dedicated to helping locally elected representatives fully implement Agenda 21 in the community.
Originally known as the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI), today the group simply calls itself “ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability.”
In 1992, ICLEI was one of the groups instrumental in creating Agenda 21.
The group’s mission is to push local communities to transform the way governments operate, creating a “community plan,” creating a wide range of non-elected planning and councils which then impose severe regulations and oversight policies, affecting every homeowner, every business, every school; literally every aspect of the citizen’s lives.
And it’s having tremendous success.
Currently there are over 600 American cities in which ICLEI is being paid dues with tax dollars from city councils to implement and enforce Sustainable Development. ICLEI is there to assure that the mayors keep their promises and meet their goals. Climate change and the goal to cut the communities carbon footprint is, of course, the ICLEI mantra.
Here’s just some of the programs ICLEI provides cities and towns, in order to spread their own particular political agenda in the name of “community services” and environmental protection, they include:
Software programs to help set the goals for community development – which leads to controlling use of private property;
Access to a network of “Green” experts, newsletters, conferences and workshops – to assure all city employees are in the process;
Toolkits, online resources, case studies, fact sheets, policy and practice manuals, and blueprints used by other communities;
Training workshops for staff and elected officials on how to develop and implement the programs;
And, of course, there’s Notification of relevant grant opportunities – this is the important one – money – with severe strings attached.
ICLEI recommends that the community hire a full time “sustainability manager,” who, even in small towns, can devote 100% of his time to assure that every nook and corner of the government is on message and under control.
Using environmental protection as the excuse, these programs are about reinventing government with a specific political agenda. ICLEI and others are dedicated to transforming every community in the nation to the Agenda 21 blueprint.
In addition to ICLEI, groups like the Sierra Club, Nature Conservancy and Audubon Society, NGOs which also helped write Sustainable Development policy have chapters in nearly every city. They know that Congress has written legislation providing grants for cities that implement Sustainablist policy. They agitate to get the cities to accept the grants.
If a city rejects the plan, they then agitate to the public, telling them that their elected representatives have cost the city millions in “their” tax dollars. In the end, through such tactics, the NGOs usually get their way.
The NGOs are joined in their efforts by professional planning groups and associations such as the American Planning Association (APA), The Renaissance Planning Group, and the International City/County Management association (ICMA). IN fact there are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of non-profits, NGOs and planning groups living off the grant money, working to enforce Sustainable Development policy at every level of government.
The APA - Professional Planners [or Anti-Capitalist Political Advocacy?] APA embraces ICLEI Programmes(s)
1.1 "The built envoronment is a primary contributor to climate change" ...Business as usual will not suffice."
1.3 Social Equity and Climate CHange (&Environmental Justice)
2.4 #6: "Should reduce reliance on coal..."
2.4 #10: Growe food for local consumption(Starve the world?)
2.4 #14: Reduce VMT (Vehicle Miles Travelled)
2.4 #15: Cap & Trade for carbon ...needed.
Land Use #15: Create city-funded housing repair programs
Transportation #4: Increase CAFE standards
Here Are Just a Few to Watch For:
The American Planning Association (APA) is the nation’s leading enforcer of Sustainable policy. It came into being in 1978 and can be found in literally every community in the nation. It doesn’t have the same open ties to the UN as does
ICLEI, but is every bit as involved, if not more so.
The APA’s “Growing Smart Legislative Guide Book” is found in nearly every university, state and county in the country. It is the planning guide preferred by most urban and regional planners.
The American Planning Association is one of many members of the PCSD. They partner with ICLEI & ICMA in the implementation of sustainable development. ICMA, International City / County Management Association, is an organization
of professional local government leaders building sustainable communities worldwide.
Christchurch, New Zealand
ICMA provides technical and management assistance, training, and information resources in the areas of performance measurement, ethics education and training, community and economic development, environmental management, technology, and other topics to its members and the broader local government community.
They are aided in their efforts through such as the U.S. Conference of Mayors, National Governors Association, National League of Cities, the National Association of County Administrators and several more groups that are supposed to
represent elected officials.
The Renaissance Planning Group is an urban planning firm. They played a critical role in Florida’s “Forever Program”. The Forever Program is Florida’s premier conservation and recreation lands acquisition program. Florida Forever is the
largest public land acquisition program of its kind in the United States.
With approximately 9.8 million acres of conservation land in Florida, more than 2.4 million acres were purchased under the Florida Forever and P2000 programs.
Propaganda from idiots for idiots
In 2007, the Virginia state legislature passed HB 3202 mandating that counties with the prescribed growth rate establish high density urban development areas. As a result, to date, 67 counties in the Commonwealth of Virginia are required to establish “urban development areas”.
The process and proposed land use planning that is being implemented, follows the very same policies called for in Agenda 21’s biodiversity plan. This requirement by the state forces local governments to compromise your private property through zoning measures called for in the Smart Growth program for sustainable development.
The American Farmland Trust (AFT) formed in 1980, works to acquire and control farmer development rights and the purchase of Agriculture Easements which drastically reduce, if not eliminate private ownership of the land.
"We believe planning should be a tool for allocating resources... and eliminating the great inequalities of wealth and power in our society... because the free market has proven incapable of doing this."
The Danger is in the “Process”
Sustainable policies are being sold universally to the public as a means to protect the environment and control growth. That is simply the excuse for the policies being implemented in its name.
The real problem is the “PROCESS” through which Sustainable Development is being forced on unsuspecting citizens.
The comprehensive land use plans are being steered by planning groups through manipulation by facilitated stakeholder consensus councils.
Though their meetings are “open” to the public, they are void of any public input.
The predetermined outcome severely restricts land use and compromises private property ownership in an already distressed market.
They answer to no one and they are run by zealots with their own political agenda imposing international laws and regulations.
Local homeowners have no say in the process and in most cases are shut out. Sometimes they are literally thrown out of council meetings because they want to discuss how a regulation is going to affect their property or livelihood.
Communities have dealt with local problems for 200 years. Some use zoning, some don’t. But locally elected town councils and commissioners, which meet and discuss problems with the citizens, are how this nation was built and prospered.
Today, under Sustainable Development, NGOs like ICLEI and the APA move in to establish non-elected boards, councils and regional government bodies.
Despite the Senate’s refusal to ratify the Biodiversity Treaty in 1994, the Agenda 21 policies called for by the convention, are being implemented nationwide. No matter where you live, rest assured Agenda 21 policies are being implemented in your community.
Proponents of Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development attempt to ridicule those who oppose the programs as being paranoid radicals who are spreading conspiracy theories about what they call an “obscure 20 year old UN document.”
Yet, in 2012 the UN sponsored Rio+20, in which 50,000 delegates from around the world to celebrate Agenda 21 and find means to complete its implementation.
Sustainable Development is not about “saving the environment.” It is about a revolutionary coup. It is about establishing global governance and abandoning the principles of Natural Law on which America was founded.
The politically-based environmental movement provides Sustainablists camouflage as they work to transform global systems of government, justice, and economics.
It’s a masterful mixture of Socialism, (with its top-down control of the tools of the economy); fascism (where property is owned in name only – with no private control); and Corporatism, (where partnerships between government and private business create government sanctioned monopolies.)
Sustainable Development is the worst of both the left and the right. It is bad policy pushed by both liberal and conservatives.
It is a new kind of tyranny that, if not stopped, will surely lead all human kind to a new Dark Ages of pain and misery.
What has Sustainability Become? Unfortunately, the environmental movement has been hijacked as a convenient excuse to attack capitalism; blame America; transfer wealth; impinge on Constitutional rights; and install a government-run socio-economic system.
United Nations paradigm:Capitalism and private property rights are not sustainable, and pose the single greatest threat to the world's ecosystem and social equity.
How to Fight Back Against Sustainable Development
Be aware of the world in which your elected officials live.
See below: ICLEI doesn't come with flashing lights that say "ICLEI".
It comes wrapped in a plain green package labelled "Smart Growth" or "Sustainability":
You need to know who the players are and you need to understand the political world your officials are operating in.
This may help you to understand that perhaps they aren’t all evil globalists, but, perhaps, good people who are surrounded by powers that won’t let them see the reality of the policies they are helping to implement.
I’m certainly not making excuses for them, but before you rush in and start yelling about their enforcing UN policies on the community, here are some things you should consider.
In most communities, you mayor, city council members and county commissioners are automatically members of national organizations like the National Conference of Mayors, National League of Cities, and the national associations for city council members, and the same for commissioners.
Those in the state government also have the National Governors Association and state legislators have their national organization.
For the past twenty years or more, each and every one of these national organizations have been promoting Sustainable
Development and related policies. The National Mayors Conference and the National Governors Association have been leaders in this agenda, many times working directly with UN organizations to promote the policy.
That is the message your local elected leaders hear; from the podium; from fellow officials from other communities; from “experts” they’ve been told to respect; in committee meetings; from dinner speakers; from literature they are given at such meetings.
They are told of legislation that will be soon be implemented, and they are even provided sample legislation to introduce in their communities.
Back home, they are surrounded by a horde of “stakeholder” groups, each promoting a piece of the agenda, be it policies for water control, energy control, development control, specific building materials control, historic preservation and control of “downtown” development, conservation easements and development rights for control of rural property.
These groups like ICLEI, the American Planning Association, the Renaissance Planning Group, and many more, are heavily involved with state and federal plans. They arrive in your community with blue prints, state and federal plans, grants and lots of contacts in high places.
There are official programs for “going Green,” Comprehensive land use plans, and lots of programs for the kids in the classrooms.
There is also a second horde involved in the Sustainablist invasion – state and federal agency officials including EPA agents; air and water quality agents; Interior Department officials, HUD officials, energy officials, Commerce Department officials, and on and on – all targeting your locally elected officials with policy, money, regulations, reports, special planning boards, meetings, and conferences, all promoting the exact same agenda.
And don’t forget the news media, both locally and nationally, also promoting the Sustainablist agenda, attacking anyone not going along, ready to quickly use the “extremist” label against them.
The message is clear - Sustainable Development is reality – politically correct, necessary, unquestionable, and it has “consensus.”
Is your head spinning yet? Think of the affect all of this has on a poor local official who just thought he would run for office and serve his community. This is his reality. This is what he thinks government is supposed to be because, after all, everyone he is dealing with says so.
Now, as he is surrounded by all of these important, powerful folks, along comes a local citizen who tells him that some guy named Tom DeWeese says all of these programs are from the UN and are taking away our liberty.
Who? He said what? Come on, I’m not doing that. And I don’t have time to talk about it. I have another meeting to go to.
If we are going to successfully fight Agenda 21, it is vitally important that we all recognize this reality as we plan to deal with it and defeat it. With that in mind, I offer the following ideas.
How to Fight Back
First and foremost, don’t try to fight alone. If you try to attend local meetings by yourself you will be ignored. You will need others to plan and implement strategy.
You have family and friends. Start with them. Ask them to help look into some local policies. Even if they start off skeptical about your concerns, it won’t take them long to see the truth.
Check out of there is a local tea party or even a local Republican group. Churches are a target of such policies. Alert people at your church and ask them to help fight back.
Find people to help you!
Research: Don’t even begin to open up a fight until you know certain details. First, who are the players in your community. What privately funded “stakeholder” groups are there? What is their agenda?
What other communities have they operated in? What projects? What results? Who are their members in your community?
Are they residents or did they come from “out of town?” (That could prove to be valuable information later in the fight). Finding this information may be the hardest of your efforts. They like to operate out of the spotlight.
It’s not likely that the town will carry official documentation of who it is working with. It probably will require that you attend lots of meetings and hearings. Take note of who is there and their role. Do this quietly. Don’t announce to the community what you are doing. Don’t make yourselves a target. You may have to ask questions and that may raise some eyebrows. But stay out of the way as much as possible.
Second, get all the details on the plans your community is working on. Has there already been legislation passed? Most of this information can be found on the town website. Knowing this information will help you put together a plan of action.
Once you have it, you can begin to take your fight public.
With the information you have gathered, begin to examine the effect the policies will have on the community and its residents. Find who the victims of the legislation or regulation may be. This will be of great value as you confront city council. People understand victim stories – especially if it is them. It is the best way to undermine the process – and help get people to join your cause.
You will find that Conservation Easements have raised taxes as much of the county land is removed from the tax rolls – someone has to make up for the lost revenue and the payment of easements. Are “stakeholder” groups helping to get landowners to sign up for the easements – and if so – do they get any kind of kickbacks?
Who are getting the easements? You may find the rich land owners have found a great loophole to cut their own property taxes as the middle class makes up the short fall. This will help bring usually disinterested people to your cause.
Does the community plan call for reduction of energy use? If so, look for calls for energy audits and taxes on energy use. The audits mean that the government has set a goal to reduce energy use. It may follow that government agents are going to come into your home to inspect your energy use.
Then they are going to tell you what must be done in your home to cut usage. That will cost you money. Don’t fall for the line that it is all voluntary – to help you save money.
They haven’t gone to this much trouble to be ignored. Regulations are not voluntary.
These are just a couple of examples of what to look for as you do your research.
There are many more, including meters on wells to control water use, smart meters to take away your control of your thermostat; non elected boards and councils to control local development and implement smart growth, leading to
population growth; Public / Private Partnerships with local and large corporations to “go Green;” creation of open space; pushing back live stock from streams, enforcing sustainable farming methods that restrict energy and water use in farming practices; and much more.
It all leads to higher costs and shortages, in the name of environmental protection and conservation and controlling growth (anti-sprawl, they call it).
Your goal is to stop Sustainable Development in your community. That means a campaign to stop the creation of non-elected regional government councils that are difficult to hold accountable.
It means to stop local governments from taking grants that come with massive strings attached to enforce compliance.
And it means you must succeed in removing outsider organizations and Stakeholder groups that are pressuring your elected officials to do their bidding. Civic Action: Armed with as much information as you can gather (and armed with the ability to coherently discuss its details) you are ready to take your battle to the public.
First, it would be better for you to try to discuss it privately with some of your elected officials, especially if you know them. Tell them what you have found and explain why you are opposed.
First discuss the effects of the policies on the average citizen. Explain why they are bad. Only very slowly should you bring the conversation around to the origin of such polices - Agenda 21 and the UN.
Don’t start there. It is important that you build the case to show that these policies are not local, but part of a national and international agenda. If this conversation does not go well (and it probably won’t) then you have to take it to the next level – to the public.
Begin a two fold campaign. First, write a series of letters to the editor for the local newspaper. Make sure that you are not alone.
Coordinate your letters with others who will also write letters to back up and support what you have written. These will generate more letters from others, some for your position and other against you.
Be prepared to answer those against you as they are probably written by those “Stakeholders” who are implementing the policies in the first place. This may be a useful place for you to use what you’ve learned about these groups to discredit them.
Second, begin to attend Council meetings and ask questions. The response from the council members will determine your next move. If you are ignored and your questions met with silence or hostility, prepare a news release detailing your questions and the background you have as to why you asked those questions.
Pass the news release out to the people at the next meeting as well as the news media. Attend the next meeting and the next demanding answers. Be sure to organize people to come with you.
Don’t try this alone. If necessary, have demonstrators outside city hall carrying signs or handing out flyers with the name and picture of the officials who won’t answer your questions along with the question you asked – including the details you have about the policy.
The point in all of this is to make the issue public. Take away their ability to hide the details from the public. Expose the hoards of outsiders who are dictating policy in your community. Force the people you elected to deal with YOU – not the army of self-appointed “stakeholders” and government officials. Shine a very right spotlight on the roaches under the rock.
If the newspaper is with you, great, but you will probably find it working with the other side. It may be difficult to get a fair shake in the newspaper or on radio.
That’s why you deliver your news releases to both the media and the public. Get signs, and flyers in stores if necessary. And keep it up for as long as it takes. Don’t stop the public demonstration until you had acquired victory, or at least started a public debate.
The final step is to use the energy you have created to run candidates for office against those who have ignored and fought you. Ultimately, that is the office holders worst nightmare and may be the most effective way to get them to respond and serve their constituents.
As mentioned in the beginning, over the past couple of years, as we’ve educated people on Agenda 21 and its UN origins, the natural reaction by concerned citizens and activists has been to rush into city hall and accuse their elected representatives of implementing international policies on the town.
This has, of course, been met with skepticism and ridicule on the part of some of the elected officials (egged on by the NGO stakeholder groups and planning organizations).
Today, the promoters of Agenda 21, including ICLEI and the American Planning Association (APA) have worked overtime to paint our movement as crazed conspiracy theorists wearing tin foil hats and hearing voices.
So, it’s time to change tactics.
Here is an undeniable fact: Agenda 21 / Sustainable Development cannot be enforced without usurping or diminishing private property rights. So, we need to begin to challenge the plans that affect private property rights.
However, as we move in that direction, we must have a clear understanding of what property rights are. Many people today have little or varying ideas of property rights.
Forty years ago people understood things like “No Trespassing,” “My home is my castle,” and “step across that line and suffer the consequences.” Such ideas today seem quaint and antiquated to many, especially with government invading private property at will.
Sometimes, in order to purchase property or to get access to services, we sign documents that say government or utility agents are free to come on our property at will. The idea of “Keep Out” is almost unheard of.
However, to demand that your private property be honored and protected a definition must be established before you start the effort.
As you stand in front of the elected officials at their regular meeting, ask them simply;
“As you bring these planners into our community and begin to implement their programs, what guarantees do I have that you will protect my private property rights?”
At this point you haven’t mentioned Agenda 21, and you haven’t attacked planning. You are simply asking a non-combative question.
They will assure you that they are in full support of protecting private property.
And then you say;
“Well, I’m happy to hear that. But, I would really like to have that in writing.”
And you present the resolution to them. If you can read it aloud to the meeting, so much the better. They may say they need to take it under consideration and will get back to you. Fine.
Make sure you are back at the next meeting to ask about it. If they say “No.” You simply ask “Why?” and take it from there.
Do not attempt this alone. The key to this effort is persistence and organization.
If they have refused to sign it then you need 5 or 10 people to stand up and ask why. You need to escalate this at each meeting until it becomes a public issue -
“Why won’t your elected officials sign a simple document that says they will protect your private property rights? What are they hiding in the plans they are presenting to us?”
This can and will lead to protests, letters to the editor and other media available to you. Put the elected officials’ names on signs carried by protestors who are rallying outside the next council or planning meeting.
Make them the issue. What you are really doing is laying the ground work for a campaign to defeat them in the next election. It is also important to do research into what planning groups, non-governmental organizations (NGO’s) federal grants and agencies may be involved in the process. All of them have a background.
Find out who they are and what they have done in the past in other communities and present that info to your fellow citizens as a warning of what is to come. I recommend that you create a “rapid response team” to be prepared to immediately respond in the media to anything they do. Make them scared to act.
If ICLEI is in your city, the details about Agenda 21 and the UN connection is easier. Your community is paying them dues with your tax dollars. Here is how to handle them:
If your council derides your statements that their policies come from the UNs Agenda 21, simply print out the home page from ICLEI’s web site: www.iclei.org
This will have all of the UN connections you’ve been talking about, in ICLEI’s own words.
Pass out the web page copies to everyone in the chamber audience and say to your elected officials;
“Don’t call me a radical simply for reporting what ICLEI openly admits on its own web site. I’m just the one pointing it out – you are the ones who are paying our tax dollars to them.”
Then demand that those payment stop. You have proven your case.
Stopping Consensus Meetings
Most public meetings are now run by trained and highly paid facilitators whose jobs is to control the meeting and bring it to a preplanned conclusion. If he is good at his job, the facilitator can actually make the audience think the “consensus” they have reached on and issue or proposal is actually their idea.
This is how Sustainable Development is being implemented across the nation, especially in meetings or planning boards that are advertised as open to the public.
They really don’t want you there and the tactic is used to move forward in full view of the public without them knowing what is happening. There is nothing free or open about the consensus process.
It is designed to eliminate debate and close discussion.
To bust up the process you must never participate, even to answer a question.
To do so allows the facilitator to make you part of the process. Instead, you must control the discussion.
Here is a quick suggestion on how to foul up the works:
Never go alone to such a meeting. You will need at least three people – the more the better.
Do not sit together. Instead, fan out in the room in a triangle formation.
Know ahead of time the questions you want to ask: Who is the facilitator?
What is his association with the organizers? Is he being paid?
Where did these programs (being proposed) come from? How are they to be funded?
One question to ask over and over again, both at facilitated meetings and city council meetings, is this:
“With the implementation of this policy, tell me a single right or action I have on my property that doesn’t require your approval or involvement. What are my rights as a property owner?”
Make them name it.
You will quickly see that they too understand there are no property rights left. By asking these questions you are putting his legitimacy in question, building suspicion among the rest of the audience, destroying his authority.
will try to counter, either by patronizing and humoring you, at first, or, then becoming hostile, moving to have you removed as a disruptive force.
That’s where the rest of your group comes in. They need to back you up, demand answers to your questions. If you have enough people in the room you can cause a major disruption, making it impossible for the facilitator to move forward with his agenda.
Do not walk out and leave the room to him. Stay to the end and make him shut down the meeting.
These suggestions on how to fight back are, admittedly, very basic and elementary. They are meant only to be a guideline. You will have to do your homework and adapt these tactics to your local situation.
These tactics are designed to create controversy and debate to force the Agenda 21 issue out of the secret meetings and into public debate where they belong.
Many of these same tactics can be used at all levels of government, right up and into national legislation.
Our plan is to demand answers from elected officials who want to ignore us.
They must be taught that such actions have consequences. As we learn new, successful tactics, I’ll share them with activists across the world.
The American Policy Center is now a partner in a new effort to create tactics and provide education to activists called Sustainable Freedom Lab - and hopefully it can serve as a resource for thw eorld, not just America. Here activists can share their findings, successful tactics and research with the rest of the movement.
The exciting news is that, finally, people are starting to understand that Agenda 21 is destroying our nations and they are beginning to fight back. The UN Agenda 21 house of cards is being exposed and it will fall with continued efforts and exposure by the people, and for the people - not just America - Worldwide.
The battle to stop the UN’s Agenda 21 is ragging on the local level across the world.
This document describes nothing less than a global government takeover of every nation across the planet.
The "goals" of this document are nothing more than code words for a corporate-government fascist agenda that will imprison humanity in a devastating cycle of poverty while enriching the world's most powerful globalist corporations like Monsanto and DuPont.
In the interests of helping wake up humanity, I've decided to translate the 17 points of this 2030 agenda so that readers everywhere can understand what this document is really calling for.
To perform this translation, you have to understand how globalists disguise their monopolistic agendas in "feel good" language.
Here's the point-by-point translation. Notice carefully that nowhere does this document state that "achieving human freedom" is one of its goals.
Nor does it explain HOW these goals are to be achieved. As you'll see here, every single point in this UN agenda is to be achieved through centralized government control and totalitarian mandates that resemble communism.
Translation of the UN's "2030 Agenda Blueprint for Globalist Government" (Controlled by Corporate Interests)
Goal 1. End poverty in all its forms everywhere
Translation: Put everyone on government welfare, food stamps, housing subsidies and handouts that make them obedient slaves to global government. Never allow people upward mobility to help themselves.
Instead, teach mass victimization and obedience to a government that provides monthly "allowance" money for basic essentials like food and medicine. Label it "ending poverty."
Goal 2. End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture
Translation: Invade the entire planet with GMOs and Monsanto's patented seeds while increasing the use of deadly herbicides under the false claim of "increased output" of food crops.
Engineer genetically modified plants to boost specific vitamin chemicals while having no idea of the long-term consequences of genetic pollution or cross-species genetic experiments carried out openly in a fragile ecosystem.
Goal 3. Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages
Translation: Mandate 100+ vaccines for all children and adults at gunpoint, threatening parents with arrest and imprisonment if they refuse to cooperate. Push heavy medication use on children and teens while rolling out "screening" programs. Call mass medication "prevention" programs and claim they improve the health of citizens.
Goal 4. Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all
Translation: Push a false history and a dumbed-down education under "Common Core" education standards that produce obedient workers rather than independent thinkers. Never let people learn real history, or else they might realize they don't want to repeat it.
Goal 5. Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls
Translation: Criminalize Christianity, marginalize heterosexuality, demonize males and promote the LGBT agenda everywhere. The real goal is never "equality" but rather the marginalization and shaming of anyone who expresses any male characteristics whatsoever.
The ultimate goal is to feminize society, creating widespread acceptance of "gentle obedience" along with the self-weakening ideas of communal property and "sharing" everything.
Because only male energy has the strength to rise up against oppression and fight for human rights, the suppression of male energy is key to keeping the population in a state of eternal acquiescence.
Goal 6. Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all
Translation: Allow powerful corporations to seize control of the world's water supplies and charge monopoly prices to "build new water delivery infrastructure" that "ensures availability."
Goal 7. Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all
Translation: Penalize coal, gas and oil while pushing doomed-to-fail "green" energy subsidies to brain-dead startups headed by friends of the White House who all go bankrupt in five years or less.
The green startups make for impressive speeches and media coverage, but because these companies are led by corrupt idiots rather than capable entrepreneurs, they always go broke. (And the media hopes you don't remember all the fanfare surrounding their original launch.)
Goal 8. Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all
Translation: Regulate small business out of existence with government-mandated minimum wages that bankrupt entire sectors of the economy. Force employers to meet hiring quotas of LGBT workers while mandating wage tiers under a centrally planned work economy dictated by the government. Destroy free market economics and deny permits and licenses to those companies that don't obey government dictates.
Goal 9.) Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster innovation
Translation: Put nations into extreme debt with the World Bank, spending debt money to hire corrupt American corporations to build large-scale infrastructure projects that trap developing nations in an endless spiral of debt.
See the book Confessions of an Economic Hit Man by John Perkins to understand the details of how this scheme has been repeated countless times over the last several decades.
Goal 10. Reduce inequality within and among countries
Translation: Punish the rich, the entrepreneurs and the innovators, confiscating nearly all gains by those who choose to work and excel. Redistribute the confiscated wealth to the masses of non-working human parasites that feed off a productive economy while contributing nothing to it... all while screaming about "equality!"
Goal 11. Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable
Translation: Ban all gun ownership by private citizens, concentrating guns into the hands of obedient government enforcers who rule over an unarmed, enslaved class of impoverished workers.
Criminalize living in most rural areas by instituting Hunger Games-style "protected areas" which the government will claim are owned by "the People" even though no people are allowed to live there. Force all humans into densely packed, tightly controlled cities where they are under 24/7 surveillance and subject to easy manipulation by government.
Goal 12. Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns
Translation: Begin levying punitive taxes on the consumption of fossil fuels and electricity, forcing people to live under conditions of worsening standards of living that increasingly resemble Third World conditions.
Use social influence campaigns in TV, movies and social media to shame people who use gasoline, water or electricity, establishing a social construct of ninnies and tattlers who rat out their neighbors in exchange for food credit rewards.
Goal 13. Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts
Translation: Set energy consumption quotas on each human being and start punishing or even criminalizing "lifestyle decisions" that exceed energy usage limits set by governments. Institute total surveillance of individuals in order to track and calculate their energy consumption.
Penalize private vehicle ownership and force the masses onto public transit, where TSA grunts and facial recognition cameras can monitor and record the movement of every person in society, like a scene ripped right out of Minority Report.
Goal 14. Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development
Translation: Ban most ocean fishing, plunging the food supply into an extreme shortage and causing runaway food price inflation that puts even more people into economic desperation.
Criminalize the operation of private fishing vessels and place all ocean fishing operations under the control of government central planning. Only allow favored corporations to conduct ocean fishing operations (and make this decision based entirely on which corporations give the most campaign contributions to corrupt lawmakers).
Goal 15. Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss
Translation: Roll out Agenda 21 and force humans off the land and into controlled cities. Criminalize private land ownership, including ranches and agricultural tracts. Tightly control all agriculture through a corporate-corrupted government bureaucracy whose policies are determined almost entirely by Monsanto while being rubber-stamped by the USDA.
Ban woodstoves, rainwater collection and home gardening in order to criminalize self-reliance and force total dependence on government.
Goal 16. Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels
Translation: Grant legal immunity to illegal aliens and "protected" minority groups, which will be free to engage in any illegal activity -- including openly calling for the mass murder of police officers -- because they are the new protected class in society. "Inclusive institutions" means granting favorable tax structures and government grants to corporations that hire LGBT workers or whatever groups are currently in favor with the central planners in government.
Use government agencies to selectively punish unfavorable groups with punitive audits and regulatory harassment, all while ignoring the criminal activities of favored corporations that are friends of the political elite.
Goal 17. Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development
Translation: Enact global trade mandates that override national laws while granting unrestricted imperialism powers to companies like Monsanto, Dow Chemical, RJ Reynolds, Coca-Cola and Merck.
Pass global trade pacts that bypass a nation's lawmakers and override intellectual property laws to make sure the world's most powerful corporations maintain total monopolies over drugs, seeds, chemicals and technology. Nullify national laws and demand total global obedience to trade agreements authored by powerful corporations and rubber-stamped by the UN.
Total enslavement of the planet by 2030 As the UN document says, "We commit ourselves to working tirelessly for the full implementation of this Agenda by 2030."
If you read the full document and can read beyond the fluffery and public relations phrases, you'll quickly realize that this UN agenda is going to be forced upon all the citizens of the world through the invocation of government coercion.
Nowhere does this document state that the rights of the individual will be protected.
Nor does it even acknowledge the existence of human rights granted to individuals by the Creator.
Even the so-called "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" utterly denies individuals the right to self defense, the right to medical choice and the right to parental control over their own children.
The UN is planning nothing less than a global government tyranny that enslaves all of humanity while calling the scheme "sustainable development" and "equality."
1984 has finally arrived. And of course it's all being rolled out under the fraudulent label of "progress."
However, it is not too late. Awareness is required before action may be taken.
Explosive: A Review Of Fake Medical Tests March 5 2018 | From:JonRappoport
Over the years, during my investigations of deep fraud, I’ve uncovered very popular medical diagnostic tests that are wrong-headed, misleading, and fallacious.
Acceptance of this shocking truth would disrupt the “disease business” like a threshing machine moving through a wheat field.
Claims of diseases, based on tests, would be routinely turned back stamped UNPROVEN and FAKE.
One:Antibody test. This is given to detect the presence of a specific germ in a human. Prior to 1985, a positive test was generally taken as a sign of good health: the patient’s immune system detected the germ and defeated it.
However, after 1985, public health agencies and doctors reversed field. They arbitrarily claimed a positive test showed the person was ill or was going to become ill. No true science backed up this claim.
Bottom Line: The truth is, a positive antibody test says nothing about whether a person is ill, will get ill, or is healthy. The true indicator is the strength of the entire immune system, not just the antibodies - and the overall strength of the immune system is NOT measured by an antibody test. THERE IS NO MEDICAL TEST THAT MEASURES THE OVERALL CONDITION OF A PERSON’S IMMUNE SYSTEM.
Two: The PCR test. The Polymerase Chain Reaction tests for the presence of virus in a patient. The test takes a tiny sample, which technicians assume is a genetic piece of a virus far too small to observe, and amplifies it many times, so it can be identified.
But in order to cause disease in a human, a huge quantity of virus (easily observed without the PCR) needs to be present. Therefore, a PCR test-result indicates nothing about disease-except that medical personnel couldn’t find enough virus in a person, to begin with, to assume the person was ill or would become ill.
Three: All tests resulting in a diagnosis of any of the 300 officially certified mental disorders. Why? Because there are no definitive tests. No blood or saliva or urine tests. No genetic assays. No brain scans. All so-called mental disorders are diagnosed on the basis of consulting menus of behaviors. This is pseudoscience. It’s on the level of diagnosing cancer in a patient on the basis of an interview.
Four: All tests designed to assess the effectiveness of vaccines. The only marker is: does the vaccine produce antibodies in a human. But as I stated above, antibodies are only one aspect of the immune system. They aren’t the whole picture. A weak immune system’s antibodies are useless.
Why? Because the overwhelming percentage of samples taken from the most likely Swine Flu patients, sent to labs, were coming back with no trace of Swine Flu or any other kind of flu. In other words, the epidemic was a dud and a hoax. Based on this vacuum of evidence, the CDC went on to estimate that, in America, there were 22 MILLION cases of Swine Flu.
This gigantic scandal doesn’t just apply to Swine Flu. It applies to any kind of flu.
Dr. Peter Doshi, writing in the online BMJ (British Medical Journal), reveals a monstrosity.
As Doshi states, every year, hundreds of thousands of respiratory samples are taken from flu patients in the US and tested in labs. Here is the kicker: only a small percentage of these samples show the presence of a flu virus.
This means: most of the people in America who are diagnosed by doctors with the flu have no flu virus in their bodies. So they don’t have the flu.
Therefore, even if you assume the flu vaccine is useful and safe, it couldn’t possibly prevent all those “flu cases” that aren’t flu cases.
The vaccine couldn’t possibly work. The vaccine isn’t designed to prevent fake flu, unless pigs can fly.
Here’s the exact quote from Peter Doshi’s BMJ review, “Influenza: marketing vaccines by marketing disease” (BMJ 2013; 346:f3037):
“…even the ideal influenza vaccine, matched perfectly to circulating strains of wild influenza and capable of stopping all influenza viruses, can only deal with a small part of the ‘flu’ problem because most ‘flu’ appears to have nothing to do with influenza.
Every year, hundreds of thousands of respiratory specimens are tested across the US. Of those tested, on average 16% are found to be influenza positive.”
“…It’s no wonder so many people feel that ‘flu shots’ don’t work: for most flus, they can’t.”