Technology Turns The Tables On Global Hegemons
July 30 2018 | From: JournalNeo
Centuries ago, technology like sailing ships, guns, and steel armor enabled Europeans to appear on South American shores and appear godlike to the natives. Through a combination of spreading disease and wielding military, organizational, economic and of course technological superiority, Europeans subjugated the native populations and conquered an entire continent.
European and eventually American technological superiority granted each and every subsequent century to the West. As military and manufacturing technology began to proliferate more freely and more rapidly following the World Wars, nations found themselves finally armed, economically independent and organized enough to throw off Western colonization.
It is a process that is still ongoing, with brief instances of technological advances in the West providing an economic or military edge before quickly being mitigated by that technology’s proliferation globally.
This decrease in lag time between Western technological breakthroughs and global catching up has put Western hegemony itself in danger.
It is a danger Western policymakers have been spending greater amounts of time considering, and because of that, so should policymakers the world over on how to protect and even enhance the global balance of power this reduction in lag is creating.
RAND Fears the Future
In a recent paper published by the RAND Corporation, a US policy think tank funded by, and working for the largest military and economic interests in the Western Hemisphere, fears of how technology may further erode the West’s technological and thus economic and military edge over a world it seeks hegemony over are explained.
“3D printers already produce everything from prosthetic hands and engine parts to basketball shoes and fancy chocolates. But as with any technological advance, new possibilities come with new perils.”
The 4 ways include - Hackers Could Use Printers to Cause Real-World Damage;
Printers Could Enable New Criminal and Security Threats;
Printed Guns Are Not the Biggest Risk and;
New Manufacturing Capabilities Could Endanger Jobs.
While some of the concerns RAND covers are legitimate, particularly the danger of computer code being altered to produce sabotaged parts, these are fears that already exist across existing manufacturing industries worldwide with strategies already developed to test manufactured parts before their use for critical applications.
3D Printed Firearms are Not a Real Threat
RAND cites the 3D printing of firearms by “terrorist groups,” however as the ongoing gun control debate in the US and terrorist attacks across the world prove, determined terrorist groups often carry out attacks using explosives or hijacked vehicles that kill far more people than single or even coordinated gun attacks.
And despite firearms being so ubiquitous in nations like the United States, homicide rates appear to be more affected by socioeconomic factors than merely access to firearms.
A person with access to a 3D printer who is not a murderer will not suddenly be compelled to murder because they can now “print” a firearm.
Unemployment is Also Not a Real Threat
The RAND report also waves the prospect of employment in front of potential readers to ratchet up fears. However while 3D printing will most certainly spell the end of factories in the intermediate to more distant future, what they have already proven is that localized manufacturing simply decentralizes manufacturing and the jobs that go along with manufacturing, as well as the profits.
To RAND’s credit, they recommend training and education to prepare people to assume jobs in additive manufacturing (3D printing).
The real fear, however, is that networks of local manufacturers will replace industrial monopolies, like those that fund RAND’s activities.
These localized manufacturers will benefit from equally decentralized and localized profits.
Power will shift from large corporations to local communities and individual entrepreneurs, enhancing the balance of socioeconomic power on a global, national and local level.
The End of Sanctions and Western-Dominated Globalization
Thus it is what RAND considers economic threats that reveal the true context of fears among RAND and special interests regarding newer, more accessible and more localized manufacturing technology.RAND’s article claims:
“Economic sanctions and trade embargoes would become far less effective if rogue states could simply print what they need. Isolated regimes or extremist groups could also use printers to manufacture weapons that previously required industrial expertise.
“Perversely,” the RAND researchers wrote, “(3D printing) might indirectly support the survival and rise of such states as North Korea, which would no longer suffer the same costs of withdrawing from the international community.”
Here RAND lays down its cards. With localized advanced manufacturing technology, attempts to cut nations off from the US-European dominated international order will become increasingly ineffective.
In fact many forms of more traditional manufacturing technology have already become cheaper and more accessible because of advances in technology, to nations once wholly dependent on Western corporations for technical expertise.
RAND also discusses fears over the end of globalization, claiming:
“At the same time, the trade ties that have held together nations - incentivizing cooperation over conflict - could fray. A car company, for example, might print and assemble the parts it needs on site, rather than making the parts in one country, shipping them to another for assembly, and selling the final product in a third.
A recent report by trade analysts at ING predicted that 3D printing could wipe out almost a quarter of cross-border trade by 2060. Those trade ties and supply chains, the RAND researchers noted, have contributed to a dramatic decrease in interstate war since World War II"
While it is true that these trade ties have “held together nations,” it is important to note that they are being held together to the primary benefit of a small handful of US and European corporations, industrialists and financial institutions who dominate and direct modern globalization.
Such ties have not provided an incentive to avoid conflict in favor of cooperation, as RAND suggests.
Instead, globalization, when viewed as a modern version of British colonial mercantilism, represents a system of monopoly and control, interconnecting nations that are beholden to the entire system, and of course, an entire system dominated, directed and which serves the US and Europe.Sanctions wielded by the US and Europe provide a perfect illustration of how this system really works and what its true purpose is.
Nations that do not accommodate US-European interests are penalized and unable to conduct business or maintain the economic health of their nations.
Multipolar Manufacturing for a Multipolar World
3D printing and other forms of advanced, localized manufacturing technology will undoubtedly reverse globalization and revitalize nationalism and localism.
However, the prospects of wars erupting in this age of new localized abundance will be less likely than it is today. This is because as socioeconomic and technological disparity decreases between the world’s most powerful nations and its weakest, so too will military disparity.
The risk of initiating a war against a much weaker nation versus the benefits a nation will receive is what currently drives US and European military aggression around the globe.
As nations become increasingly independent of globalization and as they acquire or develop military technology that improves military parity with the West, the smaller the list of potential targets for Western military aggression becomes.
Expanding socioeconomic and military parity is the true fear of US and European policymakers employed by large corporations whose power and domination stems from global disparity.
The emergence of decentralized, advanced manufacturing is inevitable.
Nations with realistic plans to usher in an orderly transition from traditional economics to a more localized future will reap the most benefits. Those who squander resources attempting to impede or even roll back the tide of technological change will be swept away by it.
For those determined to establish and maintain a truly multipolar world where national sovereignty holds primacy over international hegemons, creating a likewise multipolar industrial and economic foundation will be key.
Additive manufacturing like 3D printing will be one of the pillars upon that foundation.
The Three Varieties Of Money
July 29 2018 | From: FinalWakeupCall
The Illusion of Money: Money and banks are founded on faulty public sentiment. Money should be a symbol of value, the same way a little stone or carved piece of wood is a symbol of God. But, in the modern world, money is a commodity, like beer and cheese.
There are a many different kinds of money in exactly the same way as there are many brands of beer and cheese, and they all present their own national characters and peculiarities.
However, there is a profound difference between money which has a value in-and-of-itself, such as a gold coin that has intrinsic value, and legal tender currencies, like bonds, notes and letters of credit. At the same time there is additionally, a market in other securities, like stocks and commodity futures.
More precisely, todays’ money is valuable only as long as there is not too much of it. The market can absorb a little counterfeited money, but there’s a limit.
And that limit has been greatly exceeded, thanks to, a worldwide overcapacity in output, financed by former lending and a huge excess of cheap labour, largely financed by the credit expansion of the last 30 years.
Without these two unique circumstances, central banks’ irresponsible QE and ZIRP policies would probably have caused inflation to rise into the double-digit range or even higher, much earlier, maybe as far back as a decade ago?
Nowadays there is no further need to worry about how much governments borrow. Central banks buy government bonds – hold them on their balance sheets – return the interest payments – and the whole thing is set up in such a way as to be swiftly forgotten.
And when the bonds expire, central banks can use the repaid principal to buy more government debt!
In effect, today’s central banksters are doing something they previously could only dream of doing: printing money without causing a noticeable inflation. Politicians, too, are enjoying this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity of unaccounted for recklessness.
They are able to do what none could do before: borrow money without paying it back. The public has not read about these malpractices in the press yet, but it should be coming soon.
Regular readers who understood the earlier explained money scam know already that there is in actual fact no need for governments to repay their loans to central bankers, as the money governments borrow from central banks, doesn’t come from taxpayers, it comes from nowhere; from thin air, like the rest of the world’s money.
Three Varieties of Money
Think of the word “money” for a moment. What’s the first picture that comes to mind? Perhaps the folded pieces of paper in your wallet. Or the balance in your bank account.
Or perhaps the investments in your brokerage account. In today’s financial system, where unelected central bankers wield totalitarian control over the financial system, all three of these forms represent money, but the relationship between them is very shaky, and risky.
Physical cash, no matter where you live in the world, is used by every civilised nation on the planet. All nations have some form of physical currency in various denominations.
Dollars, Pounds, Euros, Yen, Renminbi. These pieces of paper are passed around as a medium of exchange. Go to the grocery store, and as long it is the local currency, you can pay for anything with physical cash. It is that simple.
Bank balances make it slightly more complicated. When logged into your bank’s website, you see a balance displayed on the screen. Don’t think for a second that there are a corresponding number of pieces of paper sitting in your bank’s vault. In fact, most banks have very little cash on hand.
Your balance is nothing more than an accounting entry on your bank’s balance sheet, which is likely maintained in a computer database. There’s no physical ‘money’ backing up this bank balance. It’s an annotation in a computer. Each bank customer’s savings is part of this complex system of accounting entries.
When you transfer money, the bank doesn’t send that amount in cash. They merely make an entry in the ledger, reducing your balance and increasing the one you are sending the money to for the same amount.
The same thing happens when a credit card is swiped to pay for something; banks exchange accounting entries that credit the vendor’s account and debit yours.
Nothing physical ever changes hands, it all takes place in digital ledgers. Given that this type of money exceeds physical cash by a factor of at least 10:1, it is correct to conclude that most modern currencies are in effect digital.
Government bonds are another form of money that most people often forget about. Generally, people will keep the majority of their life’s savings in their bank account. But, big banks or companies that have tens of billions don’t keep such vast sums of money in the bank. Certainly not all of it.
Companies, institutions, banks, and even foreign governments around the globe buy government bonds precisely because of their ‘cash equivalent’ status. This means that if the Chinese government is doing a deal with an African government for $1 billion, they can conduct the transaction using US government bonds as payment currency.
Varieties Exchange Rate
But, here is the problem we have as a society: Right now, each of these three types of money is basically considered as the same thing.
They just are different varieties of the same money, i.e. $1 million in government bonds equals a $1 million bank balance, which equals one million pieces of paper. But in actuality, they are three entirely separate currencies: Physical cash, digital cash, and government IOUs.
At this moment in time, these three varieties of money have a 1:1:1 exchange ratio, i.e. they’re freely interchangeable at parity. But this 1:1:1 variety exchange ratio (VER) actually depends on financial stability. And when there are serious problems, the exchange rate breaks down rapidly.
For example; in 2013 when the government of Cyprus froze bank accounts across the entire country. No one could access their bank balances for weeks. Clearly in an instance like this, the value of a bank balance becomes worthless. The only way to conduct a transaction was with physical cash.
So, in the event of a banking crisis, the variety exchange ratio changes quickly. Physical cash becomes much more valuable. It is the same thing in a government debt crisis. It is bizarre to think that the bonds of a bankrupt government are a widely accepted form of ‘risk-free’ savings among institutions.
But what happens when that bankrupt government defaults, or has to restructure its debt? The entire system breaks down. Suddenly the bonds are no longer ‘cash equivalents’, and there is a scramble to dump them and find another safe, reliable investment.
Cash is King
Similarly, the 1:1:1 VER quickly breaks down, just like it did in Greece. This is ultimately why it makes sense to hold some physical cash. You certainly won’t be worse off for holding some physical cash savings in a safe at home, especially since interest rates on bank balances are essentially zero.
Physical cash is by no means a magic bullet; it’s nothing more than a piece of paper printed by a government agency at the behest of an unelected central bank committee. Fundamentally, it has zero intrinsic value and in the long run all paper currencies will ultimately reach their intrinsic value of ZERO.
Future historians will wonder in utter disbelief how people could be so foolish as to assign any value whatsoever to paper and accept it as payment for delivered goods or services. – Nevertheless, in the short term, holding at least some physical cash makes sense as a hedge against financial calamity.
Trust and Debt Money Scam
To further expand on the concept of money, there are two more kinds of money in circulation, namely trust money, created out of people’s energy during the exchange between ordinary individuals, and debt money, created out of thin air by central banks and the banking industry through the fractional reserve scam.
The misuse of energy in the form of energy money causes suffering and death and is in violation with Galactic Law.
By legally equalising trust-money with debt-money, with an exchange rate of 1:1, debt money is given the same value as trust money, resulting in the fact that hardly anyone notices the scam that energy value equals with nothing.
Actually, debt money should have a much lower rating as there is a risk that the issuer could default on the debt!
This aqualisation results in inflation, which in itself is forthright theft; as the increase of the money supply goes far beyond social trust.
The conflict between the two kinds of money – trust versus debt money – must be clear: as a dollar can be spent only once – in principle for private transactions between citizens, but due to this manipulation scheme, it is also promised by governments to pay off the public debt to the central banks.
Through this scheme, governments are engaged in a crime scam, as they allocate and commit people’s money without the consent, nor knowledge and understanding of their citizens.
Government is Our Enemy
To keep it analytically simple: the creditor of the money is to be paid back – which is the Central Bank – with the same money created out of nothing.
This is an abusive scam between the Central Bank and the citizens of the world. By erecting a smoke screen, most people don’t notice the swindle: This is due to the fact that the government REQUIRES that citizens PAY their taxes in the currency of the central bank.
In short this commitment defines the essence of debt money.
As a result of this scheme, Inflation occurs, due to nothing more and nothing less than the injection of fiat money – debt money – into the existing amount of trust money. This is actually an ‘abuse of trust’ with regard to the people, or plainly defined FRAUD.
Everyone knows that debt must always be paid off, so the people collectively continue to pay off a debt to which they never made a commitment. This is a deliberate and blatant SCAM of the government.
This scam results in the following consequences: if all debt were to be repaid, then there would be no money left in circulation. Because the first component of the money supply – trust money – serves as collateral for the second – debt money – while the second is for the purchase of the first, so both shape the illusion of money. In other words,
Public debt is required to create money while the people are told that their money is needed to pay off public debt, which is, of course, complete nonsense and a huge lie!
The pledge of trust money is a promise. The collateral of debt money that arises from “debt” requires collateral for which taxes are created, collected by the government to pay off the ‘never-ending’ or perpetual debt to the Central Banks in the currency that the central bank itself has issued out of thin air.
This is subsequently mixed with the trust money already in circulation, making the SCAM invisible.
The System is Seen for What it Really is
So, the government is obviously our enemy. We have been betrayed. We should be angry and want to cry from frustration. But on the other hand, we must be glad and thankful to finally see through this scheme and see the system for what it really is, one that is physically and financially ruining us.
Let’s stop putting our trust in this impostor, the government, which, under the guise of being our faithful friend and a good provider, has betrayed us in favour of the multinationals and world financiers, the Deep State’s Brotherhood.
Let’s no longer ask for help, assistance, laws, etc., from our enemy. From today on, we should adopt the attitude of automatically being suspicious of all proposals, decisions or gifts coming from government. Always look this gift horse in the mouth.
If it suggests that we go right, we should go left. Even if we don’t know why, we will be sure to make the right decision, because government works against us, moving in the opposite direction should reap victory.
Remember; we do give the Deep State power by staying ignorant of their existence or by remaining angry about what they do without taking the appropriate action!
Read and use the information provided in the book THE GREAT AWAKENING – soon to be released in English – to combat your government, authorities and the evil Elite.
Don’t accept your slavery status any longer. Victory can be attained by simply walking away from it!
Exposé On Cabal-Driven Worldwide Terrorism Implemented By The United States And It's Allies
July 28 2018 | From: Sott / GlobalResearch / Various
J. Michael Springmann worked for the State Department in the 1980s, in Saudi Arabia. What he witnessed and experienced did not make much sense at the time, but what he later learned put it all in context, and helped to explain the entire course of U.S. foreign policy for the next 30 years.
In short, just as the CIA provided funding and training for radical Mujahideen to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan, they have been doing the same thing ever since. Prior to 9/11, this legion of foreign fighters was used to destabilize and destroy Yugoslavia. Afterward, Iraq, Libya, and today Syria.
For this entire period of time, al-Qaeda has been a fighting force for America, a fact that has been known for years, but which is only now going mainstream due to American failures and Russian successes in Syria.
Today, we interview Mr. Springmann about his time at the consulate in Jeddah, and the events that led him to blow the whistle and expose the reality of the U.S.'s creation and support of terrorism around the globe.
In the second hour of the show, we discussed the latest Trump and Clinton leaks, and how they reveal what everyone should have already known: politicians are two-faced and corrupt, and fairly unsavory individuals. Brent closed the show with another Police State Round-up on police un-accountability.
Since the United States was founded in 1776, she has been at war during 214 out of her 235 calendar years of existence. In other words, there were only 21 calendar years in which the U.S. did not wage any wars.
To put this in perspective:
Pick any year since 1776 and there is a bout a 91% chance that America was involved in some war during that calendar year.
No U.S. president truly qualifies as a peacetime president. Instead, all U.S. presidents can technically be considered “war presidents.”
The U.S. has never gone a decade without war.
The Americans Stand on Our Side and Give us Weapons - Jabhat al-Nusra (Al Qaeda) Commander in Syria
US weapons are being delivered to Al-Nusra Front by governments that Washington supports, a militant commander has told German media. RT discusses the interview with Jürgen Todenhöfer, the journalist who spoke to the Al-Nusra commander.
The CIA has been coordinating weapon deliveries on the Turkey-Syria border, German journalist Jurgen Todenhofer, who recently spoke with a Jabhat al-Nusra commander, told RT. He added that the US knows that the weapons it delivers to rebels end up with terrorists.
“This is a game everybody knows. It’s very clear that the Americans know that their weapons will in the end be in the hands of terrorists,” Todenhofer said speaking to RT.
The only time in the U.S. went five years without war (1935-40) was during the isolationist period of the Great Depression.
In most of these wars, the U.S. was on the offense. Admit- tedly some of the wars were defensive. However, the above list leaves out covert CIA operations and other acts which could be considered war.
Let’s update what’s happened since 2011:
2012 – War on Terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Syria and Yemen
2013 – War on Terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Syria and Yemen
2014 – War on Terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Syria and Yemen; Civil War in Ukraine 2015 – War on Terror in Somalia, Syria and Yemen; Civil War in Ukraine
So we can add four more years of war. That means that for 222 out of 239 years – or 93% of the time – America has been at war. (We can quibble with the exact numbers, but the high percentage of time that America has been at war is clear and unmistakable.)
Indeed, most of the military operations launched since World War II have been launched by the U.S. And Ameri- can military spending dwarfs the rest of the world put together.
No wonder polls show that the world believes America is the number 1 threat to peace. Sott Comment: Rather staggering, don’t you think? Also, for many of the war years, the US had multiple opponents. After all this war practice, we might rightly expect a simple bombing raid on ISIS to produce results.
America’s history reflects violence. It’s blood-drenched. It glorifies war. It does so in the name of peace. However, this agenda is not driven by the American people so much as it is driven from up on high by the Cabal leadership who manipulate the sleeping masses to buy into actions that only appear to be "American".
The US / NATO is the tool and the scapegoat of the 'global elite's' New World Order.
America believes war is peace. It’s part of the national culture. Eventually it’s self-destructive. Today’s super-weapons make the unthinkable possible.
Hyman Rickover knew. He knew decades ago. He founded America’s nuclear navy. In 1982, he told Congress:
“I do not believe that nuclear power is worth it if it creates radiation.” Then you might ask me why do I have nuclear powered ships?”
“That is a necessary evil. I would sink them all. I am not proud of the part I played in it. I did it because it was necessary for the safety of this country.”
That’s why I am such a great exponent of stopping this whole nonsense of war. Unfortunately limits – attempts to limit war have always failed.”
“The lesson of history is when a war starts every nation will ultimately use whatever weapon it has available.”
“Every time you produce radiation, you produce something that has a certain half-life, in some cases for billions of years.”
“I think the human race is going to wreck itself, and it is important that we get control of this horrible force and try to eliminate it.”
In his Der Ring des Nibelungen operas (the Ring), Richard Wagner portrayed his apocalyptic version. He did so musically. Gotterdammerung (Twilight of the Gods) prophesied the end of the world.
It did so with enough overwhelming power to fight and win global wars against any adversary. Nuclear and other mass destruction weapons would be used preemptively.
In 1961, General Curtis LeMay believed nuclear war with Soviet Russia was inevitable. He wanted thousands of missiles launched preemptively. He called retaliation against major US cities a small price to pay.
At the same time, General Lyman Lemnitzer urged a surprise nuclear attack strategy. Jack Kennedy expressed disgust. He walked out of a National Security Council meeting. He wanted none of it.
He told Secretary of State Dean Rusk: “And we call ourselves the human race.”
Secretary of Defense McNamara categorically rejected LeMay and Lemnitzer. He should have fired them on the spot. Other extremists then and later urged the same lunacy.
Crazies have great influence today. Today’s weapons make earlier ones look like toys. Armageddon could happen. Rogue states can’t be trusted. America most of all.
“Against the acquisition of unwarranted influence.” He named the military-industrial complex.
“The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist,” he stressed.
Militarism writ large is the national pastime. It’s a national addiction. The business of America is war. It’s multiple wars. It’s permanent ones. It’s ravaging one nation after another.
It’s doing so for wealth, power, resource control, and unchallenged global dominance.
Armed Drones: President Obama's Favorite Weapon
President Barack Obama has received much credit for drawing down American involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, but less attention has been paid to his administration's embrace of armed drones.
His expansion of covert drone strikes goes far beyond that of former President George W. Bush, and has blurred the line between warfare and assassination.
The classified processes used by the White House for approving these remote killings in foreign countries - countries which the U.S. is not officially at war with - has people questioning not only the Obama administration's tactics, but also the collateral damage of civilian casualties left in its wake.
America never was the “land of the free and home of the brave.” It’s a war on humanity society. It’s a “let ‘em eat cake” one.
It’s an out-of-control rogue state. It’s ideologically over-the-top. It spends more on militarism and wars than the rest of the world combined.
Doing so lets war profiteers gorge themselves at the public trough. Doing so makes peace impossible. Warrior nations eventually self-destruct. Nations that live by the sword die by it. America’s no exception.
“The Pentagon has concluded that the time has come to prepare for with China, and in a manner well beyond crafting the sort of contingency plans that are expected for with a wide range of possible confrontations,” he said.
"It’s a “momentous decision. It hasn’t received proper attention. America’s posture is largely Pentagon driven.
It stands out even more prominently because (a) the change in military posture may well lead to an arms race with China, which could culminate in a nuclear war; and (b) the economic condition of the United States requires a reduction in military spending, not a new arms race.”
“The start of a new term, and with it the appointment of new secretaries of State and Defense, provides an opportunity to review the United States’ China strategy and the military’s role in it.”
“This review is particularly important before the new preparations for war move from an operational concept to a militarization program that includes ordering high-cost weapons systems and forced restructuring.”
“History shows that once these thresholds are crossed, it is exceedingly difficult to change course.”
In September 2001, Congress approved the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF). It did so for “the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.”
Carte blanche war-making authority was granted. America’s war on terror began. It’s waged on humanity. It does so out of control. It targets manufactured enemies at home and abroad.
It calls independent nations existential threats. Russia and China are targeted. They represent America’s [The Cabal New World Order's] final battleground.
Challenging them risks WW III. Obama’s no peacemaker. He’s a cold-blooded warrior. They threatens humanity’s survival. His 2010 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) reflects Bush era strategy.
It’s old wine in new bottles. It “reserves the right” to use nuclear weapons preemptively. America’s only enemies are ones it invents. Peace is verboten. So is disarmament. They’re both non-starters.
Washington targets more nations to destroy. It invents reasons for doing so. It threatens humanity in the process. Preemptive nuclear war assures it. America’s lunatic fringe may launch what cooler heads deplore. Elements in it have mushroom shaped cloud delusions.
Nuclear war assures turning planet earth into an uninhabited wasteland. Toxic proliferation already is destroying life slowly.
Agenda 21: Awareness And Activism + UN 2030 Agenda Decoded: Blueprint For The Global Enslavement Of Humanity Under Corporate Masters July 27 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.
Russiagate Is Constructed Of Pure Bullshit, No Facts
July 26 2018 | From: PaulCraigRoberts
All day today the presstitute scum at NPR [National Public Radio] went on and on about President Trump, using every kind of guest and issue to set him up for more criticism as an unfit occupant of the Oval Office, because, and only because, he threatens the massive budget of the military / security complex by attempting to normalize relations with Russia.
The NPR scum even got an ambassador from Montenegro on the telephone and made every effort to goad the ambassador into denouncing Trump for saying that Montenegro had strong and aggressive people capable of defending themselves and were not in need of sending the sons of American families to defend them.
Somehow this respectful compliment about the Monenegro people was supposed to be an insult. The ambassador refused to be put into opposition to Trump. NPR kept trying, but got nowhere.
As a former Wall Street Journal editor I can say with complete confidence that NPR crossed every line between journalism and advocacy and no longer qualifies as a 501c3 tax-exempt public foundation.
The NPR assault on President Trump was part of an orchestration. The same story appeared in the Washington Post, long-believed to be a CIA asset. Most likely, it has appeared throughout the presstitute media.
The ability of the military/security complex to control the explanations given to Americans, about which President Eisenhower warned Americans in 1961 to no effect, has produced an American population, a large percentage of which is brainwashed.
For example, in Caitlin Johnstone’s column, linked below, Kurt Eichenwald, who, in my opinion, is either a brainwashed idiot or a Deep State troll, says that the bottom line is that you either believe “our intelligence community,” which most definitely did not conclude what Eichenwald says they have concluded, “or you support Putin. You are either a patriot, a traitor or an idiot.”
Note that Eichenwald defines a patriot, as do the Democrats, many Republicans, the entirely of the US print and TV media and NPR, as a person who believes the self-serving lies issuing from the military / security complex in support of the $1,000 billion dollars annually taken from unmet US taxpayer needs to put in the pockets of the mega-rich for “defending” American from an orchestrated, but otherwise nonexistent, threat.
If you don’t support this theft from the American people, you are, according to Eichenwald, “a traitor or an idiot.”
Caitlin Johnstone tells us how utterly stupid Americans are to fall for the line that it is treason to seek peaceful relations with a nuclear power that can destroy us. This means that presidents John F. Kennedy, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, and Ronald Reagan were treasonous.
This is the official position of the American presstitute media, the Democratic Party, and the military / security complex. It is also the position of a fake entity that misrepresents itself as “the American left.”
This utterly absurd position that to pursue peace is to commit treason is precisely the position that the corrupt American print and TV media and NPR represent.
It is the position of the Democratic Party. It is the position of the Republicans in Congress, such as the warmongers John McCain and Lindsey Graham who are owned by the military/security complex.
Every American who believes the line that reducing tensions with Russia is treasonous is preparing nuclear Armageddon for themselves, their friends and families, and for the entire world.
Columbus, Ohio, actually won $50 million in DOT grant money to turn their city into a "Smart City" calling it "SmartColumbus." The city of Columbus will receive an additional $90 million in pledges from public and private sector partners.
The City of Pittsburgh sees the confluence of transportation and energy as the key to U.S. Department of Transportation’s (USDOT) Smart City Challenge. To meet the challenge, we will develop an open platform and corresponding governance structure to improve the safety, equity, and efficiency of our transportation network and its interaction with the energy and communications networks.
By building on existing technology deployments and increasing fixed and mobile sensors over a number of major “Smart Spine” corridors that connect with primary commercial centers and amenities, Pittsburgh will collect, analyze, visualize, and act on information to improve mobility for residents.
The non-proprietary nature of our platform allows the City of Pittsburgh and its partners to set an open, national standard for a municipal service delivery platform, which enhances industry and supports innovation.
According to the SCC, 'smart spines' use advanced technology like real-time adaptive traffic signals and vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communication at intersections.
"Smart PGH" is working with Uber to spy on customers. (see page 4)
It appears that "smart cities" are part of the government's "Vision Zero" program, see page 6 of SCC's 'Enabling Hierarchy' diagram. Also on page 6, under the subject 'Data Collection Network' they mention, "Social Media Assets" otherwise known as social media spying. (more on that below)
In addition, we [Smart PGH] would like to work with Pittsburgh Bike Share, Uber, Lyft, and others to move towards more robust V2V communications that allow Port Authority buses, City fleet, bike share bicycles, ride-sharing services, etc. to become safer by sensing one another on Pittsburgh’s streets. Bicycle tracking has already begun, Ford Motor Company has given Palo Alto, $1.1 million to equip bicycles with GPS devices.
Joshuah Mello, the city’s chief transportation official, said the main draw of the new smart-bike system, operated by Motivate and sponsored by Ford, is that it will be part of a network growing in Bay Area cities from San Jose to San Francisco, “making it one of the largest systems in the entire world.”
What he should say is, this makes it one of the largest bicycle surveillance systems in the entire world! What follows, are some of the most chilling intrusions of government spying to date. Govt spying on social media.
To address Vision Element #9, SmartPGH will deploy our “Citizens as Sensors” effort aimed at extracting relevant data from social media. Scrubbing these sites and app will provide information on what people are doing in different places across Pittsburgh, data that can be used to infer behavior and data that can detect changes in behavior due to physical modifications made by SmartPGH and the City of Pittsburgh.
Pittsburgh can more easily detect if the modifications it is making are producing the desired changes or if they are leading to unanticipated outcomes or unhappy residents.
For example, changes to the number of check-ins citizens make to restaurants and retail establishments following the parking rate change can provide evidence of how much this change has impacted dining and shopping behaviors, providing valuable feedback not just on residents emotional reactions but also the wider economic impact of such decisions.
The City of Pittsburgh is in conversation with Duquesne Light and partner-company DQE Communications regarding the use of their extensive network of dark fiber. Most of the network capacity is currently “dark” and available for use by partners including the City of Pittsburgh.
To make the most of their network, Duquesne Light recently built a wireless communication infrastructure to support the increased data-flow between their electric meters and the company’s centralized operating center.
This effort has evolved into a high-capacity, resilient, wireless network covering the entirety of the City of Pittsburgh and the surrounding 817-square-mile service territory.
The grid of microgirds will spy on everyone's health, electrical and gas usage.
The grid-of-microgrids is designed to connect critical infrastructure like hospitals, universities, and data and telecommunications centers. Other partners in the effort include the UPMC health system, NRG energy, Duquesne Light and People’s natural gas.
Govt spying on Pittsburgh residents is frightening.
PennDOT’s Western Regional Traffic Management Center includes a fully integrated Centralized Software System, a Media Partner room that broadcasts live on-air reports of traffic conditions, and, a state of the art video wall capable of displaying 160 video images.
The center monitors and/or controls ITS devices on 12 freeway corridors, including many within Pittsburgh's limits.
These devices include: 293 CCTV cameras, 37 Highway Advisory Radio transmitter locations, 86 Highway Advisory Radio signs with beacons, 200 Microwave Traffic Detectors, 24 Dedicated Short Range Communication (DSRC) radios, 93 Digital Wave Radar Vehicular Detector units and many more specific ITS-related items.
List of govt agencies spying on residents:
Penn DOT and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission
Port Authority of Allegheny County
Pittsburgh Parking Authority
Port of Pittsburgh Commission
Pittsburgh Bike Share
Utilities including energy distribution, water, and natural gas
University Partners, particularly University of Pittsburgh and Carnegie Mellon University
Major freight operators in Pittsburgh
Representatives of the Business and Philanthropic Communities
Citizens and Community Stakeholders Industry partners
The model for the WPRDC is unique because it is designed to be extensible and inclusive, able to host datasets from any municipality, non-profit, or researcher with data to share. By bringing together various levels of government, civil society, and academia around information resources, we have begun to improve our region’s capacity for innovation and evidence-driven policy-making.
The WPRDC’s web resources provide machine-readable data downloads and APIs of key administrative data on topics such as property assessment, building inspection, public health, crime, and asset management.
Click on the image above to open a larger version in a new window
Seven companies work with Surtrac to spy on everyone.
Understanding "Jewish" [Khazarian Zionist] Power July 24 2018 | From: UNZ
Who has helped create a war-addicted America?
I recently was asked to speak at an online conference entitled Deep Truth: Encountering Deep State Lies. My panel addressed Understanding Zionism: Deconstructing the Power Paradigm and my own topic was How Jewish [Khazarian] Power Sustains the Israel Narrative.
Working on my presentation, I was forced to confront the evolution of my own views on both the corruption of government in the United States and the ability of powerful domestic lobbies to deliberately distort the perception of national interests to benefit foreign countries even when that activity does terrible damage to the U.S.
My personal journey began half a century ago. I became part of the U.S. national security state after being drafted for the Vietnam War when I graduated from college in 1968.
I was at the time, vaguely pro-war, having bought into the media argument that international communism was mounting a major threat in southeast Asia.
I also found the anti-war student movement distasteful because I was acquainted with many of its spokesmen and knew that they were chiefly motivated by a desire to avoid the draft, not due to any perception that the war itself was wrong or misguided.
I knew a lot about the Punic Wars but precious little about former French Indochina and I suspect that those chanting “Ho-ho-Ho Chi Minh” might have known even less that I did.
Because I spoke some Russian, I wound up in an army intelligence collection unit in West Berlin for three years where I and my fifty or so comrades did absolutely nothing but drink and party. It was my introduction to how government really works when it was not working at all and it did provide me with GI Bill money to go to grad school.
After my PhD came a relatively easy transition to CIA given the fact that my degree was so obscure that no one but the government would hire me.
The journey from an army unit that was asleep at the wheel to the CIA, which was in full downsizing crisis mode post-Vietnam, was educational.
Whereas the army was too bloated and complacent even to fake it, the Agency was fully capable of creating crises and then acting like the defender of American interests as it worked to resolve the various situations that it had invented.
The war against Eurocommunism, which I was engaged in, was hyped and billed as the next great threat against the American way of life after the Vietnam blunder, swallowing up resources pointlessly as neither France, nor Spain nor Italy ever came close to entering the Red orbit.
As I climbed up the CIA ladder I also noticed something else. There was the equivalent of a worldwide conspiracy to promote threats to keep big national security-based government well-funded and in place.
When I was in Turkey I began to note considerable intelligence liaison reporting coming from the Israelis and others promoting their own agendas.
The material was frequently fictional in nature, but the danger was that it was being mixed in with more credible reporting which gave it traction. U.S. government consumers of the reporting would inevitably absorb the dubious viewpoint being promoted that Arabs and Iranians were fundamentally untrustworthy and were in bed with the Soviets.
There was considerable negative reporting on Saddam Hussein also coming out of Israel and motivated by his support of the Palestinians. Some of this ultimately surfaced in the Pentagon’s Paul Wolfowitz-Doug Feith assessments of “intelligence that had been missed” which eventually became pretexts for the catastrophic Iraq War.
I later learned that both Feith and Wolfowitz had a virtually revolving door of Israeli intelligence officials and diplomats running through their Pentagon offices in the lead-up to that war.
It did not take much to connect the dots and realize that Israel, far from being a friend and ally, was the principal catalyst for the many missteps that the United States has made in the Middle East. U.S. policy in the region was being deliberately shaped around Israeli concerns by American Jews [Khazarians] ensconced in the Pentagon and White House who certainly knew exactly what they were doing.
No one should blame the Israelis for acting in their own self-interest, but every loyal American should blame the Libbys, Feiths and Wolfowitzes for their willingness to place Israeli interests ahead of those of their own country.
After my departure from government in part over my disagreement with the Iraq War, this willingness to place the United States in peril to serve the interests of a foreign country began to bother me, and there is no country that manipulates the U.S. government better or more persistently than Israel.
I gradually became involved with those who were pushing back against the Israel Lobby, though it was not generally referred to in those terms before Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer produced their seminal work The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy in 2006.
It does not take a genius to figure out that the United States is deeply involved in a series of seemingly endless wars pitting it against predominantly Muslim nations even though Washington has no vital interests at stake in places like Syria, Libya and Iraq. Who is driving the process and benefiting?
Israel is clearly the intended beneficiary of a coordinated effort mounted by more than 600 Jewish organizations in the U.S. that have at least as part of their programs the promotion and protection of Israel.
Ironically, organizations that promote the interests of a foreign government are supposed to be registered under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 (FARA) but not a single pro-Israel organization has ever done so nor even been seriously challenged on the issue, a tribute to their power in dealing with the federal government.
Those who are in the drivers’ seat of the Israel promotion process are what some would describe as the Israel Lobby but which I would prefer to call a subset of the Jewish [Khazarian] Lobby, which in itself is supported by something I would designate Jewish Power, an aggregate of Jewish money, control over key aspects of the media and entertainment industries plus easy access to corrupted politicians desirous of positive press and campaign donations.
This penetration and control of the public discourse has resulted in the creation of what I would refer to as the official “Israel narrative,” in which Israel, which claims perpetual victimhood, is reflexively referred to as “the only democracy in the Middle East” and “Washington’s closest ally and friend,” assertions that are completely false but which have been aggressively and successfully promoted to shape how Americans view the Israeli-Arab conflict.
Palestinians resisting the Israeli occupation are invariably described as “terrorists” both in the U.S. and Israel.
Jewish Power is a funny thing. If you read the Jewish media or the Israeli press, to include Forward, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Haaretz or the Jerusalem Post, you will find frequent references to it, nearly always seen as completely laudable. Bottom feeder Professor Alan Dershowitz of Harvard recently boasted that “Jews should not apologize for being so rich, controlling the media or influencing public debate…they have earned it…never apologize for using your strength…”
For many Jews like Dershowitz, Jewish power is something to be proud of, but they also believe that it should never be noticed or examined by non-Jews.
Gentile criticism of Jewish collective behavior is something that must continue to be forbidden, just as the expression “Israeli Lobby” was largely taboo before Walt and Mearsheimer.
Israeli partisans regularly engage in the defamation of individuals, including myself, who do not conform to the taboos as anti-Semites or holocaust deniers, labels deliberately used as weapons to end discussion and silence critics whenever necessary.
So why do I think that we have to start talking about Jewish Power as opposed to the euphemism Israel Lobby? It is because the wars in the Middle East, which have done so much to damage the United States and were at least in part arranged to benefit Israel, have been largely driven by wealthy and powerful Jews.
If America goes to war with Iran, as is increasingly likely, it will be all about Israel and it will be arranged by the political and financial services Washington-Wall Street axis, make no mistake.
To my mind, Israel is America’s number one foreign policy problem in that it is able and willing to start potentially catastrophic wars with countries that it has demonized but that do not threaten the U.S. And those doing the manipulating are bipartisan Jewish [Khazarian] oligarchs with deep pockets that support the multitude of pro-Israel organizations, think tanks and media outlets that have done so much to corrupt America’s political process.
Hollywood producer Haim Saban, a principal Democratic Party supporter, has said that he is a one issue guy and that issue is Israel. Principal GOP funder casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, who served in the U.S. Army in World War 2, has said that he regrets that service and would have preferred to be in the Israel Defense Forces.
They as well as others, including fund manager Paul Singer and Home Depot’s Bernard Marcus, are Jews laboring on behalf of the self-proclaimed Jewish State while the neoconservatives, fiercely protective of Israel, are also nearly all Jewish.
Asserting that the fact that they are Jews acting for a Jewish state should be irrelevant as they are also doing what is good for America, as is commonly done by their apologists, is logically inconsistent and borders on absurdity. As for the frequently cited Bible belt Christian-Zionists who support Israel, they are, to be sure, numerous, but they do not have the access to real power in the United States that Jews have.
Jewish [Khazarian] Power is also what has in part driven the United States into a moral cesspit. Israeli snipers shoot dead scores of unarmed Gazan demonstrators and hardly anyone in Washington has anything to say about it.
America’s Ambassador to Israel, an Orthodox Jewish lawyer named David Friedman who has multiple ties to Israel’s illegal settlements, uses his position to defend Israel, ignoring U.S. interests.
Last week he held a press conference in which he told reporters to “shut their mouths” in their criticism of Israel’s slaughter of Gazans.
When a young Palestinian nurse is deliberately targeted and killed while treating a wounded man, it hardly appears in the U.S. media. Arab teenagers are shot in the back while running away from Israeli gunmen while a young woman is sentenced to prison for slapping an Israel soldier who had just shot her cousin and was invading her home.
Heavily armed Israeli settlers run amok on the West Bank, beating and killing Arabs and destroying their livelihoods. That is what Israel and its Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu are all about and that is precisely the kind of a nation that America should not want to become, but unfortunately the role of Washington as Israel’s obedient poodle has our once great country moving in the wrong direction.
This has all been brought about by Jewish [Khazarian] Power and it is time to wake up to that fact and address it squarely.
Weather Weapons Are Real, They Have A Treaty To Regulate Them
Juy 23 2018 | From: Geopolitics
There is still a sizable portion of our society who cannot grasp the reality of weather altering devices and technologies which have made us all unsure about which weather is real, and which ones are not.
This poses a big problem for those who understand how these weather devices are being used, but want to inform the public about the impending danger of the draconian laws that have been legislated based on the false pretext of global warming.
One of the first glaring claims Gore makes is about Mount Kilimanjaro in Africa. He claims Africa’s tallest peak will be snow-free “within the decade.” Gore shows slides of Kilimanjaro’s peak in the 1970s versus today to conclude the snow is disappearing.
Well, it’s been a decade and, yes, there’s still snow on Kilimanjaro year-round. It doesn’t take a scientist to figure this out.
Climate does change, it’s been that way since the birth of our solar system, but the phrase is now synonymous to abnormal weather patterns, flash flooding, forest wildfires, and to some extent, even earthquakes, all of which could be the handiwork of highly covert government entities trying to justify their subsequent invasive policies.
All of these calamitous events can affect the economic productivity and greatly hamper the development of the targeted regions on the planet. Indeed, weather weapons are a very effective tool for geopolitical coercion.
The nations possessing these weather weapons agreed that they won’t be used in wars and geopolitical conflicts. But who can ever refuse the power to play like the mythical gods of thunder and lightning?
We are not only talking here about “cloud seeding” technologies like Wikipedia would like us to limit our understanding about weather warfare:
With much less success, the United States also dropped salt on the airbase during the siege of Khe Sanh in an attempt to reduce the fog that hindered air operations.
A research paper produced for the United States Air Force written in 1996 speculates about the future use of nanotechnology to produce “artificial weather”, clouds of microscopic computer particles all communicating with each other to form an intelligent fog that could be used for various purposes. “Artificial weather technologies do not currently exist… "
- Wikipedia (the trusted source...)
The above phrase, “Artificial weather technologies do not currently exist…” is in disagreement to the statement made by the US Air Force during a budget hearing for HAARP, like so:
HAARP, or High Altitude Auroral Research Program, is said to be an experimental electromagnetic wave propagator which could deliver radio signals in any desired frequencies with a twist of a button, to strike at any target. But as that US congressional hearing suggest, the Air Force is already using a more advanced version, they are now willing to abandon the existing HAARP site in Alaska.
There are, of course, radar systems mounted on mobile platforms which could emit high powered EM signals, and can be positioned in any of the 1,000 US military bases, for steering “weather disturbance” to any triangulated terrestrial and extraterrestrial targets.
The other side of this all-in-one ultrahigh powered radiobroadcast technology is to foster positive disposition, fry the electronics of an incoming ICBM, or MiRVs simultaneously, and render their thermonuclear/chemical warhead inert, and deliver controlled rainfall on arid deserts of Africa so that food abundance is assured at last.
Yes, the most versatile weather weapon is staring right in plain sight and is using that same technology still being used in the wireless broadcast industry today.
The only notable difference is that the weaponized version is using billion watts of sheer power which is very feasible just by transforming the transmission voltage from a few hundred volts into the range of hundreds of million volts which is what Tesla was actually playing with.
Consider three radar installations firing upward in a triangle configuration, all at the same time. Those three hot nodes will then experience high gas pressures, and as a result, their common center will then become the “low pressure area [LPA],” which will be news broadcasted by your weather channel as where the potential typhoon will come from.
The fact that they can move the three points of attack will make the typhoon steerable to hit at any desired target.
For more in-depth study, the researcher can refer to the US Patent 4686605 by clicking on the image below:
But no, the United Nations, Inc., or any of its subsidiary corporate states, are not capable of providing these commonsensical solutions any time soon. It can only afford to pay lip service to those pressing problems, because the Old Men running the show can’t get over with their myopic appreciation of the power entrusted to them, which they use only to impress young women.
Considering that our body, like everything else in nature, is made up of EM waves propagating at certain frequencies in space, we can also be altered, or our bodily functions can be influence for any desired effect.
If at certain microwave frequencies, a radar system can cook the atmosphere to increase gas pressure, and change the weather, it can also be used to deliver modulated brain wave frequencies to stimulate docility, or hyperactivity to destroy an entire targeted population without firing a single bullet.
This is the reason why the authorities sought to limit, or eradicate, its use in actual conflict scenario.
Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques
The States Parties to this Convention,
Guided by the interest of consolidating peace, and wishing to contribute to the cause of halting the arms race, and of bringing about general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control, and of saving mankind from the danger of using new means of warfare,
Determined to continue negotiations with a view to achieving effective progress towards further measures in the field of disarmament,
Recognizing that scientific and technical advances may open new possibilities with respect to modification of the environment,
Realizing that the use of environmental modification techniques for peaceful purposes could improve the interrelationship of man and nature and contribute to the preservation and improvement of the environment for the benefit of present and future generations,
Recognizing, however, that military or any other hostile use of such techniques could have effects extremely harmful to human welfare,
Desiring to prohibit effectively military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques in order to eliminate the dangers to mankind from such use, and affirming their willingness to work towards the achievement of this objective,
Desiring also to contribute to the strengthening of trust among nations and to the further improvement of the international situation in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations,
Have agreed as follows:
Each State Party to this Convention undertakes not to engage in military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects as the means of destruction, damage or injury to any other State Party.
Each State Party to this Convention undertakes not to assist, encourage or induce any State, group of States or international organization to engage in activities contrary to the provisions of paragraph 1 of this article.
As used in article 1, the term “environmental modification techniques” refers to any technique for changing – through the deliberate manipulation of natural processes – the dynamics, composition or structure of the Earth, including its biota, lithosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere, or of outer space.
The provisions of this Convention shall not hinder the use of environmental modification techniques for peaceful purposes and shall be without prejudice to the generally recognized principles and applicable rules of international law concerning such use.
The States Parties to this Convention undertake to facilitate, and have the right to participate in, the fullest possible exchange of scientific and technological information on the use of environmental modification techniques for peaceful purposes. States Parties in a position to do so shall contribute, alone or together with other States or international organizations, to international economic and scientific co-operation in the preservation, improvement and peaceful utilization of the environment, with due consideration for the needs of the developing areas of the world.
Each State Party to this Convention undertakes to take any measures it considers necessary in accordance with its constitutional processes to prohibit and prevent any activity in violation of the provisions of the Convention anywhere under its jurisdiction or control. Blah, blah,blah.
In witness whereof, the undersigned, being duly authorized thereto, have signed this Convention at Geneva, on the 18 day of May 1977.
The reality on the ground is far from being straightforward, i.e. countries possessing weather weaponry may not be actively firing at each other, but that doesn’t mean that the United States government, for example, is not using the same capability against its own people, or its smaller nation allies, you know, to keep them in line.
The chemical based geoengineering, for instance, is being extended to spray harmful chemicals instead of merely “cloud seeding”.
It was Dr. Nikola Tesla who tried to give us wireless power so that global prosperity can be achieved by providing free and unlimited access to energy, for the benefit of all.
He constructed a “magnifying transmitter” which could deliver both power and data wirelessly to far off distances. In the process, he realized the vast potential of his device and the dangers it may pose when the technology falls into the wrong hands.
On April 28, 1997 U.S. Defense Secretary William Cohen made the following statement:
'"Others [terrorists] are engaging even in an eco-type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves…
So there are plenty of ingenious minds out there that are at work finding ways in which they can wreak terror upon other nations…
It’s real, and that’s the reason why we have to intensify our [counterterrorism] efforts.”
In February 1998, the European Parliament’s Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defense Policy held public hearings in Brussels on the U.S based weather warfare facility developed under the HAARP program.
The Committee’s “Motion for Resolution” submitted to the European Parliament:
'Considers HAARP… by virtue of its far-reaching impact on the environment to be a global concern and calls for its legal, ecological and ethical implications to be examined by an international independent body…; [the Committee] regrets the repeated refusal of the United States Administration… to give evidence to the public hearing …into the environmental and public risks [of] the HAARP program.”
European Parliament, Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defense Policy, Brussels, doc. no. A4-0005/99, 14 January 1999
The weapons referred to by Secretary Cohen are longitudinal EM wave interferometers (LWIs). Longitudinal EM waves easily travel through the ocean and earth with very little loss. In a distant interference zone, there appears real EM energy again, of the kind we have in our textbooks.
However, the energy arises from spacetime itself in the interference zone, as proven by M.W. Evans, P.K. Anastasovski, T.E. Bearden et al., “On Whittaker’s Representation of the Electromagnetic Entity in Vacuo: The Production of Transverse Fields and Energy by Scalar Interferometry,” Journal of New Energy, 4(3), Winter 1999, p. 76-78. (That entire issue of JNE contains some 60 papers by the Alpha Foundation’s Institute for Advanced Study (AIAS), dealing with the kind of higher symmetry electrodynamics needed to understand such weapons).
Though tested in prototype in the 1950s, the first strategic LWIs were deployed in Russia in April 1963, and were used to kill the U.S.S. Thresher nuclear attack submarine, underwater off the East coast of the United States, in April 1963. The signatures of the kill are 100% decisive.
One day later, the same weapon placed an enormous electromagnetic burst (explosion) deep underwater, 100 miles north of Puerto Rico. From the surface of the ocean there arose a giant cone of water, rising a half mile into the air, turning into a mushroom, and falling back into the sea.
This was the second test of the new Russian strategic LWIs, under KGB control. By this test and the fact that the West did not even recognize what killed the Thresher, Khrushchev managed to stay in power another two years or so, after his Cuban Crisis fiasco where he lost face in front of the entire world.
World-wide weather engineering started in earnest by the Russians on July 4, 1976 - as a quirky sense of humor and “bicentennial gift” to the United States. The weapons have been used to shoot down aircraft, etc. worldwide also, mostly as tests, and have also destroyed ICBMs shortly after launch.
Related: Eco-Terrorism Correspondence
Both the scientific and political priesthoods are being used by the plutocrats at the highest totem pole of our society to impose upon humanity a world of endless scarcity in all aspects of our existence. They justify this policy by saying that if everything is free and easily accessible, people get lazy and just play around. What’s wrong with that?
We are the only species in the entire solar system that consented to making life very difficult after we have discovered ways and means to make it easier.
"When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago).
…The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d’être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs.
For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.
It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave.
It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist.
Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.)
I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.
So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it…”
In February 1998, the European Parliament’s Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defense Policy held public hearings in Brussels on the U.S based weather warfare facility developed under the HAARP program. The Committee’s “Motion for Resolution” submitted to the European Parliament:
"Considers HAARP… by virtue of its far-reaching impact on the environment to be a global concern and calls for its legal, ecological and ethical implications to be examined by an international independent body…; [the Committee] regrets the repeated refusal of the United States Administration… to give evidence to the public hearing …into the environmental and public risks [of] the HAARP program.”
European Parliament, Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defense Policy, Brussels, doc. no. A4-0005/99, 14 January 1999
The Committee’s request to draw up a “Green Paper” on “the environmental impacts of military activities”, however, was casually dismissed on the grounds that the European Commission lacked the required jurisdiction to delve into “the links between environment and defense”. Brussels was anxious to avoid a showdown with Washington. (see European Report, 3 February 1999).
The possibility of climatic or environmental manipulations as part of a military and intelligence agenda, while tacitly acknowledged, has never been considered relevant. Military analysts are mute on the subject.
Meteorologists are not investigating the matter, and environmentalists are strung on global warming and the Kyoto protocol.
Ironically, the Pentagon, while recognizing its ability to modify the World’s climate for military use, has joined the global warming consensus. In a major study (pdf) , the Pentagon has analyzed in detail the implications of various global warming scenarios.
Power is never given, or handed down in a silver platter. It must be taken away from those who are incapable of using it wisely for the good and benefit of all lifeforms everywhere.
In lieu of these deplorables, we must put in management positions the visionaries, engineers and technologists, so that only the progressive use of science and technology is given the light of day.
This is the revolution worth fighting for.
Inventor Of ‘Free Energy’ Electrical Generator: “I’ve Been Poisoned Several Times” July 22 2018 | From: CollectiveEvolution
What is a ‘free energy’ machine? It doesn’t mean ‘free’ as in the monetary sense, but more so ‘free’ as in the resource being extracted to produce the energy, as Nikola Tesla once said, is available in “unlimited quantities"
It’s not like extracting oil from the Earth, and using that oil to power our planet because we know, first of all, that it’s destroying our planet; secondly, it’s not a limitless source of energy.
The Facts: Adam Trombly and colleague Joseph Kahn designed and applied for patents for the Closed Path Homopolar Generator, a revolutionary design for super-efficient generation of electrical power. He explains the suppression of free energy machines.
Reflect On: We have more than enough technology and resources to completely change the way we produce energy here on Earth. Why does it take so long to implement them? Why don't we ever see them?
New developments in all areas of science, especially ones that don’t seem to fit the frame, always receive harsh criticism, and are dealt blows to their progress and acceptance with labels like ‘pseudoscience.’
“Ere many generations pass, our machinery will be driven by a power obtainable at any point in the universe. This idea is not novel… We find it in the delightful myth of Antheus, who derives power from the earth; we find it among subtle speculations of one of your splendid mathematicians…
Throughout space there is energy. Is this energy static, or kinetic? If static our hopes are in vain; if kinetic – and this we know it is, for certain – then it is a mere question of time when men will succeed in attaching their machinery to the very wheel work of nature.”
This is exactly what I am talking about here, and why legendary quantum physicist John Wheeler told the world that:
"No point is more central than this, that space is not empty, it is the seat of the most violent physics.”
More Advanced than Current ‘Clean Energies’
The truth is that there are developments which are far more advanced than wind, solar, and other clean energy initiatives that could completely transform our planet and change the world forever. Imagine if everyone on the planet had access to clean, free, limitless amounts of energy, for an unlimited period of time?
If they do exist, and there is plenty of evidence to suggest that they do, then we are sitting on developments that can revolutionize our planet.
The question is, where are they? Why is there so much red tape, and why does it take decades for a revolutionary idea and or technology to hit the mainstream?
As it turns out, it’s not the technology that will change our world, but the consciousness and intention behind our technological developments.
37 Years to Grant Patent
One great example (out of many) of delayed patent applications come from Dr. Gerald F. Ross. He filed a patent application for a new invention he had devised to defeat the jamming of electromagnetic transmissions at specified frequencies. It was not until June 17, 2014 (almost 37 years later) that this patent was granted.
The program delaying patent applications is called the Sensitive Application Warning System (SWAS). Usually, when an application is submitted for a patent approval it requires a couple of examiners who work with the Patent office to go through their process of approval.
This process usually takes approximately 1 to 2 years, but applications that are filed in SAWS must be approved by several people and can be delayed for a number of years.
It’s also important to note (as reported by the Federation of American Scientists; see article linked below for sources) that there were over 5,000 inventions that were under secrecy orders at the end of the Fiscal Year 2014, which marked the highest number of secrecy orders in effect since 1994.
This is all thanks to an act many people are unaware of. It’s called the “Invention Secrecy Act” and it was written up in 1951. Under this act, patent applications on new inventions can be subject to secrecy orders.
These orders can restrict their publication if government agencies believe that their disclosure would be harmful to national security.
So what type of technology is under restriction under the Invention Secrecy Act? We don’t really know, but a previous list from 1971 was obtained by researcher Michael Ravnitzky. Most of the technology listed seems to be related to various military applications. You can view that list Here, but this is what Steven Aftergood from the Federation of American Scientists said about it:
“The 1971 list indicates that patents for solar photovoltaic generators were subject to review and possible restriction if the photovoltaics were more than 20% efficient. Energy conversion systems were likewise subject to review and possible restriction if they offered conversion efficiencies in “excess of 70-80%.”
Adam Trombly and colleague Joseph Kahn designed and applied for patents for the Closed Path Homopolar Generator, a potentially revolutionary design for super-efficient generation of electrical power. In June of 1982, International Letters of Patent were published by the International Patent Cooperation Treaty Organization. You can view that patent here.
The difference between the international patents and the US patent system is that in the US the material of the patent is secret until the patent is granted, while overseas the application itself is the basis of the patent, which stands until challenged by a third party.
“A co-rotating generator homopolar has a rotor (12) comprising a driver disc (30) and the co-rotating co-axial electro-magnets (32a and 32b) on each side, and has an improved operation using a magnetic return circuit low reluctance for the magnetic flux which passes through the driver disc (30).
The low reluctance circuit allows the electro-magnets (32a and 32b) to produce a high intensity field with a value of the excitation current of the relatively low coil.Therefore, overheating is eliminated and the total potential of zero sequence generator is obtained.
The low magnetic reluctance return circuit (220) is preferably formed by a co-rotating enclosure of relatively high permeability (with halves of speakers (37a and 37b) of sufficient radial and axial dimensions for holding the electromagnets and the driver disc of the rotor. the driver disc (30) is constructed preferably with a material of high permeability, low resistivity, such as iron, and may of course be integral with the cores of the electromagnets (35a and 35b) .
The Casimir Effect is a proven example of the free energy that cannot be debunked. The Casimir Effect illustrates zero point or vacuum state energy, which predicts that two metal plates close together attract each other due to an imbalance in the quantum fluctuations (source)(source).
You can see a visual demonstration of this concept here. The implications of this are far-reaching and have been written about extensively within theoretical physics by researchers all over the world.
Today, we are beginning to see that these concepts are not just theoretical, but instead very practical; the only reason they are not being widely utilized today is simply that they have been suppressed.
“There is significant evidence that scientists since Tesla have known about this energy, but that its existence and potential use has been discouraged and indeed suppressed over the past half century or more."
Vacuums generally are thought to be voids, but Hendrik Casimir believed these pockets of nothing do indeed contain fluctuations of electromagnetic waves. He suggested that two metal plates held apart in a vacuum could trap the waves, creating vacuum energy that could attract or repel the plates.
As the boundaries of a region move, the variation in vacuum energy (zero-point energy) leads to the Casimir effect.
Recent research was done at Harvard University, Vrije University in Amsterdam and elsewhere has proved the Casimir effect correct.
"These concepts have been proven in hundreds of laboratories throughout the world and yet they have not really seen the light of day. If these technologies were to be set free worldwide, the change would be profound, it would be applicable everywhere.
These technologies are absolutely the most important thing that have happened in the history of the world”
- Dr. Brian O’leary, former Princeton Physics Professor & NASA Astronaut
Harold E. Puthoff is an American Physicist and Ph.D. from Stanford University and researcher at the Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin, Texas.
His paper proposed a model in which gravity is not a separately existing fundamental force, but is rather an induced effect associated with zero-point fluctuations of the vacuum, as illustrated by the Casimir force.
Another astonishing paper entitled “Extracting energy and heat from the vacuum,” by the same researchers, this time in conjunction with Daniel C. Cole, Ph.D. and Associate Professor at Boston University in the Department of Mechanical Engineering was published in the same journal (source).
“Relatively recent proposals have been made in the literature for extracting energy and heat from electromagnetic zero-point radiation via the use of the Casimir force. The basic thermodynamics involved in these proposals is analyzed and clarified here, with the conclusion that yes, in principle, these proposals are correct."
So, as you can see, these are not new ideas.
“These are not just fringe scientists with with science fiction ideas. They are mainstream ideas being published in mainstream physics journals and being taken seriously by mainstream military and NASA type funders… I’ve been taken out on aircraft carries by the Navy and shown what it is we have to replace if we have new energy sources to provide new fuel methods."
What’s interesting about the story from Trombly, is the fact that he mentions Paramahamsa Tewari. Tewari has also lectured with him and attended multiple conferences with Trombly. There is no shortage of videos from Trombly.
Out Of The Void (AUS DEM NICHTS) is a film that recently premiered in Austria. it’s a docudrama about Tesla’s vision and the work of Paramahamsa Tewari. You can view footage of the machine in the film and trailer (below), which has been built and independently tested as high as 250% efficiency.
In fact, a prototype of the machine was tested by Kirloskar Electric, a manufacturer of electrical generators in India. There, it exhibited 165% efficiency (over-unity).
Below is a picture with, from right, Paramahamsa Tewari, Executive Director Nuclear Power Corporation, Ret., Murlidhar Rao, Technical Director, Karnataka Power Corporation, Ret., Chief Engineer, electrical engineer, a mechanical engineer. From Left, Vice President of Kirloskar Rotating Machines Group, General Manager Hubli facility.
Tewari was successful in eliminating the back torque of the generator. What happens when you do that? He explains it on his website, where you can find more resources about him, his machine and his work.
Unfortunately, he recently passed away, and I was glad to see one of his papers recently published in PhysicsEssays. The full version is available on his website. Much of his work has been copied, stolen and published by many others.
Here is the actual video of the machine in action, taken from the film.
The over unity test results are confirmed at the Kirloskar factory (India) where the vice president, factory manager, and lead electrical engineer discuss their replication of the device and over unity test results.
Below is a great picture of Tewari discussing his breakthroughts with fomrer NASA astronaut and Princeton Physics professor, Dr. Brian O’leary.
“As the eighties progressed, copies of the Closed Path Homopolar Generator Patent had circulated throughout the world. One scientist, Paramahamsa Tewari, who was then Head of Quality Control for the Tarapore Atomic Power Station in Trombay, India, received permission to carry out experiments with the design.
In 1986, Tewari (with the blessing of the late Prime Minister Rajeev Gandhi) published results of experiments carried out with a crude facsimile of the machine described in the patent. In the American Industrial Journal Magnets, Tewari wrote, ‘The test results have shown an efficiency of the machine above 250%.”
It was the first time in human history that claims of greater than 100% output had been independently verified by a bona fide third party using the description of the art provided by a patent document."
A prototype of TEWARI’S (from his own mind, not influenced by anyone, he influenced others in the field, he is an originator) machine was tested by Kirloskar Electric, a manufacturer of electrical generators in India. There, it exhibited 165% efficiency (over-unity).
The Economic Times of India seemed to be the only media outlet, other than Collective Evolution, to pick up the story.
Below is a Discussion of test results during the filming of AUS DEM NICHTS (Out of the Void), with the device in the Kirloskar facility, where again, it demonstrated over-unity efficiency.
Below is a picture with, from right, Paramahamsa Tewari, Executive Director Nuclear Power Corporation, Ret., Murlidhar Rao, Technical Director, Karnataka Power Corporation, Ret., Chief Engineer, electrical engineer, a mechanical engineer. From Left, Vice President of Kirloskar Rotating Machines Group, General Manager Hubli facility.
I could not find the study that was referenced by Trombly, but again, the powerplant mentioned and the linked story about it shows it’s validity. Before Tewari’s passing, we were in contact with him for multiple years and were helping to fund his prototype. We have no doubts about Tewari’s legitimacy.
Testimony of Violent Suppression
Below are a couple of clips of Adam taken from the Thrivedocumentary. There are multiple videos and lectures by him up on Youtube, so if interested, I suggest you check it out.
“Lord Kelvin’s statements bare with it the voice of paradigms past … We knew that the Earth was flat, we knew that we were the center of the universe, and we knew that a man-made heavier than air piece of machinery could not take flight.
Through all stages of human history, intellectual authorities have pronounced their supremacy by ridiculing or suppressing elements of reality that simply didn’t fit within the framework of accepted knowledge. Are we really any different today?
Have we really changed our acceptance towards things that won’t fit the frame? Maybe there are concepts of our reality we have yet to understand, and if we open our eyes maybe we will see that something significant has been overlooked."
- Terje Toftenes (Via documentary, The Day Before Disclosure)
Consider the procedure of angioplasty. Doctors insert a catheter into the blood vessels of the heart and use a balloon like device to open up the artery and restore blood flow.
In acute heart attacks studies confirm that this is an effective procedure. In chronic heart disease the COURAGE study and more recently the ORBITA study showed that angioplasty is largely useless. EBM helped distinguish the best use of an invasive procedure.
“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”
This has huge implications. Evidence based medicine is completely worthless if the evidence base is false or corrupted. It’s like building a wooden house knowing the wood is termite infested.
“The medical profession is being bought by the pharmaceutical industry, not only in terms of the practice of medicine, but also in terms of teaching and research. The academic institutions of this country are allowing themselves to be the paid agents of the pharmaceutical industry. I think it’s disgraceful”
Trials run by industry are 70% more likely than government funded trials to show a positive result.
Think about that for a second. If EBM says that 2+2 = 5 is correct 70% of the time, would you trust this sort of ‘science’?
Selective Publication - Negative trials (those that show no benefit for the drugs) are likely to be suppressed. For example, in the case of antidepressants, 36/37 studies that were favourable to drugs were published. But of the studies not favorable to drugs, a paltry 3/36 were published.
Selective publication of positive (for the drug company) results means that a review of the literature would suggest that 94% of studies favor drugs where in truth, only 51% were actually positive.
Suppose you know that your stockbroker publishes all his winning trades, but suppresses all his losing trades. Would you trust him with your money? But yet, we trust EBM with our lives, even though the same thing is happening.
Let’s look at the following graph of the number of trials completed versus those that were published. In 2008, the company Sanofi completed 92 studies but only a piddly 14 were published. Who gets to decide which gets published and which does not? Right. Sanofi.
Which ones do you think will be published? The ones that favor its drugs, or the ones that prove their drugs do not work? Right. Keep in mind that this is the only rational course of action for Sanofi, or any other company to pursue. It’s idiotic to publish data that harms yourself.
It’s financial suicide. So this sort of rational behavior will happen now, and it will not stop in the future. But knowing this, why do we still believe the evidence based medicine, when the evidence base is completely biased?
An outside observer, only looking at all published data, will conclude that the drugs are far, far more effective than they are in reality.
Yet, if you point this out in academic circles, people label you a quack, who does not ‘believe the evidence’.
Rigging of Outcomes - Or consider the example of registration of primary outcomes. Prior to year 2000, companies doing trials did not need to declare what end points they measured.
So they measure many different endpoints and simply figured out which one looked best and then declared the trial a success.
Kind of like tossing a coin, looking at which one come up more, and saying that they were backing the winning side. If you measured enough outcomes, something was bound to come up positive.
In 2000, the government moved to stop these shenanigans. They required companies to register what they were measuring ahead of time. Prior to 2000, 57% of trials showed a positive result. After 2000, a paltry 8% showed good results.
More evidence of the evidence base being completely corrupted by commercial interest, and the academic physicians who were getting rich on it tacitly allowing corruption because they know that you don’t bite the hand that feeds you.
‘Advertorials’ - Or this example of a review paper in the NEJM that fracture rates caused by the lucrative bisphosphonate drugs were “very rare”. Not only did the drug companies pay lots of consulting fees to the doctors, three of the authors of this review were full time employees!
To allow an advertorial to be published as the best scientific fact is scandalous. Doctors, trusting the NEJM to publish quality, unbiased advice have no idea that this review article is pure advertising. Yet, we still consider the NEJM to be the very pinnacle of evidence based medicine. Instead, as all the editors of the journals sadly recognize, it has become lucre-based publishing. More money = better results.
Money from Reprints - The reasons for this problem is obvious to all — it’s insanely profitable for journals to take money from Big Pharma. Journals want to be read. So they all try to get a high Impact Factor (IF). To do this, you need to get cited by other authors.
And nothing boosts ratings like a blockbuster produced by Big Pharma. They have the contacts and the sales force to make any study a landmark.
A less obvious benefit is the fees that are generated by Big Pharma purchasing articles for reprint. If a company publishes an article in the NEJM, they may order several hundred thousand copies of the article to be distributed to unsuspecting doctors everywhere.
These fees are not trivial. The NEJM publisher Massachusetts Medical Society gets 23% of its income from reprints. The Lancet - 41%. The American Medical Association - a gut busting 53%. No wonder these journals are ready to sell their readers (ordinary physicians) down the river. It pays.
Who needs journalistic ethics when there’s a Mercedes in the driveway? Mo money, baby. Mo money.
Bribery of Journal Editors - A recent study by Liu et al in the BMJ shed more light on the problem of crooked journals. Crooked journal editors. Editors play a crucial role in determining the scientific dialogue by deciding which manuscripts are published.
They determine who the peer reviewers are. Using the Open Payments database, they looked at how much money the editors of the most influential journals in the world were taking from industry sources. This includes ‘research’ payments, which are largely unregulated.
As mention previously, much ‘research’ consists of going to meetings in exotic locale. It funny how many conferences are held in beautiful European cities like Barcelona, and how few are done in brutally cold Quebec City.
Of all journal editors that could be assessed, 50.6% were on the take. The average payment in 2014 was $27,564. Each. This does not include an average $37, 330 given for ‘research’ payments.
Other particularly corrupt journals include:
This is slightly horrifying. Each editor of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology received, on average $475 072 personally and another $119 407 for ‘research’. With 35 editors, that’s about $15 million in bribes to doctors. No wonder the JACC loves drugs and devices.
It pays the private school bills. Mo money = we’ll publish your crooked studies for you. Mo money, baby, mo money.
Publication Bias - The evidence base that EBM depends upon is completely biased. Some people think I’m really anti-Pharma, but this is not really true. Big Pharma companies have a duty to their shareholders to make money. They have no duty to patients. On the other hand, doctors have a duty to patients. Universities have a duty to remain unbiased.
It is the failure of doctors and universities to keep their greedy paws out of the corrupting influence of Big Pharma money that is the problem. If Big Pharma is allowed to spend lots of $$$ paying off doctors and universities and professors, then it should do so to maximize profits.
That is their mission statement. Doctors love to blame Big Pharma companies because it takes peoples gaze off the real problem - lots of doctors taking $$$ from anybody who will pay. The pharma industry is not the problem.
Bribery of university doctors is the problem - one that is easily fixed if the political will exists.
Consider this study. Looking at studies in the field of neurodegenerative disease, researchers looked at all the studies that were started but never finished or never published.
Approximately 28% of studies never made it to the finish line. That’s a problem.
If all the studies that don’t look promising for drug candidates are not published, then it appears that the drugs are way way more effective than they really are. But the published ‘evidence base’ would falsely support the drug. Indeed, Pharma sponsored trials were 5 times more likely to be unpublished.
Imagine you have a coin flipping contest. Suppose a player call ‘Big Pharma” chooses heads, and also pays the coin flipper. Every time the coin flipper pulls up tails, the results don’t count. Every time it comes up heads, it counts. This happens 28% of the time.
Now, instead of a 50/50 split of heads and tails, it’s more like a 66/34 split of heads/tails. So the ‘evidence based medicine’ lover claims that heads is far more likely to come up than tails, and castigates people who don’t believe the results as ‘anti-science’.
Evidence based medicine depends entirely upon having a reliable base of evidence (studies). If the evidence base is tampered with, and paid for, then EBM as a science is completely useless.
Indeed, the very editors whose entire careers have been EBM have now discovered it to be worthless.
Does the CEO of Phillip Morris (maker of Marlboro cigarettes) smoke? That tells you all you need to know about the health risks.
Do the editors of the NEJM and the Lancet believe EBM anymore? Not at all. So neither should we. We can’t believe evidence based medicine until the evidence has been cleaned up from the corrupting influence of commercial interests.
Financial conflicts of interest (COI), also known as gifts to doctors, is a well accepted practice. A national survey in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2007 shows that 94% of physicians had ties to the pharmaceutical industry. This gravy train only rides in one direction.
Many medical schools have limited exposure of medical students in response, but declined to get off the gravy train themselves. There is a simple relationship between how prominent a physician is (more articles published - almost always academic doctors and professors) and how much money they take from Big Pharma.
What, you thought people teach at prestigious institutions like universities for the good of mankind? Maybe that’s why they went there, but that’s not why they stay. They came for the science.
They stayed for the money.
So here’s a damning list of all the problems of EBM:
Bribery of Journal Editors
Financial Conflicts of Interests
When the evidence base of medicine is bought and paid for, people die.
That is how doctors have created this opioid crisis that kills thousands of people. Pharmaceutical companies want to pay off doctors, just as drug lord want to pay off judges and police officers.
Doctors, being human, should put safeguards against this temptation. Unfortunately, doctors and universities have been willing participants in this game of killing for profit. We need to end it now. End the corruption of the universities. Stop the bribery of doctors.
The researchers have found that most of the previous studies into the sweeteners touting their alleged “health advantages” over using sugar as a sweetener, were written or sponsored by the companies that produce the products.
"A trio of researchers from John Hopkins University in Maryland, the University of California San Francisco, and Australia’s University of Sydney took an extensive look at 31 past reviews on the potential weight loss effects of artificial sweeteners.
They found that studies directly funded by sweetener companies or published in industry-funded journals were more likely to find positive health benefits compared to reviews funded independently or by the competing sugar industry.
Similarly, reviews authored by scientists who had a relevant financial conflict of interest were also less likely to shine a harsh light on sweeteners, either directly via positive results or by putting a positive spin on negative results when discussing their conclusions."
"In the 1950s, studies showing a link between coronary heart disease (CHD) and sugar intake started to emerge.
When the sugar industry (which many not-so-affectionately call “Big Sugar”) got wind of this not-so-sweet news, they paid scientists to downplay the link and promote saturated fat as the culprit instead, a new study has revealed.
The research, published in JAMA Internal Medicine, was based on thousands of pages of Sugar Research Foundation (SRF) documents, reports, and statements that Cristin E. Kearns, a postdoctoral fellow at UCSF, discovered in the basement at Harvard University.
The SRF (known today as The Sugar Association) sponsored its first CHD “research project” in 1965 – a literature review published in the New England Journal of Medicine. The review’s objective was established by SRF, and the group contributed articles for inclusion and received drafts. The SRF’s funding and role was not disclosed.
Why is this a big deal?
Big Sugar paid Harvard scientists the equivalent of about $50,000 in today’s dollars to influence the review, and subsequently spent $600, 000 ($5.3 million in 2016 dollars) to teach “people who had never had a course in biochemistry… that sugar is what keeps every human being alive and with energy to face our daily problems.”
For years many industries have delayed the publication of research that may put their products in a bad light, others have simply paid off researchers to point the finger of blame at other products, as did the Sugar Association in 1967.
The revelations over sweeteners come as no surprise, but they should remind us that we need to do our own research rather than taking something at face value just because there was a “study.”
This isn’t new. The FDA upholds these studies all the time, and products that could literally kill us end up on the store shelves marked as safe, false nutritional information that supports the sugar lobby and the grain lobby is touted as the truth, and Americans get sicker and fatter as a result.
Industries and individual companies have paid researchers to lie or distort the truth on their behalf in order to sell more of their products. Not only is this shameful behavior from the companies, but also from the researchers that compromised their science to accommodate them.
The results of such spurious research have an even further effect. Fewer people start to trust medical and scientific research - including well-executed and honest research.
The answer as always it to look behind the headlines, find the counter arguments, track down the source of the funding, and make your decisions accordingly.
PS: The best quality low-carb sweetener we’ve gotten our hands on is Agave 5 – you can find it here.
Like Tobacco And Big Pharma, The Sugar Industry Has Manipulated Research For 50 Years
Don’t you love people who cling to scientific research without ever questioning who sponsored that research? Using archival documents, a new report published by JAMA Internal Medicine examines the sugar industry’s role in heart disease research.
The study suggests that the sugar industry sponsored research to influence the scientific debate to cast doubt on the hazards of sugar and to promote dietary fat as the culprit in heart disease. Governments worldwide agreed just like they did with the tobacco industry and big pharma.
The sugar industry was instrumental in influencing the prevailing thinking about fat, obesity and related diseases holding that quantifying calories should be a principal concern and target for intervention.
Part of this thinking is that consumed calories - regardless of their sources - are equivalent; i.e. ‘a calorie is a calorie’. There needs to be a greater qualitative focus on the sources of calories consumed (i.e. a greater focus on types of foods) and on the metabolic changes that result from consuming foods of different types.
Calorie-focused thinking is inherently biased against high-fat foods, many of which may be protective against obesity and related diseases, and supportive of starchy and sugary replacements, which are likely detrimental.
The intake of dietary fructose increased significantly from 1970 to 2000. There has been a 25% increase in available “added sugars” during this period. The average person has a daily added sugar intake of 79 g (equivalent to 15% of energy intake), approximately half of which was fructose.
A report - authored by Cristin E. Kearns, Laura A. Schmidt, and Stanton A. Glantz of the University of California, San Francisco - examined internal documents from the Sugar Research Foundation (which later evolved into the Sugar Association).
The Sugar Research Foundation started doing research on coronary heart disease research in 1965; its first project was a literature review published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1967.
The review focused on fat and cholesterol as the dietary causes of coronary heart disease, downplaying sugar consumption as a risk factor.
UCSF researchers have recently claimed sugar should be controlled like alcohol and tobacco to protect public health since it is fueling a global obesity pandemic, contributing to 35 million deaths annually worldwide from non-communicable diseases like diabetes, heart disease and cancer.
While the Sugar Research Foundation’s funding and role were not disclosed, internal documents reveal that the organization set the review’s objective, contributed articles to be included, and received drafts - a “smoking gun” linking the industry’s influence over the research it paid for, writes Marion Nestle in a related commentary, also published in JAMA Internal Medicine.
“This 50-year-old incident may seem like ancient history, but it is quite relevant, not least because it answers some questions germane to our current era. Is it really true that food companies deliberately set out to manipulate research in their favor?
Yes, it is, and the practice continues,” writes Nestle, the Paulette Goddard Professor of Nutrition and Food Studies at NYU Steinhardt."
“Industry-sponsored nutrition research, like that of research sponsored by the tobacco, chemical, and pharmaceutical industries, almost invariably produces results that confirm the benefits or lack of harm of the sponsor’s products, even when independently sponsored research comes to opposite conclusions,” Nestle adds.
Nestle says the report should serve as a warning to policymakers, researchers, clinicians, and journalists in carefully interpreting studies funded by food companies with vested interests in the results, and highlights the need to find better ways to fund studies and to prevent and disclose conflicts of interest.
There Is Deadly Formaldehyde In Clothing, Food, Cigarettes And Vaccines - What Will You Be Wearing, Eating, Smoking And Injecting Today? July 19 2018 | From: NaturalNews
As you may know, formaldehyde, a highly carcinogenic fluid, is used to embalm the dead and preserve the cadaver for viewing purposes, such as at open casket ceremonies or for anatomy, dissection and surgery classes.
Ranked one of the most hazardous compounds to human health, formaldehyde can cause liver damage, gastrointestinal issues, reproductive deformation, respiratory distress and cancer.
When a person dies, the first stage of decomposition is autolysis or self-digestion, because the active process of digestion of nutrients by live cells has ceased. Digestive enzymes therefore enter the cells and start breaking them down. Methods of preserving cadavers have changed over the past two centuries, but formaldehyde is the main embalming chemical used today.
It's a colorless solution that maintains that life-like texture of the body for an extended period of time, and this "fixation" of the cadaver terminates all ongoing biochemical reactions. Many people recall their first experience with formaldehyde in high school biology class, where specimens float in glass jars in an awfully stinky liquid called formalin, which is simply formaldehyde gas mixed with water.
The smell alone is enough to send two out of every three people running out of the room. And now onward to the health discussion.
Little do most people know today that formaldehyde shows up where they least expect it, like in their food, clothing, cosmetics, vaccines and flu shots. Maybe they don't know because they can't smell it.
Many of today's cosmetics and home-building materials contain and release formaldehyde, as do chemically-treated forms of cotton, silk and wool. Ever tried on new clothes and itched like crazy right away?
Even lotions and deodorants can contain preservative molecules that react to become formaldehyde, a.k.a. "releasers" - that way the manufacturer can trick the consumer because they don't have to list formaldehyde as an ingredient or chemical used to make the product or treat it.
Exposure to formaldehyde can cause contact dermatitis, allergic reactions, rashes and yes, leukemia. If you're a woman who uses cosmetics or lotions with chemicals in them, they end up in your blood. If you're a man who uses antiperspirant and deodorants with chemicals in them, they end up in your blood.
What do you think happens when your clothing contains formaldehyde and you work out and sweat while wearing those "cotton" T-shirts, underwear and sweat pants? What about the sheets you sleep on? Is it time to demand organic clothing, linens and diapers?
Cotton is a crop, don't forget, which happens to involve 25 percent of the world's pesticide use, including insecticide and fungicide. Did you know it takes about one-third of a pound of pesticide to grow enough cotton for one T-shirt? What do you get when you mix pesticide with formaldehyde and "consume" it? Ask a smoker.
Formaldehyde in Vaccines, Diet Drinks and Clothing
FYI: Aspartame turns into formaldehyde in the human body:
"Since 1987, formaldehyde has been listed by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a probable human carcinogen. Used as an embalming agent, formaldehyde has been indicated in birth defects, and in environmental allergies.
It has been shown to cause both lymphoma and leukemia in lab rats and in humans. It is known that aspartame turns into formaldehyde in the body, but it has been thought that this formaldehyde was then being eliminated quickly. However, a study in 1998 demonstrated that dietary aspartame binds to tissues in protein. It was found in liver, kidney, and blood.
The report suggested that the buildup of aspartame was cumulative; that is, it continues to build up without being excreted, causing more damage over time. This report concluded that "aspartame consumption may constitute a hazard because of its contribution to the formation of formaldehyde adducts."
After 20 years of poisoning its consumers with Aspartame, PepsiCo says it's removing aspartame from Diet Pepsi, but inserting Sucralose instead. Sucralose is created in a laboratory and is synthetic. How much of this carcinogen will they need to use keep their Diet Pepsi fans?
That's like if some evil scientist said he took the mercury out of vaccines but was going to use snake venom instead. Trading one evil for another. Still, toxic Aspartame will remain in thousands of products manufactured and sold around the world in food, sodas, protein shakes and gum and candy for the children.
Then there's formaldehyde in vaccines, which is highly dangerous because vaccines bypass breathing and digestive filters. Formaldehyde is listed by CDC as an ingredient in Diphtheria/Tetanus/Polio vaccine.
It's also listed on the Hepatitis B and flu shots, along with deadly aluminum hydroxide, aluminum phosphate and bovine cow serum. The scariest part is that formaldehyde has been known to FAIL TO DEACTIVATE THE VIRUS the vaccine is intended to cure, thus enabling a live virus to enter your blood and infect your system.
Related: AntiCorrpuption Society: CDC Exposed
Take the "die" out of your "diet." Never eat, drink, smoke, inject or put deadly chemicals like formaldehyde on your skin again. You do have a choice and knowledge is power.
The Secret And Hidden Agenda Of Language: Why Many Words Are Magic Spells July 18 2018 | From: Omnithought
Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn’t mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae.
The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe.
Spelling: We Spell Words to Pronounce a [Prison] Sentence or Term
The first thing you learn when you go to school is how to spell. Words are spelled to create a sentence of terms. Think of a jail sentence or a prison term.
The Wyrd sisters in Greek mythology were Fates or witches who controlled the fates of man. In our language we use curse words and cursive writing. We cuss and dis-cuss. Words have meaning and (are) mean things especially cross words.
They can be used to make a point. We use a “con” verse to converse in order to keep us off course in our dis-course as a phrase frays. We use catch words. A story is a spiel or a spell. It is all part of the gospel of the Godspell or God’s spell.
Books contain chapters. What is a chapter? A chapter is a secret society or religious order, like the Knights Templar.
A chapter contains many pages. What is a page? A page is an understudy and in service to the queen and king, as in pages and squires, a knight who is well versed in magic and is more or less a soldier or trained assassin.
To page someone is to summons them. Pages summon demons to enslave or imprison our souls. After all, a page does contain many sentences. A jail sentence is served in a prison ward.
And indeed a sentence is created by words that are spelled out by using letters. A letter is someone who allows something to happen or someone who does something for some one else, like a bloodletter.
We languish in our languid language. Languid means “weak and lacking spirit or void of animation, lifeless” and languish which means “to lose strength or animation; be or become dull, feeble or spiritless; lackadaisical, listless”.
How are we imprisoned by our language? Think about a book. The word book as a verb means to arrest or detain - “book ’em, Danno”.
In fact, the Latin word for book is “liber”, which is where we get our word “library” and also the word “liberty”. You can book a reservation which means you’re paying for the ownership of something in advance. You can book or place a bet on a game or race with your bookie.
Yes, there is a bet being placed on a race - and it is the human race and the game is the game of life. It is the main bet or the alpha bet. In a group of monkeys, the alpha monkey is the primary monkey or the one in control.
There’s a song called Spirits in the Material World from an album named Ghost in the Machine. The lyrics proclaim, “Our so-called leaders speak. With words they try to jail ya.
They subjugate the meek. Where do the answers lie when we live from day to day? We are spirits in a material world.” The song was performed by a group appropriately named, The Police. The song - and an entire album by Sting, the lead singer, entitled The Soul Cages - refers to how we are spirits imprisoned in an earthly body.
Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn’t mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe.
Words Mean Things
Most words have multiple meanings and synonyms not to mention many anagrams which the subconscious mind can recognize. Factor in its homophones such as “there”, “they’re”, and “their” and it can get quite confusing to keep track.
What effect does that have when words with almost opposite meanings are homophones.
Think about “know” and “no”. Knowledge is considered a very positive word yet it is linked phonetically with the most negative word in our language. So when you say “I know this to be true” are you partiallly negating its reality?
Consider the above statement in which the letters of the words have been rearranged, yet you still should be able to read it without problem.
This means your subconscious mind should also relate multiple meanings to words have many anagrams. So it shouldn’t be any problem to associate God as good, the devil as evil. Now consider the following word relationships: live, evil; god, dog; love, evol.
Pronouncing the words has a pronounced effect. The science of cymatics shows how all spoken sounds take on a vibratory geometry or shape like how you can blow smoke rings by forming your mouth into the shape of the ‘O’. The tibetan monks show how sound can be used to form geometric patterns in a plate of sand particles. So the spoken word can indeed create reality.
Also consider the mind’s ability to combine words and sounds. When someone sneezes you feel customarily obligated to say “Bless you”. But if you sound out the syllables does your subconscious mind also make the connection to the phrase “Be less, you”.
So the very act of blessing someone can also be subconsciously telling them to be less. This is spell casting.
How are we being programmed through our language to go to the sun or hell? Hello?!!!! Helios was the Greek name for the sun. The sun in English as well as other languages such as Latin, is called Sol. We are all said to be souls or to have a soul (Sol). We have a solar plexus and our feet have soles.
Sole is sun in Italian. You are called a person (pertaining to the sun). When a male child is born, he is called a son (sun). The word for sun is sonne in German.
Hu was one of the twelve gods in the Egyptian stellar cult which could explain why we are human. Colors and hues originate from the light of the sun. Politicians encourage soldiers or soldiers to go to war for God and country. Of course, when they die they will go to another dimension (die men sun).
Have you ever wondered why we use the word hello to greet each other? After all, the word can be reduced to hell, the fiery place of eternal punishment and the suffix -o which means “associated with”.
In Greek mythology, Helios, which means “sun”, was the God of the Sun. Is it just a coincidence that you have a soul and that our sun is called Sol?
If so, why do we call those who die in battle soldiers or sol diers? Is that why we say “good morning” when the sun rises - because it is good to see the sun because it gives us life, but we are mourning those who sacrificed their souls to make it possible. Why do we call our male offspring sons? You are called a person. Is it because you pertain to the sun?
Words are defined in a dictionary - dick-shun-nary. Two of the three syllables are negative sounds and theother is a derogative slang term. Synonyms and antonyms are listed in a thesaurus.
‘The’, from the greek ‘theos’, is the root of the-ology, the study of ‘god’ and ‘saurus’ means ‘lizard’. A thesaurus literally means ‘lizard god’. How many names for government entities start with a negative prefix. The word nation is nay-shun. The UN, Un-ited nations, NATO, NASI party, NASA, Norad, Unesco, NASCAR, NATAS, and I’m sure you can come up with others.
How to Ruin a Language with Rune Magic
Do some of the letters or building blocks of our language contain within them a blueprint for the control and possession of our spirits? English has Germanic origins and it is likely that the english letters have their roots in the Germanic runes which were used for magic and casting spells.
From Wikipedia on rune magic: “In 1990, Stephan Grundy, a.k.a. Kveldulf Gundarsson, described runic magic as the active principle as opposed to passive interpretations based on runic divination.
He held that runic magic is more active than the allegedly shamanic practice of seid practiced by the Seiðkona. Runic magic, he states, uses the runes to affect the world outside based on the archetypes they represent.
Most of Gundarsson’s runic magic entails being in possession of a physical entity that is engraved with any or all of the individual runes or “staves”, so as to practically work with their energies.
The individual runes are reddened with either blood, dyes, or paints. The act of possessing the stave in its final form serves the purpose of affecting the world of form with “the rune might” of that particular stave. After use, the staves are discarded or destroyed.
Gundarsson holds that each rune has a certain sound to it, to be chanted or sung; the sound has in common the phonetic value by which it is represented. This act of singing or chanting is supposed to have more or less the same effect of using the staves in their physical form.
Many of the letters of the English alphabet come directly from the Germanic Runes which were used for magic and spell casting and for causing ‘ruin’. Look at how many English letters you can identify from the Elder Futhark rune set.
Grammar or Grimoire? Goetia & Cymantics
The word “grammar” comes from grammars which were old Latin books on syntax and diction. The ancient magic books of Europe which contained instructions to summon demons were known as the Grimoires, French word for “grammar”.
A “grimoire” or spellbook is a derivative of the french word “grammaire”. The pronunciation and sound of words affects the matter around us. The science of cymatics is the study of sound vibration on matter and it has been demonstrated with sand on plates that vibration caan cause geometric patterns.
The ancient Goetia spellbooks were used for conjuring up demons and each demon had its own sigil and name.
“IT” & The Creature from the Subconscious “ID”
Stephen King captured the hearts of America with the release of his blockbuster smash hit book, “It”. The video features the menacing face of a clown while the book reveals the clown’s head as a skull with stars in the eye sockets.
The video jacket reads:
“Your every fear – all in the deadly enemy. It can be anything, a fanged monster that won’t stay on the movie screen, something ominous lurking in the basement or around the next corner. No matter what your biggest fear is, no one knows IT better than Stephen King…
The force takes the shape of a clown, but it isn’t clowning around. Instead, it terrorizes youngsters with their innermost fears, bringing them to untimely doom – until a group of wily neighborhood kids fight back. Thirty years later it resurfaces: meaner, angrier. And the friends who vividly remember the terrors of their youth reunite to make a desperate final stand against it.”
In an interview, King admits he was possessed during the writing of the book.
Let “It”Be & Make “It”So
Sigmund Freud, the father of psychology, invented a model of the psyche which contained three parts to the self: the ego (conscious mind), the superego (superconscious mind) and what he termed the “id” or the subconscious mind. This was the realm of our fears: scary monsters and demons.
This id was considered a sort of third person subsistent to the conscious and superconscious mind. Of course, we use the word “it” as a sort of third “person” as well in our use of speech. And, of course, subconsciously we have been programmed to accept the abbreviated “ID” as our identity.
We unknowingly give power to this creature and help create “it” every day with our thought and speech. We watch the horor movie “It” by Stephen King and associate all our deep dark subconscious fears with “IT”.
Likewise with the word “thing” (‘everything’. ‘anything’, and ‘nothing’ or no thing) and the use of ambiguous words such as ‘they’ (THEY live), ‘them’ (“If you can’t beat ’em join them”).
We chant the chorus to the song Let It Be over and over again. And it’s no coincidence that IT is the acronym that has been curently assigned to the Information Technology field, or computers, for IT very well may be an artificial intelligence or computer.
For a detailed analysis and many more examples of “IT” please reference my page on this phenomenon.
We really need to learn to speak with a more conscious language in mind, ever aware of how we think our thoughts in our minds and how we word our sentences!!
Consider the English letter ‘S‘. First of all, it looks like a snake or serpent - one that has risen up and is ready to strike or if viewed from overhead it looks like one that is perhaps crawling along. In two-dimensional space, it looks like a sideways wave and in 3-D space it looks like a spiral, both paths that energy follows.
The letter ‘s’ is used in English to denote “possession”, which is Satan’s specialty, by placing it at the end of a word with an apostrophe. Plurality or the concept of multiplication or creation, is achieved by appending an ‘s’ or ‘es’ to a word.
These two facts, coupled with the sheer number of words in our language means the ‘S’ sound is one of the most, if not single most, frequently uttered sounds in our speech.
Although the vowels are used frequently, they have more than one sound associated with them, a long and short sound.
There are probably more esses used in our speech than any other sound. Virtually every sentence we speak contains one or more of these hissing sounds. It would not be accurate to say we sound like hissing snakes when we speak, but our incessant hissing probably reminds us of it at some level subconsciously.
Not only does the letter ‘S’ physically represent the snake or serpent, phonetically it even sounds like a snake!! It sounds exactly like the hissing sound a snake makes – sssssssss – when it “shakes” its tail. The word hiss even ends in a double-s.
And, of course, the words snake and serpent are both s-words as well as Satan, who the Bible says took the form of a snake. He was said to have told mankind a secret - that man would not die if he ate of the fruit.
Of course, when you want to tell someone a secret you say, “pssssssst, come here…” or if you want to keep a secret you say “Shhhhhhhhhhhhh!!“. The dollar sign, $, is the standard symbol for English currency.
Money is said to be the root of all evil. Not only does the ‘S’ look like a snake (Satan), and sound like a snake, which is known for shedding its skin, but nearly all words that begin with the letter ‘s’ have a negative connotation associated with them. That is why they can be considered s-words, or swords, because they can kill and injure like a sword.
These s-words are a seal or stamp associated with Satan, Satan’s Slang or s-lang. The word lang is defined in the dictionary as an abbreviation for the word “language”.
Satan, the snake or serpent also known as Set, slithers about striving to snatch, steal, or strip us of our souls or spirits and is obsessed with possessing or seizing them.
He, or she, is subtle, sly, sneaky, slick, slippery, scaly, secretive, scary, spins, spirals or screws into your soul and possesses you and seizes your spirit.
Speech is his peach and when we speak, Satan is at his peak as far as deception is concerned. The words “possesses”, “obsesses”, “seizes” contain a multiple s-sound and are words pertaining to control.
The word ess, which is defined as the pronunciation for the letter ‘s’, becomes the word esse when a silent ‘e’ is added. The word esse means “to be” which is where we get the word essence and the word essay which is sort of a written speech and comes from the Old French esai which means “to put to a test” which is what Satan did to Jesus in the wilder-ness.
The suffix “-ness” also means a state of being, like loneliness or business. It’s interesting that the Loch Ness in Scotland is said to contain a serpent creature named “Nessie” which nests there.
Yes, Satan certainly is a “Busy Ness” when it comes to the business world and show business. And he specializes in monkey business. One should keep this in mind before wishing for good-ness.
Shit! I, mean, Sheesh! It is not easy to think of positive s-words and double “ss” words are even worse. The swastika resembles two esses and the word ‘swastika’ has two of them in number.
The Nazis had the “SS” and the ‘ss’ logo which looked like lightening bolts.
The far reaching extent in which the spell our language has cast on us can be seen in the every day usage of cliche. Our languages are saturated with what we like to call killer words and phrases because that’s what they do. Englishmen use the word bloody all the time… bloody well right, they do!!! Some women are considered drop deadgorgeous… and when they are dressed to kill, they are to die for. She was a dead ringer for Marilyn Monroe.
If looks could kill they would because she will take your breath away.
Wouldn’t you just kill for a date with her? Sometimes she really gets under my skin and burns me up, but if anyone tries to hurt her, they would have to go“over my dead body because I will punch their lights out if they get near her. I’m serious as a heart attack. I’m dead serious.
She can be as mean as a snake at times, but she really knew how to kill ‘em with kindness. I was dead set for her. I could have just died right there. I mean, I felt like I had just died and gone to heaven.
Eat your heart out. She was a live wire, but at least I would go out in a blaze of glory.
I don’t want to beat a dead horse, but she really took me for a ride. Of course, I wore my heart on my sleeve the whole time, but I was scared to death I might lose her because you really have to keep your eyes peeled to find a good one. Not to be a killjoy, but I’m dead to the world around most women, dead as a doorknob.
Ok, that was overkill and painful to read, but it did make a point. Think about the terms we use when we wish good luck to others. “Break a leg, kid” or “Knock ‘em dead!” Or if someone borrows something from us we say, “Go ahead, knock yourself out.” Even time is not immune to our sadistic ways…”time to kill”, “just killing time”.
Why do Christians conclude their prayers by invoking the name of an Egyptian deity, Amen, who had the body of a man and a ram’s head when Satan is depicted as a horned god having a goat’s head?
Why does the American dollar bill (known as a buck) have an Egyptian pyramid on its reverse side accompanied by the Latin phrase “Anuuit Coeptis Novus Ordo Seclorum” which can be translated “Announcing the Birth of a New World Order”?
Why does the American military wear a chevron as an insignia patch when the word derives from the French word chevre, which means “goat”, and On, the Egyptian City of the Sun?
If the word God traces back to the Indo-European root “ghut-” or the German “gott”, why does the changing of the vowel from a short sound to a long sound render the word “goat”?
Why does Christmas, the birthday of the Son of God, coincide with the birthday of the Sun of God at the winter solstice, the three days when the sun is at its lowest point on the Southern Cross, appears to stand still for three days, and then rises or is born again?
Is this why Easter is celebrated during the Spring Equinox when the East Star, the Sun, has risen? Why is Santa an anagram for Satan? What exactly does Old Nick really mean? And what is a jingle bell?
Why do we have company and product names like Chevron, Capri Sun, Shiner Bock, Star Bucks, and Sears and Roebuck? What is a Sun Kist or a Star Kist? Why are sports contests called ball games and why do we idolize rock stars such as Kid Rock?
The genre of Horror films possesses other “creature features” with “It” in the title. There was “It Lives!”, “It Lives Again”, “It Came From the Sea”, “It Came From Outer Space”, and “It’s Alive!” which is the expression Doctor Frankenstein made famous when he brought his monster to life.
From the time we were young, we have been told over and over again that IT is a scary creature that this association has become deeply embedded within the recesses of our mind.
On the Adamms Family, Cousin Itt was a monster. Itt communicated via a high speed gibberish that only members of the Addams family seemed to understand.
Cousin Itt’s voice was provided by sound-effects engineer Tony Magro, who created Itt’s garbled responses by mouthing gibberish into a tape recorder, with a “ppffft and a thhhhhttt” added for good measure, and then accelerating the tape’s recording speed.
The eyes have it. What do the eyes have? What or who is it? The eyes are the windows to the soul. In Saturday Night Live, Dana Carvey played the Church Lady who asked, “Could IT be… Satan?”
That IT refers to Satan can seen in the phrase “when It rains, It pours.” Satan, the goat God, is also known as Pan, the Piper. The word gote, a variant spelling of goat, means a channel or pipe for water and comes from the Old English word geotan which means “to pour”! So when It reigns, It pours.
When children play hide and seek, someone always has to be “it”. All the other children run and hide from whoever’s “it”. “It” then goes roaming around trying to find and capture whoever’s not “it”. When someone is found they are tagged as the new “it” - “Tag, you’re it!!”
The Beatles’ Paul McCartney said the idea for the song “Let it Be” came to him in a dream. He chants the line over and over and we all sing along almost willing it into existence.
Every time the song is played on the radio, thousands and thousands are sending forth thought and sound vibrations into the air. We use the word “it” in our language over and over all the time. Could it be possible to manifest a creature from the id, or from the subconscious? Think of these songs: Bread’s “Make it with you”,
The Scorpions “Make it Real”:
“…Make it real, not fantasy
Did you ever have a secret yearning?
Don’t you know it could come true?
Now’s the time to set wheels turning
To open up your life for you
As you know there’s always good and evil
Make your choice, Don’t be blind
Open up your mind and don’t be trivial
There’s a whole new world to find
Make it real, not fantasy…”
The Michael Jackson song “Who is it?”
“…(Who is it?)
It is a friend of mine
(Who is it?)
Is it my brother?
(Who is it?)
Somebody hurt my soul
(Who is it?)
I can’t take this stuff no more…”
In this song, Michael explains who IT is:
“Can you feel it in the air
Ghosts be hiding everywhere
I’m gonna be
Exactly what you wanna see
It’s you who’s haunting me
You’re warning me
To be the stranger
In your life
Am I amusing you
Or just confusing you?
Am I the beast
And if you wanna to see
I’ll be grotesque
Before your eyes
Let them all materialize
Is that scary for you, baby
Am I scary for you, oh
Is it scary for you, baby
Is it scary for you?”
How about songs like Mariah Carey’s Make It Happen or Bread’s Make It with You? Star Trek’s Captain Picard says “Make it so.” Nike inundates us with the “Just Do It” slogan and the swoosh logo.
People do things “just for the hell of it”. Believe it. Keep it real. To hell with it!!! Keep it up. Let it ride. Pass it on. Get with it.
Are you with it? Go for it. Hop to it. Bring it on. Get it together. Play it again, Sam. There’s something to it. Check it out. Figure it out. I love it!! When someone dies, “I guess that was it”. Live it up. Let it go. Do you get it? i get it! How’s it going? It’s going good! How’s it hanging? Don’t let it end. Who can it be now? It’s a wonderful life (the ‘i deal’ life). Let’s make it last. You’ve got it made. Give it a try. Grin and bear it. It just so happens. Leave it alone. Give it a rest. How sweet it is. It’s what you make it. I can see it in your eyes. Get it together. What is it? Get over it. The devil made me do it. Whatever it takes. Now you see it, now you don’t. Cut it out. Whoomp, there it is.
I’m not going to stand for it. Take it away boys. It looks so real. Say it ain’t so. Give it up. It could happen to you. It can’t be true (it always lies). I can feel it in my bones. It’s a mystery. Give it everything you’ve got.
It’s all in your head. I can’t get it out of my head. It’s in the way that you use it. Get it, got it? Good. Could it be? Don’t even try it. Sit on it.
The Energizer bunny took the world by storm in one of the best advertising campaigns in history.
The slogan which was for batteries that create energy was “It keeps going and going…” and became a household phrase for many years. Alka Seltzer encourages us to “Try it, you’ll like it!” Compaq asks the question, “Has it changed your life yet?” And American Express admonishes us to “Don’t Leave Home without It.”
The company Sobe had this ad on their web site encouraging us to “get it up” and to “keep it up”.
The Lexicon of Love
we all “fall” inlove sometimes
blinded by love
from make up to break up
love is the drug
i got a crush on you
i just died in your arms tonight
crazy for you
dying to be with you
hurts so bad
i gave her my heart
addicted to love
take my breath away
i’m lost without your love
breaking up is hard to do
you put a spell on me, under her spell, spellbound
love hurts, love bites, love stinks, lovestruck baby
love is a battlefield
drunk in love
stole/captured my heart/soul
dazed and confused
cupid shoots an arrow through the heart
why do fools fall in love
how can you men a “broken heart”
unbreak my heart
heart skips a beat
over the moon
all’s fair in love and war
50% marriages end in divorce
To read more articles on similar and related topics, visit Omnithough.org
Secret Space Program Disclosure: Founders Of Solar Warden SSP With William Tompkins Ju;y 17 2018 | From: SphereBeingAlliance
In this episode, we have deeper insights into the Secret Space Program, with the astonishing disclosures of William Tompkins, our 94-year-old aerospace engineer who is clearly one of the founding fathers of the very Solar Warden program which he named - that same code name - that Corey later worked in.
In this first interview that we're going to show you, Tompkins gets into detail about one of the craft designs that he was working on for the Navy. Let's take a look.
And so in one of the big design review meetings, one of the managers said, “Wait a minute, Bill, it's a vacuum out there. You don't have to make it pointed. You don't have to have atmosphere to go working through.”
And so I said, Well, that's true, but the electromagnetic protection system, which we still are not sure how we're going to word, may or may not be capable of handling all of the different types of vehicles or weapons that could be . . . being used on us. And also, under certain conditions, we actually can get into the planet's atmosphere and operate. So anyway, we got around that one.
Now, if you can picture here this area down in here [Bill points to the bottom, center of the craft] . . . I'm going to switch these, and you're going to see the lower part of the hull.
Click on the image above top open a larger version in a new window
And what you see there is the different classes of attack and fighter aircraft returning to the mothership, or the spacecraft carrier, and with a vacuum-controlled entry sections. Actually, they would design to fold down so that you're already in support of making inside landing.
Nobody actually flies in these squadrons controlling any of the vehicles. It's all automatic, so you're not going to be hitting the walls or any of this kind of thing.
But very quickly, you can open these hatches on the side. The hatch then becomes sort of a platform to possibly land on if you're too low. And this answers the question of how do we handle the large spaces aboard the ships that are going to be operating on the missions.
So what we had done then was, using the same type of design concepts, we looked at the Marines' missions. We looked at the communication missions. We actually came up with virtually hundreds, then, of missions and sub-missions that we then in the tank [think tank] made recommendations back to the Navy themselves.
And one admiral, when he saw that first illustration, he made the statement that just the shape of that's going to scare them away. They'll turn around and go back, because it is a pretty hot configuration.
Some of the others are not as good and actually some of them are rectangular, depending on what the mission is required to accomplish.
David: So that's a pretty technically detailed diagram. And it's just one of a variety of things that come from this guy who has no financial interest in this. His book didn't sell very much. He's just living on a fixed income. And yet, that degree of precision in the art doesn't seem like it would be coming from somebody who's trying to make something up.
So I'm curious about how similar that looks to anything that you saw?
Corey Goode: That was most likely one of the concept designs that probably got fine-tuned. But there could be a craft that looks like that out there that I hadn't seen. I didn't see all of our vessels out there.
Now, that looked very similar to longer, wedge-shaped vessels that I saw that had areas coming up off the top almost like you see on a Navy vessel on the ocean.
And also, it had stealth edges. The corners were very much like the stealth ships that you see – how they curve.
David: Well, and something kind of caught my eye, which is that in his discussions with his superiors on the design, they said, “Oh, you don't need to worry about aerodynamics. It's not going through an atmosphere.”
But what I'm thinking of is, “Wait a minute. There's all this charge that you've got to move through even in space. There's inertia and there's electromagnetic fields.
So do you think that part of the reason why everything has an aerodynamic shape is that the basic vacuum energy of space itself has some sort of resistance that you have to cut through when you go through it?
Corey: They don't all have the aerodynamic shape.
David: Oh, Okay.
Corey: And as far as moving through charged particles and all this stuff in space, that's what the material on the outside of the craft and the electromagnetic shielding is for.
David: But in a case like this, for that particular mission, if it's also going to go through a planet's atmosphere, it would be good to have some aerodynamic qualities.
Corey: Right. The vessels that travel inside our atmosphere and out are usually going to be somewhat aerodynamic, even though with the propulsion systems they have they are not traveling through the atmosphere per se. They are in a bubble. And inside that bubble, the bubble is traveling.
David: Is there a reason for why stealth technology seems to involve these different flat panels that are kind of arranged at different angles? What's going on there?
Corey: It deflects radar, lidar, different waves, away from the receiver of the radar or lidar. So how it works is if you send it out and it hits a flat surface that is angled right, it's going to come back and you're going to get a report from that wave bouncing back.
If you have sharp angles, then very little of that wave is going to bounce back. The rest of it's going to be dispersed, and the waves will bounce off, but they're not going to hit the detector.
David: Well, I know that my insider Pete Peterson described that when the stealth was rolled out for Gulf War I, that it had in fact been mothballed for 20 years and was a very archaic and almost useless piece of technology by that time. Here he's [Tompkins] doing something in the 1950s that looks like stealth.
David: So that's pretty darn interesting.
Corey: Stealth goes way back.
Corey: Right. Stealth was being developed soon after the discovery and invention of the radar.
According to insiders the Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird is an example of vastly outdated technology that had been mothballed - but was later hauled out to give the public a glimpse of what their dollars had been used to develop at drastically overcharged rates (with the bulk of the funds being chanelled into the SSP's). By the time the public got to see this - it had been decomissioned junk for decades.
David: Wow! So I noticed in the second image that he showed that you have these very, very large doors, or hatches, as he was calling them, that open up on the side of the craft, and then a lot of little triangular wedges going in.
So what was your feeling when you saw that part of the illustration?
Corey: Well, as far as the doors opening, I had seen elevators that lift aircraft, move aircraft around. But if you have a door opening out, that can cause a lot of logistical problems if you're in battle or if you are traveling at a high rate of speed.
So usually, they have the doors open like this [side to side], up and down, and not protrude out.
Corey: But if there was another purpose and a need for it, I could see why they would develop it.
David: What about the actual shape of all those craft that were going into the larger craft?
Corey: Yes, that was very familiar. And the fact that he mentioned in these newer vessels or carriers, they do fly drones. They have people all inside [buildings or large craft] sitting in long rows flying drones, and they control a number of drones apiece.
Corey: Yeah. Little constellations of drones.
David: So what would this type of craft that he was designing be used for? Is it an attack craft? Is this a support craft?
Corey: It can be offensive and defensive, but usually these craft are designed to be offensive for attacking an enemy.
David: Does the Space Program have any proclivity towards doing an offensive attack on a civilization that they think they could conquer and overwhelm? Or is there also . . . is it mostly going to be defensive when they're out there trying to see what's around and getting attacked?
Corey: Well, it depends on who is in charge of, I guess, the Navy assets at the time. These people follow orders. So if they have a problem with attacking another species, they have to follow orders.
David: Well, in the case of a movie like “Avatar”, we have a clear example of our own government / military-industrial complex, in what would appear to be the future, having developed a space program, going to another planet with people who are tall and have blue skin, but there was something there that they really wanted, which was this unobtainium.
Do you think “Avatar” is describing something that is actually happening? Are there certain cases where planets are invaded for their materials?
Corey: Well, I do know that certain aspects of the ICC, but especially Dark Fleet, are going out on offensive conquering missions. And they're doing this alongside the Reptilians.
David: Well, and I do also remember Pete Peterson telling me that many of the craft that you see in “Avatar” are exactly identical to stuff that he had actually seen or worked on. I'm wondering if any of them look familiar to you when you saw the movie?
Corey: I didn't witness a whole lot of craft that flew inside of an atmosphere.
Corey: So all of those craft were clearly designed to fly inside of some sort of a dense atmosphere. The craft that I saw were not built to operate in atmosphere.
David: All right. Well, speaking of James Cameron, not only do we have “Avatar”, he also had that movie “The Abyss”, where he describes extraterrestrials underneath the surface of the ocean.
And here we have William Tompkins in a very interesting discussion about undersea bases. Let's take a look.
Under Sea Bases
Tompkins:I did get hired by General Dynamics for a Navy program. And this program was to locate German submarines – anti-submarine warfare program.
And what's interesting about this is that the Navy selected the Lockheed P-3 patrol bombers to be the air vehicles to locate German ships and submarines.
Lockheed P-3 patrol bomber
German "U-Boat" submarine
This is the Cold War now, and so there was roughly 15 other NATO countries who were using the same aircraft, the same electronics, the same sensing systems and the communication system – all of it engineered and designed in US.
And so the United States had 120 of these, and the NATO countries had like another 60 of them, all out looking for German [and/or Russian] submarines.
But that's not quite the numbers. It's more like we had 2,000 of these and NATO had another 1,000 of these – not quite that high. And remember, there were only 11 Soviet submarines operating at that time. There were many of them that were in training operations, but they weren't tactical.
And so here we've got 2,800 P-3 aircraft flying all around the planet 24 hours a day looking for submarines.
Well, gee whiz, that's not exactly what we were doing either. And there's a title to the program, which is the mission ASW – anti-submarine warfare. But there's also one which is ASUW. And so the “U” is for 'unidentified extraterrestrials'.
And so this was the second-largest amount of military money allocated for a program on the planet. It's peacetime, but it's sort of a war condition. And we have all of these airplanes out, and it became necessary for a group, which I then was manager of, working for Data Graphics, which is a subsidiary of General Dynamics.
And later on, I worked for the corporate office on the red team at the corporate level.
And when we look at the size of this program, the number of personnel that have to be trained to fly these aircraft, the upgrading continually of the sensing systems, the underwater systems of the satellite system programs that were required to be on board these aircraft, it's absolutely unreal.
What we were really doing was looking for extraterrestrial vehicles in the ocean and in the large lakes and their bases on the bottom of the ocean.
People don't realize how much money, how much time, and how many people have to be involved in these programs.
And what are you doing? You're looking for extraterrestrials. Do you realize what we're saying? I mean, you're looking for extraterrestrial vehicles and bases. Your Navy is.
David: Well, the first thing that strikes me about the interview footage that we just saw here is the scope of this classified military operation to try to actually identify who is on our planet, where are they, what is their infrastructure, what is their agenda?
It would have to involve a massive amount of effort. So what were your thoughts on that?
Corey: I have heard of operations similar to what he was talking about, of fleets that were combing the ocean looking for submerged bases, and also USOs – unidentified submersible objects, I believe.
Now, from what I understood, very few people in that fleet would know what they were actually looking for. Everyone would go about doing their normal jobs. It'd just be a normal mission or a training mission, they'd be told. But very few intelligence people in that fleet would know exactly what was going on.
David: Well, to have 2,800 P-3 aircraft airborne at all times – this is obviously before the era of accurate geostationary satellites.
David: We're talking about a massive, massive operation here. How long do you think this had to have been done for?
Corey: Until they had strong enough sonar that would penetrate to the deepest parts of the ocean, and until we had the satellite coverage we needed. They had some sort of groups of aircraft or Navy vessels that were combing the ocean looking for non-terrestrials.
David: Do you think that there might have been a temptation at some point to tell the public, “Hey, we're aware of this extraterrestrial presence. We're doing the best we can. We're cataloging it now.”
Or was it just really important the whole thing be secret to avoid a panic of some kind?
Corey: Well, just in general, the Navy . . . I mean, you hear “loose lips sink ships”. Information is very compartmentalized to begin with, but this is not long after World War II, so everybody still had a different mindset than we do today.
If the government told you to stick a lit cigar in your ear, you'd say, “Yes, sir. Give me another.” That's just the way people were programmed.
David: So Tompkins is also discussing another point of corroboration with some things that you've said, which is that there were, in fact, underwater bases to be seen.
So could you review for us what your knowledge is about the existence of these bases, and where are they, what do they look like, who's in them, etc., etc.? Are there different types . . .
David: . . . that would be underground or underwater?
Corey: And there's a number of different types that are underwater. I even read about large underwater bases that were mobile, that moved along the bottom of the ocean and was doing some sort of core sampling or testing of the material that it was passing over.
And if you located where one of these were, you would then have to track it since they now were moving. So they would have ships that would just track a mobile underwater base.
David: Well, before we taped this segment, we were looking at just something like that on the Internet. Let's take a look right now at that little . . . This is an excerpt from a video describing something very similar to what Corey just described – two-and-a-half-mile wide, round object that seems to be tracing patterns on the sea floor.
Images from video on possible undersea ET exploration craft
So do you think that that is an example of one of these craft?
Corey: That very well could be. I mean, a two-mile-wide object is not going to be pushed in that unusual way under the ocean by a current.
David: So what would they be doing in a case like that? What's the objective?
Corey: From what I was told, these were like bases, but also laboratories. They were going around doing core samples, finding out what was at different depths below the surface, below the floor of the ocean.
David: Why would somebody want to have an undersea base if there's a honeycomb Earth and they could just pop into one of those combs underground?
Corey: There's a lot of different regions inside the honeycomb Earth that belong to different groups that they claim as their territory.
Also, under the ocean . . . There are a lot of different beings coming here that could care less about us, could care less about any animals flying in the sky or running around. All they care about is the life forms in the ocean and the ocean itself. They see the ocean as a life form. And a lot of these are aquatic species.
David: So what do you think was going on when James Cameron made “The Abyss”? It seems a very specific idea was being conveyed. We also have reason to believe that some of his other movies had disclosure in them as well, like “Avatar”. What do you think “The Abyss” was intended to get people ready for?
Corey: It was most likely groups within the military-industrial complex starting to seed our consciousness, which is what they've been doing through movies and television shows for a long time.
David: Yeah. That definitely makes sense, because this is an ongoing effort of four generations now of disclosure to get us ready for the truth.
Corey: Right. And as you've already reported, when Sony got hacked, it was proven that DARPA and these other groups were passing on ideas for movies and television shows.
David: Exactly. All right. Well, we have one more really exciting piece of footage for you to see here with our interview with Tompkins. And this time, he is describing his personal experience with one of the most infamous and legendary events in UFO lore – less known up until recently, a lot less known than Roswell, but several years before Roswell.
We're talking about the Battle of Los Angeles. Let's take a look now.
Battle of Los Angeles
Tompkins: February 1942, we were living in a very large home which had been converted to four apartments – two upstairs, two down.
We had a great big enormous deck that ran all the way across this real high-celinged building. So we were four blocks from the ocean, okay? We can't see the ocean, because it's down low and trees are in the way.
So my brother and I are laying on our floor listening to the radio and looking at some papers, and my dad says, “Get out here – out on the deck. Get out here NOW!” And we got up, and we went out to the back deck.
So right above the horizon of all the trees and stuff and buildings is this dot – a white dot. It's just there. And it's got to be some aircraft flying in to come over and land at the airbase, but it's not moving. It's just a bright dot.
And off of this dot, to the left, is a little beam. It's like a pencil beam, but you can see it.
This is out over the ocean, like maybe inside the breakwater, because we couldn't see the ocean, and we don't know how far out it is. It could have been 10 miles out. What in the world was that?
So we're watching it for about five minutes, and then there was a flash – a brilliant flash into our eyes.
It lit up the trees, the back, the side of – everything got lit up.
And it went out.
And we looked and looked and looked, and everything was gone – nothing else. So we went to bed.
12:30 at night, the anti-aircraft guns started firing. What we're talking about is this fantastic situation, the Los Angeles event – the Battle of Los Angeles, okay?
The anti-aircraft guns all started firing.
We go outside. Here's this massive thing right above us this big [Bill holds his hands about 3-ft. apart] – right above us, maybe 7,000 feet.
The anti-aircraft shells are blowing up on the bottom of it all around it. There's eight searchlights all focused on this as they're shooting at it.
And, of course, nothing is happening. And it parks there for an hour and a half. While it's parked, hundreds of different types of vehicles – most of them circular, but some cigar-shaped, large ones – came in underneath, being fired on where they're still trying to shoot this thing down.
They came around him. They came over him – all night long.
Now, it got boring after awhile, so we went to bed at 3:00 a.m. I don't know how it gets boring, okay? We went to bed at 3:00 a.m.
Now, when it started, everybody came outside. All of us are standing there watching this event.
Now, what was not published was that the breakwater is full of Navy ships who used up all of their ammunition that five-hour period – not just the coastal artillery who used up all of their ammunition, okay?
Your whole two Pacific navies, the Eastern Navy and the Western Navy, used up all their ammunition.
They finally quit, of course, just before daylight, and everybody went back inside.
But from the standpoint of all of us out there watching this, nobody got a heart attack. Nobody got sick. Nobody got scared. Nobody got frightened.
On the other side of the planet, London, was being bombed by the Germans. And they're trying to get into shelters.
We had a five-hour war, except they didn't shoot at us. But nobody got sick. The only persons who were actually wounded was from shrapnel. A couple of guys actually were killed.
Almost a million people in California watched an event for five hours of a massive extraterrestrial battle group that came over California with a mission.
David: Well, this is obviously one of the great classic events in UFO lore, something that just can't be covered up. Did you ever hear about or read about this battle on the smart-glass pads or in any of the briefings that you had on the inside?
Corey: I read that it had occurred. The only thing that I saw that wasn't reported here is that during the same time period, we did recover a non-terrestrial craft from the ocean in that general vicinity.
Corey: Yeah. I don't know if that would have been one of these smaller craft that he saw or the large one. To me, it seemed as though they were unaffected by the anti-aircraft.
David: But it is possible that one of them took a stray hit or something and landed in the ocean.
Corey: It could be. Or the Battle of LA craft and these other craft that sound like came out of it could very well have been searching for . . . It might have been a rescue operation.
You know, there's a number of things it could have been. They could have been probing our defenses, or maybe making a point to some of our leaders after a recent meeting.
David: Well, let me run this idea by you. This is something I discussed on “Wisdom Teachings”. It's worth repeating and getting your thoughts.
If you go back to Fatima, Portugal, right after Portugal enters into World War I, which is this horrible, devastating thing where tens of millions of people are dying, ultimately, you have these kids who start to be in contact with what appear to be spiritual beings that ultimately leads to a mass sighting of a silvery disk in which 90,000 people witnessed this thing.
And then they're soaked in rain, but when the whole thing's over they were miraculously dry. The craft appears to shoot rainbow colors all over the sky. 90,000 witnesses . . . That would have been the end of the cover-up if it had happened in our times.
Corey: Right. And a million people seeing this in Los Angeles, and sounds like Long Beach and other areas – today, with everyone having an iPhone, it would – yeah, it would be over.
David: So do you think it's possible that both the Fatima sightings and the Battle of LA could be benevolent groups that are showing us these things as we enter into war, to try to steer us away from warfare perhaps?
Corey: It very well could be, because with their technology, they could have flattened the whole city with very little effort.
So they were obviously not there for some sort of offensive operation – maybe an intelligence operation, rescue recovery operation, or there to make a point. But I really don't know exactly why this incident occurred.
According to what I've heard, there was some treaty signed that this type of open sighting, open mass sighting, is against a treaty.
Corey: So there had to have been a good reason why it happened.
David: Now, we've heard from guys like Benjamin Fulford in some of his disclosures that he was told by Pentagon insiders that 75% of all production money for Hollywood films is coming from the Pentagon through various backdoor firms.
So let me just ask you first if you have ever heard anything like that?
Corey: Oh, yeah. Yeah. A lot of money from the DoD (Department of Defense) and Pentagon is going in for propaganda.
David: So why do you think the Battle of Los Angeles movie would be made? Do you think maybe they're confusing people's Google search so that they're going to find this movie instead of any real information?
Corey: Well, they know that that was a very significant occurrence UFO-wise in American history. Nearly a million people saw it.
Corey: So it was already in our consciousness. So that's a tool for them. And they – they being different military intelligence groups – are trying to spin the narrative that all of these beings coming in are negative, and that they are here to invade. And this one obviously wasn't, because it didn't attack.
David: Do you think maybe creating a movie with the same title blocks people from finding the original incident at all?
Corey: It could do that, or it could just put the whole sci-fi spin on it to where . . . You know, we're already programmed to roll our eyes any time we hear anything alien or UFO. That's probably part of the effort.
David: I was fortunate enough at one of my conferences to have a woman stand up who was a little girl during the time that this happened and witnessed the entire thing. And it was quite fascinating.
We let her speak for some time to the audience. It was quite spontaneous.
The point is, a million people is a lot of witnesses. It's kind of amazing that we still have a UFO cover-up after something like that.
Corey: Yes, but the propaganda and the programming that has come from these intelligence groups has been very effective. So there's a good chance that if something like that happened today and we didn't get photos, a lot the people that witnessed it themselves would, after a few days, be like, “Oh, that didn't happen.” Or just forget about it and move on.
David: Well, another interesting thing regarding the Battle of Los Angeles is the “War of the Worlds” broadcast. The original broadcast with Orson Welles was in 1939. But then when the movie came out, it was after this had happened.
And we have multiple eyewitnesses saying that the craft that you see in the “War of the Worlds” movie is very similar to the one in the Battle of Los Angeles, except that it has a little periscope on the top.
So why do you think they would actually put the real craft into the movie?
Corey: Well, they're always hiding things in plain sight. So if you were to see something similar to “War of the Worlds”, on some level you might be willing to discount it, thinking, “Oh, that's military, or that's some concept that's being used for a movie”.
You're going to jump to that instead of aliens automatically. That's possible.
David: Well, do you think also that putting those exact same craft into “War of the Worlds” where they become hostile attackers . . .
Corey: Oh, yeah.
David: . . . instead of peaceful demonstrators, could be like a form of mass mind control?
Corey: Well, sure. If you see a certain craft design and see it destroying cities in a movie, well, if you see it in real life, what are you programmed to think?
They could be coming down to say, “Hello”, and maybe give you a ride and show you around the solar system, but you've been programmed to run and hide because you think that it's an invasion.
David: Exactly. Do you think it's possible that we could have another mass demonstration like that at some point that there could be another event like that if, for example, this Mohammad Treaty gets overturned?
Corey: Absolutely. If the treaty that's supposed to prevent that is overturned, there are a lot of non-terrestrials that want to be up in the sky and over populated areas to let us know that they're here.
David: Now, you also mentioned in some of your recent briefings that both the SSP Alliance and the Cabal are concerned about the possibility of wreckage crashing into a major American city.
So just real briefly, since we're talking about these battles in the air, what are they thinking would happen, and how would that play out on the world stage?
Corey: Well, they're afraid that some of their weapons platforms that have been up in orbit, and advanced craft, could possibly fall into a populated urban area with all of the activity that's going on up there. There are shootdowns happening.
So they are ready to pounce on any crash. They have cover stories in place saying, “This was a nuclear-powered satellite that crashed. It's contaminated a large area. So stay in your homes or leave the city.”
And then they will focus on cleaning up the debris.
David: So this is something that they're actually very concerned about.
Corey: Absolutely. That is . . . I've heard a number of times that they're worried.
David: Are there more battles happening in our atmosphere now than there were before between these cloaked craft?
Corey: Yes. It's kind of reached a crescendo in recent times. There are human-piloted craft fighting each other, human-piloted craft fighting non-terrestrials and different non-terrestrial groups that are having skirmishes.
David: So what would we expect if they tried to cover this up? What would be the kind of headlines we'd see or the stories we'd hear?
Corey: Just like the example I just gave, that some sort of secret satellite had crashed or something like that. They're not going to say a UFO crashed.
David: Or a nuclear event . . .
David: . . . maybe a nuclear waste dump or spill
Corey: Test craft.
David:. . . chemical emission. Something like that.
Corey: Right. Something that's going to scare people.
Corey: Like some sort of disease or any number of things.
David: All right. Well, you saw it here first. This is “Cosmic Disclosure”. I'm your host, David Wilcock, here with Corey Goode. And we're reviewing footage from William Tompkins – absolutely mind-blowing stuff.
The Dark Web Isn’t All Dark July 16 2018 | From: TheAtlantic
Despite its reputation for illegal activity, much of what goes on underneath the surface of the internet is legit.
But the dark web and Tor, the privacy-preserving browser that’s used to access hidden sites - called onions - have myriad legitimate uses, too.
New research from Terbium Labs, a company that analyzes the dark web, took a small snapshot of onion sites - a random collection of 400 sites its web-crawling robots had found in the course of one day in August - and divided up the sites based on their purpose and content.
The results suggest that less than half of what goes on beyond the reach of search engines and traditional browsers is illegal.
The rest, it turns out, is legitimate, made up of dark-web mirrors of websites like Facebook and ProPublica, websites for companies and political parties, and forums for chatting about technology, games, privacy, or even erectile disfunction. In addition, as on the “clear” internet, a good chunk of the webpages Terbium studied hosted legal pornography: photos, videos, and written material, available for free or for sale.
“Anonymity does not equate criminality, merely a desire for privacy,” wrote Clare Gollnick and Emily Wilson, the authors of the Terbium study.
That’s not to say the slice of the dark web that the analysis looked at didn’t have its fair share of unsavory and illegal material. More than 15 percent of the sample was made up of sites selling drugs or pharmaceuticals; pages with content related to hacking, fraud, illegal porn, or terrorism turned up at least once. (A lot of these same categories of websites can be found on the clear web, too, hosted on sketchy domains or protected by passwords.)
Terbium obtained the sample for the study with the same scanner that powers Matchlight, a service I’ve written about before that crawls shady forums and marketplaces on the dark web and the clear web in search of stolen sensitive or personal data.
“We’re trying to index what people don’t want indexed,” Danny Rogers, Terbium’s CEO, told me earlier this year. “There’s no desire to make things easy to find. Fundamentally, it’s a more hostile environment to crawl.”
That makes studying the dark web really difficult. Terbium’s researchers acknowledged that their study is limited by its scope and the decisions that human analysts made in categorizing the websites the crawler came across. To complicate matters further, the dark web is notoriously transient, with some sites disappearing after only hours.
Just a week passed between the day Terbium took its dark-web snapshot and the day its analysts began categorizing the sites, but some amount of the 18 percent of non-functioning URLs the analysts found may have gone down even in that short a time.
The Terbium study only examined the makeup of a small chunk of the dark web - not the traffic patterns that show where users actually tend to visit. A 2014 study determined that more than 80 percent of visits to the dark web were to child-porn sites.
But, as always, it’s hard to know just who those visitors were: That traffic could have come from bots, law-enforcement agencies investigating illegal porn sites, or even a cyber attack directed at the sites.
What’s more, the hidden sites on the dark web like the ones Terbium studied probably only make up a tiny part of the internet as a whole. Estimates from Tor itself show that the number of hidden sites has hovered between 5,000 and 6,000 over the last year - and that only about 2 percent of traffic on the Tor network is visiting them.
Most people who use Tor use it to browse the clear web while preserving their privacy and anonymity.
The network allows users to visit a normal website without revealing the types of information that are often used to track people as they make their way across the internet. Tor’s privacy-preserving features can be particularly vital to journalists, human-rights advocates, or political dissidents operating in countries hostile to their work.
Use A Mobile Phone? This Means You: Your Private Life Has Suddenly Exploded July 15 2018 | From: FemaleFaust
Maybe you are reading this right now on your phone, but perhaps not. Maybe you would say ‘Of course, I know that’ if I were to tell you your phone was tracking you. Maybe you even remove the battery sometimes, but then no one can reach you, and whenever you need to make a call, or just check the time, or look up something on the web, you put it back in, and bam! it’s tracking you again.
Or maybe you have an iPhone, so there is no way to remove the battery. Soon this will be any phone, since, as one reviewer put it, “we’ve all already decided we value all of the aforementioned features more than a removable battery. If we didn’t, the iPhone would have died a quick death years ago.”That reviewer completely neglected to mention privacy concerns.
Maybe your phone takes a very long time to boot up, and you don’t live in the best neighborhood, and you get home from work after dark: you can’t risk even turning it off. So your phone is always on. Even though you’ve heard it’s tracking you.
Maybe you use a digital assistant, meaning, you talk to ‘Google’ or ‘Siri’ or possibly ‘Cortana,’ giving simple commands or asking simple questions.
The implications may or may not have already dawned on you, that may be deduced from this:
Since your device needs to respond whenever you say a certain phrase, it has to be monitoring - everything - all the time. The microphone in your phone is always-on, always-listening.
In the frenzy of tapping ‘Agree,’ ‘Agree,’ to all those contracts of adhesion when you first set up your phone, maybe you opted for that ‘battery-saving’ app. Or maybe you read the Terms of Service like I did, and, right where it gets around to talking in mealy-mouthed terms about third parties, you decided against it.
As it turns out, at least in regard to the safety and security of the sensitive information of your location (which is what we’re talking about here), it doesn’t matter one way or the other.
That’s right. Go ahead and turn ‘location’ off, and call 911, if you don’t believe me. Just like personalized search, you may if you choose to opt out of officially knowing about it, but you cannot turn that locate-ability off.
Because your phone transmits enough information, continually, to locate you, without the need for GPS. Oh, you know about that, right? That’s the way Apple used to do the ‘locate me’ thing.
Some guy on the web had a script up, which you could use to find other people’s phones if you had the six-digit hexadecimal hardware address. I found my friend’s stolen laptop with it. Doesn’t work anymore, but if it did, that would be pretty scary, right?
Then there’s this team from Princeton who found a way to geolocate phones from data that anyone can access, no special permissions needed. Nothing that the end user has to agree to.
No special SMS or email that he has to open up. No need for his phone to connect to GPS, or even to a WIFI network I say ‘theoretically’ because although their work was published and peer reviewed, their compiled code is not, as far as I can tell, available.
So there is no web page in which some jealous person can enter the cell number of their cheating lover to get their accurate, current location. Right?
Picture a vast room with floors polished to a mirror shine and ridiculously high ceilings. An official place; in twos and threes, men in dark expensive suits walk back and forth, or gather in front of the huge semitransparent structure in the middle.
It's a touchscreen, and rendered on is a world map, absolutely infested with tiny points of light that shimmer and shift. The lights go out periodically, only to be redrawn with new, real-time data. An agent zooms in with a hand gesture on one specific dot. It blinks.
And it moves, ever so slightly, whenever you do.
Location information is incredibly revealing. From your location history, over time, well, everything about you that matters may be deduced. What you buy. What you like to do and when. What meetings you go to; and who you talk to at length after those meetings; and, from the histories of those data points, what you have in common.
Are you getting the picture? Because it is a picture of you, and, with the rest of the data being traded about you, I’d say that for a mere photograph it sure is detailed. Remarkably high definition.
A First Crack at a Solution
Are you holding your phone? If so, you are definitely within earshot of an audio data collection point. Do yourself - and your friends, and your country - a favor. I say your friends - because the privacy of each of us is only as secure as the privacy of any of us.
Put another way: if they can find your friends and your friends visit or contact you, that means they can almost definitely find you; and if they know where you are over time, well, see above.
I say ‘your country’ because what this amounts to is totalitarianism. You cannot control who knows where you are, who you are, what you are doing, what you are reading or writing or thinking. Anyone could know these things now. Absolutely anyone.
Because as we live our lives, and interact with a myriad of data-collecting devices, we cast a tangible shadow that persists, available to be copied and pasted in some private database, for five years, which might as well be forever. It is an intricate record, an accurate reflection of our every move and action.
Every jog, walk or ride. Every text message, phone call, or download. Every song, game, or movie; every search, click, or mouseover. All of these as geolocation data points, of measurable proximity to, and interaction with, what other points of what other devices, with what other histories.
If we all do not continue to expect and believe together that this data is and should remain private in the first place, it loses this privilege legally, by default.
Our commonly held expectation of privacy if strong enough would certainly be a good place to start beating back this tide, Without that expectation and belief, no one would have legal standing to bring suit. One cannot claim one has been harmed if, when, or after, that privacy is compromised.
So make this affirmation out loud. It doesn’t have to be reasonable, feasible, justifiable, plausible, or rational. No one has to believe in it but you. Let it be a spell of protection, a mantra:
“As an American citizen, I have every expectation of privacy.”
Evidence surfaced recently - proof - that each of us, that every one of us with a cellphone, might as well have a corresponding dot moving and blinking in real time, geolocated on a public map somewhere. Did I say might as well? I mean does. (Yes that map is real.)
Let that sink in. THAT GIANT MAP IS REAL. It is a map of all connected devices. If you have a phone, or laptop, or tablet, or router for that matter, you are on it. I mean that absolutely literally. If you own a cell phone, you are on this map.
If this doesn't bother you, there's a good chance that you do not fully understand what this implies, or what real world situations are bound to arise from it. It no longer matters if you have "nothing to hide," and it will soon become obvious that it never mattered to begin with.
It no longer matters how much data is being looked at; it is no longer relevant how few are paid to be doing the looking (although it should be noted that that number has ballooned since 9/11 turned the security industry into a "self-licking ice cream cone.")
We are naîve to the pont of denial if we think that the technologies and human resources of the bloated surveillance state cannot easily handle such work.
Detailed granular datasets for every internet connected device have already been compiled into vast databases. Powerful algorithms, neural nets, and AI have been, and will continue to be, developed to query these databases with ease. The process will soon be able to run entirely autonomously, needing human eyes only for a few key decisions.
I wouldn't be surprised if this were true already. Certainly that would go a long way to explaining the rather creative definitions that we learned that the NSA has for such common words as 'collect': if you will recall, these vast amounts of data are not officially 'collected' -- by definition -- until they are viewed by a human being.
We already know now for a hard fact that cell phones alone generate reams of detailed and in-depth information about each user. The historic revelations concerning the U.S. government spying on its own citizens were originally over a request by both the FBI and the NSA for data from one tower dump, remember?
The FBI dropped off that map. The government admitted, begrudgingly, at first only to metadata and geographic location (and if you don’t know how much this reveals about you, you are in for a nasty surprise) going back seven years.
We now know that limited hangout for the lie it was. All the security professionals in America should have known that it was a lie at the time. If not, there were clues here and there. And over there.
We can prove that continuous location information is readily available, even when the GPS is turned off; in some cases geographic location and hardware serials of the last three hotspots you visited. (Go wardriving, and you’ll get the histories of the devices attached to them.)
First, we learned that our private location information may be, and is, easily retrieved, without a warrant, or our informed consent, and with little to no oversight, at the will, or even whim of almost any police officer in America.
Then, we learned that, until recently, your location information could be retrieved by absolutely anyone with your phone number.
I repeat, up until may 17th, 2018, it was trivially easy for absolutely anyone to locate absolutely anyone else’s phone WITH ONLY THE NUMBER - and it very probably still isn’t that hard.
I say “until may 17th, 2018,” because that’s when this company, whose actions were busted by this security researcher, “fixed” the security vulnerability that enabled anyone, armed with a cell number, to locate it geographically in real time. They disabled the free demo of the service after being found out.
That’s all they did to fix it: they took the webpage that contained the free demo of their software-as-a-service product down off of the internet.
The cached version of the page goes to their official statement about the incident, which mentions that they claim that the numbers this researcher plugged in were the only people affected. (If you only check out one of these hyperlinks, this, about that incident, is the MOST IMPORTANT.)
I say “and it very probably still isn’t that hard” because the page was to a free demo. Anyone who already has an account can still do what was demonstrated. Furthermore, it is not a stretch of the imagination to think that anyone with a business name and enough money can still, easily, open a new account.
The digital shadows we cast are data-mineable details that are the 21st-century incarnation of the papers and effects of the 4th amendment to the United States Constitution.
But you need to know this: without a reasonable expectation, personal privacy is much, much harder to defend. If ‘everyone knows’ that ‘all the information’ on ‘everyone’ is ‘collected,’ we would have no legal basis to complain. None.
National parks have tech that can tell four legs from two and detect metal, and it is being used to catch poachers. Cities are linking up their cameras (though some have fought back: see here and here) to follow a target continuously, cross-referencing location information with video. (The prison-phone-call company in the second link boasted of doing this in - and out - of prisons).
License plate readers and traffic cameras map the real-time location of all automobiles - and now, some cull the biometric data of driver and passenger from the photos mapped to the plates of course. Other license plate readers are doing double duty ‘keeping our borders secure,’ being linked to US Immigration & Customs Enforcement.
Biometric data may be used to query Facebook’s vast database, which stores the unique facial recognition parameters for each user, and of course, makes this easy for anyone to search.
This can be and has been, cross-referenced against DNA databases, both public and private. Facial recognition can now, in fact, recognize hundreds of faces at once.
Don’t have a mobile phone? When riding public transit, shopping in some mall, crossing the plaza in front of City Hall, do you know who is able to listen to you, and from where? How about when you are in your roadside-assistant enabled car? Or when you have your Garmin in its cradle, centrally mounted to the windshield?
Or maybe you bought a cool, sleek, ominous little pylon, that, from where it sits on the kitchen table, reminding you of that Led Zeppelin album cover, maybe as bad at fighting the creeping malaise of your increasing loneliness and isolation as it is successful at atrophying the minds of your children.
It knows a lot about you, and as if the risks of features like ‘Look’ (with an always-on camera to give you fashion advice) or ‘Drop In’ (allowing friends to drop in on you without asking) aren’t scary enough on their own, it just may ‘accidentally’ do something crazy.
Sure, it isn’t location information at issue with these last three examples, but it is your privacy. The thing, you may remember, of which you had every expectation.
The following is a short far-from-comprehensive list of technology caught with its pants down, having its way with your bound and gagged data before it is sold to someone else. (All links, with human-readable titles, below.) I compiled it because, while I meant to be writing about your privacy, what I wrote about, above, may seem otherwise. It may seem to be just about your mobile phone.
How Consumerism Is Ruining Our Lives And The World July 14 2018 | From: TheUnboundedSpirit Our economic system is based on consumption: The more stuff we buy, the more money moves in the economy, and hence the more the economy grows.
If we stopped consuming, the economy would collapse and result in unemployment, poverty and violence.
Not surprisingly, we believe that consumerism is good for us, and there’s even an entire industry - the advertising industry - dedicated to making us want to consume without end.
Yet, as I explain in the video below, consumerism is actually ruining our lives and the world, and unless we change our way of living, we’re soon going to face the tremendously negative impacts of our consumer behavior.
Escaping The Matrix: 10 Ways To Deprogram Yourself July 13 2018 | From: TheUnboundedSpirit
Think of the way most people live. They force themselves to wake up in the morning, dress up, drive straight to work, drive back home about 8 hours later, watch TV, and sleep, only to repeat the same routine next day for almost their entire lives.
We consider this kind of living as normal and even healthy, but if you stop and think about it, it’s not healthy at all.
Life is so precious and beautiful, and instead of making the most out of it, we choose to waste it just because we have been programmed to do so. Habits, tradition and belief systems have turned us into mindless automatons who don’t enjoy life and just follow a predetermined path that was handed to us by society.
This programming, however, can be broken, if we realize that the way we live is preventing us from squeezing the juice out of life, and gather the courage to transform how we think and act. Then, life can be turned into a beautiful celebration filled with laughter, play, and love.
How to Deprogram Yourself
Below are 10 tips that will help you to deprogram yourself and escape the matrix you’ve been trapped into since the day you were born:
1. Break Free From the Shackles of Organized Religion.
Dogmatic, organized religion imposes on people what to think and what not to, what is good and what is bad, what is right and what is wrong. Thus religion prevents people from using their critical thinking, seeking the truth, and reaching to their own conclusions.
On the contrary, it teaches them to blindly follow a set of morals and rules. The result? Emotional suppression and suffering. If you want to reclaim your individuality, honestly express yourself and walk on the path of understanding, be sure to break the chains of organized religion and start your own quest for the truth from scratch.
2. Stop Giving Your Power Away to Authority
From a very young age, most of us were taught to doubt ourselves and do only what authority commands us to, even if we didn’t feel like doing so. Now, as adults, we don’t trust ourselves, and so we choose to let others have power over our lives.
We vote for politicians who do nothing but lie to us in order to satisfy their inner hunger, being under the illusion that by voting we are granted the power to choose our future, when in reality the choices we are presented with are very limited and almost exactly the same.
So we allow a small group of people to manipulate us for their own personal gain, foolishly believing that they want to contribute to the betterment of society.
If we truly want to start creating a positive change in the world, we need to stop giving power to a few others and hold them responsible for our lives, and instead start taking responsibility in our own hands so that we can become the creators of our destiny.
3. Question the Current Economic System
Money, in essence, is created out of debt, thus creating the illusion of scarcity of resources, which compels people to compete in the market, who have to waste most of their life working as wage slaves.
This inevitably results in the tremendous suffering and social conflict that prevails all around the world.
In addition, our economic system requires people to consume without end so that money can keep on circulating in the economy, thus urging us to continuously buy things we don’t need and which are going to end up in landfills, poisoning the very environment that we depend on and sustains us.
If you don’t like this kind of living and would like to create a positive change in your life and the world, I’d highly recommend you to research further into the immensely negative consequences of our economy, and educate yourself on alternative, more technically efficient and environmentally sustainable economic systems.
Being brought up in a consumer culture, we believe that money can buy everything we need and will bring happiness into our lives. So we choose to buy more and more things without end, but we always end up feeling dissatisfied and hungry for more stuff.
Having some nice things is fine - but knowing where to draw the line for yourself is key - many people lose their way
The truth is that money can only provide us with substitutes for what we truly need, but not the real deal. What we need is neither possessions nor services, but things such as love, friendship, and creativity. So don’t be concerned about which is the next best thing you can buy, and instead invest your time and efforts in achieving heart-opening and mind-expanding experiences that money can’t buy.
5. Be Mindful of What You Put Into Your Body
Is what you’re eating contributing to your health or is it poisoning your physical organism? Is what you’re eating environmentally sustainable, or is it negatively impacting the natural world? These are some important questions that all people should ask themselves.
Most people choose to eat foods which are filled with sugar, preservatives, and which are empty of nutrients or contain animal-derived products, unaware that their food choices are detrimental to their health, contribute to the suffering and death of tens of billions of animals, and have a tremendously negative impact on the environment.
From now on, be sure to choose carefully what you choose to put into your mouth, and I assure you that this is one of the best things you can do for yourself and the world.
6. Choose Your News Sources Wisely
Knowledge is power, but we are drowning in an ocean of information. Corporate media presents us all the time with biased information so as to fool us into believing the lies they tell us just so that they can manipulate us exactly the way they want.
A true seeker of knowledge does not accept anything on belief but seeks out for facts and tries to develop a spherical understanding of the matter he/she is looking into.
If you don’t like being mislead and desire to better understand what’s going on in the world, do your best to collect information from as many sources as possible and use critical thinking in order to reach to your own conclusions about what’s true or not.
7. Read Eye-Opening, Mind-Empowering Books
There have been many wise persons who’ve written down their thoughts on life’s problems and how they can be overcome. There have been many persons who have criticized the workings of society and offer their insights on how we can help create a more beautiful world.
Books can be immensely helpful to open our eyes and improve the quality of our life, but not many people spend much of their time reading books - or they just choose to read for entertainment reasons alone.
To get the most out of reading books, be sure to not just pick any book and read - read those ones which touch your mind and heart and provide you with new perspectives that help you to better understand yourself and the world.
8. Escape the Herd Mentality
Just as every person alive, you are a unique individual with unique talents and gifts to offer to the world. Unfortunately, society has suppressed our individuality since the day we were born. We’ve been programmed to doubt ourselves and conform to what is considered as normal.
This, however, prevents us from embracing ourselves and creating our own path in life, which is causing us immense emotional pain. From today, distance yourself from the herd mentality and start paying attention to your inner voice - doing so will allow you to follow your calling and live the way you truly want to live.
9. Creatively Express Yourself
A great way to deprogram yourself from the normalcy of modern life is to focus your attention on creativity. We’re all born creative, but slowly slowly our creativity has been suppressed so much that we’ve almost forgotten that we’re creative beings.
To be creative means to think outside the box and see life from different perspectives. Most importantly, to be creative means to find out new ways of living and realize that you have the power to manifest the kind of life you desire.
10. Develop Mindfulness
Lastly, learning how to live in the present moment is the most important way to break free from your conditioning. By being mindful of the here and now, you’ll be able to respond to whatever happens each and every moment spontaneously, without being a victim of your past.
There are many meditation techniques out there that can help you to become mindful, so find the ones that you like most and stick to them until you see positive results in your life.
“The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when you’re inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system and that makes them our enemy.
You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it.”
Morpheus, The Matrix
The Truth About Money Is Out & Austerity In 8 Minutes: Why It Does Not Work, Why It Is Still Practised November 28 2016 | From: TheGuardian / Yanis Varoufakis
The truth about money creation and Austerity. Back in the 1930s, Henry Ford is supposed to have remarked that it was a good thing that most Americans didn't know how banking really works, because if they did, "there'd be a revolution before tomorrow morning".
In 2014, something remarkable happened. The Bank of England let the cat out of the bag. In a paper called "Money Creation in the Modern Economy", co-authored by three economists from the Bank's Monetary Analysis Directorate, they stated outright that most common assumptions of how banking works are simply wrong, and that the kind of populist, heterodox positions more ordinarily associated with groups such as Occupy Wall Street are correct.
To get a sense of how radical the Bank's new position is, consider the conventional view, which continues to be the basis of all respectable debate on public policy. People put their money in banks.
Banks then lend that money out at interest – either to consumers, or to entrepreneurs willing to invest it in some profitable enterprise. True, the fractional reserve system does allow banks to lend out considerably more than they hold in reserve, and true, if savings don't suffice, private banks can seek to borrow more from the central bank.
The central bank can print as much money as it wishes. But it is also careful not to print too much. In fact, we are often told this is why independent central banks exist in the first place.
If governments could print money themselves, they would surely put out too much of it, and the resulting inflation would throw the economy into chaos. Institutions such as the Bank of England or US Federal Reserve were created to carefully regulate the money supply to prevent inflation.
This is why they are forbidden to directly fund the government, say, by buying treasury bonds, but instead fund private economic activity that the government merely taxes.
It's this understanding that allows us to continue to talk about money as if it were a limited resource like bauxite or petroleum, to say "there's just not enough money" to fund social programmes, to speak of the immorality of government debt or of public spending "crowding out" the private sector.
The Bank of England has admitted that none of this is really true. To quote from its own initial summary:
“Rather than banks receiving deposits when households save and then lending them out, bank lending creates deposits"… "In normal times, the central bank does not fix the amount of money in circulation, nor is central bank money 'multiplied up' into more loans and deposits."
In other words, everything we know is not just wrong – it's backwards. When banks make loans, they create money. This is because money is really just an IOU.
The role of the central bank is to preside over a legal order that effectively grants banks the exclusive right to create IOUs of a certain kind, ones that the government will recognise as legal tender by its willingness to accept them in payment of taxes.
There's really no limit on how much banks could create, provided they can find someone willing to borrow it. They will never get caught short, for the simple reason that borrowers do not, generally speaking, take the cash and put it under their mattresses; ultimately, any money a bank loans out will just end up back in some bank again.
So for the banking system as a whole, every loan just becomes another deposit.
What's more, insofar as banks do need to acquire funds from the central bank, they can borrow as much as they like; all the latter really does is set the rate of interest, the cost of money, not its quantity.
Since the beginning of the recession, the US and British central banks have reduced that cost to almost nothing. In fact, with "quantitative easing" they've been effectively pumping as much money as they can into the banks, without producing any inflationary effects.
Austerity In 8 Minutes: Why It Does Not Work. Why It Is Still Practised
What this means is that the real limit on the amount of money in circulation is not how much the central bank is willing to lend, but how much government, firms, and ordinary citizens, are willing to borrow.
Government spending is the main driver in all this (and the paper does admit, if you read it carefully, that the central bank does fund the government after all). So there's no question of public spending "crowding out" private investment. It's exactly the opposite.
Why did the Bank of England admit all this? Well, one reason is because it's obviously true.
The Bank's job is to actually run the system, and of late, the system has not been running especially well. It's possible that it decided that maintaining the fantasy-land version of economics that has proved so convenient to the rich is simply a luxury it can no longer afford.
But politically, this is taking an enormous risk.
Just consider what might happen if mortgage holders realised the money the bank lent them is not, really, the life savings of some thrifty pensioner, but something the bank just whisked into existence through its possession of a magic wand which we, the public, handed over to it.
Historically, the Bank of England has tended to be a bellwether, staking out seeming radical positions that ultimately become new orthodoxies. If that's what's happening here, we might soon be in a position to learn if Henry Ford was right.
Planned Obsolescence: How The Products You Buy Are Designed To Break July 12 2018 | From: TheUnboundedSpirit
How many times have you bought an electronic device, only to find out that it has stopped functioning properly just a short time after your purchase (or just after the Warranty ended)?
Planned Obsolescence: The absurd practise of designing products with a limited lifespan in order to maximise profits, based on the notion that infinite economic growth can be balanced by the finite resources of the planet...
You spent so much money on it, and suddenly you’re sad to know that it’s not working well anymore.
The result? Wasted expenses, labor, energy and finite resources, not to mention the toxic waste that ends up in landfills, poisoning the planet. But why is that so? Why is it that most products’ lifespan is so short, considering the advanced modern technological means of production?
Enter planned obsolescence.
Cyclical Consumption & Planned Obsolescence
Our economic system is based on consumption - the more we buy, the more money moves into the economy, and hence the more the economy grows. If money stops moving, the economic system is bound to collapse, since people will not be paid or have money to pay for the products and services they need or want.
There are two main ways our society manages to keep people buying stuff:
Firstly, through advertising. We’re exposed to thousands of advertisements each and every day whose sole purpose is to convince us to keep on shopping under the promise that doing so will make our lives better.
Through advertising, companies have managed to make us confuse our needs with our wants, thus making us desire to acquire things that we don’t truly need, so that we can fill in their pockets by emptying our own.
Secondly, through planned obsolescence, although this is not yet understood by many. If you didn’t know, planned obsolescence is a production technique that compels people to buy more and more stuff unnecessarily, by providing people with products of short lifespan.
Instead of creating goods with the intention to last for as long as it is technically possible - considering that we are living in a finite planet with finite resources as well as the importance of saving material and human energy - companies, whose sole interest is to make sales, purposefully design products of low quality that will soon break, in order to assure repeat purchases.
Planned Obsolescence & The Phoebus Light Bulb Cartel
In the early 20th century, technical efficiency brought about by industrial development in the US increased dramatically, which resulted in the production of higher quality goods at a much quicker pace.
Although that was a great success from a technological standpoint, the fact that the goods produced had increased lifespan was found to slow down consumption - hence it was an anathema for the economy.
In order to prevent this from happening even further, people were encouraged to make more purchases, but it was found that this alone couldn’t make a significant difference.
The “solution” given in the 1930s was to make it legally mandatory for all industries to produce goods of lower lifespan, which was believed to help reduce unemployment and increase consumption.
In the 1930s, a single light bulb could last for up to 25,000 hours, but the cartel forced all companies produce bulbs limited to a maximum life of 1,000 hours in order to increase demand. Below is a trailer of The Light Bulb Conspiracy, a feature documentary film that investigates the evolution and impact of planned obsolescence.
The Light Bulb Conspiracy
In order to make sure that people make repeat purchases, most manufacturers today create products that have short life cycles. In other words, the products sold by most companies have been intentionally designed in such a way that they will break shortly after they’ve been purchased, so as to urge the general public to buy more of them in the future.
Market Efficiency vs Technical Efficiency
In our economic system, which is based on cyclical consumption, technical efficiency is only damaging to the market efficiency - both cannot co-exist by any means.
Increased technical efficiency decreases market efficiency, which is disrupting the flow of our economy.
But how stupid is it to keep on having such an economic system, knowing how technically inefficient it is as well as its tremendous negative impacts on society and the natural world?
Instead of urging people to buy more and more, would it not be wiser to make use of our current scientific knowledge to create an economic system that is based on technical efficiency and environmental sustainability?
I would like to leave you now with these questions in mind, which will hopefully help you to realize how obsolete our economic system is and urge you to seek out information about how alternative economic systems can be implemented that would actually promote social and environmental well-being.
Neuroscience Says Listening To This Song Reduces Anxiety By Up To 65 Percent + The Miracle Of 528 Hz Solfeggio And Fibonacci Numbers July 11 2018 | From: Inc / Various
Sure to both stir your soul and calm your nervous system.
Everyone knows they need to manage their stress. When things get difficult at work, school, or in your personal life, you can use as many tips, tricks, and techniques as you can get to calm your nerves.
So here's a science-backed one: make a playlist of the 10 songs found to be the most relaxing on earth.
Sound therapies have long been popular as a way of relaxing and restoring one's health. For centuries, indigenous cultures have used music to enhance well-being and improve health conditions.
Now, neuroscientists out of the UK have specified which tunes give you the most bang for your musical buck.
The study was conducted on participants who attempted to solve difficult puzzles as quickly as possible while connected to sensors. The puzzles induced a certain level of stress, and participants listened to different songs while researchers measured brain activity as well as physiological states that included heart rate, blood pressure, and rate of breathing.
According to Dr. David Lewis-Hodgson of Mindlab International, which conducted the research, the top song produced a greater state of relaxation than any other music tested to date.
In fact, listening to that one song - "Weightless" - resulted in a striking 65 percent reduction in participants' overall anxiety, and a 35 percent reduction in their usual physiological resting rates.
That is remarkable.
Equally remarkable is the fact the song was actually constructed to do so. The group that created "Weightless", Marconi Union, did so in collaboration with sound therapists. Its carefully arranged harmonies, rhythms, and bass lines help slow a listener's heart rate, reduce blood pressure and lower levels of the stress hormone cortisol.
When it comes to lowering anxiety, the stakes couldn't be higher. Stress either exacerbates or increases the risk of health issues like heart disease, obesity, depression, gastrointestinal problems, asthma, and more.
More troubling still, a recent paper out of Harvard and Stanford found health issues from job stress alone cause more deaths than diabetes, Alzheimer's, or influenza.
In this age of constant bombardment, the science is clear: if you want your mind and body to last, you've got to prioritize giving them a rest. Music is an easy way to take some of the pressure off of all the pings, dings, apps, tags, texts, emails, appointments, meetings, and deadlines that can easily spike your stress level and leave you feeling drained and anxious.
Of the top track, Dr. David Lewis-Hodgson said, "'Weightless' was so effective, many women became drowsy and I would advise against driving while listening to the song because it could be dangerous."
So don't drive while listening to these, but do take advantage of them:
Fourteen Eyebrow-Raising Things Google Knows About You July 10 2018 | From: NetworkWorld
Some are fascinating, others are frightening - but here's how to find out what Google has on you. Google may know more about me than I know about myself.
I'm not just saying that, either: I recently started poking around in Google's personal data repositories and realized that, between my wide-reaching use of the company's services and my own brain's inability to remember anything for more than seven seconds, Google may actually have the upper hand when it comes to knowledge about my life.
From face-tagged photos of my past adventures (what year did I go to Nashville, again - and who went with me to that Eddie Vedder show?) to the minute-by-minute play-by-play of my not-so-adventuresome days (wait, you mean I really only left the house once last Wednesday - and just to get a freakin' sandwich?!), Google's got all sorts of goods on me.
Heck, even my hopes and dreams (which may or may not involve sandwiches) are probably catalogued somewhere in its systems. And the data itself is only half the story: Google also compiles oodles of stats - stats that, for better and for worse, shed light onto the tech-connected habits of our modern lives. And don't doubt Apple does the exact same things either.
How many emails have you actually sent over the years, for instance, and how many thousands of web pages have you pulled up in your browser? It really is enlightening, among other things, to see your actions broken down so precisely.
And remember, too, that all this data collection is completely optional - and very much a tradeoff: By agreeing to let Google store and use your data, you're getting access to an ever-expanding array of futuristic features at no monetary cost.
But the decision is ultimately in your hands. To learn more about how Google uses specific types of data and how you can opt out of any or all areas of collection, see the "Opting out and taking control" section at the end of this story.
All of that being said, here are some of the more amusing - and maybe slightly surprising - things you might find about yourself by prodding the right parts of Google's noggin. How many of these items actually apply to you depends on which Google services you use and how exactly you use them.
To wit: Android users who take advantage of built-in features such as voice commands, location history and photo backups will almost certainly have more data tracked by Google than non-Android users.
But anyone who regularly uses Gmail, Google search, Google Maps, YouTube, Chrome and/or other Google services from any mobile device or computer will likely find at least some interesting nuggets from the following list.
1. A full history of your voice commands with any Google product - including actual audio recordings
Everything you've ever said to Google, in one convenient place. OK, Google: Remind me how silly I sound when talking to my phone (you know, when it seems like no one else is listening). If you use voice commands on Android or any other Google product (for instance, voice searches in the Google iOS app when you're logged in with your Google account), head to the "Voice & Audio" section of Google's My Activity site to see and hear a comprehensive list of everything you've ever said to that inanimate object in your pocket.
And yes, your voice really does sound like that.
2. An objective breakdown of your real BFFs (according to Google)
Data doesn't lie. Discover whom among your Google contacts you interact with the most by clicking the "Contacts" header on Google's account dashboard. Just be prepared to make up excuses if your significant other doesn't make the "Frequently contacted" list.
3. How much stuff Chrome has saved about you
Your browsing habits, broken down into indisputable numbers.
If you use the Chrome browser and typically stay signed into it, check out your account's Chrome Sync settings page to see all sorts of brag- and/or shame-worthy stats about your personal browsing habits - things like how many bookmarks you've saved, how many tabs you have open across different devices and how many websites you've typed into Chrome's address bar (since last resetting your browser's history).
Free cookie* if you guess within five points of any of your values. * A free browser cookie, that is. C'mon - what did you expect?
4. How many Gmail conversations you've had
Provided you use Gmail's archiving system instead of permanently deleting messages, you may be in for a shock: Click the aptly named "Gmail" header in Google's account dashboard, and get ready to see why your days always seem so short.
Case in point: I have 145,810 message threads in my Gmail account -- with just over 28,000 sent messages. Let me repeat that: Twenty-eight thousand sent messages. No wonder I never get anything accomplished.
File this one under "Cool Yet Creepy": Google Maps' Timeline feature contains a detailed diary of your every move -- down to the minute.
No exaggeration: If you carry an Android phone and have opted into location history, the site will show you where you were every moment of every day. And if you really want to weird yourself out, open Timeline from a desktop and click the year tab in the upper-left corner of the screen. Select "All Time," then click the red box in the lower-left corner to see an ordered list of your most visited places.
(My top four are currently my house, Target, the grocery and Barnes & Noble. What can I say? It's a wild and crazy life I lead.)
6. A full list of everything you've done from any Android device
Your smartphone is a fantastic tool for productivity-enhancing tasks like word processing, spreadsheet creation, and... oh, who the hell are we kidding? You're using the thing for mindless web browsing and meaningless game-playing, just like everyone else.You can see a detailed log of activity on your Android devices at Google's My Activity site.
Find out for sure what you're doing on your Android devices - or what someone else is doing on them, if colleagues or kiddos ever get their hands on your phone - by opening Google's My Activity site. Select the option to "Filter by date & product," then select "Android" and click the blue search icon.
Just don't let your boss see that you spent all of Tuesday's meeting "working" on Words With Friends.
7. A comprehensive collection of every site you've visited in Chrome - on any device
These days, Chrome isn't just a desktop browser - and if you're using the program from a phone or tablet as well as a regular computer, you're bound to have quite the collective history.
See where you've been on the web (while signed in to Chrome) by opening Google's My Activity page and checking "Chrome" in the filter list. You can search for specific keywords and even filter further by date -- a useful tool if you ever need to find a site you pulled up somewhere but can't quite remember.
If you're not seeing your Chrome history on the My Activity page, go to the Activity controls and make sure the Web & App Activity toggle is on and the "Include Chrome browsing history and activity from websites and apps that use Google services" box is checked. (Also make sure that you're signed into Chrome on your various devices.) Your Chrome activity will be tracked from this point forward.
As for the sites you'd rather not have recorded - well, amigos, let's just say that Incognito mode is your friend.
8. Exactly how many Google searches you've made this month
First and foremost, Google is a search engine -- so how much are you Googling? Get the skinny by scrolling down to the "Search History" header in Google's account dashboard.
Click the header to see precisely how many times you've called upon Google's knowledge from any device while signed into your Google account in the past month -- along with a breakdown of your most common search types and some of your most frequently used queries. (Again: Incognito mode. Never forget.)
9. A running count of how many Android devices you've had connected to your account over the years
Think you've been through a lot of phones and mobile devices? Calculate your official Android Geek Quotient score by pulling up Google's account dashboard and looking for the "Android" header. The big green number beneath it will tell you how many Android products have ever been associated with your account. (Hopefully yours isn't as high as my almost-silly-seeming score of 78.)
You can get more detailed info on all the devices, too -- including when each product was last used and a list of all the apps it has backed up to Google's servers -- by clicking the header. And a quick tip: If you want to get old, inactive devices out of your hair, head to the Play Store settings page and uncheck the "Show in menus" option next to any phones or tablets that are no longer relevant.
10. A running count of how many Android apps you've ever installed
Your Android app stats can be both enlightening and alarming. Trying out new apps is a great way to keep your mobile tech feeling fresh -- to a certain point, anyway. See if you've crossed the line from adventurous to ridiculous by finding the "Play Store" header on Google's account dashboard.
If you manage to top my current total of 1,191 apps, seek immediate help.
11. Some stats on your invite-accepting habits
Are you a person who tends to accept event invitations? Or do you say "no" more often than "yes"? If you're a Google Calendar user who frequently interacts with other Google Calendar users, you can find out by clicking the "Calendar" header at Google's account dashboard. That'll give you a breakdown of your accepting-vs.-rejecting activity over the past month, including a handy pie chart to illustrate your temperament in visual form. Hey, at least there's no line graph on the lameness of your excuses.
12. How many images you've stored with Google Photos
I don't know about you, but I tend to take way too many pictures -- mostly of my 22-month-old daughter (and occasionally of those damn squirrels that always run through my backyard and taunt me with their superior short-term memories).
Thankfully, Google Photos makes it simple for me to store all these images and access them anywhere -- and also to see at a glance just how absurdly large my personal photo collection has gotten. To get the lowdown on your own virtual photo box, mosey down to the "Photos" header in Google's account dashboard. And be sure to take a mental snapshot of the result.
13. A full list of all your activity in the Google Play Store
Everything you've ever searched for in the Play Store, in one centralized place.
Have you ever looked at or searched for something in the Play Store -- then tried to find it again later, only to realize your memory was worse than your friendly neighborhood squirrel's? I know I have.
So use my trick: The next time you find yourself wishing for a time machine, just scamper over to Google's My Activity page. Filter the results to "Play," and voila: You'll find a full list of every item you've viewed and every Play Store search you've made while signed into your Google account. Now if only this thing had a way to tell me where I buried my acorn the other day...
14. How many YouTube videos you've watched this month
We've all been there: You're in the middle of something extremely productive (naturally) when a single YouTube link happens to catch your eye. Watching one video seems harmless enough, right?
But then the inevitable happens: One video turns to two. Wait, what's that in the "Related" section - a clip of a bird whistling the melody to Guns N' Roses' "Patience"? Click. Watch. Repeat. Before you know it, you're 19 videos in, and the afternoon is over.
Discover just how much YouTube time-whittlin' you've done in the last month (while logged into your Google account) by visiting Google's account dashboard and clicking the "YouTube" header. And for the love of Goog, if your monthly tally is over 200, think long and hard before clicking that next cat-dancing clip.
Opting out and taking control
Want to turn off specific types of data collection or delete existing info from your Google account history? The Google privacy site is the best place to start; there, Google provides detailed information about how each type of data is used along with links to opt out of any specific areas. You can also visit Google's Activity controls page for a simple single-page list of on-off toggles.
If you're looking to clean up your history for anything that Google has been tracking, head to the My Activity site.
You can delete any individual item right then and there by clicking the three-dot icon in its upper-right corner and choosing Delete, or click the "Delete activity by" link in the left column for an easy way to erase info based on date and/or product.
Data collection controls can be also found on an Android device by opening the main system settings and selecting Google (or, if you're on an older device, looking for the standalone Google Settings app) and then tapping "Personal info & privacy."