The Zuckerberg Dossier: Facebook Insider Confesses All - Mark Zuckerberg Is A Fraud Used By The CIA
June 21 2019 | From: PatriotsForTruth / Various
The following anonymous document claims to be written by a Facebook insider who was Mark Zuckerberg’s lover from their freshman year at Harvard. Mark’s continuing indiscretions with his ongoing government contract keep getting him in trouble to this day.
Mark was supposed to simply be the fake “boy genius” of Larry Summers’ (Harvard’s president) social media project funded by DARPA/In-Q-Tel (CIA)/IBM and the secretive international “public-private” group called The Highlands Group organized with the DoD Office of Net Assessment.
It was Summers and a group of government officials who fabricated, produced and directed Mark throughout the entire fraudulent creation of the Facebook propaganda story at Harvard.
These claims are explosive and allege that the entire fraudulent social media network called Facebook was always controlled by the government through the people who were at Harvard directing Mark.
Comment:If this is true - and we believe a great deal of it is true - then this would partially explain why President Donald Trump has been so ineffective against FAANG and #GoogleGestapo censorship - they are “protected” by the CIA, DARPA, and other elements that front for the Deep State.
This should however, absent legal discovery, be read in the same spirit as the fictional stories about police atrocities published in the 1960’s when rogue elements sought to forment civil discontent.
Our bottom line is simple: we need to create Web 3.0 and route around these evil doers.
The anonymous author of the letter below, who we will call “John”, also points out why Facebook was created, how Mark was controlled by Eric Schmidt, James Beyer, Larry Summers, Sheryl Sandberg and the evil intellectual property thief Professor James Chandler.
Admittedly, this Zuckerberg “Dossier” has enough information in it to put Mark Zuckerberg behind bars, and therefore would not be touched by the Main Stream Media – according to the person who hand-delivered this letter to a member of the Anonymous Patriot’s Conclave recently.
American Intelligence Media has been able to quickly verify that many of the claims insinuated in this “Zuckerberg Dossier” are true and this leads us to conclude that the document is authentic and exactly what it appears to be.
The true authorship of this Zuckerberg Dossier is evident to members of the Conclave, but that supposition is speculation and the Conclave does not deal in speculation.
Though, if one were to listen carefully to the admission of guilt by Sean Parker (a long-time executive of Facebook) which he made repeatedly before the press, you will hear that Sean knew all about the true creation of the social media giant and its evil intents and fingers the culprits.
Therefore, it is not hard at all to figure out who may have written this expose on Mark Zuckerberg’s Facebook evil.
You can even see the true motivation for writing this “tell all” about Zuckerberg at this time in history, just as Facebook is facing all kinds of charges, including anti-trust violations.
Hmmm…do you own any Facebook stock? Might be cash-out time!
Any person well-educated on the continuing scandals surrounding the creation of Facebook might have been able to piece together the many divergent claimants to the authorship of the source programming code used to make social media “scalable” – which was the universal problem of all of the major tech companies at the time, including the NSA’s “LifeLog” project.
Somehow, genius Mark Zuckerberg “solved” the problem that no one else in the world could. Oh yes, and Mark did it “between a week and two weeks or so” while studying for finals and hosting a beer “kegger” for his friends.
Click on the image above to view a larger viersion in a new window
The author of this expose offers a quite different story and for the first time tells of the involvement of high-level government players who made a fortune off of the sky-rocketing overnight growth of Facebook stock on NASDAQ.
The players mentioned by “John” (anonymous author) check out to be the people who made enormous amounts of money from Facebook stock. These insider traders then took their Facebook winnings and started other social media companies that, coincidentally, sky-rocketed beyond most companies in history.
American Intelligence Media does not claim that the Zuckerberg Dossier is 100% correct, but we can state with absolute confidence that the source is real.
We also believe that their may be other installments of what we are calling the Zuckerberg Dossier and will probably not be the last time we hear from this source as the trouble that Mark is having in the news keeps mounting.
The most convincing aspect of this “scorned lover tell-all” is found in what the author outlines as Mark’s true nature and what he believes is happening to Facebook right now in America.
It was shocking to read these remarks and we found them to be, after much reflection, probably true and certainly not what we might have imagined to be the reality with the U. S. government’s threat to act against Facebook.
Also, interesting is the major British intervention in Facebook through the former Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Sir Nick Clegg, taking over the “face” of Facebook which Baron Richard Allen (another UK agent) had failed to do properly.
Mark, Nick, and Sheryl Sandberg hanging out, probably planning ultimate censorship of patriots and conservatives
At this point, Facebook seems to be “dead in the water” unless the British Crown Agents, Clegg and Allen, can save Mark from his horrible mis-management.
Again, we do not claim that this anonymous “confession” and “indictment” is true in all its parts.
But certainly, any intelligent reader will acknowledge that this version of Mark Zuckerberg’s rise to fame and fortune is much more likely that the nonsense stories we have been told by Mark since the early 2000’s when he first popped up Larry Summers’ Harvard.
Please circulate this wide and far. We need to turn the weapon that Zuckerberg is aiming at us – social media … back on him.
Mark’s diary was also provided to us where he proclaims “let the hacking begin” and is available in the link below as a PDF. We did not convert it to a Word file for obvious reasons.
Also note that we formatted the author’s letter below in a way that you can easily read it, instead of its how it was sent with tiny font and packed paragraphs. We did not correct grammar or spelling.
Mark Zuckerberg, and all of us who were there from the beginning, are lying to you and using your personal life as a government-controlled experiment in brain-washing and mind-control – basically a weaponized system of the military (CIA especially) that got out of control.
At this point, Mark Zuckerberg has lost control of a company that he never really owned or operated. Truly, anyone who has ever worked with Mark knows that his mind is a blank and that he is nothing more than a parrot for the government handlers who created him.
Mark is incapable of running a McDonald’s, let alone one of the most powerful companies in the world.
Not even his name is real and his identity has always been covered up. Mark was chosen as child for a CIA training program because his relatives were some of the people creating the program.
I am not making excuses for Mark, but his choices have not been his own.
Yes, he has become an evil sociopath who once believed in his heart-of-heart that if he decided he wanted to be president, all he had to do is say he wanted the job and “Facebook” would deliver the election to him. This is the level of brain-washing Mark is at – he is not in contact with reality.
You might think that a madman who could think he could become president – because he “said so” – would be discovered and accused as a fraud. Well, that has happened repeatedly with the other three teams that were working at Harvard, under Harvard president Larry Summers, to create what DARPA and In-Q-Tel wanted the most – a cyber-weapon that could control the minds of anyone that could be lured into it.
Facebook was always a military weapon – just like Eric Schmidt’s Google which was incubated in the same fashion that Facebook was. Mark was a patsy, but a ruthless, heartless, cold-blooded non-human patsy.
He became this way through the brain-washing he received in his High School years by a DARPA program called TIA that needed a “boy-genius” to be the front man.
This scam would make Mark into a global model of the young, cool, irreverent computer geniuses that “rule the world” and lead everyone to a cyber-god of artificial intelligence. Mark was just an unwitting puppet at first – I felt sorry for him.
I remember when I first became room-mates with Mark in our sophomore year at Harvard. We were in Kirkland House, on JFK Street and had to endure Dustin and Andrew.
Mark hated them because they prevented us from sleeping together, even though we were in the same room.
It was frustrating and kept our relationship secret. Little did I know that the thing that drew me to Mark, a certain openness for listening to anyone, also made him extremely promiscuous with both sexes.
Mark had no morals, conscience, or shame. He also chased women on Craig’s List and would sometimes just disappear to rendezvous with them.
He was like a blank slate that simply echoes whatever was happening in his environment. I loved and hated this aspect of his personality but later found out that he, and his brother and cousin, were all the same way due to the brain-washing programs they were subjected to during high school.
If certain people spoke to Mark in person or on the phone, he would drop everything and do whatever they told him to do. Certain people had more power and effect over him.
I eventually found out, from Mark breaking down and crying, that the brain-washing was permanent and was all part of the “position” these people had promised to create for Mark. He didn’t even know what this “position” was or entailed.
But one thing Mark was sure of, he was only “placed” at Harvard “for a while” until his “position” became available to him. Mark was certain that this promise of a position included a great deal of money and power - aphrodisiacs to an incurable narcissist.
I must admit that I came under the power of Mark’s surety that he didn’t need Harvard, a degree, or good grades. Mark eventually dropped out of Harvard at the end of our sophomore year and did become filthy rich and more powerful than he could have imagined.
I also admit that I road on Mark’s success to become quite wealthy myself. All four of the members of the club Mark eventually named – “The Fellowship” – became wealthy by no means of our own – we simply knew Mark’s secrets.
You see, Mark could never be faithful to anyone but he loved men more than women. He actually used to hate all women. So, Mark cheated and would want to bring the new “boy” home to me to join in.
I was never into that like Mark was. He was abusive but would never admit it, especially to young boys. Eventually, there were three of us that remained lovers with Mark.
Mark always had panic attacks and would break down frequently due to the brain-washing – according to Mark. He would cry about his mother and the “torture” she let “them” do to him.
At those times, Mark’s mouth ran on open and he would tell his bed-partners about all the pain and horrible plans these “evil people” did to him.
Early on, his doubts and fears almost consumed him at night and he could hardly sleep due to nightmares. Once Mark became filthy rich, he simply used drugs to mask these fears.
But if you get him upset by asking about the creation of Facebook, Mark will freak out and have a panic attack because he always messes up the story and looks like an idiot.
He can’t stand questions about “how he made Facebook” – because he didn’t. I had to laugh as one of his stupid answers: “I saw that Harvard didn’t have a Facebook, so I made one”, or something close to that.
The journalist let him get away with that lie, like they always have.
Mark Greenberg (Zuckerberg) did not write one single line of programming source code for Facebook. Those are lies and propaganda generated by his government, military handlers.
Everyone knows that the Winkelvoss twins (Aaron and Cameron) won a $65 million dollar lawsuit settlement against Mark because they knew that their little HarvardConnection (HC) piece was just adjunct code attached to the original stolen source code – which was given to Mark by Professor James Chandler and IBM.
That $65 million bit of dirty knowledge was pretty profitable for a couple of cute Harvard Crew rower jocks with no interest in me.
Mark simply had others adjust the code into what was a government-sponsored military weaponization of a cyber-warfare project directed by the President of Harvard, Larry Summers.
Even Summer’s himself had his own budding student and staff directory being developed by the Harvard computer staff called “Facebook.” Mark didn’t even create the name!
The Winkelvoss twins had developed their own version in the competition for the government contract, HC, that they changed to ConnectU.
Aaron Greenspan was developing HOUSE System, and Paul Ceglia was working with Mark to modify his StreetFax software into a Facebook too.
Mark developed nothing. Absolutely nothing.
Even the famous “hacking” of the Harvard systems was not done by Mark himself. Mark was the middleman for those who were the overseers of the “big project”, as it was called.
From the president of Harvard, to the “PayPal Mafia”, National Venture Capital Association, In-Q-Tel, DARPA, NSA, CIA, DIA, to the worst patent thieves in America: James Chandler, Hillary Clinton, David Kappos, Robert Mueller and the rest of the Big-Tech group.
Mark is just like the other fake front-men chosen to represent the numerous other social media companies.
Eric Schmidt was the poster child for the Silicon Valley geniuses who ran corporations that are basically exempt from prosecution as the facade for military-weaponized companies that are always funded by the same evil bankers - Fidelity Investment, Vanguard, T. Rowe Price, BlackRock, JPMorgan, HSBC, Accel Partners, Kleiner Perkins and the rest of the Silicon Valley venture capitalist who always make a killing from companies who get no-bid government contracts.
These companies, like Facebook, are just an excuse for black-ops experiments to control the enemy – and Mark doesn’t know who the enemy is. Mark’s lack of a moral compass made him the perfect patsy for the new “military experiments on U. S. citizens.”
I believe now, since Mark was well-aware of the evil intentions of the government, that he has committed crimes of many types with the clear, pre-meditated intention of harming every user of Facebook.
That is why Mark let Facebook be used to manipulate elections, he has no moral core. I personally saw the “template” that Hillary ordered that uses Facebook to manipulate voters to win elections for her.
Given the amount of election interference by Big-Tech in 2016, I became a reluctant believer in miracles.
I have seen the truth concerning the supposed “Russian Interference” and can tell you that it was all made up and, in fact, was the exact opposite of what the media reported.
I have seen so many illegal actions of Facebook that I am indeed complicit with the crimes. That is one of the reasons I must remain anonymous.
But I assure you, if I testified, Mark and I would be locked up along with the other members of the Fellowship as well as many, many other Facebook employees.
It is due to the truth that is currently coming out in the media that I feel I can reveal what I witnessed so that Mark and the “U. S. and British military controlled” Facebook can be charged with criminal activity instead of simply being hit with anti-trust charges that will only split Facebook into many subsidiaries – which would simply make Mark even more rich.
Then, the poor suckers who believed in Facebook will be left holding the bag – an empty bag of a gutted Facebook worth little or nothing. Mark will simply rebrand and go on with multiple companies that will be just as big as Facebook.
He will escape unscathed, protected again by his military handlers who, by the way, were insider traders from the beginning of Facebook and will be allowed to buy into the new companies from the beginning also.
Once again, the use of taxpayer dollars goes to private corporations run by stooges and controlled by non-Americans. Yes, I just called Mark a stooge because he actually has no clue what he is doing – at all. Just ask him to write a simple program in any code he would like – he can’t, he is a fraud and always was.
Though I will not tell you who the members of Mark Zuckerberg’s “Fellowship” group were, I can point out that all of the original members of Facebook knew from the beginning that it was a military project for cyber warfare mind-control.
Everything done from the beginning was an experiment to see just how far a social media platform could go to “conquer the enemy” through behavioral manipulation with electronic warfare.
The idea that Mark wanted to connect all college students in America was a novel idea that was far from the true intention of mind-control of every user in the world.
Free platforms like Google, Gmail, Facebook, and the rest were confidence tricks to get users to experiment on. My old buddy, Sean Parker, an early member of Facebook has “confessed all” to the media and specifically told the truth that Facebook was meant as a cyber-drug to create and control addicts – digital addicts.
As Sean said, we knew from the beginning it was harming every user and that is why we never let our friends or our children use these systems – it harms them tremendously and was the original intent of the media.
Mark and I were told by representatives of DARPA that that was the intent of Facebook from its inception.
The U. S. Patriot Act allows the military to consider every American a possible terrorist or enemy warfighter until proven otherwise.
Every person on the Internet, which was also created by DARPA, is considered a cyber-terrorist and the military sees it as their job to create systems to surveil, target, disarm, and aggressively remote control the user.
I hated the idea from the first time I heard of it. Personally, I have never used Facebook and don’t let anyone I love use it.
Mark would use patriot arguments, like the ones mentioned above, to justify his participation in this black-ops CIA operation to the Fellowship.
We argued with him, but to no avail. Mark basically believed anything his “controllers” told him. We would sometimes convince him that the project was “dead wrong”, but all it took was one phone call from “above” and Mark went back to his scheming.
It was truly pathetic to see that Mark had no freedom but was told what to do. He was also so poorly organized and such a muddled thinker that he couldn’t get anything done: homework, schoolwork, project work, nothing.
So, there was always clean up to be done after Mark, especially when the company got big.
Clean-up would include stupid stuff like paying others millions for “stealing” their code, making stupid statements every time he opened his mouth, or the lack of attention he gave to the running of the company.
Mark was always a mess and the Fellowship, as well as Larry Summers’ squeeze Sheryl Sandberg - those soul-less megalomaniacs deserve each other - helped the handlers control Mark, were always picking up the broken pieces and trying to glue them back together. But this time, Facebook and Mark cannot be fixed.
Many of the original Facebook players and the Fellowship have been paid off in huge bribes to keep us quiet. CIA secrecy agreements grow on every plant at Facebook, but the Facebook insiders are turning against Mark anyway for many good reasons.
The board of directors wants him fired. Mark’s British controllers sent Baron Richard Allen to rein Mark in, but he failed miserably. Even Sir Nick Clegg, x-deputy prime minister of Britain was sent to shut Mark up, but to no avail.
Even the second-in-charge of Britain couldn’t stop Mark and his non-stop stupidity.
Mark opens his mouth, it cost the company billions. Mark testifies, and everyone finds out that he doesn’t know a single thing about “his” company.
Mark knows nothing because he doesn’t do anything and hasn’t really shown up for work since the beginning. Mark seems to be allergic to work and can’t stand meetings unless he is “announcing” something.
He is the worst manager in history, and everyone will tell you the same if asked. We all “play” like Mark runs the company, but that is not true.
Mark can’t run himself effectively, let alone Facebook. That is why he was failing at Harvard and was going to be kicked out for bad grades, even after I did much of his work for him.
I can honestly say that, at this point, there are no “insiders” who have any faith in Mark to run the company, or to even speak in public.
We believe that even after Larry Summers, the father of Facebook, who planted Sheryl Sandberg at Facebook to shut Mark up and stop revealing that Facebook is the tool of the Democrat agenda for globalism, cannot fix the company.
This is one of the points I am most angry about.
Mark has become, over the years, no friend of America. In fact, he hates America and rants on about how proud he is to avoid U. S. taxes and to cheat the American people – whom he considers to be animals.
Mark believes he is a higher being – above human beings. He now believes it was all his work that made Facebook. He is completely deluded by his own propaganda, which is nothing but lies.
It is because Mark is now a danger to himself and the world that I must tell the true story of how Facebook and social media have become the enemies of Americans and the world.
Mark was shocked when he received an acceptance letter from Harvard, before he had applied. No test scores, interviews, or pre-requisites were required.
His government “programming” had made his acceptance a given. Harvard wanted Mark, and Mark did what he was told. So, when the president of Harvard, Larry Summers, called Mark into his office early in his freshman year, Mark was not so surprised.
He knew he would have to pay the piper. Summers asked Mark to start a group to work on the social media project – a supposed competition among teachers and students to win a government contract.
The ostensible goal was to create a social directory and Harvard where people could share in small groups.
The real intent was to create a social network to manipulate the world. Mark liked the idea but was too lazy to do anything about it.
He stuck his nose into the others’ camps to see what they were doing, but he himself just talked about it with good programmers and made them promises - thus, numerous lawsuits ensued from those promises.
Larry Summers continued to call Mark into his office for updates, so Mark just lied. Occasionally, others would be in the office with Larry Summers, but one person stood out and showed up at many more meetings in the future.
This man was obviously the person in charge of this project. His name was a former Harvard Law Professor James Chandler.
He boasted that he was one of the top idea people for DARPA and that he had actually developed lower level programming languages for the Army.
He pretended to be interested in me, but I could tell that was a political act. Guys like me can just sense these things.
Over time, it came out that Summers and Chandler had much bigger plans for the social media project and had some outside sources of help to complete the project.
Mark found it odd that Summers, Chandler, and eventually Sheryl Sandberg did not put much pressure on Mark to produce but were interested in everything Mark was learning from spying on the other groups for almost two years.
One day, Mark was called to Summers office in Massachusetts Hall to meet a most unusual man. His name was Andrew Marshall and he was the head of the Naval Intelligence Net Assessment Office.
Mark was terrified of Marshall from the beginning. Marshall had Mark sign a government secrecy agreement, and other security agreements before he told Mark the ultimate military nature of what the Harvard Facebook project entailed.
Mark, and Harvard, were simply being used as incubation think tanks as a cover for a military project that needed a corporate face.
Professor Chandler said he had discovered the source code that would accomplish the seemingly impossible task of making a social directory “scalable” to billions of people.
Chandler droned on as Harvard professors like to do about how Harvard academic elites were the best choices to do the early testing because of their superior intellects.
He explained that this scalability dilemma was not being solved by the military’s usual Microsoft, IBM and Oracle go-to military intelligence suppliers for reasons that were over my head.
He said they had found a company who had solved the problem but was not willing to be used by the military as a black-ops project against Americans and the rest of the world.
Chandler and Summers had selected Mark as their front-man to lie and claim that he had written the source code for scalability.
Chandler explained that the government had seized the source code from an inventor and his company for use in the DARPA Harvard Facebook project.
He explained in very flowery intellectual property theft language that Mark may get sued by the inventor, but that DARPA would shield him. Mark told them he was willing to take that chance.
Mark knew full-well that the people who had brain-washed him had a big plan and his part was simply to do as they told him to do.
But now, Mark was getting scared because James Chandler was a member of the president’s National Security Team, a top national security and patent lawyer, and a truly mean, ugly and frightening black man who could easily turn on you like a pit bull.
Larry Summers had those same elitist bully traits, and was the president of Harvard and an economic world leader. Mark felt he was being groomed and protected by some very powerful people.
But it was Andrew Marshall, the one they called “Yoda”, who scared the pants off Mark.
After Mark had been “read into” the plan by Summers and Chandler, their boss wanted to meet Mark to make sure that he could be trusted to be part of this overarching evil plan to manipulate all of cyber space as if it were a war arena.
Andrew Marshall did not like Mark at all. I witnessed it myself when I was asked to attend one of Andrew Marshall’s Highland Group forums as a major executive for Facebook, along with Mark. Every time Mark opened his mouth, Marshall would stare at him until Mark would shut up.
Marshall indicated in this meeting that Mark himself was the biggest problem with the Facebook operation. Mark was so happy when Andrew Marshall died not long ago.
Mark now takes his orders from Marshall understudies Dick O’Neil and James Baker who run Highlands Group.
Chandler also worked for Highlands Group and directed numerous operations working directly with Andrew Marshall and James Baker.
The Facebook operation also coordinated their activities with Rose Law Firm in Little Rock, Arkansas, and the group that gathered around Hillary Clinton’s patent thefts.
Every Facebook insider, who was there from the beginning, knew these things to be true but would never speak of it for fear of retaliation and possible death.
We are speaking about a theft of literally many trillions of dollars in intellectual property, trade secrets, patents, designs and stolen programming source code.
Mark bragged for two years about being able to write the source code for the Facebook platform, but he did not produce a single line of code. For two years, all the Fellowship heard were promises of a break-through at any moment.
We heard one excuse right after the other. We learned later it was because the inventor had run into some R&D roadblocks that needed to be sorted out first.
Mark continued to spy on the other groups working on the Harvard Facebook student and staff directories, made many promises to everyone involved, but did not follow through.
Mark kept promising he was going to just “sit down and write the code”, as if it was no big deal.
His meetings with Summers, Chandler, Marshall and others continued and Mark always came back encouraged. Then, one day Mark got terribly excited about hacking a fellow student at Harvard because he had some part of the Facebook program.
The particular student was an upper classman named Max McKibben who lived next door in Winthrop House, literally 100 feet from our Kirkland House front door.
Mark got the best hacker to come to our room and use a special “school” computer to hack into McKibben’s personal Harvard email account to steal several white papers on an invention just like the one Chandler had described.
This white paper described EXACTLY what Mark had been talking about for two years and now a Harvard student had a full description of a program that could do the same thing.
It was on October 28, 2003 that Mark returned from Summers’ office and announced: “Let the hacking begin.” That hacking stole the white paper that had been sent to the son of Michael McKibben, the owner of Leader Technologies and the real inventor of scalable social media.
Michael had sent his son Max the white papers written to describe the new invention. When Mark learned that Chandler was Michael’s patent attorney, the theft finally put a name to the target Chandler had talked about in vague terms.
Chandler had requested that Michael write up a detailed explanation of the system and how it worked.
Once Mark showed the stolen white papers to Chandler, Chandler confessed that he already had a complete evaluation copy of the source code as Michael’s patent attorney, that he was using a spy tactic called “strategic deception” in pretending to help Michael and Leader Technologies file patents, while he was secretly providing Michael’s invention code to DARPA’s IBM Eclipse Foundation cyber-warfare partners.
Chandler told Mark that IBM Eclipse was preparing Michael’s program, as they spoke, to give to Mark for the Facebook launch at EclipseCON ’04 in San Fancisco right after the Harvard January Reading Period.
He said the plan was to transfer all of the NSA’s LifeLog data as soon as possible to the Facebook platform as well. He also told Mark that he would be moving to Silicon Valley after the term was over, and that the next phase of the plan for him would happen in California.
Dustin and I went with him that summer, but I decided to return to Boston and graduate. That was a sad separation, but I was happy he got rid of his Craig’s List girls. The few that I actually saw looked like sad street urchins.
Chandler had not seen Michael’s white papers yet and was eager to have them.
Mark sent him the hacked copies. Chandler said with the inventor’s first-ever public write-up, and the source code, the Highlands Group and the IBM Eclipse Foundation now had what they needed to prepare the platform for Mark to launch thefacebook, later shortened to Facebook, at EclipseCON ‘04 in February.
I now realize that Chandler took the stolen source code from Michael McKibben and Leader Technologies and gave it to the IBM Eclipse Foundation who turned around gave it out as “open source”, the most lucrative intellectual property in history, to all of the social media giants as open source code without charging a penny.
What I am telling you now is a composite understanding of what I knew early on in the Fellowship group of Mark Zuckerberg and what I have learned up to this time as a core insider of Facebook to this very day.
It is not only Mark who needs to pay for his crimes, but many others also. IBM Eclipse Foundation plays like they are moral, honest, and philanthropically gave away intellectual property to other companies who essentially became monopolies with the stolen programming source code.
This is laughable and I told Mark when he was being told this information by his handlers that the plan would never work because anyone can see through such stupidity.
But to this day, beside Facebook insiders and the Fellowship group, no one has ever told me that they suspected the IBM Eclipse Foundation or the Highlands Forum are corrupt.
The bigger the lie, the easier it is to get people to believe it.
Mark Greenberg (Zuckerberg) did not create Facebook. Facebook is a governmental monopoly doing the most advanced virtual behavioral modification on the planet with stolen and modified patents, intellectual property (IP), and trade secrets from inventors who were not remunerated for their inventions.
I personally knew this, even when it was happening. I felt sick about the whole thing and this led to many, many arguments between Mark and me.
The other members of the Fellowship felt the same way I did. Eventually, Mark had to buy all of us off with large sums of money over the years.
We have not spoken up before now, but I personally cannot hold my silence any longer.
I must speak out openly about the criminal surveillance Mark does through Facebook because it gets worse every day.
Mark’s handlers tell him to allow more surveillance even though security breaches, selling customer data, allowing for spying by CIA, NSA, DIA, GCHQ, MI6, Five Eyes, lying to Congress, meddling in elections, allowing everyone access to Facebook data, censoring conservatives, being a platform for the Democrat party, and many other charges have been brought against Facebook in other countries and America. Mark will not listen to me or anyone else about stopping the insanity.
I believe he is unstable and not fit to run Facebook.
When I saw the $1.5 billion from George Soros and the Atlantic Council bring in the AI system (some built by the Cambridge Digital Forensic Research Laboratory) used in Europe to stop free speech, I had had enough. It was then that I knew Mark was truly being used by evil forces and that even he couldn’t stop it.
He seemed to have a death wish to destroy Facebook and reveal some of its evil intent. This was ruining the company I was trying to help run.
There were no other avenues that I could take the company down that would deter Mark from the total destruction of Facebook.
Mark had been told to win the country for Hillary, or kill the company trying. He was making astounding mistakes that showed the truth of the evil foundations of Facebook.
Our secrets were gushing out like blood from a slaughtered pig. I kept talking to Mark, trying to change his mind, but he became more insane and impossible to talk to.
Mark gave up control of the company to a crowd stumbling over themselves to take personal credit for Facebook’s “turnaround”, including Highlands Group, DHS, DoD, Naval Intelligence, SERCO, Crown Agents, IBM Eclipse Foundation, Clinton Foundation, Open Society Foundation, Google, Alphabet, Schmidt, Sandberg, Thiel, Hoffman, Breyer, Louie, Ketterson, Goldman Sachs, Blankfein, Dimon, Microsoft, Gates, Allen, Thompson, Balmer, Ozzi, Nadella, Milner, Obama, Pritzker, Hillary, Kutcher, Bono, Soros, Lamont, the Queen’s men Richard Allan and Nick Clegg, and the rest of the gang who are eager to clean up Mark’s messes.
I could see that Facebook was on its last leg but I couldn’t understand why Mark would kill the company.
Then, one day I realized what Mark was doing with the obvious crash-landing of Facebook. He was being told that he would get a “deal” with the government charges against the company and would not have to pay billions in fines.
The deal would be like the government’s deal with Standard Oil when they were charged with anti-trust, monopoly issues. They were made to break up into seven different companies – all of which became as big or bigger than Standard Oil itself. Splitting up the monopoly made the owners seven times richer.
That is what Mark is doing. He wants Facebook to be broken up instead of answer to the crimes it has willingly committed.
Corporations can simply go bankrupt, dissolve, crash and burn, or do what Google did when it created a new company called Alphabet who is now called the Mother of Google and is worth even more.
How a child becomes the parent is a new one for me.
Eric Schmidt showed Mark exactly what to do and please remember that Eric Schmidt was also Mark’s mentor and the first person to invest hundreds of millions in Facebook before it went public.
Eric Schmidt made billions off of his insider trader knowledge from the Highlands Forum investment in Facebook.
Britain’s offshore banks feed them all with endless money laundering and “deal flow” as long as the Queen gets her cut.
All us insiders know this global money game is totally rigged to perpetuate this evil power.
I don’t want to go to my grave knowing that I didn’t do something to atone for my sins in perpetuating these lies.
I believe that Mark is doing everything in his power to get President Donald Trump deposed, just as he did everything he could to try to help get Hillary elected.
If Trump continues, the globalist lose.
Mark is a true globalist; he is not an American anymore. Mark essentially does not have a plan for Facebook, he simply does what he is told and always has. Mark has made no decisions on his own – not one.
This current decision to destroy Facebook from the inside out is nothing more than Mark’s handlers using Mark in their last hours of power.
Trump will win 2020 and Facebook will die. The only question left is whether Trump will charge Mark Fakerberg with the crimes he committed.
I, for one, want Mark in jail along with his handlers. I have personally been threatened and intimidated by these Big-Tech monsters since I met Mark Zuckerberg (Greenberg) – a person who truly does not even know his own name or who he is and yet is one of the richest people on earth.
Mark did not earn nor deserve a single penny he has been given. Mark is a card-board cut-out who has lost his way and is completely delusional at this point.
As a Facebook insider I demand Mark be fired and all assets taken from him due to his non-stop lying to stockholders and Facebook users.
The Board of Directors, underwriters and institutional investors all know about the secret government contracts that have been propping up the company since the beginning, but most average shareholders do not.
It is a government-owned and operated military psy-ops weapon that has gotten out of control and been used for treasonous purposes and for seditious actions against the American people.
After she got sick of the lies, Mark’s former speech writer Katherine Losse described in her 2004 book The Boy Kings that Facebook has stolen personal data and sold it, created a “dark” profile on every user and sold it to everyone who would pay the price, created secret files of compromising photos, allowed all government agencies to access all user data, breached every user agreement, lied continuously to all users, built in back-doors and zero-day programs for the military, and many other unethical, immoral and illegal activities.
Did Mark Zuckerberg (Greenberg) willing and with intent allow these criminal activities to go on unchecked on Facebook?
– You bet he did.
And he is still doing it and getting worse every day.
Like other Facebook insiders, I want no part of this squelching of free speech or illegal surveillance activities or the purposeful experimentation on users to develop new and better means to electronically control, manipulate, and imprison people.
I have stood against Mark’s immoral and evil actions since our freshman year at Harvard.
Nothing has changed, except that Mark has gotten worse and his handlers have become so demanding that they are condemning Facebook to the trash heap and creating the circumstances for Mark to become even richer and more insane.
His next projects include a system much like what Eric Schmidt has created for China, a social credit system that controls the freedom of every American.
When Facebook is broken up, the new companies will have the Eric Schmidt “Dragonfly” social credit system built in. Mark wants to be like Eric and control the world from a digital Ivory Tower and oversee the depopulation of the earth.
These maniacs believe they are “above the human race” and are actually higher beings sent to the earth to control the masses. From my experience, these attitudes are extremely prevalent with Silicon Valley tech giants - and they make me sick.
The time has come to simply end the fake social media experiments and call them governmental black-ops projects.
I personally know most of these cyber tech-lords and I can testify that they do not possess the tech skills they claim founded their companies.
They are simply tech thieves, like Mark Zuckerberg, who need to pay back those they stole from and be put in jail for their crimes.
I personally am willing to testify without immunity and suffer whatever consequences I deserve for knowing these things and never bringing them forth until now.
I know that the corruption is so great in Washington D. C. that I would not stand a chance of bringing forth this information without being squelched, killed, or silenced like I have seen done to others.
I suggest that the new Attorney General simply read this letter, investigate and then ask Mark Greensberg to program a single line of coherent code. When he cannot, lock him up.
Former High Ranking CIA Agent Gives A Break Down On What The US Deep State And Shadow Government Is Comprised Of June 20 2019 | From: SOTT A CIA whistleblower, Kevin Shipp, has emerged from the wolves den to expose the deep state and the shadow government which he calls two entirely separate entities.
"The shadow government controls the deep state and manipulates our elected government behind the scenes," Shipp warned in a recent talk at a Geoengineeringwatch.org conference.
Shipp had a series of slides explaining how the deep state and shadow government functions as well as the horrific crimes they are committing against U.S. citizens.
Some of the revelations the former CIA anti-terrorism counter intelligence officer revealed included that "Google Earth was set up through the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency and InQtel."
Indeed he is correct, the CIA and NGA owned the company Google acquired, Keyhole Inc., paying an undisclosed sum for the company to turn its tech into what we now know as Google Earth.
Another curious investor in Keyhole Inc. was none other than the venture capital firm In-Q-Tel run by the CIA according to a press release at the time.
Shipp also disclosed that the agency known as the Joint Special Ops Command (JSOC) is the "president's secret army" which he can use for secret assassinations, overturning governments and things the American people don't know about.
FBI warrantless searches violate the Fourth Amendment with national security letters, which Shipp noted enables them to walk into your employer's office and demand all your financial records and if he or she says anything about them being there they can put your supervisor in jail or drop a case against themselves using the "State's Secret Privilege law."
"The top of the shadow government is the National Security Agency and the Central Intelligence Agency," Shipp said.
Shipp expressed that the CIA was created through the Council on Foreign relations with no congressional approval, and historically the CFR is also tied into the mainstream media (MSM.)
He elaborated that the CIA was the "central node" of the shadow government and controlled all of the other 16 intelligence agencies despite the existence of the DNI.
The agency also controls defense and intelligence contractors, can manipulate the president and political decisions, has the power to start wars, torture, initiate coups, and commit false flag attacks he said.
As Shipp stated, the CIA was created through executive order by then President Harry Truman by the signing of the National Security Act of 1947.
According to Shipp, the deep state is comprised of the military industrial complex, intelligence contractors, defense contractors, MIC lobbyist, Wall St (offshore accounts), Federal Reserve, IMF/World Bank, Treasury, Foreign lobbyists, and Central Banks.
In the shocking, explosive presentation, Shipp went on to express that there are "over 10,000 secret sites in the U.S." that formed after 9/11. There are "1,291 secret government agencies, 1,931 large private corporations and over 4,800,000 Americans that he knows of who have a secrecy clearance, and 854,000 who have Top Secret clearance, explaining they signed their lives away bound by an agreement.
He also detailed how Congress is owned by the Military Industrial Complex through the Congressional Armed Services Committee (48 senior members of Congress) giving those members money in return for a vote on the spending bill for the military and intelligence budget.
He even touched on what he called the "secret intelligence industrial complex," which he called the center of the shadow government including the CIA, NSA, NRO, and NGA.
Shipp further stated that around the "secret intelligence industrial complex" you have the big five conglomerate of intelligence contractors - Leidos Holdings, CSRA, CACI, SAIC, and Booz Allen Hamilton.
He noted that the work they do is "top secret and unreported."
The whistleblower remarked that these intelligence contractors are accountable to no one including Congress, echoing the words of Senator Daniel Inouye when he himself blew the whistle on the shadow government during the Iran-Contra hearings in 1987.
At the time Inouye expressed that the "shadow government had its own funding mechanism, shadowy Navy, and Air Force freedom to pursue its own goals free from all checks and balances and free from the law itself."
Shipp further added that the shadow government and elected government were in the midst of a visible cold war.
So who is Shipp and is he credible as a whistleblower, does he have credentials for the CIA? Aim.orgwrote:
"Shipp held several high-level positions in the CIA. He was assigned as a protective agent for the Director of Central Intelligence, a counterintelligence investigator, a Counter Terrorism Center officer, a team leader protecting sensitive CIA assets from assassination, a manager of high-risk protective operations, a lead instructor for members of allied governments, an internal staff security investigator, and a polygraph examiner.
He was tasked with protecting the CIA from foreign agent penetration and the chief of training for the CIA federal police force. Mr. Shipp functioned as program manager for the Department of State, Diplomatic Security, and Anti Terrorism Assistance global police training program.
Shipp noted he was working with former NSA whistleblower William Binney but didn't state what the two were working on together. Shipp is highly credible and may just be the highest level whistleblower.
This leak is huge. He has been previously mentioned in the New York Times for blowing the whistle on the mistreatment of him and his family when they were put in a mold-contaminated home.
He is also mentioned in a WikiLeaks cable during the GiFiles that I was able to dig up. Is this the beginning of whistleblowers coming forward to end the shadow government and deep state? You can watch Shipp's full explosive presentation below.
If You Find It Hard To Forgive, Read This
June 19 2019 | From: TheUnboundedSpirit Forgiveness. Every great spiritual teacher in human history has talked about it.
But why is it so difficult to forgive? And, more crucially, why is it so important?
If you've been hurt by certain people and feel unable to forgive them and get unstuck from your past, this might come in handy.
All the great spiritual masters down the centuries have been teaching about the crucial importance of forgiveness for living in peace with ourselves and others.
But for us ordinary humans, to forgive is a very difficult thing to do.
Why It’s Hard to Forgive
If you’ve been deeply hurt by someone - and I’m sure you have, just like any other person alive - you must know exactly what I mean.
When someone hurts you, I bet forgiving them isn’t one of the first things to cross your mind. Rather, you most likely think of hurting them back - and as quickly as possible.
You feel a burning desire to make them drink from the well of pain they pushed you into. Your heart is cut open because of them and all you want is to soak them in its blood.
Forgiveness is entirely out of the question. How could you forgive someone who HURT you? And, more importantly, how could you forgive someone who hurt YOU?
To the wounded ego, forgiveness implies not standing up for itself. Hence, giving in to it appears like self-betrayal. And since the ego is obsessed about itself, it doesn’t give a shit about forgiveness.
Its kingdom is under attack and it urgently needs to fight back to win the battle ahead in order to remain seated in the king’s chair. Only this way will it be able to feel strong, powerful and proud again.
To the ego, forgiveness is just another word for self-defeat
Forgiveness, we tend to think, is for the weak - that is, for those who don’t possess the will and courage to protect themselves against the evil. It’s for those whose heart is so vulnerable and fragile that anyone and at any time could take it into their hands and tear it apart without experiencing the least resistance.
Yet this couldn’t be further from the truth. Contrary to popular belief, the capacity to forgive is actually a sign of emotional strength.
To stay open, trusting and loving in an unkind, competitive and often cruel environment is one of the most courageous things you could do. To allow your heart to be the decision-maker in a world that is run by cunning brains is one of the most difficult psychological feats you can accomplish.
To practice compassion and offer second chances to those who’ve shown bad intentions towards you requires integrity, fearlessness and resilience.
On the other hand, building tall, thick walls around your heart to insulate it from external forces is nothing but a sign of emotional weakness.
The image of a guarded, cold heart is screaming: “I’m terrified of the world and I feel the need to protect myself by staying away from it.”
Insecure and afraid, close-hearted people are desperately trying in any way possible to keep a certain distance from others - and the bigger that distance is, the safer they feel. But the price they have to pay for that is extremely high: Disconnection, loneliness, alienation.
Other than a sign of strength, forgiveness is also a sign of wisdom. The reason is threefold:
Firstly, to forgive means realizing the pointlessness of trying to fix your heart by breaking the heart of someone else. If a person has hurt you, you won’t heal your emotional wounds nor erase the pain that results from their actions by hurting them back.
The wounds will still be there, and, whether you like it or not, they’ll likely leave permanent scars on your psyche. You can either accept what happened and move on with your life or try to undo your past and stay stuck in it. Forgiving people are wise enough to go for the former option.
Secondly, to forgive means seeing the dark side in everyone.
Although forgiving people don’t try to justify acts that are unjustifiable, they do recognize that all humans (themselves included) are imperfect and hence prone to commit mistakes or “wrongdoings”, such as hurting others (whether intentionally or unintentionally).
Instead of expecting that others behave in perfectly nice manners and judging or abandoning them when they don’t, they understand that, despite their imperfections, all people are deserving of love and compassion.
And when they feel the need to depart from a relationship that has turned toxic, they try their best to do so without adding any extra conflict and suffering to it.
Lastly, to forgive means understanding that, as Gandhi eloquently put it, “an eye for an eye will make the whole world blind.”
Forgiving people know that those who hurt them are themselves hurt, and that revenge only makes things worse, by fueling a cycle of hatred that leads to prolonged and intensified suffering.
They also know that only compassion can break that cycle, agreeing with Martin Luther King, Jr. who said: “Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.”
When we’re overcome with resentment, it can be hard to forgive someone who has hurt us. Resentment narrows our perception, clouds our judgment and hardens our emotions, preventing us from seeing our situation with clear eyes and dealing with it in an effective manner.
In other words, resentment turns us into captives of our traumatic past, not allowing us to let go and focus on what lies ahead of us. This is well-illustrated by an old Tibetan story:
"Two ex-prisoners of war meet after many years. When the first one asks, “Have you forgiven your captors yet?” the second man answers, “No, never.” “Well then,” the first man replies, “they still have you in prison.”
To break free from the prison of resentment and the suffering that goes hand in hand with it, we need to open our hearts and embrace our fellow humans with compassion.
Initially, this might be quite a difficult thing to do, but it’s the only way to get unstuck from the destructive patterns of our past, rediscover inner peace and build healthy relationships based on love and understanding.
‘Humanitarian’ Concerns Increase Wars, Benefit Only Arms-Producers
June 18 2019 | From: Geopolitics / Various Unlike a regular corporation, the corporations that manufacture and sell weapons to their government are virtually 100% dependent upon their government and its military allies, for their own success; their markets are only those governments, not individuals (such as is the case for normal corporations).
Consequently, either their government will control them, and those firms won’t have any effective control over their own markets, or else those firms will, themselves, control their government, and thereby effectively control their markets, via the government’s foreign policies - not only via expanding its military alliances (those firms’ foreign markets), but via its designating ‘enemy’ nations that it and its ‘allies’ (those arms-producers’ foreign markets) can then use those weapons against.
In countries such as the United States, arms-producers are benefiting and controlled by the country’s billionaires, instead of (as in Russia, for example) benefiting and controlled by the government.
Only in nations where arms-producers are privately instead of publicly controlled are the government’s foreign polices predominantly controlled by the country’s arms-producers. That’s the way it is in America.
"The US has been the world’s leading exporter in weapons since 1990 and the biggest customer is Saudi Arabia. The US sold a total of $55.6 billion of weapons worldwide, and in 2017, cleared $18 billion dollars with Saudi Arabia alone.”
Yet, Trump talks up his ‘humanitarian’ concerns for the people of Venezuela as ‘justification’ for his possibly invading Venezuela, and America’s military is preparing to do that.
Additional:Read about the Alliance that has
been working behind
the scenes for decades to take down the 'Cabal' within the work of David Wilcock.
Some of those reading this may be confused because the cabal-controlled mainstream media is doing
everything within it's
power to denigrate Trump - as he is part of the effort to take the Illuminati down once and for
all.
The main and central ‘enemy’ of the US is Russia’s government; and all of the other ‘enemies’ of America (the spokes of America’s ‘enemy’ wheel) are led by people - such as Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, Viktor Yanukovych, Bashar al-Assad, Salvador Allende, Jacobo Arbenz, and Nicolas Maduro - who are friendly toward Russia.
The objective here is to force other nations to join America’s anti-Russia alliances or else to face the consequences of a likely invasion or coup by America to overthrow and replace those leaders.
Therefore, America targets all nations that are/were friendly toward Russia, such as pre-2003 Iraq, and such as pre-2011 Libya, and such as Syria, and such as pre-1973 Chile, and such as post-1979 Iran - all of America’s various target-nations, which are the authorized targets for America and its ‘allies’ to invade or otherwise regime-change (change from being a target, to becoming instead a new market).
In order for privately controlled arms-producers to thrive, there is just as much of a need for ‘allies’ as for ’targets’, because without targets, there can be no authorized markets, since every weapon is useless if it has no authorized target against which it may be used.
There consequently needs to be at least one ‘enemy’ for any country whose arms-production is privately instead of publicly controlled. Both ‘allies’ and ‘enemies’ are needed, in order for America’s arms-makers to continue flourishing.
By contrast, in Russia, where each of the arms-producers is majority-controlled by the government instead of by private investors, each arms-producer exists only in order to defend the nation, there is no need for any ‘enemy’ nations, and the best situation for such a government is to the contrary: to have as many allies, or buyers of its country’s weapons, as possible (so that it will be as safe as possible), and as few nations as possible that are enemies. For such a country, there’s no benefit in having any enemies.
Whereas the billionaires who control America’s arms-makers profit from this military competition against Russia, the controlling interest in all of Russia’s arms-makers is Russia’s government, which simply suffers the expense of that competition and would greatly prefer to end that competition.
The profit-motive isn’t driving the arms-producers in countries that control their own arms-makers. The government leads the nation there, basically because the nation’s billionaires - even if they are minority stockholders of the armaments-firms - don’t. And the reason the billionaires don’t is that the arms-producers in Russia are controlled by the government, not by any private investors.
Consequently, in countries that socialize arms-production, ‘humanitarian’ excuses don’t need to be invented in order to create new ‘enemies’.
Instead, the goal is for the number of enemies to be reduced, so that the nation itself will be safer. Their arms-producers don’t need constantly to generate (by lobbying, media-propaganda, etc.) authorized targets (‘enemies’ such as Iraq, Syria, etc.), because such a nation, as this, has designed its system to be driven for protecting the public’s safety, and not for any investors’ profits.
If an armaments-firm, in such a nation, goes out-of-business, that’s entirely okay, so long as that nation’s safety isn’t being reduced by ending the firm.
The international policy of such a country is totally different from that of a country in which arms-makers’ profits, and not the entire nation’s welfare, is in the driver’s seat regarding all foreign policies.
If arms-makers are being driven for profits, then target-nations are needed in order to expand profits so as to serve their investors. Such a country is run actually for its investors, not for its public. But if the arms-makers are being driven to serve the government instead of to serve private investors, the government is controlling the armament-firms.
The nation’s safety is the objective in such a land, because increasing profits for private investors in its weapons-firms is not the company’s objective. Any profits to such investors, are then irrelevant to the government. It’s truly sink-or-swim, for each of such a nation’s arms-makers - not socialism-for-the-rich, and capitalism (actually fascism) for the poor, such as is the case in the United States.
In a nation such as the United States, the constant need for new wars is being constantly driven by investors’ needs for expanding both markets and targets. [Albeit that this game is not going to be able to go on much longer.]
And - since in the arms-making business, all of the markets are one’s own government, plus all of its allied governments (no significant consumer-business whatsoever, which is why such firms are fundamentally different from the firms in all other types of fields) - the government needs to serve its armaments-firms, because those firms are totally dependent upon the government, and upon its international diplomacy (to increase the sales of its armaments, and thereby to serve the billionaires who control the armaments-firms).
So: the government there naturally becomes an extension of its major “contractors” or armaments-firms. The politicians know this, though they don’t want to talk publicly about it, because they don’t want the voters to know who is actually in the driver’s seat. They know whom they are actually serving, which is the billionaires who control the armaments-firms.
So: those politicians, whatever they might say in public (“America shouldn’t be the policeman for the world,” etc.), always actuallyvote to invade (Iraq, Syria, etc.), and to approve the first stage of any war, which is economic sanctions (such as against Russia itself, or Iran, or Iraq, or Syria, or Venezuela, etc.), and it’s always allegedly being done “to serve God, mother and country” at home, and “to expand freedom and protect human rights in that dictatorially ruled country” abroad.
This is basically the marketing campaign for the owners of the armaments firms.
The winning politicians in such countries are the ones that those billionaires support. In such a country, it’s almost impossible for any politician who is competing for a national office to succeed who isn’t being funded by those billionaires. And, the billionaires’ ‘news’-media support only such candidates.
That’s why there’s almost no possibility for an honest person to be elected (or appointed) to any national public office in the United States.
[Until recently: See above.]
If a nation’s sole reason for producing weapons is in order to protect the public - a public purpose - then there is no reason for the government to lie so as to demonize foreign leaders such as Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, Bashar al-Assad, Salvador Allende, Viktor Yanukovych, and Nicolas Maduro. And this has nothing whatsoever to do with how bad (or good) the demonized leader actually is.
Why does the US government demonize those people, while simultaneously serving (if not actually installing) barbaric dictators such as King Saud, Augusto Pinochet, Castillo Armas, and the Shah? The publicly stated reasons are always ‘humanitarian’ (when not ‘national defense’ - and often, as in 2003 Iraq - both at once).
The alleged purpose is to ‘bring democracy to the people there’, and to ‘protect human rights, which are being violated’ by ‘the dictator’ - but it’s actuallyin order to make suckers out of their country’s own population, so as to serve the billionaires whose income can’t be boosted in any other way than to turn ‘enemies’ (targets) into ‘allies’ (markets) — to conquer those ‘enemies’.
This is just a marketing campaign, and the voters are not the consumers of these products, but they are instead merely the gulls who have to be fooled in order for those profits to keep rolling in, to the (usually) offshore accounts of those billionaires.
This is not the type of socialism in which the government controls the economy, but instead the type of economy in which the economy - actually the billionaires who control the armaments-firms - control the government. This is why it’s “socialism for the rich and capitalism for everybody else.” (The term “fascism” can be used for that.)
This is the New America. And here is the New America Foundation, which is one of the many ‘non-profit’ PR arms of this new America. (That one represents mainly Democratic Party billionaires. Here is one that instead represents mainly Republican Party billionaires.)
These are taxpayer-subsidized public relations agencies for their businesses.
These individuals are exceptionally gifted businesspeople, because they deeply understand how to fool the public, and they understand that the public never learns and so history just keeps repeating itself, such as in 1953 Iran, and then in 1954 Guatemala, and 1973 Chile, and 2003 Iraq, and 2019 Venezuela, and so many others, ad nauseum.
And it goes on and on, for decades if not forever.
Maybe not. Apparently, constant lying by the government and by its (i.e., by its billionaires’) media - and by all of its successful national politicians - is required in any such country.
This seems to be the only effective way to control the public in such a country; and, if the public there aren’t deceived, then the arms-firms’ control over the government won’t even be possible. So, regarding foreign policies, the lying in such a country is constant - especially about foreign affairs.
The system is actually set up to operate that way. And the system’s owners (and their media) call this ‘democracy’, and are peddling that ‘democracy’ to the rest of the world.
This is a very successful trick, because - at least until now - the public never learns. (Of course, the system itself is set up so that they won’t.) The public never learns that the actual enemy is the domestic aristocracy itself.
But one major American magazine recently made fun of this by headlining “In Billionaires Is the Preservation of the World” praising them as “nature’s own life-preserver” and closing by “With life itself depending on it, how do we determine which billionaires to kiss up to?”
The enemy is within, but it’s no joke, and (as Trump makes so clear) ‘aliens’ get the blame, while the domestic aristocracy just get the money.
This type of racket has worked that way for thousands of years, and yet it has always remained “Top Secret,” or (at least) “Confidential” or etc.; but, anyway, very private - and not acknowledged in their ‘news’-media, but instead publicly denied (though, occasionally, also joked-about).
A more-serious phrase for this is “the Deep State.”
One Year Old Dies After Vaccination, Death Ruled Unexplained Due To Natural Causes & Questions To Ask Pro Vaxers June 17 2019 | From: VacTruth / Various Michael Witesell died three days after he was given six vaccine doses. His death was ruled as Sudden Unexplained Infant Death (SIDS).
Autopsy results have revealed baby Michael Whitesell’s liver and vascular systems were congested when he passed away. The coroner ruled one year-old Michael’s death as Sudden Unexplained Infant Death, due to natural causes, and the specific vaccines were not listed on the autopsy report.
At the age of one, on October 19, 2015, Michael Whitesell was taken in for the routine 12-month well baby check-up, where he was injected with the MMR, varicella, hepatitis A, and flu vaccines.
This was six vaccine doses given to him, in four injections. He let out a scream his parents had never heard before.
Three days later, he had a fever and was given Tylenol. He went to bed that night and died in his sleep, sometime the following morning. After he was found, his father Thomas performed CPR on him, until EMS showed up and took over.
Once investigators showed up, they tried to revive Michael, but it was accepted he was already gone and resuscitation efforts ceased.
Investigators left baby Michael on the floor, on his back, with his little arms out to his side, turning more blue and darker by the minute, while waiting more than two hours for the coroner to show up. Investigators didn’t even cover up baby Michael with a sheet.
Those surrounding the scene were walking over Michael’s uncovered body. The doorway where Michael lay connected the children’s bedroom to the living room.
His three year-old brother Keegan didn’t know what was going on; he offered Michael some goldfish crackers in his mouth, because he thought his brother was hungry. He knew something wasn’t right but didn’t understand what had happened.
The family tried to keep Keegan outside, but it was so cold that morning and they had to keep going in and out of the house. The family was so distraught looking at Michael, while hoping he would just start breathing again.
Michael’s grandmother recalls no one saying they couldn’t cover him up themselves, but they were just mad, shocked and sad, dealing with so many emotions at one time.
They didn’t know if they were allowed to cover his body, thinking the investigators still needed to take pictures. You would think the investigators would cover up Michael without being asked. Michael’s family didn’t want Keegan to remember his brother this way.
While this was happening, the Indiana Department of Child Services (DCS) was notified. Michael’s parents, Thomas and Brittney Whitesell, were investigated; then three year-old Keegan was removed from the home and placed with Brittney’s grandmother, who lived about 25 miles away, in a retirement home with two ladies.
Thomas and Brittney were told Keegan would be returned once the autopsy results came back, to prove they didn’t hurt Michael. They were treated like criminals and the vaccines were never looked at as a cause of death.
Thomas and Brittney were fingerprinted, had background checks done on them, were tested for drug use on the spot, and they came back clean. It was so hard for them to have Keegan taken away like this, after just losing Michael.
The autopsy results revealed Michael was not abused at all. The autopsy report showed Michael Whitesell’s liver and vascular system were congested.
The coroner ruled one year-old Michael’s cause of death as Sudden Unexplained Infant Death, due to natural causes, and the specific vaccines he had received were not listed on the report.
The medical examiner confirmed Michael had vascular congestion in his brain, thymus, heart, lungs, liver, spleen, kidneys, adrenals, urinary bladder, gastrointestinal tract, pancreas and thyroid.
Petechiae of the thymus and lungs were noted, along with pulmonary and visceral congestion. The toxicology report came back negative and mentioned his urine was positive for glucose.
As expected, there was no mention on Michael’s autopsy report of the specific MMR, varicella and hepatitis A vaccines Michael had received just before he died. Only the flu shot was specified.
On the entire autopsy report and pathology report, the only mention of the vaccines Michael received shortly before his death was in this sentence the coroner wrote:
"Brittney also told me that Michael had received his 12 month vaccinations and flu shot on October 19th at the office of Doctor ———-.”
Michael’s grandmother Tina had contacted the coroner at least twice a week, telling him to mention the vaccines and to look into them being the cause of death.
"I knew he got sick of me calling and even argued with me a few times, but I stood my ground. My grandson had the right for a full, healthy life and did not deserve this.”
Even though the specific vaccines weren’t mentioned, except for the flu shot, this was a huge achievement.
Not listing the vaccines on the autopsy report is a common theme we see on reports of babies dying after vaccination.
This helps keep parents in the dark while protecting the vaccine program. We commend Michael’s family for their perseverance on this matter.
As mentioned in Michael’s original story, it is unacceptable that a medical examiner doesn’t have to list recent vaccines on the autopsy report, or the child’s recent hospital or emergency room visits associated with a vaccine reaction occurring just before the child died.
Tina also asked the coroner if he thought the vaccines took Michael’s life and immediately he said no. It is rather concerning that all of the ingredients injected into baby Michael could be so positively ruled out.
This makes no sense at all. The FDA and CDC admit that any vaccine can lead to death, but when it happens, medical examiners and doctors routinely say there is no connection, while there is no way they could disprove the connection.
Please take a look at the ingredients listed on the CDC’s website, showing what went through those needles and ask yourself how this could not kill a child, especially when the CDC and vaccine manufacturers admit life-threatening allergic reactions and death can be the outcome of receiving any vaccine.
The immune response brought on from the vaccines was too great for Michael’s developing body to handle.
Based on these autopsy findings, did Michael suffer a cytokine storm, initiated from the vaccines that caused his immature immune system to overcompensate, while trying to detox his body from what was injected into him?
It appears so.
He was healthy and fine before those shots and, despite what the records read, considering parents every day are denied the truth that the vaccines harmed their baby, this family knows the vaccines took his life and they will fight for justice until the cause of Michael’s death is acknowledged.
One pathologist plausibly connected the vaccines to a the death of a different child who passed away after vaccination.
The pathology report shown in this story, SIDS Death Plausibly Linked to Vaccines in a 4-Month-Old Baby Boy, concluded that this child died shortly after receiving a set of vaccinations and that the autopsy showed no specific cause of death, leading to the SIDS diagnosis.
Vaccination: Watch What Happens After The Camera Gets Turned Off
The pathologist was aware of how vaccines induce cytokine production, which can affect the brainstem, leading to respiratory failure, from which the baby did not recover. In his view;
"The vaccinations plausibly represent a substantial contributing factor to the death of this infant.”
Tina asked the doctor who vaccinated Michael to write a statement saying the vaccines caused Michael’s death. The doctor said she would not, unless the coroner or pathologist would admit this, because she didn’t see Michael after he was vaccinated, for anything. Even if the doctor had seen Michael after he was vaccinated, it is very unlikely she would have submitted to the request.
Keegan Was Returned Home After The Autopsy Report Proved His Parents’ Innocence
In the second week of December 2015, Michael’s autopsy results were made available. Once the autopsy report came in, the Indiana Department of Child Services (DCS) finally started working with Thomas and Brittney to help bring Keegan back home.
Keegan was finally rejoined with his parents once the autopsy results came in that proved Thomas and Brittney’s innocence that Michael was not abused by them.
When Keegan was going back home, all he talked about was going home to his mommy and daddy and how excited he was to see his dog Zena and the rest of the family. It was a very joyous moment.
The family will always be upset about how they were treated. They are not criminals and were treated as such.
They loved Michael and took great care of him. Looking back, they understand DCS was doing their job and have a lot of compassion for other families that have been put through this.
The Indiana Department of Child Services sent Thomas a letter, dated December 23, 2015. It stated:
"Mr. Whitesell,
This letter is in regards to the report/assessment regarding child abuse and/or neglect regarding the minor child, Keegan Whitesell.
The Department of Child Services has found your case to be Unsubstantiated.
This finding is due to the fact that there is currently no evidence to pursue a finding of Neglect of the minor child. No further actions will be taken on this assessment.”
Having Keegan taken away during such a tragic time hurt the family tremendously.
Thankfully, DCS did what they said they would do and returned Keegan, as soon as it was proven his parents did not harm Michael.
DCS is helping them now, to stay reunited. They are requiring Thomas and Brittney to obtain legal guardianship of Keegan, in order to keep him, which they are in the process of doing now.
The reason guardianship has to be obtained is because Thomas and Brittney are actually Michael and Keegan’s uncle and aunt, not their biological parents. They have raised both boys since birth and are seen as their parents.
Their biological mother, Thomas’s sister, was unable to raise her children due to suffering from epilepsy, which started right after she was given childhood vaccines.
The doctor never made her mother, Tina, aware that the vaccines were associated with these injuries and the connection was not made until after Michael died.
Due to Keegan’s biological mother’s health problems, she was unable to raise her boys and the boys’ fathers were not in the picture. This is why she entrusted her brother Thomas and his wife Brittney to raise them. It was a mutual agreement they had made but had never filed legal paperwork.
Thomas himself was born with his liver and intestines on the outside of his body. The doctors never told his mother Tina why or how this happened; they only told her it happens and that it is rare.
Immunologist and Doctors Comment on Vaccination and the Immune System
Thomas had to undergo three major surgeries to survive. Tina was told her son would never be able to have kids of his own.
That is why Thomas and Brittney were so thrilled to raise Michael and Keegan, since they couldn’t have children of their own.
Keegan’s biological father recently came forward, wanting custody of Keegan. He wanted nothing to do with Keegan until child protective services stepped in after Michael passed away.
DCS is recommending current placement of Keegan with Thomas and Brittney to continue, since he would be able to maintain essential connections with his biological mother and his family who have raised him since birth.
Since Keegan has resided with Thomas and Brittney the majority of his life, where he is provided a safe and stable environment, permanent placement is recommended with them, as it will not disrupt his stability and would be in the best interest of Keegan.
Grieving Parents Are Left To Pay For Their Vaccine-Injured Child’s Funeral Expenses
Funeral expenses are not paid for up front, by pharmaceutical companies or vaccine court, when you lose a loved one to any vaccine. Michael’s grieving family has to wait to receive money from their tax refunds, in order to pay for Michael’s headstone, something they really want for him, but have had to put off due to how expensive headstones are.
They will also have to pay an expert witness retainer fee in excess of two thousand dollars, to help them prove the vaccines were responsible. Most parents are unaware of this harsh reality when they bring their child to get vaccinated.
After filing a claim with the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP), they will await a long journey for justice, while knowing two-thirds of vaccine injury claims get denied.
They also learned the maximum death benefit they can receive for Michael is capped at $250,000, the price your child’s life is worth, should they be lethally harmed by a specific vaccine.
We leave you with words from Michael’s grandmother, Tina:
"We miss Michael so much and think about him every day. It’s cold and snowing here, and all I think about is how Michael is laying in the ground cold, when he should be with us, in a warm house. I just want to get in a time machine and go back to that day.
We have filed a claim with the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program because we want justice for Michael. I want people to know the truth! I knew shortly after hearing about his death, it was the shots that ended his life. Healthy babies just don’t die in their sleep, period!
I wonder everyday if this is the day he would have learned to walk. He was so close to walking. He was so happy, always smiling and hardly ever cried. So healthy too, he only went to the docs for his well checkups. Then we lost him. He will always be in our hearts and in our minds. I truly feel for other parents who lost their babies, too. It hurts so much.
Every two years, I am going to find an age enhancement artist to keep his photo updated for us, so we will know, or kind of know, what he would have looked like.
Keegan is only three years old and his life changed on October 23, 2015. He has a little police car that was used in Michael’s funeral, near his casket. He keeps that car put up and plays with it sometimes and he will tell you, ‘Michael gave this to me.’
Keegan still talks about Michael. He told me he wants the moon to come out so he could see Michael. He tells us that Michael is at the moon or in the stars and that we need to go get him and bring him in, so he doesn’t get cold.
Michael and other babies no longer are here but getting the truth out in the open will help save others. My grandson had the right for a full, healthy life and did not deserve this. He deserved to live. Those vaccines totally changed and ruined our lives forever.”
Michael and Keegan Whitesell
Michael Eugene Whitesell, of Columbia City, Indiana, was born on September 30, 2014. He is pictured here with his older brother, Keegan.
Michael passed away on October 23, 2015, less than four days after he was vaccinated and given Tylenol.
Why is a newborn baby vaccinated on day 1 of life against a disease that is primarily transmitted sexually and through needles in drug users?
Why are babies given vaccines to produce antibodies when they don’t produce antibodies until after the age of 3 to 6 months?
Why is the govt telling parents to delay breast feeding and get more vaccines when breast-fed babies produce higher levels of antibodies? (See the .gov link at the bottom of this article)
Why are vaccine manufacturers not held responsible when their product injures your child? Why would they need to be protected from the effects of such wonderful products?
Why have no double blind, placebo, randomized controlled trials been done on any vaccines? Standard with any other drug. Some might say there have been, but injecting kids with an aluminum-adjuvant ‘placebo’ is not a placebo, it’s injecting kids with a known neuro-toxin.
Why is the world following the US when they are the most vaccinated population on the planet with the highest rates of infant deaths/SIDS in the western world?
Why are disease outbreaks occurring in populations with 90%+ vaccination rates?
Why are kids vaccinated against these diseases still catching and spreading them?
Why are we scared of non-fatal illnesses that train a child’s immune system how to behave on this planet?
Why are vaccine manufacturers allowed to cut down on antigen and insert cheap and nasty toxic additives that aggravate the injection site?
Why do we need multi-dose vaccines if the number 1 priority of vaccine manufacturers is your child’s safety?
Why will no doctor sign a written guarantee for your child’s safety prior to vaccinating them with a product they insist you have?
In fact, it is more likely that sea levels will decline, not rise, explained Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner, the retired head of the paleogeophysics and geodynamics at Stockholm University.
A new solar-driven cooling period is not far off, he said. But when Mörner tried to warn the UN IPCC that it was publishing false information that would inevitably be discredited, they simply ignored him.
And so, dismayed, he resigned in disgust and decided to blow the whistle.
Asked if coastal cities such as Miami would be flooding due to sea-level rise caused by alleged man-made global warming, Mörner was unequivocal:
“Absolutely not.” “There is no rapid sea-level rise going on today, and there will not be,” he said, citing observable data.
“On the contrary, if anything happens, the sea will go down a little.”
The widely respected scientist, who has been tracking sea levels in various parts of the globe for some 50 years, blasted those who use incorrect “correction factors” in their data to make it appear that seas are rising worldwide.
Indeed, even speaking of something called “global sea level” is highly misleading, the expert explained.
“It is different in different parts of the world,” Mörner said, noting that sea levels can rise in one part of the world and decline in another depending on a variety of factors.
For instance, the interview took place right next to an 18th-century Baltic sea-level marker in Saltsjöbaden near Stockholm that showed the Baltic sea level at the time it was made.
Because the ground is rising, the marking is now higher up from sea level than it was when it was made.
Mörner has personally been measuring and tracking sea levels in equatorial regions of the world - Bangladesh, the Maldives, Southern India, New Caledonia, Fiji, and beyond.
Mörner's conclusion is that solar activity and its effects on the globe have been the “dominant factor” in what happens to both the climate and the seas.
Meanwhile, the UN claims the current changes in climate and sea level are attributable to human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2).
Man’s emissions of this essential gas, required by plants and exhaled by people, makes up a fraction of one percent of all so-called greenhouse gases present naturally in the atmosphere.
“Absolutely not,”Mörner said about the CO2 argument, noting there was“something basically sick” in the blame-CO2 hypothesis. “CO2, if it has any effect, it is minute - it does not matter. What has a big effect is the sun.”
Obviously, while he was serving on the UN IPCC, Mörner tried to warn his colleagues on the UN body that the politically backed hypothesis about CO2 driving temperature changes, and the subsequent claims regarding dangerous sea-level rise, were totally incorrect.
“They just ignored what I was saying,”he recounted.
“If they were clever - if they had facts on their hands - they could show that, 'no, you're wrong.' But that is not the case. They just will not discuss it. I will try to discuss it.
I will show with their own data that they are wrong. Because in science, we discuss. We don't forbid or neglect.”
“Why does anybody say something when it is not correct?” he asked.
“They say it because they have applied excellent lobbyists. They are working with lobbyists in their hand; 'say this, do that.' We don't do that.”
In the field of physics, Mörner estimated that 80 to 90 percent of physicists know the hypothesis is wrong. And among geologists and astronomers, he said probably 80 percent know it is wrong.
“They claim that there are 97 percent who are for it,”Mörner said.
“I claim that it is 97 percent of scientific facts against them.”
Quoting Galileo, the 80-year-old Swedish scientist also slammed the shady tactics used by climate alarmists and the lobbyists they work with to suppress the real facts and demonize those who contradict their alarmist narrative.
“If you write an excellent paper in a peer-reviewed journal, but they don't like it, they write to the journal and tell them they cannot write things like that, it's against the general consensus,” said Mörner, who has published hundreds of peer-reviewed papers on a wide range of scientific subjects.
“They even put those journals on a black list. This is a shady thing going on. We don't work like that in real science.”
Instead of science, Mörner suspects that the behind-the-scenes promoters of the man-made warming hypothesis have dark, ulterior motives.
“I think the ultimate thing is that they want a government for the whole globe, and that is a weird idea,” Mörner said, criticizing the Rockefeller dynasty and global efforts to keep developing countries from developing under the guise of saving the climate.
“This is the hope of controlling everything. It is autocracy. It is really bad. Nobody should rule like that. But everybody has had these strange dreams - small countries of being larger, and empires wanting to be super-empires, and then they collapse. We have a whole history full of that. This globalism is a dangerous thing.”
By putting so much emphasis on climate alarmism and the alleged dangers of CO2, meanwhile, Mörner said the UN has diverted resources and attention away from “all the real problems” of the world that really do exist.
“This is a terrible thing, this is the terrible thing,” he said. It is especially sad because “the world is full of real problems” such as hunger, starvation, killings, natural disasters, diseases, and so much more, he said.
Yet because of the incessant focus on demonizing CO2 and trying to control “climate,” those very real problems get ignored.
He urged the Trump administration to “forget about” the whole UN climate agenda:
“Because that is nonsense, and you have very carefully and cleverly understood that.”
However, he also urged Trump to be empathetic and willing to discuss the climate issue.
“It is very simple for us to discuss it, because we really have the facts, they have their models,” Mörner said.
“And facts are better than models.”
Dr. William Happer, a world-renown physicist from Princeton University who has advised President Trump on climate issues, also denounced warming alarmism and the demonization of CO2.
In an interview with The New American at a climate-skeptic summit put together by Freedom Force International, Professor Happer said there was nothing to worry about from alleged man-made global warming or human emissions of the gas of life.
“CO2 will be good for the Earth,” Happer said, adding that CO2 levels were unusually and extremely low by historical standards.
“More would be a very good thing.”
Mörner, meanwhile, cautioned promoters of the man-made warming hypothesis that they were going to ultimately be exposed, with catastrophic consequences for the scientific community.
“This is so unscientific,” he said, condemning climatologists for ignoring facts that contradict their climate models.
“And that is a terrible thing, this unscientific part of it. Because one day, it will all be revealed as nonsense. And then we lose our trustworthiness.”
The data will not change, he said. And it is clear. If nothing else, when the next cooling phase begins -
“Everything points to that we are going into a new so-called grand solar minimum and that is in the middle of this century, maybe even as early as 2030”
- then everybody will realize how wrong the warmists have been.
That is when the “rats will leave the sinking ship,” he said.
But Mörner still expressed sympathy with those who have been duped into believing they are saving the planet by fighting CO2.
“Of course, everybody wants to believe in something,” he said.
“All those people who don't know what they are talking about, but they believe that they are saving the world. We don't save the world, the world will keep on going.”
It is even worse than that, though.
“This is the most dangerous and frightening part of it: How such a lobbyist group has been able to fool the whole world,” he concluded, comparing it to how National Socialists in Germany and communists in both Russia and China were able to deceive the populations and seize power.
Blasting the “autocratic process,” he said these organized and deceitful forces were “so dangerous.”
“What do they know? They are very nice, all of them, but they should be out playing, not talking at the United Nations,” he said, criticizing as “a little evil” that children would be used as propaganda props.
“That is an insult to science.”
Despite the warnings of Mörner and numerous other highly respected scientists around the world, including others who have served on the UN IPCC, the UN IPCC and the broader UN continue to sound the alarm over allegedly looming temperature increases and sea-level rises that will flood coastal cities around the world.
They typically refuse to debate, too. The New American reached out to the IPCC for comment repeatedly during the recent UN COP24 “climate” summit in Katowice, Poland.
However, the organization did not respond to e-mails, phone calls, or visits to the IPCC booth at the climate summit seeking comment.
Dershowitz: Shame On Robert Mueller For Exceeding His Role & Mueller Report Is Filled With Multiple Omissions, Inaccuracies… “The Deeper We Dive The More Problems We Find” June 15 2019 | From: TheHill / TheGatewayPundit / Various
The statement by special counsel Robert Mueller in a recent press conference that “if we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime we would have said that” is worse than the statement made by then FBI Director James Comey regarding Hillary Clinton during the 2016 presidential campaign.
Comey declared in a July 2016 press conference that “although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive highly classified information.”
Comey was universally criticized for going beyond his responsibility to state whether there was sufficient evidence to indict Clinton. Mueller, however, did even more.
He went beyond the conclusion of his report and gave a political gift to Democrats in Congress who are seeking to institute impeachment proceedings against President Trump.
By implying that President Trump might have committed obstruction of justice, Mueller effectively invited Democrats to institute impeachment proceedings.
Obstruction of justice is a “high crime and misdemeanor” which, under the Constitution, authorizes impeachment and removal of the president.
Until today, I have defended Mueller against the accusations that he is a partisan.
I did not believe that he personally favored either the Democrats or the Republicans, or had a point of view on whether President Trump should be impeached.
But I have now changed my mind. By putting his thumb, indeed his elbow, on the scale of justice in favor of impeachment based on obstruction of justice, Mueller has revealed his partisan bias. He also has distorted the critical role of a prosecutor in our justice system.
Virtually everybody agrees that, in the normal case, a prosecutor should never go beyond publicly disclosing that there is insufficient evidence to indict.
No responsible prosecutor should ever suggest that the subject of his investigation might indeed be guilty even if there was insufficient evidence or other reasons not to indict.
Supporters of Mueller will argue that this is not an ordinary case, that he is not an ordinary prosecutor, and that President Trump is not an ordinary subject of an investigation. They are wrong. The rules should not be any different.
Remember that federal investigations by prosecutors, including special counsels, are by their very nature one sided. They hear only evidence of guilt and not exculpatory evidence.
Their witnesses are not subject to the adversarial process. There is no cross examination. The evidence is taken in secret behind the closed doors of a grand jury.
For that very reason, prosecutors can only conclude whether there is sufficient evidence to commence a prosecution. They are not in a position to decide whether the subject of the investigation is guilty or is innocent of any crimes.
That determination of guilt or innocence requires a full adversarial trial with a zealous defense attorney, vigorous cross examination, exclusionary rules of evidence, and other due process safeguards.
Robert Barnes, the lawyer for the Covington Catholic High “MAGA” teens, lays out the history of Robert Mueller’s crimes and coverups for the Deep State:
Such safeguards were not present in this investigation, and so the suggestion by Mueller that Trump might well be guilty deserves no credence.
His statement, so inconsistent with his long history, will be used to partisan advantage by Democrats, especially all those radicals who are seeking impeachment.
No prosecutor should ever say or do anything for the purpose of helping one party or the other.
I cannot imagine a plausible reason why Mueller went beyond his report and gratuitously suggested that President Trump might be guilty, except to help Democrats in Congress and to encourage impeachment talk and action.
Shame on Mueller for abusing his position of trust and for allowing himself to be used for such partisan advantage.
President Trump is Serious, Declassification is Right Around the Corner
Congressman Mark Meadows (R-NC) said Monday morning on Fox & Friends that there is information showing President Trump was set up by FBI and DOJ brass and declassification is right around the corner.
Former Congressman Trey Gowdy recently appeared on Fox News and said there are likely transcripts of the conversations FBI informants had with Trump campaign foreign policy advisor George Papadopoulos, calling the information in the transcripts a “game-changer.”
Meadows responded to Gowdy’s remarks Monday morning and said indeed George Papadopoulos was recorded and that the transcripts will show he was not colluding with the Russians and that the FBI knew this very early on.
Recall, Papadopoulos’s meetings with the fake Russian spy (Maltese professor) Joseph Mifsud and Australian diplomat Alexander Downer took place in March and April of 2016 so if the FBI had recordings of Papadopoulos back then knowing he wasn’t colluding with the Russians before Crossfire Hurricane was opened in July of 2016, that is a HUGE problem for the FBI.
It is widely believed that there was a FISA warrant(s) on George Papadopoulos, but not for his ties to Russia - he had no ties to Russia.
U.S. Border Patrol Chief Carla Provost Testifies About the Border Crisis
Papadopoulos was targeted for surveillance over his dealings with Israel in the energy business (and to spy on Trump) - then he was ensnared in Mueller’s Russia witch hunt to cover up for the illegal CI investigation into him.
“I think the President is serious,” Meadows said.
“I think declassification is right around the corner and hopefully the American people will be able to judge for themselves,” said Meadows.
President Trump is reportedly preparing to declassify the Carter Page FISA documents, Bruce Ohr’s 302s and notes, and other records related to the Russia probe.
Investigative reporter Sara Carter said that sources told her there will be bombshells in the documents.
“The best day the Democrats had and will have was the day Robert Mueller spoke…
As we look at the Mueller report, there are multiple omissions, (exculpatory omissions)… other material facts are just not accurate in the Mueller Report…
Jim Jordan and I are getting prepared, and I tell you the deeper we dive the more problems we find."
Republican lawmakers need to make sure Robert Mueller is called in to testify.
Are Elite Controllers A Fantasy? Read This June 14 2019 | From: JonRappoport
We rarely get a chance to see a smoking gun that proves elite controllers are running the show from behind the curtain. That’s why there is a curtain.
So I’m republishing a conversation between two members of the Rockefeller Trilateral Commission (TC) and a US reporter.
In 1969, four years before birthing the TC with David Rockefeller, Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote:
“[The] nation state as a fundamental unit of man’s organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force.
International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation state.”
Goodbye, separate nations.
Any doubt on the question of TC goals is answered by David Rockefeller himself, the founder of the TC, in his Memoirs (2003):
“Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure—one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”
The conversation was public knowledge at the time. Anyone who was anyone in Washington politics, in media, in think-tanks, had access to it. Understood its meaning.
But no one shouted from the rooftops. No one used the conversation to force a scandal. No one protested loudly.
The conversation revealed that the entire basis of the US Constitution had been torpedoed, that the people who were running US national policy (which includes trade treaties) were agents of an elite shadow group. No question about it.
And yet: official silence. Media silence. The Dept. of Justice made no moves, Congress undertook no serious inquiries, and the President, Jimmy Carter, issued no statements.
Carter was himself an agent of the Trilateral Commission in the White House.
He had been plucked from obscurity by David Rockefeller, and through elite TC press connections, vaulted into the spotlight as a pre-eminent choice for the Presidency.
The 1978 conversation featured reporter, Jeremiah Novak, and two Trilateral Commission members, Karl Kaiser and Richard Cooper. The interview took up the issue of who exactly, during President Carter’s administration, was formulating US economic and political policy.
The careless and off-hand attitude of Trilateralists Kaiser and Cooper is astonishing. It’s as if they’re saying, “What we’re revealing is already out in the open, it’s too late to do anything about it, why are you so worked up, we’ve already won…”
Here we go:
Novak (the reporter): Is it true that a private [Trilateral committee] led by Henry Owen of the US and made up of [Trilateral] representatives of the US, UK, West Germany, Japan, France and the EEC is coordinating the economic and political policies of the Trilateral countries [which would include the US]?
Cooper:Yes, they have met three times.
Novak: Yet, in your recent paper you state that this committee should remain informal because to formalize ‘this function might well prove offensive to some of the Trilateral and other countries which do not take part.’ Who are you afraid of?
Kaiser: Many countries in Europe would resent the dominant role that West Germany plays at these [Trilateral] meetings.
Cooper:Many people still live in a world of separate nations, and they would resent such coordination [of policy].
Novak: But this [Trilateral] committee is essential to your whole policy. How can you keep it a secret or fail to try to get popular support [for its decisions on how Trilateral member nations will conduct their economic and political policies]?
Cooper:Well, I guess it’s the press’ job to publicize it.
Novak: Yes, but why doesn’t President Carter come out with it and tell the American people that [US] economic and political power is being coordinated by a [Trilateral] committee made up of Henry Owen and six others? After all, if [US] policy is being made on a multinational level, the people should know.
Cooper:President Carter and Secretary of State Vance have constantly alluded to this in their speeches. [a lie]
Kaiser: It just hasn’t become an issue.
This interview slipped under the mainstream media radar, which is to say, it was buried.
US economic and political policy run by a committee of the Trilateral Commission - the Commission had been created in 1973 by David Rockefeller and his sidekick, Zbigniew Brzezinski.
When Carter won the presidential election, his aide, Hamilton Jordan, said that if after the inauguration, Cy Vance and Brzezinski came on board as secretary of state and national security adviser, “We’ve lost. And I’ll quit.” Lost - because both men were powerful members of the Trilateral Commission and their appointment to key positions would signal a surrender of White House control to the Commission.
Vance and Brzezinski were appointed secretary of state and national security adviser, as Jordan feared. But he didn’t quit. He became Carter’s chief of staff.
Now consider the vast propaganda efforts of the past 40 years, on so many levels, to install the idea that all nations and peoples of the world are a single Collective.
From a very high level of political and economic power, this propaganda op has had the objective of grooming the population for a planet that is one coagulated mass, run and managed by one force. A central engine of that force is the Trilateral Commission.
How does a shadowy group like the TC accomplish its goal?
One basic strategy is: destabilize nations; ruin their economies; ratify trade treaties that effectively send millions and millions of manufacturing jobs off to places where virtual slave labor does the work; adding insult to injury, export the cheap products of those slave-factories back to the nations who lost the jobs and undercut their domestic manufacturers, forcing them to close their doors and fire still more employees.
Related: More Confessions Of An Economic Hit Man: "This Time, They’re Coming For Your Democracy"
And then solve that economic chaos by bringing order.
What kind of order?
Eventually, one planet, with national borders erased, under one management system, with a planned global economy, “to restore stability,” “for the good of all, for lasting harmony.”
If you were a young ambitious reporter for The New York Times, if you read this astonishing Trilateral interview, wouldn’t you go to your editor and demand to be put on the story?
Wouldn’t you want to dig deep and find out more details and names? Wouldn’t you want to blow the whole, yes, conspiracy, wide open? Wouldn’t you want readers to know the truth about who is running their country from behind the scenes?
Well, yes, you might. But if you did, and if you wouldn’t back down after your editor told you to forget about it, you would end up with no job, and eventually you would be covering picnics for some small-town newspaper.
With the rise of independent media, however, reporters don’t need to worry about Sunday picnics.
The truth suffices.
With the rise of independent media, reporters know some of their stories will be linked and forwarded all over the world, and people with curiosity and intelligence and alert minds will discover the truth that major media have been hiding from them.
Kiwis Just Say No To Gun Ban & Calling Out The ‘Christchurch Call’ June 13 2019 | From: LibertyNation / AEI / Various In the wake of the Christchurch mosque massacres, gun confiscation fizzles as Kiwis ignore new law.
New Zealand politicians who rushed to enact nationwide gun confiscation following the Christchurch mosque massacres are befuddled by the lack of enthusiasm from citizens who have yet to comply with the new law.
The so-called “gun reform” was expected to rid the vast New Zealand countryside of most semi-automatic firearms, magazines over a specified limit, and shotguns.
Two months ago, Reuters breathlessly reported:
“New Zealand police expect tens of thousands of firearms to be surrendered by a guns buy-back scheme.”
Law enforcement authorities averred that “it could be more.”
Pregnant with the expectation that gun owners would trade their firearms for cash, the political class is nonplussed by the results.
Only 530 guns have thus far been turned in to the authorities.
Figures released by the New Zealand police had politicians and law enforcement officials scrambling to comprehend what just happened.
Michael Clement, the police deputy commissioner, assessed the situation by telling the media that the number of guns expected to be handed over is “a great unknown question,” primarily because the firearms the government is confiscating have never been registered with authorities.
Could it be that the brain trust in Wellington needs to up the ante and offer more money? Is this a statement of personal liberty? Could it be considered “ostriching,” Brit-speak for a friendly ability to ignore unpleasantness?
Or in psychological parlance, could it merely constitute passive-aggressive behavior?
All of these socioeconomic factors may have played a part in the first wave of the buy-back fizzle.
In reality, New Zealand is quite heavily armed per capita, with an estimated 1.2-1.5 million guns in a country of approximately 4.7 million people.
To put it another way, the land of the Kiwi is about as big as Colorado with the population of Louisiana. New York City, for example, is home to about 8.6 million (2017 estimate), almost double the size of the New Zealand population.
Mountainous terrain with very few inhabitants largely adds up to a rural people. And what do these folks out in the middle of nowhere do with themselves all the live-long day?
Agriculture, forestry, mining, and fishing represent the lion’s share of industry. And then there are all those sheep. Mathematically, there are about seven times more sheep than people in New Zealand.
By and large, those who raise sheep and live off the land in what is often referred to as “homesteading” find that firearms can be quite useful when you attempt to live off the grid.
These people are likely the NZ version of “deplorables,” who strike quite a contrast to left-leaning urban dwellers.
New Zealand’s political chatelaine, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, had an almost unanimous parliamentary vote to institute the gun buy-back, though as Liberty Nation Legal Affairs Editor Scott Cosenza asserts:
“Buy-back is really a misnomer because the government never owned those guns in the first place.”
The liberty-minded among us would like to believe that the people of New Zealand are, in the words of William F. Buckley, “Standing athwart history and yelling stop,” but this runs counter to the anodyne Kiwi character.
It’s more likely they are quietly demonstrating their “live and let live” sociocultural predilection.
There is, of course, that sticky and ever-present issue of money.
Max Igan Banned From Youtube For Exposing Christchurch Massacre
Not only will Aotearoa citizens suffer the indignity of being stripped of their guns, but they will also be taxed for the privilege.
Some estimates bantered about by New Zealand lawmakers went as high as $500 million to $1 billion to pay for the confiscation scheme. But the truth is, authorities have no idea what it will ultimately cost.
Should citizens keep up their non-compliance, then not very much. This would make for a Kiwi win which would allow them to keep their guns and money.
But the penalties are stiff for such roguery: Those who refuse to surrender their prohibited firearms could be sentenced to a five-year stay in the slammer.
Much like the United States, New Zealand’s gun-grabbing toffs entrenched in the government can’t stop themselves from trammeling the privileges of those who own guns.
As there is no specific right to bear arms per se in the Land of the Long White Cloud, gun-owning citizens face an arduous battle to withhold their firearms from the grasp of the leftist political class.
Perhaps simply ignoring the new regulations may be effective, and law enforcement will find it impractical to round up the firearms of otherwise law-abiding citizens.
Whether it becomes an exercise in futility for the government, a quest for a bigger bang for their buck by the people, or merely a quiet sidestep of hastily approved laws, Second Amendment supporters in America would be wise to take note.
It could just be that these laid-back Kiwis are poised to teach us [Americans] a lesson in how to resist the oppressive and ham-handed fist of a tyrannical government.
Calling Out The ‘Christchurch Call’
The May 15 Paris summit led by New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and French President Emmanuel Macron seeking to eliminate terrorist and violent extremist content online has concluded with the promulgation of a pledge - the “Christchurch call” - signed by representatives of 17 countries, the European Commission, and eight tech companies (Amazon, Daily Motion, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Qwant, Twitter, and YouTube).
Conspicuous by their absence are the United States, China, Russia, and technology-leading countries such as South Korea and Finland.
And while the major US tech companies were represented, it was generally by second-tier management rather than their high-profile founder leaders..
What Was Pledged?
Governments committed to five objectives:
Counter the drivers of terrorism and violent extremism by strengthening the resilience and inclusiveness of their societies to enable them to resist terrorist and violent extremist ideologies, including through education, building media literacy to help counter distorted terrorist and violent extremist narratives, and the fight against inequality (emphasis added).
Ensure effective enforcement of applicable laws that prohibit production or dissemination of terrorist and violent extremist content.
Encourage media outlets to apply ethical standards when depicting terrorist events online, to avoid amplifying terrorist and violent extremist content.
Support frameworks, such as industry standards, to ensure that reporting on terrorist attacks does not amplify terrorist and violent extremist content, without prejudice to responsible coverage of terrorism and violent extremism.
Consider appropriate action to prevent the use of online services to disseminate terrorist and violent extremist content . . . [by] awareness-raising and capacity-building activities . . . development of industry or voluntary frameworks . . . regulatory or policy measures consistent with a free, open and secure internet and international human rights laws.
Take transparent . . . measures seeking to prevent the upload of terrorist and violent and extremist content and to prevent its dissemination.
Provide greater transparency in the setting of community standards or terms of service, including by outlining and publishing the consequence of sharing terrorist and violent extremist content [and] describing policies . . . for detecting and removing [it].
Enforce those standards . . . by prioritizing moderation . . . closing accounts where appropriate . . . [and] providing an efficient complaints and appeals process.
Implement immediate, effective measures to mitigate the specific risk that terrorist and violent extremist content is disseminated through livestreaming.
Implement regular and transparent reporting.
Review the operation of algorithms . . . that may drive users towards and/or amplify terrorist and violent extremist content. This may includeusing algorithms and other processes to redirect users from such content or the promotion of credible, positive alternatives or counter-narratives.
Work together to ensure cross-industry efforts are coordinated and robust . . . by sharing knowledge and expertise.
Notably, the day before the summit, Facebook announced that users sharing “violating content” such as a statement from a terrorist group without context would be blocked from using the platform for a set period (for example, 30 days). This would include both advertisers and general users.
Together, governments and the tech companies committed to working collectively to:
Work with civil society to promote community-led efforts to counter violent extremism ... including through the development and promotion of positive alternatives and counter-messaging.
Develop effective interventions ...to redirect users from terrorist and violent extremist content.
Accelerate research into the development of technical solutions to prevent the upload of and to detect and immediately remove terrorist and violent extremist content online, and share these solutions through open channels.
Support research and academic efforts to better understand, prevent and counter terrorist and violent extremist content online.
Ensure appropriate cooperation with and among law enforcement.
To these were added eight further initiatives to collaborate, reinforce, and expand the range, effect, and delivery of the pledge.
At first glance the pledge appears, as intended, a positive example of collaborative negotiation toward a self-governing regime.
For the most part tech companies have, if not avoided, then at least apparently delayed explicit regulation. (Although the harsh criminal penalties for breaches of similar obligations imposed in Australia’s recent legislation draw into question that signatory’s commitment to “ensure,” “encourage,” “support,” and “consider” when it has already explicitly regulated.)
A deeper examination, however, leads to a more worrying conclusion.
While governments have agreed to “ensure,” “encourage,” “support,” and “consider” a range of difficult-to-enforce aspirational goals, the tech companies have agreed to take a number of concrete, observable, and measurable steps on which it will be much easier to hold them explicitly accountable.
A mass shooting in Australia has put into question the country’s stringent gun-control laws, which have been long championed by the mainstream media.
One America’s Kristian Rouz looks into the matter.
In the bargaining of the summit, they have agreed in effect to act as the agents of the governments in delivering their political objectives of countering “distorted terrorist and violent extremist narratives” and engaging in “the fight against inequality.”
Rather than simply removing offending content, as they might be required to do for pornographic or addictive content, they have been recruited to promote community-led efforts to counter violent extremism through the “development and promotion of positive alternatives and counter-messaging” and to “redirect users from terrorist and violent extremist content,” that is, to develop and distribute government-sanctioned propaganda.
This is further reinforced by the tech firm-specific undertaking to use “algorithms to redirect users from such content or the promotion of credible, positive alternatives or counter-narratives.”
History Talks
While on the one hand it might appear laudable to replace negative content with positive, on the other it invokes shadows of past government conscriptions of the mass media of the day to manage the messages citizens receive to align with those that the powers that be wish them to hear (or not hear, as the case may be).
These include, for example, the endeavors of the British establishment in 1854 to prevent newspaper publication of the acknowledged first-ever war correspondent William Howard Russell’s reports from the Crimean War front and the obligation on the French press during the Franco-Prussian War in 1870 to obtain accreditation from the official “advertisement office” (bureau de publicité) before publishing war correspondents’ material. (Arguably, publication of material provided by the government’s own media agents, the Army Monitor and the Navy Monitor, was much preferred.)
Similar constraints imposed by governments of all flavors governed media coverage of virtually all wars until Vietnam. (Who can’t recall the iconic Pulitzer Prize-winning photograph of the Napalm girl from that war and its effect on public opinion?)
Ironically, it was widespread distribution of shocking stories and photographs of actual atrocities that led to real and immediate changes in social attitudes and the prevailing value of pacifism witnessed nowadays.
While there was temporary anger at the media carrying the messages, this generally did not last.
However, the consequences for governments seeking to manage the message were not always so good.
“Russell and his editor, John Delane, were heavily criticized by the government, and Queen Victoria, for the Crimean dispatches.
But, pun only slightly intended, they stuck to their guns. Result: the government fell and The Times did not.”
It behooves both the governments and the tech companies engaged in the Christchurch call pledge to demonstrate that their agreement is not just another exertion of government control over the freedom of the press (and other publishers) to prevent citizens from seeing the world in all its ugly (and sometimes distressing) reality by directing them instead to a preferred sanitized message.
The current wording, unfortunately, provides no such assurance.
The One-Eye Sign: Its Origins And Occult Meaning June 12 2019 | From: VigilantCitizen / Various Why are there so many pictures of celebrities hiding one eye? It is definitely not random. In fact, the One-Eye sign has a profound meaning and proves an important fact about the powers that be. This article looks at the origins and the meaning of the unescapable One-Eye sign.
The One-Eye sign is one of the most recurrent themes on The Vigilant Citizen because it is also one of the most recurrent themes in mass media. Throughout the years, this site has highlighted hundreds upon hundreds of clear instances where major artists, models, celebrities, politicians and public figures posed with one eye hidden.
The sign is everywhere: In music videos, on magazine covers, on movie posters, in advertisement and so forth. The sheer number of these pictures is simply staggering.
Considering these facts, the repeated occurrence of the One-Eye sign simply cannot be the result of coincidence. Indeed, there is a clear effort to have this sign displayed everywhere.
So, why is this sign everywhere and what does it mean? Here’s a look at the timeless and transcendental symbol of the Eye.
A Turkish “nazar” amulet used to repel “evil eye” curses. Similar charms can be found in Portugal, Brazil, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Albania, Algeria, Tunisia, Lebanon, Turkey, Greece, Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Bangladesh, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, parts of North India, Palestine, Morocco, southern Spain, Italy, Malta, Romania, the Balkans, the Levant, Afghanistan, Syria, and Mexico.
The human eye has been used as a symbol since the dawn of civilization. It can be found across all ages and cultures. Carl Jung identified the eye as a classic “archetypal symbol” – an image that is embedded in humanity’s “collective unconscious”.
According to his theory, humans instinctively respond to archetypal symbols and unconsciously assign to them a specific meaning.
“Eyes are probably the most important symbolic sensory organ. They can represent clairvoyance, omniscience, and/or a gateway into the soul.
Other qualities that eyes are commonly associated with are: intelligence, light, vigilance, moral conscience, and truth. Looking someone in the eye is a western custom of honesty.
In this way covering of the eyes, by wearing a helmet, sunglasses, etc. can mean mystery, not seeing the complete truth, or deceit. The eye often means judgment and authority.”
- Dictionnary of Symbolism, University of Michigan
In nearly all cultures, the symbol of the eye is associated with spiritual concepts such as divinity (the Eye of Providence), spiritual illumination (the Third Eye) or magic (the evil eye).
“The eye symbolizes seeing and light, and therefore consciousness itself. The eye is the part of us that beholds the universe and sees our place in it. It is knowledge, awareness and wisdom. The eye takes in light, the pure energy of the universe, and presents it to the inner spirit. It is the gateway, indeed the very union, between the self and the cosmos.”
- Peter Patrick Barreda, Archetype of Wholeness – Jung and the Mandala
In the Bible, Jesus referred to the eye as the “lamp of the body”.
“The eye is the lamp of the body; so then if your eye is clear, your whole body will be full of light. But if your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light that is in you is darkness, how great is the darkness!”
- Matthew 6:22-23
The symbol of the eye always had a mystical and spiritual dimension assigned to it. As the popular saying goes: Eyes are the windows to the soul. For this reason, the symbol of the eye is particularly important in occult circles and Mystery schools.
Sun God
Since the dawn of civilization, the symbol of the eye and the sun (aka the “eye in the sky”) are associated with divinity. In Ancient Egypt, the symbols of the Wadjet, the Eye of Horus and the Eye of Ra are all associated with the solar god.
A classic depiction of the Egyptian Eye of Ra and Eye of Horus
The archetype of the all-seeing one-eyed sun god can also be found in other ancient cultures.
In Persia, Ahura Mazda was considered to be the creator of Earth, the heavens, and humankind, as well as the source of all goodness and happiness on earth. He was said to have “the sun for an eye”.
“The supreme god Ahura Mazda also has one Eye, or else it is said that ‘with his eyes, the sun, moon and stars, he sees everything.”
- Manly P. Hall, The Secret Teachings of All Ages
In Norse mythology, Odin was known as the ‘Allfather’ (or father of the gods). He was represented as an old man with one eye.
Odin is yet another representation of a one-eyed creator sun god.
“The Supreme, invisible Creator of all things was called All-Father. His regent in Nature was Odin, the one-eyed god. The Norwegians regarded Balder the Beautiful as a solar deity, and Odin is often connected with the celestial orb, especially because of his one eye.”
- Ibid
Western Occultism
Considering the fact that Western occultism was greatly influenced by the esoteric teachings of the civilizations above, the symbol of the All-Seeing Eye made its way into orders such as the Rosicrucians, the Illuminati, and the Freemasons.
“Albert Mackey writes that the All Seeing Eye is “an important symbol of the Supreme Being, borrowed by the Freemasons from the nations of antiquity.”
The All Seeing Eye is a symbol representing the watchful gaze of God.
It reminds us that every thought and action is to be recorded by the Grand Architect of the Universe, and that we are bound to our obligations in spirit as well as in blood.”
- James E Frey, 32°, Midnight Freemasons
Due to the heavy influence of Freemasonry on the historical events of the past centuries, the symbol of the All-Seeing Eye was included on prominent documents such as the reverse of the Great Seal of the United States and the Declaration of Human Rights.
Left: The reverse of the Great Seal of the United States. Right: The Declaration of Human Rights
“If any one doubts the presence of Masonic and occult influences at the time the Great Seal was designed, he should give due consideration to the comments of Professor Charles Eliot Norton of Harvard, who wrote concerning the unfinished pyramid and the All-Seeing Eye which adorned the reverse of the seal, as follows:
“The device adopted by Congress is practically incapable of effective treatment; it can hardly (however artistically treated by the designer) look otherwise than as a dull emblem of a Masonic fraternity.”
- Hall, op. cit.
The symbol of the eye was also adopted by several powerful secret societies such as the O.T.O.
That being said, does the symbol of the All-Seeing Eye actually represent God – as in the Judeo-Christian God?
Well, this is where things get … occult (occult means hidden).
The prominent American Freemason Albert Pike wrote that the true meaning of occult symbols is only revealed to high-level initiates.
“It is in its antique symbols and their occult meaning that the true secrets of Freemasonry consist. But these have no value if we see nothing in the symbols of the blue lodge beyond the imbecile pretenses of interpretations of them contained in our monitors.
People have overlooked the truth that the symbols of antiquity were not used to reveal but to conceal. Each symbol is an enigma to be solved, and not a lesson to be read.
How can the intelligent Mason fail to see that the blue degrees are but preparatory, to enlist and band together the rank and file Masonic army for purposes undisclosed to them, that they are the lesser mysteries in which the symbols are used to conceal the truth?”
- Albert Pike, Legenda and Readings of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry
Manly P. Hall, another prominent Freemason wrote that the All-Seeing Eye esoterically represents the ultimate goal of occultism:
To attain divinity through one’s own means. This is done through the activation of the pineal gland – the Third Eye.
“Operative Masonry, in the fullest meaning of that term, signifies the process by which the Eye of Horus is opened. In the human brain there is a tiny gland called the pineal body, which is the sacred eye of the ancients, and corresponds to the third eye of the Cyclops.”
- Hall, Op. Cit.
In Islam
In Islamic eschatology, the end-times figure named Al-Masīḥ ad-Dajjal (“the false messiah, liar, the deceiver”) is said to be blind in his right eye.
By pretending to be the Messiah, the Dajjal would deceive and take over the world. For these reasons, the Dajjal bears great similarities with the Antichrist in Christianity.
The coming of the Dajjal would be preceded by several signs such as: People will stop offering the prayers; dishonesty will be the way of life; falsehood will become a virtue; people will mortgage their faith for worldly gain; usury and bribery will become legitimate; there will be acute famine at the time; there will be no shame amongst people; many people will worship Satan; there will be no respect for elderly people and people will start killing each other without any reason.
Considering the fact that the world today is ruled by what we call the “occult elite” (because of its ties with occult orders), it is no surprise that its main symbol is found everywhere.
However, it is all done in a deceitful way. Today’s entertainment industry thrives on control, manipulation, and distortion.
While the All-Seeing Eye is esoterically associated with the opening of the Third Eye to attain spiritual illumination, the One-Eye sign made by celebrities is about the exact opposite: Hiding and incapacitating an eye.
The symbolism of this gesture is powerful.
Katy Perry hiding one eye with the Eye of Horus in her video Dark Horse
Known by many as project MKULTRA, mind control aims to turn humans into slaves through abuse, trauma, and programming.
There is an actual culture revolving around Monarch mind control, complete with its own universe of symbols.
And the One-Eye sign is part of it.
This is a painting by Kim Noble, a survivor of trauma-based mind control. This painting is called The Naming and relates to the naming of an alter persona
The omnipresence of the One-Eye sign in mass media also serves another purpose: It proves that all outlets of mass media are owned by a very small, elite group.
Indeed, in order to have the same exact sign appear consistently and repeatedly across all media platforms and across the world, there needs to be a centralized source of power that forcibly makes this happen.
Think about the amount of money, power, and influence that is required to have all of these celebrities perform this specific gesture in videos and photoshoots.
Now, ponder on the amount money, power, and influence that is required to have this specific sign plastered across magazine covers, movie posters, music videos and anything else that might reach the eyes of the masses.
In short, this symbol represents the global elite and all of its agenda:
The debasing of the human psyche, the promotion of satanism, the normalization mind control, the normalization of transhumanism, the blurring of genders and more.
The ultimate goal: Straying the masses as far away as possible from Truth, health, and balance.
In Conclusion
The symbol of the eye is an archetype that transcends time and space. Perhaps because humans instinctually respond to gazing eyes, there is something about that symbol that is jarring yet fascinating.
While, in ancient times, the symbol of the All-Seeing Eye was often equated with the sun god, it gradually became a symbol of the power of the secret societies that shaped history in the last centuries.
Nowadays, the entertainment industry revels in the twisting and corruption of powerful symbols in the pursuit of its debasing agenda.
The omnipresence of the One-Eye sign now symbolizes the omnipresence of the occult elite. It is them saying: “Look at who we control”.
That being said, there is a silver lining here. The One-Eye sign is a convenient way of identifying media to avoid because it is most likely drenched in the occult elite’s debasing agenda.
Chinese Company Claims Its Hydrogen-Powered Vehicle Can Travel 500km Using Only Water As Fuel & The Big Electric Vehicle Lie: Electric Cars Are Not “Zero Emissions,” And Their Ecological Impact Is Actually Dirtier Than Diesel Trucks June 11 2019 | From: Zerohedge / NaturalNews / Various
A car company in Central China has claimed that it has built a hydrogen powered vehicle that's capable of traveling up to 500km using only water as power, according to the South China Morning Post.
The vehicle was made by Qingnian Cars in Henan province and made its first drive on Wednesday of last week when local Communist Party chiefs visited the plant.
The vehicle has reportedly not been tested over longer distances, but Ping Qingnian, the company's CEO, said that it could go 300 to 500km using 300 to 400 liters of water as fuel.
Qingnian said: “The cost [of research and development] is a trade secret that I cannot reveal. We achieved this at a low cost, this is our company’s technology."
“The water that we are using is ours, we don’t have to go to the Middle East to buy [petrol]. Water is not polluting either,” Pang continued, explaining that the engine ran on a chemical reaction using a catalyst applied to a mixture of aluminum powder and water.
Comment: It is now well known within the informed populace, that the 'Powers that Be' (and now increasingly 'were') have been suppressing efficient technologies for at least 100 years now.
Anything that they could not 'clip the ticket on' or that ran at an efficiency of over about 27% was vetoed - by a variety of means.
However - the lid has been peeling off for some time now as the unrestrainable nature of human ingenuity just keeps on pushing on...
He said the company could recycle the reactants used in the process.
Hydrogen continues to "gain steam" in the new energy vehicles market, but still remain far less mainstream than electric vehicles.
These vehicles generally react hydrogen and oxygen to power an electric motor. To fuel with water alone, the water has to undergo electrolysis, which creates hydrogen power.
Many hydrogen cars in the past have been debunked or written off as not cost efficient or energy efficient.
Qingnian's vehicle was confirmed by an official from the Nanyang Bureau of Industry and Information Technology as "only a prototype" and the car is not in mass production yet.
The company has been developing the technology with Hubei University of Technology since 2006.
Jiang Feng, a professor of material sciences at Xian Jiaotong University responded to widespread skepticism on the web:
“If you don’t understand it, at least you should have a tolerant attitude toward it. I think making emotionally charged comments is inappropriate.”
The Big Electric Vehicle Lie: Electric Cars Are Not “Zero Emissions,” And Their Ecological Impact Is Actually Dirtier Than Diesel Trucks
The IFO Institute in Germany just released a new report on the ecological impact of electric cars. Electric cars are often advertised as “green” technology, great for the environment and the best solution to preserve the Earth’s ozone layer.
The member countries of the European Union (EU) promote electric cars as the savior of the environment, but it turns out there are cleaner technologies.
Not to mention, diversity in any country’s energy production is necessary in order to sustain the benefits of clean energy long term.
When calculating for fleet emissions and determining environmentally-friendly solutions, legislators from the EU suggest that electric vehicles produce ‘zero’ CO2 emissions.
The EU deceptively promotes the technology as “green” in order to subsidize it and pass on gains to greedy investors.
In the latest IFO report, German scientists spoke out about the big electric vehicle lie. This so-called green technology does not produce “zero emissions.”
When considering how electric cars are manufactured, their carbon footprint is actually worse than many diesel-powered vehicles.
The study was spearheaded by Christoph Buchal, professor of physics at the University of Cologne, Hans-Werner Sinn, former IFO president and professor emeritus at Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, and energy expert Hans-Dieter Karl.
Electric Cars Emit 11% to 28% More CO2 than Diesel Engines
The three scientists analyzed the amount of energy that is required to produce batteries for electric cars while considering the current energy requirements that are needed to re-charge the batteries.
Tremendous amounts of energy are needed to extract the lithium, cobalt and manganese needed to produce the batteries for electric cars.
When all is accounted for, electric cars emit up to 180 grams of CO2 per kilometer! According to the scientists, this CO2 output is “considerably more than a comparable diesel Mercedes.”
According to the researchers, an electric car “burdens the climate 11 – 28% more than a diesel car.”
The team of scientists make a clear case that Germany needs to transition to vehicles powered by hydrogen or combustion engines powered by “green” methane.
Professor Buchal explained, “Over the long term, hydrogen-methane technology offers a further advantage: It allows surplus wind and solar power generated during peaks to be stored, and these surpluses will see a sharp increase as the share of this renewable energy grows.”
The country also needs to continue using natural gas combustion engines as they make the transition.
Subsidizing electric powered vehicles only adds to CO2 emissions, in both the manufacturing phase and in the energy requirements needed to power the vehicles long term.
In order to keep electric vehicles charged, every EU country puts out significant CO2 from their energy production grid.
For example, in order to keep electric vehicles charged, energy is taken from the grid mix, requiring more coal, more gas, and consequentially more CO2 emissions.
Just because electric vehicles do not emit CO2 on the streets, does not mean their net CO2 emissions is lower overall.
Professor Sinn says, “The German federal government should treat all technologies equally and promote hydrogen and methane solutions as well.”
Australia Goes On Assault Spree Against Free Press June 10 2019 | From: Geopolitics / Various
Since the United States charged journalist Julian Assange with 17 counts of Espionage Act violations - charges that could see Assange facing the death penalty - Australia appears to be following America’s lead and cracking down on free press, particularly journalists and publications that publish government secrets.
Australia - Assange’s nation of origin and a Five Eyes member - has conducted two raids in as many days. The first was on Tuesday, when Australian Federal Police (AFP) raided journalist Annika Smethurst’s home with a warrant to search her phone and computer.
The raid was in response to an article Smethurst published last year that used leaked documents and correspondences from the country’s defense secretary and the head of the Home Affairs Department seeking to allow the Australian Signals Directorate, which is equivalent to the U.S. National Security Agency, to spy on its own citizens.
Home Affairs Secretary Mike Pezzullo, in the leaked document, seemed to indicate that Australia had been relying on Five Eyes partners to spy on its citizens for them:
“Traditional law enforcement does not have the technical capacity to fully identify, detect and disrupt systemic transnational organised crime and is ordinarily limited to dependence on foreign partners.”
The proposal would have allowed Australian spies to bypass that burden and spy on their own citizens themselves.
As with Assange, Journalist / Publisher May Face Prosecution for Leaks
The police raid on Smethurst’s residence was done in response to “the alleged publishing of information classified as an official secret, which is an extremely serious matter with the potential to undermine Australia’s national security,” AFP said.
The emphasis on the act of publishing, rather than the leaking from whomever blew the whistle, indicates that Smethurst may be the subject of prosecution down the road. Following the raid, AFP said it would not be arresting anyone “today.”
Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison was grilled on the raid while visiting London. He said it “never troubles me that our laws are being upheld,” adding that the matters pertain to the AFP “and not the government.” He also refused to comment on Smethurst’s original story.
“Australia believes strongly in the freedom of the press and we have clear rules and protections for the freedom of the press,” he told reporters.
Hours after the raid, radio broadcaster Ben Fordham was contacted by the Home Affairs Department over a story he covered the day prior regarding a group of six boats filled with refugees attempting to reach Australia.
“We were told Home Affairs would investigate the disclosure and they would like me to assist that investigation,” Fordham said on the radio.
He said he was repeatedly told that he was not the subject of the investigation and added that “there is not a hope in hell” that he would reveal his sources.
He has been contacted two more times since. On one of those occasions, he was told that the Home Affairs investigation could lead to a criminal investigation by the AFP.
And a Third - With Warrant to “Add, Copy, Delete or Alter” Files
On Wednesday, AFP arrived at the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) News office with a warrant naming two reporters and the news director (Daniel Oakes, Samuel Clark, and Gaven Morris respectively).
According to ABC Executive Editor John Lyons, who viewed and tweeted the first two pages of the warrant, it allows police to “add, copy, delete or alter” materials in ABC’s computers.
Morris tweeted that Clark and Oakes are two of ABC’s “finest journalists,” adding that they are “honest and committed to telling the truth… just like Annika Smethurst.”
The raid was in response to a report published by ABC that showed evidence of extrajudicial killings of unarmed men and children in Afghanistan by elite special forces.
It also provided additional information on the Australian soldier who severed the hands off of dead insurgents with scalpels.
According to Lyons, AFP seized 9,214 files in total. “There are six AFP officers and about four ABC lawyers,” he added. “I’ve never seen an assault on the media as savage as this one we’re seeing today.”
Lyons went on to discuss the scope of the warrant and how it allows for the deletion and alteration of ABC files. “I don’t think it is standard,” he said, adding:
“Australian Federal Police have come into the ABC and have the power now to be going through those 9,214 documents and essentially deleting anything they want.
They can just decide that that email, or that particular correspondence, has never existed. They can change material.
They have the power to go into an email and change what anybody wrote: what a manager of the ABC wrote to the Defense Department’s media unit.”
While a number of pro-press freedom groups have denounced the raid, the Australian government does not appear to be backing down.
While Australia passed “sweeping” anti-espionage laws in 2018, the current crackdown follows the example of the United States in its charges against and attempt to extradite Julian Assange.
Those new anti-espionage laws allow for the prosecution of a journalist on charges of unauthorized disclosure, according to the Australian Law Council.
Nonetheless, in the case of the two journalists in Australia, as well as ABC, the raids and investigations have been conducted against reports on classified material, Assange’s bread and butter.
Australian authorities are clearly emboldened to violate press freedom norms following the extradition attempt by the United States against Australia’s own citizen.
Indeed, Australia’s actions against journalists this week are likely only the beginning.
Eliminating Free Speech The Smart Way June 9 2019 | From: InternationalMan / Various Left-wing activists have recently been increasingly active in seeking to limit opposing political viewpoints, in order to create a more ubiquitous “groupthink.”
One effort in accomplishing this has been to propose the creation of a “Human Rights Committee” in order to monitor the economic transactions of “white supremacist groups and anti-Islam activists.”
This should not be surprising, as, throughout the former Free World, collectivists are, increasingly, coming out of the closet and seeking to eliminate any and all opposition to their cause.
And this should not, in itself, be alarming, as it should be both predictable and understandable that any politically driven group, be it left-leaning or right-leaning, would seek to gain an advantage over its opposite number.
What may be a real cause for alarm, however, is that those whom they are trying to rope into their effort are banks and corporations… and that they’re succeeding without a shot being fired.
It might be hoped that those champions of industry and commerce would at least put up a perfunctory fight, but clearly, this is not the case. They’re not only caving in; they’re entirely on board.
As an example, MasterCard is considering the selective restriction of individuals from their services and funds. Those individuals would be the ones that held unacceptable political views.
But they’re not the first in the queue to economically force people to have “correct” views. PayPal and Patreon have barred selected individuals from receiving payments through their services when those individuals have been identified as holding “extreme views.” More alarmingly, they’ve been supported in this decision by the US Securities and Exchange Commission.
Journalist Ben Swann has commented that this means that the US government has granted “big corporations the ability to control what voices are heard.”
The reader will already be familiar with the fact that major corporations that are led by liberally aligned executives, such as Facebook, Twitter and Amazon, have already proudly stated that they wish to do their part to freeze out those whose opinions they disagree with.
Of course, in a free world, the head of a privately held corporation should be free to do business with only those individuals he approves of. Although that might make him discriminating, he should have the right to be discriminating.
The concern here, though, is that there’s nothing on the horizon that’s aimed at limiting collectivist notions. All the restrictions are being applied to those who are conservative, libertarian, or in fact, anything but collectivist.
There’s clearly an all-encompassing effort to not only silence non-collectivists in the media (including social media), but to silence them through the loss of economic freedom.
And the campaign is unfolding dramatically, on many fronts, at the same time. It would not be rash to suggest that, by 2020, it may not be safe for an individual to express any non-collectivist position by that time, for fear of being cut out of the economic structure.
Back in the early part of the twentieth century, the Bolsheviks did a wonderful job of eliminating the existence of views that opposed collectivism, through the use of concentration camps and execution.
Later in the century, the Nazi (abbreviation for Nationalsozialistische, or National Socialist Party) also did a bang-up job of disappearing dissent against their rhetoric.
But Lenin, Stalin, Hitler and Goebbels would all have their hats off to the new American version of collectivist propaganda, which is not only attacking freedom of speech in the media, but using economic warfare to ensure that, in the future, the only propaganda will be collectivist propaganda.
This is a tactic these past collectivist leaders would have envied, as the results of economic pressure can be so immediate and permanent.
And clearly, large banks, corporations and the US government are fully on board.
Additional:Read about the Alliance that has
been working behind
the scenes for decades to take down the 'Cabal' within the work of David Wilcock.
Some of those reading this may be confused because the cabal-controlled mainstream media is doing
everything within it's
power to denigrate Trump - as he is part of the effort to take the Illuminati down once and for
all.
This latter fact informs us that the move to a collectivist society in the US is not merely the work of some extremist groups; it is, indeed, the intended “New America.”
One hundred years ago, the US began a decline into corporatism, with the introduction of the Federal Reserve as the overlord of US banking. Since that time, there has been a steady decline in freedoms in the US, interrupted only by the capitalist boom years that were brought on by World War II.
And we now see the culmination of that long-sought-after objective. The American public are not only being phased into the fuller conversion to a collectivist society; they’re being forced into it through economic punishment, should they take any other view.
There can be no question that virtually all of the restrictions of free speech are intended to limit any thought other than collectivist thought.
But the more important take-away here is that this is not a mere ploy by a political group. It has the support of the financial industry, corporate America and the government (through the US Securities and Exchange Commission).
This tells us that the Deep State – that collective body that actually rules the US above the political structure – is on board for a conversion of the US into a fully collectivist state.
This objective should not be surprising, as rulers always wish, first and foremost, to rule. And as such, they will always seek to obtain total control, if possible. Collectivism is the key to that goal. The greater the degree of collectivism, the greater the level of totalitarianism.
In limiting free speech through economics, they’re now going about it the smart way. But this in itself should not be too surprising. What may be surprising is that the changes necessary to bring that about are happening so quickly.
For the US, this is much like Russia, circa 1917, or Germany, circa 1937. The question is no longer whether the government intends to institute totalitarianism. The question is how much time remains before the transition is complete.
This question should give us pause. Its answer would define the remaining shelf-life of the US, as a country that’s desirable as a place to reside.
Editor’s Note: The wave of political correctness and liberal group-think has taken the US by storm. The effort to silence opposing viewpoints and free speech will continue to accelerate. That’s why Doug Casey has prepared a timely video on surviving this modern American trend. In it Doug exposes the lies and mainstream bias that’s poisoning America.
Australian Government Pays Al Gore $320k To Conduct Climate Training As Rare Snowfall Hits & The Rockefeller Way: The Family’s Covert ‘Climate Change’ Plan June 8 2019 | From: ClimateDepot / GlobalResearch / Various
Aussie Alan Jones: Taxpayers will fork out more than $320,000 for the Climate Week conference, where form US vice president Al Gore will “communicate the urgency of the climate crisis”.“It is not believable,” says Alan Jones, “that the Queensland government can be so awash with money as to bring this hypocrite Al Gore to Australia for a conference."
“When so many important instruments of government are underfunded, when farmers can’t feed their cattle in Queensland, and $320,000 goes to waste on this shonk.”
Jo Nova: Fittingly, The Gore effect strikes again. Snow fell in Queensland. (The last time it fell was 2015.)
Al Gore is here in Australia to train 1,000 useful idiots on Unscience, neolithic reasoning and witchcraft.
The man with no climate science expertise and huge vested interest is being paid by taxpayers to train people to chant “consensus” and pretend that wind and solar can stop storms and hold back the tide.
These obedient fools help to destroy any conversation about science by reciting anti-science bumperstickers like “the science is settled”, “gravity is real” and “tobacco, tobacco, tobacco”.
Because, hey, the tobacco industry funded merchants of doubt, and they were wrong, so therefore Ergo Prompter Upchuck, all government scientists are right on Everything, All Of The Time, and you are an idiot denier.
Global Bullies Unite and ask Anna Palaszczuk for money. Suffer the Queensland taxpayer. The Labor Party in Queensland should pay this money back, it’s an advertising expense.
Fittingly, The Gore effect strikes again. Snow fell in Queensland. (The last time it fell was 2015.)
Taxpayers will fork out more than $320,000 for the Climate Week conference, where form US vice president Al Gore will “communicate the urgency of the climate crisis”.
“When so many important instruments of government are underfunded, when farmers can’t feed their cattle in Queensland, and $320,000 goes to waste on this shonk.”
Former US Vice President Al Gore will visit Brisbane next year to conduct climate change leadership training for up to a 1000 people from across Australia and the Pacific.
The three-day event at the Brisbane Convention Centre 5 to 7 June 2019 – run by the Climate Reality Project will see business and community leaders trained to be educators and take action with climate solutions, as the world moves to meet its commitments under the Paris Agreement.
The Fatal Flaw in Climate Change 'Science'
Environment and Science Minister Leeanne Enoch said the Palaszczuk Government was a strong supporter for action on climate change and was proud to host the event.
“I spoke with Al Gore when I attended the Global Climate Action Summit in September and encouraged him to bring himself and the Climate Reality Project to Queensland,” she said.
“By securing this internationally recognized event for Brisbane, the Palaszczuk Government is putting Queensland at the forefront of important climate change work.
The training will be free of charge and is expected to attract around 5 000 applicants, with between 800 and 1,000 selected to take part."
New Book: "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change”, By Marc Morano – Available at Amazon & Barnes & Noble
Excerpt: ‘Gore would have personally benefited if the carbon cap-and-trade bill he supported had become law. The media never treated his Congressional testimony in support of the climate bills for what it actually was - a former vice president supporting legislation that would make him richer.’
‘Al Gore Is by Far the Most Lavishly Funded Fossil Fuel Player in the Global Warming Debate Today.’
Warren Buffett’s vice chairman Charlie Munger told a small meeting of investors in 2017 that Gore is ‘not very smart’ and ‘an idiot’ but he was still able to amass a personal fortune in the investment world.
‘Al Gore has hundreds of millions [of] dollars in your profession. And he’s an idiot. It’s an interesting story.’ Munger added, ‘he’s not very smart. He smoked a lot of pot as he [coasted] through Harvard with a gentleman’s C.’
The Rockefeller Way: The Family’s Covert ‘Climate Change’ Plan
“Beginning in the 1980s, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund became leading advocates of the global warming agenda. In their Sustainable Development Program Review, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund boasts of being one of the first major global warming activists, citing its strong advocacy for both the 1988 formation of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the 1992 establishment of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change.” (excerpt from Report)
The following text is the Executive Summary of a full length report by The Energy & Environmental Legal Institute published in 2016.
This informative report is brought to the attention of Global Research readers. The CRG does not necessarily endorse the title nor the contents of this report.
What is important, however, is to acknowledge the role of the Rockefeller family – which historically was the architect of “Big Oil”– in supporting the Climate Change debate as well as the funding of scientists, environmentalists and NGOs involved in grassroots activism against “Big Oil” and the fossil fuel industry.
Debate on the world’s climate is of crucial importance. But who controls that debate?
There is an obvious contradictory relationship: Whereas “Big Oil” is the target of Global Warming activism, “Big Oil” through the Rockefeller Family and Rockefeller Brothers Trusts generously finance the Worldwide climate protest movement. Ask yourself Why?
“The Rockefellers are arguably the wealthiest and most powerful family in the history of the United States. For more than 100 years, they have shaped and directed America’s economic, financial, political, and public policy while simultaneously amassing one of the largest family empires in the modern era."
Most Americans hold the billionaire philanthropists in high esteem, associating the Rockefeller name with “oil” and “capitalism.”
In reality, the Rockefellers are intent on controlling nearly every major institution in America, using philanthropy as a means of increasing their influence on the world stage under the guise of advancing various social causes.
Their avid opposition to the very fossil fuel industry that made John D. Rockefeller America’s first billionaire shows that the Rockefellers are not political ideologues.
Instead, they are mere opportunists who support political agendas convenient to enhancing their leverage in the global arena.
Through the Rockefellers’ web of family foundations, universities, and institutions, as well as huge grants to other charities, they have gained unprecedented influence in healthcare, pharmaceuticals, agriculture, energy, and the environment.
Their highly complex integration of hedge funds, interlocking boards positions, and non-profit organizations has steered public policy on these issues and provided them with foreknowledge of emerging markets and access to the developing worlds’ natural resources.
Since the beginning of their philanthropic endeavors, the Rockefellers have used social causes to amass influence in policy areas of their choosing.
Since the 1980s, their cause of choice has been the climate change agenda (originally called global warming).
Their crusade to collapse the fossil fuel industry in favor of renewable energy in well-documented, from their involvement in major global climate treaties and organizations – the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 1992 to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol – to spending hundreds of millions to advance the renewable energy industry.
Through their Sustainable Development Program, the Rockefellers continue to promote their self-serving “clean energy” policies throughout both the federal government and general public.
As the most prolific benefactors of the climate activist movement, the Rockefellers’ impact on the energy industry sees no bounds, as the family’s objectives permeate throughout federal and state energy policy, as well as international social engineering globalist compacts such as Agenda 21.
With the immeasurable influence that accompanies mass wealth and power, the Rockefeller empire has proven an effective puppeteer of advancing its main objective: the destruction of the fossil fuel industry to increase its clout over the energy sector.
On November 5, 2015, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman (image on the right) launched an unprecedented investigation into ExxonMobil to determine if the company had defrauded investors by not disclosing the risks that climate change could have on its business.
This occurred only weeks after the Columbia Journalism School’s (CJS) Energy and Environment Reporting Fellowship accused Exxon of misleading the public through its Los Angeles Times article, “How Exxon went from leader to skeptic on climate change.”
Despite the raging debate over the impact of man-made climate change, left-leaning politicians, lobbyists, and most significantly, billionaires, have declared it settled science, using the issue as a means of gaining control over the energy arena.
Research shows that Eric Schneiderman’s legal investigation, as well as Columbia Journalism’s negative portrayal of ExxonMobil were neither objective nor independent.
In fact, substantial evidence leads to the premise that both Columbia Journalism School’s accusations against ExxonMobil and Eric Schneiderman’s legal investigation into the oil giant were not only financed, but orchestrated by the Rockefeller family.
Notably, the Rockefellers bankrolled the Columbia Journalism School’s Energy and Environmental Reporting Fellowship Project’s demonization of the oil company. However, both Schneiderman’s investigation and Columbia Journalism School’s publications were years in the making.
The Rockefeller Family Fund hosted and led two closed door meetings with prominent climate activists – one in 2012 and one in January 2016. Uncovered emails show that the main issue at both gatherings was how to best take down the fossil fuel industry.
Aside from key leaders of the Rockefellers’ many foundations, both summits included the major players in the climate movement such as: Matt Pawa (attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law), Sharon Eubanks (director of the Department of Justice’s tobacco litigation effort in the 1990’s and known anti Exxon activist), representatives of Greenpeace, and Carroll Moffit of the Climate Accountability Institute.
During both summits, Eric Schneiderman was considered the possible catalyst to spearhead the legal investigation, while ExxonMobil was repeatedly mentioned as the possible target.
Schneiderman’s fervent outspokenness against “climate deniers,” and public call to enact policies conducive to increasing renewable energy use made him a perfect and willing candidate.
When announcing his crusade against Exxon, Schneiderman cited studies from the Rockefeller funded outlets Inside Climate News and Columbia Journalism School’s Exxon reports.
Revealingly, numerous members of the Rockefeller family had long urged Schneiderman to investigate the oil company.
However, as evidenced in the Rockefeller-hosted La Jolla 2012 meeting report, the family and climate activists needed a well-known, respected, and objectively perceived media outlet to push the public narrative. Although not disclosed in the summit’s documentation, it appears they found one in the Columbia Journalism School.
While arguably the most prestigious journalism school in the country, the Columbia Journalism School is not only a beneficiary of millions in Rockefeller donations, it is composed, almost entirely, of professors closely affiliated with the green movement.
In 2013, a year after the plan was crafted, climate alarmist and author of a well-known book condemning ExxonMobil, Steve Coll, was appointed Dean of the Columbia Journalism School.
Not surprisingly, Coll spearheaded the school’s Energy and Environmental Reporting Fellowship’s project that smeared Exxon.
Coll is closely tied to the Rockefellers, as he previously chaired the climate change proponent New America Foundation, which received significant funding from the family.
These revelations suggest that the Rockefellers used their influence over both the Columbia Journalism School and Steve Coll to put Coll in place as Dean, providing him the platform to do what he had done voluntarily and enthusiastically once before: publically and thoroughly castigate ExxonMobil.
Along with Coll, as a bastion of climate activists, the Columbia Journalism School was likely an eager participant in the plot to smear Exxon.
At least seven CJS professors are directly connected to green activist billionaire George Soros, receiving either awards or significant amounts of money from the socialist philanthropist.
Moreover, several CJS alumni board members are prominent climate change advocates, including Scott Dodd, and Thomas Watkins.
This report proposes that the assault on ExxonMobil was neither the idea of Eric Schneiderman, nor the Columbia Journalism School.
Instead, the Rockefellers, with the help of other billionaires and prominent climate activists, carefully orchestrated both the legal and media investigations into ExxonMobil in an effort to achieve their goal of collapsing the fossil fuel industry to gain control over the energy sector.
The Bilderbergers In Switzerland June 7 2019 | From: GlobalResearch / OANN / Various
The 67th Bilderberg Meeting took place in Montreux, Switzerland from 30 May – 2 June 2019, where the about 130 invitees from 23 countries, stayed at one of Switzerland’s most luxurious venues, the Montreux Palace hotel. About a quarter of the attendees are women.
The Bilderberg meetings started at the onset of the Cold War, as a discussion club of American and European leaders, a fortification against communism, in clear text, against the Soviet Union.
The first event took place in 1954 at the Bilderberg hotel in the Dutch town of Oosterbeek. Ever since, meetings of the Bilderberg Group were held annually, in different locations in the western world, most of them, though, in North America.
It’s not a coincidence that the Bilderbergers meet in Switzerland. Switzerland is one of the Group’s favored host country outside the US.
Switzerland hosted their gatherings at least five times before this upcoming Montreux event (1960 – Palace Hotel, Bürgenstock; 1970 – Grand Hotel Quellenhof, Bad Ragaz, St. Gallen; 1981 – Palace Hotel, Bürgenstock; 1995 – Palace Hotel, Bürgenstock; 2011 – Suvretta House, St. Moritz).
The conferences of the Bilderbergers are the most secretive events, managed by those who pull the strings behind world leaders – politicians, corporate CEOs, big finance, and other business execs – artists, and the who-is-who of the world elite.
And we are talking of the western world. Other than about ten attendees from Turkey, Poland, Bulgaria and Estonia, participants are North Americans or Europeans. The rest of the world doesn’t count.
The Bilderbergers are strictly a western dominion.
The farthest east they go is Turkey. It’s like the carrot to Erdogan, hoping to draw NATO Turkey back into the camp of the west.
But how much longer? – Turkey, forever wavering between east and west, has more than one leg already in the east – eyeing entry into the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) – not exactly the eastern version of the Bilderbergers, because the SCO is an open forum for economic development policies and defense strategies, no secrets, no manipulation western style.
This year’s Bilderberg meeting was chaired by Henri Castries, France,Chairman of the Paris-based Institut Montaigne, a non-profit thinktank working on public policy and social cohesion.
Other prominent attendees include Mike Pompeo, US Secretary of State, and the driving force of these events and protégé of Rockefeller’s, former US Secretary of State (and war criminal), Henry Kissinger; France’s Minister of Economy and Finance, Bruno Le Maire; Mark Rutte, Dutch Prime Minister, from the far-right People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy; Ursula von der Leyen, Germany’s Defense Minister from the conservative Christian Democratic Union (CDU); – and, perhaps most noteworthy, Jared Kushner, personal advisor and son-in-law of US President Donald Trump, and intimate friend of Israel’s Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu.
Additional:Read about the
Alliance that has
been working behind
the scenes for decades to take down the 'Cabal' within the work of David Wilcock.
Some of those reading this may be confused because the cabal-controlled mainstream
media is doing
everything within it's
power to denigrate Trump - as he is part of the effort to take the Illuminati down
once and for
all.
This means that Israel will be represented at the highest level. From Switzerland attending will be – among others – the current President, Ueli Maurer, who, it is rumored, will hold behind closed-doors talks with Mike Pompeo about Iran whom Switzerland is representing vis-à-vis Washington. The Presence of Kushner, Pompeo, secretive Iran talks – smells a rat.
The Bilderbergers are associated and its members are overlapping with those of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the Trilateral Commission and the London-based Chatham House which makes the rules for the meetings – and let’s not forget, the World Economic Forum, the infamous WEF that takes place every January in Davos, Switzerland.
The WEF represents a relatively transparent window to the world, with, of course, also its secret, behind closed doors meetings, whereas the Bilderbergers are an all-round secret organization.
The Bilderberg meetings – so they say – are informal talks, allowing the participants to freely use the information they receive. But they are not allowed to reveal the identity or the affiliation of the speakers, nor of any participant in the particular talks.
Switzerland, one of the most secretive countries in the world – the world of banking, the world of big finance, safe haven for international corporations which not only get away with low taxes, but also escape standards of ethics they otherwise may have to apply doing business, exploiting natural resources, in developing countries.
They are privileged, just by being domiciled in Switzerland. The Helvetic Confederacy is a country run by the fiefs of western money, of the western FED-directed and debt-based pyramid monetary system, a Ponzi scheme that has survived for the last hundred years – led by the Rothschild banking clan an Co.
They are closely associated and control the western banking system’s gold bunker, the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) in Basle, also called the central bank of central banks.
The BIS is intimately linked to Swiss finance. The BIS, located conveniently close to the German border, has also served as intermediary for the FED to finance Hitler’s war against the Soviet Union.
What better place for the Bilderbergers to concoct – not to say conspire – their vision of the world’s future?
It is no coincidence that Switzerland was spared from the destruction of both World Wars.
It’s the only OECD country, where laws are made directly by big-finance and big-business, i.e. where parliamentarians are sitting on the Boards of Directors of corporations and financial institutions, while making the laws for the people, a country where basic business and corporate ethics get short-shrifted and are overruled by flagrant conflicts of interest, a country where a white collar interest group makes the laws that suit big capital. Again, what better place for the Bilderbergers to meet?
Switzerland has become the epicenter of neoliberalism over the past 30 years or so – and is ideal for the behind the scene discussions and agreements, visions of New World Order strategies.
The first item in this year’s Bilderberg meeting’s agenda is “A Stable Strategic Order”, a euphemism for One World Order or New World Order.
Other official agenda items include “The Future of Capitalism”, “Russia”, “China”, “Weaponizing Social Media”, “BREXIT”, “What’s Next for Europe”; “Ethics of Artificial Intelligence” – and of course, not to be missed in conferences of such importance, “Climate Change”. – Imagine, with such a benign agenda, what will take place behind closed doors?
“Control oil and you control nations; control food and you control the people.”
- Henry Kissinger
One of the permanent agenda items which is close to Rockefeller’s heart, the current thriving force behind the Bilderbergers, and is being propagated, by his disciple, Henry Kissinger, is the reduction of world population – so that the few on top may live better and longer with the world’s rapidly diminishing resources.
So – what are not agenda items, but might certainly enter the realm of population reduction, are, permanent “wars on terror” - that justify mass killings and the related horrendous, never-spoken about quantities CO2 and other greenhouse gases they emit; 5G (the 5th Generation of deadly radiation) to facilitate our communication, meaning more effective surveillance, imposed artificial intelligence (AI), more efficient digitalization of money - and likely though delayed, but exponentially increasing cancer rates; Bayer-Monsanto’s poisonous GMOs and glyphosate products; artificially planted deadly epidemics, like Ebola; the US Air Force’s High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program(HAARP) for weaponizing climate change, bringing about famine and misery by droughts, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes and other climatic calamities – and probably much more.
This is of course, only speculation, being deducted from the Master Goal of the Bilderbergers, i.e. population reduction.
But perhaps I’m totally wrong.
As everything is secret and most likely nothing of the behind the scene talks and decisions will penetrate into the media, only hear-say and, of course, conspiracy theories, it is well possible that the Bilderbergers are what they propagate to be – a peaceful, dialogue seeking group of people, who is committed to the values of democracy and freedom – and entrepreneurship.
And – hear-hear! – “Talking about the future of capitalism does not mean that we consider it to be the only possible system,” as organizer André Kudelski told the Swiss newspaper 24 Heures.
In that he is right. Capitalism is not the only viable system. In fact, it is THE system that is NOT viable, as it spreads injustice, inequality, crime and misery around the globe and, therefore, is certainly not sustainable.
Yes, Bilderbergers, start thinking of an alternative, one that brings social justice, inclusion, equal opportunities and spreads wealth more evenly around the globe – one that brings PEACE, so that we all may live well, not wealthy, but well.
The Rothschild Bloodline: Financial Wizards & Wealthy Cults June 6 2019 | From: Omnithought / BibliotecaPleyades The content of the following article gives the impression that the Rothschild bloodline is the wealthiest and most powerful family on Earth. The wealthiest and most powerful families on Earth are the people who hide in the shadows. In this lifetime, the chance of you hearing their names is near zero percent. You have a better chance of winner a million dollar lottery jackpot than hearing or seeing their names on the news or internet. – Pao Chang
Two neighbor horse farmers came together one day to talk business. The first farmer sold his horse to the second for a quarter million dollars, and then bought it back for about $20 more. He could now advertise his horse (actually worth $20), as a horse he that he had paid over a quarter of a million dollars for.
We can laugh over such schemes. And perhaps we should laugh at ourselves for having been fooled, for if there is one area in life that exceeds the religious in deception, and touches all of us it is the financial.
What else can we do about it except laugh? The famous poet Lord Byron describes the archtype of our two farmers in 1823, Who keeps the world, both old and new, in pain Or pleasure? Who makes politics run glibber all? The shade of Bonaparte’s noble daring?
Jew Rothschild and his fellow-Christian, Baring. You’ll learn about some other ,,neighbor horse traders” in this chapter too.
Lord Rothschild in his book The Shadow of a Great Man quotes a letter sent from Davidson on June 24, 1814 to Nathan Rothschild:
“As long as a house is like yours, and as long as you work together with your brothers, not a house in the world will be able to compete with you, to cause you harm or to take advantage of you, for together you can undertake and perform more than any house in the world.”
The closeness of the Rothschild brothers is seen in a letter from Saloman (Salmon) Rothschild to his brother Nathan on Feb. 28, 1815, “We are like the mechanism of a watch: each part is essential.
This closeness is further seen in that of the 18 marriages made by Mayer Amschel Rothschild’s grandchildren 16 were contracted between first cousins.
Visiting the Nation the Rothschilds Built
In 1974, in the summer after the Yom Kippur War this Author toured Israel, and got the chance to personally visit many of the buildings like the Knesset that the Rothschild’s money has built.
The Knesset is the Israeli equivalent to the US Congress’s Capitol building. One of the Rothschilds in his will left money for ongoing building projects in Israel, and the Rothschilds are honored with a Street named after them in Jerusalem.
The people of Germany and Turkey have been very close. I can recall meeting Turkish “Gastarbeiter” (guestworkers) in Germany.
The reader will remember that Turkey fought on Germany’s side in W.W. I. A few powerful Jews, including the Rothschilds were responsible for the wording of the Treaty imposed on Germany that ended W.W. I.
The treaty gave the Rothschilds the German owned railway rights in Palestine (which had been part of the Turkish Ottoman Empire), thus paving the way for the Rothschilds to have a sure leverage to dictate policy concerning Palestine.
The Rothschilds had made loans to Turkey which amounted to almost one hundred million pounds. When the Turkish government collapsed after W.W. I because they were on the losing side, the Rothschilds had a claim on Palestine because of those unpaid Turkish loans.
The British government followed the dictates of the Rothschilds. The British were given a mandate over Palestine, and the Rothschilds were able to through their proxies in the British government, to create the steps that led to the nation of Israel.
The Rothchilds as Prophets
One item stands out as a person listens to the International Bankers and reads their books. They believe money is what makes the world go round. If you have money, you can do anything.
Money is “God”, and it is worshipped and served. Even after these families accumulate more than can be spent, these devotees continue selling their souls for this false but powerful god.
The great poet-philosopher Heinrich Heine (a Banker’s son) said, “Money is the god of our time, and Rothschild is his prophet.” Following the cue of the Rothschilds, Heinrich Heme, a Jew, signed his name by drawing a Seal of Solomon.
Amsel Rothschild is reported to have said, “Give me control of the economics of a country; and I care not who makes her laws. Today his descendents meet twice daily in London to dictate to the world what the world price of gold will be. They also dictate what the “Federal Reserve System” will do with America’s finances.
Another God Too
According to eye-witnesses, who were prominent enough to visit one of the British Rothschild homes, the Rothschilds worship yet another god too, Satan. They set a place for him at their table.(8a) The Rothschilds have been Satanists for many generations.
The Rothschilds are an important part of the history of the Seal of Solomon (also known as hexagram, Magen David, six-pointed star, Star of David.) The Seal of Solomon, the hexagram, was not considered a Jewish symbol before the Rothschilds began using it.
Throughout the Middle Ages the Seal of Solomon had been used by Arab Magicians, Cabalist Magicians, Druid witches and Satanists. One of the few ancient uses of the symbol was on the floor of a 1,200 year old Moslem Mosque found where Tel Aviv is today.
In the twelve century an Ashkenazic Jew Menahem ben Duji, who thought he was the Messiah, used the magical symbol. Because the Rothschilds were Satanists they adopted this powerful magic symbol in 1822 for their coat- of-arms.
The name they adopted for their family actually comes from the fact that in the 17th century Mayer Amschel Bauer began hanging out a red hexagram in front of their house to identify it. Mayer Amschel then decided to take the name red-schield (Rothschild in German) after the red Seal of Solomon that they used.
Alice Bailey in A Treatise On White Magic, p. 412, claims that the Hierarchy has a special group which she calls “the financial group” ,,controlling all that can be converted into energy, and constituting a dictatorship over all modes of intercourse, commerce and exchange.”
According the Luciferian Alice Bailey, the “financial group” is the latest group directed by the Hierarchy. In 1836 Zevi Hirsch Kalischer approached Rothschild and proposed Rothschild buy all of Erez Israel. It took many years for the Rothschilds to finally create Israel.
The Ultra-orthodox Jews in Israel will not serve in the Israeli army because they know that Almighty God was not behind the creation of modern Israel, but rather the rich ungodly apostate Jews.
They refuse to serve the ungodly. They are more wiser than men like Jerry Falwell who run around proclaiming Israel is God’s nation. Men like Falwell are the type that this Author finds reference to repeatedly in Jewish documents that speak of their power within the Fundamentalists.
God is ultimately in charge, he has allowed Hitler to come to power, Stalin to come to power, and the Rothschilds to come to power. In the same sense that God rules over and blessed Stalin’s Russia, he rules over America and Israel.
To twist scriptures about God seating the rulers and then to apply them to bless one Satanic secular communist nation and not another is inconsistent and not correctly using the Word of Truth. Some people object that the conspiracy of Power is labelled Jewish rather than Satanic by certain concerned citizens.
This objection is valid - however, will these objectors then take the obvious next step and admit the nation of Israel which the Rothschild’s created is Satanic and not Jewish? But then who knows precisely why people do what they do?
If you ask someone why he does something, he will give you one answer today, another tomorrow, and another the next day. Does he do what he does for a real reason, or a single motive? Perhaps to label the Power as only Satanic or only Jewish or only Masonic is to neglect the personal human dimension.
This personal human dimension is godless. Being godless it fills that void, by pretending its men are gods. This brings us right back to the Gnostic religions and Satan. Most Jewish people do not concern themselves with learning the occultic significance to their treasured Magen David (Star of David).
King David did not have anything to do with the hexagram, although his son Solomon did when he began worshipping Ashtoreth (star, also known as Astarte, Chiun, Kaiwan, Remphan, and Saturn). Solomon built altars to Star (Astarte, aka Ashtoreth).
The god Saturn is associated with the Star but both Saturn and Astarte also been identified with a number of other names. Saturn is an important key to understanding the long heritage this conspiracy has back to antiquity.
The city of Rome was originally known as Saturnia or City of Saturn. The Roman Catholic church retains much of the Saturn worship in its ritual.
Saturn also relates to Lucifer. In various occult dictionaries Saturn is associated with evil. Saturn was important to the religion of Mithra, and also the Druids.
Charles T. Russell, in a 1891 letter to Baron (Lord) Rothschild, mailed from Palestine, outlined possible courses of action that could be taken to establish the Jews in Palestine.
Russell’s letters praised the Rothschild’s money which established Jewish colonies in Palestine. Russell writes Rothschild,
“What is needed here, therefore, next to water and cleanliness, is a good government which will protect the poor from the ravenous and the wealthy. Banking institutions on sound bases, and doing business honorably, are also greatly needed", Russell continues:
“May the God of Jacob direct you, my dear Sir, and all interested with you in the deliverance and prosperity of Israel, and blessed will they be who, to any extent, yield themselves as his servants in fulfilling his will as predicted.”
When the Mormon Church needed financing in the late 19th century, they went to Kuhn, Loeb Co. To explain the Rothschild’s control of Kuhn, Loeb Co. here is some background information. The method that the House of Rothschild used to gain influence, was the same that Royalty had used for centuries, marriage.
The Rothschild children, girls and boys, have had their spouses chosen on the basis of alliances that would benefit the House of Rothschild, but since consolidating world power they generally have married cousins these last two centuries.’
Jacob Schiff grew up in the house that the Rothschild’s had at 148 Judengasse, Frankfurt. Jacob Schiff came to the United States with Rothschild capital and took over control of a small jewish banking concern founded by two Cincinnati dry goods merchants Abraham Kuhn and Solomon Loeb. He even married Soloman’s daughter.
In 1885, Loeb retired, and Schiff ran the Kuhn, Loeb Co. for the Rothschilds until 1920 when he died. During Russell’s and Brigham Young’s day, Lord Rothschild was considered the “lay leader of world Jewry.”
Edmund Rothschild was President of the Jewish Colonization Assoc, which was a major Zionist group. Amselm Rothschild indicated that his grandfather Amschel Mayer Rothschild had insisted in Clause 15 of his will to his children, “may they and their descendants remain constantly true to their ancestral Jewish faith.”
However, the will has been secret and there is no way of knowing what it says.
The Rothschilds have not remained true to the Orthodox faith. If this was actually what Clause 15 said then something is amiss.
The Jewish world has showered the Rothschilds with praises:
“The Rothschilds govern a Christian world. Not a cabinet moves without their advice. They stretch their hand, with equal ease, from Petersburg to Vienna, from Vienna to Paris, from Paris to London, from London to Washington.
Baron Rothschild, the head of the house, is the true king of Judah, the prince of the captivity, the Messiah so long looked for by this extraordinary people… .The lion of the tribe of Judah, Baron Rothschild, possesses more real force than David–more wisdom than Solomon.”
The Prieure de Sion-the Elders of Sion also relates to the Rothschilds who are reported to serve on a jewish council of Elders of Sion. The Rothschilds have “helped” the Jewish people the Rothschild’s own way.
For those who admire stingyness, the Rothschilds will be greatly looked up to. For instance, the extent of James Rothschild’s charity in France to poor Jews was 5 francs (the equivalent of $1). Their dynasty has destroyed honest Jews along with Christians. Today, few dare criticize the Rothschilds.
Co-Masters of the World: Connections to Secret Societies
The Rothschilds had played a major role in the Bavarian Illuminati, and it is known that a least one of the sons of Amsel was a member.
As the reader remembers, Amsel placed his sons in the major European capitals, where they each set up the principal banking houses.
By their own secret intelligence service and their own news network they could outmanouver any European government. The large amounts of voluminous correspondence by Rothschild couriers attracted attention, but no one ever stopped their personal intelligence and mail services.
After the Bavarian illuminati were exposed, the central occult power over the European secret societies shifted to Carbonarism a.k.a. the Alta Vendita, led by another powerful Rothschild, Karl Rothschild, son of Amschel.
In 1818, Karl participated in a secret document that was sent out to the head-quarters of Masonry from the Alta Vendita.
The Masons were quite distressed when a copy of this was lost, and offered rewards to anyone who could return the lost copy. It was originally written in Italian. Its title translates “Permanent Instructions, or Practical Code of Rules; Guide for the Heads of the Highest Grades of Masonry.”
The Masonic reference book 10,000 Famous Freemasons, Vol. 4, p.74, indicates two other sons of Amschel were Masons, James Meyer Rothschild, and his brother Nathan Meyer Rothschild. James Rothschild in Paris was a 33 degree Scottish Rite Mason, and his brother Nathan in London was a member of the Lodge of Emulation.
And Jewish Freemason Katz indicates Solomon Meir Rothschild, a third member of the five brothers, was initiated into Freemasonry on June 14, 1809. The Rothschilds became powerful within Freemasonry.
We find the Saint-Simonians, the occult religious millenialist forerunners of communism, praising Baron de Rothschild in their magazine Le Globe:
“There is no one today who better represents the triumph of equality and work in the nineteenth century than M. le Baron de Rothschild…
Was this Jew born a millionaire? No, he was born poor, and if only you knew what genius, patience, and hard work were required to construct that European edifice called the House of Rothschild, you would admire rather than insult it.”
Lionel de Rothschild (the de was added by the French Rothschilds) was involved with the first communist Internationale. The Mason Mazzini who helped start communism praised Rothschild, “Rothschild could be King of France if he so desired.”
Adoiphe Cremieux, was a french Jewish Mason (see chap. 1.4 for his credentials). The Rothschilds gave at least £ i ,000 to Cremieux to go to Damascus with Salomon Munk, and Sir Moses Montefiore to win the release of Jews imprisoned there, and to convince the Turkish Sultan to declare the charges of ritual murder false.
According to the three Jewish authors of Dope, Inc. the B’nai B’rith was a spin-off of the Order of Zion and was organized as a “covert intelligence front” for the House of Rothschild.
It is highly probable that the B’nai B’rith was used as a Rothschild intelligence cover. The Rothschilds are prominent in the Bilderbergers too. The Rothschilds were closely related to the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR).
Although many people today would not view the CFR as a secret society it was originally set up as part of a secret society and it was kept secret for many years, in spite of its awesome power.
Carroll Quigley, professor of International Relations at the Jesuit Georgetown University, exposed the Round Table Group with his book Tragedy and Hope. The Rothschilds supported Rhodes to form De Beers.
Later, Rhodes made seven wills which established a secret society modelled after the Jesuits and Masons to help bring in a One-World- Government centered upon Britain, and the Rhodes Scholarships. The inner group was established in Mar.
1891 and consisted of Rhodes, Stead, Lord Esher (Brett), and 33* Mason Alfred Milner.(33bb) A secondary circle of “potential members of the Circle of Initiates” consisted of the Jew Lord Balfour, Sir Harry Johnson, Lord Rothschild, Lord Grey and others.
Initially, Lord Rothschild was part of the inner group of Rhode’s secret society, but was replaced by his son-in-law Lord Rosebury who wasn’t as conspicuous. The Fabian Socialists dominated the staff at Oxford when the Rhodes Scholars began arriving.
These scholars then received indoctrination and preparation to become part of an international socialist New World Order. The Round Table Group developed from the inner executive circle of Rhode’s secret society.
The outer circle was established after the start of the 20th century. The Round Table Group was extended after W.W. I by organizing a front organization the Royal Institute of International Affairs.
The Council of Foreign Relations was the American part of this front. The inner circle continues to direct the outer circle and its two front organizations RIIA and CFR. The CER in turn set up a number of fronts including the Institute of Pacific Relations (IPR).
Co-Masters of the World: Management of the Catholic and Czars’ Wealth and the Capture of the Orthodox Church’s Wealth.
Early in the 19th century the Pope came to the Rothschilds to borrow money. The Rothschilds were very friendly with the Pope, causing one journalist to sarcasticly say “Rothschild has kissed the hand of the Pope… Order has at last been re-established.”
The Rothschilds in fact over time were entrusted with the bulk of the Vatican’s wealth. The Jewish Ency., Vol. 2, p.497 states,
“It is a somewhat curious sequel to the attempt to set up a Catholic competitor to the Rothschilds that at the present time (1905) the latter are the guardians of the papal treasure.”
Researcher Eustice Mullins writes that the Rothschilds took over all the financial operations of the worldwide Catholic Church in 1823.
Today the large banking and financial business of the Catholic Church is an extensive system interlocked with the Rothschilds and the rest of the International Banking system.
The great wealth of the Russian Czars was entrusted to the Rothschilds, $35 million with the Rothschild’s Bank of England, and $80 million in the Rothschild’s Paris bank.
The Rothschilds financed the Russian Revolution which confiscated vast portions of the Orthodox Church’s wealth. They have been able to prevent (due to their power) the legitimate heirs of the Czars fortune to withdraw a penny of the millions deposited in a variety of their banks.
The Mountbattans, who are related to the Rothschilds, led the court battles to prevent the claimants from withdrawing any of the fortune.
In other words, the money they invested in the Russian Revolution, was not only paid back directly by the Bolshevists in millions of dollar of gold, but by grabbing the hugh deposits of the Czars’ wealth, the Rothschilds gained what is now worth over $50 Billion.
Co-Masters of the World: Control Over Satanism and Witchcraft
Chapter 2.11 gives the names of a Witchcraft Council of 13 which is under Rothschild control and in turn issue orders to various groups. One of the purest form of Satanism can be traced to the Jewish Sabbatain sect and its Frankist spinoff.
The leaders of this up to the Rothschilds were:
Sabbatai Zevi (1626-1676)
Nathan of Gaza (16??-?)
Jacob Frank (1726-1791)
Rothschilds - Three Connections Between Satanism, Evil, and Money
Money naturally attracts itself to evil. For instance, if a woman prostitutes herself she may receive a great sum of money, but who will pay her for keeping her virginity or her dignity?
If you are a hit man a large amount of money is yours if you kill your target, who will pay you if you would miss your target?
Second, evil men believe in where there is a will there is a way, and they are willing to sell their souls for their God money. They will employ evil to gain money.
While most people are quite aware of these last two connections, a third may likely have escaped their attention.
Thirdly, the principle group of men who cranked up International Banking were Satanists from the beginning.
Just having total control over the supply of U.S. paper money almost gives them leverage over the world’s finances, without mentioning they control the world bank.
It is no accident then, that once they established world financial control, they would do all in their power to divide and conquer and destroy both the Christian and the Moslem faith in God.
These powerful Bankers relate to faith in God as Cain related to his brother Abel. That they may be related to the Jewish people, does not mean they have the Jewish people’s best interest at heart. Initially Sabbetai Zevi was rejected by many Jews.
His sect gained momentum in second half of the seventeenth century in southeastern Poland.
In 1759-60, 500 Jewish Sabbateans “converted” to Christianity. In 1715, 109 of the 415 Jewish families in Frankfurt were engaged in moneylending. The rest were merchants of various kinds. The concepts that Satanism holds to were a natural shoe in to justify for many of these Jewish bankers the type of behavior they were engaged in.”
Long Story Short
Many divisions and battles between religious elements in the world have been encouraged and supported by the Power’s wealth. Unfortunately, many have been fooled into thinking that being devout and faithful to God is the source of religious fighting.
In some areas of the world, Moslems, Christians, and others have gotten along fine for centuries.
Religious tensions do spring to some degree from within the religions themselves, but the fuel to keep those fires burning and to light up conflicts often come from the Power’s wealth. An obvious example is the Iran-Iraq war.
Co-Masters of the World: Control Over WWI Treaty
When Germany fell, not only did Rothschild agents draft the treaty, prepare the idea of the League of Nations, but Max Rothschild was one of 11 men who took control over Bavaria. Max Rothschild was a Freemason in Lodge No. 11, Munich, Germany.
Co-Masters of the World: Connections to MI5, Rockefellers, J.P. Morgan, CFR et.al.
Victor Rothschild, who worked for J.P. Morgan & Co., and was an important part of MI5 (British Intelligence). Victor Rothschild was also a communist and member of the Apostles Club at Cambridge.
Lord Rothschild was one of the original members of Rhode’s Round Table group which developed into the CFR. It was the Rothschilds who had financed Cecil Rhodes, beginning in Africa.
The Rothschilds’ have several agents which their money got started and who still serve them well, the Morgans and the Rockefellers. The Rockefellers were Marrano Jews. The original Rockefeller made his money selling narcotics, (they weren’t illegal then).
After acquiring a little capital he branched out in oil. But it was the Rothschild capital that made the Rockefeller’s so powerful. “They also financed the activities of Edward Harriman (railroads) and Andrew Carnegie Steel.”
Co-Masters of the World: Power Within Christendom
The Rothschilds also wielded much influence and power not only in Secret Societies, but also in Christendom’s churches. The Salvation Army under the suggestion of the Rothschilds adopted the Red Shield (Roth-red Schild-shield) for their logo.
“The Rothschilds had rapidly propelled themselves into a position of immense financial power and political influence. They were an independent force in the life of Europe, accountable to no one and, to a large extent, reliant on no one. Popular lampoons depicted them as the real rulers of Christendom…”
Some of the Rothschilds have been involved in the campaign to loosen public morals. The first executive Secretary of the National Student Forum was John Rothschild. This National Student Forum changed its name like articles of clothing.
Speaking about clothing, one of the aims of this Socialist group was to promote public nudity, and free love. This organization had the following constituent groups Radcliffe Liberal Club, Union Theological Seminary Contemporary Club, Yale Liberal Club” to name just a few.
A further development of this was the Youth Peace Federation which consisted of the League of Youth of Community Church, Methodist Epworth League, NY District, Young Judea, and Young People’s Fellowship of St. Phillip’s Parish to name a few.
American religious men have ties to the Rothschilds especially through their various agents.
Harry Emerson Fosdick, who was Pastor of Rockefeller’s church was also among the Presidents of the Rockefeller Foundation. John Foster Dulles, CFR, was chairman of the board of the Rockefeller Foundation, and married a Rockefeller, Janet Pomeroy Avery.
Remember John Foster Dulles was an important Federal Council of Churches of Christ official
Every road leads back to the Rothschilds. There are more items than what have been mentioned above linking the Rothschilds to the various tenticles.
Each of the various tenticles that conspiracy theorists have put forth, - the Jews, the Masons, the Intelligence Communities, the International Bankers, the Prieure de Sion, the Catholics, the Trilateral commission, the CFR, the New Age, the Cults - each ties back to the Rothschild’s power.
Extent of Rothschild Power
According to one source “it was estimated that they controlled half the wealth of the world.” The Federal Reserve Bank of New York was controlled by five banks which owned 53% of its stock.
These five banks were controlled by Nathan M. Rothschild & Sons of London. Control over the U.S. Fed is basically control over the world’s money. That fact alone shows how immense the Rothschild Power is.
If one examines who has been appointed to head the Fed, and to run it, the connections of the “Federal” Reserve System to the Rothschilds can further be seen. Another private enterprise using the name Federal that the Rothschilds also direct is Federal Express.
Any one else might be taken to court for making their businesses sound like their are government, not the Rothschilds. It is appropriate for them to appropriate the name of Federal, because by way of MI6 via the CIA they instruct the U.S. government.
Senators are bought and paid off by their system, as investigators of the BCCI discovered. The Rothschilds have been intimately involved in witchcraft and the Illuminati since its early known history.
The Kaiser of Germany seems to refer to them when he said, “the magic powers of money as wielded by the Lord of Lucre are powers of Black Magic at its blackest."
If only half of the wealth is controlled by the Rothschilds, it indicates that if they are to be part of the world’s rulership, they must have allies.
The Rothschilds and Rockefellers are only two of thirteen controlling families of the Illuminati. Two Jewish families that appear to be prominent are the Oppenheims and the Oppenheimers.
A. Oppenheim was situated in Cologne. The Oppenheimers were early members of the Bavarian Illuminati. The Bund der Gerechten (League of the Just) was an illuminati front run mainly by Jews who were Satanists.
This Bund financed in part by the Rothschilds paid the Satanist and Mason Karl Marx to write the Communist Manefesto. The Jew Gumpel Oppenheim was in the inner circle of the Bund.
His relative Heinrich Oppenheim masterminded the communist revolution of 1848 in Germany. The Communist Party’s official histories even accept the Bund as the predecessor of Communism.
The Oppenheimers apparently are close to the Rothschilds. J. Robert Oppenheimer of the CFR was exposed as a communist.
Harry Oppenheimer, an international banker, is chairman of the Jewish De Beers world-wide diamond monopoly, and chairman of the Anglo-American Corp. Oppenheimers can be found in important financial positions in the U.S. They help run around 10 large foundations, including the Oppenheimer Haas Trust of NY for the care of needy Jewish children.
The Jewish Ency. Vol. 2, p. 496 indicates other Jewish families “adopted the Rothschild plan.” These were the Lazards, Sterns, Speyers, and Seligmans. The Rothschild plan was to place family members in the 5 largest European capitals to coordinate their activities.
One of Germany’s largest magazines is the Stern, and Ernst Stern is second-in-command of the World Bank.”
The Jewish families that established the Frankfurt Judenloge (this was the Masonic lodge the Rothschilds belonged to in Frankfurt) included the Adlers, Speyers, Reisses, Sichels, Ellisons, Hanaus, Geisenheimers, and Goldschmidts.
Isaac Hildesheim, a Jew who changed his name to Justus Hiller is credited as being the founder of this Frankfurt lodge. Michael Hess, principal of the Reformed Jewish school Philanthropin was an important figure in the lodge too, as was Dr. Ludwig Baruch (later Borne) who joined in 1808.
Most of these Frankfurt Jewish Freemasons engaged in commerce. Those Freemasons from 1817-1842 were the leaders of the Frankfurt Jewish community.
A gentile Mason in Frankfurt Johann Christian Ehrmann began warning the German people that the Frankfurt Jewish Masons wanted a world republic based on humanism.
In 1816 he came out with a warning pamphlet Das Judenthum in der M[aurere]y (The Jews in Masonry). A powerful ally of the world’s jewry can be seen beginning with men like Oliver Cromwell, who was considered a Mason.
Cromwell was financed by Jews, and helped the Jews gain power in England. Cromwell was willing to go along with the Jews, because he became convinced of British Israelism. Since the core of the conspiracy of power is Jewish, the attitude of those allied with it hinges on their attitude toward the Jewish people.
The religious idea that the British people are descended from the tribes of Israel doesn’t automatically place people into the camp of the conspiracy. Some of the British-Israelites realize that the so called Jewish people in general have no claim over the promises of God.
For that reason, they realize that it is not the Christian duty to bow and scrape at their every move. When Christians can be arrested in Israel and abused, and Christians will not even stand up for their own kind, we can see how much hold the idea of the “Chosen Race” theory has over Christendom.
Some of the British Israelites such as the Mormons, the old New England wealthy families such as make up the Order, some Masons and New Agers, and the non-Jewish members of the Priuere de Sion are collaborating with the One-World-Power. The anglican church which is run by the Freemasons is strongly British Israelistic.
Sorting Out the Various Identity Groups
In contrast, a hodge-podge of groups which are opposed to the conspiracy like some Neo-Nazi groups, and various Churches unrelated with them are also believers in British Israelism.
These various groups are sometimes all lumped together as the “Identity” movement, which is misleading because of their vast differences.
It is important to diferentiate between those groups that are trying to approach things from a Christian perspective and place themselves under the authority of God, and those who are setting themselves up under the New Order’s authority, or under their own authority.
Co-Masters of the World: The Media
Eustice Mullins has published his research in his book Who Owns the TV Networks showing that the Rothschilds have control of all three U.S. Networks, plus other aspects of the recording and mass media industry.
It can be added that they control Reuters too. From other sources it appears CNN, which began as an independent challenge to the Jewish Network monopoly, ran into repeated trickery, and ended up part of the system.
Money from B.C.C.I., (B.C.C.I. has been one of the New World Orders financial systems for doing its dirty business such as controlling Congressmen, and is involved with INSLA, the Iran-Contra Scandal, Centrust, and other recent scandals) which has tainted so many aspects of public power in the U.S. has also been behind CNN.
Perhaps nothing dominates the life of some Americans as does the television. Americans sit themselves before the television set and simply absorb what it projects to them.
On a day to day basis the biggest way the Rothschilds touch the lives of Americans are the three major networks which are under Rothschild direction.
Google, YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, Comcast, Instagram Suffer Devastating Outages As Trump Goes To War With Big Tech’s Malicious Censorship And Fraud & "Wikipedia Is Broken," Controlled By Special Interests & Bad Actors Says Co-Founder June 5 2019 | From: NaturalNews / Zerohedge / Various
It is no coincidence that two days after the Trump administration announced a massive DOJ anti-trust investigation into Google, dozens of tech companies have been disrupted via sweeping internet outages that many are calling the “internet kill switch.”
Throughout the day today (Sunday), massive outages took down nearly all Google services (Gmail, Google, YouTube, Google Home, Google Hangouts etc.), and hard-hitting glitches hit all the following services, many of which are engaged in criminal activities that violate human rights and the freedom of speech in America:
Gmail / Google / Google services YouTube Facebook Twitter Amazon and Amazon Web Services AT&T, T-Mobile, Comcast, Verizon and Spectrum Apple Store and iCloud
The outages have affected literally millions of websites and e-commerce sites and demonstrate that all these tech companies have an Achilles Heel - a common infrastructure that can be crippled and taken down in seconds.
This took place barely two weeks after the White House announced an effort to collect case studies from people and businesses all across America who have been censored, de-platformed or economically sabotaged by Google and other tech giants.
You are Likely Watching a High-Stakes War Being Waged Between Big Tech and President Trump
ANALYSIS: What you’re actually watching may be the Trump administration firing a warning shot over the bow of Silicon Valley and its evil tech giants.
The message is clear: If you continue to censor the human rights and free speech of conservatives and Christians, you will be taken down and denied access to the internet infrastructure.
These organizations - Google, Apple, Twitter, YouTube, Facebook - are openly engaged in massive, coordinated criminal fraud, election rigging and treason against the United States of America. These techno-fascists are operating online cartels that suffocate the speech of conservatives, Christians and Trump supporters.
These evil techno-fascists must be stopped. Their CEOs must be arrested, and their operations must be either radically reformed or completely dismantled and taken offline.
It’s time for all humans on planet Earth to demand the dismantling of Big Tech and end its crimes against humanity. The systematic censorship of speech for political purposes is a criminal act of war against the human race.
These tech giants must be stopped the same way we once stopped Adolf Hitler: Declare war, then defeat the evil fascists using the full power of the military.
It’s time for Trump to call for the military police to locate and arrest the CEOs of the tech giants, then hold them for prosecutions under military law.
Make no mistake: Zuckerberg, Dorsey, Pichai, Cook and others are truly enemies of humanity and the enemies of freedom all around the world. It’s time to remove them from power and restore human freedom on a global scale.
My own battle with Wikipedia included being unable to correct provably false facts such as incorrect job history, incorrect birth place and incorrect birth date.
What’s worse is that agenda editors related to pharmaceutical interests and the partisan blog Media Matters control my Wikipedia biographical page, making sure that slanted or false information stays on it.
For example, they falsely refer to my reporting as “anti-vaccine,” and imply my reporting on the topic has been discredited. In fact, my vaccine and medical reporting has been recognized by top national journalism awards organizations, and has even been cited as a source in a peer reviewed scientific publication.
However, anyone who tries to edit this factual context and footnotes onto my page finds it is quickly removed.
What persists on my page, however, are sources that are supposedly disallowed by Wikipedia’s policies. They include citations by Media Matters, with no disclosure that it’s a partisan blog.
Another entity quoted on my Wikipedia biographical page to disparage my work is the vaccine industry’s Dr. Paul Offit. But there’s no mention of the lawsuits filed against Offit for libel (one prompted him to apologize and correct his book), or the fact that he provided false information about his work and my reporting to the Orange County Register, which later corrected its article.
Obviously, these facts would normally make Offit an unreliable source, but for Wikipedia, he’s presented as if an unconflicted expert.
In fact, Wikipedia doesn’t even mention that’s Offit is a vaccine industry insider who’s made millions of dollars off of vaccines.
Meantime, turn to Dr. Offit’s own Wikipedia biography and– at last look– it also omitted all mention of his countless controversies. Instead, it’s written like a promotional resume– in violation of Wikipedia’s supposed politics on neutrality.
These biographies are just two examples of ones that blatantly violate Wikipedia’s strict rules, yet they are set in stone. The powerful interests that “watch” and control the pages make sure Offit’s background is whitewashed and that mine is subtly tarnished.
They will revert or change any edits that attempt to correct the record.
This, in a nutshell, exemplifies Wikipedia’s problems across the platform as described by its cofounder Larry Sanger.
Sanger recently spoke to 150Sec. The following is an excerpt (below):
Reading a Wikipedia entry about Wikipedia itself seems strange. But where else on the web would an average internet user go for digestible, encyclopedia-style content?
With its entries almost always topping Google search results, Wikipedia receives around 33 billion page views per month, according to studies carried out by thinktank Pew Research in 2016.
In line with statistics from the website itself, it also changes at a rate of 1.8 edits per second and the number of new articles per day averages 578.
The multilingual free online encyclopedia was established in 2001 by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger, originally under the name of Nupedia. It is now the fifth most popular website in the world.
150Sec spoke to one of Wikipedia’s original co-founders, Sanger who - despite leaving the project in 2002 - shared his thoughts on online knowledge platforms on today’s internet, ahead of this month’s Pioneers conference in Austria.
“As an open source, Wikipedia can be added to or edited by anyone in the world through knowledge base websites called wikis, which allow users to collaboratively modify content. However, Sanger claims that this has become one of Wikipedia’s biggest downfalls.
In its early days, “Wikipedia itself had special challenges,” he explained. “One was simply to teach everyone who arrived at the wiki, which was basically a blank bulletin board that could have become whatever we wanted it to become, that we intended to build an encyclopedia.
A lot of people didn’t seem to know what that meant, or maybe they just didn’t care,” he said.
“Wikipedia itself had special challenges,” Larry Sanger, Wikipedia co-founder.
“Another hurdle was to figure out how to rein in the bad actors so that they did not ruin the project for everyone else. Unfortunately, we never did come up with a good solution for that one,” Sanger added.
“Wikipedia is a broken system as a result,” he said.
It is this flaw that has earned Wikipedia its reputation as an often untrustworthy source of information, particularly during times of discussion around misinformation and ‘fake news,’ a term which Sanger finds problematic.”
Julian Assange On The War On Free Speech: “Everyone Else Must Take My Place”
& Julian Assange Is Guilty Only Of Revealing The Evil Soul Of US Imperialism June 4 2019 | From: TheWashingtonStandard / RT / StrategicCulture / Various
As Wikileaks co-founder, Julian Assange’s health is deteriorating in a British prison, but the journalist was able to get a letter out to the public.
In the war on freedom of speech, Assange is asking everyone else who stands against corruption to take his place and keep speaking truth to power.
“Julian’s case is of major historic significance. It will be remembered as the worst attack on press freedom in our time,” said WikiLeaks editor-in-chief Kristinn Hrafnsson, urging people everywhere to oppose their politicians, courts, police, and prisons from being abused to “leave this black stain on history.”
In a handwritten letter from Belmarsh prison, Assange says he is being denied a chance to defend himself and that elements (government officials) in the United States that “hate truth, liberty, and justice.”
Assange says that the U.S. government wants him extradited and dead for telling the public the horrifying truth about their government.
The letter was sent to independent British journalist Gordon Dimmack, according to an article by RT. It was dated May 13 – ten days before the U.S. announced 17 additional charges under the Espionage Act against the jailed whistleblower.
In light of the new indictment, Dimmack read out the letter in a YouTube video. A photo of the handwritten note was soon posted online as well.
Assange’s situation shines a light on the lengths the U.S. government will go to in order to prevent the truth from getting out.
“I have been isolated from all ability to prepare to defend myself: no laptop, no internet, ever, no computer, no library, so far, but even if I get access, it will just be for a half an hour, with everyone else, once a week,” Assange wrote.
“The other side? A superpower that has been preparing for 9 years, with hundreds of people and untold millions spent on the case.”
I am defenseless. I am unbroken, albeit literally surrounded by murderers, but, the days where I could read and speak and organize to defend myself, my ideals, and my people are over until I am free! Everyone else must take my place.
"The US government, or rather, those regrettable elements in it that hate truth, liberty and justice, want to cheat their way into my extradition and death, rather than letting the public hear the truth, for which I have won the highest awards in journalism and have been nominated 7 times for the Nobel Peace Prize. Truth, ultimately, is all we have."
Assange’s well being has been diminished during his time in prison. Even before his arrest, his health was faltering.
“The decision of prison authorities to move [Assange] to the health ward speaks for itself,” said WikiLeaks, adding that Assange has lost a lot of weight and was barely able to speak to his Swedish lawyer last week.
“Assange’s health situation on Friday was such that it was not possible to conduct a normal conversation with him,”
his lawyer Per Samuelson told reporters after visiting Belmarsh.
The quote was barely reported on in Sweden, let alone elsewhere. The media has already taken sides and it’s against free speech.
Julian Assange Is Guilty Only Of Revealing The Evil Soul Of US Imperialism
Arresting a journalist, who is an Australian citizen, in an embassy, then extraditing him to a third country, to be tried in secret, without seeing the evidence, where he is accused of espionage, is is a new low even for Washington.
Julian Assange was bundled away by British police after Lenin Moreno, the president of Ecuador, gave the green light for the expulsion of the Wikileaks publisher from the Ecuadorian embassy in London.
Assange’s arrest represents an abuse of power, highlighting not only how true journalism has now been banished in the West, but also how politicians, journalists, news agencies and think-tanks collude with each other to silence people like Julian Assange and his Wikileaks foundation who are a nuisance to US imperialism.
Assange is “guilty” of two “cardinal sins”: revealing US war crimes committed in Iraq and committing the unpardonable sin of publishing the emails of Clinton, Podesta and the Democratic National Committee, thereby revealing such chicanery in US domestic politics as the fraud committed against Bernie Sanders in the 2016 Democratic primaries.
These revelations among the many (Vault 7, Torture, Diplomatic cablograms), by Assange’s Wikileaks, these transgressions in the eyes of the US ruling elite, struck at the very foundations on which the edifice of “American exceptionalism” is built, namely, the democracy that is meant to be a light unto the world, and the “just wars” that flow from a missionary zeal to make the world safe for democracy.
The media and politicians accordingly crow about the “beautiful missiles” and other high-tech weaponry that will be employed in the ensuing humanitarian interventions, while omitting to mention that the military-industrial complex that benefits so much from endless wars may be the very donors who fund the warmongering politicians into office, and that the warmongering editorial line of newspapers may be influenced by share portfolios of the editors themselves.
Releasing footage of US military personal laughing as they slaughter dozens of clearly unarmed Iraqis civilians from the distant safety of an Apache helicopter is one of the strongest ways of showing how false, artificial and propagandistic the concept of “humanitarian war” and “responsibility to protect” (R2P) is.
In today’s communication age, that footage, those images, that laughter, are a very powerful antidote against the lies we are daily fed by our media corporations.
The mainstream media will never tell us that the reason why Washington has been at war for half of the last two centuries is because of US imperialism.
Donald Trump Versus the Deep State that Killed JFK
They will never tell us that the ceaseless interventions are driven by an insatiable greed for resources, or often enough by the simple desire to plunge a country into chaos if its recalcitrant leaders refuse to genuflect appropriately and show due respect.
That footage straightforwardly debunked all the thousands of accumulated hours of media propaganda that had been built up to convince us that Washington beneficently bombs countries in order to bring democracy and free the oppressed.
In the same way, by pulling back the curtain to show how the Democratic primaries were a farce, Wikileaks revealed how the concept of democracy in the United States is worn out and in fact now non-existent.
The political parties are fed and controlled by donor money, and the accompanying media coverage can be bought, allowing for tens of millions of Americans to be fed on a steady diet of false news, lies and promises that will never be kept.
It becomes clear, reading the revelations published over the years by Wikileaks, that terms such as democracy and R2P are nothing more than excuses and justifications for the US to bomb whomever it wishes.
The moneyed interests ensure the election into office of those who can be relied upon to look after the interests of the 1% at the expense of the 99%, all the while giving moral lectures to the rest of the world while ignoring the inherent double standards.
The mainstream media are tasked by the powers that be with marketing war in order to advance US foreign-policy objectives. Without the moral justification for war, it becomes more difficult to convince Americans and Europeans to send their sons to die thousands of miles away from home.
It is straightforward Brainwashing 101: repeat a lie long enough, and people will start to believe it.
The only way the US sees to fix the problem is to silence the source and ignoring the consequences, even when we are talking about a journalist of international fame who has sought asylum in an embassy and has been confined there for seven years.
This Australian has succeeded in simultaneously becoming the number one enemy of the military-industrial complex, the Democrats, and therefore for all American Russophobes.
He did his job so well that he managed to become a target of practically all of the Washington establishment, which is determined to lock away the likes of Assange and Snowden (if only they could) and throw away the key.
His destiny seems marked, with a probable extradition to the US, where a secret trial based on false accusations awaits him, without him even being able to examine the evidence with a lawyer.
They would have sent him to Guantanamo at an earlier time, but the effect is the same. Of course this is not bad news for everyone, with many rejoicing at the news of his arrest.
All the #MeToo crowd and groups related to human rights applaud Lenin Morero’s decision to kick Assange out of the embassy and his arrest by the British police.
Those who would be expected to make their voices heard reveal themselves to be agents of imperialism by their shameful silence.
Print and broadcast media outside the US play their role in contributing to a wave of disinformation, omissions and lies in the interests of US propaganda.
They may be divided over US presidents and their preference for Democrats or Republicans, but they are firmly united in the belief that that Washington (and Tel Aviv) is always in the right.
In the meantime, we see more and more wars caused by the US, whether directly or indirectly and regardless of who sits in the White House.
True, authentic journalism disappears under the waves of censorship. In the West, lies and fake news runs rampant, and the three-year Mueller hoax will be remembered in history as a prime example of how the elite can program the minds of tens of millions of citizens by simply repeating again and again a complete and utter falsehood without any supporting evidence.
Assange’s arrest and those of Meng Wanzhou, chief financial officer of Chinese technology company Huawei, and Marzieh Hashemi, anchorwoman for Iran’s English- language Press TV, leads us to pause for a moment to reflect on the changes taking place and on how the US empire is reacting aggressively to the ongoing transformation from a unipolar to a multipolar world.
The loss of prestige, respect, dignity, loyalty and honesty are all consequences that the US now faces, partly as a result of the excellent journalistic work of Wikileaks over the last 15 years.
Arresting a journalist, who is an Australian citizen, in an embassy, then extraditing him to a third country, to be tried in secret, without seeing the evidence (because classified top secret), where he is accused of espionage, is is a new low even for Washington, which should worry anyone who still cares about freedom of information.
The flaccid response of Assange’s journalistic colleagues can best be explained by the words of the late Udo Ulfkotte, a German journalist who revealed that he had published fake material fed to him by the CIA, claiming that this was common amongst mainstream journalists:
“Non-official cover occurs when a journalist is essentially working for the CIA, but it’s not in an official capacity. This allows you to create a partnership between your partner and your partner. The CIA will find young journalists and mentor them.
Suddenly doors will open up, rewards will be given, and you know it, you owe your entire career to them. That’s essentially how it works.
I was publishing articles under my own name written by agents of the CIA and other intelligence services, especially the German secret service. I was taught to lie, to betray and not to tell the truth to the public.”
“This perversion of principles * twisting information to fit a desired conclusion * became the modus vivendi of American politics and journalism.
And those of us who insisted on defending journalistic principles of skepticism and even-handedness were more shunned by our colleagues, to hostility that first emerged on the right and by neoconservatives but eventually sucked into the progressive world as well….
The demonization of Russian President Vladimir Putin and Russia is just the most dangerous feature of this propaganda process - and this is where the neocons and the liberal interventionists most significantly are together. The US media approach to Russia is now virtually 100 percent propaganda.”
Basically, Assange’s major fault lies in having revealed the true face of US imperialism through images, news, emails, cablograms and videos, an imperialism that has for decades brought wars, death and destruction around the world for its own political and economic gain, using illegitimate justifications that are backed up by self-proclaimed experts and amplified and repeated endlessly by the mainstream media.
The commission, backed by the New Zealand government’s Ministry of Justice, condemned shirt company Trade Me for printing shirts that say “It’s Okay To Be White.”
“Material of this nature is not likely to meet the high threshold set out in section 61 and section 131 of the Human Rights Act,” a Human Rights Commission spokesperson toldThe New Zealand Herald on Wednesday.
“However, this phrase is known to be associated with white supremacist groups around the world. Despite what the advertisements say, it seems likely that the stickers and t-shirts are intended to convey a message of intolerance, racism and division. There is no place for that in New Zealand.”
The seller, vjm_publishing, describes the shirts as a way to “counter-signal the Marxists and other anti-white bigots with these decals, featuring the most successful /pol/ meme of 2017!”
“An ‘It’s okay to be white’ T-shirt will let people know that you are not a racist who thinks that a child can be born into sin if others with the same skin colour have acted badly in the past.”
“Wear this shirt as a white person to troll your local Communists, or wear this shirt as a brown person to troll stuck-up middle-class urbanites. Either way it’s funny!”
How saying that it’s okay to be white is intolerant or divisive is unclear, but it’s certainly ironic given the constant barrage of anti-white and anti-Semitic tropes and rhetoric coming exclusively from the mainstream media.
Trade Me has since caved to the left and removed the listing despite the fact it didn’t violate company rules.
Liberal actor Stephen Fry tweeted, “Are you A.O.K.?” while making the OK hand sign and now is being smeared by the radical left for making a “white supremacist sign”. Paul Jospeh Watson gives his opinion on this latest overreaction coming out of the leftist “clown world”.
Despite the propaganda, could the Trump era be the least prejudiced in American history?
The left isn’t going to like this one. A recent study on racism in America has revealed some truths that directly contradict one of the progressives’ most beloved narratives.
The Democratic Party and its allies in the press have expended no small amount of effort over the past few decades to convince the American public that everyone who isn’t a rabid lefty is a hateful racist.
Of course, President Trump has become the left’s favorite target for race-baiting antics; many claim that the president’s rhetoric and policies have emboldened white supremacists and made America more racially bigoted.
But according to researchers at the University of Pennsylvania, that assertion is not quite accurate.
Racism Has Decreased Under Trump
Sociologists Daniel J. Hopkins and Samantha Washington conducted a study to analyze the impact of Trump’s election on prejudice against blacks and Hispanics.
They used a panel of 2,500 Americans whose views on race and other matters had been documented since 2008. According to the report, the researchers expected to see an increase in racial prejudice in the Trump era.
Yes, it might be difficult to believe that professors at a major university would immediately assume that the president singlehandedly made the country more racist, but it’s true.
And why did they make this assumption? Apparently, they formed their hypothesis based on the idea that people have deep-seated racism lying dormant within themselves, waiting to be awakened by a provocative event.
The theory was that Trump’s election somehow pushed the magic “I’m totally a racist” button that lurks in the hearts of men – probably white men, specifically – and instantly transformed them into a legion of slobbering white supremacists bent on the utter destruction of minorities.
But the findings were surprising, and likely a bit disappointing, to the researchers and the media establishment. Instead of an increase in racism, the study revealed a marked decrease.
Between 2012 and 2016, racist attitudes had decreased by a small degree, but after 2016, when Trump was elected, racism plummeted. The drop was equally present in Republican voters and Democrats.
It is apparent that the findings of the study put the researchers and the press in quite a quandary. How could they spin the results in a way that doesn’t damage the narrative?
Fortunately for them, being a progressive makes one highly proficient in the sport of mental gymnastics.
Instead of acknowledging that America is not as racist as Al Sharpton wants us to think, the researchers posit that perhaps Trump’s racism has been so abhorrent, it made racist Americans want to be less bigoted.
It is possible that “Trump’s rhetoric clarified anti-racist norms… given that the declines in prejudice appear concentrated in the period after Trump’s election, it seems quite plausible that it was not simply Trump’s rhetoric but also his accession to the presidency that pushed public opinion in the opposite direction,” the sociologists wrote.
If this doesn’t quite make sense to you, congratulations! You’re a normal person.
But some on the left had another idea. The Spectator suggested the reason racism declined was that it had risen to drastic heights when Obama was in office.
It argues that, “maybe social science has got it the wrong way round: it was the sight of a mixed race man in the White House who brought out in the inner racist in Americans who are inclined towards those feelings, while the reassuring sight of white man back in the Oval Office has calmed them down.”
An Alternative Theory
Perhaps it is possible that both theories are wrong, and a wee bit of common sense might be appropriate. The reality is that the president does not have the power to make the country more or less racist.
And yes, this also goes for Obama, who many conservatives blame for escalating racial tensions during his time in office. While neither president handles racial issues perfectly, American attitudes evolve on their own and are not subject to the whims of the person who happens to occupy the Oval Office.
This report showed that racial tensions were already decreasing under Obama, albeit at a slower pace.
Perhaps some whites reaffirmed their opposition to racism when Trump was elected and the media tried to convince America that he was the Führer, who was going to bring back slavery and put Hispanics in catapults to launch them back over the southern border.
But it does not seem likely that these individuals account for the majority of the decrease.
Maybe the truth is that America’s views on racial issues are continuing to evolve, and we are becoming gradually less racist every year, despite the far left’s attempts to foment division between whites and minorities through its favored propaganda outlets.
As long as Americans continue to aspire towards the values on which the nation was founded, the country will move farther away from its racist past.
Whose Work Was The Inspiration For The First [Supposedly] Nuke-Free Country? June 2 2019 | From: HelenCaldicott / GregHallett
New Zealand was the first country in the world to pass national nuclear-free legislation. Marilyn Waring reflects on how Dr. Helen Caldicott’s influence culminated in the passage of the cornerstone of New Zealand’s foreign policy.
If you were growing up in New Zealand and Australia post World War II, there’s a chance you knew about the United States using the Marshall Islands as a nuclear testing site from 1947 until 1962.
In an agreement signed with the United Nations, the U.S. government held the Marshall Islands as a “trust territory” and detonated nuclear devices in this pristine area of the Pacific Ocean - leading, in some instances, to huge levels of radiation fall-out, health effects, and the permanent displacement of many island people.
In all, the U.S. government conducted 105 underwater and atmospheric tests. You would have also known that the British conducted seven atmospheric tests between 1956 and 1963 on traditional Aboriginal land, in Maralinga, Australia.
It may be that you read Neville Shute’s 1957 novel On the Beach, in which people in Melbourne, Australia wait for deadly radiation to spread from a Northern Hemisphere nuclear war.
This book made a memorable impact on Helen when she read it as a teenager. When I was a teenager, some years later, I read Bertrand Russell’s 1959 classic, Common Sense and Nuclear Warfare.
Both Helen and I saw Peter Watkin’s The War Game, a BBC documentary drama about nuclear war and the consequences in an English city. In New Zealand the film was restricted for children unless accompanied by an adult, so I had to get my father to take me. The War Game won the Oscar for the best documentary in 1965.
France began its series of over 175 nuclear tests at Mururoa, in the South Pacific, in 1966. At least 140 of these tests were above ground.
In 1973, the New Zealand and Australian governments took France to the World Court for continued atmospheric testing, and forced the last tests underground. The testing finally came to an end in 1976.
In New Zealand the U.S. Navy made regular visits between 1976 and 1983 with nuclear-powered and, most likely, nuclear-armed, ships.
These visits produced spectacular protest fleets in the Auckland and Wellington harbours, when hundreds of New Zealanders - in yachts of all sizes, in motor boats and canoes, even on surf boards - surrounded the vessels and tried to bring them to a complete stop.
By 1978, a campaign began in New Zealand to declare borough and city council areas nuclear-free and, by the early 1980s, this symbolic movement had quickly gained momentum, covering more than two-thirds of the New Zealand population.
Helen Caldicott and I had not met up to this point, but these were shared parts of our history and consciousness when Helen visited New Zealand in 1983.
Helen Caldicott graduated with a medical degree from University of Adelaide Medical School in 1961. She moved to the United States, becoming an Instructor in paediatrics at Harvard Medical School and was on the staff of the Children’s Hospital Medical Centre in Boston, Massachusetts.
In the late 1970s, Helen became the President of Physicians for Social Responsibility. This group was founded when Helen was finishing medical school, quickly making its mark by documenting the presence of Strontium-90, a highly radioactive waste product of atmospheric nuclear testing, in children’s teeth.
The landmark finding eventually led to the Limited Nuclear Test Ban treaty, which ended atmospheric nuclear testing.
But it was the Three Mile Island accident that changed Helen’s life. An equipment failure resulted in a loss of cooling water to the core of a reactor at the Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station in Pennsylvania, causing a partial meltdown.
Operator failure meant that 700,000 gallons of radioactive cooling water ended up in the basement of the reactor building.
It was the most serious nuclear accident to that date in the U.S. Helen published Nuclear Madness the same year. In it she wrote:
“As a physician, I contend that nuclear technology threatens life on our planet with extinction. If present trends continue, the air we breathe, the food we eat, and the water we drink will soon be contaminated with enough radioactive pollutants to pose a potential health hazard far greater than any plague humanity has ever experienced.”
In 1980, Helen resigned from her paid work positions to work full time on the prevention of nuclear war.
In 1982, Canadian director Terre Nash filmed a lecture given by Helen Caldicott to a New York state student audience. Nash’s consequent National Film Board of Canada documentary If You Love this Planet was released during the term of U.S. President Ronald Reagan, at the height of Cold War nuclear tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union.
The U.S. Department of Justice moved quickly to designate the film “foreign propaganda,” bringing a great deal of attention to the film. It went on to win the 1982 Academy Award for Documentary Short Subject. That same year, Helen addressed about 750,000 people in Central Park, New York in the biggest anti-nuke rally in the United States to that date.
In 1983, I was serving as a member of the New Zealand parliament, having been elected eight years earlier at the age of 23.
Our parliament established a Disarmament and Arms Control Select Committee to conduct hearings on the possibility of making New Zealand a nuclear-free zone.
During this critically important time, Helen was invited to New Zealand on a lecture tour. The documentary If You Love This Planet was shown at her speaking engagements. I did not get to meet her, nor hear any of her lectures in person, as I was working in parliament every night. But I did follow the media coverage.
Helen told the magazine the Listener about having observed five-star generals in U.S. congressional and senate committees complaining that the Russian missiles were bigger than the American ones.
“The Russian missiles are very big (and) inaccurate and clumsy. America has very small, very accurate missiles, which are better at killing people and destroying targets,” she explained.
A frequent message in her talks to New Zealand audiences was the redundant overkill capacity of both superpowers. Caldicott noted to her audiences that “[T]he U.S. has 30,000 bombs and Russia 20,000.”
I had sat in a New Zealand parliamentary committee hearing some months earlier, when a government colleague, brandishing a centrefold of a Russian submarine, excitedly called for us to “Look at how big it is.”
I had thought that no one would believe me if I had repeated such an inane banality - when an adult male was more impressed by the size of the submarine than its capacity to destroy life on this planet.
Helen’s public addresses were grounded in the potential impact of nuclear weapons. “Imagine a 20-megaton bomb targeted on Auckland,” she told audiences in New Zealand.
“The explosion, five times the collective energy of all the bombs dropped in the Second World War, digs a hole three-quarters of a mile wide by 800 feet deep and turns people, buildings and dirt into radioactive dust.
Everyone up to six miles will be vaporised, and up to 20 miles they will be dead or lethally injured. People will be instantly blinded looking at the blast within 40 miles. Many will be asphyxiated in the fire storm.”
Helen did not hold back, explaining that nuclear war means “blindness, burning, starvation, disease, lacerations, haemorrhaging, millions of corpses and an epidemic of disease.” Helen’s dramatic and blunt style reduced many in her audiences to tears.
She always ended her talks with a call to action - especially to parents - as she strongly believes that nuclear disarmament is “the ultimate medical and parenting issue of our time.”
To those who would claim New Zealand was not a target she had a short reply:
“Trident submarines in ports are targeted. They are a first strike target. It is much easier to destroy subs when they are in dock than it is when they are submerged in the ocean.”
In 2015, I asked Helen how she managed to deliver such bad news and yet keep her audiences with her. “Being a doctor helps because you have to learn to negotiate with a patient and with language they can understand,” she explained.
“You have to convert the medical diagnosis and treatment to lay language. I also have to keep them awake sometimes by letting them laugh because it relieves their tension and because the stuff I say is pretty awful.” Helen told me that she practices “global preventative medicine.”
Helen’s tour through New Zealand in 1983 had a huge, and lasting, impact. At one stop, Helen addressed over 2,000 people at a public event in Auckland. The librarian with whom I corresponded looking for old newspaper reports of Helen’s visit, wrote to me:
“Her chillingly detailed description of the effects of a nuclear device detonated over the hall in which we were sitting remains rooted in my psyche to this day! …
The other message I most recall is the dichotomy she evoked between the destructive drive of ‘old men’ rulers, the instigators of war, versus the procreative energy of mothers most impelled to oppose them - which, however reductive, retains the compelling logic of a truism!”
Helen’s approach was transformative in New Zealand. Helen’s speaking events packed auditoriums, and overflows of audiences had to be accommodated using loud speaker systems.
People responded strongly to this woman, whose life work involved caring for children, speaking about medical effects of fallout, and speaking without the use of the clichéd military and defence ideological rhetoric that treated people as if they were simpletons who couldn’t understand.
Her speeches inspired people to act. After Helen spoke, the volume of mail delivered to my parliamentary office increased - particularly from women.
On May 24, 1983, 20,000 women wearing white flowers and armbands and holding banners with peace signs marched quietly up a main street in Auckland to hold a huge rally and call for New Zealand to be nuke-free. It was one of the largest women’s demonstrations in New Zealand’s history.
In her book, Peace, Power and Politics – How New Zealand Became Nuclear Free, Maire Leadbetter writes:
“I am one of many activists who think of Helen Caldicott’s visit as the point when the peace movement began to grow exponentially… Helen had a magical ability to motivate previously passive citizens to become activists.”
Shortly after Helen’s visit to New Zealand, in 1984, I advised that I intended to vote for the opposition-sponsored nuclear-free New Zealand legislation. This prompted conservative Prime Minister Rob Muldoon to call a snap election. Muldoon told media that my “feminist anti-nuclear stance” threatened his ability to govern.
The new Labour Government of 1984 passed the New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament and Arms Control Act in 1987, the world’s first national nuclear-free legislation. Dr. Helen Caldicott’s influence had culminated in the passage of the cornerstone of New Zealand’s foreign policy.
New Zealand's Nuclear History?
Unfortunately, technically speaking, New Zealand is NOT nuclear free. We have food-irradiating facilities (sounds super healthy) and according to researcher Greg Hallett - a whole lot more in our past...
According to Hallett, "The Wairakei Geothermal Power Station was not for the production of power, but was built by the British Atomic Energy Commission to produce heavy water for the manufacture of nuclear weapons."
“The Wairakei Geothermal Power Station was a front for heavy water production to be used for nuclear power and the production of deuterium and tritium for hydrogen bombs. These were a thousand times more powerful than the first atom bomb and were first tested in at least three different locations."
...
“During the nuclear scare, Kiwis were buying houses in Taupo to be away from a nuclear blast, which they thought would be aimed at Auckland and Wellington.
The funny thing was, Taupo was the only nuclear target the Russians had in New Zealand. At least one nuclear weapon was aimed squarely at the Wairakei Geothermal ‘heavy water’ power station which produced much of the heavy water for the Western world.”
...
“But more importantly, New Zealand took over the production of nuclear detonators from Norway in 1961. Norway was producing detonators for nuclear bombs during and after World War Two and they paid quite a heavy price in casualties. After World War Two the Norwegians said, ‘A plague on both of your houses. Take this shit away’, and they stopped production."
“The Americans didn’t want the job as they’d be under attack, so New Zealand held its hand up highest and produced nuclear detonators in secret.
That’s Walter Nash’s duplicitous Labour government for you [1957–60]. He was charged with sedition while fronting as ‘a man of peace’ and producing nuclear detonators. No doubt he on-sold any secrets gained to the Russians. But this also has a more recent history to it.”
...
“If you went up the hill towards Eastbourne then took the alternative route through the gorse-covered hills to Wainuiomata at the back of Gracefield, there was a sign saying ‘Nuclear Research Facility’. This is where the firing devices for the nuclear blast at Mururoa were made.
New Zealand supplied the nuclear detonation gear to the French via the British. Yes, it was New Zealand that provided the detonation gear for the atmospheric nuclear tests at Mururoa Atoll from July 1966, and for the underground tests from 1975. "
...
“There was a big stink in the armed forces about the anti-nuclear protests because they violated secret military pacts that went back years. Labour wanted the military to act against the pacts and that’s why the military decided to take part in the killing of Prime Minister Norman Kirk."
...
“In 1981, the known gay and child sex abuser Colin Moyle was re-elected to Labour and became the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries from 1984–90. He assisted the Russians in placing submarine locator beacons for Russian nuclear-powered submarines for a nuclear strike against America."
...
“Helen Clark’s anti-nuclear policy only applied to ‘American ships’. Russian nuclear-armed vessels were never questioned. Such duplicity is consistent with those converted to an agenda-driven ideology from a foreign country for non-national purposes, in exchange for hiding their sexuality. This results in treasonous activities tantamount to war – and that’s what we got so very close to – nuclear war from NZ.”
...
"New Zealand is the only ‘Nuclear-Free State’ that fails to put to print it’s history of manufacturing nuclear material. As well as ‘heavy water’, New Zealand also manufactured detonators for nuclear bombs and Prime Minister Muldoon was set on testing a nuclear power station in at least three different locations."
Social Engineering - The War On The Higher Mind Of Humans: Here’s Why You Should Consider Converting Your Music To A=432 Hz June 1 2019 | From: CollectiveEvolution “If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration.” - Nikola Tesla
“What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter.” – Albert Einstein
Related: The A=432 Hz Frequency: DNA Tuning And The Bastardisation Of Music Tesla said it. Einstein agreed. Science proved it. It is a known fact that everything—including our own bodies—is made up of energy vibrating at different frequencies. That being said, it seems logical to wonder, can sound frequencies affect us?
It would appear that this is the case. Frequencies affect frequencies, much like mixing ingredients with other ingredients affects the overall flavour of a meal. The way frequencies affect the physical world has been demonstrated through various experiments, such as the science of Cymatics and water memory.
Cymatics illustrate that when sound frequencies move through a particular medium such as water, air, or sand, they directly alter the vibration of matter. Below are pictures demonstrating how particles adjust to different frequencies. (Click here to watch a video demonstrating the patterns of sound frequencies)
We all hold a certain vibrational frequency, and our bodies are estimated to be about 70% water. Given the above experiments, it stands to reason that musical frequencies could also alter our own vibrational state.
Every expression through sound, emotion, or thought holds a specific frequency which influences everything around it - much like a single drop of water can create a larger ripple effect in a large body of water.
Music Frequency
With this concept in mind, let us bring our attention to the frequency of the music we listen to. Most music worldwide has been tuned to A=440 Hz since the International Standards Organization (ISO) promoted it in 1953.
However, when looking at the vibratory nature of the universe, it’s possible that this pitch is disharmonious with the natural resonance of nature and may generate negative effects on human behaviour and consciousness.
Some theories (although unproven) even suggest that the Nazi regime had been in favor of adopting this pitch as standard after conducting scientific research to determine which range of frequencies best induce fear and aggression.
Whether or not the conspiracy is factual, interesting studies have pointed towards the benefits of tuning music to A=432 Hz instead.
When our atoms and DNA start to resonate in harmony with the spiralling pattern of nature, our sense of connection to nature is said to be magnified. The number 432 is also reflected in ratios of the sun, Earth, and moon, as well as the precession of the equinoxes, the Great Pyramid of Egypt, Stonehenge, and the Sri Yantra, among many other sacred sites.
“From my own observations, some of the harmonic overtone partials of A=432hz 12T5 appear to line up to natural patterns and also the resonance of solitons. Solitons need a specific range to form into the realm of density and span from the micro to the macro cosmos. Solitons are not only found in water mechanics, but also in the ion-acoustic breath between electrons and protons.”
– Brian T. Collins
Color Spectrum Resonance
Another interesting factor to consider is that the A=432 Hz tuning correlates with the color spectrum and chakra system, while the A=440 Hz does not.
“The Solar Spectrum & The Cosmic Keyboard
All of the frequencies in the spectrum are related in octaves, from gamma rays to subharmonics. These colors and notes are also related to our Chakras and other important energy centers. I
f we are to understand that… Chakras are connected to the Seven Rays of the Solar Spectrum, then the notes and frequencies we use for the same should be the same.
A432 Hz is the tuning of the Cosmic Keyboard or Cosmic Pitchfork, as opposed to the A440 Hz modern ‘standard.’ It places C# at 136.10 Hz ‘Om,’ which is the main note of the Sitar in classical Indian music and the pitch of the chants of the Tibetan monks, who tell us, ‘It comes from nature.'”
Let’s explore the experiential difference between A=440 Hz and A=432 Hz. Music lovers and musicians have noticed that music tuned in A=432 Hz is not only more beautiful and harmonious to the ears, but it also induces a more inward experience that is felt inside the body at the spine and heart.
Music tuned in A=440 Hz was felt as a more outward and mental experience, and was felt at the side of the head which projected outwards.
Audiophiles have also stated that A=432hz music seems to be non-local and can fill an entire room, whereas A=440hz can be perceived as directional or linear in sound propagation.
“The ancients tuned their instruments at an A of 432 Hz instead of 440 Hz – and for a good reason. There are plenty of music examples on the internet that you can listen to, in order to establish the difference for yourself. Attuning the instrument to 432 Hz results in a more relaxing sound, while 440 Hz slightly tenses up to body.
This is because 440 Hz is out of tune with both macrocosmos and microcosmos. 432 Hz on the contrary is in tune. To give an example of how this is manifested microcosmically: our breath (0,3 Hz) and our pulse (1,2 Hz) relate to the frequency of the lower octave of an A of 432 Hz (108 Hz) as 1:360 and 1:90.”
“The overall sound difference was noticeable, the 432 version sounding warmer, clearer and instantly sounded more listenable but the 440 version felt tighter, with more aggressive energy.”
– Anonymous guitarist
The video below was created by someone with no opinion on whether A=432 Hz or A=440 Hz is better. Therefore, the way both versions of the melody is played is unbiased. It is up to us to tune in and feel which one feels more harmonious to us!
I personally have enjoyed many bands, artists, and styles of music even though they were tuning in A=440 hz, however, after comparing a few songs in both A=432 hz and A=440 hz I can say I definitely feel and hear the difference.
I wouldn’t say that my experience of 440hz music has turned me into an aggressive person, but I can understand how an entire population being exposed to music that is more mind directed as opposed to heart directed - not to mention all of the materialistic and ego-driven lyrics in most popular music - is a perfect combination to maintain a more discordant frequency and state of consciousness within humanity.
This is, of course, simply my own opinion.
“Music based on C=128hz (C note in concert A=432hz) will support humanity on its way towards spiritual freedom. The inner ear of the human being is built on C=128 hz.” – Rudolph Steiner
I cannot state with complete certainty that every idea suggested in this article is 100% accurate, nor am I an expert on the subject. I simply gathered interesting information from others who researched this issue more deeply.
For this reason, if we are looking for scientific validation for these claims, I suggest that we each do our own research on the matter with an open yet discerning mind. Perhaps more research on this topic will be done in the near future to help explain the phenomenon.
I believe we all possess intuition and the ability to observe without judgment, which can be more useful than resorting to ridicule when exposed to information that has not yet been accepted by the scientific community.
It is therefore up to us to tone down the urge to jump to conclusions and instead EXPERIENCE the difference between A=440 Hz and A=432 Hz. To do so, we need to listen with our entire body and a neutral awareness as opposed to with our mental ideas, judgments, and preconceptions.
If you are interested in changing your music’s pitch to A=432 hz, click here to learn how to do it.
Mueller Just Proved His Entire Operation Was A Political Hit Job That Trampled The Rule Of Law May 31 2019 | From: TheFederalist / Various
At a hastily arranged Wednesday press conference, Special Counsel Robert Mueller proved that he was never interested in justice or the rule of law.
If there were any doubts about Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s political intentions, his unprecedented press conference on Wednesday should put them all to rest.
As he made abundantly clear during his doddering reading of a prepared statement that repeatedly contradicted itself, Mueller had no interest in the equal application of the rule of law.
He gave the game, and his nakedly political intentions, away repeatedly throughout his statement.
“It is important that the office’s written work speak for itself,” Mueller said, referring to his office’s 448-page report. Mueller’s report was released to the public by Attorney General William Barr nearly six weeks ago. The entire report, minus limited redactions required by law, has been publicly available, pored through, and dissected.
Its contents have been discussed ad nauseum in print and on television. The report has been speaking for itself since April 18, when it was released.
If it’s important for the work to speak for itself, then why did Mueller schedule a press conference in which he would speak for it weeks after it was released? The statement, given the venue in which it was provided, is self-refuting.
Let’s start with the Mueller team’s unique take on the nature of a prosecutor’s job. The standard American view of justice, affirmed and enforced by the U.S. Constitution, is that all are presumed innocent absent conviction by a jury of a specific charge of criminal wrongdoing.
That is, the natural legal state of an individual in this country is innocence. It is not a state or a nature bestowed by cops or attorneys. Innocence is not granted by unelected bureaucrats or federal prosecutors.
At one point in his remarks, Mueller seemed to agree. Referring to indictments against various Russian individuals and institutions for allegedly hacking American servers during the 2016 election, Mueller said that the indictments “contain allegations and we are not commenting on the guilt or innocence of any specific defendant.”
“Every defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.”
Had he stopped there, he would have been correct. But then he crafted a brand new standard.
"The order appointing the special counsel authorized us to investigate actions that could obstruct the investigation. We conducted that investigation and kept the office of the acting attorney general apprised of our work,” Mueller said.
“After that investigation, if we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.”
According to Mueller and his team, charged Russians are presumed innocent. An American president, however, is presumed guilty unless and until Mueller’s team determines he is innocent.
Such a standard is an obscene abomination against the rule of law, one that would never be committed by independent attorneys who place a fidelity to their oaths and impartial enforcement of the law ahead of their political motivations.
The contradictions and double standards didn’t stop there, though.
"It would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of the actual charge,” Mueller said, after all but stating that Trump committed a crime for which Mueller never charged him.
Just as Mueller’s own words and actions at the Wednesday press conference prove that he didn’t want his team’s report to speak for itself, the report itself proves that Mueller and his team don’t believe it’s unfair to accuse somebody of something a court cannot resolve.
If they actually believed that, then the 240-page volume II of their report on their obstruction investigation of the president would never have been authored.
After all, according to Mueller’s own statement, such an operation would be patently unfair. And if it’s unfair to air dirty laundry against a target who was never charged, surely it’s doubly unfair to do so in writing and on camera during a press conference whose mere existence refutes the very claims of its host.
Mueller revealed himself as little more than a clone of James Comey - the smarmy, scheming politician who replaced Mueller as the head of the FBI.
Recall that it was Comey who assumed for himself powers that did not belong to him by law when he declared at a 2016 press conference no “reasonable prosecutor” would charge Hillary Clinton with criminal wrongdoing in her mishandling of classified information and unsanctioned use of a secret, private email server to evade public records laws.
Just as Mueller did in his report and Wednesday press conference, Comey followed up his declaration that Hillary would not be charged with statement after statement after statement of all the awful things Hillary Clinton did.
"There is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information,” Comey said of Clinton.
He excoriated her for repeatedly sending and receiving top secret information on her unsecured server which had never been authorized to process classified information.
He even said it was possible, due to her “extreme” carelessness, that hostile foreign actors had penetrated her system and obtained highly classified information about U.S. national security programs.
Regardless of how you feel about Clinton, Comey’s display at that press conference was an embarrassment.
He did an extreme disservice to the nation and the rule of law by unilaterally declaring himself the primary arbiter of prosecutorial decisions in the federal government when that authority belongs solely to the Department of Justice.
And he did an extreme disservice to Clinton herself by dragging her through the mud in such a manner that clearing her name would be impossible.
In fact, DOJ guidelines expressly prohibit the actions of both Comey and Mueller in naming and shaming individuals who were never formally charged with any wrongdoing.
"As a series of cases makes clear, there is ordinarily ‘no legitimate governmental interest served’ by the government’s public allegation of wrongdoing by an uncharged party, and this is true ‘regardless of what criminal charges may . . . b[e] contemplated by the Assistant United States Attorney against the [third-party] for the future,'” states DOJ’s formal policy manual on the duties of federal prosecutors and principles of federal prosecutions..
Nationwide bar rules governing all practicing attorneys in the United States also explicitly prohibit Mueller’s display during Wednesday’s press conference.
"The prosecutor in a criminal case shall … refrain from making extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused,” states Rule 3.8(f) of the American Bar Association’s rules of professional conduct.
But it’s no theory, nor has it been debunked. The Uranium One deal was complicated and had many moving parts, which also explains why misinformation about it has spread widely.
Claims such as “the Russians gave Clinton $145 million” and “Clinton sold American uranium to the Russians” are great soundbites, but are factually inaccurate.
It’s true that the Clinton Foundation received undisclosed millions from Uranium One stakeholders - such as the $2.35 million from board Chairman Ian Telfer.
The Obama administration did allow the Russians to acquire domestic nuclear assets critical to U.S. national security.
But minor inaccuracies in the soundbites have allowed self-appointed fact-checkers such as PolitiFact and Snopes to selectively “debunk” the larger story without critically examining the full set of facts.
In the coming months, readers may find the Uranium One scandal coming back into focus. For that purpose, it’s time to set the record straight.
Multiple federal agents and prosecutors reached out to The Federalist after Mueller’s press conference to express dismay at the former FBI director’s behavior.
"I’d have been crucified under this rule for a ‘not innocent’ comment about an uncharged party,” a former federal prosecutor told The Federalist.
“I literally cannot fathom holding a press conference to say that an uncharged person was not innocent.”
“I wish these former FBI directors would learn their lessons: keep your mouths shut unless you’re referring a case for prosecution,” Jeff Danik, a retired FBI supervisor, said during a phone interview with The Federalist on Wednesday.
Mueller’s performance made it clear for all to see that what he ran for the last two years wasn’t an independent investigation pursuant to the rule of law so much as an inquisition motivated by political animus.
Mueller and his team refused to charge prominent Democrats for crimes he charged against Republicans.
Paul Manafort was charged with unregistered lobbying for foreign governments, while Mueller left alone long-time Democrat donor Tony Podesta and former Obama White House Counsel Greg Craig.
George Papadopoulos and Michael Flynn were charged with making false statements to federal investigators, while Clinton campaign cronies Glenn Simpson and Christopher Steele’s false statements to Congress and the FBI were ignored.
Trump’s nonexistent Russian connections were plumbed while a dubious Clinton campaign-funded dossier sourced directly to Russian officials was used as a prosecutorial roadmap rather than rock-solid evidence of actual campaign collusion with the Kremlin.
Mueller claimed his report spoke for itself, then put together a completely unnecessary press conference more than a month after his report’s public release, in which he not just spoke for the report, but expounded on the new legal standards he created to govern its conclusions.
These are the actions not of an impartial and independent investigator, but of a scheming political operative.
None of this is any surprise to anyone who has followed Mueller’s tenure in government. As FBI director, Mueller repeatedly misused and abused the authority granted to him by Congress.
Mueller and Comey utterly bungled the federal investigation into the 2001 Anthrax attacks, resulting in a $5.8 million judgment against the government after the two men falsely accused an innocent man of being behind the attacks.
Even after the court judgment against him, Mueller was defiant.
“I do not apologize for any aspect of the investigation,” Mueller said afterward. He then doubled down and said it would be wrong to say there were any mistakes in how he handled the investigation.
Then there was Mueller’s handling as FBI director of a case in which FBI agents framed innocent men of murders the FBI knew had been committed by their own informants. One of the innocent men died in prison awaiting justice for a crime he never committed.
Then, as special counsel to investigate Russian collusion during the 2016 campaign, Mueller promptly hired partisan Democrats to run his investigation.
He tapped as investigators FBI personnel who openly discussed their hatred of Trump and his voters, as well as their plans to keep him out of office.
There’s no longer any doubt about who Robert Mueller is or why he conducted himself the way he did.
As abominable as his press conference was, we should in many ways be thankful that Mueller so willingly displayed for all to see his disdain for basic rules of prosecutorial conduct, his total lack of self-awareness, and his naked desire to stick it to Trump.
Elite Contempt Is The Common Denominator In Populist Victories May 30 2019 | From: Breitbart / Various
The triumph of Nigel Farage and his Brexit party in Britain’s European parliamentary elections tells us two stories at the same time.
The first story is a local British story. The Brexit Party’s victory effectively ends the Conservative party’s monopoly on Britain’s political right for the first time in two hundred years.
The Conservatives will respond to the trouncing in one of two ways. They can disintegrate completely by doubling down on outgoing Prime Minister Theresa May’s soft Brexit - with or without a second referendum - or they can start listening to their voters.
The second story encapsulated in Brexit’s victory - and that of Marine Le Pen’s triumph in France and Matteo Salvini’s in Italy - is the now familiar tale of the rise of the populist / nationalist / ideological right throughout the Western world against the conventional wisdom of the traditional progressive and center-right elitist establishment, and more often than not, in defiance of the polls.
In Britain itself, the rise of Brexit is a fitting bookend to Prime Minister Theresa May’s stunning betrayal of her voters. May came to power after her predecessor David Cameron resigned office in response to the Brexit vote.
Far Left Targets Nationalists After Populist Victories
BREXIT party success foreshadows future of politics.
Amid another wave of nationalist populist victories, the far left has manipulated a scandal to take down a conservative not even involved.
As she entered office, May pledged to embrace the will of the voters and shepherd Britain out of the European Union.
Instead of doing so, May managed to negotiate a Brexit deal with the European Union that left Britain with the costs of EU membership but without its benefits.
Despite the fact that her deal was repeatedly voted down in Parliament, she refused to resign. And now, her premiership that began because of Brexit is ending because she betrayed Brexit.
As for the wider West, to be sure, the proximate issues pushing voters in separate countries to cast their ballots for anti-elitist parties in favor of populist, nationalist leaders with strong visions of national restoration and pride are local.
Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s victory earlier this month over his challenger, Labor Party leader Bill Shorten, has largely been attributed to Shorten’s radical economic agenda.
Shorten’s proposed tax hikes would have harmed young families and retirees. His carbon emissions legislation would have crippled Australia’s mining industry.
Farage’s rise owes to May’s bad faith with her own voters regarding her commitment to honoring their vote to withdraw Britain from the European Union.
In Israel, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu won a fifth term in office last month by running on a record of diplomatic and economic success that the leftist parties were unable to discredit.
Trump’s victory is widely attributed to Hillary Clinton’s failure to rally the Democratic base in the Rust Belt and to counter Trump’s message of industrial renewal.
But one underlying issue is common in all of the elections. And until the progressive left and the establishment center right reconcile themselves to it, and find a respectful means to contend with it, they will continue to see populist forces grow stronger and win elections.
That issue is contempt. Throughout the Western world, beyond the economic issues and even beyond specific social issues like gay marriage or abortion rights, voters are motivated to vote for the populist, nationalist right in part due to their anger at the left and center-right’s undisguised contempt for them.
In the United States, the left’s snobbery reached its height with Hillary Clinton’s castigation of Trump’s supporters as “deplorables.” But her assertion wasn’t made in isolation.
It was made in the midst of a general atmosphere in which Democratic politicians from Barack Obama to Nancy Pelosi and establishment Republicans felt comfortable putting down Americans who aren’t part of their club.
Obama infamously referred to Clinton’s “deplorables” as “bitter” people in small towns who “cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”
The media, which serves as an extension of the Democratic Party and embraces NeverTrump Republicans as a means to attack Trump and his voters, continuously broadcasts contempt for both.
Likewise, according to Australian professor and media analyst Stan Grant, one of the decisive factors in Australia’s election was religion. A large swathe of the public developed a sense that Labor leader Shorten held them and their religious convictions in contempt.
Grant recalls that in the weeks before the election, a national rugby star - who, like Morrison, is an evangelical Christian - wrote a disparaging post about homosexuals on his Facebook page. Whereas Morrison responded by drawing a line between his political actions and his religious beliefs to neutralize the issue, Shorten’s response was to castigate Morrison.
According to Grant, “Shorten’s move raised red flags in the minds of many voters. Just what did he stand for? Did he value the rights of the LGBTQ community not to be offended over the rights of someone to publicly profess their religious beliefs?
Grant added that Shorten’s response came the same week he “had given a rousing speech pledging to ‘change the nation forever.’”
Yanis Varoufakis Blows the Lid on Europe's Hidden Agenda
What happened in Greece during the crisis? And what happens when you take on the establishment?
In this extensive interview, former finance minister of Greece Yanis Varoufakis, talks about his new book Adults In The Room – My battle with Europe's deep establishment.
It works out that while Australians do not oppose gay marriage, they don’t want their country to be fundamentally transformed. However they come down on social issues, they want Australia to stay Australia.
By adopting an attitude of contempt for them, Shorten, like Clinton and Obama and May and French President Emmanuel Macron insulted the voters.
Since the 1990s, we have been told that globalization is a progressive, post-nationalist movement. And it is true that many of the radical agendas the left has adopted in the past twenty years have been initiated in one country and spread worldwide through various connectors, most notably, social media.
On the left, the international academic community and the transnational business elite have embraced similar values and agendas.
These values and agendas have become the calling cards of members of the international ruling elite. And these values and agendas have drifted farther and farther away from those of the denizens of the elitists’ home countries and societies.
The rise of the populist/nationalist / ideological right throughout the West demonstrates that globalization cuts both ways.
Members of the global progressive and center-right elite embrace the same post-nationalist, post-industrial, and post-Christian values and agendas at elite conferences in Brussels and New York, at the United Nations, on network news and online.
But back in their home countries, those they disregard are also online and also talking. The disregarded majorities are also listening to one another.
The most potent message that crosses the world each day and empowers populists and nationalist conservatives is one of exasperation and anger at the transnational elites’ solidarity in their contempt for their people.
From Jerusalem to Budapest to Birmingham to Cincinnati, the spurned citizens have understood that the only way to force their contemptuous elites to heel is to vote them out of power.
For European Unionists and British Remainers, for the Israeli elite and the American establishment, the globalization of their values and agendas has brought them to believe that democracy means fixing the rules of the game.
Through judicial activism and bureaucratic regulations, through intellectual terror and public shaming, these elites seek to render election results inconsequential.
Ballot boxes, in their view, are no match for the combined forces of the elite media and academia and the bureaucracy. They determine norms. They determine policies – in the name of Democracy.
But throughout the West, the “deplorables” are listening to one another and rediscovering their power and voices at the ballot boxes.
They realize that democracy is a means for the people to determine their course in the world. The elite may control the discourse, but the people decide who will run their countries.
True, specific voting issues vary from country to country. But the voters’ refusal to accept the contempt with which their elites’ treat them unifies voters throughout the Western world.
And so long as the elites refuse to accept that the traditional values and agendas of their societies are not fascist and racist, but conventional and even commendable, they will continue to misread polling data.
They will continue to ignore voters. And they will continue to be blindsided by electoral defeats that they never expected.
The Ongoing Destruction Of The Minds Of Children & The Mass Dumbing Down Of Humanity Is Now Confirmed By Scientists May 29 2019 | From: Zerohedge / NaturalNews "There can be no greater stretch of arbitrary power than to seize children from their parents, teach them whatever the authorities decree they shall be taught, and expropriate from the parents the funds to pay for the procedure." - Isabel Paterson
Compulsory schooling is a travesty. To call it education is absurd.
Real education is lifelong learning as an individual, while compulsory public schooling is the indoctrination of children as a collective exercise to bring all down to the lowest level.
Prisons called schools are simply the forced means to stifle individual brilliance while promoting sameness and monotony. The result of this brainwashing is meant to teach children to obey orders, and to be satisfied spending their lives in a virtual cage of ignorance, to never become entrepreneurs and dissenters.
With the recent death of the great John Taylor Gatto, the loss of a giant is evident. He was not only a pioneer in real education, but he discovered the true nature and genius that exists in so many children.
The controllers who use the government school system as a way to dumb down the masses fully understand this potential genius.
They are very fearful of it. So fearful in fact, that more than 100 years ago, they designed a mandatory school system as a way to control the common people.
By training them to be good citizens and members of a collective society instead of individuals, the few could continue to control the many.
The experiment called compulsory schooling, now referred to as “public education,” began in Massachusetts in 1852, and became widespread just after the turn of the twentieth century.
By 1910 the majority of children were in public schools.
Since that time “education” as administered by the state has been a horrible failure, if learning was the desired end. But learning and knowledge were never the goals of forced schooling; training the young to honor authority, discipline, and nationalism were the true goals sought.
In that regard, public schooling has been completely successful. These institutions became the vehicle used to teach children to be managed instead of managing themselves. They have produced a soft society consumed by doubt and incompetence, and one that can function only as a mass.
In order to change this dynamic, a real education is necessary, but so long as parents continue to shirk their responsibility by allowing unknown state employees to raise and train their children, things can only get worse.
John Gatto knew that teaching reading, writing, and arithmetic could be accomplished in as few as 100 hours.
The improvement of those skills would be self-taught at the appropriate time and place, as self-taught persons are far more advanced than those subject to and dependent on mass schooling. Any real study of most kids educated at home will expose this truth. As I see it, it is up to parents to save their own children. That will not be an easy task, as most parents are products of the same state-schooling system that exists today, and were taught long ago not to rock the boat or question authority.
Everything should be questioned, and everything should be scrutinized. Questioning authority is the bane of the state apparatus, which is the reason compulsory schooling was implemented in the first place. It continues unabated as the dominant training discipline of this country’s young.
Take a look around and you may be shocked.
How many have lost their imagination? How many seek counseling? How many feel inadequate and consider suicide? How many do you know who manage their lives by taking prescription drugs? How many are bored, emotionally wrecked, and afraid?
Most of those people, a very large portion of the population, can no longer function as individuals. Such behavior should be expected, as the product turned out by the mandatory government school system has little ability to think and act without guidance.
That is a direct result of being a prisoner of state-sponsored indoctrination centers from infancy to adulthood. That is why public schooling is anathema to free-thinking, self-reliant, and responsible individuals.
Mass schooling guarantees a weak and compliant population, one that has lost the ability to think critically. It is an all-consuming addiction to mediocrity, and an escape from excellence.
No society can continue to be free and prosper under such conditions. Why, as John Gatto asked, are we turning our kids over to total strangers who can mold their minds with state propaganda for twelve years?
It is time for parents to take back their children, and rescue them from a life of dependency.
The Mass Dumbing Down Of Humanity Is Now Confirmed By Scientists
Some mainstream media pundits are finally beginning to notice a disturbing trend that we’ve been warning about here at Natural News for quite some time now: the trend towards dumbness and idiocracy throughout the West.
In one recent op-ed published by NBC News, author Evan Horowitz pegs this trend as a widespread IQ decline, indicating that intelligence levels are now trending downwards after many decades of moving upwards.
He surmises that the reasons for this decline remain largely unknown, even though there are actually many elephants in the room that remain untouchable within the context of political correctness.
Take artificial water fluoridation, for instance. As we reported, scientific research out of Harvard University found that fluoride chemicals in drinking water lower IQ levels in children.
But did Horowitz mention fluoride as even just a possible factor in the IQ slide? Nope. He similarly avoided talking about crop chemicals that persist on food, which are also associated with decreasing IQ levels among school children.
There’s also the great untouchable: vaccination. No fake news writer or correspondent has thus far indicated a willingness to even suggest that vaccines and the chemicals they contain might be harming children’s brains – but the truth is that they are.
Back in 2015, Natural News released an extensive compilation of scientific studies and data showing that vaccine chemicals like aluminum, mercury (Thimerosal), and other chemical adjuvants are basically destroying children’s brains. But does Horowitz care? Apparently not.
And let’s not forget about the growing litany of pharmaceutical drugs that’s constantly hitting the market, as many of these chemical concoctions contain substances that are known to impair childhood development.
For related news, be sure to check out Stupid.news.
“Diversity” and Multiculturalism Linked to Falling IQs Throughout the West
There’s yet another elephant in the room that Horowitz actually does mention, but subsequently denies as being a legitimate factor in plunging IQ rates, and that’s third-world immigration.
Though it’s extremely politically incorrect to suggest such, the continued onslaught of “migrants,” “refugees,” and “undocumented” peoples into Western countries is, in fact, having a detrimental effect on the collective state of intelligence in such nations.
Since, as President Trump revealed while still on the campaign trail, countries south of the U.S. border aren’t “sending their best,” the general level of societal intelligence is on a perpetual slide downwards – with no end in sight.
As explained by Anatoly Karlin, writing for The Unz Review, the “low base” of poorly-educated immigrants that’s flooding the U.S. and much of Western Europe is having a net-negative effect on IQ averages, as indicated by quantitative data collected from PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) tests.
Though such data are sure to be dubbed by the Left as “racist,” it speaks for itself: Wherever third-world immigrants are flooding first-world countries, intelligence levels on the whole are noticeably decreasing.
"Given the strong dependence between national IQ and economic prosperity, the globalist open borders project presents a serious challenge to the long-term viability of the First World cognitive engines that drive the vast bulk of technological progress – progress that is already threatened by the dysgenic trends embedded in post-Malthusian society and the banal fact that problems tend to get harder, not easier, as you ascend the technological ladder,” Karlin writes.
“This is not to even mention the risk of ‘institutional contagion’ from newcomers who are culturally and perhaps biologically incompatible with that unique blend of individualism and commitment to the commonwealth that facilitated the rise of European civilization.”
Karlin’s full article is available for your educational enrichment at The Unz Report.
To learn more about how the vaccination scam is damaging children and also contributing to the decline of intelligence, be sure visit VaccineHolocaust.org.
Honouring The Trailblazers MAy 28 2019 | From: WakeUpWorld
We are in the midst of a massive shift in consciousness that is sweeping our sweet little planet. So why not take a moment and honour all of the brave souls, the “unsung heroes” who came here before us to assist with this shift and make it happen?
The empaths, the sensitives, lightworkers, wayshowers, and all those who were holding light and transmuting the dense energies long before the rest of us, so that others may awaken as well. They were the ones who were “awake” before the word “awake” ever had a deeper, more profound meaning. For many years, they have been the souls on the “front lines” of this awakening.
Some trailblazers were very aware of their role and courageously used their voice and called “bullshit” on the injustices and dishonesty of others, as they were able to see through it all with crystal clear vision.
They were often the activists and the leaders of social movements. They were those ahead of their time, who established newsletters and platforms such as this one, intended to help awaken the masses.
For many, they remained out of the spotlight and the world stage, choosing to personally guide those closest to them. And others, either aware of it or not, they went about their trailblazing in a more subtle fashion, choosing to show the way for others by simply living their lives as the example.
You know, the ones who were eating organic before eating organic became a trend, before it was even called “organic”, and before there were countless studies to prove that organic eating is indeed healthier for us.
They were the ones who took risks and followed their intuition. They were the ones who, in spite of all logical reasoning, sold everything they had and moved across the globe simply because their soul was calling them there, only to discover the many synchronicities, growth opportunities and reasons for this choice.
They were the people who were not satisfied with conformity and the status quo of getting a job that didn’t fulfill them just to pay the bills and buy things they don’t need, and then hope to one day retire and enjoy life, if there’s anything left of it.
They snuck puppies into care homes just to see the faces of the residents light up with joy.
They usually avoided or were very uncomfortable with organized religion.
Were often deemed as “lazy” or weirdos because of their lack of ambition or drive for monetary goals.
Their bodies were some of the first to reveal the damaging effects of our toxic food chain and vaccines, such as leaky gut and gluten intolerance, diabetes, thyroid problems, cancer and alzheimer’s disease.
They were the ones who refused to accept ill health as their destiny, and just a side effect of “growing old.”
They were the dreamers who knew that their dreams were important. They understood that peace and freedom are a right, not a privilege.
They were often exposed to trauma, abuse, and other challenging life situations.
They were the ones who refused to be a victim and instead chose to accept responsibility for their life and learn the lessons that were intended for them to learn.
They are the ones for whom experience did not harden their hearts, but instead, they chose to transcend and help others with their lessons.
They have a genuine love and affection for all of humanity, regardless of culture or skin colour.
Chances are, you likely recognize many of these examples either in yourself, or in others that you know. I have been blessed to have trailblazers in my life and to call them my friends. I honestly don’t know what I would do without their wisdom and support.
They have a strength and an unwavering nerve that comes with experience. They know exactly what they are capable of and there isn’t a whole lot that can surprise them.
One really has to appreciate those who were doing this great work at a time when the energies were so very dense. They were working with the limited tools, opportunities, support and knowledge that they had at the time, before the internet allowed information to flow freely, and before the term “the Shift” was even coined.
It could be said that they had to learn “the hard way”. (My own mother endured health issues for many years until, thanks to the vast amount of information on the internet, she finally discovered her health problems were all symptoms triggered by the mercury fillings in her mouth.)
At 32 years old myself, I realize that I am not speaking with decades upon decades of experience, but I can feel and see the effects of this Shift. There is such a greater acceptance of other ideas and concepts that were quite taboo only a short time ago, even from when I took my first level of Reiki training in 2010.
It is nothing now to hear people speaking of energy work and mindfulness as though they are everyday topics. But it wasn’t always this way…
I am in deep gratitude for all of those who came before me, and bravely lit the way so that I could step into who I really am.
Beyond Your Comfort Zone
While the trailblazers certainly had their hefty share of challenges, my generation is, of course, facing challenges as well. We are learning to play in a new arena. The energies are changing quickly and our sensibilities and our bodies are trying to keep up. We are living within a higher dimension but still dealing with people and the limited concepts of the third dimension.
These are the days when we can become tired, or fed up with the world. When our expanded awareness threatens to become too much for our sensibilities to handle. We understand how it might be nice to live in ignorance, to not be so aware and feel so responsible.
And these are the days when a trailblazer will swoop into our life, our unassuming angels, to comfort and remind us of how amazing we are and of the great work we are doing. They restore our energy and tell us, “don’t give up, you’ve come so far. There are greater things ahead of you if you push beyond your comfort zone.”
The trailblazers have taught me compassion, patience, humility, and when I needed it, tough love. They have been there to assure me, “no, you’re not crazy”, or else, “this isn’t easy, but it is worth it.” They have reminded me that change is necessary and that there is vast potential that awaits within uncertainty.
Sometimes they have come into my life to stay, others have passed through, or were there only for a short time when I really needed them. On occasion, it was just a chance encounter or conversation in the line up of a grocery store.
And as you read this, no matter your age or where you feel you are at on this path, take a moment to honour yourself. Because the truth is, we are all trailblazers in our own, unique way.
We all have gifts to share with the rest of the world. And for every moment that we are living in our truth, or expressing our authentic selves, we are lighting the way and lending a hand for the next person to do the same.
No matter what “hat” we are wearing in this lifetime, absolutely everything that we do makes a difference. And every time that we are true to who we are and express our authentic selves, we light the way for another soul to do the same. It is absolutely no accident that you are here at this time.
And that is something that every trailblazer will tell you; you are doing more than you can possibly know right now, but one day, it will be easy for you to see.
Nuggets of Wisdom from the Trailblazers
I would like to leave you with a few nuggets of wisdom and advice for this particular time that we are in that have recently been shared with me from my friends, “the trailblazers”;
Right now, it is of utmost importance to listen to your body. These energies are intense. In fact, the most intense that they have ever felt. This is huge work we are doing, and if you don’t get the much needed rest that your body is requiring, you will get burn out and end up needing to take a lot of time to recover.
So if you are feeling like you need more sleep even though your mind is telling you that you shouldn’t, tell your mind very gently to f*#k off!
Not everything that you feel is actually yours. You are transmuting dense energies for so many souls other than yourself, so honour the importance of that by listening to your body.
Do what ever it takes to stay grounded and balanced, be it taking regular nature walks, spending time with loved ones, meditating, simply sharing healing time with a pet by stroking their fur, going for a swim, or watching a sunset. Listen to your soul and pay attention to what fills you with a sense of peace and contentment.
The other evening I sat on my deck and gazed into the setting sun. There was a magical glow cast upon my yard, and as I sat there, I allowed my eyes to lose focus and simply see the “light” that seemed to be glowing from within everything around me. It was then that I heard a gentle voice say, “now you are seeing the love that is in all things.”
Needless to say, I was filled with a calm that I wouldn’t have had if I hadn’t sat down and taken a few moments to enjoy the sunset. Nature is here for us, always. Spending time with the trees is also very effective.
They understand what we are going through right now, and you will feel your energy lighten considerably in their presence. I prefer to hug them or climb up into their limbs and wrap my arms around them for full effect.
Eat healthy and drink lots of water. Again, this is about honouring our bodies with proper fuel.
If you have fear, learn from it, integrate it. But do not let it stop you. We are here for self-actualization. It is wise to be wary, and to practice discernment, but try not to live in fear. This is when our vibration drops and we are left feeling powerless. Fear is there to teach us something, so focus on what that lesson may be, not the fear itself.
Check in with yourself often. Just a simple question such as “Am I on the right track?” It is simply to confirm that you are aware of why you do what you are doing and for what reasons.
Follow the guidance of your heart as our brains can’t keep up to this shift. They always need to “know” what is going to happen and what the outcome will be. This is not how we operate on this level.
As I’ve been told, “we are in a new arena. The rules are changing.” I had a message similiar to this pop into my awareness as I was enjoying an evening bike ride, “I am not of this world, I don’t play by these rules.”
I felt as though it was a reminder from my higher self to not get caught up in the drama and anxiety of the third dimension and all of the “shoulds” that we feel we have to surrender to to feel happy and successful.
Stay humble. Just when you think you have it all figured out, your awareness will expand and you will realize just how much you didn’t know. We can only grow so much at one time, because if we tried to keep going and going, our bodies could never handle it. This is where the burn out comes in.
So remember that if you feel as though you have plateaud, this is simply a lookout point to your next stage of awareness. As long as you are willing, you will continue to grow, but trust that it cannot happen too quickly.
And above all, you can do this. Trust yourself. There is always help available, and you have many guides that are working with you. Not to mention, the Universe is on your side. Just think about the grand scope of that for a moment. The entire Universe which is capable of all things is on our side.
Meet the Universe halfway, and expect to be helped in magical ways that you would never expect.
Lastly, I would like to extend my deep appreciation to all of the trailblazers of the world, those who I have had the pleasure to meet and to talk to across the miles, and for the countless souls that I haven’t. Thank you. This world is a better place because of you.
I hope that you have found this article helpful. I would love to hear from you! I can be reached via my website jessieklassen.com. While there, feel free to sign up for my free weekly newsletter where I share my experiences, advice, learnings and lessons on how to connect with Nature and improve your life.
Ministry Of Truth: EU Takes A Bashing Over Orwellian 1984 Tweet May 27 2019 | From: Infowars / Various
The European Commission, the executive arm of the EU, faced backlash online over the weekend after it tweeted out a creepy statement that sounded a lot like something straight out of George Orwell’s dystopian masterpiece 1984.
The tweet was aimed at encouraging people in Europe to vote in upcoming elections a week from now, but came across like propaganda from the Ministry of Truth:
The creepy message, ending with the command ‘Vote’, is reminiscient of the three slogans of ‘the party’ of Big Brother in 1984: “War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength.”
Yanis Varoufakis Blows the Lid on Europe's Hidden Agenda
Lord Rothschild Discusses How His Family Created Israel
The Balfour Declaration was a letter dated 2 November 1917 from the United Kingdom's Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour to Walter Rothschild, 2nd Baron Rothschild, a leader of the British Jewish community, for transmission to the Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland.
Others noted that the fact that the European Commission’s 28 members are not elected meant a key word was missing from the tweet:
The European Commission’s role is to propose legislation, implement policies and ensure members are complying with treaties. So you would think, given the immense power and responsibility the body has, that it would be elected, made up of representatives from different member states.
Nope.
It is comprised of globalists who swear an oath to the European body, without vowing to protect the interests of their own countries.
Others online had some further ideas about what the EU stands for:
The EU parliamentary elections take place between 23 and 26 May.
It is expected that Eurosceptic populists including Nigel Farage’s Brexit Party in the UK, The French National Rally led by Marine Le Pen, and Matteo Salvini’s League in Italy will make significant gains, dealing blows to the globalist hold on the European Parliament.
Why Are People So Concerned About 1080? May 25 2019 | From: EnvirowatchRangitikei / Various
With the ranks of those who oppose the aerial spreading of 1080 swelling exponentially, you may well be asking, why are folk so concerned about this poison?
In the following video clip lawyer Sue Grey and Waikato Regional Councillor for Taupo, Kathy White, explain how they attempted to present the poisoning register to members of parliament (on a typically windy day) …
The article by Jenese James on the GrafBoys’ press release on 89 (dead & not tested) Kiwi has had 54,000 shares to date on facebook.
People are outraged at what is coming to light and rightly so. I personally began researching the independent information about 1080 after watching the documentary by the GrafBoys called Poisoning Paradise.
These two Kiwi guys were raised in the bush, they know their stuff. Their doco has won four international awards (see here also) and yet, get this - NZ television will not play it here in our own country. They are assuming that we cannot listen & judge for ourselves?
Does that not raise alarm bells for you? It should.
That doco was the starting point that left me with enough question marks around the official line, to prompt me to look further than DoC’s own research.
Kathy White: 1080 – The Unintended Consequences for Water, Wildlife and Us
Kathy White, a Waikato Regional Councillor (in NZ), shares her excellent presentation with the FLORA & FAUNA Aotearoa Sustainable Conservation Conference attendees, about the use of 1080 and pest control, health effects and more.
That is literal too, for the research DoC uses to justify the alleged safety of aerial distribution of 1080 in NZ is 70% in-house, writes Reihana Robinson in her book The Killing Nation.
So what is coming to light then? Does NZ’s Department of Conservation (DoC) not have our best interests at heart? The best interests of our native flora & fauna? Don’t they have all the right checks & balances in place?
Do they not have a body of scientific data & research (including follow up data) justifying the use of this poison, that has been banned incidentally by most other countries on the planet?
Well, as it turns out, no they don’t appear to have a sound, watertight body of scientific data that actually proves 1080 is both safe & achieving (after 60+ years) what it set out to do.
"… there is not a single scientifically credible study showing that aerial 1080 when used on the mainland is of net benefit to any species of New Zealand’s native fauna. Thus the upside for native species is entirely unproven, despite 15 years of increasingly desperate attempts by DoC to show one."
- Pat and Quinn Whiting-OKeefe, Scientists
In light of this, people are understandably worried about their food sources.
If it’s touted as being ‘safe’, safe in our food, safe in water and so on, yet the science has any kind of question mark over it, then logically, folk will be concerned. I certainly am. The authorities should be practicing the precautionary principle:
"The precautionary principle is the concept that establishes it is better to avoid or mitigate an action or policy that has the plausible potential, based on scientific analysis, to result in major or irreversible negative consequences to the environment or public even if the consequences of that activity are not conclusively known, with the burden of proof that it is not harmful falling on those proposing the action.
It is a major principle of international environmental law and is extended to other areas and jurisdictions as well.”
Should they not be stopping the use of aerially dropped 1080 until the studies are done as a US Biophysicist from Tufts University has suggested?
Many NZers hunt and fish for their food [Photo: Courtesy of Hikoi of a Poisoned Nation FB page]NZers are keen hunters and fishers. Wild food (pigs and deer, fish & eels from the rivers, koura from the streams, whitebait and so on) are a staple for many.
This is their families’ kai (food). The rivers and bush or forests are their food cupboard. And now they are seeing that source becoming a safety risk because a toxic poison is being dumped into it and has been for 60+ years.
In spite of verbiage telling us it’s harmless as a cup of tea or a packet of crisps (potato chips) (the oft quoted justifications on blogs by pro 1080 folk).
So not only is there concern about contamination of hunted animals, but contamination of the flora as well.
"Not only is 1080 highly toxic to mammals, birds and insects- one scientist has even discovered that it is toxic to plants and so forests do not do so well after 1080 drops.
Take for instance the recent poisoning of the family in Putaruru in the Waikato. This family, after beginning a meal of wild pork, fell instantly ill and had to be rushed to hospital by ambulance.
The scenario that followed is revealing indeed regarding the apparent cover up that is going on with regard to testing possible victims of 1080 poisoning.
A Doctor suspected 1080 as the source of the problem early in the piece as records showed when they were finally released after some of the usual foot dragging that seems to be characteristic of any request by the public for official documentation around possible 1080 poisoning.
The familycould not even access their own records! Not only did the hospital fail to test for 1080 within the required time frame, the fact that the patients were literally tied to their beds because of the violent convulsions characteristic of 1080 poisoning, was never mentioned in the media.
The ongoing mantra from mainstream media on this was ‘botulism’
You can read about this whole shocking debacle at the 1080 page, ‘Suspected 1080 Poisoning Cases’. Please read the evidence there if you at all hunt or fish for food.
And if you are a tourist, it is better in my opinion, not to drink from the streams as many have been observed doing. Observers have described how tourists are sometimes not even aware of the purpose of 1080 drops going on right over their heads. So much for public warnings.
Invariably what I am seeing in the reports, articles and general chat by eye witnesses is that the toxicity of 1080 is totally downplayed. It is even being taught in children’s school texts that 1080 is ‘not very dangerous’ to humans.
This is a substance that is banned in most countries. That kills all breathing organisms from insect life to worms, right up to larger animals such as horses.
And yet we are supposed to believe it specifically targets pests? How ever is that possible? Another miracle from NZ’s Department of Conservation? Read Dr Meriel Watts’ exposé of that theory.
Then we heard this year from research by the Graf Brothers that the authorities have changed the rules to allow the dropping of 1080 into our waterways without a Regional Council consent.
They can now effectively bypass the pesky Resource Management Act. And dropping it they are. Prior to this, it was ending up in waterways anyway as witnesses have shown with their many photographs posted online.
The late Bill Benfield’s research revealed that a drop in the Hunua Ranges, home of Auckland’s town water supply, saw the water filters filled with 1080 pellets!
Seriously. In addition, there is No antidote! It is undetectable as the cause of death if tests are not done early enough.
"To date there are no known epidemiological studies that have been carried out in relation to 1080 and potential adverse health effects on humans."
- NZ Ministry of Health 2008
Then there is the risk to outdoors people who simply walk or hike. Over the past three years I’ve seen various reports of folk out picnicking, out tramping or simply enjoying the scenery, rained down on by 1080 pellets.
Hiker Whitney Robie died of suspected 1080 poisoning however NZ’s authorities lost her heart thereby rendering the cause undetectable
Two women fell ill after this kind of scenario while innocently out for a picnic. Nobody will of course admit to any link between their illness & exposure to 1080.
The most upsetting of all the examples of this has been that of the young US woman who died following a tramp in the Queenstown area. Her Doctor suspected 1080 poisoning & tried to bring about an investigation into that. Her heart was sent for testing as to the cause of her cardiac rest and unbelievably the NZ lab lost her heart. Seriously.
They lost her heart! Dr Charlie Baycroft a retired MD, recently warned the public that if anybody dies from 1080 poison nobody will know.
He was threatened with prosecution by the Ministry of Health for publicly advising folk how to go about getting tested if they feared poisoning.
Are you beginning to feel uneasy at all about our wild food sources?
I read a comment just the other day by a woman who has stopped taking her children to a recreational/scenic area where she’s noticed signs up saying it’s been treated with 1080.
I spoke recently with a university lecturer on the poisoning program, he has noticed a proliferation of poison signs when he goes into the bush.
This is a common comment from tourists and locals. Poisoning signs everywhere. There are 65 dogs die each year from 1080 poisoning a NZ site called Pause for a Cause reports.
Then there are the ongoing and endless reports of farmers whose stock have succumbed to death by 1080.
Dr Meriel Watts in her book ‘The Poisoning of New Zealand’ (1994) of a South Island farmer who lost 570 sheep in a bungled drop, with sheep still dying six months later.
The NZ authorities changed the animal welfare act to allow this. To top it off, adding insult to injury, they are forced to lie about this in the paperwork should they desire compensation for their losses. Hobson’s choice.
Then there was the Whitianga debacle. The attendance by one concerned man at the scene of the unloading of 1080 in the CBD of Whitianga with no public warnings or signage out as legally required, a man who was subsequently assaulted by a security guard, was himself charged with assault, the case eventually dismissed but leaving him with more than $22K in court costs.
If you were at all conspiratorial you might think a clear message was being sent to the public. You can read about that at these links.
Then in Levin a Horizons storage facility where 1080 was stored caught fire,with apparently no public warnings in place. I observed myself, comments on social media by a man who had noticed symptoms of illness following that fire.
He lived in the vicinity. His conversation around the effects cut abruptly short I noticed.
More recently we’ve had revelations on lack of safety with 1080, by an ex employee of Horizons. Diluted solutions of 1080 were sprayed all over the Palmerston North landfill by a contractor surprised that he was allowed to do this. What of the leachate from that dump?
What of public in the vicinity of the spraying? What of the earth it was sprayed onto? Of nearby water sources / streams / ditches and so forth?
Data sheets warn against baits entering waterways (Photo: TV-Wild)
"ERMA’s Agency warned that “No studies have been conducted using standard international guidelines to assess the route and rate of degradation of 1080 in soil. The rate of such degradation under New Zealand conditions is uncertain.”And regarding water: ”Overall, the relevance of the aquatic plant/water studies to the degradation of 1080 in water in NZ is not clear.”
And yes there is more that folk are concerned about.
The birds. Frequently we are reading comments by people who note there is no birdsong … no birds in the bush.
Folk who have lived long enough to remember how things used to be, like an 82 year old gentleman recently who said the Kiwi, Kereru, Kea, Weka & Tui had all disappeared from where he lived on the West Coast.
Reports also come from people who aren’t even anti 1080 or even aware of these drops. Tourists. One I read commented that since their last trip to NZ in the ’70s the birds were noticeably scarce.
The GrafBoys & others have posted videos online following 1080 drops & illustrated the lack of birdsong. Listen below.
Below a blogger comments about Lake Matheson in the South Island:
"Lake Matheson, near Fox Glacier township, South Westland. When I lived there many years ago (Fox Glacier I mean) there was so much birdlife. The day I took that photo there was nothing. You can see what a beautiful morning it was.
There was a pair of Paradise ducks on the lake, I saw one male Tomtit, and I heard one Grey Warbler. In one hour of walking round the lake that was all the birdsong I heard. A real “Rachel Carson” moment ! PS That area is also overrrun with tourists and campervans now too.
No - people who oppose the use of aerial 1080 are not terrorists as mainstream media is doing their utmost to portray them as.
They simply do not want their food sources & their environment poisoned. I think that is a fair request. We are constantly told that 1080 is the best tool in the tool box, yet there are alternatives & the most glaringly obvious is trapping with all of it’s obvious benefits.
Employment, trade & food. But no, DoC don’t want a bar of it."
It seems pertinent at this point to highlight one of the apparent major incentives for the continuation of 1080 drops, as a former Mayor of Taupo expounded:
Orillion, the company in Whanganui that makes 1080 baits is a State Owned Enterprise, its two share holders are the Minister of Finance & the Minister of Primary Industry. (Info at 2.40 in this video.)
People need to look beyond the diversions mainstream is constantly throwing out … were the dead birds on Parliament steps killed by 1080 or blunt force? Seriously? What does it matter?
Some better questions to ask would be … were the 89 dead Kiwi documented in DoC’s own records killed with 1080? Or was the young female hiker’s heart really lost?
These are questions however that mainstream media quietly & persistently ignore. It is fairly obvious who they are working for & their current mandate is clearly painting any persons who are against poisoned food & environments as dangerous terrorists.
And we are never of course going to hear answers to those questions … figuring them out for ourselves really isn’t rocket science though is it?
NOTE: For further articles on 1080 use categories at left of the news page.
There are links also on our 1080 resources page to most of the groups, pages, sites etc that will provide you with further information to make your own informed decision on this matter.
If you are pro poisoning of the environment, EnvirowatchRangitikei is not the place to espouse your opinions. Mainstream would be the place to air those. This is a venue for sharing the independent science you won’t of course find there.
Finally we don’t endorse violence in any way shape or form.
The Hypnotic Symbols Of Modern Medicine May 25 2019 | From: JonRappoport
There are four major symbols I want to take up here.The important thing to remember is: these symbols conspire to produce a “view of self” in the patient.
The patient comes to see himself in a certain way, and this way implies a reduction of his own power. Reducing his own power, he literally sees himself as smaller.
The cascade of effects continues. Seeing himself as smaller, he comes to believe he has no significant role in his own health and well-being.
And armed with that conviction, he comes to believe he is gradually deteriorating.
This belief is a perception, a view of self. This view, like a magnet, attracts and interprets events as further evidence of weakening and deterioration…
This reality is far from the only possible one, but it is the one the patient chooses.
The first symbol is SYMPTOM. The person sees and experiences feelings and physical manifestations, and in the doctor’s office, he learns these are symptoms that collectively MEAN SOMETHING. He has symptoms. These are not random, he is told. They are not transient. They cannot be ignored. They will not go away on their own. They are serious.
The second symbol is CONDITION. The doctor’s diagnosis of the symptoms makes it clear that the patient has a disease, an illness, a disorder. A label is applied. A name. There is no doubt that the patient has this named disease. This is a THING. An entity. It is not a passing phenomenon. It is solid and stable. It is singular.
The third symbol is TREATMENT. This is what the doctor tells the patient he must do. Take a medicine. Have surgery. The treatment will get rid of the condition. The treatment is specific. It is geared to address the condition. It is the solution to the problem.
The fourth symbol is the DOCTOR. He knows. Nobody else knows. He is the authority. He is in charge of recognizing the symptoms, which lead him to make the diagnosis of the condition, which is turn leads him to prescribe the treatment. This progression is lock-step. There no other factors to consider. The doctor has effectively ruled out all other possibilities.
These four symbols lead the patient into a state of obedience. And in that state, he realizes his own power is beside the point and is irrelevant.
Of course, this is not the first time he has been to the doctor’s office. This is not the first time he has been put through this progression of the four symbols. Therefore, the effect on him, over time, is magnified.
Each successive visit to the doctor confirms he can and does develop new sets of symptoms—and each set implies a new condition. As the conditions pile up, the patient is more convinced than ever that he is composed of diseases that appear “out of nowhere.”
He views himself as a set of symptoms which indicate a condition and imply a treatment. This is, in a sense, who and what he is. Over time, his conditions tend to be more serious.
He never imagines that the toxic treatments he is taking are contributing to, or causing these more serous conditions - because each disease has a separate name, as if it exists in a vacuum. The doctor handles each diagnosis in that fashion. “Now you have this…and now you have that.”
When the patient reaches a point where he views himself as BEING these symptoms and conditions and very little else, he simply waits for the next arrival of the next set of symptoms and the next condition.
This is how powerful symbols can be. In a better world, people would be educated in the use and effects of symbols, before succumbing to them.
Some would say, “What do you mean, symbols? The doctor is real, I do have physical problems, the doctor really does make a diagnosis, and I do take real medicines. Why are you talking about symbols?”
Because what locks a person in is what happens in his mind. And what happens in his mind is this parade of symbols. That’s what forms the basis of HIS VIEW OF HIMSELF. He rolls these symbols around in his mind and accepts them and locks himself in, and he sees himself as deteriorating.
“I am a deteriorating person. That’s who I am. That’s what I am. I’m waiting for the next round of symptoms and the diagnosis and treatment from the doctor. Any other ideas about what I am and what I can do are beside the point. No reason to entertain them. I have the potential to be more than a deteriorating person? What does that even mean? It makes no sense.”
The person doesn’t understand symbols, doesn’t understand how he is dealing with them, and so he closes the book on his life and future. This process is not necessary, but he doesn’t grasp that.
Am I claiming that everything is in the mind? Nothing else possibly matters? No one ever really gets sick? No. But I am saying a shocking amount of what turns out to be a person’s future or non-future flows from how he recognizes, or doesn’t recognize, symbols and how he reads them and interprets them, how he accepts or rejects them, how he choose to surpass them or succumb to them.
Yes, there is a doctor. Yes, there is such a thing as physical illness. Yes, the doctor is delivering a diagnosis and calling it a condition. But these factors are not in the mind, unless the physical doctor can squeeze himself into the patient’s head. In the mind, there are symbols of these elements - and that is what the patient is dealing with, for better or for worse.
And over the long-term, for most patients, it’s worse.
Earthing was a common practice in the past, but today people would stare at somebody walking barefoot in public. However, many studies published over the years have proved that the practice has enormous health benefits.
The Earth contains negative charge, and when somebody earths, it supply the person with antioxidants, as well as free-radical destroying electrons. This means putting your feet on the ground enables you to absorb large amounts of negative electrons through the soles of your feet which, in turn, can help to maintain your body at the same negatively charged electrical potential as the Earth.
Dr. James Oschman, a PhD in biology from the University of Pittsburgh and an expert in the field of energy medicine, notes:
A study titled “Earthing: Health Implications of Reconnecting the Human Body to the Earth’s Surface Electrons” postulates that earthing could represent a potential treatment or solution to a variety of chronic degenerative diseases.
It could also serve as a natural and “profoundly effective environmental strategy” against chronic stress, ANS dysfunction, inflammation, pain, poor sleep, disturbed HRV, hyper-coagulable blood, and many common health disorders, including cardiovascular disease.
Another study, conducted by the Department of Neurosurgery from the Military Clinical Hospital in Powstancow Warszawy, found that blood urea concentrations are lower in subjects who are earthed during physical exercise, and that earthing during exercise resulted in improved exercise recovery.
“This simple process of grounding is one of the most potent antioxidants we know of. Grounding has been shown to relieve pain, reduce inflammation, improve sleep, enhance well being, and much, much more. Unfortunately, many living in developed countries are rarely grounded anymore.”
The Language Of Symbolism: How To Recognize These Three Symbols Hidden In Plain Sight May 23 2019 | From: TheMindUnleashed
On the path of trying to figure out what this world is really about, many people ease into the study of symbolism.
When one recognizes the deliberate nature of power, and the characteristics power displays in various activities, they can begin to recognize deeper, more subtle layers of truth about power.
For example a government being the power, participating in psychological warfare against its own people, the government being composed of people who have histories with fraternal orders and secret societies who value symbolism, ect.
This video explores connections between fraternal orders and secret societies to high levels of power: an extremely thorough examination, well past the well known ones such as Skull and Bones at Yale.
Understanding the cult-like behavior of people in power, from royal bloodlines, to banks and corporations, to governments, one can reasonably deduce that their choice of symbolism is often well thought out. Symbols have historically been very important to people in power.
Symbols almost always have multiple layers of meaning: one layer of symbolism may be explained as a simple thing to the public, when it actually alludes to something deeper that only initiates to the symbol can recognize.
Understanding how symbols are deliberate and purposeful, suddenly meaning can be recognized in all kinds of things we see every day. Of course, they are also prone to being misunderstood, or having false meaning attributed to them. Certainty can be scarce in the study of symbolism.
Logos of different corporations and businesses, government flags, emblems, and more are rich with symbolism that speaks a language only those who pay close attention can understand.
Here’s an example I always think of: why do so many flags in the world display 5 pointed stars? Other symbols such as crosses, 6 pointed stars, 7 pointed stars, crescent moons, and more also appear on flags across the world.
Click on the image above to view a larger version in a new window
Why would so many various factions of power across the world all unanimously decide that a 5 pointed star would best represent them on their flag?
Why do countries (China and the US) that appear to conflict with each other both have 5 pointed stars featured prominently on their flags?
It’s like an inside joke: there must be something that common civilian populations do not understand about the significance of the 5 pointed star. I don’t think so many governments and corporations unanimously decided a 5 pointed star is aesthetically pleasing for a flag.
It has to mean something more than we know.
It’s not difficult to make the case that some natural shapes and geometric formations are used as symbols simply because they look good. However, I think there are many more layers.
I believe shapes such as squares, octagons, triangles, and others are astrotheological references: references to the angles that planets make in the sky, and a system of esoteric knowledge that has been successfully hidden from most people. It is through understanding astrology and its significance to these people in power that I’ve come to this conclusion.
Some videos online can be found about astrotheological symbolism (essentially astrology related symbolism).
This video in particular examined symbolism in the auto-industry. Aries the Ram on the Dodge Ram logo, a Ford Taurus, a Mercury, the Mars symbol on Volvo: the astrotheological references are endless.
In addition, Marty Leeds explored what may be a reference to Pi (3.14), symbolism about the mathematics of creation in auto-industry logos.
To understand the 5 pointed star as an astrotheological reference, one would have to look at an unusual astrology aspect that seems to have been hidden from mainstream astrologers: the quintile, a 72 or 144 degree angle between two planets.
If 5 planets were locked into quintiles, that would make a pentagram in the sky.
There may be some hidden esoteric information in this 5 pointed star, but as of right now, I haven’t figured it out at all. People say the 5 pointed star represents the 4 elements (fire, air, earth, water) and spirit, but I don’t think that’s where the rabbit hole ends. There must be deeper layers of meaning to this strange symbol that appears everywhere.
However, the symbols that have my attention the most are probably the symbols that seem to represent slavery. The octagon, the 8 pointed star of Inanna, the oblong square, the hypercube: these symbols are said to represent slavery, being boxed in and trapped, never-ending loops, and things of that nature.
It would make sense to me, considering the malefic aspects in astrology are squares and oppositions. When planets make squares to each other, bad things happen, to sum it up briefly.
Trines and sextiles, multiples of the 6 pointed star are functional, positive aspects in astrology: and I’m starting to believe that’s why the 6 pointed star is chosen for some business logos and flags. Perhaps it’s a symbol of their effort succeeding or coming to fruition with ease.
The Octagon, or 8 Pointed Star of Inanna
The 8 pointed star or octogon is thought to be a symbol of slavery: of being boxed in and trapped, controlled or things of that nature.
The United Nations logo is an 8 pointed star engulfing the planet. It can be found on many more government logos in particular.
In Stanley Kubrick’s final film Eyes Wide Shut, which is essentially about a psychopathic ruling class of people, the 8 pointed star is featured prominently in the first scenes of the movie.
Kubrick was known for his meticulous attention to detail: we know for sure the placement of this symbol was not an accident.
The Square, or Oblong Square, Hyper-Cube
The oblong square is a square that is positioned sideways like a diamond. It appears on many corporate logos, and all over architecture and things we see in every day life. It is said that it’s a symbol of boxing people in and trapping them at base consciousness.
However, it’s nearly impossible to have certainty recognizing the oblong square as a symbol meant to depict this. It’s everywhere, so differentiating coincidence from intentful symbolic representation is very difficult.
Over time, a person looking into symbolism can begin to make this distinction. It seems obvious for example, in the Chase Bank logo because it’s a square inside an octogon, making a sort of swastika shape.
The hypercube is thought to represent a never-ending loop, a prison of consciousness. Researchers such as Mark Passio have presented this theory.
The 6 Pointed Star, or Triangle
While for some reason, certain governmental, corporate, or institutional entities choose seemingly negative symbolism, such as the squares that seem to represent people being boxed in, other entities choose symbols that point to a focus on success.
From the Wal-Mart logo to the 6 pointed “Star of David” found on the Israeli flag (which is of course a symbol older than we could ever know), this symbol can be found everywhere.
Some claim that it represents a cube, since a cube looks like a hexagon if you look at it from an angle.
Theories about symbolism depicting the “Black Cube of Saturn” have circulated widely, and I think they are credible because something certainly is being represented by all these monuments in the picture below.
One of Saturn’s poles has a hexagonal storm on it, depicted below. However, somehow Saturn symbolism involving a black cube has been around for longer than the public has known Saturn has a hexagonal storm on it.
What do these symbols actually do to people? I’m not completely sure. Perhaps they work against our subconscious in a way we don’t understand. Perhaps they don’t do much to us, and people in power just have a belief that they do.
Whatever the reason, this much is clear: people in power care very much about symbolism, and meaning can be found in it that tells us about the world we live in.
‘Cultural Schizophrenia’: Media Shift To Feelings Over Facts Tearing US [West] Apart & You Are Being Bombarded By Fake News, Fake News “Filters,” Fake People, Fake Food, And Fake Medicine May 22 2019 | From: RT / NaturalNews / Various Over the past several decades, US [Western] news media have shifted towards advocacy and emotional appeals, according to a RAND Corporation study.
This is sowing discord in American society, award-winning journalist Chris Hedges tells RT.
The study, released by RAND earlier this week, cautiously argues that between 1987 and 2017, news content has shifted from event-and context-based reporting to coverage that is “more subjective, relies more heavily on argumentation and advocacy, and includes more emotional appeals.”
While prime-time cable news shows and online journalism lead the way in this shift, it has been noticed in print journalism as well, the government-funded think tank concluded.
This is contributing to what RAND termed “Truth Decay,” described as a shift away from facts and analysis in public discourse.
“Cable news networks – CNN, MSNBC, Fox – have given up on journalism,”Hedges told RT, commenting on the RAND report.
“They replaced it with reality-show news programs centered around [US President] Donald Trump and his tweets and the Russiagate. There has been a complete walking away from journalism.”
The award-winning international correspondent for several major newspapers who now hosts On Contact, a weekly interview show on RT America, Hedges argued that the deterioration of the American media landscape is “far worse” than the RAND report suggests.
“Commercial structure that created the old media is gone and it has eviscerated journalism within the country, because it is not sustainable. We saw it with the collapse of the classified advertising, which was 40 percent of the newspapers’ revenues. It is not sustainable economically anymore,”Hedges said.
This has led to the demise of newspapers, both local broadsheets and major powerhouses like the Philadelphia Enquirer.
Meanwhile, the internet media has created a “free-for-all space, where people are ghettoized into [groups] with particular belief systems or conspiracy theories they happen to have embraced or support.”
It is difficult to tell apart facts and opinion now, and people believe whatever they want to believe, Hedges explained.
“We spent years watching CNN and MSNBC promoting this conspiracy theory that Trump was a Kremlin agent… It was all garbage but it attracted viewers.”hich was 40 percent of the newspapers’ revenues. It is not sustainable economically anymore,” Hedges said.
When journalism is no longer based on facts, it becomes near impossible for the public to untangle what is true and what is false.
“It creates cultural schizophrenia,” Hedges said, noting that he observed this during the collapse of Yugoslavia in the 1990s, when media drove antagonisms and hatreds between ethnic groups.
Similar things are happening in the US right now, as “right-wing media are demonizing Bernie Sanders and Barack Obama by comparing them to Hitler and the left-wing media label all Trump supporters as racists and deplorables.”
“It all creates societal fragmentation and discord,”Hedges told RT.
"These schisms could lead to civil unrest – that is what happens here."
You Are Being Bombarded By Fake News, Fake News “Filters,” Fake People, Fake Food, And Fake Medicine
The most important things in life are your family, your safety, and your health. These are irreplaceable. Some people, as of late, are wrecking theirs, all while believing that the mass media, the FDA, the AMA, and the CDC have their best interests in mind, but it’s just the opposite way around.
By mass media, we mean all newspapers, television news shows, most major websites, and social media. Did you know that more than 90 percent of all news, food, and medicine is “fake” and literally damages your mind and body?
Fake news is meant to hide the truth from you, by any means necessary. The less you know about what’s really happening around you, to your rights, to your health, to your belief of which medicines actually work, well, the less you can do anything about it.
That’s why there’s fluoride in the tap water. That’s why every prescription medication and vaccination doled out by the AMA, CDC, and FDA do way more harm than good, if they do any good at all.
Why keep Americans [Westerners] sick and living in a brain fog? If you’re still reading this, you already know the answer.
So now, in this technological era we are so privileged to experience, the “Kings” of fake news, fake food, and fake medicine are working very hard to bury the truth about what will make you the sickest and put you at the most risk (think GMOs, chemo, illegal (criminal) immigrants, flu shots, CNN lies, Roundup, and the list goes on).
Another “Fake News” Filter Organization – Meet the Hucksters and Con Artists at the Poynter Institute of Lies and Deception
Just in from the “fake news filter” world: The shilling Poynter Institute recently walked back an entire list of what they declare to be “unreliable” news websites, after being heavily scrutinized.
Just like the latest “fake news filter” NewsGuard, Poynter Institute bans and mislabels any website that tells the truth about natural health, common sense safety, medical choice, sustainable living, prepping for disasters, or Constitutional rights being exercised in this country, while promoting any website that threatens those humane and inherent rights.
These news “filters” are completely one-sided, run by globalists, extreme Leftists, communists and socialists, Bayer / Monsanto, and the tech giants.
Yes, at the top of that criminal racket sits Bill Gates, George Soros, Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, and of course, the insidious Jack Dorsey, CEO of Twitter.
Nearly all conservative, critical-thinking, truth-wielding media outlets are banned and flagged by NewsGuard, Poynter, Google, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. Nearly all newscasters are fake and just actors reading from the same exact script at all levels.
Even “Flickr” deletes accounts of Natural News writers if they post anything honest about the serious dangers of American vaccines.
Poynter recently listed the Washington Free Beacon and TheWashington Examiner as “unreliable” publications without a shred of evidence to justify condemning them. Why?
They don’t bow down to the daily MSM narrative, in other words. And now the tech giants are using algorithms to ban, delete, and bankrupt any person or business who challenges their big lies.
Take a big guess who’s behind the fake “journalism institute” called Poynter, that’s blacklisting all media outfits that function in conservative ways.
Yep, you guessed right – George Soros – the billionaire Nazi sympathizer who funds all things “hate Trump,” including Antifa, AOC, the Clintons, Obama, and mass illegal immigration into the USA.
Nazi-Style “News-Guard” Software Filter Flags All Real News as Fake While Promoting Lying, Narrative-Worshipping News as Real
Now, NewsGuard represents his massive news “filter” racket that censors all independent media while parroting the worst fake news of all, including CNN, Washington Post, Boston Globe, and the New York Times.
Don’t believe it? It’s already taken over all public libraries in Hawaii. Next is every university in America, including all libraries, then all public schools. It’s the biggest book burning event in history, and everything you know as true right now isn’t just history, it’s history, meaning extinct. Gone. Burned. Obliterated.
No, you won’t find out the truth about the Holocaust by Googling it. No, you won’t find out chemotherapy fails 97 percent of the time via Bill Gates’ installed search engines or software “add ons.”
That’s why so many Americans [Westerners] are brainwashed into fake news, toxic food, and chemical medicine. They’re hooked from birth ’til early, expensive death.
Keep your weapons close, your food organic, and your medicine natural. Know your rights to free speech and free press. Tune in to Censored.News daily for all the news they don’t want you to see.
Twenty Tips For A Happy, Fulfilling Life May 21 2019 | From: TheUnboundedSpirit / Various How can one find long-lasting happiness and fulfillment?
For over 15 years I've been on a quest to find out the answer to this important question, and what I've learned along my journey has completely transformed my life.
Recently I wrote down some of the most profound insights I've gained from my experiences that led to this transformation, so that you can have the opportunity to benefit from them too.
All people are seeking happiness and fulfillment. Yet because of our upbringing and conditioning many of us are quite dissatisfied, feeling a sense of inner emptiness that prevents us from enjoying ourselves and making the most out of our lives.
If you’ve been feeling this way too and would like to live a happier and more fulfilling life, I’ve put together 20 important tips that, if understood and put into practice, are guaranteed to help you fill your heart with joy and satisfaction.
2.Embrace the idea of missing out. You can’t do everything at the same time, so focus on those few things that matter to you the most, one thing at a time.
3.Life is a running river whose route can’t be predicted.Learn to flow with it and let it take you to interesting new places.
18.Concentrate on depth, not width. What matters isn’t how many things you do, but how deep you go into them.
19.Learning never ends. Keep an open mind and be ready to alter your opinions when presented with better ones.
20.Happiness doesn’t mean having no problems. It means having the skills to effectively deal with them.
If you enjoyed these tips, you’re going to love my new, first-ever self-development course that I’m launching soon.
It consists of lessons, challenges, thought experiments and written exercises that are designed intentionally to help you deal with suffering and rediscover a happier and more fulfilling life.
To learn more about it and be the first to know when it’s live, join the Insider List here.
Monsanto Ordered To Pay $2 Billion To Cancer Victims & Bayer Discovers “Black Ops” Division Run By Monsanto, Shuts It Down, Initiates Internal Investigation As Law Enforcement Prepares Criminal Charges Against The Chemical Giant May 20 2019 | From: USRT / NaturalNews / Various After less than two full days of deliberations, a California jury ordered Monsanto to pay just over $2 billion in punitive and compensatory damages to a married couple who both developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma they say was caused by their many years of using Roundup products.
After listening to 17 days of trial testimony, jurors said Monsanto must pay $1 billion to Alberta Pilliod, who was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma brain cancer in 2015, and another $1 billion to her husband Alva Pilliod, who was diagnosed in 2011 with non-Hodgkin lymphoma that spread from his bones to his pelvis and spine.
The couple, who are both in their 70s, started using Roundup in the 1970s and continued using the herbicide until only a few years ago. The jury also awarded the couple a total of $55 million in damages for past and future medical bills and other losses.
In ordering punitive damages, the jury had to find that Monsanto “engaged in conduct with malice, oppression or fraud committed by one or more officers, directors or managing agents of Monsanto” who were acting on behalf of the company.
Pilliod v. Monsanto is the third Roundup cancer case to go to trial. And it is the third to conclude that Monsanto’s glyphosate-based herbicides can cause cancer and that Monsanto has long known about – and covered up – the risks.
In March, a unanimous jury in federal court in San Francisco ordered Monsanto to pay roughly $80 million in damages for failing to warn plaintiff Edwin Hardeman of the cancer risks of Roundup herbicide.
Last August, jurors in state court in San Francisco ordered Monsanto to pay $289 million in damages to school groundskeeper Dewayne “Lee” Johnson, who is dying of non-Hodgkin lymphoma the jury found was caused by his exposure to Monsanto’s glyphosate herbicides.
The judge in that case lowered the total verdict to $78 million and the verdict is now on appeal.
Both Johnson and Hardeman attended closing arguments in the Pilliod trial.
The Pilliod verdict is expected to only further erode the market value of Bayer AG, which purchased Monsanto last summer for $63 billion. Shares have dropped more than 40 percent since the Aug. 10 Johnson verdict was handed down.
More than 13,000 plaintiffs have filed similar lawsuits against Monsanto, alleging the company’s herbicides cause non-Hodgkin lymphoma and the company has hidden the risks.
Evidence laid out in the three trials included numerous scientific studies that showed what plaintiffs’ attorneys said was proof Monsanto’s herbicides can cause non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
As well, the attorneys presented jurors with many internal Monsanto communications obtained through court-ordered discovery that show Monsanto has intentionally manipulated the public record to hide the cancer risks.
Among the many revelations that have emerged from the trials:
Monsanto never conducted epidemiology studies for Roundup and its other formulations made with the active ingredient glyphosate to evaluate the cancer risks for users.
Monsanto was aware that the surfactants in Roundup were much more toxic than glyphosate alone.
Monsanto spent millions of dollars on covert public relations campaigns to finance ghostwritten studies and articles aimed at discrediting independent scientists whose work found dangers with Monsanto’s herbicides.
When the US Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry sought to evaluate glyphosate toxicity in 2015, Monsanto engaged the assistance of EPA officials to delay that review.
Monsanto enjoyed a close relationship with certain officials within the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), who have repeatedly backed Monsanto’s assertions about the safety of its glyphosate products.
The company internally had worker safety recommendations that called for wearing a full range of protective gear when applying glyphosate herbicides, but did not warn the public to do the same.
Pilliod attorney Brent Wisner suggested to jurors in his closing arguments that they consider punitive damages in the range of $1 billion to send a message to Monsanto and Bayer about the need to change the company’s practices.
“The jury saw for themselves internal company documents demonstrating that, from day one, Monsanto has never had any interest in finding out whether Roundup is safe,” Wisner said following the verdict.
“Instead of investing in sound science, they invested millions in attacking science that threatened their business agenda.”
Michael Miller, who served with Wisner as co-lead trial counsel said:
“Unlike the first two Monsanto trials, where the judges severely limited the amount of plaintiffs’ evidence, we were finally allowed to show a jury the mountain of evidence showing Monsanto’s manipulation of science, the media and regulatory agencies to forward their own agenda despite Roundup’s severe harm to the animal kingdom and humankind.”
“Bayer is disappointed with the jury’s decision and will appeal the verdict in this case, which conflicts directly with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s interim registration review decision released just last month, the consensus among leading health regulators worldwide that glyphosate-based products can be used safely and that glyphosate is not carcinogenic, and the 40 years of extensive scientific research on which their favorable conclusions are based.
We have great sympathy for Mr. and Mrs. Pilliod, but the evidence in this case was clear that both have long histories of illnesses known to be substantial risk factors for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL), most NHL has no known cause, and there is not reliable scientific evidence to conclude that glyphosate-based herbicides were the “but for” cause of their illnesses as the jury was required to find in this case.”
Bayer Discovers “Black Ops” Division Run By Monsanto, Shuts It Down, Initiates Internal Investigation As Law Enforcement Prepares Criminal Charges Against The Chemical Giant
For over a decade, Monsanto has been engaged in building and maintapining “hit lists” of journalists, lawmakers and regulators to be taken out if they opposed the evil agenda of GMOs and toxic glyphosate weed killer chemicals that now inundate the world food supply.
Any influential person who opposed the Monsanto agenda was subjected to one or more of the following:
Attempted bribery
Death threats and intimidation
Character assassination through well-funded “negative P.R.” campaigns
Defamation via coordinated Wikipedia attacks, run by Monsanto operatives
Career destruction, such as getting scientists blacklisted from science journals
Being doxxed, having their home addresses publicized and their families and co-workers threatened
In other words, Monsanto has been running a “black ops” division for over ten years, spending perhaps $100 million or more on efforts to silence, destroy or assassinate anyone who interfered with the agricultural giant’s market dominance.
Now, the criminal mafia activity that Monsanto has carried out for years is finally being exposed as law enforcement closes in on the crimes of this evil agricultural giant now owned by Bayer, a corporation that appears to be making an effort to “clean house” and end the Monsanto crimes that targeted journalists, lawmakers and regulators with intimidation and bribery campaigns.
Law Enforcement Preparing Criminal Charges Against Monsanto Division Operatives
“French prosecutors said on Friday they had opened an inquiry after newspaper Le Monde filed a complaint alleging that Monsanto – acquired by Bayer for $63 billion last year – had kept a file of 200 names, including journalists and lawmakers in hopes of influencing positions on pesticides,”reports Reuters.
This “hit list” of journalists and lawmakers was directly translated into action to intimidate, threaten or bribe these individuals, just as happens in the United States.
In fact, a Monsanto spokesperson now confirms the Monsanto mafia used the list to take out anyone standing in the way of the Monsanto agenda.
“There have been a number of cases where – as they would say in football – not the ball was played but the man, or woman, was tackled,” admitted Matthias Berninger to Reuters.
Berninger is the “head of public affairs and sustainability” of Monsanto.
Further into the statement, Berninger admits Monsanto collected “non-publicly available data about individuals” and then issued an apology from Bayer for the activity. “Following an initial review, we understand that this initiative has raised concerns and criticism,”said Bayer in a May 12th public statement. “This is not the way Bayer seeks dialogue with society and stakeholders. We apologize for this behavior.”
What Natural News can reveal is that Monsanto hired black ops teams and private investigators to dig up the personal locations of individuals and their families, then engaged in activities to threaten and intimidate those individuals while publicly smearing them online through coordinated, well-funded character assassination campaigns.
This author believes that, over the last decade, I have been personally hunted by Monsanto-funded black ops teams who intended to destroy my credibility and physically harm my person in order to silence my public criticism of Monsanto and end the publishing of MonsantoMafia.com, GMO.news, Glyphosate.news and the dozens of other websites that Monsanto did not want to see published.
See my full video here, which explains more:
Health Ranger: I am Willing to Share Details With Bayer’s Investigation Team in Exchange for a Public Apology and a Retraction of the Smears
I am willing to consider the possibility that Bayer is genuine in its attempts to clean up the “Monsanto mafia” mess that it has inherited.
It is possible that the culture of Bayer is not nearly as evil and corrupt as the culture of Monsanto, which is why I am willing to sit down with Bayer’s internal investigators and privately detail the illegal tactics that have been used against myself and others who spoke out against the multiple criminal activities carried out by Monsanto’s “black ops” teams.
I will do this in exchange for a public apology from Bayer that specifically names myself, the Food Babe, Jeffrey Smith and other individuals in the independent media (there are about twenty) who have been specifically targeted, smeared and threatened by Monsanto operatives over the years. Bayer may contact my legal team for more details of what we are requesting.
This is a rare opportunity for Bayer to hear directly from the victims of the Monsanto “black ops” division that Bayer likely was not aware it was acquiring when it purchased Monsanto, since the entire division operated in secret and relied on internal corporate money laundering to obfuscate its operations.
Bayer’s attorneys may reach out to Natural News through our public contact page. Our attorneys are also initiating contact with Bayer’s legal team to initiate discussions.
Bayer Says it Will Support Criminal Indictments of Monsanto Operatives
If you read the Bayer announcement that went public on May 12, you’ll find that Bayer is openly supporting the criminal indictment of Monsanto operatives who ran its black ops division. “Bayer will fully support the public prosecutor’s office in France in its investigation,” says the statement.
That same statement also explains:
"As an immediate measure, we have decided to suspend our cooperation with the involved external service providers for the time being. The responsible Monsanto manager left the company shortly after the acquisition".
The “external service providers” were, Natural News has learned:
Negative P.R. firms hired to engage in online character assassination.
Rogue private investigators tasked with geo-locating targeted individuals.
“Wet work” intimidation / assassination teams that were directed to threaten violence and / or carry out direct violence against “enemies” of Monsanto, including the targeting of innocent family members.
Bayer goes on to explain, “We are also currently investigating further appropriate consequences both internally and with regard to external parties. Bayer stands for openness and fair dealings with all interest groups. We do not tolerate unethical behavior in our company.”
If true, this would stand in great contrast to Monsanto itself, which was run like a criminal mafia organization, complete with “hit men” and terror campaigns that focused on critics of the biotech company.
Perhaps Bayer is hoping to clean up the Monsanto nightmare and initiate a new era of operations where public debate replaces the intimidation, threats and murder campaigns run by former Monsanto operatives.
As someone who has been routinely targeted, threatened and smeared by Monsanto, I am willing to entertain the possibility that Bayer is looking to right past wrongs.
Even though I may never agree with the widespread use of herbicides and pharmaceuticals across society, I don’t go out of my way to criticize corporations unless they are engaged in acts of extreme evil.
McDonald’s for example, sells all sorts of garbage food products that are unhealthy for society, but McDonald’s doesn’t hire hit teams to hunt down and try to assassinate critics, for example.
McDonald’s just runs ads and tries to get the public to focus on social happiness instead of the chemical pesticides found in their products. And for the most part, it works. Nobody goes to McDonald’s expecting an all-organic diet in the first place.
McDonald’s is a “voluntary compromise” where a consumer is obtaining convenience and low cost in exchange for surrendering a bit of their own long-term health. But no one from McDonald’s puts a gun to their head and demands, “EAT HERE OR DIE MUTHA F##KA,” which is essentially the way Monsanto was run for over a decade.
Investigating “the Project Monsanto Commissioned”
Finally, I want to draw your attention to one more line in the Bayer press release. It refers to “the project Monsanto commissioned” and promises to “evaluate the allegations.”
I can report to you that this “project” is the black ops unit of Monsanto. It was commissioned by angry, evil Monsanto managers whose personal hatred and violence is only exceeded by the violence of the Monsanto corporation itself, which unleashed Agent Orange on the world, along with a long list of other deadly chemicals that were used against innocent civilians as weapons of war.
Monsanto was run by some of the most evil, criminal-minded people in the history of the world.
These people, I believe, are directly responsible for acts of extreme violence - both online and offline - that specifically targeted Monsanto critics like myself. They belong behind bars, and it looks like Bayer may actually be willing to help put them there.
It’s time for Bayer to close the chapter on this Monsanto era of disinformation, destruction and death. Otherwise, the anger against Monsanto that is well deserved and widely publicized across the activist community will continue to reflect on Bayer and its share price.
Monsanto has committed acts of tremendous evil against innocent, well-meaning individuals who only advocated a cleaner food supply and honest labeling.
If Bayer does not open a dialogue with these activists and help resolve some of these issues, Bayer will continue to pay the price for crimes that it inherited through its acquisition of Monsanto, which has already proved disastrous from a financial point of view.
I believe the only way Bayer can resolve this is to talk to those of us who suffered through these malicious attacks and still somehow made it out alive. Bayer needs to publicly apologize, set the record straight, admit the crimes of the Monsanto black ops managers, and retract all the smear articles and Wikipedia entries it funded.
China’s Big Brother Social Control Goes To Australia & New Zealand Prime Minister, French President Head Anti-Online Extremism Summit In Paris May 19 2019 | From: TheEpochTimes / OANN Various Australia is preparing to debut its version of the Chinese regime’s high-tech system for monitoring and controlling its citizens.
The launch, to take place in the northern city of Darwin, will include systems to monitor people’s activity via their cell phones.
The new system is based on monitoring programs in Shenzhen, China, where the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is testing its Social Credit System.
Officials on the Darwin council traveled to Shenzhen, according to NT News, to “have a chance to see exactly how their Smart Technology works prior to being fully rolled out.”
In Darwin, they’ve already constructed “poles, fitted with speakers, cameras and Wi-Fi,” according to NT News, to monitor people, their movements around the city, the websites they visit, and what apps they use.
Caolan Robertson, an executive producer behind the new documentary film “You Can’t Watch This,” joins Alex Jones live via Skype to premiere exclusive clips from the movie.
He explains the power of change documentaries can have, with his film exposing the authoritarian censorship of the liberal left today.
The monitoring will be done mainly by artificial intelligence, but will alert authorities based on set triggers.
Just as in China, the surveillance system is being branded as a “smart city” program, and while Australian officials claim its operations are benign, they’ve announced it functions to monitor cell phone activity and “virtual fences” that will trigger alerts if people cross them.
“We’ll be getting sent an alarm saying, ‘There’s a person in this area that you’ve put a virtual fence around.’ … Boom, an alert goes out to whatever authority, whether it’s us or police to say ‘look at camera five,’” said Josh Sattler, the Darwin council’s general manager for innovation, growth, and development services, according to NT News.
The nature of the “virtual fences” and what type of activity will sound an alarm still isn’t being made clear.
The system is being promoted as mostly benign. Sattler said it will tell the government “where people are using Wi-Fi, what they’re using Wi-Fi for, are they watching YouTube, etc.
All these bits of information we can share with businesses. … We can let businesses know, ‘Hey, 80 percent of people actually use Instagram within this area of the city, between these hours.’”
The CCP’s smart city Social Credit System is able to monitor each person in the society, tracking every element of their lives - including their friends, online purchases, daily behavior, and other information - and assigns each person a citizen score that determines their level of freedom in society.
The tool is a core piece of the CCP’s programs to monitor and persecute dissidents, including religious believers and people who oppose the ruling communist system.
Chinese human rights lawyer Teng Biao, a visiting scholar at New York University, described the Social Credit System as a new form of tyranny, meant to reactivate the CCP’s totalitarian hold on society.
“In the past, there was the Nazi totalitarianism and Mao Zedong’s totalitarian system, but a totalitarian system powered by the internet and contemporary technology has not existed before,” Teng said in a recent interview with The Epoch Times.
“The CCP is now taking the first step to build such a high-tech totalitarian system, by using credit ratings and monitoring and recording every detail in people’s daily life, which is very frightening.”
The regime also isn’t interested in keeping the technology within its own borders.
It’s exporting the system, and its “China model” of totalitarian government, as a service of its “One Belt, One Road” program. When the CCP builds its infrastructure abroad, its surveillance and social control programs are part of the package.
In Darwin, there has been a push to jump aboard the CCP’s program. The local officials made a “friendship” deal with Yuexiu District, in Guangzhou, China, in 2018.
According to John Garrick, a senior lecturer at Charles Darwin University, the deal was branded by Chinese media as “part of President Xi Jinping’s signature Belt and Road Initiative.”
That followed a previous deal between Darwin and the CCP, in which the city signed a 99-year lease of the Port of Darwin to a Chinese company and the CCP.
The Chinese owner, Ye Cheng, had referred to the deal as being part of One Belt, One Road.
The deals also should raise concern for U.S. Marines stationed in Darwin, under the Obama-era pivot to the Pacific, about whether the CCP is able to monitor data collected on cell phones from its systems in the area. Under a 2011 deal between the United States and Australia, the U.S. troops will be there until 2040.
And of similar concern, the decision of Australia to begin implementing the CCP’s programs for totalitarian social control represents a major development in the CCP’s China model push.
As The Epoch Times has reported, the CCP views Australia as a testing ground for programs it wants to spread to the West.
After Australia comes Canada, then the United States - in an apparent imitation of Mao Zedong’s strategy to “surround the cities with the countryside.”
New Zealand Prime Minister, French President Head Anti-Online Extremism Summit In Paris
Multiple heads of state gathered in France Wednesday to launch a new initiative aimed at reducing online extremism.
Headed by New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and French President Emmanuel Macron the Christchurch call is bringing world leaders and technology leaders together in Paris.
Participants are being asked to commit to eliminating terrorist and extremist content on social media and online platforms. Ardern said the meeting is a starting point to develop an action plan.
“This is the first time that we’ve got both governments and tech companies coming together,” said New Zealand’s prime minister.
“That means that when we’re talking about algorithms it’s going to be the beginning of the conversation, not the end of one and so, let’s start that.”
New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, left, and French President Emmanuel Macron, hold a press conference at the Elysee Palace, in Paris, Wednesday, May 15, 2019. World leaders and tech bosses meet Wednesday in Paris to discuss ways to prevent social media from spreading deadly ideas
The Broken Presidential Destiny Of JFK, Jr. May 18 2019 | From: UNZ / Various
Israel's "Kennedy Curse"? On July 16, 1999, John Fitzgerald Kennedy Junior was flying his private Piper Saratoga II, with his wife Carolyn Bessette and his sister-in-law Lauren Bessette.
He was to drop Lauren off at Martha’s Vineyard, then fly on with Carolyn to Hyannis Port for the wedding of his cousin, Rory Kennedy, the following day. At 9:39, as he was approaching Martha’s Vineyard airport, John radioed the control tower for landing instructions, giving no sign of difficulty. At 9:41 p.m., witnesses heard and saw an explosion in the sky, at the precise moment when John’s plane suddenly plummeted into the ocean at the radar-recorded speed of 4,700 feet per minute.
The next day, pieces of luggage from the plane were found floating nearly two miles away from the point of last radar contact.
The search and recovery operations were conducted by the Air Force and the Navy under national security conditions, with news reporting controlled from the Pentagon.
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) concluded its investigation eleven months later, and announced as “probable cause” of the plane crash “the pilot’s failure to maintain control of the airplane”, with “haze and the dark night” being possible factors.
The corporate media amplified the implication that John was an inexperienced and reckless pilot who ignored the dangerous weather conditions and who is to blame for his own death and the death of his wife and sister-in-law.
But many facts and testimonies inconsistent with that story have been concealed, while some convenient ones seem to have been fabricated. Independent investigators have found enough omissions and contradictions in the official and mainstream narrative to ask the questions:
Was he killed by the same cabal that had killed his father 36 years earlier, and for the same motive as his uncle Bobby 5 years later: his plans to conquer the White House and bring his father’s murderers to justice? (On JFK’s and RFK’s assassinations, read my article “Did Israel kill the Kennedys?” on unz.com).
I will examine the evidence of foul play and cover-up in JFK Jr.’s death in the second part of this two-part article. In this first part, let’s see if we can establish the following two things:
1. At age 39, John had made up his mind to launch his political career by seeking an electoral mandate in New York State, and he was about to announce it publicly.
He had also expressed to his friends his ambition to ultimately reach for the presidency. Given his personality and his popularity, he had high chances to make it in less than 20 years. He might realistically have become U.S. president in 2008 or 2016.
2. Brought up in the worship of his father, John had taken a keen interest in “conspiracy theories” about his death at least since his late teens. His knowledge deepened in his thirties, made him aware of State and media cover-ups in other affairs, and motivated him to publish, eight months before his death, a cover article by Oliver Stone, director of the groundbreaking film JFK, titled “Our Counterfeit History”.
If those two things can be proven - and they will - they must be connected. John’s quest for the truth about President Kennedy’s assassination cannot be separated from his political ambition to reclaim the White House, anymore than it could be in the case of his uncle Bobby, who, as David Talbot has shown (Brothers: The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years, Simon & Schuster, 2007), was planning to reopen the investigation on the Dallas coup as he was campaigning for the presidency in 1968.
These are two sides of the same destiny. The heir and the avenger are one and the same person. Therefore, the deep power network that had decided to eliminate Bobby on the threshold of the White House had every reason to make the same decision about John Junior.
True, John Junior was probably not yet ready for the presidency - although some, like Pierre Salinger, believed he would have run for president in 2000. But on the other hand, for many reasons, he was a more natural candidate than RFK, with more potential.
If he had to be stopped, didn’t it make sense to stop him before he made his political ambitions public? July 1999 was the right time; after that, the motive would be harder to conceal.
Even for media-brainwashed Americans, a second heir to JFK killed on the road to the White House would be hard to swallow.
Not to mention the fact that to let JFK Jr. live longer would be taking the risk of having a JFK III coming into this world: more trouble in perspective. Indeed, Carolyn may have been pregnant when she died with her husband.
Part I: The Heir and Would-be Avenger
JFK Jr. and the Camelot legacy
John Junior was literally born with the Kennedy presidency, precisely 17 days after his dad won the election. From the minute he came into this world, he had been in the national spotlight.
As Americans watched him grow up in the White House, they developed a strong affection for him, which did not displease his father.
While Jackie was trying to keep the photographers away from her children, “JFK had another view,” recalls Pierre Salinger, President Kennedy’s Press Secretary.
Whenever Jackie was away, “he was in touch with me and told me that now it was time for the media to get some wonderful pictures of John Jr. and Caroline in his office in the White House. I arranged for Jacques Lowe, who had been hired as the photographer of the Kennedys, to do those photos.”
Little “John John” turned three the day of his father’s funeral, and he broke the world’s heart when he solemnly saluted his father’s coffin. That iconic image encapsulated a nation’s grief, and impressed on millions of Americans the dream of seeing him reclaim the Oval Office one day.
For in the American collective psyche, the Kennedys represented royalty, and JFK Jr. was the legitimate heir to the throne. He was, wrote the New York Daily News the day after his death, the “charismatic crown prince of America’s royal family.” “He was the closest thing we had to a crown prince,” says Chris Cuomo in I am JFK Jr.
Little “John John” saluting his father’s coffin, on his third birthday
The Kennedys didn’t attain that royal status by just buying media coverage. It was conquered by the patriarch Joe Kennedy, whose philosophy Laurence Leamer has well captured in his great book Sons of Camelot: The Fate of an American Dynasty (2005). Joe Kennedy, he writes
“Believed that in each generation a few powerful men were the rightful leaders of their generation. He thought that he and his sons were part of this natural aristocracy. …
Joseph P. Kennedy created one great thing in his life, and that was his family. With acumen as great as his wealth, and limitless purpose, he built a family of sons who sought to reach the peak of American political life.
… Joe knew that he had achieved so much in America because of the liberty and opportunities. He believed that sons of privilege and wealth had an obligation to serve their country and to return something of the bounty that they had inherited.
Joe taught that blood ruled and that they must trust each other and venture out into a dangerous world full of betrayals and uncertainty, always returning to the sanctuary of family.
His sons took on part of Joe’s psychological makeup, the sense of lives without boundaries and ambitions without restrictions.”
After their father’s death, their uncle Bobby played the role of surrogate father for John Jr. and his sister Caroline.
When Bobby was assassinated in his turn in June 1968, Jackie said: “If they are killing Kennedys, my kids are the number one targets. I want to get out of this country.”
She married shipping magnate Aristotle Onassis, whose assets included a seventy-five-member, machine-gun-equipped security force.
Jackie wanted her son to grow up knowing who his father was. As early as 1967, writes biographer Christopher Andersen in The Good Son,
“Jackie made sure that John was constantly exposed to the people who knew John [President Kennedy] best - from longtime pals like Red Fay, Chuck Spalding, Oleg Cassini, Bill Walton, and his ubiquitous sidekick Dave Powers to such New Frontier stalwarts as Pierre Salinger, Theodore Sorensen, and Arthur Schlesinger Jr.
These were the folks ‘who knew Jack well and the things Jack liked to do.’ As long as they were around, she reasoned, ‘each day John will be getting to know his father.’”
And so, although John could hardly have kept real personal memories of his father, he was constantly, so to speak, steeped in the memory of him: “Whenever another child was visiting,” writes Andersen, “he would inevitably ask, ‘Would you like to hear my father?’
"Then he turned to a small stack of records and selected one to play.”
In 1972, Jackie asked Pierre Salinger to join her and her children for a month: “I want you to spend an hour or an hour and a half a day with John Jr. and Caroline and explain everything about what their father did.” And so Salinger did.
John’s craving for information about his father was never quenched. His friend and French biographer Olivier Royant reports that, when running his magazine George, John hired Jacques Lowe, JFK’s official photographer, and kept questioning him about his father for hours.
John John awaiting his father’s return to the White House
Even John’s irresistible yearning for flying, despite his mother’s plea not to do so, can possibly be traced back to his childhood, “when he and his mother watched as Daddy’s helicopter took off from the South Lawn in 1962,” or watched him reappear from the sky.
When Nanny Shaw announced to little John in the morning of November 23, 1963, “John, your father has gone to heaven to take care of Patrick [JFK and Jackie’s third child, who did not survive his first month],” John asked, “Did Daddy take his big plane with him?”
“Yes,” she answered. “I wonder,” John said, “when he’s coming back.”
Significantly, John gave his first private plane the registration number N529JK, a reference to his father’s May 29 birthday.
Did John intend to follow his father’s footsteps in politics? John Quinn, a pioneer researcher on his mysterious death, writes:
"Committed to the legacy of his compelling father, there was never any question about where John F. Kennedy Jr. was heading.
Is there any doubt about the fact that it was only a matter of time before he claimed his father’s legacy?
Anybody who claims that we will never really know, does not know anything about John F. Kennedy Jr.”
We don’t know at what stage in his life John fully endorsed that responsibility. But the thought had certainly been in his mind for many years already when he introduced his uncle Teddy at the 1988 Democratic convention. Like millions of Americans, Salinger was “very excited about that speech”:
“I took John Jr. to meet alone with me for several hours. I was telling him that this speech showed strongly that he should start thinking about going into politics.
He said he was interested, but he was still too young. He told me that he had an idea that he should go into politics in the next century.”
Jackie, the guiding spirit in John’s life, definitely saw her son as Camelot’s standard-bearer. In her last letter to him before dying to lymphoma in 1994, she wrote: “You, especially, have a place in history.”
According to presidential historian Doug Wead, interviewed in the film I am JFK Jr., Jackie “knew in her heart that, some day, the stars are gonna line up, and he’s gonna be president.”
“My mom sort of pressured me to get into politics,” John told Lloyd Howard in 1997. “She expected me to follow in my father’s footsteps, and of course I will. But I don’t think the time is right just yet.”
In 1995, John launched his political magazine George. Under the appearance of superficiality, it engaged in controversial issues of deep politics that reflected John’s interests.
After all, his father had also pursued a career in journalism before entering politics. George was also a means for John to interact with political actors and thinkers.
John didn’t avoid letting people know his interest for his father’s legacy. The September 1996 cover of George features Drew Barrymore grimed as Marilyn Monroe with the caption: “Happy Birthday, Mister President,” an obvious - and, to some, indecent - reference to Marilyn’ serenade in front of JFK at the Madison Square Garden in 1962.
In October 1997, for the 35th anniversary of the Cuban Missile Crisis, John travelled to Cuba to meet Fidel Castro (the interview he had wished didn’t materialize, but Castro invited him for dinner and for a swim in the Bay of Pigs, and rumor has that Castro gave him his view on his father’s death).
John’s interest for the presidency also transpired heavily in George, particularly in the recurrent section “If I were president,” in which various personalities were asked for suggestions. For the October 1998 issue, for example, Tony Brown, author of Empower the People: A 7-Step Plan to Overthrow the Conspiracy That Is Stealing Your Money and Freedom, declared that, if he were president, he would repeal the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.
In 1999, at age 39, John was trying to sell his magazine. He had new plans. According to Gary Ginsberg, a close collaborator who was with John the night before he died, “That last night he was very focused on two things: finding a buyer for George and his political future.” Christopher Andersen writes in his biography The Good Son:
“There seemed little doubt in the minds of those who knew him that John was on the brink of a bright political future.
‘He was probably a more natural politician than any of the other Kennedys,’ David Halberstam said, ‘and that includes his father. John had all the makings of a political superstar - once he decided that’s what he wanted.’”
In July 1999, his decision was made. His closest friends have testified that he was preparing to enter an election contest. Pierre Salinger, who knew him well, declared on French radio Europe 1, on July 19, 1999:
“I felt that in the coming year John Junior would also become a politician. It’s my point of view. And with other people, we thought he was going to be a Democratic candidate for the next presidential election.”
John Junior and Pierre Salinger in 1997
More plausibly, John Jr. would have started by seeking a political office in New York State, where he had lived since 1963. He loved New York, and New York loved him. A 1997 private poll ranked JFK Jr. as New York’s “most popular Democrat,” giving him 65 percent approval rating among fellow Democrats.
John had several options. One he excluded was mayor of New York City. His assistant at George, RoseMarie Terenzio, recounts that when New York Senator Al D’Amato suggested he should run for mayor, John laughed it off. When Terenzio asked him afterward if he would ever consider it,
“He said ‘Well, Rosie, how many mayors do you know that became President?’ I was so shocked I didn’t say anything. Then he smirked as if to say ‘That’s not the road you go down - we’ll see what happens.’”
Terenzio also made the following comment to the news website TheWrap:
“I think he would’ve run for president. I thought he would’ve run in 2008. I had dinner with a friend from George last night who thought for some reason he would’ve waited for 2016. He would be 56.”
Donald Trump and John Kennedy Jr. in 1999: Were they up to something?
According to Gary Ginsberg, JFK Jr.’s close collaborator at George,
“He had been thinking about running for the N.Y. Senate seat - he even had meetings about it that spring - but by July had concluded he would focus his attention on running for governor of N.Y. in 2003.
By temperament and interest, John, I think, realized he was far more suited to being a governor than a legislator.
He knew from running George that he could be an inspiring, strong chief executive of a state, setting the tone for government and successfully running a complex operation.
That idea became very appealing to him at some point that summer. Had the stars aligned over the next couple of years, I’m pretty convinced that’s what he would have pursued.”
Others around John believed he was about to enter the race for the Senate seat that Daniel Moynihan, a former assistant to President Kennedy, was going leave vacant in 2000.
This is the seat that Bobby Kennedy had occupied from 1964 to 1968. On July 19, 1999, New York Daily News reporter Joel Siegel interviewed two unnamed friends of JFK Jr., who said “they believed he would have run for office some day. Earlier this year, in one of the best-kept secrets in state politics, Kennedy considered seeking the seat of retiring Sen. Daniel Moynihan (D-N.Y.) in 2000, friends confirmed yesterday.”
Democratic Chairman John Marino, also quoted in Siegel’s article, did not believe he would have run for the Senate seat, but had little doubt that, if he did, “It would have been ‘Goodbye, anyone else. This is a guy who everybody recognized who would have had any nomination for the asking.’”
Christopher Andersen supports the view that, after consulting with Democratic leaders, John had made up his mind for the Senate. It clashed with Hillary Clinton’s plan.
The Clintons, who were to leave the White House in January 2001, were about to purchase a home in Chappaqua, N.Y., and Hillary was gearing up to run for the Senate as a stepping-stone to the presidency.
“In the end, John was still convinced his best shot was at running for Moynihan’s Senate seat. Hillary Clinton had hesitated to enter the race largely because she feared John, who was being touted behind the scenes as her principal rival for the nomination, would be a formidable foe.
John was both heir to the Kennedy magic and People’s ‘Sexiest Man Alive,’ as well as the consummate New Yorker, a resident of the city since the age of three.
Although New York had no residency requirements, Hillary, who had never spent more than a few days at a time in New York, would almost certainly be branded a carpetbagger. …
As late as the summer of 1999, Hillary actively worried about JFK Jr. and sought assurances from state party officials that he would not be a last-minute entry into the race.
… In early July, Hillary finally made her move and formally announced her candidacy.
But she was still concerned about the possibility that John might decide to toss his hat into the ring. As it turned out, she was right. John was now more confident than ever that he could easily beat her at the polls.
He believed Hillary was vulnerable not only because of the Monica Lewinsky affair, her husband’s subsequent impeachment, and a slew of brewing scandals in the Clinton White House, but mainly because she simply had no connection to the state he loved.
As Hillary had feared, young Kennedy planned on making much of Hillary’s carpetbagger status. ‘Wait until she gets here,’ John told his friend Billy Noonan.
‘She’s gonna get her head handed to her.’
He was going to fill Noonan in on the details of his upcoming campaign for the U.S. Senate - how and when he intended to make the announcement, what advice he was getting from Uncle Teddy, the endorsements and backing he was already lining up - when they all got together on Nantucket to celebrate Noonan’s fifth wedding anniversary on July 16.
Then they’d be off to attend his cousin Rory’s wedding in Hyannis Port. If, of course, all went according to plan.”
Christopher Andersen’s interview on Eyewitness News
Andersen relies on the testimony of John’s longtime friend Billy Noonan, who authored in 2006 Forever Young: My Friendship with John F. Kennedy, Jr. (Viking Press).
Here is what Noonan writes precisely, referring to the last phone conversation he had with John, whom he was supposed to meet on July 16:
“He had been making vague references on the phone about shutting things down, and starting things up.
During the week before our anniversary dinner, he told me that he had something pressing to talk about, but with curious ears in the office, John was cautious.
‘We’ll talk about it this weekend.’ … I asked him now what was up with that [1997] poll, to rib him about how the press was pushing for Hillary Clinton to replace Moynihan.
‘Wait until she gets here,’ John said. ‘She’s gonna get her head handed to her.’ He was in.”
This is the only mention by Noonan of John’s intention to run for the Senate. On one hand, it is not much. On the other, it should be taken very seriously, coming from one of John’s most intimate friends.
Given the importance of the issue, there can be no doubt that Noonan weighed every word he wrote.
One gets the impression that he wanted to say what he knew for the record, yet felt restrained from saying it too clearly, even when hinting at John’s awareness that his telephone conversations were tapped the day before he died.
In his 2009 article, Wayne Madsen quotes an unnamed “close friend of the late John F. Kennedy, Jr.” (who may be Billy Noonan), who said JFK Jr. “was about ready to announce his run for the U.S. Senate from New York. Kennedy was acutely aware of his vulnerability and hired on a personal security team just prior to his announcing for the Senate.”
Noonan and Andersen are not the only ones to think that John was upsetting Hillary’s plans. Andrew Collins writes:
“Approaching the end of two terms in the White House, the Clintons began preparing for their political future. They focused their attention on developing Hillary as a politician (even though she had no actual experience), and selling influence while they had it - buy now, pay later - payable to what would become ‘The Clinton Foundation’.
Hillary refused to return to Arkansas, and suggested the purchase of a home in New York which would allow her to run for the Senate in the upcoming election.
There was just one obstacle…. JFK Jr. had entered the political scene. New York was electric with word of JFK Jr. reclaiming his father’s legacy!
A piece of Camelot was still alive in America, and donors began to line up. She knew she could never defeat the son of JFK in New England.”
After reviewing all those testimonies, I feel that no certainty can be reached about John’s immediate plan, other that he was at the dawn of a bright political future and that he had several options in New York State.
If we believe Noonan - and why shouldn’t we - then Laurence Leamer, author of Sons of Camelot: The Fate of an American Dynasty (HarperCollins, 2011) is right when writing that “John watched with growing dismay as Hillary subtly insinuated herself into what he considered his state.”
April 1999: “Why Hillary won’t be senator”
It is easy to guess that, in return, Hillary saw John as a serious rival, on the state level in the short term, and on the national level in the long term. She stood no chance if John ever stepped across her way, and that was sure to happen sooner or later.
It is true, as some authors object, that John never frontally attacked the Clintons in his magazine George, perhaps out of Democratic loyalty.
But one of the very last issues of George that he oversaw himself (April 1999) was hostile to Hillary’s bid on the Senate seat, posting on the front-page: “Why Hillary won’t be senator.”
November 1999: “Hillary Comes Clean”
In April 1996, the cover had: “Why Women Will Dump Hillary.” But with John out of the way, Hillary did win the seat and, disturbingly, the November 1999 issue of George contained an exclusive interview of her, together with - in tragic irony - an article on “How Bobby Kennedy Seduced New York.”
JFK Jr. As a Conspiracy Theorist
Let’s move on to the next question: how dedicated was John to getting to the bottom of his father’s assassination?
According to testimonies from his friends, John Junior was haunted by the death of his father and quite knowledgeable about independant investigations contradicting the Warren Report. In 1999, he was not a newcomer to JFK conspiracy theories; his quest for truth had started as early as the late 1970s.
His old high school girlfriend Meg Azzoni, in her self-published book, 11 Letters and a Poem: John F. Kennedy, Jr., and Meg Azzoni (2007), writes that as a teenager, JFK, Jr. was questioning the official version of his father’s death: “His heartfelt quest was to expose and bring to trial who killed his father, and covered it up.”
Don Jeffries, author of Hidden History, claimed that “another friend of JFK, Jr.’s adult inner circle, who very adamantly requested to remain anonymous, verified that he was indeed quite knowledgeable about the assassination and often spoke of it in private.”
JFK Jr., said Jeffries in a radio interview, was on “a Shakespearian quest,” “to avenge his father’s death,” like young Hamlet.
October 1998 “Conspiracy Issue” with an article by Oliver Stone
John is the only Kennedy to have shown a serious determination to pursue this truth, besides his uncle Bobby. And he took the risk of making his interest public in October 1998, when he released a special “Conspiracy Issue” of George magazine , which included an article by Oliver Stone titled “Our Counterfeit History,” introduced on the cover as “Paranoid and Proud of It!”
In an article published in 2009, journalist Wayne Madsen claimed that, two weeks after John’s death, “I was scheduled to meet with Kennedy at his magazine’s offices in Washington, DC to discuss hiring on as one of a few investigative journalists Kennedy wanted to dig deep into a number of cases, but most importantly that of his father’s assassination.” (There is no confirmation of Madsen’s claim.)
As many truth seekers who had started with the Kennedy assassination, John had developed an awareness that other events of great historical consequence were the subject of State-orchestrated lies and cover-ups, with corporate media complicity.
And so the JFK assassination was not the only “conspiracy issue” explored by George. It is worth taking a look at two others, for they may inform us on the direction John Jr. was taking in his quest for truth.
In December 1996, George delved into the theory claiming that TWA Flight 800, which had exploded on July 17, 1996, soon after leaving JFK International, had been downed by a missile, rather than as the result of an short-circuit near the central fuel tank, as the National Transportation Safety Board concluded.
Although I have not been able to read the George article on TWA 800 (I will appreciate a comment from anyone who has), I assume it supported Pierre Salinger, who had been the most prominent journalist arguing that TWA 800 was shot down by a missile fired from a US Navy ship.
Salinger was severely attacked by his peers, and his notoriety suffered permanent damage. But in May 27, 1999, he reaffirmed his belief and asked to be vindicated in a Georgetowner column, based on new research confirming his views.
In this piece, Salinger mentions that “retired Navy commander William Donaldson has also come out with a new view: TWA 800 was shot down by a missile - fired not from a Navy ship but a terrorist group.”
That could explain the presence of a mysterious ship caught on radar while speeding away near where the plane exploded.
“‘Radar data collected during the last minute of the T.W.A. flight revealed the two closest objects to the plane, both between three and four miles away, as a Navy P-3 airplane and what the exhibit called simply a ‘30-knot target.’
Radar data for the next 20 minutes showed the mystery boat heading on a beeline out to sea, on a south-southwest course, even as other boats rushed to the crash to try to help out.
It was nearly 9 o’clock at night, not the usual time for an excursion. … [FBI officer] Lewis Schiliro acknowledged the presence of the mystery boat, which he said was at least 25 to 30 feet long and reached speeds of 35 knots, close to 40 miles per hour.
‘Despite extensive efforts, the F.B.I. has been unable to identify this vessel,’ he said. / The response is somewhat alarming given the F.B.I.’s assurances that it had turned over every stone.”
Alarming, but understandable if the mystery boat was in fact Israeli. Israel’s LAP (LohammaPsichologit, the Mossad’s department of psychological warfare) had been busy blaming Iran from the day of the crash, and “thousands of media stories perpetuated the fiction,” recounts Gordon Thomas in Gideon’s Spies: The Secret History of the Mossad (2009), with the London Times claiming that land-air Stinger missile systems had been smuggled across the Canadian border into the United States by Islamic terrorists.
A year later, the FBI’s chief investigator, James K. Kallstrom, would tell his colleagues: “If there was a way to nail those bastards in Tel Aviv for time wasting, I sure would like to see it happen. We had to check every item they slipped into the media.”
Some researchers into JFK Jr.’s plane crash have suggested a connection to the TWA 800 crash, which happened three years earlier almost to the day, and in the same vicinity. Jackie Jura, author of Orwell Today website, wrote:
“I remember when TWA 800 exploded and Salinger was going to give a press conference in Paris to expose the truth. But then he cancelled it.
The rumour on the net at the time was that the powers-that-be told him that if he gave the press conference they’d kill John-John, and so he backed down.”
Back down he did, but in May 27, 1999, he reiterated his claim, and John Jr. would die 50 days later. I don’t subscribe to that theory, but it is worth mentioning.
“TWA Conspiracy Theories” (December 1996)
In March 1997, three months after the issue featuring the “TWA Conspiracy Theories” cover article, George magazine published a 13-page article by the mother of Yigal Amir, the man convicted of assassinating Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. Rabin had offended the Israeli far-right by wanting to trade land for peace.
Amir’s mother revealed that her son had operated under the tutelage and training of a Shin Bet agent, Avishai Raviv, working for forces seeking to halt the peace process.
“Who was behind the killing of Yitzhak Rabin?” (March 1997)
Canadian-Israeli journalist Barry Chamish, who investigated the Rabin assassination in his book Who Murdered Yitzhak Rabin? (1988), agrees.
He also believes that JFK Jr. was determined to “get the full story on the Rabin assassination,” and finds support in several news release following JFK Jr.’s death:
“Catherine Crier of Fox TV’s The Crier Report, announcing that JFK Jr. was about to meet high ranking Mossad officers.
Then the German newspaper, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, reported that Kennedy had met with the deputy chief of the Mossad, Amiram Levine, to get the full story on the Rabin assassination two days before his plane went down.
Then Maariv ran an interview with JFK’s chauffeur, who happens to be Israeli. Then people started noting that Ehud Barak was in Washington at the time of Kennedy’s finale in life.”
Barak’s visit to the U.S. around July 16, 1999 - with a battalion of Intelligence and security agents - is a fact, but I have not been able to verify Chamish’ sources in the Crier Report, the Frankfurter Allgemeine or the Maariv. Chamish concluded:
“Yes, I’m sure he [John] was murdered. And yes, the Israeli political establishment had a motive for involvement.
The latest Kennedy to die violently was the only American editor to expose (in the March 1997 issue of his magazine George) the conspiracy behind Rabin’s assassination.
And he had every intention of continuing his exposes until he got to the bottom of the matter. We don’t know what drove him to stand alone in seeking the truth, but it may have had much to do with the information contained within Final Judgment.”
There is no confirmation that John Junior read Michael Piper’s book Final Judgment blaming Israel for the Kennedy assassination, and released in 1993. But it is in the realm of possibility, given his personal quest for the truth on his father’s death, and his consideration for the theory that Rabin was assassinated by the Israeli Deep State, rather than by a lone nut.
So, was JFK Jr. himself assassinated?
Here is man whose road to the presidency seemed traced. No other man of his age had better chances to reach the White House one day. And no other man in the world had more reasons to want the 1963 Kennedy assassination reinvestigated.
He was already trying to educate the public through his magazine, at the risk of exposing his own beliefs, something no other Kennedy had ever done (even RFK had kept his doubt on the Warren report private, and his plan to reopen the case secret).
And this man, his best friend Noonan believes, was just about to announce his candidacy for a New York Senate seat, which everyone would have understood as the first step toward the White House.
Pierre Salinger and others even believe he would have run for president in 2000.
What are the odds that he would die at this precise moment by accident?
How lucky for his enemies to be spared the trouble of eliminating him, as they had his uncle in 1968! If that was an accident, then that alone deserves to be called a “Kennedy curse,” doesn’t it! If it was an accident, then the Devil caused it. Or was it Yahweh?
As I have argued in “Did Israel kill the Kennedys?”, John’s uncle Bobby had been assassinated because he was, in his own eyes and in the eyes of most Americans - and therefore also in the eyes of his brother’s killers -, the continuation of his brother, his heir and avenger.
Even before David Talbot, Laurence Leamer has shown how close Jack and Bobby had been. He writes in Sons of Camelot:
“Bobby had been the president’s alter ego and protector. He could finish his brother’s sentences and complete a task that Jack signaled with no more than a nod or a gesture.
He had loved his brother so intensely and served him so well that within the administration it was hard to tell where one man ended and the other began.”
A bond of blood and spirit of a comparable nature existed between John F. Kennedy and the son that bore his name.
Although John Junior could not speak with his father, nor even remember speaking with him, his love and loyalty to his father, nurtured by his mother, was the driving force in his life.
From the point of view of JFK’s murderers, JFK Jr. was JFK redivivus, and RFK redivivus at the same time. All three were like one man who had to be killed three times.
Part II: Evidence of Assassination and Cover-Up
Was JFK Jr. assassinated? As we are going to see, the evidence may not be absolutely compelling, but what can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt is that federal authorities and corporate media engaged in a massive cover-up of any facts that contradicted the theory of the accident due to the pilot’s error.
And that is enough, I think, to decide between accident and assassination. The transgenerational cabal who had the motive, means and opportunity to murder JFK and RFK (and the power to get away with it) had the same motive, means and opportunity to murder JFK Jr. (and the power to get away with it).
We know for sure that, in 1968, RFK had both the ambition to win the White House and the determination to reopen the investigation on the death of his brother (read my article “Did Israel Kill the Kennedys?”). I have now shown that the same can be ascertained about JFK Jr. in 1999. Obviously, that made him a target, the next Kennedy on the list.
The 9:39 Call and the Explosion
According to Wayne Madsen, “JFK Jr.’s Plane Crash Was Originally Treated As Murder Investigation” (the title of his 2009 article):
“The FBI had discovered that there was ‘suspicious boating activity’ in an area of Martha’s Vineyard where Kennedy’s plane was descending to 2000 feet for its final approach to the airport.
The ‘suspicious’ boaters claimed to be fishing for striped bass. … after the plane’s wreckage was discovered, investigators found, according to Kennedy’s friend, that every light bulb, including that in the emergency flashlight, had been blown out on the plane and every circuit board, including those in the engine sensors and other electronic equipment, had been literally ‘melted.’
FBI agents on the scene preliminarily concluded that a ‘massive electromagnetic event’ caused Kennedy’s plane to crash. … Before the FBI could begin examining the ocean floor for any ‘special equipment’ that may have been thrown overboard from the fishing boat, their ‘murder’ investigation was abruptly called off by FBI headquarters in Washington.”
Unfortunately, I have found no source supporting Madsen’s claim about an aborted FBI investigation (that’s always the problem with Madsen). But the fact that no news of a criminal investigation ever reached the public is in itself very puzzling, given the history of Kennedy assassinations and the natural assumption that JFK Jr. could be a target.
That JFK Jr. had powerful enemies was well-known to the whole world, and the lack of a criminal investigation may be taken as confirmation of their power.
Independent investigators have gathered a fair amount of evidence that JFK Jr.’s death was a criminal act.
I will summarize what I hold to be the most solid evidence, based on my reading of all the relevant articles I could find on the Net (including those by early researchers such as John Quinn), and of the following two books: first, chapter 7 of Donald Jeffries’s book Hidden History: An Expose of Modern Crimes, Conspiracies, and Cover-Ups in American Politics (Skyhorse publishing, 2016), which I recommend (you may also want to listen to Jeffries’s one-hour interview); second, John Koerner, Exploding the Truth: The JFK Jr., Assassination (Chronos Books, 2018), which adds little.
In addition, John Hankey’s video “Dark Legacy II: the Assassination of JFK Jr” is very useful. However, I advise to skip Koerner’s Part I, meant to exonerate the Clintons and blame the Bushs; for the same reason, I recommend to start Hankey’s video at 15 minutes.
The basic fact that seems firmly established by radar data is that JFK Jr.’s plane suddenly nose-dived into the Ocean at 9:41. That cannot be explained simply by an engine failure, as the Boston Globe correctly asserted:
“Even if the engine died, a federal aviation source said, it is unlikely that the plane would reach such a high rate of descent, because the plane is designed to glide without power at a much slower rate for several miles.
And if Kennedy had run out of fuel, it is likely he would have made a distress call.”
The most likely explanation, apart from suicide, is that the plane suffered a structural damage, possibly by explosive, making it impossible to maintain in the air; blowing off a part of a wing or the tail would have been enough, and would have required only a very small device fixed to the plane.
The next element to consider is that, from the early hours of July 17, it was reported that JFK Jr. had made a call to Martha’s Vineyard airport at 9:39 pm, asking for landing instructions in a perfectly calm tone, less than two minutes before his plane suddenly dropped and disappeared from radar. That information was broadcast on Boston WCVB-TV and was relayed by ABC News. A United Press International article dated July 17 said:
“At 9:39 p.m. Friday, Kennedy radioed the airport and said he was 13 miles from the airport and 10 miles from the coast, according to WCVB-TV news in Boston.
He reportedly said he was making his final approach. … In his final approach message, WCVB-TV said Kennedy told controllers at the airport that he planned to drop off his wife’s sister and then take off again between 11 p.m. and 11:30 p.m. for Hyannis Airport.”
WCVB-TV repeated that information continuously during their first two days of reporting on the story. They broadcast, at 12:35 p.m. on July 17, a phone interview by anchor Susan Wornick of U.S. Coast Guard Petty Officer Todd Burgun, who confirmed the information. Here is a transcript of the footage, which Hankey has included in his valuable film (19:40):
Wornick: “We have been told by the Coast Guard that in fact there is now evidence of a last communication last night with JFK Jr.’s plane as he was making an approach to Martha’s Vineyard airport.
Petty officer Todd Burgun joins us from the Coast Guard Base in Boston. He is a Petty officer, and a public information officer. Thank you for being with us, sir. What can you tell us about this last communication with JFK Jr.’s plane?”
Burgun: “All I really know at this time is that it was at 9:39 p.m. and it was with the FAA. And he was on his final approach to Martha’s Vineyard.”
Wornick: “So at 9:39, to the best of your information, JFK Jr. made a contact with the airport, with the flight controllers that he was on his final descent.”
Burgun: “That is correct.”
That is all that remained of WCVB-TV’s report on the subject, when researchers later obtained archive copies; “hours of time on the tape archive of WCVB’s July 17 broadcast, during which information on Kennedy’s radio contact was continually reported, have been intentionally cut,” complained John Quinn.
According to Jeffries, the original interview of Burgun was much longer:
"On the uncut tape, Burgun went on to delineate all the points from the UPI’s article: Kennedy was calm, on approach to the airport, had provided his position and trajectory, and had even made a comment about dropping Lauren Bessette off at the airport. Some five hours of coverage was edited out.”
This crucial information was reported by news services on Saturday July 17 and early Sunday, July 18. By Monday morning, the FAA claimed that there was never a communication from Kennedy to the tower.
Todd Burgun became utterly unreachable. According to the Boston Globe, Martin Wyatt, a controller at the Martha’s Vineyard Airport tower the night of Kennedy’s flight “declined comment on whether he had radio contact with Kennedy’s plane.”
Simultaneously, on July 18, FAA and NTSB officials produced some “newly found” radar “evidence” which supposedly showed Kennedy’s flight exhibiting signs of difficulties and irregularities long before 9:39; obviously, Kennedy’s perfectly normal call at 9:39 did not fit with that new version of events.
Of course, it is not inconceivable that the crucial piece of information of JFK Jr.’s 9:39 radio call was mistaken, false, or fake.
Yet it seems highly implausible that the Coast Guard would charge their spokesman Todd Burgun - whose identity is not in question - to release it to the public without double-checking it.
The fact that the news was originally broadcast by a Boston TV station is perhaps significant, as is the fact that, among major newspapers, the Boston Globe was the most critical of the official story (I’ll mention other cases along the way).
Since Boston is the Kennedys’ historical stronghold, we can conjecture that an information war of some sort was going on between Boston and Washington, Boston trying to resist the disinformation assault from federal agencies.
The only available photo believed to be of the wreckage of JFK Jr.’s plane
The second element to consider is the testimony of Victor Pribanic, a trial lawyer from White Oak, Pennsylvania, who was fishing for striped bass off Squibnocket Point that night.
He gave an interview to The Martha’s Vineyard Times, cited in the New York Daily News, July 21, 1999: “I heard an explosion over my right shoulder. It sounded like an explosion. There was no shock wave, but it was a large bang.”
He also said, according to the Daily News,“that just before hearing the noise, he noticed a small aircraft flying low over the water toward the island.” Pribanic repeated his story to filmmaker Anthony Hilder of the Free World Alliance: “I heard a loud impact like a bomb.”
The next day, when Pribanic heard the news of the Kennedy crash, he gave his information to Hank Myer of the West Tilsbury Police Department.
Myer accompanied Pribanic to the site where he’d heard the explosion, which would turn out exactly where the plane went missing. Police, he was told, forwarded his information to the investigators.
Pribanic was apparently not the only witness of the explosion. The July 17 UPI article mentions:
"A reporter for the Vineyard Gazette newspaper told WCVB-TV in Boston that he was out walking Friday night about the time of the crash and saw ‘big white flash in the sky’ off Philbin Beach.”
When John DiNardo contacted the Vineyard Gazette in an attempt to talk with this reporter, a few days later, he was told that the “whole thing” was a mix-up due to some fireworks having been set off at “Falmouth”, and, when he insisted, he was told that the reporter was no longer employed by the paper.
Like the 9:39 radio call, the ear- and eye-witnesses disappeared from news reports from July 18 on. The National Transportation Safety Board initial report, released on July 30, 1999 makes no mention of them.
It states that there was no “in-flight break-up or fire, and no indication of pre-impact failure to the airframe,” which excludes an explosion damaging the plane. On June 7, 2000, eleven months after the plane crash, the NTSB released its final report.
That report was announced to the press by a short official NTSB news release which included the following statement: “The probable cause of the accident, as stated in the accident report, is: ‘The pilot’s failure to maintain control of the airplane during a descent over water at night, which was a result of spatial disorientation.
Factors in the accident were haze and the dark night.’” A first problem must be pointed out: that statement from the NTSB news release which is supposedly taken from the final report does not appear in the final report.
In fact, as I will show, it is hard to see how the full report supports the conclusion of that news release. One gets the impression that the person who wrote the news release didn’t even read the full report.
For example, the sudden drop of altitude from 2,200 feet to 1,100 feet in 14 seconds, stated in the full report, is hard to reconcile with the news release statement.
Disorientation implies that the pilot was not aware that he was flying straight into the ocean. But that is impossible, as the NTSB Investigator-in-Charge, Robert Pearce, had admitted as early as July 20, 1999: “They were aware they were going down. With that kind of descent rate, it is going to be noisier than hell in the cockpit.”
Jeb Burnside, commercial pilot and editor-in-chief of Aviation Safety Magazine, did a careful analysis of the NTSB report and radar data and confirms that weather conditions and pilot experience (or lack of) fail to explain the crash:
"On paper, this accident shouldn’t have happened. Despite most of his time being in a training environment, a typical 310-hour instrument-rating student in a well-equipped airplane should have had no problem with this flight.”
The mainstream media hardly paid attention to the full report, and focused on the short news release. But they even distorted it to make its hesitant conclusion (“probable cause”) more assertive and dramatic.
“Haze and the dark night,” which are mentioned as “factors in the accident,” were exaggerated and declared totally unsafe for flying. “The pilot’s failure to maintain control … as a result of spatial disorientation,” became proof that JFK Jr. was incompetent to fly in such terrible weather at night. And the implication was that JFK Jr. was reckless and irresponsible to fly that night, especially with his wife and sister-in-law on board.
So, after the first step of crucial omissions in the NTSB report (JFK Jr.’s 9:39 call to the airport and Pribanic’s report of an explosion), the disinformation process continued in two more steps: first, a NTSB news release about the “probable cause” of the “accident” is falsely presented as “stated” in the NTSB final report, whereas it is in reality a far cry from the picture presented in the report; second, that relatively prudent statement is exaggerated and dramatized in mainstream news, while all contradictory details in the full report are ignored.
Let’s see out that works for the two following crucial points: 1) weather conditions and visibility, 2) the pilot’s experience and cautiousness.
My point is not so much to determine exactly the visibility and the level of JFK Jr.’s skill, but rather to demonstrate a concerted effort to distort credible reports on these matters, with the obvious intention to convince the public that the lack of visibility and John’s inexperience are sufficient explanations for his plane crash, although in fact, they are not.
"At about 6:30 on the night of the accident, the pilot received an Internet weather forecast for flight from Teterboro, New Jersey, to Hyannis, Massachusetts. The report was for VFR (visual flight rules) weather, visibility 6 to 8 miles.”
So two hours before taking off, JFK Jr. received a forecast of very good flying conditions. The NTSB final report also quotes the Martha’s Vineyard tower manager as stating:
"The visibility, present weather, and sky condition at the approximate time of the accident was probably a little better than what was being reported. I say this because I remember aircraft on visual approaches saying they had the airport in sight between 10 and 12 miles out. I do recall being able to see those aircraft and I do remember seeing the stars out that night.”
This tower manager must be Marvin Wyatt, interviewed for the Boston Globe: “Marvin Wyatt, a controller at the Martha’s Vineyard Airport tower the night of Kennedy’s flight, said visibility was good at the airport at Kennedy’s expected arrival time.”
Wayne Madsen quotes an unnamed close friend of JFK Jr. (probably Billy Noonan, who was supposed to meet him that night) who said “that visibility around the Vineyard was clear at 9:41 p.m. when the plane disappeared from the sky.”
Mainstream news outlet, however, repeated over and over again, in contradiction even to the NTSB report, that the weather was so bad, the fog so thick, that John should have cancelled his plan to fly, had he been a responsible man.
FAA Flight Specialist Edward Meyer, who had prepared for the NTSB the FAA’s official report of weather conditions over Martha’s Vineyard on July 16, 1999, and had determined that they were “at least very good,” was disturbed by the way his conclusions were distorted, and released a public statement:
"Nothing of what I have heard on mainstream media makes any sense to me… The weather along his flight was just fine. A little haze over eastern Connecticut. … I don’t know why the airplane crashed, but what I heard on the media was nothing but garbage.”
One of the most dubious witnesses brought forward by the corporate media to support their claim of fatal visibility was Kyle Bailey. Here is how the Washington Post introduced him on July 21st:
"Kyle Bailey, 25, a pilot with more than a decade of flying experience who also keeps his plane at Essex County Airport and who frequently flies the same route as Kennedy - Fairfield to the Vineyard - took special note of Kennedy that night because Bailey had just decided against making the flight.
Bailey said he feared the combination of darkness and haze could be treacherous, causing him to lose sight of the horizon, lose his bearings, maybe even lose control of his plane.
Visibility was four to five miles in Fairfield due to haze, near the margin for flying by visual rules, as opposed to instruments.”
According to the NY Daily News of the same day, Bailey said:
"I saw him taxi [drive the plane on ground to prepare for take off], and I saw him take off.
I [later] told my family, ‘I can’t believe he’s going up in this weather.’ At night, you don’t know where the sky ends and the ocean begins.
You have no sight of the horizon. It can give you a false sense of flying level.”
“Bailey,” commented the Daily News,“was staggered by what he feared was another ghastly Kennedy tragedy. ‘It never seems to end for this family,’ he said. ‘He’s so young, with a life full of promise.’”
How moving! But who is Kyle Bailey, “the last man to see Kennedy alive at the Fairfield airport”? I had no difficulty to find the answer to that question: it happens that Kyle Bailey later became an aviation analyst regularly working for major network and cable televisions such as Fox News, CBS, ABC, NBC, BBC. Bailey even appeared in the documentary Curse on the Kennedys? and very recently in the ABC documentary The Last Days of JFK Jr., aired in January 2019, in which he repeats his story. Can you swallow that blue pill?
In the same documentary The Last Days of JFK Jr. appears another private pilot by the name of Bob Arnot, who claims to have flown the same night along the same route as John. He declares there was no visibility, to the point that, when approaching Martha’s Vineyard, he could not see any lights at all.
Unlike Bailey, who somehow escapted the attention of NTSB investigators, this Bob Arnot is most probably the unnamed pilot mentioned in the NTSB report as follows: “when his global positioning system (GPS) receiver indicated that he was over Martha’s Vineyard, he looked down and ‘…there was nothing to see.
There was no horizon and no light. … I turned left toward Martha’s Vineyard to see if it was visible but could see no lights of any kind nor any evidence of the island. … I thought the island might [have] suffered a power failure.’”
That testimony completely contradicts Martha’s Vineyard tower manager (Marvin Wyatt), who is quoted in the NTSB report as saying visibility was great. Which shows that the NTSB report is self-contradictory in some areas.
Now, it is a very small world. You can find on Wikipedia that “Dr. Bob Arnot is a journalist, author, former host of the Dr. Danger reality TV series, and previously medical and foreign correspondent for NBC and CBS.” Can you swallow that too? Or do you start to smell a media conspiracy?
Was JFK Jr. Reckless and Inexperienced?
Let’s now talk about JFK Jr.’s flying experience and skill. Kyle Bailey’s testimony implies that JFK Jr.’s is solely to blame for his own death and for the deaths of his wife and her sister.
That view was reinforced by hundreds of comments on air about how inexperienced JFK Jr. was. Just like on weather conditions, the mainstream media gave a grossly negative view of JFK Jr.’s flying experience and skill, unrelated to the NTSB report and to the real testimonies of flight instructors who knew him.
The NTSB report reckoned that JFK Jr. had a flight experience of “about 310 hours, of which 55 hours were at night.” During the last fifteen months, he had made 35 flights between Fairfield airport, N.J., and Martha’s Vineyard, including five at night.
Three certified flight instructors (CFI) quoted in the report describe John as an “excellent”, “methodical” and “very cautious” pilot. In the early days, some newspapers echoed that view with their own research. John McColgan, JFK Jr.’s federal licensing instructor from Vero Beach, Florida, was interviewed for the Orlando Sentinel, July 18, 1999, and said: “He was an excellent pilot. … In fact, by now he probably has enough hours to be a commercial pilot.”
One the same day, the New York Daily News quoted flight instructors Ralph and Chris describing John as a careful pilot, always checking meticulously “every nut and bolt on the airplane. … He was very safety oriented. … John was a natural in flying.”
On July 21, USA Today published an article titled “Pilot Kennedy was ‘conscientious guy,’” whose lead paragraph said: “John F. Kennedy Jr. attended the Harvard of flight schools, may have had far more flight experience than has been reported and was known at his New Jersey airport for prudence in the cockpit.” The article quoted other people who knew Kennedy as a good pilot.
But as days passed, major TV channels and newspapers gave a more and more negative assessment of John’s flying skills and of the weather conditions. They emphasized that he didn’t have the proper license to fly with instruments only, as the absence of visibility would have required.
It is true that John’s license was for visual flight only, meaning visibility of at least 4 miles. But although John had not yet obtained the license allowing him to fly by instruments only, he had passed the written test and completed the training for the inflight test. According to the flight instructor who trained him, as quoted in the NTSB report, “the pilot’s basic instrument flying skills and simulator work were excellent.”
So even if the visibility had been very bad - which it was not - John could have guided his plane safety to the airport, using his autopilot if necessary. According to Scott Meyers, a foremost expert on the death of JFK Jr. who was interviewed for the program “Encounters with the Unexplained: The Kennedy Curse, JFK, Jr.’s, Death – Accident or Assassination?” aired February 15, 2002:
"The fact that Kennedy knew how to use his plane’s navigational instruments casts serious doubt on the official explanation for the crash, because even if he had gotten lost, his knowledge of the plane’s instruments would have allowed him to flip a switch and allow the autopilot to guide him to a short distance from his runway destination.
A little haze should have never stopped him from landing safely.”
One question has been the focus of much attention from independent researchers: was there a flight instructor as co-pilot in the plane?
Officially, there wasn’t. No fourth body was recovered in the wreckage.
But strangely enough, one seat was also missing, and conspiracy theorists such as John Hankey have speculated that it might have had a flight instructor’s body seat-belted on it, which might have been spirited away for the sake of building up the story of an incompetent and reckless John.
For if John had flown with a flight instructor, then the whole argument of his recklessness falls.
Again, I am mentioning this issue here, not to make any definite conclusion, but mainly to point out evidence of a concerted effort to close the case and satisfy the public that JFK Jr. died - and killed his wife and sister-in-law - by his own recklessness.
JFK Jr. had owned his Piper Saratoga for a little more than two months, and he had never flown it without a flight instructor. He had flown to Martha’s Vineyard 8 times in the previous month with that plane, always with a flight instructor.
Since he had his wife and her sister on board, it doesn’t seem like him to fly without an instructor, especially at night. According to Donald Jeffries, “Early reports, such as the one that appeared in the New York Times on July 17, 1999, indicated that a flight instructor was on the plane. JFK Jr.’s George magazine coeditor Richard Blow recounted that Kennedy had told him he was taking a flight instructor with him during their last lunch together."
Then, from the next day on, any mention of a flight instructor on board disappeared. Different explanations were offered for the fact that John flew without a flight instructor that particular night, for the first time on his new plane. His biographer Christopher Andersen writes:
"On today’s trip up from New Jersey, Jay Biederman, the flight instructor who had recently helped John pass his written instrument test and was preparing him for his instrument flight test, was scheduled to go along as he had several times before.
But when Biederman canceled to join his parents on a hiking trip in Switzerland, John made the fateful decision not to find a replacement.”
Curiously, that explanation contradicts a key testimony included in the NTSB final report, of which John Hankey provides a good critical analysis at the end of his film. I quote here the shorter presentation from Donald Jeffries:
"One of Kennedy’s flight instructors, Robert Merena, told the NTSB, some six months after the crash, that JFK Jr. had turned down his request to fly with him by saying he wanted to “do it alone.”
These dramatic, ironic words were reported widely in the establishment press and solidified the image of JFK Jr. as an irresponsible daredevil. Merena’s own lawyer would deny he’d ever made such a statement, and the memorandum produced by the NTSB regarding it was suspiciously irregular, with no date, location, or signature on it.
Most crucially, Merena had been interviewed five days after the crash by the NTSB, and he never mentioned anything about this, which would certainly seem to have been a pertinent fact. Merena did tell the NTSB in this early interview, however, that he’d never seen JFK Jr. fly without an instructor.”
The damning story of John rejecting the offer of a flight instructor and stubbornly insisting to pilot alone was included in the NTSB’s final report and became widely quoted.
Here it is from ABC News on July 7, 2000: “John F. Kennedy Jr. turned down an offer by one of his flying instructors to accompany him the night of his fatal flight to Martha’s Vineyard, saying he ‘wanted to do it alone,’ federal investigators say.” The same could be read in the Los Angeles Times on the same day, and in TheNew York Times.
I personally feel that the question of whether there was a co-pilot in the plane or not cannot be conclusively answered either way. But the important thing here is the strong probability that Robert Merena’s testimony was fabricated or forced, to hammer in the point that there was no co-pilot and that JFK Jr. acted irresponsibly.
In this whole affair, we cannot prove directly that JFK Jr. was murdered. What we can prove, however, is that federal agencies and mainstream media conspired in a massive fraud, including the concealment of key evidence (the 9:39 call and reports of an explosion), the distortion of facts (visibility and pilot’s ability) and false testimonies (Kyle Bailey and Bob Arnot being the most likely).
That can be taken as indirect proof that JFK Jr. was murdered.
Eight hours of video footage taken by recovery divers might have helped to solve the mystery, but the Navy preferred to destroyed them (Sidney Morning Herald, February 13, 2001)
The National Security Protocol
Truth seekers such as Donald Jeffries, John Koerner or John Hankey have raised important questions concerning the 10 hours (they say 15 hours) it took for a search to begin after the plane was reported missing by Bessette and Kennedy relatives, at 10 p.m. on July 16th, and for the 4 or 5 days it took to locate and retrieve the wreckage and the bodies.
The plane was equipped with an Emergency Locator Transmitter (ELT), which sends out a beacon signal in the event of a crash. According to the original UPI article mentioned earlier, “the beacon was heard by the Coast Guard in Long Island, N.Y., at 3:40 a.m. But as the search went on, authorities seemed to discount the relevance of the beacon signal.”
Was the search intentionally directed away from the crash site during three days, in order for the perpetrators to secretly destroy the evidence from the cockpit voice recorder (the NTSB report says that “its backup battery was missing, and it had retained no data”), remove the log book which John kept in a waterproof box and, more importantly in Hankey’s view, remove the body of the co-pilot (together with the missing seat reported by the NTSB)?
That is a possibility that finds support in the testimony of Lieutenant Colonel Richard Stanley of the Civil Air Patrol, who “would report seeing what he thought were Coast Guard helicopters around the crash site at about 7 a.m., hours before the Coast Guard or anyone else arrived.”
For lack of space, I will not dwell on those issues, which are thoroughly discussed by the above-mentioned researchers.
Rather, let’s focus on the tight military control of all procedures following the tragedy, from the search and rescue missions to the news reporting, all conducted under national security standards.
The search was done by military planes and vessels. According to John Koerner, “the military immediately instituted in the hours after the crash a 17-nautical mile no-fly zone, and no entry zone, around the crash site.
No civilians or media were allowed in this area until the bodies and wreckage were recovered.”
On July 20, 1999, we read in the NTSB report, “the airplane wreckage was located by U.S. Navy divers from the recovery ship, USS Grasp.”
Why was the Navy, rather than civilian rescue craft, tasked with the retrieval of JFK Jr.’s crashed airplane?
More disturbing still, why did the Pentagon take control of news reporting from July 18?
Pentagon Press conference, from Hankey’s Dark Legacy II (24:08)
There are issues also with the autopsies. Joanna Weiss and Matthew Brelis of the Boston Globe wrote on July 23, 1999, in an article headlined “JFK Autopsy Rushed”:
"The autopsies in the Kennedy case were performed especially quickly, pathologists said. The remains were taken to a Bourne hospital at about 7:15 p.m.
Wednesday night and released to the victims’ families at 11 p.m., according to the medical examiner’s office and the Cape and Islands district attorney’s office. /
Many jurisdictions refuse to perform autopsies at night, said Robert Kirschner, a former deputy chief medical examiner for Cook County, Ill. The haste in this case, he said, could lead to questions about the investigation’s thoroughness. …
The timing of the Kennedy investigation, Kirschner said, makes it unlikely that pathologists performed autopsies on Carolyn Bessette Kennedy or Lauren Bessette. ‘You can’t possibly do three investigations in four hours,’ he said.”
But, to me, the most suspicious thing of all is the way the bodies were disposed of after their rushed autopsies: they were cremated in Duxbury’s cemetery crematorium. Then their remains were taken aboard the Navy destroyer Briscoe, and scattered into the sea, near the place where they had found their death.
Why? “The burial for the 35th president’s son,” noted local Duxbury journalist Paula Maxwell, “was reportedly carried out in keeping with his expressed wishes.”
The Boston Globe reported on July 22 , “Kennedy’s family requested a burial at sea, and the Pentagon granted that request.”
But, the next day, the same newspaper expressed surprise:
"The cremated remains of John F. Kennedy Jr., his wife, and her sister were cast from a warship to the ocean currents in a manner not favored by the Catholic Church and in a ceremony that occurred only after the intercession of Pentagon brass.
The Roman Catholic Church prefers the presence of a body at its funeral rites. And the Defense Department rarely accords the honor of burial at sea to civilians.”
Moreover, no other Kennedy had ever been cremated. The reasons given for cremating JFK Jr. body do not make any sense and are contradictory.
The New York Times wrote: “Kennedy family members, citing his wishes and hoping to avoid having a spectacle made of Mr. Kennedy’s final resting place, have decided to have his body cremated and his ashes scattered at sea in a Navy ceremony, a family adviser said.”
Can we believe that the Kennedy family, who had always showed respect for Catholic traditions, wanted no grave for JFK Jr., by fear that his grave might become a pilgrimage site?
And can we believe that John, at age 39, had expressed “his wish” to be cremated? CNN added more bizarre explanations to that already incredible story:
"Sen. Kennedy, D-Massachusetts, had requested the burial at sea, saying it was his nephew’s wish to be cremated and his ashes spread on the waves.
The request was approved by Defense Secretary William Cohen. / The family of the Bessette sisters requested that the two women be buried in the same ceremony, the Pentagon said. / John Jr., like his father, the late President John F. Kennedy, had a love of the sea.
He spent many summers sailing and kayaking the waters where his plane crashed. / Pentagon officials tell CNN there are two grounds for granting permission for a naval burial at sea. First, there is a provision allowing for such burials for people providing “notable service or outstanding contributions to the United States. /
Also, protocol allows sea burials for the children of decorated Navy veterans. President Kennedy was a naval officer wounded and cited for heroism in World War II.”
How ridiculous! JFK was a decorated Navy veteran, and he surely loved sailing, yet he was buried in Arlington. It seems to me unconceivable that JFK Jr. would not have wished to be buried near his father.
Even Pierre Salinger asked to be buried at Arlington Cemetery, not far from JFK. It is just as unbelievable that the Bessettes, who are said to hold John responsible for their daughters’ death, and to have received 10 million dollars in compensation from the Kennedys, would decide just the same.
According to information found in RFK Jr.’s diary, published by the New York Post, Ann Freeman, Carolyn and Lauren Bessette’s mother, “began asking that her two daughters be buried near her home in Greenwich, Connecticut.”
It was Edwin Schlossberg, Caroline Kennedy’s wife, who convinced her to have her two daughters cremated and their ashes spread in the ocean. “He bullied, bullied, bullied the shattered grieving mother,” writes RFK Jr., also commenting: “All the Bessette family knows that Ed hated Carolyn and did everything in his power to make her life miserable.”
After Carole Radziwill, the wife of Anthony Radziwill, JFK Jr.’s cousin and close friend, complained to RFK Jr. about Schlossberg, RFK Jr. wrote in his diary: “She says she wants to start an ‘I hate Ed Club.’ There would be many, many members. John & Carolyn would have certainly applied.”
That surely makes us wonder about Edwin Schlossberg’s interest in the whole affair.
Navy destroyer USS Biscoe, where the funeral ceremony took place
Who Did It?
So, have we proven without a reasonable doubt that JFK Jr. was assassinated? Admittedly, no. None of the elements analyzed above is entirely conclusive by itself.
Perhaps, after all, Todd Burgun was mistaken about John’s radio call to Martha’s Vineyard airport at 9:39 (but why didn’t he come forward to retract his statement?). Perhaps Victor Pribanic lied, or mistook he sound of John’s plane crashing into the Ocean for an airborn explosion (but what about the other witnesses?).
Perhaps, among the conflicting reports about the visibility, we should give the benefit of the doubt to the worst reports. Perhaps Kyle Bailey, the last man to see JFK Jr. alive, was really there, before becoming an aviation analyst expert regularly appearing on Fox News Channel, Fox Business Network, MSNBC, CNBC, The Weather Channel, CBS, ABC, NBC, BBC, CTV, I24 News, and HLN, as his LinkedIn account says.
Perhaps flight instructor Robert Merena did suddenly remember in January 2000 that JFK Jr. had rejected his offer to fly with him because “he wanted to do it alone.” Perhaps John Junior, at age 39, did ask to be cremated and his ashes spread into the ocean he loved so much. And so on.
It is the accumulation of such doubtful elements that is hard to accept. It is also the military control over the operations, right down to news reporting from the Pentagon, which is odd.
Add the fact that the regional director of the NTSB in charge of the investigation, Robert Pearce, according to his official profile, later “briefed State Department officials and the Egyptian Ambassador in the wake of the EgyptAir Flight 990 crash [the jet plane that crashed into the Atlantic Ocean after leaving JFK airport, with 33 high ranking Egyptian military officers on board, allegedly by the fault of a suicidal Egyptian co-pilot] as well as supported the FBI on scene at the World Trade Center in the aftermath of the events of September 11, 2001.” I sure wouldn’t trust Robert Pearce to investigate my own plane crash.
In the final analysis, it is the explanation of the crash that is strikingly implausible. As Anthony Hilder put it:
"A finely-tuned, well-kept first-class airplane doesn’t just drop out of the sky and head straight down into the ocean unless it’s blown out of the sky or the pilot deliberately sends it into a dive to kill himself and his passengers.”
There is evidence of an accumulation of deliberate omissions, lies and false testimonies from the NTSB investigation to mainstream reporting, in order to blame the plane crash on the pilot alone, regardless of inconsistencies.
And so, between accident and assassination, I lean strongly toward assassination.
Who orchestrated the plot, then? Behind every Kennedy assassination, John Hankey sees the Bushs, heirs to the Nazis, he insists. Hankey belongs to the category of half-truthers who would rather see the hands of Nazis than of the Mossad.
He believes JFK Jr. named his magazine George as a way to “tell everyone who he thought killed his father, by hiding the answer in plain sight.”
Hankey doesn’t suspect the Clintons at all. Neither does John Koerner, who starts his book Exploding the Truth by a chapter for “exonerating the Clintons”: the Clintons loved the Kennedys so much they would never have done them harm, he wants us to believe.
Donald Jeffries is more rational when suggesting to add John F. Kennedy Jr. to the list of the notorious “Clinton Body Count”, which already includes quite many deaths by plane crash: Victor Raiser, the Clinton presidential campaign’s national finance cochairman (July 30, 1992), Dr. Stanley Heard, a member of Clinton’s health-care advisory committee (September 10, 1993), Hershel Friday, Clinton’s Finance Committee chairman (March 1, 1994).
After all, the Navy takeover of the rescue and recovery missions, and the whole national security protocol around the case, can only have been ordered by President Clinton.
Roger Stone, a longtime aide to President Richard Nixon and investigator into JFK’s death, believes the Clintons ordered the murder of JFK Jr.’s because he was planning to run for the Senate seat that Hillary coveted.
Yet the Clintons certainly had nothing to do with JFK or RFK’s assassinations. So whatever role they played in the case of JFK Jr.’s assassination, they must have been part of a larger scheme.
Even if Hillary had a motive to eliminate JFK Jr. from the New York Senate race, I don’t think she would have gotten away with it without higher protections.
Let us not forget also that, in all Kennedy assassinations, the key factor for success is the complicity of the mainstream media for more 50 years. The Clintons don’t own the media.
Like Michael Collins Piper long before me, and like Ron Unz more recently, I believe that Israel assassinated both JFK and RFK. From there follows naturally the hypothesis that Israel also killed JFK Jr., and for the very same reason as they killed RFK: to prevent him from ever reaching the White House and reopening the investigation on his father’s death.
When I say “Israel”, I mean it in the broad sense, as including all the Machiavellian crypto-Zionists infiltrated in all layers of the U.S. power structure, including corporate media.
Israel not just assassinated Kennedys. They keep assassinating their memory, through a constant flow of anti-Kennedy books attacking their character and vilifying their family.
This is what JFK researcher James DiEugenio calls “the posthumous assassination of JFK,” the obsession to “smother any legacy that might linger”; for “assassination is futile if a man’s ideas live on through others.”
Take for example pseudo-biographer C. David Heymann, who after working for the Mossad in Israel (from his own admission), returned to the U.S. only to write Kennedy biographies, including the salacious Bobby and Jackie: A Love Story, and went on, after JFK Jr.’s death, to claim a ten-year secret acquaintance with him in order to fill the media with rubbish.
Why do publishers and mainstream media keep taking Heymann seriously?
Why does the New York Post give a positive review of his latest book, American Legacy: The Story of John and Caroline Kennedy (2007), which portrays John Junior as a “novice pilot” who boarded his plane half-drunk and under heavy medication (“Vicodin to relieve the pain of a recently broken ankle, plus Ritalin for attention-deficit disorder and medication for a thyroid problem”), who took off while “the haze had already grown thick and viscous,” and who spent the last 30 seconds of his life “not knowing up from down, frantically pulling at his plane’s controls in a panicked attempt to right its deadly spiral,” “with whirling instruments sending him messages he couldn’t read”?
The Jewish elites have hated the Kennedys ever since Joseph Kennedy, as U.S. ambassador in London, tried to prevent Roosevelt from entering World War II, resigned when he did, and then complained that “the Jews have won the war.”
Kennedys must pay for “the sins of the father,” as Ronald Kessler titled his book (The Sins of the Father: Joseph P. Kennedy and the Dynasty He Founded, 1996), a not-so-subtle reference to Exodus 20:5 asserting Yahweh’s right of vengeance on three generations.
The Jewish elites also hated the Kennedys for everything they represented, including a very strong sense of blood kinship that Jews prefer Gentiles not to have.
Paradoxically, in a nation founded on the rejection of monarchy, the Kennedys embodied the idea of royalty, the highest form of a dynastic aristocracy founded not just on the accumulation of wealth and power, but on a patriotic dedication to civil service.
It is as if the archetype of royalty had crystallized in the United States on this family, to the point that the name of King Arthur’s court, Camelot, has stuck to their legend.
The Kennedys also embodied the Irish Catholic root of the American people, with its deep-seated antagonism to British puritanism, the more Israel-friendly branch of Christianity, which has come to dominate American politics since Lyndon Johnson (“Our First Jewish President” as one American Jewish newspaper calls him).
From this point of view, the triple assassination of President Kennedy, his younger brother and his only son are the equivalent in Western Christendom of the extermination of the Romanov family in Orthodox Russia.
And I believe that, just like Russia with the Tsar family, America will only be great again when it opens the archives and honors the Kennedys as national martyrs of a foreign power.
But wait: there is still one male heir to John F. Kennedy: Jack Schlossberg, son of Caroline Kennedy and Edwin Schlossberg. Will he become “our first Jewish president,” asks Rabbi Jeffrey Salkin?
I don’t know, but I’m pretty sure he won’t be assassinated.
New Zealand PM: ‘I Don’t Understand’ Why U.S. Hasn’t Imposed Gun Control + Trump Agrees Repealing Second Amendment Would Be ‘Tyranny’ May 17 2019 | From: Infowars / Infowars / Various
Liberal authoritarian doesn’t understand concept of America’s Second Amendment.
New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said she “doesn’t understand” why the United States hasn’t imposed gun control on its citizens following the Christchurch terror attack and other shootings in the U.S.
In a Tuesday interview before the upcoming Paris summit on May 15 organized by Ardern and French President Emmanuel Macron, CNN’s Christine Amanpour asked her how the U.S. could learn from its and Australia’s tough gun control policies.
“And in both cases, you know, and again I have to acknowledge New Zealand had pretty permissive gun legislation,”Ardern said, as if the government should be the final arbiter of who should own firearms.
Ardern went on to say that New Zealand will still allow some guns for hunting and “food-producing” purposes, but that citizens shouldn’t be able to own “military-style semi-automatic weapons and assault rifles.”
“You can draw a line and say that that does not mean that you need access to military-style semi-automatic weapons and assault rifles. You do not,” she said. “And New Zealand has absolutely agreed with that position.”
“Australia experienced a massacre and changed their laws, New Zealand had its experience and changed its laws, to be honest I do not understand the United States,” she added.
As we reported, New Zealand has descended into a police state following the Christchurch shooting that resulted in 49 Muslims killed by a white supremacist.
Apologies for the harsh language but has it really come to the point that Infowars of all places has to shine a light on this?
The seemingly stupid globalist sellout Jacinda Adern continues to speak to the world like (for the most part) the fluoridated sheeple that they are.
Cindy may be naive but she is not actually stupid. Her idiotic statements that make it seem like she has no idea about the second ammendment of the US constitution are thoroughly condescending.
She is well aware of the part that she is playing in this nefarious plan.
To think that a contrived terror attack in Christchurch may in some way implement gun control within the United States, only shows the level of stupidity and desperation that the Cabal has succumbed to.
This whole thing was a deep state setup. Max Igan has exposed this. Vinny Eastwood has exposed this (see links in related articles.)
Is it any surprise that Pelosi and others in the US called upon gun control legislation off the back of the false flag shootings in New Zealand?
These people have become so transparent in their desperation it is absolutely pathetic.
The Deep State know that to finally overthrow a country into a fascist dictatorship that the populace MUST be disarmed.
This is what the Cabal-driven West has been working on for decades. Staged massacres lead conveniently to gun control.
The Nazi's disarmed the population of Germany before they took over.
It has been done time and time again and these muppets really think they are going to be able to get away with their copy and paste solution yet again?
And yet the disgusting, cowardly and gutless old men of the NWO push their minions on, whilst they hide in the shadows.
Not to mention that Jacinda has done a deal with her Illuminati / deep state cohorts - they know they are going down and in some futile backup effort she has apparently agreed to take them in as refugees to little old New Zealand. Their safe haven at the end of the world.
In actuality it is the END OF THEIR WORLD.
Wake up
Kiwis. See the bigger picture. These deplorables are desperate.
Trump Agrees Repealing Second Amendment Would Be ‘Tyranny’
“Your Second Amendment will always be your Second Amendment. We’re not doing anything to that.”
During a speech in Ohio, President Trump vowed to protect the Second Amendment, saying that the attacks on it are unjustified and that talk of repealing the amendment could lead to ‘tyranny’.
“We want to protect our Second Amendment,” Trump told supporters.
“You saw the other day where a very important and respected - in some circles - Democrat said we should get rid of our Second Amendment … That’s really - ”
“Tyranny!” an audience member shouted out.
Trump smiled and pointed at the person then said he “could be right about that."
Trump was referring to comments made by retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, who suggested repealing the Second Amendment.
“We’re going to protect our Second Amendment. That’s not going to happen,” Trump continued.
“We have the best judges.”
Trump lauded over how many federal judges he has appointed, claiming “we are setting records.” He then referenced Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch by name, calling him “fantastic”.
Refer to point 4. in the above...
Gorsuch, a proponent of originalism in interpreting the Constitution, was nominated by Trump last year to fill the vacancy left by the death of Antonin Scalia.
“Your Second Amendment will always be your Second Amendment,” Trump declared, vowing that “We’re not doing anything to that. Not doing anything.”
Trump’s comments echo a tweet he sent out vowing that the Second Amendment would “never be repealed!"
“As much as Democrats would like to see this happen, and despite the words yesterday of former Supreme Court Justice Stevens, NO WAY. We need more Republicans in 2018 and must ALWAYS hold the Supreme Court!” Trump wrote.
The Real Muellergate Scandal + Mueller, Comey, Rosenstein, Weissmann, FBI, DOJ Used Steele Dossier From 2016 To 2019 Knowing It Was A Bogus Report Filled With Lies May 16 2019 | From: CraigMurray / TheGatewayPundit / Various Robert Mueller is either a fool, or deeply corrupt. I do not think he is a fool.
I did not comment instantly on the Mueller Report as I was so shocked by it, I have been waiting to see if any other facts come to light in justification.
Nothing has. I limit myself here to that area of which I have personal knowledge – the leak of DNC and Podesta emails to Wikileaks.
On the wider question of the corrupt Russian 1% having business dealings with the corrupt Western 1%, all I have to say is that if you believe that is limited in the USA by party political boundaries, you are a fool.
On the DNC leak, Mueller started with the prejudice that it was “the Russians” and he deliberately and systematically excluded from evidence anything that contradicted that view.
Mueller, as a matter of determined policy, omitted key steps which any honest investigator would undertake. He did not commission any forensic examination of the DNC servers.
He did not interview Bill Binney. He did not interview Julian Assange. His failure to do any of those obvious things renders his report worthless.
There has never been, by any US law enforcement or security service body, a forensic examination of the DNC servers, despite the fact that the claim those servers were hacked is the very heart of the entire investigation.
Instead, the security services simply accepted the “evidence” provided by the DNC’s own IT security consultants, Crowdstrike, a company which is politically aligned to the Clintons.
That is precisely the equivalent of the police receiving a phone call saying:
“Hello? My husband has just been murdered. He had a knife in his back with the initials of the Russian man who lives next door engraved on it in Cyrillic script. I have employed a private detective who will send you photos of the body and the knife. No, you don’t need to see either of them.”
There is no honest policeman in the world who would agree to that proposition, and neither would Mueller were he remotely an honest man.
The first is the absolutely key word of Bill Binney, former Technical Director of the NSA, the USA’s $14 billion a year surveillance organisation.
Bill Binney is an acknowledged world leader in cyber surveillance, and is infinitely more qualified than Crowdstrike.
Bill states that the download rates for the “hack” given by Crowdstrike are at a speed – 41 Megabytes per second – that could not even nearly be attained remotely at the location: thus the information must have been downloaded to a local device, eg a memory stick. Binney has further evidence regarding formatting which supports this.
Mueller’s identification of “DC Leaks” and “Guccifer 2.0” as Russian security services is something Mueller attempts to carry off by simple assertion.
Mueller shows DNC Leaks to have been the source of other, unclassified emails sent to Wikileaks that had been obtained under a Freedom of Information request and then Mueller simply assumes, with no proof, the same route was used again for the leaked DNC material.
His identification of the Guccifer 2.0 persona with Russian agents is so flimsy as to be laughable. Nor is there any evidence of the specific transfer of the leaked DNC emails from Guccifer 2.0 to Wikileaks. Binney asserts that had this happened, the packets would have been instantly identifiable to the NSA.
Bill Binney is not a “deplorable”. He is the former Technical Director of the NSA. Mike Pompeo met him to hear his expertise on precisely this matter. Binney offered to give evidence to Mueller. Yet did Mueller call him as a witness? No. Binney’s voice is entirely unheard in the report.
Mueller’s refusal to call Binney and consider his evidence was not the action of an honest man.
The second vital piece of evidence we have is from Wikileaks Vault 7 release of CIA material, in which the CIA themselves outline their capacity to “false flag” hacks, leaving behind misdirecting clues including scraps of foreign script and language.
This is precisely what Crowdstrike claim to have found in the “Russian hacking” operation.
So here we have Mueller omitting the key steps of independent forensic examination of the DNC servers and hearing Bill Binney’s evidence. Yet this was not for lack of time.
While deliberately omitting to take any steps to obtain evidence that might disprove the “Russian hacking” story, Mueller had boundless time and energy to waste in wild goose chases after totally non-existent links between Wikileaks and the Trump campaign, including the fiasco of interviewing Roger Stone and Randy Credico.
It is worth remembering that none of the charges against Americans arising from the Mueller inquiry have anything to do with Russian collusion or Trump-Wikileaks collusion, which simply do not exist.
The charges all relate to entirely extraneous matters dug up, under the extraordinary US system of “Justice”, to try to blackmail those charged with unrelated crimes turned up by the investigation, into fabricating evidence of Russian collusion.
The official term for this process of blackmail is of course “plea-bargaining.”
Mueller has indicted 12 Russians he alleges are the GRU agents responsible for the “hack”. The majority of these turn out to be real people who, ostensibly, have jobs and lives which are nothing to do with the GRU.
Mueller was taken aback when, rather than simply being in absentia, a number of them had representation in court to fight the charges. Mueller had to back down and ask for an immediate adjournment as soon as the case opened, while he fought to limit disclosure.
His entire energies since on this case have been absorbed in submitting motions to limit disclosure, individual by individual, with the object of ensuring that the accused Russians can be convicted without ever seeing, or being able to reply to, the evidence against them.
Which is precisely the same as his attitude to contrary evidence in his Report.
Mueller’s failure to examine the servers or take Binney’s evidence pales into insignificance compared to his attack on Julian Assange. Based on no conclusive evidence, Mueller accuses Assange of receiving the emails from Russia.
Most crucially, he did not give Assange any opportunity to answer his accusations. For somebody with Mueller’s background in law enforcement, declaring somebody in effect guilty, without giving them any opportunity to tell their side of the story, is plain evidence of malice.
Inexplicably, for example, the Mueller Report quotes a media report of Assange stating he had “physical proof” the material did not come from Russia, but Mueller simply dismisses this without having made any attempt at all to ask Assange himself.
It is also particularly cowardly as Julian was and is held incommunicado with no opportunity to defend himself. Assange has repeatedly declared the material did not come from the Russian state or from any other state.
He was very willing to give evidence to Mueller, which could have been done by video-link, by interview in the Embassy or by written communication.
But as with Binney and as with the DNC servers, the entirely corrupt Mueller was unwilling to accept any evidence which might contradict his predetermined narrative.
As Attorney General William Barr spars with Democrats in Congress, he is also beginning his investigation of Obama-era officials who spurred the Russia probe.
One America’s Jack Posobiec sat down with a former Bush official to learn more.
Mueller’s section headed “The GRU’s Transfer of Stolen Material to Wikileaks” is a ludicrous farrago of internet contacts between Wikileaks and persons not proven to be Russian, transferring material not proven to be the DNC leaks.
It too is destroyed by Binney and so pathetic that, having pretended he had proven the case of internet transfer, Mueller then gives the game away by adding “The office cannot rule out that stolen documents were transferred by intermediaries who visited during the summer of 2016”.
He names Mr Andrew Muller-Maguhn as a possible courier. Yet again, he did not ask Mr Muller-Maguhn to give evidence. Nor did he ask me, and I might have been able to help him on a few of these points.
To run an “investigation” with a pre-determined idea as to who are the guilty parties, and then to name and condemn those parties in a report, without hearing the testimony of those you are accusing, is a method of proceeding that puts the cowardly and corrupt Mr Mueller beneath contempt.
Mueller gives no evidence whatsoever to back up his simple statement that Seth Rich was not the source of the DNC leak. He accuses Julian Assange of “dissembling” by referring to Seth Rich’s murder.
It is an interesting fact that the US security services have shown precisely the same level of interest in examining Seth Rich’s computers that they have shown in examining the DNC servers.
It is also interesting that this murder features in a report of historic consequences like that of Mueller, yet has had virtually no serious resource put into finding the killer.
Mueller’s condemnation of Julian Assange for allegedly exploiting the death of Seth Rich, would be infinitely more convincing if the official answer to the question “who murdered Seth Rich?” was not “who cares?”.
Mueller, Comey, Rosenstein, Weissmann, FBI, DOJ Used Steele Dossier From 2016 To 2019 Knowing It Was A Bogus Report Filled with Lies
Two excellent reports were released recently pertaining to the Special Counsel investigation and attempted coup on President Donald Trump.
Award-winning investigative journalist John Solomon released a report that proves FBI-DOJ operatives knew the junk Steele dossier was a fraudulent document back in October 2016 10 days before the FISA warrant was obtained on Trump Campaign adviser Carter Page.
As TGP’s Cristina Laila reported - Solomon obtained memos from a high-ranking government official who met with former British spy Christopher Steele in October of 2016, who determined that Steele’s ‘dirt’ on Trump was inaccurate and likely leaked to the media.
The official Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Kathleen Kavalec caught several completely false assertions in the junk dossier.
One red flag Kavalec caught was that Steele claimed that ‘payments to those recruited by the Russians to target the election were made out of the Russian Consulate in Miami.’
There’s only one problem with this claim - there is no Russian Consulate in Miami.
And yet according to investigative reporter Paul Sperry at Real Clear Investigations the FBI and DOJ, including Rod Rosenstein, James Comey, Sally Yates, Andrew Weissmann, Robert Mueller used the bogus document in their final report for the special counsel.
Mueller also met with and paid Fusion GPS, who was behind the bogus dossier during the investigation and likely used them in compiling their controversial final report.
“Mueller’s team worked closely with dossier author Steele, a long-retired British intelligence officer who worked for the Clinton campaign.
Mueller’s investigators went to London to consult with Steele for at least two days in September 2017 while apparently using his dossier as an investigative road map and central theory to his collusion case. Steele now runs a private research and consulting firm in London, Orbis Business Intelligence.
It’s not clear if Mueller’s office paid Steele, but recently released FBI records show the bureau previously made a number of payments to him, and at one point during the 2016 campaign offered him $50,000 to continue his dossier research. Steele was also paid through the Clinton campaign, earning $168,000 for his work on the dossier…
…Washington-based Judicial Watch suspects Mueller’s office may have farmed out work to the private Washington research firm Fusion GPS or its subcontractor Steele, both of whom were paid by the Clinton camp during the 2016 presidential election.
Several law enforcement and Hill sources who spoke with RCI also believe Steele and Fusion GPS were deputized in the investigation.
The government watchdog group has requested that the Justice Department turn over the contracting records, along with all budget requests Mueller submitted to the attorney general during his nearly two-year investigation.
It’s also requested all communications between the Special Counsel’s Office and the private contractors it used.
A Judicial Watch spokesman said its Freedom of Information Act request is pending.”
The DOJ and FBI continue to push conspiracies on the American public. It is time for these crooked deep state operatives to face justice.
New Zealand: Citizens Receiving Home Visits From ‘Political Police’ May 15 2019 | From: Infowars / Various
New Zealanders are receiving home visits from police to check on their political views, with one individual claiming that authorities asked him if he supported Donald Trump.
The visits are taking place as a response to March’s Christchurch mosque massacre.
In one clip, armed police arrive at a man’s home on Sunday morning to question him in relation to his political beliefs.
“The reason we’re here, basically it’s down to the recent events in Christchurch, with the shooting there, a number of people have been identified who we’ve been asked to go and speak to, so you’re one of those people,” says the officer.
The man is happy to talk to the cops, but they refuse to do so on camera and eventually leave.
In a separate clip, another man relates the story of how he was visited by armed police (again on a Sunday morning) because he makes YouTube videos criticizing mass migration.
The man’s wife and daughter, who were both upset by the experience, were also interviewed by police.
“I was asked if I was a Trump supporter, I was asked if I was a racist and have I got any ethnic minority friends,” said the man, who runs a YouTuber channel called Cross the Rubicon, adding that police also quizzed him on whether he owned guns.
Within a week, police returned to the house – 15 of them this time – closing off the entire street – to again interrogate him on his political views.
“They’re trying to force me to shut my mouth and to keep it shut,” the man said.
He also warns that governments are exploiting the mosque shooting to deplatform conservatives.
One wonders whether random Muslims receive home visits from police after Islamic terror attacks.
Western Culture Has Died A Politically Correct Death May 14 2019 | From: PaulCraigRoberts / Various
It is amazing the power that politically correct kooks have acquired over language, art, and literature. It is a sign that the West is culturally dead.
When high museums rename paintings because some emotional weakling declares the name to be offensive, it becomes obvious that the custodians of Western culture have lost their belief in Western culture.
When a people are afraid to use the words and terms of their forefathers, you know they have been intimidated to abandon even their own language and ways of speaking.
Western culture today consists of pornography, sexual deviants, whining wimps devastated by mere words, self-hatred, and craven cowards afraid to stand up for themselves against the onslaught of hate directed toward them by political correctness freaks.
The political correctness people are the most alienated and emotionally weak element in the society. Yet they dominate in the media, entertainment, universities, and art world.
How is it possible that the Washingtonians are prepared to take us to war with real people - Russians, Chinese and North Koreans - two countries that have already whipped us once - and Persians, an ancient race that even the Romans had a hard time with?
Do the fools in Washington really think that our homosexualized, feminized, transgenderized military can take on Russians, Chinese, and Persians?
Hollywood can make all the movies it wants with female superheroes, but superheroes are the last thing whining American feminists are.
The real questions for the politically correct crowd are: (1) why isn’t war politically incorrect, and (2) why isn’t it politically incorrect for the politically correct arbiters of language to call the rest of us names?
The real racists in America [the West] are those who call white people racist.
What Your Sons and Daughters Will Learn at University
Universities in the 20th century were dedicated to the advancement of knowledge. Scholarship and research were pursued, and diverse opinions were exchanged and argued in the “marketplace of ideas.”
This is no longer the case. Particularly in the social sciences, humanities, education, social work, and law, a single political ideology has replaced scholarship and research, because the ideology presents fixed answers to all questions.
And, although the most important thing in universities today is the diversity of race, gender, sexual practice, ethnicity, economic class, and physical and mental capability, there is no longer diversity of opinion.
Only those committed to the ideology are admitted to academic staff or administration.
Universities have been transformed by the near-universal adoption of three interrelated theories: postmodernism, postcolonialism, and social justice. These theories and their implications will be explored here.
There Is No Truth; Nothing Is Good or Bad
Postmodernism: In the past, academics were trained to seek truth. Today, academics deny that there is such a thing as objective Truth.
Instead, they argue that no one can be objective, that everyone is inevitably subjective, and consequently everyone has their own truth.
The correct point of view, they urge, is relativism.
This means not only that truth is relative to the subjectivity of each individual, but also that ethics and morality are relative to the individual and the culture, so there is no such thing as Good and Evil, or even Right and Wrong.
So too with the ways of knowing; your children will learn that there is no objective basis for preferring chemistry over alchemy, astronomy over astrology, or medical doctors over witch doctors.
They will learn that facts do not exist; only interpretations do.
All Cultures Are Equally Good; Diversity Is Our Strength
Our social understanding has also been transformed by postmodern relativism. Because moral and ethical principles are deemed to be no more than the collective subjectivity of our culture, it is now regarded as inappropriate to judge the principles and actions of other cultures.
This doctrine is called “cultural relativism.”
For example, while racism is held to be the highest sin in the West, and slavery the greatest of our historical sins, your children will learn that we are not allowed to criticize contemporary racism and slavery in Africa, the Middle East, and the equivalents in South Asia.
The political manifestation of cultural relativism is multiculturalism, an incoherent concept that projects the integration of multiple incompatible cultures.
Diversity is lauded as a virtue in itself. Imagine a country with fifty different languages, each derived from a different culture. That would not be a society, but a tower of babble.
How would it work if there were multiple codes of law requiring and forbidding contrary behaviors: driving on the left and driving on the right; monogamy and polygamy; male dominance and gender equality; arranged marriage and individual choice?
Your children will learn that our culture is nothing special and that other cultures are awesome.
The West Is Evil; The Rest Are Virtuous
Postcolonialism, the dominant theory in the social sciences today, is inspired by the Marxist-Leninist theory of imperialism, in which the conflict between the capitalist and proletariat classes is allegedly exported to the exploitation of colonized countries.
By this means, the theory goes, oppression and poverty take place in colonies instead of in relation to the metropolitan working class.
Postcolonialism posits that all of the problems in societies around the world today are the result of the relatively short Western imperial dominance and colonization.
For example, British imperialism is blamed for what are in fact indigenous cultures, such as the South Asian caste system and the African tribal system.
So too, problems of backwardness and corruption in countries once, decades ago, colonies continue to be blamed on past Western imperialism.
The West is thus the continuing focus on anti-imperialist and anti-colonialist sentiment.
Your children will learn that our society is evil, and the cause of all the evil in the wider world.
Only the West Was Imperialist and Colonialist
This ahistorical approach of postcolonialism ignores the hundreds of empires and their colonies throughout history, as well as ignoring contemporary empires, such as the Arab Muslim Empire that conquered all of the central Middle East, North Africa, southern Europe, Persia, Central Asia, and northern India, and occupied them minimally for hundreds of years, but 1400 years in the central Middle East and North Africa, and occupy them today.
China, once the Communists took power, invaded Inner Mongolia to the north, Chinese Turkestan to the west, and Tibet to the south. Once in control, the government flooded these colonies with Han Chinese, in effect ethnically cleansing them.
Postcolonialists have nothing to say about any of this; they wish to condemn exclusively the West.
Your children will learn to reject history and comparisons with other societies, lest the claimed unique sins of the West be challenged.
Western Imperialism Was a Racist Project
Postcolonialists like to stress the racial dimension of Western imperialism: as an illustration of racism.
But postmodernists are not interested in Arab slave raiding in “black” Africa, or Ottoman slaving among the whites in the Balkans, or the North Africans slave raiding of whites in Europe, from Ireland through Italy and beyond.
Your children will learn that only whites are racist.
Social justice theory teaches that the world is divided between oppressors and victims.
Some categories of people are oppressors and other are victims: males are oppressors, and females are victims; whites are oppressors, and people of color are victims; heterosexuals are oppressors, and gays, lesbians, bisexual, etc. are victims; Christians are oppressors, and Muslims are victims.
Your sons will learn that they are stigmatized by their toxic masculinity.
Individuals Are Not Important; Only Category Membership Is
Social justice theory has taken university life by storm. It is the result of the relentless working of Marxist theory, adopted by youngsters during the American cultural revolution of the 1960s, then brought to universities as many of those youngsters became college professors.
Marxism as an academic theory was explicitly followed by some in the 1970s and 1980s, but it did not sweep everything else away, because the idea economic class conflict was not popular in the prosperous general North American population.
The cultural Marxist innovation that brought social justice theory to dominance was the extension of class conflict from economics to gender, race, sexual practice, ethnicity, religion, and other mass categories.
We see this in sociology, which is no longer defined as the study of society but has for decades been defined as the study of inequality.
“He.” “She.” “They.” Have you ever given a moment’s thought to your everyday use of these pronouns? It has probably never occurred to you that those words could be misused.
Or that doing so could cost you your business or your job – or even your freedom. Journalist Abigail Shrier explains how this happened and why it's become a major free speech issue.
For social justice theory, equality is not the equality of opportunity that is the partner of merit, but rather equality of result, which ensures the members of each category at equality of representation irrespective of merit.
Your sons will learn that they should “step aside” to give more space and power to females. Your daughters, if white, will learn that they must defer to members of racial minorities.
Justice Is Equal Representation According to Percentages of the Population
As there is allegedly structural discrimination against all members of victim categories, in order for equality of result to prevail, representation according to percentages of populations must be mandated in all organizations, in all books assigned or references cited, in all awards and benefits.
Ideas such as merit and excellence are dismissed as white-male supremacist dog whistles; they are to be replaced by “diversity” of gender, race, sexual preference, ethnicity, economic class, religion, and so on.
(Note that “diversity” does not include “diversity of opinion”; for only social justice ideology is acceptable. Any criticism or opposition is regarded as “hate speech.”)
Academic committees now twist themselves into pretzels trying to explain that “diversity is excellence.”
Members of Oppressor Categories Must Be Suppressed
Of course, the requirement of representation according to population applies only one way: to members of victim classes. If whites, men, heterosexuals, Christians, etc. are underrepresented, that is fine; the fewer the better.
For example, females now make up 60% of university graduates, although in the general age cohort males are 51%. There is no social justice clamoring for males to be fully represented.
Members of disfavored oppressor categories are disparaged. The classics of Western civilization should be ignored because they are the work, almost exclusively, of “dead white men.”
“This is a PSA (Progressive Service Announcement). JoyCamp has compiled a comprehensive list of words, phrases and “microaggressions” you’re NOT allowed to say anymore.
Watch the video to ensure that you are able to protect yourself from saying the wrong thing! Then share it with your friends to keep them out of trouble as well.”
“Censorship helps to promote tolerance and thus, diversity, while simultaneously protecting us from hate speech and bigotry, therefore creating a safer, less offensive world for all.”
Only works of females, people of color and non-Western authors should be considered virtuous. So too in political history. The American Constitution should be discarded because its writers were slaveholders.
Victims of The World Unite!
“Intersectionality” is an idea invented by a feminist law professor. It argues that some individuals fall into several victim categories, for example, black, female lesbians have three points in the victim stakes, as opposed to male members of the First Nations who receive only one point.
Further, on the action front, members of each victim category are urged to unite and ally with members of other victim categories, because sharing the victim designation is the most important status in the world.
This leads to some anomalies. Black victims of racism are urged to unite with Arab victims of colonialism, even though Arabs have been and still are holders of black slaves.
As Karl Marx said, “The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways. The point, however, is to change it.”
The objective of a university education today is to ensure that students chose “the right side” in changing the world.
The idea that it probably makes sense to try to understand the world before attempting to change it, is rejected as outmoded, modernist empiricism and realism, now superseded by postmodernism and social justice.
If there is no Truth, and whatever one feels or believes is one’s truth, then trying to gain an objective understanding of the world is futile.
Facebook Now Demands That You Hate Targeted People Or You Will Be Banned Too May 13 2019 | From: NaturalNews / Various
We have now reached the point of total insanity when it comes to the extreme censorship of the tech giants.
Those individuals include Paul Joseph Watson, Laura Loomer (see FreeLoomer.com), Louis Farrakhan, Milo Yiannopoulos and others.
From this point forward, you are only allowed to post content from these individuals if you express hatred toward them in your Facebook post.
This is “mandatory hate speech” by Facebook. That’s how insane all this has become now, which is why I have openly announced that every nation on Earth must declare war against Big Tech (or be destroyed by it). (Follow more news about the dangers of Big Tech at BigTech.news.)
Breitbart News writer James Delingpole has posted an extremely important articles about all this that you absolutely must read.
I’m re-publishing it here with credit and a link to Breitbart News, which is also fighting for survival in an age of outrageous Orwellian censorship. Here’s Delingpole’s article:
President Trump has retweeted a Breitbart News story headline about Facebook’s blacklist of prominent conservatives including Paul Joseph Watson and Laura Loomer.
Good. Let’s hope this is a sign that he intends to take this problem seriously because right now I’d say Silicon Valley censorship poses one of the biggest threats to Western Civilisation in the world today.
Of course there are other threats at least as dangerous: fundamentalist Islam, China, eco-fascism, neo-Marxism, and so on.
But what’s particularly insidious about Silicon Valley censorship is that it makes all those other threats more pressing and real by making it impossible to speak out against them.
How, after all, are we going to address the issues of rape gangs and church desecrations and terror plots and homecoming Islamic State terrorists if every time anyone tries to discuss them on social media, Silicon Valley decides to close them down for being racist or Islamophobic?
How are we going to face up to the growing menace of hard left outfits like Antifa and Hope Not Hate and Black Lives Matter when Silicon Valley gives them a free pass to spew out their hate while banning all their opponents?
President Trump urgently needs to get on top of this because the people being silenced are his base.
And because social media is often the only place left where they are free - or rather, where they were free - to exchange the kind of conservative thoughts, jokes, ideas, and memes the world so badly needs if it is to counter the creeping menace of identity politics, post-modernism, and Cultural Marxism.
Let’s call out what Facebook is doing for what it is: fascism.
It is abusing its extraordinary global power as a publishing platform used by more than 2 billion people in order to impose on all of us its totalitarian leftist new world order.
It justifies its fascistic behaviour by pretending it is protecting the world from “hate.”
A Facebook spokesperson has claimed:
“We’ve always banned individuals or organizations that promote or engage in violence and hate, regardless of ideology.
The process for evaluating potential violators is extensive and it is what led us to our decision to remove these accounts today.”
But today violence and hate are almost overwhelmingly the preserve of the angry, aggressive, radical left, not the playful, irreverent, meme-generating right.
While Antifa are busily laying into Trump supporters with bicycle locks and punching conservatives because, hey, anyone to the right of Bernie Sanders is a “Nazi,” their opponents are fighting back with facts and logic and arguments and wit and jokes.
Take Paul Joseph Watson - one of the victims of Facebook’s latest censorship drive. What Paul Joseph Watson does is make what he calls “meme videos laughing at Social Justice Warriors.”
For these crimes he has now had his Facebook account permanently erased.
As Watson says on his latest video - ‘My final ever video?’ - “this is totally political.”
“This is nothing less than election meddling. Everyone Facebook has banned was instrumental in getting Trump elected. This is punishment. This is a political purge.
This has nothing to do with ‘hate’ or ‘violating terms of service.’”
Perhaps the most terrifying threats to civilised political discourse today are the asymmetric standards of behaviour between those on the left and those on the right.
Though the left loves to seize on every scrap of opportunity it can - the senseless murder of MP Jo Cox, for example, by a loner with serious mental health issues; the largely misreported events at Charlottesville - to promote the narrative that the “far right” is on the march.
This is pure projection.
It’s the Social Justice Warriors of the radical left and their allies in Big Government, from the Maduro regime in Venezuela to the increasingly brutal Macron presidency in France, who are promulgating and enacting most of the hate and violence.
Facebook is not doing anything meaningful to stop hate and violence.
“Hate” is term so nebulous - its meaning so entirely dependent on the mindset of the beholder, and so debased by cry-bully progressives - that it cannot reasonably be used as any kind of objective criterion for a censorship policy.
“Violence” is - or at least was, till the left cynically redefined it in order to expand its potential number of victimhood categories - a physical act and therefore quite beyond the proper purview of a site dedicated to words and images.
Facebook is Big Brother.
See free speech videos at Brighteon.com, the pro-liberty alternative to YouTube.
Central Banking Exposed: Central Banks Only Care About Debt, Profit And Control May 12 2019 | From: FinalWakeUpCall / Various
The Crime is Money That No One Ever Earned is Used to Capture People’s Real Wealth.
The Bank for International Settlements: Meet The Secretive Group That Runs The World
Why people are put into debt and how paper money ruins society.
In 1815, Nathan Rothschild, one of five sons of Mayer Amschel Bauer, pulled off one of the most devious financial schemes in history.
This was the origin of today’s economic problems.
What followed clearly shows that history has not been a random series of events, but rather a carefully planned and executed ‘design’ of land, wealth, and resource-grabbing by a small number of wealthy and privileged individuals bent on world domination.
These procedures have been executed on such a massive scale that it is almost incomprehensible, not to mention that it seems impossible, but as the old saying goes; “The best kept secrets are the ones hidden in plain sight.”
During the Battle of Waterloo in 1815, Nathan Rothschild ‘purchased’ England, but his scheme was also historically significant for another reason: It showed how ‘fabricating’ a disaster can lead to massive financial gains.
He bought the Bank of England (BoE), which is the central bank of the United Kingdom and the model on which most other central banks in the entire world have been constructed.
The means by which the Deep State was able to pull the populace into debt enslavement has been achieved through hidden dictatorship that moves as follows:
By way of the Rothschild’s control through their central banks, with the issuing of ‘money’ based on credit, by which they control the entire world economy.
Subsequently, by having control over the creation of money out of nothing and charging interest over that money, the Rothschilds have been accumulating virtual ownership across the globe, by engineering booms and busts for centuries to advance their agenda.
The difference between booms and busts is quite simply, the amount of ‘money’ in circulation and its perceived value. The Rothschilds dictate both.
Central Banks Only Care About Debt, Profit and Control
Doing away with all Central Banks is the most important goal for humanity as a way out of our debt-enslavement.
The tip of this iceberg are the traitors, treasonous individuals, and those committing crimes, but the real crime is against humanity with the creation of a fiat currency out of thin air, through the collaboration of numerous corporations around the world managing entire countries’ finances.
All the while, these criminals attach interest to the fake money that they are lending to governments and their citizens, enslaving each and every individual to the central bank system.
Presently, the Q-PLAN is getting rid of the whole Central Banking system. Because the Central Banks are not for the people, they have no allegiance to countries and their citizens.
Additional:Read about the Alliance that has
been working behind
the scenes for decades to take down the 'Cabal' within the work of David Wilcock.
Some of those reading this may be confused because the cabal-controlled mainstream media is doing
everything within it's
power to denigrate Trump - as he is part of the effort to take the Illuminati down once and for
all.
The Central Banks only care about debt, profit and control.
But, by reading between the lines, it is evident that President Trump is setting up the Federal Reserve – the US Central Bank, by contradicting the Fed at every turn.
In this way, he is making sure that every citizen understands that the Central Banks are the ones that are responsible for our financial malaise, the economic crisis and the looming financial crash.
The rich are becoming richer, and the middle class poorer, thanks to the bribed government puppets, who have implemented laws stating that this credit money is legal tender and must be used and accepted to buy valuables, while it is in essence worthless paper money.
Power and Fake Money Corrupts
Power and fake money corrupts. It is a lethal combination that not only destroys people but also nations.
Sadly, it has now reached a point in history, where the unlimited amounts of fiat money that have been created will eventually destroy whole continents, ultimately destroying the world’s monetary paper system completely.
The destruction of currencies has been the norm throughout history, as no paper or fiat currency has ever survived.
Therefore, it is to no avail to constantly introduce monetary systems that are not backed by value, these can never be sound and will not withstand the test of time.
Power, coupled with fiat money seems to have such a corrupting effect on everyone who enters politics, as the urge to print and spend money that doesn’t exist, proves time and time again to be totally irresistible.
Why People Are Put Into Debt
No one is immune to debt, and the majority of us are in some form of financial debt. Not having enough money, and especially being in debt, causes serious physical and mental distress.
This is why banks put people into debt, while a world without any debt is possible. The world’s central banks have criminally and deviously stolen the sovereign power of control from almost every government.
Privately-owned Central Banks create the nation’s ‘official money’, called legal tender, or Promissory Notes, better known as fiat money without intrinsic value, only backed by faith, but not by gold or silver.
Then they loan it out to the nation’s government, where the people pay back the government’s debt via income tax on wages, as well as the interest the government incurs when it borrows the money from the central bank, that they themselves could have issued interest free.
Governments’ debt is then expanded through fractional reserve expansion by commercial banks through loans to the public with further interest attached.
Central banks need to keep creating more money since extra money is needed to pay back all this interest, which is deliberately not created with the original money supply, thus the money to pay for this interest does not exist.
This causes inflation, as the value of each individual bank note decreases, as prices go up, forcing people to work even more hours – not just to pay all the interest back, but also to buy the things they could afford before.
Inflation decreases the purchasing power of money, resulting in increased prices.
In a free market, the value of precious metals would also increase, so its purchasing power would be maintained. – Higher prices generate higher taxes, offering governments yet another incentive to profit from currency debasement.
Paper Money Ruins Society
The secret of the Central Banks was already known by the founding fathers of America.
They knew that once a Central Bank was established in the country, the country would not survive. It would become corrupt to the core and major problems would occur.
George Washington wrote in a letter in 1786 to Andrew Jefferson;
"Paper money has the effect of ruining commerce, obliterating honesty and opening the door to every manifestation of fraud, and injustice conceivable.”
Paper money is poverty, Jefferson observed, it is only the ghost of money but not money itself. In 1817, it was stated that paper money abuses are also inevitable, and by breaking up the measure of value, it makes it a lottery of all private properties.
Paper money was unjustly declared to be money, concluded James Madison (1751-1836), who served as the 4th President of America. It is unconstitutional, he added, for it effects the rights of property as it takes away equal value in land.
The founding fathers recognised the perils of ‘legal tender’ paper money, which coerces people to accept something that may be inherently worthless, which is precisely the case with today’s fiat money.
The founding fathers knew that paper money corrupts, as it creates a wealth effect that destroys the nation.
They knew exactly the secret of the central bank system.
They concluded; We need to have a standard that is accepted around the world. The next best thing, though it may be not perfect, is gold.
The only stable value for a currency is its convertibility into gold. As a result, the US became the most successful country in the world from 1789 – 1971. This was already foreseen by James Madison prior to 1789.
Gold is the only universal currency. It is the only commodity, along with silver that people have historically agreed upon to use as money. This allows fixed exchange rates between countries.
That simplifies trade and investment. But what followed was disastrous for the economy of the world, as the private Central Bankers didn’t like this. Central Bankers don’t like a stable system that they don’t control.
They like a system in which they can promote corruption, create wars, and they can profit off of the warring countries and off of the people that are forced to go into debt to make ends meet.
This is the reason why they have steered the populace away from what the founding fathers intended for them, which is gold-backed money.
They steer people to other things like the stock market, derivatives, paper contracts on gold and silver, convincing them that gold and silver are worthless, that they are not really significant or valuable.
They are shiny, but that is about it. For the rest they are simply insignificant, barbarous relics People really don’t need to hold gold or silver.
The Central Bankers began to indoctrinate everyone into thinking that their system is the only one. – In 1913, the indoctrination began in the education system, brainwashing everyone into believing that their system is the only system.
To accomplish this, in 1913 all economic books were completely changed, introducing their economic indoctrination to the public, educating them that the Central Bank is exceptional and important, as it helps the people to live a better and more prosperous life.
Over the course of a few generations, people lost sight of the importance of gold and silver and the knowledge of what sound money really was.
They even lost sight of what an economic system without a Central Bank really was.
In the meantime, behind the scenes, the Central Bank initiators started corrupting certain individuals, and from that time onwards, corruption has become widespread.
A manifestation of this corruption is the very name of the central bank in America, which is called The Federal Reserve Bank. This institution is not Federal, has no Reserves and is not a Bank either.
Waking Up
Fortunately, many of us are now waking up. Trump and the patriots are once again echoing to everyone that the Central Bank is the problem, as was the case in the era of Andrew Jackson.
This time, people are going to be educated en masse about the true nature of the Central Bank.
They will learn how Central Banks have destroyed the nations in which we live, how they have corrupted politicians and everyone else in positions of power in government.
The world has arrived at the beginning stage of this transition process, the education has just begun through the public revelations of the treason committed by the traitors.
Once this becomes public knowledge, the populace at large will rise up against the Central Bank and we will learn how, we and the next generations will have to fight to prevent the Central Banks from ever setting foot in the door again in the future.
History has revealed that they always attempt to come back again when people aren’t paying attention. Just because they go, does not mean they are gone forever.
They are corrupt, and will try to sneak in again. Henceforth, people will have to fight and keep fighting for sound money.
There is no necessity for a private corporation that controls the issuance of money. It has to be a system of ‘we, the people’ who create the currency, so we, the people can use it without interest attached.
Then everyone will be shown how great an economy can really be without a Central bank. This is where the patriots want to take us, while the awake are together already headed in that direction.
Jared Kushner Explains How Mueller’s Junk Report Of Russian Facebook Influence Was Deep State Garbage May 11 2019 | From: TheGatewayPundit / Various
The garbage Mueller Report came out and the overall conclusion is – what a lie!
The report for numerous reasons is a fraud but perhaps one of its biggest shams is its reference to Russians using Facebook to win the election for Trump.
"Special counsel Robert Mueller’s report released Thursday says Russia’s Internet Research Agency, or IRA, reached millions of U.S. users on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram leading up to the 2016 presidential election.
Russian operatives also communicated with the Trump campaign under false identities “without revealing their Russian association” and interacted with prominent pro-Trump activists to arrange political rallies, “confederate” events and even a #KidsforTrump organization, the report says."
What a joke!
Because Russia’s influence on the election was the heart of the fake investigation, the Mueller gang really let the media have it with false statements and make believe hyperbole of Russians impacting the election through the use of social media.
President Trump’s son in law said it all last week when he shared – the Mueller investigation has been far more damaging to our democracy than the Russian spend on Facebook ads:
Kushner says that the Russians spent around $160,000 on Facebook ads during the election. This is nothing when compared to Facebook’s revenues and the amount of spend by the Trump campaign during the election on overall ads.
Facebook executive Colin Stretch told the US Senate Judiciary Committee in November [2017] that the total number of those illegitimate ads are a drop in the ocean - less than 0.004 percent of all content - or about 1 in 23,000 news feed items.
We also know that the Russians also planned election rallies for Trump and for Hillary. The Mueller report doesn’t share that the Trump rallies saw a total of 31 people show up. The anti-Trump rallies had a turnout of 10,100 people.
According to testimony in the Senate, the Russians spent a total of $3,111 during the election in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania and all but $54 of that total was spent after the primaries.
So in order to keep the Russia Facebook sham alive, Mueller and his gang of “Angry Democrats” decided to indict Russians for Facebook crimes. Unfortunately for Mueller he indicted three companies and one of them decided to fight Mueller in court.
From this court case with Concord Management we found out that Mueller was totally unprepared for a rebuttal of his false claims of Facebook abuse!
We reported throughout 2018 that lawyers defending one of three Russian companies indicted with the 13 Russians, Concord Management, showed up for court. Mueller’s team was caught off guard and never expected this.
They immediately asked the judge for more time but the judge denied their pleas noting that they were the ones who indicted the Russian company in the first place.
When the case proceeded, the Concord attorneys noted that another of the three companies indicted by Mueller was not in existence at the time of Mueller’s indictment. They called this a case of Mueller indicting the proverbial ‘ham sandwich’.
At a following court appearance, the attorneys representing Concord stated that the corrupt Mueller team’s allegations of 13 Russian individuals impacting the 2016 election were “made up” nonsense.
The individuals were not even real.
Concord Management’s lawyers revealed that Mueller’s team had ignored over 70 discovery requests they had made for information in the case.
In response Mueller’s team offered to give Concord Management’s lawyers a massive amount of social media data from those dangerous trolls who sought to influence the US election and the majority of the data was in RUSSIAN.
Mueller’s lawyers then admitted that they didn’t even have English translations for the Russian social media posts.
Yet, somehow Mueller’s lawyers believed Americans were influenced by these Russian language posts?
The case of the Russians turned into a big joke as the legitimacy of the Mueller indictment was challenged by Concord Management.
In a hearing on October 15th, Concord Management claimed that the Special Counsel’s entire case is built around a 100 year old law that he Mueller team is trying to use in a manner it was not built for.
In a follow up brief to the court on October 23rd, Concord stated:
"Concord has consistently argued that the Indictment charges no crime at all (interference with an election), but to the extent if purports to charge a crime the essential element of willfulness is fatally absent.
The Special Counsel’s retort has been that he was not required to charge willfulness because he did not charge violations of FECA or FARA.
Now, in mind-bending, intergalactic, whiplash fashion, he says for the first time, I did, I charged violations of FECA and FARA. (1) Reminiscent of the old adage, “Give a man enough rope and he will hang himself,” the Special Counsel just did so.
(1) Which sounds a lot like “I did, I did, I taw a puddy tat.” Tweetie (1948).
Synchronicity Happens For A Reason -There Are No Accidents And No Coincidences May 10 2019 | From: WooWooMedia
Have you stumbled upon an old friend? Seeing someone doing the same thing or speaking the same words as you? Or maybe experienced an accident? Are you thinking ‘Oh! What a coincidence!’ or ‘I could skip accidents like this…’
Well, you shouldn’t, because every single coincidence brings a message to you.
In fact, there are no coincidences and accidents - there’s only synchronicity, and everything happens for a reason.
Revealing Synchronicity - The Science Behind Coincidence
The truth is, everything in our life is linked. From the past, to the present and future - every single coincidence or accident we stumble upon is linked. No matter how small or big of a movement is, it is all about synchronicity.
Whether you feel like you are having a perfect day and everything goes smoothly, or experience a bad period in which ‘a lot of coincidences happen,’ the universe is sending you a message. People and things happening in an exact moment is nothing but synchronicity and, fortunately, there is a way to accept it.
Do you know the saying “When the student is ready, the master appears”?
That is exactly how synchronicity is explained. Whenever you are synchronized with something you truly want, you are more likely to meet that thing, which is why similar people meet ‘accidentally’. The thing is, they are tuned in to the exact same frequency, and synchronicity does its best to match them.
Yes, There Is A Way To Create Synchronicity
Now that you understand how the spiritual sync works, it’s time to tell you that…
YOU CAN CREATE SYNCHRONICITY.
‘How on Earth do I do that?’, you may be asking yourself.
Well, synchronicity works best for people who believe it to be true. So, for starters, you should believe in it and stop saying that every event is an accident or a coincidence. The thing is, if you are saying this, you are sending a weak spiritual signal to the universe, as opposed to the strong signal that the universe sends you by syncing everything around you.
By understanding synchronicity and seeing things not as an ordinary, but a committed person, you are able to connect more deeply with your inner sync, and actually don’t work hard to make the things you want happen. Instead, you will just believe in them and let them happen, without any force whatsoever.
So, let’s face it… Synchronicity is just like a mirror and whatever you commit to and believe in, will reflect back to you.
That being said, if you agree with the law of syncing, you will be able to connect deeply and send strong messages on a spiritual level. Aside from this, you will be a better person, more confident and committed towards every action you bring.
In a nutshell, understanding synchronicity translates to establishing harmony in everything that you seek - and being ‘consciously aware’ of everything happening around you.
Turning The Tide - And See Chances Work For You instead Of Against You
If you have ever heard of the Murphy’s Law and believe in it, you are on a good way to understanding synchronicity. Yes, it’s a common fact that when something goes wrong, it may just continue going wrong over time.
The idea behind this is that synchronicity can also work against you. However, if you expect bad things to happen and continue believing in the Murphy’s Law, you are syncing with your inner negativity.
The Science Behind The Chance Meeting - Not A ‘Coincidence’
Bumped into someone somewhere? Thinking it’s a coincidence, luck or chance? The real answer in this ‘accident’ is the science of chance meeting.
Moreover, it is the reason for something to happen. There is always a reason and a connection to see someone and experience something. Coincidence is only an illusion.
Our past, present and future are all linked. And although we may not understand everything that happens to us, there is always a reason - and that reason becomes apparent at some point in time.
A Final Word
"Synchronicity is an ever present reality for those who have the eyes to see."
You can start notice synchronicities with people, numbers, events etc. Remember to accept synchronicity in its real form, as a way of spiritual and universal intelligence constantly trying to teach us, reach us and share love, support and guidance.
Learn to be open to synchronicity and start living a meaningful life!
Sharyl Attkisson: How Media Narratives Became More Important Than Facts
& Every Nation Must Declare War Against Big Tech
May 9 2019 | From: Zerohedge / NaturalNews / Various The day that I told CBS News I wished to leave my job as investigative correspondent ahead of my contract, I didn’t give a reason. I didn’t see the point because the problem wasn’t fixable. Nor was it isolated to CBS News.
My own take is that - as our industry has changed in ways that have become undeniable to most - I was a bit of the canary in the coal mine.
By that, I mean I believe I was among the first to really pay attention to the increasingly effective operations to shape and censor news - the movements to establish narratives rather than follow facts - and to see the growing influence of smear operations, political interests, and corporate interests on the news.
It’s not that I’m smarter than my peers, and I’m surely far less smart than many, but my particular brand of off-narrative reporting happened to draw the intense attention of the smear operators and propagandists, so I began to study it.
A case in point: the smear that was promulgated when I left CBS. It was often incorrectly reported that I told CBS management I was quitting due to liberal media bias.
That false story turned out to be convenient for both political sides, and largely survives today. It simply wasn’t rooted in fact. And I don’t recall reporters even asking me whether it was true.
Once a few articles reported that it was, others simply copied the claim and adopted it as if established fact, eventually without attribution. Now there would be no point in trying to clarify it.
After all, Wikipedia says it’s true. No going back from that.
Powerful smear groups and certain interests - including some within CBS at the time - started the narrative that I was “conservative,” not because they necessarily believed it, but as a tool to “controversialize” the reporting I was doing that was contrary to powerful interests.
The idea is that if I can be portrayed as a partisan, then my reporting can be more easily dismissed.
The Narrative Requires
In fact, prior to the operation to push the narrative that I was “conservative,” my reporting had been lauded by a diverse group of observers, including the likes of Rachel Maddow, who once delivered an entire monologue on an investigative expose I did on the “charity” of then-Rep. Stephen Buyer (R- Ind.).
My most recent Emmy award was for an undercover investigation into Republican fundraising.
But the narrative requests - nay, requires - that we forget all that. We must focus on the supposed miraculous metamorphosis. Depending on who’s spinning, they may insist I was a rational journalist who went crazy one day and flew to the dark side of conservatism.
Or they may say I used to be a devoted liberal, but decided the big money was in pandering to Republicans, so I sold out. The details aren’t important. You are simply to come away with the notion that my reporting is now politically conflicted.
Another example of this narrative: Many news reports comment that I work for the “conservative” Sinclair Broadcast Group. Fair enough - Sinclair is run by a family that’s made no secret of their conservative political leanings.
But the reporters who note this political connection apparently fail to recognize the inherent conflict in the fact that they eagerly label the conservative group; yet I don’t think they reported that I worked for the “liberal” CNN, the “liberal” PBS, or the “liberal” CBS.
Some reporters lack the self-awareness and objectivity to understand they are revealing themselves when they selectively apply labels in a one-sided fashion. They are servicing a narrative, even if unintentionally.
When I worked at CNN, it was owned by a billionaire Democrat donor (Ted Turner) - a good boss, by the way. When I worked for CBS, the management (Sumner Redstone, Les Moonves) were rich Democrat donors - also, a great company to work for during most of my 20 years there.
Sinclair has likewise been a terrific employer to date. They haven’t forced editorial biases in the reporting on my program. The program is mostly apolitical, addressing topics such as the underreported dangers of MRI dye or how American farmers are suffering under the current trade war with China.
When we address politics, you are as likely to see an interview with Rep. Eric Swalwell, a Democrat, as you are to see Sen. Lindsey Graham, a Republican.
Improvements
But there’s the narrative...
When a national print media reporter wrote about my program a couple of years ago, he incorrectly referred to it as “conservative.”
Later, when asked if he’d ever actually seen the program, he admitted he hadn’t.
It’s not that it would be difficult to - well - actually do a little bit of reporting rather than repeat a narrative: My weekly program is on at least a half-dozen times each week in the city where this reporter is based, and it’s posted online.
As easy as it was for him to do some first-hand reporting, he chose to repeat the narrative.
Lara Logan, who recently left CBS News, has also been speaking out about her observations regarding the decline of fair and objective journalism.
She’s likewise been attacking the narratives. As such, she has been subjected to them. That’s how it works. Obviously (says the narrative), she is a disgruntled conservative who is not to be believed.
Or (says the narrative), she’s perhaps a little unbalanced. (You know, all that war reporting and stress. Poor Lara.)
The truth is, Lara is extremely clear-eyed on these issues. And she and I are far from alone in our views on the state of the media.
We agree there is terrific journalism being committed on a daily basis at organizations from The New York Times to local news stations.
However, we agree that national media has also largely become co-opted by powerful interests who understand how to direct the news landscape in a way that services certain narratives and agendas.
I have heard support from hundreds of journalists, college professors, and media observers during the last several years. I have been reached out to by reporters in print and on TV, by national and local news, by students and a Pulitzer Prize winner.
The effort to expose flaws and conflicts in media reporting is growing stronger, not weaker, despite the narratives.
The desire to affect improvements is building. Make no mistake: Not all of us are free to speak publicly, but there are a lot of us.
We have reached a precarious tipping point for humanity… a moment in history where humanity must either rise up and defeat the scourge or Big Tech or be enslaved by all-out techno-fascism.
The techno-fascist organizations like Google, Apple, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and even Wikipedia have becomea clear and present danger to humanity.
In fact, as I explain in this uncensored video, below, the aggressive censorship, thought control and election meddling of the tech giants is flat-out incompatible with civil society.
Techno-fascists like Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey are un-elected and answer to no one, yet they now solely determine what thoughts, views and opinions you are allowed to speak or read.
This is incompatible with human freedom and must be halted.
As I explain in this 37-minute artistic expression “rap beats” video with lyrics, it is time for President Trump to declare war on the techno-fascists and for America to rise up and defeat, dismantle and disable the scourge of techno-fascism in the same way we worked together to defeat the Third Reich.
If some of the words are not easy to follow, that’s because this is an artistic expression rap song, not a simple audio lecture.
Read more news about techno-fascism censorship at Censorship.news.
The Working Poor In NZ: Poverty & Soup Kitchens On The Increase In Neo-Liberal’s New Look ‘Godzone’
May 8 2019 | From: EnviroWatchRangitikei / TVNZ / Various Isn’t it great how ‘they’ rename & reframe everything to fool the gullible?
Remember how they called gutting our economy, ‘restructuring’?. In other countries it got called ‘structural adjustment’.
Lining up at the food banks? Sleeping in cars? Tents? Third highest child poverty globally?
Neo-liberlaism isn not working so let’s stop pretending it is. Social Welfare was only ever a safety net that humanizes capitalism.
Neo-liberal? Forget the net. We had a woman living in a tent in Whanganui recently, while the corporately knighted Keys of the world swan around the world with several million dollar mansions to choose from.
“…that politics needed to be more altruistic, and more long-term, to address the deep-rooted challenges we’re grappling with as the economy changes…”
But, nah, in spite of her fine toasts amongst royalty at Buckingham Palace, telling the world that PEOPLE MATTER, she is doing what neo-liberal (closet globalists) do best - dragging it out.
If it wasn't for donations and volunteers, some people would go hungry without breakfast.
The Government is set to deliver its so-called "wellbeing budget" next month. Ahead of the announcement, John Campbell took a look at the state of welfare in New Zealand.
CURRENT AFFAIRS
Zuckerberg-Let-Hacking_Begin-28-Oct-2003
Why It’s Hard to Forgive
Why is a newborn baby vaccinated on day 1 of life against a disease that is primarily transmitted sexually and through needles in drug users?
Christchurch Decoded?
Counter the drivers of terrorism and violent extremism by strengthening the resilience and inclusiveness of their societies to enable them to resist terrorist and violent extremist ideologies, including through education, building media literacy to help counter distorted terrorist and violent extremist narratives, and the fight against inequality (emphasis added).
Inside the Rothschild-Inspired “Illuminati Ball” New Year’s Eve
1. At age 39, John had made up his mind to launch his political career by seeking an electoral mandate in New York State, and he was about to announce it publicly. 
