Neonic Pesticides In Tap Water React With Chlorine To Create Hazardous Chemicals That Are 300 Times More Toxic & Toxic Aluminum Found In Popular Prescription Infant Formulas December 1 2019 | From: NaturalNews
Their newest experiment followed up on their discovery of neonicotinoids in tap water sources. The team investigated the risk of the pesticides getting exposed to chlorine-based water treatments and transforming into chlorinated disinfection byproducts (DBPs).
Furthermore, they evaluated the toxicity of the DBP metabolites generated by the chemical reactions between neonics and chlorine. Their efforts received support from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the University of Iowa (UI).
Analysis of the chlorinated tap water confirmed the presence of desnitro-imidacloprid and imidacloprid-urea, which are both metabolites of imidacloprid. The two formed after the neonic pesticide reacted with the chlorine disinfectant.
Desnitro-imidacloprid possessed 319 times the toxicity of its parent pesticide on mammals. Tests showed that even low levels of desnitro-imidacloprid negatively affected the health of vertebrates.
Regulatory agencies like the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) believe that neonicotinoids don’t pose any danger to vertebrates. The pesticides work in such a way that they can only poison invertebrates.
However, neonics end up causing great harm to bees and other beneficial insects. They also poison aquatic invertebrate species that serve as food sources for aquatic vertebrates such as amphibians and fish.
Even worse, desnitro-imidacloprid and other neonic metabolites have changed the way they poison their targets, becoming more toxic to vertebrates like mammals and humans.
Newly Discovered Chlorinated Disinfection by Products Might be More Toxic Than Pesticides
Much like how desnitro-imidacloprid and imidacloprid-urea proved more toxic than imidacloprid, the DBPs might turn out to be more deadly than the chlorinated metabolites and their neonic pesticide predecessors.
“Greater potential toxicity and frequent presence in these water samples of neonicotinoid metabolites demonstrate the need to consider their fate and persistence in drinking water treatment systems (e.g., during chlorination and other treatment processes) and their potential effects on human health,”the researchers concluded.
The EPA is preparing to conduct a human health risk assessment of neonicotinoid pesticides in 2019. Experts urge the federal agency to include neonic-derived metabolites and chlorinated disinfection byproducts in its investigation.
Furthermore, they want the EPA to hold a cumulative risk assessment of neonic pesticides and associated metabolites. They find it alarming that the planned evaluation does not make any provision for the cumulative risks of a class of persistent and toxic chemicals.
Meanwhile, neonicotinoids continue to spread. The pesticides are not just limited to tainting surface water and drinking water. They also contaminate fruits and vegetables – and unlike earlier pesticides, they cannot be rinsed away.
Toxic Aluminum Found In Popular Prescription Infant Formulas
The link between aluminum exposure and health problems is quite unsettling when you consider just how prevalent the metal is in our everyday lives.
While adults might think that there’s little that can be done after years of exposure, parents can start their babies and children off on the right foot by limiting their exposure at the outset – and that starts with the food they eat.
The first aluminum exposure for many humans comes in the form of vaccines and infant formula.
When breast milk isn’t an option for some reason, many mothers assume the formulas sold on store shelves must be safe – and those that are prescribed by their doctor tend to be viewed as even better somehow.
Yet a new study shows that isn’t the case at all. In fact, several popular infant formula prescriptions contain the dangerous element.
There are no safe aluminum levels for the human body, so putting even small amounts into something newborns consume can only be thought of as poison.
It’s unfortunate that these formulas are targeted at babies who already have some sort of medical problem or disadvantage, like low birth weight, intolerance or allergy, or renal insufficiency.
The researchers found that among the 24 prescription infant formulas tested, those that had the heaviest contamination were powdered formulas geared toward babies with allergies and intolerances and ready-to-drink formulas aimed at infants having trouble gaining weight.
It isn’t clear how aluminum is making its way into the products. When the scientists contacted all the manufacturers involved, each one denied knowledge of the presence of aluminum in their products.
Their findings were published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health.
Aluminum Might be Everywhere, But That Doesn’t Mean it’s Safe
The researchers were very clear about the dangers of aluminum, stating:
“There is already too much aluminium in infant formulas and herein we have measured its content in a large number of prescription formulas, products which are fed to vulnerable infants in their first months of life. Many of these products are heavily contaminated with aluminium.”
Aluminum doesn’t strike fear in people’s hearts the way lead and arsenic do – but it absolutely should. The metal is damaging to human biology in many ways and builds up in your organs over time.
Large amounts of it can be found in the brains of those suffering from Alzheimer’s disease, and some experts believe accumulation of the metal is a cause of the devastating illness. It’s also found in people with autism and multiple sclerosis.
According to a public health statement from the Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry, aluminum can make its way into your body via ingestion, inhalation, and dermal contact.
In addition to vaccines and infant formula, people will be exposed to the metal throughout their life via foods like flour and baking powder, aluminum cookware and foil, air, water, and consumer products like cosmetics, antiperspirants, and antacids.
Exposure can affect children by causing kidney disease, brain disease, and bone damage as aluminum prevents the stomach from absorbing the phosphate their bodies need for healthy bones. It can also negatively impact their body’s ability to absorb iron.
It has also been linked to breast cancer, although further studies are needed to confirm the connection. Nevertheless, the International Agency for Research on Cancer has classified the metal as carcinogenic to humans. It is known to create oxidative stress, which can increase people’s risk of cancer.
Given the many dangers of aluminum, it’s clear that this metal has absolutely no place in infant formula. More rigorous testing is needed, and parents must be extremely vigilant about what they feed their babies.
If formula can’t be avoided, it’s particularly important that parents limit their children’s other exposure to aluminum.
GE Food Venture: Chronically Dependent On Deception November 30 2019 | From: Uncensored
Although it purports to be based on solid science and the open flow of information on which science depends, the massive venture to reconfigure the genetic core of the world’s food supply has substantially relied on the propagation of falsehoods.
Its advancement and very survival have been crucially and chronically dependent on the misrepresentation of reality – to the extent that more than thirty years after the creation of the first genetically engineered plant, the vast majority of people the world-over (including most government officials, journalists, and even scientists) continue to be misled about the important facts.
Moreover, contrary to what people would expect, the biotechnology industry has not been the main source of the deceptions.Instead, the chief misrepresentations have been issued by respected government agencies and eminent scientists and scientific institutions.
The following paragraphs describe several of the key deceptions and delinquencies that have been essential in enabling the genetically engineered (GE) food venture to advance – all of which are more thoroughly documented in my book: Altered Genes, Twisted Truth.
The Disaster Caused by GE’s First Edible Product Was Obfuscated
The genetic engineering venture received an alarming jolt when its first ingestible product caused an epidemic that killed dozens of Americans and seriously sickened thousands, permanently disabling many of them.
The product was a food supplement of the essential amino acid L-tryptophan that had been derived from genetically altered bacteria. Although it met the standards for pharmacological purity, like all other tryptophan supplements it contained minute amounts of impurities.
However, unlike the conventionally produced supplements, one or more of its accidental additions was highly toxic, even at extremely low levels.
Because none of the tryptophan supplements produced via non-engineered bacteria had ever been linked to disease, and because genetic engineering can create unintended disruptions within the altered organisms, there were legitimate reasons to suspect that the process had induced the formation of the extraordinarily toxic substance that caused the calamity.
Consequently, the proponents of genetic engineering, including the United States Food and Drug Administration (the FDA), which admits it has a policy “to foster” biotechnology, strove to convince the public that the technology was blameless.[ii]
But to do so, they had to issue a string of deceptive statements. Those deceptions have been highly successful. Consequently, despite the fact the evidence points to genetic engineering as the most likely cause of the toxic contamination, most people who know of this tragedy are under the illusion that the technology has been exonerated.[iii]
Worse, because GE proponents routinely claim that none of its products has ever been linked to a health problem, most people aren’t even aware that such a catastrophe happened.
The Problems Linked to the First GE Whole Food Were Also Covered Up
The first whole food produced via genetic engineering (Calgene’s “Flavr Savr” tomato) was also problematic. Calgene voluntarily conducted feeding studies, and the FDA scientists who reviewed them expressed concern about a pattern of stomach lesions that raised a safety issue.
The Pathology Branch concluded that safety had not been demonstrated, and other FDA experts concurred. One wrote that the data:
“Raise a question of safety” – and that they “fall short” of satisfactorily resolving it.[iv] Another agreed that “. . . unresolved questions still remain.”[v]
Nevertheless, the FDA claimed that its scientists had determined that all safety questions had been resolved – and that the tomato had been demonstrated to be just as safe as other tomatoes. And because the FDA kept a lid on its scientists’ memos, no one outside the agency was aware of the fraud.
The memos only came to light four years later (in 1998) when my organization, the Alliance for Bio-Integrity, led a lawsuit that compelled the FDA to hand over more than 44,000 pages of its internal files.
However, because the mainstream media has failed to adequately report what those documents reveal, most people are still unaware of the FDA’s misbehavior.
GE Foods Reached the Market Through Governmental Fraud
If the actual facts about the toxic tryptophan and the troubling tomato had been disclosed, the GE food venture might well have been brought to a halt – and at minimum would have been slowed and subjected to more rigorous testing. A similar effect would have resulted if concerns that other FDA experts had expressed about GE foods in general had been publicized.
Those concerns appeared in memos written a few years before the GE tomato entered the market, and they reveal that the agency’s scientists didn’t agree with the biotech proponents’ claims that GE is substantially the same as conventional breeding.
For example, an FDA microbiologist stated:
“There is a profound difference between the types of unexpected effects from traditional breeding and genetic engineering.” He added that GE “. . . may be more hazardous . . .” [vi]
A toxicologist warned that GE plants could contain unexpected new toxins.[vii]
The Director of FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) stated:
“… CVM believes that animal feeds derived from genetically modified plants present unique animal and food safety concerns.” [viii]
He explained that residues of unexpected substances could make meat and milk products harmful to humans.
The pervasiveness of the concerns is attested by an FDA official who studied the expert input and declared:
“The processes of genetic engineering and traditional breeding are different, and according to the technical experts in the agency, they lead to different risks.” [ix]
In light of the unique risks, those experts called for GE foods to undergo careful testing capable of detecting unexpected side effects.
Moreover, the FDA’s Biotechnology Coordinator acknowledged there was not a consensus about safety in the scientific community at large. He also admitted that the allergenic potential of some GE foods “is particularly difficult to predict.” [x]
Nonetheless, in May 1992 the FDA claimed that:
“The agency is not aware of any information showing that foods derived by these new methods differ from other foods in any meaningful or uniform way.” [xi]
It also asserted that there is overwhelming consensus among scientists that GE foods are so safe they don’t require any testing. Accordingly, the agency doesn’t require a smidgen of testing and allows GE foods to enter the market without any.
If the FDA had told the truth and disclosed the extensive concerns of its own experts, the subsequent history of the GE venture would have surely been very different – and might well have been quite short. At the least, any GE foods that did reach market would have been subjected to much more rigorous testing than regulators anywhere have required.
The State of the Research and the Degree of Expert Consensus Have Been Misrepresented
Like the FDA, other GE proponents habitually claim there’s an overwhelming expert consensus that GE foods are safe. And the American Association for the Advancement of Science has declared that “every respected organization” that examined the evidence has determined they’re “no riskier” than conventional ones.
But this is flat-out false. For instance, in 2001 the Royal Society of Canada issued a report concluding that:
) it is “scientifically unjustifiable” to presume that GE foods are safe.
B) the “default prediction” for each should be that the genetic alteration has induced unintended and potentially harmful side effects.[xii]
Moreover, the British Medical Association, the Public Health Association of Australia, and the editors of The Lancet (a premier medical journal) have all expressed concerns about the risks;[xiii]and in 2015 a peer-reviewed journal published a statement signed by more than 300 scientists asserting that there is not a consensus about the safety of GE foods and that their safety has not been adequately demonstrated.[xiv]
GE proponents also falsely profess that the safety of GE foods has been thoroughly demonstrated when in reality many well-conducted studies published in peer-reviewed journals have detected harm to the animals that ate GE food.
In fact, a systematic review of the toxicological studies on GE foods published in 2009 concluded that the results of “most” of them indicate that the products:
“May cause hepatic, pancreatic, renal, and reproductive effects and may alter hematological, biochemical, and immunologic parameters the significance of which remains unknown.” [xv]
It also noted that further studies were clearly needed.
Another review that encompassed the additional studies that had been published up until August 2010 also provided cause for caution. It concluded that there was an “equilibrium” between the research groups;
“Suggesting” that GE crops are as safe as their non-GE counterparts and “those raising still serious concerns.” [xvi]
Between 2008 and 2014 eight such research reviews were published, and although some interpreted the data in favor of GE crops, as a whole, they provide no grounds for unequivocally proclaiming safety. As Sheldon Krimsky, a professor at Tufts University, observed in a comprehensive examination that itself was published in a peer-reviewed journal:
“One cannot read these systematic reviews and conclude that the science on health effects of GMOs has been resolved within the scientific community.” [xvii]
Yet, GMO proponents routinely proclaim that it has been conclusively resolved – and that safety is a certitude.
Two Compelling – and Disturbing – Conclusions
Thus, even from this brief summary, it’s clear that the GE food venture has been chronically dependent on twisting the truth; and this dependence can be readily detected in virtually every statement that’s been issued in support of its products.
A striking example is the guide to GE crops published by the UK’s Royal Society in May 2016.[xviii] Although it professes to provide accurate, science-based information, analysis reveals that its case for the safety of these crops is based on multiple misrepresentations.[xix]
So if the world’s oldest and most respected scientific institution cannot argue for the safety of GE foods without systematically distorting the facts, it indicates that such distortion is essential to the argument.
Moreover, when the multitude of distortions and deceptions that have been issued on behalf of these products over the last thirty-five years are compiled and irrefutably documented (as in my book), the conclusion that the GE food venture could not have survived without them becomes virtually inescapable.
And another conclusion is equally obvious. The incontestable fact that the evidence has been methodically misrepresented is initself compelling evidence of how strongly the aggregate evidence raises reasonable doubts about the safety of these foods – because if it was as favorable as the proponents claim, there would have been no need to distort it.
[i] Druker, Steven, Altered Genes, Twisted Truth: How the Venture to Genetically Engineer Our Food Has Subverted Science, Corrupted Government, and Systematically Deceived the Public (Clear River Press 2015)
[ii] The agency’s promotional policy was acknowledged in “Genetically Engineered Foods,” FDA Consumer, Jan.-Feb. 1993, p.14.
[iii] The demonstrably false statements that have been issued in order to deflect suspicion from the GE process, as well as other deceptive tactics that have been employed, are described in Chapter 3 of Altered Genes, Twisted Truth. That chapter also comprehensively examines the evidence, including important evidence produced by researchers at the Mayo Clinic that had not been previously made public.
[xiii] The British Medical Association has clearly expressed reservations about the safety of these novel products. As described in the British Medical Journal, the Association released a 2004 report stating that:
“More research is needed to show that genetically modified (GM) food crops and ingredients are safe for people and the environment and that they offer real benefits over traditionally grown foods.” (Kmietowicz, Z. “GM Foods Should Be Submitted to Further Studies, says BMA,”
British Medical Journal, 2004 March 13; 328(7440): 602)
The Public Health Association of Australia has likewise (and more recently) indicated its opinion that the safety of genetically modified foods has not been adequately demonstrated. Its policy statement on genetically modified (GM) foods adopted in 2013 states:
“Thorough, independent research into the effects of GM foods on agronomy, health, society, the environment and the economy should be undertaken, and until this work is completed, all governments in Australia should impose an immediate and indefinite freeze on: the growing of GM crops for commercial purposes; the importation of GM foods and food components; and the patenting of genetic resources for food.”
The Lancet criticized the presumption that genetically engineered foods entail no greater risks of unexpected effects than conventional foods, stating that there are “good reasons to believe that specific risks may exist” and that “governments should never have allowed these products into the food chain without insisting on rigorous testing for effects on health.” (The Lancet, Vol. 353, Issue 9167, p. 1811, 29 May 1999.)
Steven M. Druker is a public interest attorney and the executive director of the Alliance for Bio-Integrity. He is the author of Altered Genes, Twisted Truth: How the Venture to Genetically Engineer Our Food Has Subverted Science, Corrupted Government, and Systematically Deceived the Public, which was released in 2015 with a foreword by Jane Goodall hailing it as “without doubt one of the most important books of the last 50 years.
Cancer Industry Not Looking For A Cure; They’re Too Busy Making Money & Same Amazon.Com That Banned Cancer Cure Documentaries Now All In With Big Pharma’s Toxic Cancer “Treatments” Via Its New “Go Gold” Astroturfing Campaign November 29 2019 | From: NaturalNews / CancerNews / Various It may sound ridiculously cynical to some, but there are many who believe that cancer is too big a business (meaning too lucrative) to ever actually cure.
If any of the existing low-cost, natural and alternative cancer treatments were ever to be approved, then the healthcare industry’s cornerstone revenue producer would vanish within months.
And Big Pharma isn’t about to let that happen. The industry is what is keeping us from a real cancer cure.
Consider how big a business cancer has become. In the 1940s, before all of the technology and innovation we see today, just one out of every 16 people was stricken with cancer; by the 1970s, that ratio fell to one in 10.
Today, one in two males are at risk of developing some form of cancer, and for women that ratio is one in three.
A 2010 documentary entitled, Cut Poison Burn, by filmmaker Wayne Chesler, presented a number of powerful facts regarding corruption in the business of conventional treatments for cancer (surgery, chemotherapy and radiation) in the U.S.
Here are a number of quotes taken from the documentary that reveal why we’re no closer today than ever to a cancer cure:
"From 1920 to the present time, we have made little progress in the treatment of adult cancers. So, a person who gets prostate cancer or breast cancer today will live as long as a person who got it in 1920."
- Charles B. Simone, M.MS., M.D., Founder, Simone Protective Cancer Center
"Why are people terrified when they hear the word cancer? Because they know it [conventional cancer treatment] doesn’t work.”
- Dr. Julian Whitaker, M.D. Founder, Whitaker Wellness Institute
“Everyone should know that most cancer research is largely a fraud.”
- Dr. Linus Pauling 1986, Nobel Laureate
There are more, including the U.S. government’s own admission in patenting someone else’s potential cancer cure, that current treatments “are themselves carcinogenic” and may actually promote recurrences of cancer.
But you get the point: There is no real incentive to cure something that generates so much employment and profit; just imagine all of the cancer treatment specialists and their staff members who would be out of a job if this disease was ever cured.
“Treating cancer with anything that actually works has been entirely outlawed in the United States, where ‘healing has become a crime,’ say independent observers. The conventional cancer industry isn’t interested in curing the disease; it’s interested in profiting from its continuation.”
Same Amazon.Com That Banned Cancer Cure Documentaries Now All In With Big Pharma’s Toxic Cancer “Treatments” Via Its New “Go Gold” Astroturfing Campaign
Jeff Bezos has launched a new propaganda campaign called “Amazon Goes Gold” that blatantly pushes the Big Pharma lie that chemotherapy is some kind of universal cure for childhood cancer.
Exploiting the heartbreaking story of a Texas girl who underwent chemo for stage 4 non-Hodgkin’s T-cell Lymphoma, The Amazon blog makes the suggestion that, even though chemo routinely harms and kills people, it’s still the best option for adults and children who are diagnosed with cancer.
Plagiarizing the infamous “pink ribbon” campaign long promoted by the Susan G. Komen Foundation for breast cancer “awareness,” Amazon’s Goes Gold campaign shipped out gold ribbons with all Amazon orders during the month of September.
Amazon is also donating $4 million to the American Childhood Cancer Organization, Children’s Oncology Group, Seattle Children’s Hospital, the European Society for Pediatric Oncology, and St. Jude Children-s Research Hospital – all groups and organizations that reject natural alternatives to chemotherapy for treating cancer.
“Amazonians across the globe will show their support by wearing pajamas to work in solidarity with children who often spend years living in their pajamas during treatment and recovery from cancer,” The Amazon blog‘s Dave Quigg explains.
Wegner worked directly on “pharmaceutical product development,” according to his LinkedIn profile. He also worked as a scientist at Hospira, a global pharmaceutical and medical device company with operations similar to Pfizer’s.
What this suggests is that Wegner’s approach to childhood cancer as the current head of ACCO centers entirely around conventional “treatments” like chemotherapy and radiation that destroy children’s bodies by pumping them up with poison.
Children’s Oncology Group is similarly run by pharma-mongers like Peter C. Adamson of The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. Adamson is buddies with Paul Offit, a Big Pharma hack who believes that children can safely be injected with up to 10,000 vaccines at once and live to tell about it.
These and other Amazon Goes Gold partners, in essence, represent a who’s who list of some of Big Pharma’s biggest propagandists.
More important to them than actual healing is keeping the public under the delusion that chemotherapy is somehow a legitimate form of medicine that helps to fight cancer.
And Amazon is further doing its part to keep the ruse going by shipping all Amazon orders in “custom packaging” with a little gold ribbon to remind customers that they should immediately turn to chemotherapy the minute they or a loved one is diagnosed with cancer.
By couching this crafty little campaign in terms of good will and creating “awareness,” Amazon and the cancer industry are basically marketing conventional cancer “therapy” to the masses, which are increasingly waking up to safer and more effective alternatives that don’t cause potentially lifelong harm or even death.
Amazon: Chemotherapy is Expensive, So Get Out There and Fundraise to Help Pay for it!
Recognizing that chemotherapy is an excessively costly regimen that patients without insurance have gone bankrupt trying to pay for, Amazon is also reminding the public to fork over their hard-earned cash to help people pay for it as an act of charity.
Rather than advise its customers about cheaper, safer alternatives that might work without breaking the bank, Amazon is instead trying to raise more money to keep the conventional cancer industry fully funded, regardless of the harm it causes to many patients.
“I had an allergic reaction to a chemo medicine that I was getting,” the young girl whom Amazon references in the blog article is quoted as saying about how chemotherapy harmed her. “It gave me pancreatitis. Then I became septic and went into multi-system organ failure.”
Several of the cancer documentaries that Amazon banned from its website and Prime services discuss alternatives that might have helped this poor girl without destroying her vital organs.
“… some of the drugs and the chemo that they use are very, very harsh,” the girl’s father is quoted as saying about what his daughter endured.
“I just don’t think there’s enough research into how it affects kids – because they’re little, and they’re going to have the health effects of these heavy treatments for the rest of their life. As a parent going through all that, it’s frustrating because you don’t want them to deviate from the protocol, but this stuff makes your kid so sick.”
Google's Digital Book Burn: Alternative Medicine Content Now Vanishingly Rare, Despite One Billion Health Searches A Day November 28 2019 | From: GreenMedInfo
With about 1 billion health searches happening on Google every day, it's not hard to understand why censoring natural health information serves a multitude of interests, not the least of which is Big Pharma's bottom line.
A new analysis released by Bob Troia, Twitter handle Quantified Bob, reveals how health sites have been decimated by Google in the period tracked from April 15th, 2018 to August 15th, 2019.
However, you don’t have to fall into the stereotypes of a health freedom advocate, vaccine choice, or natural health obsessed organization to feel the pain of Google’s purge.
Examine.com, for instance, which prides itself on being entirely science-based, and who has written about how “you do not need to worry about MSG,” “Curcumin is not a panacea,” and “Diet soda is unlikely to hurt your health,” also got hit hard.
"Many health websites have been buried by a new Google algorithm update. Search is fruitless. We provide drug side effect information. Why can't you find it?"
Censorship, of course, is not new.
Book burning, for instance, has been around for at least as long as books have existed. What’s happening today is that Big Tech platforms, which receive immunity from lawsuits against suppressing free speech due to a loophole within the Communications Decency Act (Section 230), are nonetheless acting like publishers by choosing who can and cannot express an opinion or exercise their First Amendment rights.
For a timeline of the censorship events, including the discovery that both Google and Bing are manipulating their search engine autocomplete suggestions with what appear to be blatant neurolinguistic programming (i.e. mind control) tactics, read my statement here.
To be perfectly candid, I am not at all surprised by what’s happening. I created GreenMedInfo.com a decade ago within an already well-established context of widespread censorship and mischaracterization of the evidence supporting natural medicine.
The very inspiration for it was to fill the void out there of science-based information supporting what millions around the world already know: the body can heal itself with the right conditions, without drugs.
Given that Google fields more than a billion health-related questions every day, or the equivalent of 70,000 each minute, there’s a massive amount of money and power on the line here.
Only, I did not expect Google to be so blatant and audacious about it. Did they really think they'd get away with it? Perhaps they didn’t realize how large a contingency is represented by our space.
I can count, among those health freedom and natural health organizations I am affiliated with, a reach of at least 100 million strong through social media, and another 100 million through email subscribers to our numerous lists -- and this is a very conservative estimate.
Same Media That Once Deemed Chemtrails A Conspiracy Theory Now Openly Promotes Chemtrailing The Entire Planet To “End Climate Change”& Global Geoengineering (Chemtrails) Experiment Pushed By Bill Gates Also Funded By Nazi-Linked Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, Linked To Eugenics And Depopulation November 27 2019 | From: NaturalNews / Various
The mainstream media has made a radical departure away from vehement chemtrail denialism into systematic chemtrail embrace, and the question remains as to why the climate “deep state” has suddenly decided to show its cards.
Just as Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, long warned, the geoengineering conspiracy would one day be exposed and make its way into the mainstream, but under false pretenses – and that’s exactly what appears to be happening.
Geoengineering is real, they’re now admitting, and it’s for the good of the planet. But the truth is that the chemtrail agenda is a nefarious tool that the “elite” are using as a means of weather control, and thus population control.
While it’s somewhat encouraging to see that what we and others have long warned about is, in fact, turning out to be everything we said it was, the revelation of this to the general public suggests that the globalists are much further along in fulfilling their agenda than many people probably think.
For more related news about the climate conspiracy, be sure to check out Climate.news.
Climate Scientists are Absolutely Mad, and Their Agenda Will Cause a Planetary Collapse
Even as the media admits that geoengineering is real, the claim is that it’s being used to “cool” the planet. All of that barium and aluminum raining down from our skies is somehow a “good” thing, the media insists, even as rates of chronic illness skyrocket.
With the financial help of globalist billionaires and eugenicists like Bill Gates, chemtrails are now being sprayed in pretty much every country around the world, which climate alarmists now say is necessary to “block” the sun from warming the earth.
As Adams warns, the result of this will be the impairing of photosynthesis in plants and phytoplankton which, combined with the climate lobby’s efforts to eliminate CO2, will mean the total collapse of the world’s food crops, leading to global famine, starvation, and mass death.
“That’s the real goal of the program, of course,” Adams writes.
“It’s a ‘mass extinction’ weapon system that’s funded by globalists to annihilate humankind by taking out the food webs that support human life. This is nothing less than the weaponization of the atmosphere to commit genocide on a planetary scale.”
This is one of the globalist deep state’shard kill agendas, from which nobody will be able to escape. While soft kill programs like forced vaccination are able to catch most people and enslave them, hard kill sun-blocking will affect everyone, collapsing food systems, plant life, and eventually human existence.
“This planned pollution of the skies could devastate life on Earth,” Adams goes on to warn.
“It might unleash, ‘… things like mass famine, mass flooding, drought, of kinds that would affect very large populations," warns Stephen Gardiner, author of A Perfect Moral Storm, in a CNBC video that now touts the benefits of chemtrails.
Global Geoengineering (Chemtrails) Experiment Pushed By Bill Gates Also Funded By Nazi-Linked Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, Linked To Eugenics And Depopulation
The mainstream media is now openly pushing geoengineering and chemtrails as a solution for so-called “global warming,” which is of course a complete hoax to begin with.
Globalist propaganda network CNBC has just released a new video (see below) which is a blatant infomercial for chemtrails, touting the benefits of polluting the skies with calcium carbonate and sulfur dioxide, two pollutants that would devastate life on Earth. Matt Agorist from The Free Thought Project published an informative write-up.
Same Alfred P. Sloan Foundation that Censored Vaccine Truth Also Funding SCoPEx Project to Commit Planetary Genocide
In the video, shown below via YouTube, the non-profit organizations involved in funding this SCoPEx project are listed. Among those funding the project at none other than The Alfred P. Sloan Foundation.
“Industrialist Alfred P. Sloan, as head of General Motors, was a Nazi collaborator, and ardent admirer of Hitler. Sloan’s hatred of blacks was almost as intense as his hatred of Jews.
He had a close connection with the eugenics movement which eventually became the Human Genome Project.
The Sloan Foundation, together with the Rockefeller nexus, held a long standing interest in population reduction, including their involvement with the introduction of mysterious new vaccines together with the World Health Organization, which has a stated policy of population reduction, as clearly set forth in Agenda 21.”
“This seemingly altruistic Sloan Foundation also funded the Community Blood Council of Greater New York, Inc., which allowed more than 10,000 hemophiliacs and countless others to become fatally infected with HIV/Aids.
Moreover, The Sloan Foundation held 24,000-53,000 shares issued by Merck and Co., whose president George W. Merck was director of America’s biological weapons industry and whose Hepatitis C and polio vaccines have been suspected of transmitting AIDs; and who knows what else.”
The Sloan Foundation is currently headed by a globalist named Paul Joskow, member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), a global elite group with deep ties to depopulation advocate Bill Gates, who also awards large grants to numerous websites that agree to publish pro-vaccine propaganda.
So now you know the truth about the SCoPEx project, which will also drop enormous quantities of lead - the heavy metal - onto the world’s crops, soils and oceans.
This project is nothing less than the mass genocide of humanity, funded by Bill Gates and 14 non-profit foundations as listed here:
J. Baker Foundation
The Blue Marble Fund
OW Caspersen Foundation
The Crows Nest Foundation
The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation
Constance C. and Linwood A. Lacy Jr. Foundation
The Open Philanthropy Project
Pritzker Innovation Fund
Ronin Private Investments LLC
The Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
The Tansy Foundation
Teza Technologies LLC
The Weatherhead Center for International Affairs
Watch the chemtrails infomercial from CNBC, which now openly admits they want to pollute the skies, just as we’ve been warning you for years.
That’s why we launched Terraforming.news and Geoengineering.news. This is Adolf Hitler times 1000 in terms of the genocide being carried out here (billions of people will die, which is the goal).
Watch and share:
Now you know why they have to desperately try to label Natural News “fake news” or “conspiracy.”
Because yesterday’s conspiracy is today’s Harvard science project funded by eugenics advocates who want to murder six billion people (or more). Just two years ago, “chemtrails” was derided as a conspiracy theory. Now CNBC is running puff pieces promoting it!
The real agenda is the annihilation of humankind. This is why we’ve launched OblivionAgenda.com to explain the truth about the globalist agenda to destroy humanity. It’s no longer science fiction; it’s science fact.
Do you get a sense, that something is wrong, like that dissonance, that does not belong?
As we move through the journey of life, many people are experiencing a sense of dis-ease, that something is off-kilter, that the narratives we are receiving do not match the reality we are experiencing. There is great hope in this knowledge because once one recognizes this dissonance the process of awakening begins.
Related: Loneliness – The Dilemma Of The Awakening Mind
Deep down way inside, you may have suspicions that much what we're told, are but veiled omissions.
The narratives are controlled by a small handful of people who determine what issues and discussions we should be examining.
As we watch the main stream news and follow social media, the news and discussions we see are mostly spectacle designed to boost ratings with little or no coverage of the real issues such as: our wars without end, corporate and big money control of government and media, or anything critical of the powers that be.
Most of the journalists we see on the main stream media are basically celebrity faces who no longer practice journalism, but are simply parroting what those in power want them to say with little effort made to investigate and corroborate the stories.
There is great hope in recognizing this knowledge, as it allows one to view the narratives more critically and to filter out what does not resonate with them.
Why do we listen, to those who would divide those who leave us empty, with our humanity denied
Both of the main stream political parties support the Military/Industrial/Security Complex.
Both of the main stream political parties support the multiple simultaneous wars and occupations of other nations.
Both of the main stream political parties support a foreign policy of economic and military sanctions on nations that wish to pursue paths that do not fit interests of the global central banking system.
Both of the main stream political parties support their corporate donors over their constituents.
Both of the main stream political parties voted to extend the surveillance of citizens.
Both of the main stream political parties have made little or no attempt to stop the flood of big money into political campaigns.
However, the powers that be are very successful at projecting that there is a real difference between the two political parties [This is an American article, but the principle is the same throughout the West].
Both political parties are successful in getting people to fight each other over social issues that in the big picture are really not the key issues.
Then, as long as the people are focused on fighting each other, those who orchestrated this fight enjoy the benefits of this effective diversion, keeping people from paying attention to the criminal syndicate that has taken over the government.
There is great hope in recognizing this old divide and conquer tactic because once one does recognize it, one can stop fearing or hating "the other" and recognize that we have far more in common than what is dividing us.
We can stop with name calling and finger pointing, and instead engage in meaningful conversations.
So many listen to the main stream media where sensationalism such as murders, car crashes, kidnappings, sex scandals and the like dominate the content. This is the same media where 90% of the media is owned by 6 corporations.
One does not need a PhD to understand that this concentration of control over the narrative that people experience is not a positive development. Those that control the news keep the masses living in fear. This fear can take many forms, but often it is physical, economic, or social.
This is the same media that now has 36% of its hourly content filled with commercials. The fact that people are recognizing this is good news because they will become more discerning about who they give their money to. They will start to question whether they really need that product or service, or do they just want it.
Once we will awaken, things won't be the same we will manifest, an end to their game. Once we will awaken, the angels will observe as those with dark souls, we'll no longer serve.
Our current political system has been totally corrupted by those with vast accumulations of money. This cuts across all ideologies and political party lines. This system of legal bribery has even been ratified by the highest court in the land which opened the floodgates to even more money corroding our system.
How can someone represent you when they are being paid millions to represent others? What we need now goes beyond simple reforms and enters the realm of transformational change.
Many articles and videos (mostly those in the alternative media space) connect these dots so that more and more people are becoming aware. This awareness or awakening is a critical step as it opens up the possibility for transformational change to take place.
The changes we are seeking will not take place from the top down, they will take place from the bottom up. Those who benefit from the current paradigm have little motivation to implement meaningful changes.
Once we are ready to accept our own roles in this process, we will realize that what needs to happen is that we have to change ourselves.
Once we stop playing their game of competing with each other, we will start cooperating instead. Local, self sufficient, and resilient communities will spring up like wild flowers in a field where they grow much of their own food, start their own currencies, and their citizens will stop buying from the big corporations, instead they will patronize their local businesses.
The current system of how we create and distribute money is at the very heart of most of the problems we face.
It is absolutely amazing that people will work a significant portion of their lives away to earn money, and yet have only the most elementary understanding of how our debt based monetary system works.
This debt based monetary system perpetuates and amplifies the inequalities of how Earth's abundant resources are distributed. Our very existence on this planet is being threatened as unlimited economic growth within a finite biosphere remains the current paradigm.
Until we move to a totally new monetary system, we are only hacking away at branches, and not getting to the root of the problem. There can be no effective transformation of our societies until this happens.
The models for a new monetary system are already in place. However the private individuals who have been given the monopoly power to create money and are benefiting from the current system will fight to make sure that knowledge of these systems does not spread widely.
Those benefiting from the current system will work hard to make sure it stays firmly entrenched. When was the last time you heard a corporate media network discuss monetary reform?
Once we have local control of money, food production, energy generation, and governance, the current paradigm of corporate and big money control of our systems will simply become obsolete. It will simply fade into oblivion as it becomes less and less relevant. There will be no need to confront the system. Once we awaken and change our ways, we will "manifest an end to their game".
Those who sell their souls, for their daily bread may not take the time, to think of what's ahead.
There have always been those who would sell their souls and use the excuse "it's my job" to justify their actions.
[Looking at the likes of you Jacinda and Rebecca. *Waves*].
From those who tortured Jesus to more modern times with concentration camp guards to even more currently the mercenaries who were hired to confront those seeking to protect their water supplies from pipeline companies.
Think about this, these mercenaries are people who left the communities they pledged to "protect and serve" to answer a call to "protect and serve" corporate interests in another community, while these same corporate interests were placing local people's water supplies at serious risk.
These mercenaries were the tip of the spear, there were many behind the scenes who acted as enablers for their behaviors. There were the corporate executives, prosecutors, judges, minor bureaucrats, and politicians without whose support, such injustices could never take place.
"It was my job" is not an acceptable response when it curtails the access of life sustaining necessities of fellow human beings.
It is very easy to develop an "I see nothing" attitude, or to allow oneself to be silenced by monetary gain by "playing along" with those who control and manipulate the system. It is time to witness, it is time to speak up, it is time to resist when you see injustice taking place.
Once we awaken we will no longer serve those who think only of themselves and their own self serving schemes.
YOU can start making a huge difference by the way you spend YOUR money. Think about this, when you give your money to someone or some corporation, as you are transferring some of your your power to them. Is this really something you wish to do?
Do you shop at a local merchant or do you save that 35 cents by buying from Amazon? Do you give a percentage of every purchase to the big banks by using credit cards or do you pay in cash?
Do you buy animal products humanely produced? Do you buy organic food or food produced using chemicals that threaten our ecosystem (and your health?)
Do you bank at a "too big to fail bank" or a local community bank or Credit Union? Sometimes the lowest price or convenience is not the best buy and can carry an even higher unseen cost.
As we develop our own resilient local communities and economies, our dependencies on the corporate model will be reduced, weakening their tight grip on us. Mother Teresa once said "I alone cannot change the world, but I can cast a stone across the waters to create many ripples."
This is the best part of the awakening process. It is easy to think that the problems we face are overwhelming and that nothing can be done.
Once we awaken we become aware of others who have broken free. It is very empowering once we realize we are not alone. A critical mass is forming. It turns out that it takes only 10% of a population to bring about real changes.
We live in a world of abundance. There is enough air, water, and food for every person, animal, and plant on the planet. We have the resources and ability to make our existence here a paradise, to continue to develop socially, intellectually, emotionally, and spiritually.
It is within our power to create a true golden age on this blue oasis floating through space and attain wondrous levels of development on a personal, family, community, regional, and global level while creating this paradise.
Horowitz Report Will Be Damning, Criminal Referrals Likely + The Hammer Is The Key To The Coup November 25 2019 | From: SaraCarter / TheAmericanReport / Various Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s much anticipated report on his investigation into the FBI’s probe into President Trump’s campaign is expected to be made public before Thanksgiving and the outcome is alleged to contain several criminal referrals, according to sources who spoke with SaraACarter.com.
Horowitz’s investigation on the bureau’s probe into the now debunked theory that Trump colluded with Russia in the 2016 presidential election will more than likely result in the declassification of documents - requested by senior Republican lawmakers for more than several years.
These are the same documents President Trump turned over to Attorney General William Barr in May, giving him ‘full and complete authority” to declassify.
Those documents will contain several classified pages of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act on former Trump campaign advisor Carter Page, exculpatory evidence that was withheld from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the so-called ‘Gang of Eight’ folder (which contained exculpatory information), as well as the email chain between FBI investigators in the Russia probe and then-FBI Director James Comey.
Those emails also include discussions with lawyers in the DOJ’s national security division.
As previously reported, the email chains will contain information that prove the FBI knew prior to obtaining a warrant to spy on Page that former British spy Christopher Steele’s information in his infamous dossier on Trump could not be proven.
It is also expected to reveal that the FBI knew that Steele was leaking to the media but then used those media reports as separate evidence in their request for a FISA warrant, known as circular intelligence reporting.
Circular reporting is when a law enforcement official uses false confirmation by making a piece of information appear to come from multiple independent sources.
"If it’s strong and comes out soon, the IG report will do some real damage to the Democrats’ impeachment charade. It would show that Resistance bureaucrats really are conspiring to take down Trump, House Republican."
Horowitz’s report is also going to contain evidence that the FBI handled Hillary Clinton’s campaign differently than that of President Trump’s campaign.
It will reveal that she had received a detailed debriefing from the FBI on foreign attempts to make contact with her campaign. It will reveal the deep bias and animus those FBI officials had toward the Trump campaign.
It is the most highly anticipated Horowitz report during the Trump administration’s tenure.
Why? Because for more than three years the American people have not had closure or resolution to what exactly warranted the FBI investigation to spy on a presidential campaign, or for that matter on the President.
It will also weaken House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff’s current impeachment probe into Trump, as it will prove that his previous statements in support of the FBI’s FISA into Page was based solely on his biased against Trump.
This bias, say Republican officials, continues with his push to impeach the President.
"If it’s strong and comes out soon, the IG report will do some real damage to the Democrats’ impeachment charade. It would show that Resistance bureaucrats really are conspiring to take down Trump,” said a House Republican source.
“It would also fatally undermine the credibility of Schiff, who argued vehemently that there were no FISA abuses - it will mean that, as Intel Committee Chairman, he’s ignoring severe abuses for purely political purposes.”
Those political purposes lead to the most important question lingering in Horowitz’s investigation:
Did senior officials within the FBI and U.S. intelligence apparatus weaponize the system for political purposes against a candidate for the presidency and did they continue to do so after Trump had been elected?
Unlike Horowitz’s other reports, this investigation, which focuses on the machinations of the FBI’s initial beginnings of the probe, is sure to bring with it a wave of new information that the public may not be aware of and the bureau’s connections to the intelligence communities role in its initial investigation.
The players: former FBI Director James Comey, former Deputy Director of the FBI Andrew McCabe, former Special Agent Peter Strzok, along with Strzok’s paramour FBI lawyer Lisa Page, are among some of the cast of characters in Horowitz’s report.
Others, like former CIA Director John Brennan, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and DOJ official Bruce Ohr may also play a part in his investigation.
However, Horowitz has been careful not to let anything leak – not even the day he plans to release the report, which we now know was completed in mid-September and being reviewed for classification purposes with the FBI and DOJ.
Here’s what to expect: According to several sources the report will be ‘damning’ and will allegedly contain criminal referrals on former FBI officials.
The report will apparently have at least two criminal referrals, said two sources, with knowledge. One of those criminal referrals is expected to be Comey. However, the Inspector General’s office has not been providing comments on the report.
Those referrals allegedly will be made based on information and evidence obtained by the Inspector General and may very well have been the reason Justice Department Attorney General Barr and Connecticut prosecutor John Durham opened a criminal probe into the FBI’s investigation into the President.
Some information has already been made public. In a recent interview with Fox New’s Martha McCallum Sen. Lindsey Graham, who has spoken with Barr, said:
"I think his report is going to be stunning. I think it is going to be damning. I think it’s going to prove that the system got off the rails and we need corrective action.”
As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Graham, told McCallum his committee will be examining the FBI’s use of a FISA warrant on Page, alongside the current investigation being conducted separately by Durham.
The question as to what extent the senior intelligence and federal law enforcement officials weaponized the most trusted institutions in our nation should be answered and made public for the American people.
If senior government officials broke the law and abused the system then they must be held accountable and there should never be any question of a two-tiered justice system in our nation.
“THE HAMMER is the key to the coup” U.S. Navy Admiral James A. “Ace” Lyons (Ret.) proclaimed to U.S. Air Force Lieutenant General Thomas McInerney (Ret.). Admiral Lyons, who led the largest military command in the world as Commander of the U.S. Navy Pacific Fleet, spoke those words to General McInerney one final time as General McInerney sat beside Admiral Lyon’s deathbed.
Dennis Montgomery designed and built THE HAMMER foreign surveillance supercomputer to keep America safe after 9/11. Montgomery is a software designer and computer expert who worked as a government contractor for the CIA, FBI, NSA, and Defense Department.
According to military sources, THE HAMMER was a powerful foreign surveillance tool intended to monitor terrorists and other foreign adversaries.
On February 3, 2009, at the beginning of President Obama’s first term, John Brennan and James Clapper illegally commandeered the foreign surveillance tool known as THE HAMMER and transformed it into a domestic surveillance system that went operational at a secret government facility at Fort Washington, Maryland.
Montgomery became a whistleblower to expose Brennan and Clapper’s illegal use of THE HAMMER for domestic surveillance.
Brennan and Clapper illegally spied on Americans, including President Obama’s political enemies, using that domestic surveillance data for “blackmail” and “leverage,” as disclosed in “The Whistleblower Tapes” and by Montgomery.
Robert Mueller’s FBI supplied the computers for THE HAMMER, according to The Whistleblower Tapes and according to Montgomery.
Brennan and Clapper used THE HAMMER to spy on Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, 159 Article III judges, FISA Court Presiding Judge Reggie Walton, members of Congress, Wall Street executives, Rudy Giuliani, Lt. General Michael Flynn, Donald Trump, Trump Tower, multiple Trump businesses, and members of the Trump family, according to Montgomery.
Montgomery asserted that Brennan spied on Donald Trump because the CIA feared Trump. According to The Whistleblower Tapes, Brennan and Clapper wiretapped Donald Trump “a zillion times.”
In an interview with his attorney Montgomery said, “There has been a wiretap on Trump for years".
August 2015, FBI Director Comey took possession of 47 hard drives of illegal surveillance from Dennis Montgomery under two limited immunity agreements.
According to Montgomery, the 47 hard drives proved Brennan and Clapper had Donald Trump under illegal surveillance.
December 2015, after the FBI verified the 47 hard drives, Montgomery received greater immunity.
Montgomery provided testimony inside a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF) at the FBI Washington DC Field Office while under oath and being videotaped, for three and one half hours, before Assistant U.S. Attorney Deborah Curtis and FBI Special Agents Walter Giardina and William Barnett.
Sunday, March 19, 2017, U.S. Air Force General Thomas McInerney (Ret.) broke the story about “The Whistleblower Tapes” onto America’s airwaves during “Operation Freedom” radio program with Dr. Dave Janda, broadcast on WAAM 1600.
“The Whistleblower Tapes” recordings were released by U.S. District Judge G. Murray Snow.
Text messages subsequently released by DOJ Inspector General Horowitz revealed that, on SundayMarch 19, 2017, FBI Deputy Assistant Director of the Counterintelligence Division Peter Strzok and FBI Attorney Lisa Page exchanged a text message about Montgomery and Montgomery’s attorney Larry Klayman, shortly after General McInerney completed his radio interview.
Monday, March 20, 2017, the following morning, FBI Director Comey went before Congress and launched the Hoax Russian Collusion Investigation.
Comey lied when he told Congress that the FBI could find no evidence supporting President Trump’s accusation that President Obama wiretapped Trump and Trump Tower.
Comey was in receipt of Montgomery’s 47 hard drives of evidence since August 2015. Comey assigned FBI Deputy Assistant Director of the Counterintelligence Division Peter Strzok to lead the hoax Trump-Russia Collusion Investigation.
August 17, 2018, John Brennan, on MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow Show, pushed his “Fusion Center” narrative as a cover story for Brennan and Clapper’s illegal commandeering of “THE HAMMER” at Fort Washington to spy on Donald Trump.
The CIA’s charter prohibits the CIA from spying on Americans. “We put together a Fusion Center at CIA that brought NSA and FBI officers together with CIA to make sure that those proverbial dots would be connected” Brennan said.
October 2018, former FBI General Counsel James Baker confirmed before members of Congress that whistleblower Montgomery “who had been a U.S. Government contractor” stated that he had evidence of “unlawful surveillance by the government of Americans - and including government officials.”
Montgomery, Baker stated, “wanted to give that information to the Bureau, which eventually took place.” Baker stated that he dispatched FBI agents to collect computer data storage devices from Montgomery.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Deborah Curtis and FBI Special Agents Giardina and Barnett were assigned to Montgomery’s whistleblower case, Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s $35 million hoax Russian Collusion investigation, and the Justice Department’s prosecution of General Michael Flynn.
General Flynn’s attorney Sidney Powell asserts that the Justice Department is withholding exculpatory evidence (so-called Brady material) and that Lisa Page altered the FBI 302 forms from General Flynn’s ambush interview. The Justice Department now claims that the FBI mixed up the authors of the 302s.
September 27, 2019 Assistant U.S. Attorney Deborah Curtis left her position as lead prosecutor on the Michael Flynn case and left the Department of Justice after decades of employment.
On December 3, 2015, Curtis had received classified information from Montgomery about THE HAMMER and about the illegally harvested surveillance information on General Flynn.
Exposing The Bogus "97% Consensus" Claim Over Climate Change 'Science' & Top-Level Climate Modeler Spills The Beans On The ‘Nonsense’ Of ‘Global Warming Crisis’ November 24 2019 | From: MisesInstitute / Quadrant / Various
One of the popular rhetorical moves in the climate change debate is for advocates of aggressive government intervention to claim that “97% of scientists” agree with their position, and so therefore any critics must be unscientific “deniers.”
Now these claims have been dubious from the start; people like David Friedman have demonstrated that the “97% consensus” assertion became a talking point only through a biased procedure that mischaracterized how journal articles were rated, and thereby inflating the estimate.
But beyond that, a review in The New Republic of a book critical of mainstream economics uses the exact same degree of consensus in order to cast aspersions on the science of economics.
In other words, when it comes to the nearly unanimous rejection of rent control or tariffs among professional economists, at least some progressive leftists conclude that there must be group-think involved.
The one consistent thread in both cases - that of the climate scientists and that of the economists - is that The New Republic takes the side that will expand the scope of government power, a central tenet since its birth by Herbert Croly a century ago.
The Dubious “97% Consensus” Claim Regarding Climate Science
This is a huge distinction. For example, I co-authored a Cato study with climate scientists Pat Michaels and Chip Knappenberger, in which we strongly opposed a U.S. carbon tax.
Yet both Michaels and Knappenberger would be climate scientists who were part of the “97% consensus” according to Cook et al. That is, Michaels and Knappenberger both agree that, other things equal, human activity that emits carbon dioxide will make the world warmer than it otherwise would be.
That observation by itself does not mean there is a crisis nor does it justify a large carbon tax.
Incidentally, when it comes down to what Cook et al. actually found, economist David R. Henderson noticed that it was even less impressive than what Friedman had reported. Here’s Henderson:
“[Cook et al.] got their 97 percent by considering only those abstracts that expressed a position on anthropogenic global warming (AGW).
I find it interesting that 2/3 of the abstracts did not take a position.
So, taking into account David Friedman’s criticism above, and mine, Cook and Bedford, in summarizing their findings, should have said, “Of the approximately one-third of climate scientists writing on global warming who stated a position on the role of humans, 97% thought humans contribute somewhat to global warming.”
That doesn’t quite have the same ring, does it? [David R. Henderson, bold added.]"
So to sum up: The casual statements in the corporate media and in online arguments would lead the average person to believe that 97% of scientists who have published on climate change think that humans are the main drivers of global warming.
And yet, at least if we review the original Cook et al. (2013) paper that kicked off the talking point, what they actually found was that of the sampled papers on climate change, only one-third of them expressed a view about its causes, and then of that subset, 97% agreed that humans were at least one cause of climate change.
This would be truth-in-advertising, something foreign in the political discussion to which all AGW issues now seem to descend.
The New Republic’s Differing Attitudes Towards Consensus
The journal The New Republic was founded in 1914. Its website states: “For over 100 years, we have championed progressive ideas and challenged popular opinion….The New Republic promotes novel solutions for today’s most critical issues.”
With that context, it’s not surprising that The New Republic uses the alleged 97% consensus in climate science the way other progressive outlets typically do.
“Two years ago, a group of international researchers led by University of Queensland’s John Cook surveyed 12,000 abstracts of peer-reviewed papers on climate change since the 1990s.
Out of the 4,000 papers that took a position one way or another on the causes of global warming, 97 percent of them were in agreement: Humans are the primary cause.
By putting a number on the scientific consensus, the study provided everyone from President Barack Obama to comedian John Oliver with a tidy talking point."
Notice already that Leber is helping to perpetuate a falsehood, though she can be forgiven - part of David Friedman’s blog post was to show that Cook himself was responsible (Friedman calls it an outright lie) for the confusion regarding what he and his co-authors actually found.
The reviewer, Robin Kaiser-Schatzlein, quoted with approval Appelbaum’s low view of consensus in economics:
“Appelbaum shows the strangely high degree of consensus in the field of economics, including a 1979 survey of economists that “found 98 percent opposed rent controls, 97 percent opposed tariffs, 95 percent favored floating exchange rates, and 90 percent opposed minimum wage laws.”
And in a moment of impish humor he notes that “Although nature tends toward entropy, they shared a confidence that economies tend toward equilibrium.”
Economists shared a creepy lack of doubt about how the world worked."
Isn’t that amazing?
Rather than hunting down and demonizing Democratic politicians who dare to oppose the expert consensus on items like rent control - which Bernie Sanders has recently promoted - the reaction here is to guffaw at the hubris and “creepy lack of doubt about how the world [works].”
From the beginning, the “97% consensus” claim about climate change has been dubious, with supporters claiming that it represented much more than it really did.
Furthermore, a recent book review in The New Republic shows that when it comes to economic science, 97% consensus means nothing, if it doesn’t support progressive politics.
Top-Level Climate Modeler Spills The Beans On The ‘Nonsense’ Of ‘Global Warming Crisis’
There’s a top-level oceanographer and meteorologist who is prepared to cry “Nonsense!”on the “global warming crisis” evident to climate modellers but not in the real world. He’s as well or better qualified than the modellers he criticises - the ones whose Year 2100 forebodings of 4degC warming have set the world to spending $US1.5 trillion a year to combat CO2 emissions.
It’s titled Confessions of a climate scientist: the global warming hypothesis is an unproven hypothesis, and he is very much qualified to take a stand. From 1990 to 2014 he worked on cloud dynamics and forces mixing atmospheric and ocean flows on medium to planetary scales.
His bases were MIT (for a Doctor of Science in meteorology), Georgia Institute of Technology, Goddard Space Flight Centre, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Duke and Hawaii Universities and the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology. He’s published about 20 climate papers on fluid dynamics.
Today’s vast panoply of “global warming science” is like an upside down pyramid built on the work of a few score of serious climate modellers.
They claim to have demonstrated human-derived CO2 emissions as the cause of recent global warming and project that warming forward. Every orthodox climate researcher takes such output from the modellers’ black boxes as a given.
A fine example is from the Australian Academy of Science’s explanatory booklet of 2015. It claims, absurdly, that the models’ outputs are “compelling evidence” for human-caused warming.
Specifically, it refers to model runs with and without human emissions and finds the “with” variety better matches the 150-year temperature record (which itself is a highly dubious construct). Thus satisfied, the Academy then propagates to the public and politicians the models’ forecasts for disastrous warming this century.
Now for Dr Nakamura’s expert demolition of the modelling.
There was no English edition of his book in June and only a few bits were translated and circulated. But Dr Nakamura last week offered via a free Kindle version his own version in English. It’s not a translation but a fresh essay leading back to his original conclusions.
The temperature forecasting models trying to deal with the intractable complexities of the climate are no better than “toys” or “Mickey Mouse mockeries” of the real world, he says.
This is not actually a radical idea. The IPCC in its third report (2001) conceded (emphasis added),
“In climate research and modelling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."
(Chapter 14, Section 18.104.22.168. )
Somehow that official warning was deep-sixed by the alarmists.
Now Nakamura has found it again, further accusing the orthodox scientists of “data falsification” by adjusting previous temperature data to increase apparent warming “The global surface mean temperature-change data no longer have any scientific value and are nothing except a propaganda tool to the public,” he writes.
The climate models are useful tools for academic studies, he says.
However, “the models just become useless pieces of junk or worse (worse in a sense that they can produce gravely misleading output) when they are used for climate forecasting."
"These models completely lack some critically important climate processes and feedbacks, and represent some other critically important climate processes and feedbacks in grossly distorted manners to the extent that makes these models totally useless for any meaningful climate prediction.
I myself used to use climate simulation models for scientific studies, not for predictions, and learned about their problems and limitations in the process."
Nakamura and colleagues even tried to patch up some of the models’ crudeness;
“…so I know the workings of these models very well …
For better or worse I have more or less lost interest in the climate science and am not thrilled to spend so much of my time and energy in this kind of writing beyond the point that satisfies my own sense of obligation to the US and Japanese taxpayers who financially supported my higher education and spontaneous and free research activity. So please expect this to be the only writing of this sort coming from me.
I am confident that some honest and courageous, true climate scientists will continue to publicly point out the fraudulent claims made by the mainstream climate science community in English.
I regret to say this but I am also confident that docile and/or incompetent Japanese climate researchers will remain silent until the ’mainstream climate science community’ changes its tone, if ever."
He projects warming from CO2 doubling, “according to the true experts”, to be only 0.5degC. He says he doesn’t dispute the possibility of either catastrophic warming or severe glaciation since the climate system’s myriad non-linear processes swamp “the toys” used for climate predictions.
Climate forecasting is simply impossible, if only because future changes in solar energy output are unknowable.
As to the impacts of human-caused CO2, they can’t be judged “with the knowledge and technology we currently possess.”
Other gross model simplifications include:
Ignorance about large and small-scale ocean dynamics
A complete lack of meaningful representations of aerosol changes that generate clouds.
Lack of understanding of drivers of ice-albedo (reflectivity) feedbacks: “Without a reasonably accurate representation, it is impossible to make any meaningful predictions of climate variations and changes in the middle and high latitudes and thus the entire planet.”
Inability to deal with water vapor elements
Arbitrary “tunings” (fudges) of key parameters that are not understood
Concerning CO2 changes he says:
“I want to point out a simple fact that it is impossible to correctly predict even the sense or direction of a change of a system when the prediction tool lacks and/or grossly distorts important non-linear processes, feedbacks in particular, that are present in the actual system …
… The real or realistically-simulated climate system is far more complex than an absurdly simple system simulated by the toys that have been used for climate predictions to date, and will be insurmountably difficult for those naïve climate researchers who have zero or very limited understanding of geophysical fluid dynamics.
I understand geophysical fluid dynamics just a little, but enough to realize that the dynamics of the atmosphere and oceans are absolutely critical facets of the climate system if one hopes to ever make any meaningful prediction of climate variation."
Solar input, absurdly, is modelled as a “never changing quantity”. He says, “It has only been several decades since we acquired an ability to accurately monitor the incoming solar energy.
In these several decades only, it has varied by one to two watts per square metre. Is it reasonable to assume that it will not vary any more than that in the next hundred years or longer for forecasting purposes?
Good modelling of oceans is crucial, as the slow ocean currents are transporting vast amounts of heat around the globe, making the minor atmospheric heat storage changes almost irrelevant.
For example, the Gulf Stream has kept western Eurasia warm for centuries. On time scales of more than a few years, it plays a far more important role on climate than atmospheric changes.
“It is absolutely vital for any meaningful climate prediction to be made with a reasonably accurate representation of the state and actions of the oceans.”
In real oceans rather than modelled ones, just like in the atmosphere, the smaller-scale flows often tend to counteract the effects of the larger-scale flows.
Nakamura spent hundreds of hours vainly trying to remedy the flaws he observed, concluding that the models “result in a grotesque distortion of the mixing and transport of momentum, heat and salt, thereby making the behaviour of the climate simulation models utterly unrealistic."
Proper ocean modelling would require a tenfold improvement in spatial resolution and a vast increase in computing power, probably requiring quantum computers. If or when quantum computers can reproduce the small-scale interactions, the researchers will remain out of their depth because of their traditional simplifying of conditions.
Key model elements are replete with “tunings” i.e. fudges. Nakamura explains how that trick works:
“The models are ‘tuned’ by tinkering around with values of various parameters until the best compromise is obtained.
I used to do it myself. It is a necessary and unavoidable procedure and not a problem so long as the user is aware of its ramifications and is honest about it.
But it is a serious and fatal flaw if it is used for climate forecasting/prediction purposes."
One set of fudges involves clouds.
“Ad hoc representation of clouds may be the greatest source of uncertainty in climate prediction. A profound fact is that only a very small change, so small that it cannot be measured accurately…
in the global cloud characteristics can completely offset the warming effect of the doubled atmospheric CO2.”
Two such characteristics are an increase in cloud area and a decrease in the average size of cloud particles.
“Accurate simulation of cloud is simply impossible in climate models since it requires calculations of processes at scales smaller than 1mm.
Instead, the modellers put in their own cloud parameters. Anyone studying real cloud formation and then the treatment in climate models would be “flabbergasted by the perfunctory treatment of clouds in the models..”"
Nakamura describes as “moronic” the claims that “tuned” ocean models are good enough for climate predictions.
That’s because, in tuning some parameters, other aspects of the model have to become extremely distorted.
He says a large part of the forecast global warming is attributed to water vapor changes, not CO2 changes.
“But the fact is this: all climate simulation models perform poorly in reproducing the atmospheric water vapor and its radiative forcing observed in the current climate…
“The take-home message is (that) all climate simulation models, even those with the best parametric representation scheme for convective motions and clouds, suffer from a very large degree of arbitrariness in the representation of processes that determine the atmospheric water vapor and cloud fields.
Since the climate models are tuned arbitrarily …there is no reason to trust their predictions / forecasts.
With values of parameters that are supposed to represent many complex processes being held constant, many nonlinear processes in the real climate system are absent or grossly distorted in the models.
It is a delusion to believe that simulation models that lack important nonlinear processes in the real climate system can predict (even) the sense or direction of the climate change correctly.”
I was distracted from his message because the mix of Japanese and English scripts in the book kept crashing my Kindle software.
Still, I persevered. I recommend you do too. There’s at least $US30 trillion ($US30,000, 000,000,000) hanging on this bunfight.
Operation mockingbird is a great example, not to mention all of the mainstream media journalists who have come out and said that mainstream media is directly influenced by intelligence agencies, governments and corporations.
You can find some of these documents and see examples of these whistleblowers in two previous articles I’ve published that go into more detail here, and here.
The Facts: Nearly two decades ago, Gary Mckinnon of the UK accesses nearly 100 NASA and Department of Defence, including the US Air Force Space command. He faced extradition for 10 years after finding a picture of a UFO and a list of "non terrestrial officers."
Reflect On: How sheltered are we from certain information? Has 'national security' simply become an excuse to keep information concealed from the public to protect corporate and government interests?
When it comes to UFOs, we know that they’re real, but we also know that along with that reality there has been “an official campaign of ridicule and secrecy.” (Ex-CIA Director Roscoe Hillenkoetter)
Perhaps this ridicule campaign carries on today through some rather ghastly, unbelievable claims, but let’s not let that mask the fact that this phenomenon is indeed real, and there are a plethora of credible sources including documents, data, physical evidence, and more suggesting we’re not alone, and that we probably are being visited and have been visited by intelligent extraterrestrial beings from other worlds and possibly other dimensions.
A lot of this evidence has come from UFOlogist Richard Dolan, who has always been a key resource for me with regards to accessing credible information about the UFO phenomenon.
I find that it’s important to seek out proper researchers who share information in a credible and verifiable way, especially about a subject that can so easily be ridiculed when you are trying to reach the masses who don’t have much knowledge about it, but are genuinely curious.
I also feel that my generation of UFO researchers lack proper research and investigative skills, are easily influenced and swayed, and in the age of social media are simply trying to share whatever they can, no matter how credible, to simply ‘stay relevant,’ instead of doing it for the love and genuine desire to share important, truthful information.
Like I said, there are some rather ‘outside the box claims’ out there that have absolutely no credibility behind them, and to share those actually does more disservice to the movement, in my opinion.
On the other hand, there are some very outside the box claims and information that do indeed have tremendous amounts of credibility behind them, and these are the ones we should be paying attention to. One example comes from the case of Garry McKinnon, who for 10 years was in great danger of extradition to the United States for accessing nearly 100 NASA and military computers including the United States Space Command.
This was the real deal, and here is a clip of Obama and the UK Prime Minister at the time fielding a question about Garry, this breach made headlines new.
Garry was able to access these computers in real time and view files on them.
He found some startling pictures, one in particular was of a large cylindrical shaped UFO hovering in space, in addition to a strange spreadsheet document with a list of “non-terrestrial officers,” presumably belonging to a publicly unacknowledged branch of the United States military operating in space, as well as “fleet to fleet” transfers of materials, whatever that means.
I’ll let you listen to the interview below for more details straight from Garry McKinnon’s mouth, via Dolan’s Youtube Channel, where he also describes a high-resolution photograph, taken from space, of a smooth, cigar-shaped craft.
The Real Secret Space Program
Is there a secret space program, and have clandestine groups been reverse engineering ET technology?
In one example, over the course of two weeks in November 2004, the USS Princeton, a guided-missile cruiser operating advanced naval radar, repeatedly detected unidentified aircraft operating in and around the Nimitz carrier battle group, which it was guarding off the coast of San Diego.
In some cases, according to incident reports and interviews with military personnel, these vehicles descended from altitudes higher than 60,000 feet at supersonic speeds, only to suddenly stop and hover as low as 50 feet above the ocean."
We don’t know the answer to these questions, but we do know that the United States has a history of government agencies existing in secrecy for years. The National Security Agency (NSA) was founded in 1952, and its existence was hidden until the mid 1960s.
Even more secretive is the National Reconnaissance Office, which was founded in 1960 but remained a secret for 30 years.
We are talking about Special Access Programs (SAP). From these we have unacknowledged and waived SAPs. These programs do not exist publicly, but they do indeed exist.
There are literally hundreds of people with extensive academic, political and military backgrounds, all the way to astronauts, who have been blowing the whistle for a very long time.
Many scientific publications have also been made throughout the years describing strange and radar confirmed military sightings by military pilots. You can see some evidence and documentation from this article I wrote regarding the Chilean Air Force.
According to Herman Oberth, one of the founding fathers of rocketry and astronautics, “flying saucers are real and . . . they are space ships from another solar system.
I think that they possibly are manned by intelligent observers who are members of a race that may have been investigating our Earth for centuries.” (Oberth, Hermann: “Flying Saucers Come from a Distant World,” The American Weekly, October 24, 1954) (Source 1) (Source 2)
“We have, indeed, been contacted - perhaps even visited - by extraterrestrial beings, and the US government, in collusion with the other national powers of the Earth, is determined to keep this information from the general public.”
“There are objects in our atmosphere which are technically miles in advance of anything we can deploy… we have no means of stopping them from coming here… there is a serious possibility that we are being visited and have been visited for many years by people from outer space, from other civilizations…
This should be the subject of rigorous scientific investigation and not the subject of ‘rubbishing’ by tabloid newspapers.”
- Lord Admiral Hill-Norton, former Chief of Defence Staff, 5 Star Admiral of the Royal Navy, Chairman of the NATO Military Committee
The point is, if you believe some of these objects are indeed extraterrestrial, you are not alone. Couple these statements with the claims of thousands of individuals who have had contactee and abduction experiences who’ve shared remarkably consistent stories, it’s definitely a plausible hypothesis for the UFO phenomenon.
What are the implications of extraterrestrial contact? Humanity will always go through paradigm shifting realizations that will jolt human consciousness.
CNN Admits The Health Ranger Has Been Right All Along: Sunscreen Chemicals Are Absorbed Into Your Bloodstream Where They Can Promote Cancer November 22 2019 | From: NaturalNews / Various
The Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), a branch of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), has published the results of a pilot study looking at the safety of many common sunscreen products – and what was discovered is that sunscreen chemicals absorb into the bloodstream via the skin in a matter of hours.
As reported by CNN and others, the results of the study, which were published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), reveal that, rather than evaporate or wash off, sunscreen chemicals persist and accumulate in people’s bodies through their skin, which is the body’s largest organ.
CDER looked at four common chemicals used in conventional sunscreen products: avobenzone, oxybenzone, ecamsule, and octocrylene.
What the agency found is that concentrations of three of them continue to rise inside the body with each subsequent application, and persist there for at least 24 hours after sunscreen use has ceased.
According to the FDA, these four chemicals, as well as eight others that are also commonly used in many sunscreen products, need to be better researched by manufacturers before they can receive the FDA’s coveted designation of being “generally regarded as safe and effective.”
“It’s not news that things that you put on your skin are absorbed into the body,” says Scott Faber, senior vice president for government affairs at the Environmental Working Group (EWG), a consumer advocacy group.
“This study is the FDA’s way of showing sunscreen manufacturers they need to do the studies to see if chemical absorption poses health risks.”
For related news about the FDA, be sure to visit FDA.news.
Natural News Has Been Warning About Dangerous Sunscreen Chemicals for More Than a Decade
As the FDA catches up with the times, it’s important to note that Natural News has been warning the public about the dangers and ineffectiveness of conventional sunscreen products for well over a decade.
As you may recall from back in 2007, we published The Sunscreen Myth, a comprehensive paper and CounterThink cartoon that goes into great detail about why the entire concept behind sunscreen supposedly protecting the skin against cancer is a myth – and the fact that many sunscreen products actually cause cancer.
The Sunscreen Myth also explains how sunscreen chemicals absorb directly through the skin and immediately enter the bloodstream, loading people’s bodies with all sorts of synthetic compounds that may or may not get effectively detoxified and excreted by the liver and other cleansing organs.
Like cigarette advertising from the past that claimed doctors favored smoking, the sunscreen hysteria of today is based on little more than fear-mongering and pseudoscience.
Truth be told, our bodies need sunlight in order to generate immune-supportive vitamin D – a pro-hormone nutrient that’s effectively blocked by sunscreen.
"There is no need for sunscreen, but the cancer industry and sunscreen manufacturers have created a fictitious need through a campaign of fear and disinformation, hypnotizing practically the entire population into believing one of the most ridiculous ideas in the universe: that sunlight is bad for human health,"explains The Sunscreen Myth.
“They didn’t run and hide from the sun, they used it as nourishment to generate a crucial vitamin that supports human health in a multitude of ways. The idea that “the sun is bad for you” makes about as much sense as ‘water is bad for you’ or ‘the Earth is flat,'” it adds.
Some of my friends have told me that basic human nature is somewhat violent, but I told them I disagree.
If we examine different animals, for example, those whose very survival depends on taking others lives, such as tigers or lions, we learnt that their basic nature provides them with sharp fangs and claws.
Peaceful animals, such as deer, which are completely vegetarian, are gentler and have smaller teeth and no claws. From that viewpoint we human beings have a non-violent nature.
As to the question of human survival, human beings are social animals. In order to survive we need companions. Without other human beings there is simply no possibility of surviving; that is a law of nature.
Since I deeply believe that human beings are basically gentle by nature, I feel that we should not only maintain gentle, peaceful relations with our fellow human beings but also that it is very important to extend the same kind of attitude towards the natural environment.
Morally speaking, we should be concerned for our whole environment.
We depend on our environment and our environment depends on us
Then there is another viewpoint, not just a question of ethics but a question of our own survival. The environment is very important not only for this generation but also for future generations.
If we exploit the environment in extreme ways, even though we may get some money or other benefit from it now, in the long run we ourselves will suffer and future generations will suffer.
When the environment changes, climatic conditions also change. When they change dramatically, the economy and many other things change as well. Even our physical health will be greatly affected. So this is not merely a moral question but also a question of our own survival.
Therefore, in order to succeed in the protection and conservation of the natural environment, I think it is important first of all to bring about an internal balance within human beings themselves.
The abuse of the environment, which has resulted in such harm to the human community, arose out of ignorance of the importance of the environment.
I think it is essential to help people to understand this. We need to teach people that the environment has a direct bearing on our own benefit.
I am always talking about the importance of compassionate thought. As I said earlier, even from your own selfish viewpoint, you need other people.
So, if you develop concern for other people’s welfare, share other people’s suffering, and help them, ultimately you will benefit. If you think only of yourself and forget about others, ultimately you will lose. That is also something like a law of nature.
It is quite simple: if you do not smile at people, but frown at them, they respond similarly, don’t they? If you deal with other people in a very sincere, open way, they behave similarly.
Everybody wants to have friends and does not want enemies. The proper way to create friends is to have a warm heart, not simply money or power.
The friend of power and the friend of money are something different: These are not true friends. True friends should be real friends of heart, shouldn’t they?
I am always telling people that those friends who come around when you have money and power are not truly your friends, but friends of money and power, because as soon as the money and power disappear, those friends are also ready to leave.
They are not reliable.
Genuine, human friends stand by, whether you are successful or unlucky, and always share your sorrow and burdens. The way to make such friends is not by being angry, nor by having good education or intelligence, but by having a good heart.
True connection comes from the heart: From kindness
To think more deeply, if you must be selfish, then be wisely selfish, not narrow-mindedly selfish. The key thing is the sense of universal responsibility; that is the real source of strength, the real source of happiness.
If our generation exploits everything available – the trees, the water, and the minerals – without any care for the coming generations or the future, then we are at fault, aren’t we?
But if we have a genuine sense of universal responsibility as our central motivation, then our relations with our neighbors, both domestic and international, improves.
Another important question is: What is consciousness, what is the mind? In the Western world, during the last one or two centuries there has been great emphasis on science and technology, which mainly deal with matter.
Your Life in One Minute
Life's journey is unpredictable. But that part of it called death isn't.
Yet most of us don't like to talk about death. In fact, we are so afraid to face our own mortality that we do anything we can to avoid thinking about it.
But let's admit it: Whether we like it or not, we're all going to die. And one thing is certain: To pretend like we won't die isn't going to make our lives any better.
On the contrary, when we don't accept death we can't truly enjoy life. If you'd like to understand why, check out my newest video where I'm sharing my thoughts on the matter.
Today some nuclear physicists and neurologists say that when you investigate particles in a very detailed way, there is some kind of influence from the side of the observer, the knower. What is this knower?
A simple answer is; A human being, the scientist. How does the scientist know? With the brain, Western scientists have identified only a few hundred so far.
Now, whether you call it mind, brain, or consciousness, there is a relationship between brain and mind and also mind and matter. I think this is important.
I feel it is possible to hold some sort of dialogue between Eastern philosophy and Western science on the basis of this relationship.
No doctor can give you an injection of mental peace, and no market can sell it to you
In any case, these days we human beings are very much more involved in the external world, while we neglect the internal world.
We do need scientific development and material development in order to survive and to increase the general benefit and prosperity, but equally as much we need mental peace.
Yet no doctor can give you an injection of mental peace, and no market can sell it to you. If you go to a supermarket with millions and millions of dollars, you can buy anything, but if you go there and ask for peace of mind, people will laugh.
And if you ask a doctor for genuine peace of mind, not the mere sedation you get from taking some kind of pill or injection, the doctor cannot help you.
Even today’s sophisticated computers cannot provide you with mental peace.
Mental peace must come from the mind. Everyone wants happiness and pleasure, but if we compare physical pleasure and physical pain with mental pleasure and mental pain, we find that the mind is more effective, predominant, and superior.
Thus it is worthwhile adopting certain methods to increase mental peace, and in order to do that, it is important to know more about the mind. When we talk about preservation of the environment, it is related to many other things.
The key point is to have genuine sense of universal responsibility, based on love and compassion, and clear awareness.
This device can generate massive power - up to a terawatt (a trillion watts) - for as little as a thousand watts of input power!
The new reactor can be as small as a foot across (0.3 meters). By comparison, the US’s largest nuclear power plant, Palo Verde in Arizona, ‘only’ generates four gigawatts. A terawatt is a thousand gigawatts.
This is yet another of many very obvious indications that Q is being run by the Alliance -a group within the US military and intelligence communities working to defeat the Deep State.
Additional:Read about the Alliance that
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
And the Alliance effort operates beyond the bounds of countries - out of neccessity; as that is how the Luciferian Cabal
Do you think you can trust the mainstream media? Look at whom they target. One must wonder why 'they' also do not like
Imagine a private, global supercourt that empowers corporations to bend countries to their will.
Say a nation tries to prosecute a corrupt CEO or ban dangerous pollution. Imagine that a company could turn to this super court and sue the whole country for daring to interfere with its profits, demanding hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars as retribution.
Imagine that this court is so powerful that nations often must heed its rulings as if they came from their own supreme courts, with no meaningful way to appeal.
That it operates unconstrained by precedent or any significant public oversight, often keeping its proceedings and sometimes even its decisions secret.
That the people who decide its cases are largely elite Western corporate attorneys who have a vested interest in expanding the court’s authority because they profit from it directly, arguing cases one day and then sitting in judgment another.
That some of them half-jokingly refer to themselves as “The Club” or “The Mafia.”
And imagine that the penalties this court has imposed have been so crushing - and its decisions so unpredictable - that some nations dare not risk a trial, responding to the mere threat of a lawsuit by offering vast concessions, such as rolling back their own laws or even wiping away the punishments of convicted criminals.
This system is already in place, operating behind closed doors in office buildings and conference rooms in cities around the world.
Known as investor-state dispute settlement, or ISDS, it is written into a vast network of treaties that govern international trade and investment, including NAFTA and the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which Congress must soon decide whether to ratify.
These trade pacts have become a flashpoint in the US presidential campaign. But an 18-month BuzzFeed News investigation, spanning three continents and involving more than 200 interviews and tens of thousands of documents, many of them previously confidential, has exposed an obscure but immensely consequential feature of these trade treaties, the secret operations of these tribunals, and the ways that business has co-opted them to bring sovereign nations to heel.
The BuzzFeed News investigation explores four different aspects of ISDS. In coming days, it will show how the mere threat of an ISDS case can intimidate a nation into gutting its own laws, how some financial firms have transformed what was intended to be a system of justice into an engine of profit, and how America is surprisingly vulnerable to suits from foreign companies.
The series starts today with perhaps the least known and most jarring revelation:
Companies and executives accused or even convicted of crimes have escaped punishment by turning to this special forum. Based on exclusive reporting from the Middle East, Central America, and Asia, BuzzFeed News has found the following:
A Dubai real estate mogul and former business partner of Donald Trump [not that that means anything, he's had hundreds of business partners] was sentenced to prison for collaborating on a deal that would swindle the Egyptian people out of millions of dollars - but then he turned to ISDS and got his prison sentence wiped away.
In El Salvador, a court found that a factory had poisoned a village - including dozens of children - with lead, failing for years to take government-ordered steps to prevent the toxic metal from seeping out. But the factory owners’ lawyers used ISDS to help the company dodge a criminal conviction and the responsibility for cleaning up the area and providing needed medical care.
Two financiers convicted of embezzling more than $300 million from an Indonesian bank used an ISDS finding to fend off Interpol, shield their assets, and effectively nullify their punishment.
[Historical] When the US Congress votes on whether to give final approval to the sprawling Trans-Pacific Partnership, which President Barack Obama staunchly supports, it will be deciding on a massive expansion of ISDS. Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton oppose the overall treaty, but they have focused mainly on what they say would be the loss of American jobs.
Clinton’s running mate, Tim Kaine, has voiced concern about ISDS in particular, and Sen. Elizabeth Warren has lambasted it. Last year, members of both houses of Congress tried to keep it out of the Pacific trade deal. They failed.
ISDS is basically binding arbitration on a global scale, designed to settle disputes between countries and foreign companies that do business within their borders. Different treaties can mandate slightly different rules, but the system is broadly the same.
When companies sue, their cases are usually heard in front of a tribunal of three arbitrators, often private attorneys. The business appoints one arbitrator and the country another, then both sides usually decide on the third together.
Conceived of in the 1950s, the system was intended to benefit both developing nations and the foreign companies that sought to invest in them.
The companies would gain a fair, neutral referee if a rogue regime seized their property or discriminated against them in favor of domestic companies. And the countries would gain the roads or hospitals or industries that those foreign corporations would, as a result, feel confident building.
“It works,” said Charles Brower, a longtime ISDS arbitrator. “Like any system of law, there will be disappointments; you’re dealing with human systems. But this system fundamentally produces as good justice as the federal courts of the United States.” [Not a benchmarch which should be aspired to.]
He defended the lawyers who often serve as arbitrators, saying they:
"Are very aware of their responsibilities. Unlike politicians, we are up for election every minute of every day - somewhere in the world, somebody is trying to figure out whom to appoint in a case. We’re only as good as our reputations.”
As proof that ISDS delivers justice, Brower pointed to a wave of nationalizations by the Venezuelan government, many while Hugo Chávez was in charge, that led to:
"Huge awards against them for uncompensated expropriation.”
ISDS has not only put rapacious leaders on notice, its defenders say, but it has also encouraged investment, especially in poor countries, helping to raise overall economic development.
Some even say that it helps avoid gunboat diplomacy and tense international showdowns because countries have agreed on a forum where they can resolve disputes involving major investments.
But over the last two decades, ISDS has morphed from a rarely used last resort, designed for egregious cases of state theft or blatant discrimination, into a powerful tool that corporations brandish ever more frequently, often against broad public policies that they claim crimp profits.
Because the system is so secretive, it is not possible to know the total number of ISDS cases, but lawyers in the field say it is skyrocketing. Indeed, of the almost 700 publicly known cases across the last half century, more than a tenth were filed just last year.
Driving this expansion are the lawyers themselves. They have devised new and creative ways to deploy ISDS, and in the process bill millions to both the businesses and the governments they represent. At posh locales around the globe, members of The Club meet to swap strategies and drum up potential clients, some of which are household names, such as ExxonMobil or Eli Lilly, but many more of which are much lower profile.
In specialty publications, the lawyers suggest novel ways to use ISDS as leverage against governments. It’s a sort of sophisticated, international version of the plaintiff’s attorney TV ad or billboard: Has your business been harmed by an increase in mining royalties in Mali? Our experienced team of lawyers may be able to help.
A few of their ideas: Sue Libya for failing to protect an oil facility during a civil war. Sue Spain for reducing solar energy incentives as a severe recession forced the government to make budget cuts. Sue India for allowing a generic drug company to make a cheaper version of a cancer drug.
In a little-noticed 2014 dissent, US Chief Justice John Roberts warned that ISDS arbitration panels hold the alarming power to review a nation’s laws and “effectively annul the authoritative acts of its legislature, executive, and judiciary.” ISDS arbitrators, he continued, “can meet literally anywhere in the world” and “sit in judgment” on a nation’s “sovereign acts.”
That fate has not yet befallen the United States - but largely because of sheer luck, former government lawyers said.
In theory, ISDS arbitrators must follow the rules laid down in trade pacts.
But in practice, they have interpreted the vague language of many treaties as enshrining broad, unwritten rights far beyond protections against property seizures and blatant discrimination - even finding, in one case, a right to a “reasonable rate of return.”
Some entrepreneurial lawyers scout for ways to make money from ISDS.
Selvyn Seidel, an attorney who represented clients in ISDS suits, now runs a specialty firm, one that finds investors willing to fund promising suits for a cut of the eventual award.
Some lawyers, he said, monitor governments around the world in search of proposed laws and regulations that might spark objections from foreign companies.
"Huge awards against them for uncompensated expropriation.”
“You know it’s coming down the road,” he said, “so, in that year before it’s actually changed, you can line up the right claimants and the right law firms to bring a number of cases.”
The US officials who negotiated the Trans-Pacific Partnership have argued that it contains new ISDS safeguards, including opening up hearings and legal filings to the public.
The changes, however, have loopholes, and lawyers at some big firms are already advising clients how they might use the new deal to their benefit.
Opposition to ISDS is spreading across the political spectrum, with groups on the left and right attacking the system.
Around the world, a growing number of countries are pushing for reforms or pulling out entirely.
But most of the alarm has been focused on the potential use of ISDS by corporations to roll back public-interest laws, such as those banning the use of hazardous chemicals or raising the minimum wage.
The system’s usefulness as a shield for the criminal and the corrupt has remained virtually unknown.
Reviewing publicly available information for about 300 claims filed during the past five years, BuzzFeed News found more than 35 cases in which the company or executive seeking protection in ISDS was accused of criminal activity, including money laundering, embezzlement, stock manipulation, bribery, war profiteering, and fraud.
Some are at the center of notorious scandals, from the billionaire accused of orchestrating a massive Ponzi scheme in Mauritius to multiple telecommunications tycoons charged in the ever-widening “2G scam” in India, which made it into Time magazine’s top 10 abuses of power, alongside Watergate.
The companies or executives involved in these cases either denied wrongdoing or did not respond to requests for comment.
Most of the 35-plus cases are still ongoing. But in at least eight of the cases, bringing an ISDS claim got results for the accused wrongdoers, including a multimillion-dollar award, a dropped criminal investigation, and dropped criminal charges. In another, the tribunal has directed the government to halt a criminal case while the arbitration is pending.
Of course, there are governments that don’t have clean hands themselves, and some claims by businesses have been justified. The legal systems of some countries are flagrantly unfair or riddled with corruption.
Moreover, authoritarian or kleptocratic regimes sometimes do use their justice systems as political weapons. For example, arbitrators ordered Russia to pay compensation after finding that Vladimir Putin and his administration had used criminal and tax proceedings to destroy his political rival Mikhail Khodorkovsky’s oil company.
Lawyers say that some governments, faced with a legitimate ISDS claim, will even trump up a criminal charge to deflect from their own wrongdoing. For example, arbitrators found there was evidence suggesting that Bolivia had launched a fraud case against mining-company executives as a ploy to get the company’s ISDS claim thrown out.
But even some members of The Club said they were concerned by how often credible allegations of criminality arise. Many ISDS lawyers say that the system helps promote the rule of law around the world.
If ISDS is seen as protecting criminals, they fear, it could delegitimize a system that is working well for many others.
One lawyer who regularly represents governments said he’s seen evidence of corporate criminality that he “couldn’t believe.”
Speaking on the condition that he not be named because he’s currently handling ISDS cases, he said;
“You have a lot of scuzzy sort-of thieves for whom this is a way to hit the jackpot.”
Read the full accounts of what happened in the cases of Egypt, El Salvador and Indonesia at: Buzzfeed
Be advised: If the TPPA / TTIP et al were ratified, it would be these pricks coming to rape our countries.
New Zealand’s Gun Confiscation Shaping Up To Be Massive Failure
November 18 2019 | From: BearingArms / Various New Zealand’s gun grab, instituted in the wake of the Christchurch massacre, isn’t going so great.
In fact, with less than two months to go before the government-imposed deadline, fewer than 20% of the estimated number of banned firearms have been handed over.
“New Zealand Police Minister Stuart Nash announced this week that more than 32,000 prohibited weapons have been returned to the government since collections began in mid-July. Some estimates put the number of newly-banned military-style semi-automatic rifles in the country at up to 175,000.
This would suggest a compliance rate, so far, as low as 18 percent, 16 weeks into the buyback program.
With seven weeks left to go until the amnesty period ends, if the current rate of return holds, the New Zealand government is on track to collect around 50,000 prohibited weapons pursuant to the buyback.
That would impute a final compliance rate of around 29 percent, at the lower end, which would represent a modest but tangible success for policymakers."
A “modest but tangible success”? I think it’s more like a complete failure.
Let’s say when the deadline passes less than one third of the banned firearms have been turned in.
What exactly has been accomplished, other than the compensated confiscation of a few thousand firearms and the criminalization of tens of thousands of otherwise law-abiding citizens?
“New Zealand’s estimated measure of success compares unfavorably to a similar program enacted in nearby Australia in 1996 and 1997. A well-cited review of that program reported a final compliance rate of anywhere from 40 percent to 80 percent.
However, New Zealand’s collection thus far still represents meaningful gains, especially when compared to how the U.S. has fared when trying to regulate assault weapons.
When analogous programs have been proposed in U.S. states, results have often been far less encouraging. New York passed the landmark SAFE Act in 2013, which required gun owners to register assault weapons as part of the state’s newly-expanded definition for those types of military-style rifles.
One estimate put the registration rate at around 4 percent."
Yes, the compliance rate of the SAFE Act has been far lower than the New Zealand gun confiscation. That doesn’t mean that a compliance rate of less than 33% is a “success” by any means.
And don’t forget, in New Zealand, gun owners don’t have the protection of the Second Amendment, as their prime minister has repeatedly stated.
“Owning a firearm is a privilege not a right,” New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said in September as the country’s parliament considered new gun control laws.
“We absolutely recognize there is a legitimate need in our communities to be able to access guns, particularly our rural community, but what these changes do is recognize that actually there’s a real responsibility that comes with gun ownership.”
There’s a real responsibility that comes with making laws as well, and so far it looks like Ardern’s gun ban is going to create more armed criminals than disarm them, since she’s turning law-abiding gun owners into felons for simply maintaining possession of their legally acquired firearms.
I’d say that’s pretty irresponsible, no matter how well-intended the gun grab may have been. There’s no such thing as banning your way to safety, but you can definitely ban your way to massive non-compliance.
Six weeks away from its deadline, it looks like that’s exactly where New Zealand is headed.
“We Are The Death Merchant Of The World”: Ex-Bush Official Lawrence Wilkerson Condemns Military-Industrial Complex
November 17 2019 | From: Salon / Various The military-industrial complex "is much more pernicious than Eisenhower ever thought," says the retired US colonel.
Col. Lawrence Wilkerson is tired of “the corporate interests that we go abroad to slay monsters for.”
As the former chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell, Wilkerson played an important role in the George W. Bush administration. In the years since, however, the former Bush official has established himself as a prominent critic of U.S. foreign policy.
“I think Smedley Butler was onto something,” explained Lawrence Wilkerson, in an extended interview with Salon.
In his day, in the early 20th century, Butler was the highest ranked and most honored official in the history of the U.S. Marine Corps. He helped lead wars throughout the world over a series of decades, before later becoming a vociferous opponent of American imperialism, declaring “war is a racket.”
Wilkerson spoke highly of Butler, referencing the late general’s famous quote:
“Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.”
“I think the problem that Smedley identified, quite eloquently actually,” Wilkerson said, “especially for a Marine - I had to say that as a soldier,” the retired Army colonel added with a laugh;
“I think the problem is much deeper and more profound today, and much more subtle and sophisticated.”
Today, the military-industrial complex “is much more pernicious than Eisenhower ever thought it would be,” Wilkerson warned.
In his farewell address in 1961, former President Dwight D. Eisenhower famously cautioned Americans that the military and corporate interests were increasingly working together, contrary to the best interests of the citizenry. He called this phenomenon the military-industrial complex.
As a case study of how the contemporary military-industrial complex works, Wilkerson pointed to leading weapons corporations like Lockheed Martin, and their work with draconian, repressive Western-allied regimes in the Gulf, or in inflaming tensions in Korea.
“Was Bill Clinton’s expansion of NATO - after George H. W. Bush and [his Secretary of State] James Baker had assured Gorbachev and then Yeltsin that we wouldn’t go an inch further east - was this for Lockheed Martin, and Raytheon, and Boeing, and others, to increase their network of potential weapon sales?” Wilkerson asked.
“You bet it was,” he answered.
“Is there a penchant on behalf of the Congress to bless the use of force more often than not because of the constituencies they have and the money they get from the defense contractors?” Wilkerson continued.
Again, he answered his own question: “You bet.”
“It’s not like Dick Cheney or someone like that went and said let’s have a war because we want to make money for Halliburton, but it is a pernicious on decision-making,” the former Bush official explained.
“And the fact that they donate so much money to congressional elections and to PACs and so forth is another pernicious influence.”
“Those who deny this are just being utterly naive, or they are complicit too,” Wilkerson added.
“And some of my best friends work for Lockheed Martin,” along with Raytheon, Boeing and Halliburton, he quipped.
Wilkerson - who in the same interview with Salon defended Edward Snowden, saying the whistle-blower performed an important service and did not endanger U.S. national security - was also intensely critical of the growing movement to “privatize public functions, like prisons.”
Col. Lawrence Wilkerson
“I fault us Republicans for this majorly,” he confessed - although a good many prominent Democrats have also jumped on the neoliberal bandwagon.
In a 2011 speech, for instance, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared, “It’s time for the United States to start thinking of Iraq as a business opportunity” for U.S. corporations.
Wilkerson lamented, “We’ve privatized the ultimate public function: war.”
“In many respects it is now private interests that benefit most from our use of military force,” he continued.
“Whether it’s private security contractors, that are still all over Iraq or Afghanistan, or it’s the bigger-known defense contractors, like the number one in the world, Lockheed Martin.”
Journalist Antony Loewenstein detailed how the U.S. privatized its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in another interview with Salon. There are an estimated 30,000 military contractors working for the Pentagon in Afghanistan today; they outnumber U.S. troops three-to-one. Thousands more are in Iraq.
Lockheed Martin simply “plans to sell every aspect of missile defense that it can,” regardless of whether it is needed, Wilkerson said. And what is best to maximize corporate interest is by no means necessarily the same as what is best for average citizens.
“We dwarf the Russians or anyone else who sells weapons in the world,” the retired Army colonel continued.
Dealing With “Waking Up.” How To Handle Discovering More Than Just The Tip Of the Iceberg November 15 2019 | From: CollectiveEvolution / Various A look at our current world might bring about emotions or observations linked to feelings of chaos.
With the incredible divide happening in the US due to the upcoming presidential elections, the manufactured gender, race and sexual orientation divides taking place all over, it’s easy to feel like there are ‘bad’ things happening all the time.
People often look at the media and say it’s there to ruin or shift your perception of the world negatively, and I would partly agree with this for sure.
The Facts: An evolution in the way we view our world and the systems within it is necessary to create meaningful change at this stage in humanity's journey. This starts with an evolution in media.
Reflect On: Can we truly change our world if we don't know where we are truly at? Can we expect to see change in our world if we don't change ourselves?
After all, that’s what inspired me to create a news source that took a different approach. But the reality is, we’re in a time where we have to look at some of the tough things going on in our world in order to understand why they are happening, where we are at and how we can shift.
The difference in the way we like to do that here at CE is, we might talk about some of the ‘darker’ stuff, but we’ll always help in moving through it vs leaving a reader hanging.
This is done through an important process I built called The CE Protocol. This is partly how we have been creating an evolution in media for the past 10 years.
My feeling is that we must combine an observation of what we are actively creating in our world with personal transformation so that we can truly change the challenges we face at the core, versus simply throwing bandaids at the situation.
For example, we might want people to unite and be more peaceful with one another, yet we’ll actively attack, mischaracterize others and divide ourselves simply based on something like political orientation.
Why do we do that? Because we don’t know who we are deep down, and we actively get caught up in the illusion of politics that has been manufactured to prey on our programmings.
Therefore, the more we wake up and see the illusion that politics is by consuming different media, the more we begin to see truth and are inspired to make new choices.
This turns us inward where we make changes within ourselves and this then leads us to interact within our world differently because now we are operating from a different state of consciousness.
Many people feel we can simply change our world by working only on ourselves, without having to see the truth of our world.
Often times that changes a person slightly, but they will still support the systems in our world because they still believe in them, thus things don’t change.
In the four short videos below, I will guide you by explaining exactly what this protocol is and how it encompasses the totality of what’s needed to create a shift in inward consciousness and our physical world.
The basic steps are: 1. Breaking The Illusion 2. Awakening Neutrality 3. Deprogramming Limits 4. Living Aligned
1: Breaking The Illusion
2: Awakening Neutrality
3: Deprogramming Limits
4. Living Aligned
Due to the pressure of mass censorship, we now have our own censorship-free, and ad-free on demand streaming network!
It is the world's first and only conscious media network streaming mind-expanding interviews, news broadcasts, and conscious shows.
Click here to start a Free 7-Day Trial and watch 100's of hours of conscious media videos, that you won't see anywhere else.
How ‘Science’ Is Used To Deceive The Public
November 14 2019 | From: NexusNewsFeed Did you know that there was a shocking study published in the Public Library of Science Journal, that found“up to 72%” of scientists admitted their colleagues were engaged in “questionable research practices,” and that just over 14% of them were engaged in outright “falsification”?
People speak of it as if it is infallible, and anyone who questions the high priests of science are generally attacked, degraded, and dismissed as modern day heretics.
But science, just like any religion, is not a god that only speaks unadulterated Truth.
It is far from being infallible and is constantly in need of being updated, upgraded, challenged, revised, and changed, for the simple fact that science is subject to the narrow confines of mankind’s tiny flawed human perception; which is forever growing and expanding - and easily skewed by things like prejudice, pride, and corruption.
In and of itself, science is obviously inanimate and can do neither good nor bad because it has no mind of its own.
It is not a person, so we need to stop talking about science like it is a super hero. It is simply a vehicle that requires a driver, and the destination obviously differs from one driver to the next.
While some may have the earnest pursuit of objective Truth in mind, most can be corrupted by the pursuit of money (such as Iowa State University professor Dong-Pyou Han who is now sitting in jail for his AIDS vaccine fraud), the want of fame, or simply personal prejudice and egotistical pride.
Pioneering anesthesiologist Scott Reuben, who helped revolutionize orthopedic surgery, faked data in more than 20 studies, and German physicist Jan Hendrik Schön, who won multiple awards for his work, falsified his research as well.
These individuals were able to pass what common folks often consider to be the “foolproof” test of peer review, and that’s because it is not actually foolproof.
In an effort to help remind people why they should not blindly trust “science” - or any other body of purported knowledge for that matter - I decided to write this short article on how scientific bullshit has been used throughout history to manipulate our perceptions and beliefs.
Big Tobacco & The Sugar Industry
More than half a century ago, big tobacco used science as a weapon to convince the naive and gullible about the safety of their cigarettes.
A number of different medical organizations and journals, including the New England Journal of Medicine and the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), were indeed on the payroll of Big Tobacco and helped to promote their agenda through the promotion of flawed “science”.
Coca Cola was also caught paying scientists (to the tune of $132.8 million) to downplay the severity of consuming their sugary drinks, and other unhealthy products. In fact, corporations do this all the time.
A perfect example, is a study conducted by the University of Colorado that claimed that diet soda was better at promoting healthy weight loss than water.
Today, a number of questionable practices in the name of science continue. Sadly, the manipulation (or incompetence) of science is something that most likely will never be truly eliminated from society because it is rooted in human fallibility and corruption.
In fact, Richard Hortin, the editor in chief of the medical journal The Lancet, has gone on record as stating that, “much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue.”
This is not to say that the concept of science does not serve an important purpose, because it certainly does; I personally use scientific methods and principles daily in my life, and even relied on scientific research to highlight corruption within the scientific community in this blog.
But this was written specifically to remind us all that “science” can be used to deceive us - has been used to deceive us - and should always be questioned as a result.
Scientists obviously need money to conduct their research, and corporations who place material profit above human life have plenty of it. The hand that gives usually controls the hand that takes.
Until we design a system that promotes unadulterated education, more than it does propaganda and ignorance; and rewards integrity more than the willingness to do anything for “money,” this type of pathetic human behavior will persist for obvious reasons.
Fear-Based Manipulation: How Politicians, Marketers And The Media Create Panic To Control The Masses November 13 2019 | From: TheUnboundedSpirit / Various Make people afraid and you'll be able to control them. This is something manipulators know extremely well. By exploiting our insecurities, they are able to feed us lies and persuade us to do what they want.
This article looks into how fear is being used against us, by offering various examples of common fear-based manipulation tactics that politicians, marketers and the media utilize on a daily basis to control the way we think and behave.
"Neither a man nor a crowd nor a nation can be trusted to act humanely or to think sanely under the influence of a great fear.”
- Bertrand Russell
Fear. Without it we wouldn’t be able to survive. Why? Because it’s the emotion that warns us about potential threats to our survival and urges us to protect ourselves from them.
Let me give you an example to illustrate what I mean.
Imagine that you’re walking outside in the dark and suddenly you see a snake jumping right in front of your feet. Immediately fear kicks in. You start sweating, your heart rate goes up, and your cortisol as well as adrenaline levels increase.
The snake could be poisonous so you immediately need to protect yourself from it.
In such a dangerous situation, your natural response is most likely going to be one of the following:
Run away from the snake.
Injure, kill or somehow immobilize the snake.
Freeze in hopes that the snake will be undisturbed by your presence and leave you alone.
Fear, as the above example shows, is a protective mechanism that is part of our survival instinct, helping us to stay alive and healthy.
But here’s the problem: when that mechanism becomes overactive and we start fearing things that don’t actually pose us any threat, it can wreak havoc not only with our well-being (due to too much stress), but also with our decision-making (because fear, as you’ll soon find out, can hinder clear thinking).
Manipulative people are extremely aware of the latter and try their best to control how you think and behave by using fear-based tactics. Here you’ll learn what some of those tactics are, as well as what you can do to avoid falling into their trap.
Do as They Say, Or Else…
Whether you know it or not, fear is constantly being used against you. By whom? Well, here are a few examples: politicians, marketers, and the media.
Let’s have a closer look into how they do that, starting with politicians.
The vast majority of politicians are demagogues. A demagogue is defined as “a political leader who seeks support by appealing to the desires and prejudices of ordinary people rather than by using rational argument.”
Now, the emotion politicians like to appeal to the most is fear. By intentionally spreading messages that make the general public feel like it’ll be harmed or utterly destroyed if they aren’t elected in positions of power or don’t implement certain policies, politicians are able to persuade the masses to support them.
You might be wondering: How can that be possible? Don’t people base their decisions on conscious, rational thinking?
Well, they do, much of the time, but rarely when they are gripped by fear of a threat, whether real or imagined. Here’s why, according to cognitive psychologist and economist Robin M. Hogarth:
"By creating a state of emergency in our psyche, fear distracts us from the relevant facts on which we should base our conscious decisions.
A fight-or-flight instinct kicks in instantaneously when we’re afraid, leaving no time for us to question its merits. The resulting knee-jerk reaction often leads to a short-term solution that only tackles the symptoms.
This act-first-think-later approach, however, doesn’t address underlying causes."
To illustrate how fear has been used by politicians to influence the layman, let’s watch a fear-mongering ad used during Lyndon Johnson’s 1964 presidential run to persuade people to vote for him instead of his warmonger Republican opponent Barry Goldwater who, according to the ad, would surely lead the US into a nuclear war if elected.
Political leaders harp on any reason they can find to make us panic: terrorism, immigrants, drugs, crime, minorities, and various others.
A master at creating panic is the current president of the United States, Donald Trump. In fact, that’s one of the main reasons why he was able to become the US president in the first place. [Comment: This is an out-of-touch opinion. Despite a great level of awareness in many areas, the author is uninformed on actual matters relating to Trump.]
Trump’s rhetoric goes like this: “Illegal immigrants are pouring drugs and violence into America. Radical Islamic terrorists are preparing for another big US attack. Christians are being executed en masse in the Middle East.” And so on and so forth.
And what’s the solution to all those issues? He himself, of course. As sociologist and author Barry Glassner put it:
“[Donald Trump’s] formula is very clean and uncomplicated: Be very, very afraid. And I am the cure."
Another American president who used a lot of fear-based rhetoric was George W. Bush. For instance, right after the 9/11 tragedy, the warning he issued was: “Be afraid, be very afraid.”
Then for years onward he was repeatedly talking about America being in danger of more terrorist attacks and that the only way to make it safe again was to bomb Iraq.
Additional:Read about the Alliance that
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
And the Alliance effort operates beyond the bounds of countries - out of neccessity; as that is how the Luciferian Cabal
Do you think you can trust the mainstream media? Look at whom they target. One must wonder why 'they' also do not like
Today, it’s crystal clear that Bush had a hidden agenda: to expand and strengthen the American Empire by gaining economic and geopolitical power.
Panicked and confused, millions of Americans couldn’t understand what was really going on and blindly consented to the so-called War on Terror.
I could go on giving countless examples of politicians who’ve tried to control the masses through the use of fear, but I think these will suffice to carry my point across.
Terrorized About Terrorism
When we feel that our survival is threatened, we’re ready to do just about anything to protect our lives. Yet we’re often unknowingly harming ourselves instead.
For example, a study estimates that at least a thousand additional lives were lost in US road accidents the year after the 9/11 attacks. The reason?
At that period of time a lot more people chose to drive rather than fly, out of fear of another possible air-bound terrorist attack, although the probability of death due to inflight terrorism is calculated to be 1 in 540,000, while the probability of dying from a car accident is calculated to be 1 in 7,000.
Of course, it’s understandable why American citizens chose driving over flying. If you pay attention to any mainstream newspaper or TV channel, you must be thinking that terrorism is one of the top causes of death.
The reality, however, is that you are way more likely to die from a multitude of other causes than terrorism, including heart disease, cancer, obesity, suicide, workplace accidents and contaminated food.
But the mainstream media doesn’t seem to care about those. So why does it make such a fuss over terrorism?
There are various reasons, such as siding with their preferred political parties, but the most important one is simply this:
Fear sells like nothing else.
When, for instance, you read a newspaper headline that elicits a fear response in you, you are much more likely to get the newspaper and read it. Why? Because as author and journalist Neil Strauss put it:
"We’re wired to respond to fear above everything else. If we miss an opportunity for abundance, life goes on; if we miss an important fear cue, it doesn’t."
Fear drives better ratings and better ratings means increased profit. The mass media knows this very well and is doing its best to capitalize on it.
By terrorizing us, it’s able to keep our attention hooked and ruthlessly exploit us for its financial gain.
Another way fear is used to control you is through commercial advertisements.
You might not be consciously aware of it, but corporations are heavily using fear-based advertising to make you buy their stuff. And it has been found to work pretty well. By instilling fear in people, advertising manipulates them into making emotional rather than reasoned choices.
Let’s see an example of how fear-based advertising works.
All the great marketers know well that one of the primary human desires is to connect with other humans and feel part of a community, and hence that one of the things people are most afraid of is to be excluded from their social groups.
And through advertising they try to convince you that if you don’t buy stuff nobody will like you anymore and that you’ll probably be ostracized by your community.
Buy the latest iPhone and you’ll not appear to be poor. Get this pair of Nike shoes and you’ll be cool. Obtain this wristwatch and you’ll feel important. Purchasing them will cost you some money, but not doing so will cost you your happiness.
Afraid and insecure, most people blindly do what they’re told, thus wasting their hard-earned money buying things they don’t really need and which only provide them with a temporary, superficial sense of belonging and emotional gratification.
Now that we’ve looked at different ways fear is being used against you, I’d like to share with you a few simple tips that can help you to avoid falling victim to fear-based manipulation.
The first and most important thing is to identify fear when it arises within you and try to see it for what it is, without shying away from it or pretending that it’s not there.
By bringing fear into your conscious awareness, you’ll be able to examine where it’s coming from and what message it’s trying to convey you, which will help you to better understand it and hence deal with it.
Secondly, when dealing with political, social or other important issues, remember to associate feelings of fear with the need to slow down and regain mental and emotional clarity. Instead of succumbing to impulsive reactions, take the time to educate yourself on the issue at hand.
Drunk-Driving And Fake-Science November 12 2019 | From: AmericanInstituteForEconomicResearch Almost everyone I know has a story to tell about themselves, a friend, a friend’s friend. It’s about the abusiveness of the police in the enforcement of drunk-driving laws.
I’ve known people who were quite sure that they were not over the legal limit but suddenly found themselves cuffed in the back of the police car.
I know a guy who was arrested out of his own driveway, having driven home perfectly safely. I’ve seen lives ruined and wrecked by a system that presumes everyone is guilty and then proves it was scientific machines that claim to be accurate to three decimal points. The level of paranoia on this subject in American life is palpable.
So it’s actually mind blowing – or maybe once you hear this it will seem incredibly obvious – that the New York Times has published a massive investigation that shows that the science behind the breathalyzer is bogus.
Tens of thousands of arrests have been wrong. Cases are being thrown out around the country. The company that makes the machines for the police stations won’t share its technology or submit to a serious scientific review of its technology.
Lives are being ruined even as the evidence piles up that vast numbers of arrests for “drunk driving” are wholly bogus.
"A million Americans a year are arrested for drunken driving, and most stops begin the same way: flashing blue lights in the rearview mirror, then a battery of tests that might include standing on one foot or reciting the alphabet.
What matters most, though, happens next. By the side of the road or at the police station, the drivers blow into a miniature science lab that estimates the concentration of alcohol in their blood. If the level is 0.08 or higher, they are all but certain to be convicted of a crime.
But those tests - a bedrock of the criminal justice system - are often unreliable, a New York Times investigation found. The devices, found in virtually every police station in America, generate skewed results with alarming frequency, even though they are marketed as precise to the third decimal place.
Judges in Massachusetts and New Jersey have thrown out more than 30,000 breath tests in the past 12 months alone, largely because of human errors and lax governmental oversight.
Across the country, thousands of other tests also have been invalidated in recent years.The machines are sensitive scientific instruments, and in many cases they haven’t been properly calibrated, yielding results that were at times 40 percent too high."
The story adds another several thousand words of horror stories about the use of fake science in the service of the machinery of compulsion and coercion that has entrapped millions of Americans and vexes all non-teetotallers on the road today.
It turns out that these expensive machines, both the ones carried by cops and the larger machines at police headquarters, are provided by only a few companies in the world and they are unwilling to open up their guts to serious peer review.
They are poorly maintained and yet the numbers are invoked in court daily. The police have every incentive to allow them to be wrong so long as the results end in conviction.
The few times in which states mandated tests of the tests have resulted in shocking results. Something called the Intoxilyzer 8000 was tested in Vermont in 2005 and produced inaccurate results in “almost every test.”
As it turns out, the only scientific way to determine blood-alcohol content is with blood tests. There are too many variables to make the breath alone reliable and yet breathing tests are the whole basis of drunk-driving enforcement.
The rounding-up problems and inflated numbers alone are raising questions about 45,000 convictions in Massachusetts and New Jersey.
The trouble is that once the fake science is part of the court records, the accused has no viable option but to plead guilty and face a jail sentence and fines and ruined driving record, even if the person knows for sure that he or she was not drunk.
When it’s the state armed with fake science vs. an individual motorist who had a couple of beers, everyone knows who wins.
This is a classic case of the dangers of scientism in the service of state-based justice. Put on the lab coat, sell the government a fancy machine, harass people with unending intimidation, and the result is vast injustice based on bad science.
Citizens themselves have no recourse. This has been going on for decades in the United States and yet we are only now finding out about it.
There was always a potential for injustice at the heart of the rule against drunk driving since enforcement would always be based not on evidence of reckless driving but rather on the content of one’s blood. It was that which was being criminalized.
In fact, there are many reasons one might drive dangerously: texting, physical exhaustion, sleep deprivation, bad day at work, fight with a lover, and so on.
Nor is it the case that having a few necessarily and always results in endangerment of others. The only real sensible approach, then, is for the police to enforce the traffic rules, ticketing and arresting based on what the driver actually does.
The anti-drunk driving regime in this country was not based on that. Rather, it criminalized something that required a fancy scientific test to discover complete with black-box machines out of science fiction.
Even if you are driving perfectly well, complying with all rules, endangering absolutely no one, you would be subjected to brutality at the hands of the police solely upon the discovery of a chemical in your blood, which, as it turns out, cannot be reliably determined based on any existing technology.
Think about this. The whole world is horrified by Elizabeth Holmes and Theranos’s claim that it could detect diseases via a tiny pin prick on the finger.
That this company raised billions on an unverified claim has been the subject of vast outrage and criminal investigations. And yet we have what appears to be the exact same situation with the detection of drunk driving and yet it’s gone on for decades without much in the way of incredulity putting any damper on the arrest-and-jail machinery of the state.
Why is this? I would say the following. Theranos was subjected to a market test. Breathalyzers and Alcotests and so on exist within the apparatus of the state and have thereby been shielded from serious scrutiny.
It has taken the New York Times and its intrepid reporters to blow the cover, and yet, realistically, it will be years before anyone can put a damper on the machinery of personal destruction that is currently in operation even in your hometown.
There are lessons here. The combination of state power and pseudoscience is a dangerous one. Criminalizing something that depends on the scientific accuracy of some secret test rather than observable behavior is itself fraught with dangers.
The state cannot be trusted to police its own application of science in service of itself. It will always face an incentive to exaggerate to gain more money and more convictions.
Now is the time seriously to rethink the entire machinery of drunk-driving enforcement.
Propaganda Machine NYT Opposition To Free Expression November 11 2019 | From: StephenLendman / Various The Times operates as a mouthpiece for the imperial state, Wall Street, and other predatory corporate interests.
On all things related to US wars of aggression for conquest, control and plunder, the self-styled newspaper of record is onboard enthusiastically.
On issues related to democratic values, the rule of law, and public welfare, it’s AWOL or militantly hostile.
Whistleblower Edward Snowden connected important dots for millions, exposing Big Brother National Security Agency mass surveillance - the hallmark of police state rule.
Bipartisan US hardliners and the NYT consider him a traitor. Times editors called for Russia to extradite him. They want him tried and punished for exposing how the US spies on its own citizens and countless others abroad, including world leaders.
They support mass surveillance instead of forthrightly denouncing what’s incompatible with a free society.
They’re for police state persecution of anyone challenging US imperial interests and/or exploitation of ordinary people at home and abroad.
They’re militantly hostile to Chelsea Manning for exposing US war crimes in Afghanistan and Iraq.
They support her re-imprisonment for invoking her constitutional right of silence, refusing to help the imperial state crucify Julian Assange by giving police state grand jury testimony.
In response to Assange’s unacceptable 18-count indictment for the “crime” of truth-telling journalism the Times long ago abandoned, the broadsheet slammed him with a blitzkrieg of Big Lies, saying:
“The charges are the latest twist in a career in which Mr. Assange has morphed from a crusader for radical transparency to fugitive from a Swedish sexual assault investigation (sic), to tool of Russia’s election interference (sic), to criminal defendant in the United States.”
“Mr. Assange’s organization published (Dem party) emails stolen by Russia (sic) as part of its covert efforts to help elect President Trump (sic).”
The above remarks turned truth on its head. Bogus sexual assault charges against him were dropped, then reopened by Sweden following US pressure.
Not a shred of evidence suggests he or Manning operated as “a tool of Russia’s election interference” that never happened - one of many Times’ Big Lies that won’t die.
No Dem emails were “stolen.” Leaked by a party insider, WikiLeaks published them, what journalism the way it’s supposed to be is all about - what’s absent in Times propaganda reports.
Like Snowden, Manning and other whistleblowers, along with truth-telling journalists, Assange is a world-class hero - punished for publishing what US dark forces want concealed.
Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University’s Jameel Jaffer earlier said:
Charges against Assange “rely almost entirely on conduct that investigative journalists engage in every day. The indictment should be understood as a frontal attack on press freedom."
Attorney Barry Pollack representing Assange said he’s charged with a crime “for encouraging sources to provide him truthful information and for publishing that information” - removing the “fig leaf” claim about hacking that never occurred, adding:
"These unprecedented charges demonstrate the gravity of the threat the criminal prosecution of Julian Assange poses to all journalists in their endeavor to inform the public about actions that have been taken by the US government."
Times editors further mocked him, saying: He “is no hero (sic)…There is much to be troubled by (his) methods and motives, which remain murky (sic). He released numerous documents without removing names of confidential sources, putting their lives in jeopardy (sic).”
Leaked ABC News Insider Recording Exposes Epstein Coverup “We Had Clinton, We Had Everything”& MSM Executives Part Of ‘Network Of People’ That Covered For Epstein – Project Veritas Founder To RT November 10 2019 | From: Geopolitics / RT / Various
The Epstein saga continues to haunt the legacy media, and the Deep State at large.
In its latest Epstein post-mortem update, the ABC News’ anchor Amy Robach was caught on a “hot mic” off-air conversation expressing her frustration about her network’s deliberate “killing of the story”, which involved “everything about [Bill] Clinton, Prince Andrew…” through “Epstein’s” Lolita Express.
If she’s smart, she should have gone all the way. Now, her life is in constant jeopardy, and could be Epsteined in short order, in spite of the security she has.
New York’s former chief medical examiner, Dr. Michael Baden, claimed last month that Epstein’s wounds were more consistent with “homicidal strangulation” than suicide.
"Do I think he was killed? A hundred percent, yes I do. He made his whole living blackmailing people… There were a lot of men in those planes, a lot of men who visited that island, a lot of powerful men who came into that apartment.”
- Amy Robach, ABC News anchor
In the meantime, we have yet to see if the US Congress will have the same appetite as with the ongoing Trump “impeachment” to investigate this new angle to the Epstein story.
While these women have yet to see justice done to what had happened to them decades ago…
Epstein Survivors Julie Brown writer from Miami Herald stands with her four subjects and her videographer,Emily Michot. in NYC’s Bryant park on September 11th, 2019. H&M: Stacy Beneke Margret Avery Carmela Cali all from Zenobia Agency Photographed by Gillian Laub ID’s: Lilac Shirt: Virginia Roberts Giuffre; Multi color: Michelle Licata; Blue Jacket: Julie Brown; White Tank: Jena Lisa Jones; Green Stripes: Courtney Wild; Khaki jacket: Emily Michot
"Please, please finish what you have started … we all know he did not act alone,”accuser Sarah Ransome told a court hearing in New York in August.
“We are all survivors, and the pursuit of justice should not abate.”
Don’t hold your breath though, as the entire Washington DC is tainted with everything having to do with pedophilia. That is just one of the leverage that the CIA, MOSSAD and the Israel Lobby have on all Western governments.
The only question now is, will Trump make any tangible move against them, i.e. the 130,000 sealed indictments, or be content with mere acoustics to sustain the dialectic subterfuge of the Jesuits, whom every [other] politician pays homage to?
MSM Executives Part Of ‘Network Of People’ That Covered For Epstein – Project Veritas Founder To RT
ABC and other mainstream media outlets refused to cover accusations against sex predator Jeffrey Epstein because “a network of people” that includes their executives were implicated, James O’Keefe of Project Veritas told RT.
The Disney-owned network has doubled down on its insistence that anchor Amy Robach’s story on Epstein three years ago lacked “enough corroboration” and thus wasn’t aired.
This was after Project Veritas released a “hot mic” video of Robach slamming the decision to quash the story.
The conservative filmmaker told RT on Tuesday that he believes ABC’s refusal to budge from that explanation backs up Robach’s claim that “a network of people” – including the executives running her channel – are “covering up for this” because they are somehow “implicated.”
Robach had interviewed Epstein's alleged sex slave Virginia Roberts Giuffre and other victims and claimed to have pictures and other proof to back up her story.
The never-aired exposé was such a bombshell that it provoked intimidating calls from “the [UK royal] palace, which threatened [ABC] a million different ways,” and Epstein lawyer Alan Dershowitz – and the media establishment, O’Keeffe said, is very susceptible to such threats.
Mainstream media’s decisions to suppress major stories like Epstein or the allegations of sexual assault against Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein have contributed to a wholesale abandonment of trust in the media by the American people, O’Keeffe continued.
"A lot of these people are not trusting the media anymore in this country because the media does not cover the news."
“It’s quite telling that this insider leaked this tape to Project Veritas and not the Washington Post, New York Times, CBS or CNN, because they seem to want to protect the people that were working with Jeffrey Epstein,” he added.
“They’re fine airing the allegations against Brett Kavanaugh, or [President Donald] Trump, or anybody else, but when it comes to Bill Clinton and some of these folks who are mentioned by Amy in this hot mic tape, they say they just didn’t have enough corroboration,” O'Keefe said, recalling that Robach had specifically mentioned that “we had [Bill] Clinton.”
"I’m not sure how ABC News defines corroboration when it comes to credible witnesses talking about sexual assault."
Project Veritas, which specializes in undercover videos from inside liberally-minded organizations, has recently turned its eye on the media establishment, including CNN and now ABC.
Epstein, a financier with a reputation for having many famous and powerful friends – and a Caribbean island or two where he entertained them with underage girls – was found dead in his jail cell in August. His death was officially ruled a suicide, but a subsequent forensic examination cast doubt on the story that he killed himself.
The Rise Of The Western Spy Assclown
November 9 2019 | From: AMGreatness / Various As with any sclerotic bureaucracy whose mission is lost to circumstances, America’s former Cold War espionage apparatus has grown sloppy. But using Western spies to fabricate political dirt crosses a big line.
There was once a time when Washington needed spies with the power to operate clandestinely in a free society. Soviet Communism was an evil ideology that spread its error by revolutionary movements through what was then called “the domino theory.”
Sometime in the early 1990s, though, Russia ceased to embody an ideology and became a nation again. Alexander Solzhenitsyn moved back, and Russians stopped caring so much whether their little girl gymnasts got perfect 10s on the balance beam.
That left an entire apparatus in the West built to fend off Russian intrigue. None of it was dismantled. Instead, intrusive devices meant to prevent World War III wound up in the hands of EU bureaucrats and wannabee sophisticates of the American spy ranks.
Together, they set out to invent Russian intrigue of the sort that let them use their cool gadgets.
Chief among the spy assclowns was a Brit by the name of Christopher Steele. He built a big-shot life for himself by blaming Russia for stuff. It was Steele, as a member of MI6, who determined that Alexander Litvinenko’s poisoning was a Russian state hit.
Nobody has seen the evidence that says Russia poisoned Litvinenko.
We have to rely on Steele, and he can’t tell us how he knows Putin did it because then he’d have to kill us. But, not to worry, the venerable author of the infamous Steele dossier would never just make stuff up, right?
By such shadowy machinations, “Putin is a thug” replaced the domino theory as the raison d’etre of the lucrative Western spy apparatus.
How Putin poisoning political enemies justifies complex intelligence gathering and military bases originally designed to prevent Soviet incursions into Western Europe is not something you were supposed to ponder. A priori, “Putin is a thug” means he wants to attack France.
Some really smart people have been suckered by this circular reasoning. To take but one example, Pope John Paul II’s biographer, George Weigel, is staunchly on the side of preventing Putin’s inevitable march to Luxembourg and beyond.
It is a peculiar feature of the American plutocracy that even papal biographers become paid pundits lending religious zeal in support of military measures to stop the spread of Soviet Communism that ended on its own back in 1991.
Weigel is joined in his views by former Republican standard-bearers Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, their strange bedfellows Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, and all of NeverTrump. Russia-bad is something the entire Washington elite can agree upon.
Politico let the cat out of the bag back in 2015 when it reported:
“The United States still maintains nearly 800 military bases in more than 70 countries and territories abroad . . . Britain, France and Russia, by contrast, have about 30 foreign bases combined.”
The great funding pipeline that makes Washington, D.C. the wealthiest region in America feeds mostly on military spending which still, nearly 30 years removed from the Cold War, requires a Russian enemy.
President Eisenhower - the furthest thing from a conspiracy theorist America has ever produced - famously warned in his farewell address to beware “the military-industrial complex.”
Unconventional candidate Donald Trump rattled Washington to its core in March 2016 when he wondered about NATO’s continued relevance and questioned America’s foreign policy in Ukraine. That’s when this “Putin’s candidate” stuff started among both Republicans and Democrats.
There is nothing illegal about paying people like George Weigel to evoke Russian enemies. His reasons for siding with the godless EU against a country that asks the Patriarch of the Church to pass on all legislation is between him and his maker.
Using Western spies to fabricate political dirt crosses a line, though. That is criminal.
As happens with any sclerotic bureaucracy whose mission is lost to circumstance - see, for example, your local post office - the former Cold War spy apparatus has grown sloppy.
It serves political ends without sufficiently hiding its nefarious intentions. Even its spy arcana has become as ill-fitting as the vintage striped shorts letter carriers wear on hot days.
Last week, Hillary Clinton stupidly accused Tulsi Gabbard and Jill Stein of being Russian assets. If spies are willing to deliver anything that has a 55-cent stamp, she might as well send some junk mail.
The great fun will come next. John Brennan, James Comey, James Clapper, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, and the rest thought they were kings in their world of make-believe, playing James Bond against the evil Trump.
Really, though, they were mailmen in ridiculous shorts, reliving past glories of the Sears Catalog day, while stuck hopelessly in a world of internet ordering and drone delivery.
A federal prosecutor is now asking questions. U.S. Attorney John Durham has Mifsud’s phones. This is going to get interesting, and soon.
Unless, of course, the citadel holds, and the prosecution stops short of toppling Washington’s most strongly held conceit: that the $1.2 million McMansions in McClean, Virginia are necessary to stop Putin.
Even if that happens, the people are wiser from this ridiculousness. Washington will never return to that place where heroes like Pierre Delecto save the world from pretend Russian threats.
Others tend to be larger and more abstract, like the environment in which a child learns or if they tend to see things in a more objective or subjective light.
For many, these things are fairly set once you reach adulthood. They can only be “untaught” through conscious effort. Many children grow up immersed in the belief systems and moral compasses of their parents. Indoctrination in one way or another is inevitable.
The education system, for many, is a huge part of that indoctrination. In school, a child is told what is essential to learn. They are being handed all of the information necessary to pass tests.
Those tests, combined with class participation and completed homework, make up the grades that will get the child into a good college. They are conditioned to take information and retain it without question.
In my previous article, I explained why unschooling – encouraging a child to use their natural curiosity to direct their own learning – is vital to our society.
When children are removed from a traditional school environment to be unschooled, it is highly recommended that they first go through a “deschooling process”. This process, and the need for it, is explained in greater detail by Ivan Illich in his book Deschooling Society.
Illich explains that:
“The public is indoctrinated to believe that skills are valuable and reliable only if they are the result of formal schooling.”
Through deschooling, a child sheds the belief that learning can only occur when it is being fed to them or overseen. It paves the way for an entirely new way of thinking.
Deschooling is just as important for the parents as it is for the child. The parents often find themselves grappling with what they think versus what they have been told to think.
Their own indoctrination, at this point, is deeply rooted and much harder to reverse. Unschooling is counter-cultural and, as such, the parents will often face quite a bit of pushback from the culture in which they live.
Usually, this will come when a child is seen outside of school during school hours. A stranger at the grocery store, library or playground will ask why the child is not in school and be surprised, even incredulous, at the answer.
Family members may think that the parents are doing a disservice to their child by keeping them away from all that the school system has to offer. When this happens, nothing has gone wrong. If anything, it should serve as a reminder to the parents that they are choosing to unschool for a reason.
This process is not exclusively beneficial for school-aged children and their families. Any adult can and should go through a deschooling, or deprograming, process.
Since school is such a large part of a child’s life, and school programs a child to believe that essential information can only be that which is handed to them, some part of that mentality must be carried into adulthood.
The news, various authorities and preconceived notions take the place of teachers in the adult world. So many adults are being programmed, from childhood, to accept information from authority and process it as fact.
Deschooling for a child is, essentially, helping them to clear the regimented, traditional school from their system. This process does not have a time limit. The learning will begin when the child is ready, when their natural desire to learn is reawakened.
The purpose of these seemingly unrelated things is to help the child (and parent) let go of dependence on a curriculum to learn what is necessary.
When an adult sets out to deschool, or deprogram, themselves it could look like:
Doing something enjoyable for the sake of enjoyment, without an end goal in mind
Accepting feelings and behaviors without assigning judgments to them
Clearing the calendar of all unnecessary obligations
For both children and adults, this process is imperative to shedding the dependence on outside sources for information and approval or disapproval. It is the beginning steps of a departure from a set, societally approved way of living and thinking.
Deschooling is the beginning steps toward a lifetime of creativity, love of learning and self-trust.
Why Vodafone’s Claims That 5G Is Safe Are Not Credible & Lawyer Presents Strong Case Against 5G
November 7 2019 | From: Stop5G / GBWeekly / Various If you have visited Vodafone NZ’s website lately you may have noticed that it has a whole page designed to convince its customers that 5G is a safe technology.
Under the headline “Is 5G safe to use?” the company claims that “5G is designed to be fully compliant with existing international EMF exposure guidelines. This means it has been safeguarded against all established health hazards for everyone, including children.”
Of even more concern is the fact that it does not seem to be necessary to actually hold a cell phone (or cordless phone) to your head in order to increase your risk of cancer. Just living close to cellular phone infrastructure may be enough to increase your cancer risk, according to some studies, such as this one.
Most people would consider it to be bad practice to include industry employees or consultants as members of a committee convened to give advice on health effects given that they have such obvious conflicts of interest but the Ministry of Health (and the current Minister of Health) seem to be perfectly happy with this sad state of affairs.
New Zealand has pathetically lax standards for the type of radiation produced by cellular phone towers and other wireless infrastructure – such as the “small cells” planned to be used in 5G. These standards ultimately derive from recommendations made by ICNIRP.
ICNIRP is a non governmental organisation (NGO) that includes members who have links to the telecommunications industry. A few of the shortcomings of the basis on which ICNIRP makes its recommendations have been pointed out in a recent article in the Lancet.
A nice little cartoon that has useful information about ICNIRP and a similar organisation may be found here)
Doctors Call for Delaying Deployment of 5G Due to Health Risks
The article also gives the impression that 5G is safe for people.
There’s a critique of the Consumer article on 5G here.
Many Doctors and Scientists Oppose 5G
Of course Vodafone doesn’t bother to mention on its page that literally thousands of doctors and scientists are so concerned about the roll out of 5G without proper pre-market safety testing that they have signed international appeals on this issue, such as this one.
Vodafone’s 5G Information Page Does Not Once Mention the “C” Word
Vodafone NZ doesn’t once mention the word “cancer” or “carcinogen” (cancer-causing agent) on its 5G and health page even though microwave radiation was classified as a possible carcinogen (Group 2B) by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in 2011.
More recent research had led to calls for this form of radiation to be reclassified as a probable or proven carcinogen.
New Zealand has the second highest age-standardised cancer rate in the world. One thing we do not need as a nation is even more of our people developing cancer through unnecessary exposure to potentially carcinogenic radiation.
Vodafone Makes a Lot of Money Out of Services that Use WirelessRadiation
Naturally the company wants you to think that cell phones, cell phone towers, 5G etc. are safe.
The company does not want to have to deal with opposition from local residents who do not want cell phone towers in their neighbourhood because of the potential health risks documented in recent studies such as DNA damage and increased risk of diabetes.
Vodafone stands to lose a lot of money if people wake up to the vast amount of research that shows that the form of radiation used in these wireless communications systems can have adverse health effects – and choose safe hardwired alternatives instead.
*To be fair, Vodafone is not the only company that want to market 5G in NZ; Spark and 2Degrees want to do this, too and that is why all three of these companies are the subject of a recently launched boycott.
Website Editor’s Note:
Thank you for reading this post on www.5G.org.nz, NZ’s 5G information website. If you found it to be interesting, please share it with your friends and family.
We now also have anEvents Page in which events relating to 5G will be listed as information comes to hand.
If you would like to stay up to date with information on what is happening in NZ in relation to smart technology, 5G and wireless and health issues, please visit www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz and email through the contact form and ask to be signed up to the free email list.
This will mean that you receive occasional newsletters from Stop Smart Meters NZ which include information on 5G as well as smart meters and related wireless technologies.
Judging by the large audience at the public meeting in the Senior Citizens’ Hall, it appears that there is a hunger for information on the subject – a suspicion confirmed by Sue at the start of her address.
“Hardly anyone knows anything about 5G.”
What is known is that exposure to the high-frequency, high-energy radiation associated with the 5G network is linked to a range of health and wellbeing effects, including cancer, infertility and electrical hypersensitivity.
Studies funded by the telecoms industry, however, are frequently designed to be shorter than known latency periods of many tumours, and are therefore prone to producing false negative which show no harm.
Sue said the Government was happy to accept these findings, because “new technology is assumed to be safe until it is proved dangerous”.
This may explain why the Government has given the green light to 5G. The new network also has additional implications for personal rights, which are also being ignored, said Sue.
“We are heading to a world of AI [artificial intelligence], raising issues of freedom of information, privacy and security.”
Despite the growing concern about 5G, Sue said that the public has been denied a voice. “The decision has been made without consultation with us and using law changes to ease it in.”
She explained that laws and out-of-date safety standards “written by telcos [telecommunications companies]” sitting on advisory committees “stuffed with telcos” meant that the local authority planning regulations can simply be bypassed, enabling potentially harmful infrastructure to be installed unhindered.
“Councils have been pretty much excluded. The telcos have been given a blanket exemption from the resource consent process. That makes it difficult for communities because the normal consultation process is not there.”
With the Government intending to auction off parts of the 5G spectrum next year, Sue warned that campaigners have little time to stop the rollout.
“Once the spectrum is allocated, telcos will want to go ahead, so there is a limited window to slow down the process.”
Although the deck is seemingly stacked in favour of big business, Sue said that people are connecting and starting to exercise their power.
“Community groups are springing up all over the country... If we can make a fuss, we can make a difference.”
Among the tactics available, Sue suggested using nuisance law to prevent neighbours hosting telecom masts, and ensuring that workplace health and safety advisers identify non-ionising radiation as a risk to be managed.
And she recommended two tangible actions.
One is taking business away from companies advocating 5G. “Write to them and boycott them. Go to a more sympathetic telco.” The other is about influencing government policy.
"Write to the Government. Sign a petition demanding a moratorium on the sale of the 5G spectrum until we have an inquiry to assess harm.”
The 5th Eye
November 6 2019 | From: NZIFF / CutCutCut This densely packed doco from the directors of Operation 8 questions the price of New Zealand’s involvement in the Five Eyes intelligence alliance, and relates the improbable tale of its 2008 sabotage by the Waihopai Three.
If our PM or the relevant public servants feel truly comfortable about New Zealand’s participation in the Five Eyes intelligence alliance, it doesn’t show when they are seen explaining it, defending it, or downright refusing to talk about it in this documentary.
The disavowals we see are a matter of public record, but filmmakers Errol Wright and Abi King-Jones (Operation 8) embed those TV interviews, parliamentary declamations and media ops in a concise history of New Zealand’s post war dependency on the United States.
For lucid, more confidently-held commentary, the filmmakers turn to inveterate watchdogs such as Nicky Hager, Jane Kelsey, Murray Horton and Paul Buchanan, but evolve a position of their own through the accumulation and agile juxtaposition of some very telling material.
They also thread an unlikely tale of protest through this scenario, following the actions of the three earnest bumblers who, against all odds, successfully damaged the Waihopai spy station in 2008. A priest, a subsistence farmer and a teacher, they acted out of Christian conviction, claiming Five Eyes implicated New Zealanders in the murder of children in Iraq.
When they ran that argument in court, the jury acquitted them. No Crown witness was summoned to contradict them. When the GCSB has been so often in the news, with Kim Dotcom frequently in tow, there’s likely to be an audience, less heroic perhaps, that’s simply grateful to this film for providing a blow-by-blow account of the GCSB’s misadventures – and their expanding powers to make suspects of all of us.
The Bullshit Philosophy Of Positive Thinking
November 5 2019 | From: TheUnboundedSpirit Are you tired of hearing people tell you to just "stay positive" when life kicks you in the teeth and all you want is to cry? Are you fed up with reading self-help books that promise to help resolve your life problems, when in reality all they advice you is to "keep a positive mindset" and do nothing more?
If so, I'm sure my new article will resonate with you. It's titled "The Bullshit Philosophy of Positive Thinking" - and for a good reason. I wrote it because, like you, I'm done with all the bullshit the self-help industry is trying to sell us and so many people fall for.
My aim behind writing this is to dispel the myth of "positive thinking", and to show how we can effectively deal with our problems, not by negating them - as the philosophy of positive thinking urges us to do - but by accepting them.
“Just think positively and all your problems will vanish into thin air. Don’t care about taking action to create the life you want – just sit where you are and visualize with positive intent that everything’s going to be alright.”
This is the philosophy that many self-help coaches, authors and so-called spiritual teachers are preaching. It has been named “positive thinking” and is selling pretty well, considering that the positive thinking industry is a multi-billion dollar industry.
But what if I told you that it’s total bullshit?
You might be thinking: “What the hell, Sofo, have you gone crazy? Your entire blog is about how to overcome suffering and live a better life – in other words, about how to let go of the negative and experience the positive – and now you are telling me that positive thinking is bullshit?”
Yes, that’s exactly what I’m telling you. But before you’re too quick to judge, let me explain myself.
Shutting Your Eyes Won’t Make Your Problems Disappear
If you look at life without the filters of ideology, you will see that it contains both positive and negative realities: There’s pleasure and pain, love and hate, peace and war, and so on and so forth.
According to the philosophy of positive thinking, however, we shouldn’t think about the negative side of life, and, in fact, we should pretend that it doesn’t even exist. This way, we are told, we won’t be affected by it.
Not only that; if we don’t think about it and instead focus on the positive side, the negative will go away just like that.
“Don’t worry about the starving children in Africa. Just pray for them and they will be alright.”
“Don’t worry about rising sea levels, environmental pollution, and biodiversity loss. Just keep a positive mindset and our planet will recover from all the damage that has been inflicted on it.”
“Don’t worry about your job that you hate or your relationships that are messed up. Just visualize that you’re already living the life of your dreams and you will soon find the ideal partner and the perfect career.”
Needless to say, positive thinking won’t do a damn thing about all the above. The African children will keep on dying in millions from starvation, our planet will keep on being harmed, and your life will keep on sucking.
In fact, things will get even worse. By not paying our problems any attention and actually doing something to resolve them, with time they are bound to become more and more complicated and hence increasingly affect us and the world we live in.
“Look, here’s the little trick I use that makes all my problems disappear.” - Master Positive Thinker
To give you an analogy, positive thinking is like being in a house that’s on fire, while trying to convince yourself that everything’s OK, believing that this way the fire is going to disappear. Of course, the fire will keep on burning and growing wilder until it eventually consumes the entire house and yourself along with it.
That’s why I call positive thinking a bullshit philosophy: Not only doesn’t it work, it’s counterproductive too – that is, it creates the exact opposite results of what it seeks. The question, then, is why do so many people buy into it?
The Appeal of Positive Thinking
Somewhere I read the following profound words:
“Do not be afraid to accept ugly truths, and never be afraid to reject beautiful lies.”
Unfortunately, the wide majority of us (and by “us” I mean “humans”) don’t hesitate for a moment to accept lies that are beautiful and reject truths that are ugly.
That’s because ugly truths remind us of serious life problems that we need to resolve, and to do so we need to go through a lot of hardship and pain. And who likes to experience hardship and pain?
So we tend to avoid facing our problems. And what’s the best way to do so? To not look at them at all, in a desperate effort to fool ourselves that they don’t exist.
It’s no wonder, therefore, that so many people buy into the (bullshit) philosophy of positive thinking. They want to hear beautiful lies that will make them feel that everything’s alright, and hence that they needn’t stress about anything.
Personally, through my writing I like to state the truth as it is, even if it’s at times terribly ugly. I know that many of you - my readers - might be put off by it, but I also know that this is the only way to face our problems and deal with them, on a personal and a collective level.
So if you’re a long-time fan of The Unbounded Spirit, I’d like to take a moment to praise you for being such a badass reader and a committed seeker of truth.
From Positive Thinking to Realistic, Action-Based Thinking
Imagine you are chronically ill, suffering from a painful, debilitating disease. You can pretend all you want that your disease isn’t serious, and have faith that you’ll soon recover to good health, without doing anything to treat your condition. However, in reality this will do nothing to help you heal - your disease will keep on being there, and chances are that it will be worsening as you age.
Now imagine that you, instead, decided to let a doctor have a look at you and tell you what is the underlying cause of your disease and how to treat it. The doctor might inform you that the treatment involves some pain - it could be that you need surgery or to take a heavy dose of medication with possible side effects.
But you know that, no matter the extra pain you may undergo during the treatment, in the end it will be worth it. That’s because afterwards you’ll be relieved of the chronic pain caused by your disease, while the additional pain caused by the treatment will only be temporary. So you decide to treat your disease, and get back to being healthy.
Like in the above example, if we wish to overcome our life problems, then we need to do something about them. By that I don’t mean to merely repeat positive affirmations in our minds and wish that all is going to be perfectly fine.
Rather, I mean to stand up from our chairs, roll up our sleeves and take concrete action. But first we need to accept our problems, instead of denying them, as the philosophy of positive thinking urges us to do.
We need to look at them in the eye, examine why they are there, and search for ways to effectively deal with them.
Of course, this can be quite a tough thing to do. To admit that something is wrong with our lives is a bitter pill to swallow. And to change it might require painstakingly hard work.
But, whether we like it or not, there’s no other way to go about it.
Either we work our problems out and suffer for a short while, or we ignore them and suffer for as long as we’re alive.
Understanding Trump’s United Nations Appearance – He Was Speaking To America, Scorning The Cabal Servants In The Room
November 4 2019 | From: PhiBetaIota President Donald Trump’s speech and press conference at the United Nations are a permanent record and valuable when analyzed with an American populist lens.
It is not possible to responsibly analyze his appearance without appreciating two facts: first, President Trump was not speaking to those present, he was speaking to America; second, all those present are servants to the Cabal, committed to globalism and the end of individual and local rights, and President Trump knows that.
Stated most clearly: Donald Trump’s speech was the death notice for the Cabal, and his press conference a masterful display of intelligence with integrity – indeed, the word “finesse,” not normally associated with this President, has been used in some circles.
Additional:Read about the Alliance that
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
And the Alliance effort operates beyond the bounds of countries - out of neccessity; as that is how the Luciferian Cabal does.
Do you think you can trust the mainstream media? Look at whom they target. One must wonder why 'they' also do not like Putin?
Why finesse? He is finessing the Zionists – the last Cabal domino that must fall after the Rothschilds (done) and the Vatican (almost done).
For those who value brevity, here is the “executive briefing” on the speech and the press conference. Obviously the interpretations are speculative but observers should understand that there is no going back from the Trump era – he has stopped the Deep State and he is taking down the Shadow Government.
Whether he fulfills all his promises or not, America’s path is now toward a restoration of the Constitution and a restoration of public power that will displacing banking power, reliant on bribery, blackmail, and legalized lies including false flag operations, as the foundation for Cabal power. Whoever follows Trump will continue in this vein.
INTRODUCTION: The derisive laughter of those assembled when President Donald Trump spoke of his economic triumphs can be explained in three ways:
First, the Administration has not done a good job explaining all that he has done (including the recovery of tens of trillions of dollars from the Cabal, and reassertion – virtual nationalization – of the Federal Reserve), and much of what has been in preparation has not yet emerged, such as the gold-backed dollar, the debt jubilee, and plans to pump $1.5 trillion dollars into the economy through 6,000 “bottom up” agents of the President.
Second, the Mainstream Media (MSM) and #GoogleGestapo (notably Facebook, Google, Twitter, and YouTube) have been actively censoring and digitally assassinating those seeking to articulate the accomplishments of the Administration; and -
Third; everyone in the room is facing personal ruin if and when President Donald Trump’s full vision is realized.
Below are thirteen extracts with interpretations quite contrary to the subversive nonsense being offered up by the MSM and #GoogleGestapo.
“The Marshall Plan was built on the noble idea that the whole world is safer when nations are strong, independent, and free. . . . we do expect all nations to uphold these two core sovereign duties: to respect the interests of their own people and the rights of every other sovereign nation.”
INTERPRETATION:Globalism, and the role of the UN as a “steward” for “managing” the world as whole without respect for local and national needs and rights, is OVER.
“We are celebrating the 230th anniversary of our beloved Constitution - the oldest constitution still in use in the world today. . . .
The greatest in the United States Constitution is its first three beautiful words.
They are: “We the people.” Generations of Americans have sacrificed to maintain the promise of those words, the promise of our country, and of our great history.
In America, the people govern, the people rule, and the people are sovereign. I was elected not to take power, but to give power to the American people, where it belongs.”
INTERPRETATION: The arrests and military tribunals are about to begin. Plans for the gold-backed (or precious metals backed) US dollar are ready; the Federal Reserve is now under control; the looting of the US Treasury by the Cabal is no longer tolerated.
“As President of the United States, I will always put America first, just like you, as the leaders of your countries will always, and should always, put your countries first."
INTERPRETATION: America First means NOT Zionism First. The President is “playing” Benjamin Netanyahu and the Zionist government of Israel that recently declared itself at apartheid state and all Jews everywhere to be citizens of Israel (meaning they are inherently traitors to their home counties).
President Hassan Rouhani, who speaks fluent English, made a serious mistake in not accepting President Trump at his word and taking a short meeting with no witnesses; not only would this have allowed the two Presidents to connect at a personal level and exchange private fax numbers, but it would have driven the Zionists mad.
President Rouhani might also have gained some priceless strategic insight.
“The United States will forever be a great friend to the world, and especially to its allies. But we can no longer be taken advantage of, or enter into a one-sided deal where the United States gets nothing in return.
As long as I hold this office, I will defend America’s interests above all else.”
INTERPRETATION: Mindful that the USA has been the Great Satan for many, as the military and secret intelligence “tool” of the Cabal, wreaking great havoc across the developing world, that era, partly rooted in the American capture of Chinese gold stolen by Japan and hidden in the Philippines (the Black Lily Fund), is over.
“We want harmony and friendship, not conflict and strife. We are guided by outcomes, not ideology.
We have a policy of principled realism, rooted in shared goals, interests, and values.”
INTERPRETATION: The President has read, and intends to pursue, a foreign policy of freedom – peace, commerce, and honest friendship, as championed by Ron and Rand Paul.
The President intends to withdraw from the Middle East and Central Asia, from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), to redirect US arms productions from swords to plowshares; and perhaps to close all US bases overseas and expel the UN from New York. America’s focus will be on peace and prosperity for the 99%, not on war as a profit center for the 1%.
“The scourge of our planet today is a small group of rogue regimes that violate every principle on which the United Nations is based. They respect neither their own citizens nor the sovereign rights of their countries.”
INTERPRETATION: While he talks about North Korea and Iran in the passages that follow, retired military and intelligence circles believe he is talking about Israel and Saudi Arabia.
He did not act on his promise with respect to 9/11 truth because it was one election cycle too soon. When 9/11 truth inevitably comes out (as elite pedophilia and elite banking fraud truths will also inevitably come out), both Israel and Saudi Arabia will be expelled from the USA and the Cabal will be over: the Rothschilds, the Vatican, and the Chabad Supremacist Cult along with their Freemason, Knights of Malta, and central banking servants will be OVER.
All of the statement pertaining to North Korea and Iran are for the American audience and part of finessing the Zionists in the short term – after the denuclearization of the Koreas the denuclearization of the Middle East, starting with the 200+ nuclear weapons held by Israel and funded by the US taxpayer, is certain. In our lifetime.
“Last month, I announced a new strategy for victory in the fight against this evil in Afghanistan. From now on, our security interests will dictate the length and scope of military operations, not arbitrary benchmarks and timetables set up by politicians.”
INTERPRETATION: After the mid-terms we will announce our departure from Afghanistan. The Pashtun Taliban will be encouraged to close down the opium crops that were re-started by Bush-Cheney to provide cash flow liquidity for the Cabal. Pakistan’s military, the primary converters of opium into top grade heroin, will suffer a financial crisis.
“We seek the de-escalation of the Syrian conflict, and a political solution that honors the will of the Syrian people.
The actions of the criminal regime of Bashar al-Assad, including the use of chemical weapons against his own citizens - even innocent children - shock the conscience of every decent person.
No society can be safe if banned chemical weapons are allowed to spread. That is why the United States carried out a missile strike on the airbase that launched the attack.”
INTERPRETATION: We will leave Syria and insist that Israel leave Syria, to include (eventually) the return of the Golan Heights (and the oil beneath the Golan Heights) to Syria. China (which now runs both Israeli ports) and Russia will be the main arbiters of Middle East peace going forward.
“The United States is a compassionate nation and has spent billions and billions of dollars in helping to support this effort.
We seek an approach to refugee resettlement that is designed to help these horribly treated people, and which enables their eventual return to their home countries, to be part of the rebuilding process.
For the cost of resettling one refugee in the United States, we can assist more than 10 in their home region.”
INTERPRETATION: The USA is going to encourage all nationalist movements in Europe that are rejecting the influx of unemployed Muslims as made possible by the Barcelona Agreement where European leaders were bribed by the Saudis and others to accept the human sacrifices from dictatorial repression and mis-management.
The economics are sound – ending US taxpayer support for dictators and their ceremonial armies that cannot fight, and demanding that other countries cease to export their poor to the West, is going to be a major policy plank going forward.
“Too often the focus of this organization [the UN] has not been on results, but on bureaucracy and process. In some cases, states that seek to subvert this institution’s noble aims have hijacked the very systems that are supposed to advance them. . . .
The United States is one out of 193 countries in the United Nations, and yet we pay 22 percent of the entire budget and more.“
INTERPRETATION: The UN is on notice. In his second term President Trump can be expected to begin cutting the size of the federal government by at least 25%, and will impose similar demands on the UN.
Eventually US support to the UN should come down to 10% of its budget, and most US foreign aid will be delivered directly to the village level via electronic micro-cash, as recommended by Ashraf Ghani and Claire Lockhart.
Put another way: the UN is not too big to fail, we are going to cut it down severely.
“For too long, the American people were told that mammoth multinational trade deals, unaccountable international tribunals, and powerful global bureaucracies were the best way to promote their success.
But as those promises flowed, millions of jobs vanished and thousands of factories disappeared. Others gamed the system and broke the rules.
And our great middle class, once the bedrock of American prosperity, was forgotten and left behind, but they are forgotten no more and they will never be forgotten again.
“While America will pursue cooperation and commerce with other nations, we are renewing our commitment to the first duty of every government: the duty of our citizens.
This bond is the source of America’s strength and that of every responsible nation represented here today.”
INTERPRETATION:This is the meat. The Cabal – and the banks and corporations used by the Cabal to loot the nations of the world – has been put into foreclosure.
“Patriotism led the Poles to die to save Poland, the French to fight for a free France, and the Brits to stand strong for Britain.”
INTERPRETATION: This is a very subtle slam on Israel and a nod to the Palestinians. President Rouhani made a huge error in not meeting President Trump (unless of course he met him secretly).
As Gandhi has said, “Palestine is to the Palestinians as France is to the French.”
No one thought the Berlin Wall would come down. No one thought the Koreas would unite. As God is my witness, Palestine will be restored in our lifetime.
“Are we still patriots? Do we love our nations enough to protect their sovereignty and to take ownership of their futures? . . . From its very first moments, the American story is the story of what is possible when people take ownership of their future.”
INTERPRETATION: He is speaking to the American people. He is setting the stage for what I and Cynthia McKinney call “people not parties.” The Great Awakening is at root an awakening of all those who have been looted by the Cabal and not represented by the two-party tyranny.
While the President has not taken official action on #UNRIG (Election Reform Act) he is acutely aware of it – he KNOWS that he cannot win re-election in 2020 unless he broadens the base and offers free and equal ballot access to Independents and the small parties and the 47% who chose not to vote in 2016 because the systems is “rigged,” in the President’s own word.
The Press Conference
The key points that emerged from this unscripted event include:
The USA will no longer tolerate grotesque trade tariff asymmetries – we are charging nothing to single digit tariffs while China and EU are charging double-digit tariffs. That era is OVER.
Favors a two-state solution but open to a one-state solution, Palestinians must be happy.
Condemns President Obama giving Iran $1.8 billion dollars.
Praises Russia, Iran, Syria in relation to the fight against the Islamic State of Iraq & Syria (ISIS) but avoids pointing out that Saudi Arabia and Israel created ISIS.
Greenlights continued Kurdish and other third-party hostilities against ISIS.
Prodded by repeated questions, keeps coming back to how false accusations are so common, labeling the Democratic attacks on Judge Kavanagh a “con job.”
In a meeting with Prime Minister Shinzo Abe President Trump showed a letter from Supreme Leader Kim Jong Un that he termed historic and beautiful, and confirmed another personal meeting is planned between him and the North Korean leader.
On television South Korean President Moon Jae-in gave President Donald Trump full credit for the progress toward unification and denuclearization between the Koreas, and said it could not have happened without him – we are all aware that General Secretary Xi Jinping is the primary force making the unification and denuclearization possible, the intent is to credit President Donald Trump with being the “closer."
While this article has endeavored to provide a uniquely American populist interpretation of President Trump’s appearance at the United Nations, it is important to emphasize that the MSM and #GoogleGestapo have turned the USA into a “denied area” much as the Soviet Union was once – and perhaps still is – a “denied area” in terms of being able to access reliable information about all aspects of the national life – political-military, socio-economic, ideo-cultural, techno-demographic, and natural-geographic.
The overt media and social media reporting on the USA is shallow garbage.
The good news is being censored.
Tens of thousands of voices, not only conservative but also progressive, are being censored and thousands of channels digitally assassinated.
It is not possible to over-state the economic and financial progress that has been made under President Trump.
What is lacking to date – he has a terrible communications team and no truth channel of his own – is a personal connection to the 73% that did not vote him into office (47% did not vote at all, 27% voted for him, 26% voted against him).
Look for a few major announcements in the month of October. There will be an October surprise (or two).
They Live, We Sleep: Beware The Growing Evil In Our Midst
November 3 2019 | From: TheRutherfordInstitute / Various “You see them on the street. You watch them on TV. You might even vote for one this fall. You think they’re people just like you. You’re wrong. Dead wrong.” - They Live
There’s the world we see (or are made to see) and then there’s the one we sense (and occasionally catch a glimpse of), the latter of which is a far cry from the propaganda-driven reality manufactured by the government and its corporate sponsors, including the media.
Indeed, what most Westerners perceive as life in America - privileged, progressive and free - is a far cry from reality, where economic inequality is growing, real agendas and real power are buried beneath layers of Orwellian doublespeak and corporate obfuscation, and “freedom,” such that it is, is meted out in small, legalistic doses by militarized police armed to the teeth.
All is not as it seems.
This is the premise of John Carpenter’s film They Live, which was released more than 30 years ago, and remains unnervingly, chillingly appropriate for our modern age.
Best known for his horror film Halloween, which assumes that there is a form of evil so dark that it can’t be killed, Carpenter’s larger body of work is infused with a strong anti-authoritarian, anti-establishment, laconic bent that speaks to the filmmaker’s concerns about the unraveling of our society, particularly our government.
Time and again, Carpenter portrays the government working against its own citizens, a populace out of touch with reality, technology run amok, and a future more horrific than any horror film.
In Escape from New York, Carpenter presents fascism as the future of America. In The Thing, a remake of the 1951 sci-fi classic of the same name, Carpenter presupposes that increasingly we are all becoming dehumanized.
In Christine, the film adaptation of Stephen King’s novel about a demon-possessed car, technology exhibits a will and consciousness of its own and goes on a murderous rampage.
In In the Mouth of Madness, Carpenter notes that evil grows when people lose “the ability to know the difference between reality and fantasy.”
And then there is Carpenter’s They Live, in which two migrant workers discover that the world is not as it seems.
In fact, the population is actually being controlled and exploited by aliens working in partnership with an oligarchic elite.
All the while, the populace - blissfully unaware of the real agenda at work in their lives - has been lulled into complacency, indoctrinated into compliance, bombarded with media distractions, and hypnotized by subliminal messages beamed out of television and various electronic devices, billboards and the like.
It is only when homeless drifter John Nada (played to the hilt by the late Roddy Piper) discovers a pair of doctored sunglasses - Hoffman lenses - that Nada sees what lies beneath the elite’s fabricated reality: control and bondage.
When viewed through the lens of truth, the elite, who appear human until stripped of their disguises, are shown to be monsters who have enslaved the citizenry in order to prey on them.
Likewise, billboards blare out hidden, authoritative messages: a bikini-clad woman in one ad is actually ordering viewers to “MARRY AND REPRODUCE.” Magazine racks scream “CONSUME” and “OBEY.” A wad of dollar bills in a vendor’s hand proclaims, “THIS IS YOUR GOD.”
When viewed through Nada’s Hoffman lenses, some of the other hidden messages being drummed into the people’s subconscious include: NO INDEPENDENT THOUGHT, CONFORM, SUBMIT, STAY ASLEEP, BUY, WATCH TV, NO IMAGINATION, and DO NOT QUESTION AUTHORITY.
This indoctrination campaign engineered by the elite in They Live is painfully familiar to anyone who has studied the decline of American [ Western ] culture.
A citizenry that does not think for themselves, obeys without question, is submissive, does not challenge authority, does not think outside the box, and is content to sit back and be entertained is a citizenry that can be easily controlled.
In this way, the subtle message of They Live provides an apt analogy of our own distorted vision of life in the American police state, what philosopher Slavoj Žižek refers to as dictatorship in democracy, “the invisible order which sustains your apparent freedom.”
We’re being fed a series of carefully contrived fictions that bear no resemblance to reality.
The powers-that-be want us to feel threatened by forces beyond our control (terrorists, shooters, bombers).
They want us afraid and dependent on the government and its militarized armies for our safety and well-being.
They want us distrustful of each other, divided by our prejudices, and at each other’s throats.
Most of all, they want us to continue to march in lockstep with their dictates.
Tune out the government’s attempts to distract, divert and befuddle us and tune into what’s really going on in this country, and you’ll run headlong into an unmistakable, unpalatable truth: the moneyed elite who rule us view us as expendable resources to be used, abused and discarded.
Instead, the study found that the government is ruled by the rich and powerful, or the so-called “economic elite.” Moreover, the researchers concluded that policies enacted by this governmental elite nearly always favor special interests and lobbying groups.
In other words, we are being ruled by an oligarchy disguised as a democracy, and arguably on our way towards fascism - a form of government where private corporate interests rule, money calls the shots, and the people are seen as mere subjects to be controlled.
As CBS News reports, “Once in office, members of Congress enjoy access to connections and information they can use to increase their wealth, in ways that are unparalleled in the private sector. And once politicians leave office, their connections allow them to profit even further.”
In denouncing this blatant corruption of America’s political system, former president Jimmy Carter blasted the process of getting elected - to the White House, governor’s mansion, Congress or state legislatures - as;
“Unlimited political bribery… a subversion of our political system as a payoff to major contributors, who want and expect, and sometimes get, favors for themselves after the election is over.”
Rest assured that when and if fascism finally takes hold in America, the basic forms of government will remain: Fascism will appear to be friendly. The legislators will be in session.
There will be elections, and the news media will continue to cover the entertainment and political trivia. Consent of the governed, however, will no longer apply. Actual control will have finally passed to the oligarchic elite controlling the government behind the scenes.
Clearly, we are now ruled by an oligarchic elite of governmental and corporate interests.
Corporatism is where the few moneyed interests - not elected by the citizenry - rule over the many. In this way, it is not a democracy or a republican form of government, which is what the American government was established to be.
It is a top-down form of government and one which has a terrifying history typified by the developments that occurred in totalitarian regimes of the past: police states where everyone is watched and spied on, rounded up for minor infractions by government agents, placed under police control, and placed in detention (a.k.a. concentration) camps.
Additional:Read about the Alliance that
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
And the Alliance effort operates beyond the bounds of countries - out of neccessity; as that is how the Luciferian Cabal
Do you think you can trust the mainstream media? Look at whom they target. One must wonder why 'they' also do not like
Fear is the method most often used by politicians to increase the power of government. And, as most social commentators recognize, an atmosphere of fear permeates modern America: fear of terrorism, fear of the police, fear of our neighbors and so on.
The propaganda of fear has been used quite effectively by those who want to gain control, and it is working on the American populace.
Despite the fact that we are 17,600 times more likely to die from heart disease than from a terrorist attack; 11,000 times more likely to die from an airplane accident than from a terrorist plot involving an airplane; 1,048 times more likely to die from a car accident than a terrorist attack, and 8 times more likely to be killed by a police officer than by a terrorist , we have handed over control of our lives to government officials who treat us as a means to an end—the source of money and power.
As the Bearded Man in They Live warns, “They are dismantling the sleeping middle class. More and more people are becoming poor. We are their cattle. We are being bred for slavery.”
In this regard, we’re not so different from the oppressed citizens in They Live.
From the moment we are born until we die, we are indoctrinated into believing that those who rule us do it for our own good. The truth is far different.
Despite the truth staring us in the face, we have allowed ourselves to become fearful, controlled, pacified zombies.
We live in a perpetual state of denial, insulated from the painful reality of the American police state by wall-to-wall entertainment news and screen devices.
Most everyone keeps their heads down these days while staring zombie-like into an electronic screen, even when they’re crossing the street. Families sit in restaurants with their heads down, separated by their screen devices and unaware of what’s going on around them.
Young people especially seem dominated by the devices they hold in their hands, oblivious to the fact that they can simply push a button, turn the thing off and walk away.
The question, of course, is what effect does such screen consumption have on one’s mind?
Psychologically it is similar to drug addiction. Researchers found that “almost immediately after turning on the TV, subjects reported feeling more relaxed, and because this occurs so quickly and the tension returns so rapidly after the TV is turned off, people are conditioned to associate TV viewing with a lack of tension.”
Given that the majority of what Westerners watch on television is provided through channels controlled by six mega corporations, what we watch is now controlled by a corporate elite and, if that elite needs to foster a particular viewpoint or pacify its viewers, it can do so on a large scale.
If we’re watching, we’re not doing.
The powers-that-be understand this. As television journalist Edward R. Murrow warned in a 1958 speech:
But unless we get up off our fat surpluses and recognize that television in the main is being used to distract, delude, amuse, and insulate us, then television and those who finance it, those who look at it, and those who work at it, may see a totally different picture too late.”
This brings me back to They Live, in which the real zombies are not the aliens calling the shots but the populace who are content to remain controlled.
When all is said and done, the world of They Live is not so different from our own. As one of the characters points out:
“The poor and the underclass are growing.
Racial justice and human rights are nonexistent. They have created a repressive society and we are their unwitting accomplices. Their intention to rule rests with the annihilation of consciousness. We have been lulled into a trance.
They have made us indifferent to ourselves, to others. We are focused only on our own gain.”
We, too, are focused only on our own pleasures, prejudices and gains. Our poor and underclasses are also growing. Racial injustice is growing. Human rights is nearly nonexistent. We too have been lulled into a trance, indifferent to others.
Oblivious to what lies ahead, we’ve been manipulated into believing that if we continue to consume, obey, and have faith, things will work out. But that’s never been true of emerging regimes. And by the time we feel the hammer coming down upon us, it will be too late.
So where does that leave us?
The characters who populate Carpenter’s films provide some insight.
Underneath their machismo, they still believe in the ideals of liberty and equal opportunity. Their beliefs place them in constant opposition with the law and the establishment, but they are nonetheless freedom fighters.
When, for example, John Nada destroys the alien hyno-transmitter in They Live, he restores hope by delivering America a wake-up call for freedom.
Stop allowing yourselves to be easily distracted by pointless political spectacles and pay attention to what’s really going on in the West.
The real battle for control of this nation is not being waged between Republicans and Democrats in the ballot box.
As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the real battle for control of this nation is taking place on roadsides, in police cars, on witness stands, over phone lines, in government offices, in corporate offices, in public school hallways and classrooms, in parks and city council meetings, and in towns and cities across this country.
The real battle between freedom and tyranny is taking place right in front of our eyes, if we would only open them.
All the trappings of the American [Western] police state are now in plain sight.
Wake up, Western World.
If they live (the tyrants, the oppressors, the invaders, the overlords), it is only because “we the people” sleep.
This year, 64 percent of all Americans [and many others in the West] will celebrate Halloween, but I will not be one of them. For me, it is a wretched, horrible holiday that celebrates the darkest side of humanity, and it is deeply rooted in ancient pagan traditions that would get people thrown in prison if they attempted to duplicate them today.
With each passing year, the sexually suggestive costumes being marketed to our young girls become even skankier, the horror movies become darker and even more demonic, and the number of Americans that participate in occult ceremonies just continues to grow.
In fact, it has been estimated that the number of self-identified witches in the United States is doubling every 30 months. Those that are deeply into the occult take this holiday very seriously, and the dark forces that they are dealing with are very real. So no, I don’t want anything to do with this festival of death. In no particular order, the following are 18 reasons why I don’t celebrate Halloween…
1 I don’t want anyone in my family to observe a holiday that celebrates death, witchcraft and the occult. This year, millions of Americans will participate in activities that could potentially open up a door for demonic activity.
2 The average American spends $74.34 on the holiday. I would rather save the money.
3 Millions of women use Halloween as an excuse to dress like street walkers, and millions of men use Halloween as an excuse to act like sexual predators.
4 Even little girls as young as three years old are being dressed up in sexually provocative costumes. What kind of message does this send to them?
5 Dressing up little children as ghosts, demons and vampires is not healthy for them. In recent years, there has been a trend to make costumes for children as hellish as possible.
7 In ancient Britain, the festival known as Samhain was celebrated on October 31st. It was supposedly a day when dead souls would revisit their old homes. Personally, I don’t want anything to do with contacting the souls of the dead.
8 According to the History Channel, Samhain was also the day when the Druids “gathered to burn crops and animals as sacrifices to the Celtic deities”.
10 According to Wiccans, Halloween is the time when the veil between the living and the dead is considered to be the thinnest. They believe that on this day their god “dies” and is reborn every year on the Winter Solstice. This year the winter solstice falls on December 22nd.
11 In ancient times, the resurrection of the sun god required human and animal sacrifice. The following is what occult expert Bill Schnoebelen says that the Druids would do at this time of the year…
Druids worshiped the sun god, called by names like Bel (Ba’al?) or Chrom. On October 31, they believed that he died and went into the kingdom of the dead, Anwynn. The purpose of Samhain was to insure his return. Even witches admit this involved human sacrifice.
Both animal and human blood were believed to be needed to resurrect Bel on Samhain. Human blood was believed to open the gates of Anwynn and released the spirits for a night. Thus, October 31 came to be associated with ghosts. This is not just history. Samhain is still celebrated by Pagans and is the most solemn ceremony on their “religious calendar”.
12 To this day, animal torture and sacrifice is still practiced on Halloween by occultists. Many animal shelters will not adopt out black cats during the month of October for this very reason.
As a result of their efforts to wipe out “pagan” holidays, such as Samhain, the Christians succeeded in effecting major transformations in it. In 601 A.D. Pope Gregory the First issued a now famous edict to his missionaries concerning the native beliefs and customs of the peoples he hoped to convert.
Rather than try to obliterate native peoples’ customs and beliefs, the pope instructed his missionaries to use them: if a group of people worshipped a tree, rather than cut it down, he advised them to consecrate it to Christ and allow its continued worship.
The idea of trick-or-treating is further related to the ghosts of the dead in pagan, and even Catholic, history. For example, among the ancient Druids, “The ghosts that were thought to throng about the houses of the living were greeted with a banquet-laden table.
At the end of the feast, masked and costumed villagers representing the souls of the dead paraded to the outskirts of town leading the ghosts away.”
As already noted, Halloween was thought to be a night when mischievous and evil spirits roamed freely. As in modern poltergeist lore, mischievous spirits could play tricks on the living - so it was advantageous to “hide” from them by wearing costumes. Masks and costumes were worn to either scare away the ghosts or to keep from being recognized by them.
15 The tradition of carving out a “Jack-O-Lantern” also comes from paganism. The following comes from wicca.com…
Turnips were hollowed out and carved to look like protective spirits, for this was a night of magic and chaos. The Wee Folke became very active, pulling pranks on unsuspecting humans. Traveling after dark was not advised.
Here it’s a pumpkin, but in Europe it was often a turnip, or a skull with a candle in it. This serves two symbols, 1) the lord of the Dead, a “god” just like a Buddha – in short, an idol. 2) The fearsome face represented the god, Samhain, who would drive off less powerful demons that night.
The lights in the Jack-o-Lantern symbolize the “faery fires” or “Will’o the Wisps” which were believed to be the lost souls flitting through the night. They also hearken back to the huge Samhain “balefires” which were lit to help conjure back the god from the darkness.
16 On all Satanic holy days, there are children that get ritually abused. This has been documented repeatedly, and yet most people (including most Christians) don’t want to hear about it.
17 For Satanists, Halloween is one of the most important celebrations of the year. On page 96 of the Satanic Bible, Anton LaVey wrote the following…
“After one’s own birthday, the two major Satanic holidays are Walpurgisnacht (May 1st) and Halloween.”
18 The Scriptures are very clear about this sort of thing. Deuteronomy 18:9-13 says the following: “When you enter the land the Lord your God is giving you, do not learn to imitate the detestable ways of the nations there. Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults with the dead. Anyone who does these things is detestable to the Lord”.
I Am A Trans Woman – But I Think This Woke World Has Gone Too Far
November 1 2019 | From: RT / Various Trans people have lost the plot. Every day, an increasing amount of absurdity floods in as they do more harm than good.
They scream for acceptance without realizing that the ones damaging their image aren't bigots, but themselves.
From anger directed at celebrities for the rational belief that parents shouldn't decide whether their three-year-old is trans, to a culture of outrage that freaks out at the most minor of offenses, transgender activists have become detrimental to my, and others', very existence.
Not helping matters is the fact that these people are laying bombs within our language in the hope they trigger, so they themselves can become triggered. Saying 'transgendered' instead of 'transgender' can see you labeled as transphobic, as can saying 'transwomen' instead of 'trans (notice the space) women.'
Important Note: Historically there are people who have truly felt that they were born into a body of the wrong gender.
The problem we are faced with today is that, in line with stated objectives of the 'New World Order' doctrines - they have clearly stated that they want to destroy the family unit, encourage sexual promiscuity and basically confuse and debase society as a whole:
"In order to achieve their aims [the Cabal] they are corrupting societies across the globe: Breakdown the family unit, breakdown national pride, destroy the educational system with common core, promote sexual promiscuity, deviance, pedophilia, abortion, a drug culture.
Co-opt and corrupt political leaders with bribes. Set hybrid wars and color revolutions in place in all countries that are not towing the line. Undermine and discredit the values, morals and teachings of all religions and where possible turn believers into murderous intolerant fanatics who go on genocide missions.”
"The hidden goal of feminism is to destroy the family, which interferes with state brainwashing of the young. Side benefits include depopulation and widening the tax base. Displacing men in the role of providers also destabilizes the family."
The merging of sexes and sexuality also plays into the transhumanist agenda of the cabal. It has been discovered that specific toxins and chemical agents have been introduced into the environment and everyday products that contribute specifically towards the rise in sexual confusion and 'transgenderism' that we see happening all around is every day.
This is a linguistic minefield with the sole intent of catching people off guard. And those who are caught in its blast are branded as bigots.
This concept is nonsensical, as it's one thing to correct someone who made a grammatical mistake, but another thing altogether to get outright offended when someone makes a simple error, and that's what is occurring.
A turn of events which only pushes people away as no one wants to associate with a group of people who become so easily upset.
Hampering things even further is the fact that the once-radical portion of the left has seemingly taken control, and now no one can speak up lest they become a target for the vitriol and abuse of which this conglomerate is composed.
How do I know this? Because I'm a trans person myself, and my reward for speaking with rationality is to be labeled a 'self-loathing, bootlicking, trans-misogynistic terf.'
And if I can be called a transphobe, then your normal human being doesn't stand a chance – especially in an era when people are pushing an agenda that suggests you better suck d**k or you're a bigot.
I desperately wish I was making that last bit up.
In late August, journalist – or, let's be real – outrage merchant, Ana Valens, went on a tirade over at the Daily Dot about how it was transphobic to decline sex with a trans person on the basis that they are trans.
Likewise, just last week, women's competitive cyclist Rachel McKinnon made multiple claims that are outright audacious. In one instance, she said"genital preferences are transphobic," and in another she boldly expressed that any sexual orientation other than pansexuality is immoral.
The media warned us that the recent release of 'Joker' was going to lead to an incel uprising, but I don't think they meant it quite like this.
Trans people want all the compassion and acceptance in the world, yet in many cases they're not willing to be equally as understanding. Last year, the flames of fury flared up when a woman named Kristi Hanna filed a human rights complaint against a women's shelter after she was forced to share a room with a transgender woman in Toronto.
Many people took it at face value and levied all sorts of hate at her, but the actual situation is more complex. Hanna is a rape victim, and her roommate was a pre-op trans woman who wasn't yet far enough into their transition to be passable, or even fully presentable. As was described by Ms Hanna, her roommate was male-bodied with facial and chest hair.
Now maybe it's because I'm a rape victim who battles my own forms of PTSD, but I too would be triggered by sharing a room with a complete stranger who looks like a man. I don't care what they identify as. In regards to Kristi Hanna, that's exactly what happened.
As was reported by the National Post, the sharing of a room with someone who looked like a man caused her "stress, anxiety, rape flashbacks, symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder, and sleep deprivation."
When she reported this to the shelter staff, they offered to move her to a new room, but it lacked a door, therefore allowing no privacy, so she left the shelter altogether.
Yet to the trans community, none of that mattered, and Kristi was raked over the coals. Even I was attacked for trying to defend her. Worse still is the fact that shelters which exclude trans women are now being vandalized. Never mind that they help women who need it.
To the petulant children who make up what I call the 'pronoun police,' all they can think of is their own selfish and self-centric world views.
Few in this 'community,' to which I've been forcefully tied, seem to have any basic understanding of the various reasons why our presence may be triggering to some, especially in a women's shelter that houses rape victims.
It shouldn't take a big brain to see why a male-looking individual with a floppy penis may not be the best fit.
A fact of reality is that I was born a boy. Even now, post-hormone replacement therapy, I have masculine traits that will never go away. When I die, if far off into the future I'm dug up, my bones will have archeologists pegging me as male, not female.
I bring that analogy up because many trans people seem to deny they were born as the gender opposite of what they identify as. But I am not 100 percent female, and I never will be.
I'll never have a period, although some smooth-brained idiots like to argue that "some women have issues that prevent them from having periods, so does that mean you're saying they're not women too?"
No, that's not what that means. It means I have a d**k and no potential even exists for me to have a period. Because, unlike biological women who may have conditions that effect how their bodies work, they still have the proper bodies of the sex it happens to be.
I don't. My chromosomes are XY, and I was born a boy. I'll never have to worry about cervical cancer, though when I'm older I will want to have my prostate checked.
None of this means trans people shouldn't be respected as the gender they present themselves as. We are anomalies in that our brains for some reason developed on a course which differs from what our chromosomes dictate.
I'm not going to call being trans a mental illness, but it is an issue that stems from the brain. Even scans of that organ reveal people like me have brains more closely resembling the gender we present ourselves to be, and due to that, I'm a proponent of supporting transitioning, but that support comes with some caveats.
I, for one, don't think trans women should be competing against cis women in competitive sports. At least, not outside of specialized leagues where everyone consents to trans women being allowed.
In normal events, we are seeing trans people destroy records in track, weightlifting, and other events, and that is not fair to biological females.
I'm also opposed to letting kids take various meds. By all means, if your child is trans, it's for the best to support and love them, but growing up is a confusing time, and it's maybe not a good idea to let them begin a full-on transition.
These days it's simply too easy to get a diagnosis of gender dysphoria, and I fear the repercussions.
I have zero doubts in my mind that soon enough we will have teens and adults stepping forward who were convinced they were trans at a young age, only to grow up and realize they aren't.
Some boys are just effeminate and some girls are just a bit masculine, but today, society is going out of its way to tell them they're trans.
A scary thought for a community that seems to already run on fear.
In 2017, the Southern Poverty Law Center sent out a tweet linking an article about transgender hate murders. In a follow up tweet, they listed names of all the trans people who had been murdered that year.
The placement of the names below an article about hate murders seems to imply all of the listed names were the victims of hate crimes.
As is so often the case, this isn't true. Of the names listed, three stand out. Sean Hake, Kiwi Herring, and Scout Schultz. What's important about these people is that they weren't killed for anything related to their gender identities.
Yet the trans individuals' deaths are tallied and used as examples of a rising trend in the murder of transgender people – a trend that has been occurring for years.
What's most disingenuous is that, in many cases, there's little to no proof that their murders are linked to their status of being trans. Some are sex workers in dangerous areas where cis women are also found murdered each year, or they're just victims of normal everyday violence.
It sucks, but a lot of people just happen to get shot in the United States, and for a myriad of reasons.
Just this year, Claire Legato, a trans woman in Ohio, was shot dead after her mother got into an altercation with a man in their yard about an issue relating to theft. Jordan Cofer, also from Ohio, was tragically killed when a gunman went on a mass shooting in Dayton.
These two deaths are included on the Human Rights Campaign's list of "violence against the transgender community."The list ends with this sentence: "HRC has been tracking reports of fatal anti-transgender violence for the past several years."
"Anti-transgender" violence. Hmm, weird, I didn't know the Dayton, Ohio gunman did all that for a single person.
Even in cases where a transgender person kills themselves, if an agenda can be pushed, this community will immediately take a still-warm corpse and bludgeon people with it.
This week, comedian and actress Daphne Dorman took her own life. She was cited by Dave Chappelle in his most recent Netflix standup as the person who "was laughing the hardest" at his trans jokes. In case you're unaware, this is the standup special that caused many in the media to cry foul and call Chapelle 'transphobic.'
In 2017, at the HRC National Dinner, president Chad Griffin gave an eye-opening speech. He began by thanking Hillary Clinton who had a speaking role that year, before then repeatedly emphasizing how things for LGBT individuals were much brighter under Obama. This is important because the HRC is a major supporter of Democratic candidates and politicians.
He eventually went on to discuss 'HRC Rising,' or what he labeled as the single largest grassroots expansion in the organization's history.
This was important to him, as he proceeded to say: "It's critical we organize and mobilize the 10 million-plus LGBTQ voters in this country. Which by the way, is a voting bloc that is larger than the margin of victory of every presidential election since 1984."
For a couple years now, this speech hasn't sat well with me. I look at our media landscape and watch as fearmongering rules the day. A narrative has been created which paints anyone on the right as a hateful bigot, and has gay and trans people fearful that they're going to die.
Trans lists over-conflate and simplify the reasons people are murdered. Comedians are blamed for suicides that have nothing to do with anything they've done.
And anyone who so much as questions the absurdity of what's happening is torn down, and labeled every negative thing that will stick.
Why this keeps happening is clear. An environment has been created that is pushing people to conform to a particular mindset by brute-force scare tactics, and this is inevitably convincing them to vote a certain way.
The left is ruling by division and fear. Browse social media and the trans-death stat is cited ad nauseam.
These people legitimately believe they're going to die. All the while, the actual issues that caused those deaths aren't being discussed.
Inner city crime and prostitution are big factors, as is poor mental health. I mean, sane people don't go charging at police with knives.
Yet those issues don't get blamed, nor are they being adequately discussed. Daphne Dorman, in these people's eyes, didn't join the 41 percent because she had deep-rooted issues. No, it's Chappelle's fault. It's the right's fault. It's the bigot's fault.
And as a right-leaning individual myself, who also happens to be trans, I know this to be false. I'm embraced by my community. They aren't transphobic, they don't want me dead; they just have issues with much of the same stuff I do.
A lot of trans people call me a self-loather, but I don't loathe myself, nor do I loathe the fact that I'm trans.
I just loathe the community I've been forcefully grouped into, and I think it's understandable why a lot of other people do too.
Trannies and their allies are now their own worst enemies, but unlike them, I refuse to shoot myself in the foot.
Freemasonry: Mankind’s Death Wish
October 31 2019 | From: VeteransToday / Various The source of the world's problems: The Gentile "leadership" has been chosen for its willingness to sell its soul to Cabalist central bankers by joining Freemasonry, which is Judaism for Gentiles.
As we have demonstrated in the past, any categorical and metaphysical denial of the moral order will inexorably lead to radical deceptions and sometimes covert operations.
Freemasonry, as a secret society and judaizing movement, is not only part of those deceptions but is congruent with Jewish magic and mysticism.
Only those in the upper echelon actually know what is exactly going on. As Jones documents:
“The deeper the adept penetrates, the more Talmudic are the mysteries revealed to him. The Rosicrusian, for example, is taught the inscription INRI which was nailed to the Cross means not Iesus Nazarensis Rex Iudeorum, but rather the ‘Iew of Nazareth Led into Iudea,’ a reading which deprives Christ of his divinity and reasserts the Talmudic calumny that Christ was a common criminal who deserved to be executed:
“‘As soon as the candidate has proved that he understands the Masonic meaning of this inscription INRI, the Master exclaims, My dear Brethren, the word is found again, and all present applaud this luminous discovery, that - He whose death was the consummation and the grand mystery of the Christian Religion was no more than a common Jew crucified for his crimes.’
“To be initiated into the higher degrees of Freemasonry, the adept must agree to become an assassin of the assassin of Adoniram. He must be willing to assassinate Christ and his representatives on earth. The revolutionary intent of Freemasonry becomes clear when the adept is informed that he must be willing to kill the king. Mystical Masonry is synonymous with Revolution. ”
Quoting Barruel, Jones writes:
“When the adept sallies forth from the cavern with the reeking head, he cries Nekom (I have killed him)….
“The adept is informed that till now he has only been partially admitted to the truth; that Equality and Liberty, which had constituted the first secret on his admission into Masonry, consisted in recognizing no superior on earth, and in viewing Kings and Pontiffs in another light than as men on a level with their fellow men, having no rights to sit on the throne, or to serve at the altar, but what the people had granted them.”
What a coincidence that Aleister Crowley, a 33rd degree mason who ended up having a master effect on pop music, who held “group orgies” as part of his regular rituals (including small children), and who ended up influencing sex perverts such as Alfred Kinsey, also performed similar rituals.
Some scholars would point out that “Rosicrucianism played an important role in the formation of Freemasonry.”
If that is the case, then we have another piece of evidence on our hands which clearly indicates that a marriage between Freemasonry and Rosicrucianism is almost unavoidable.
Both Freemasonry and Rosicrucianism, at their eventual root, sought to denigrate and attack Logos and this was very important during the French Revolution.
Since that was the case, again the marriage between the French Revolution and Jewish movements were two sides of the same coin. Isaac M. Wise wrote in 1866 that “Masonry is a Jewish institution, whose history, degrees, charges, passwords and explanations are Jewish from beginning to end.”
Henry Makow will enlighten us more on this issue.
Henry Makow: The source of the world’s problems: The Gentile “leadership” has been chosen for its willingness to sell its soul to Cabalist central bankers by joining Freemasonry, which is Judaism for Gentiles.
Architects of Deception, (2004) a 600-page history of Freemasonry by Estonian writer Jyri Lina offers profound insight into the true character of modern history.
Essentially, a dominant segment of Western society has joined the Khazarian financial elite in embracing Freemasonry, a satanic philosophy that represents a death wish for civilization.
They imagine somehow they will profit from the oppression, lies and suffering caused by their Communist “New World Order.”
Incredible, bizarre and depressing as it sounds, Lina writes that 300 mainly Jewish banking families have used Freemasonry as an instrument to subvert, control and degrade the Western world.
This view is consistent with the 1938 NKVD interrogation of an illuminati member who names many of these banking families and confirms that Freemasons are expendable tools.
Based on the archives of the powerful French Grand Orient Lodge, captured in June 1940 and later made public by the Russians, Lina details how Freemasonry has conspired for world domination and orchestrated all major revolutions and wars in the modern era. (Lina, p.332)
Masons, often Jewish, are responsible for communism, Zionism, socialism, liberalism (and feminism.) They love big government because it is the ultimate monopoly. “World government” (dictatorship) is the final trophy.
These “world revolutionary” “progressive” movements all mirror Lucifer’s rebellion against the laws of God and nature which is at the heart of Freemasonry.
They ensnare millions of gullible idealists by promising a utopia based on materialism and “reason” and dedicated to “liberty, equality and fraternity,” “public ownership” or some other idealistic sounding claptrap. It’s called bait-and-switch.
According to Lina: “The primary aim of modern freemasonry is to build the New World Order, a spiritual Temple of Solomon, where non-members are nothing but slaves [and] …where human beings would be sacrificed to Yahweh.” (52)
Lina cites numerous Jewish sources that claim Freemasonry is based on Judaism and is “the executive political organ of the Jewish financial elite.” (81-83)
The common goal of these Masonic inspired movements is to undermine religion, nation and family by promoting social division, self-indulgence and “tolerance” i.e. nihilism, globalism, sexual “liberation” and homosexuality thereby reducing humanity to a uniform dysfunctional and malleable mush.
Lina and others who attempt to alert humanity to its real condition are routinely slandered as anti-Semitic, fascist, and right wing “haters” by people indirectly employed by the bankers.
This tactic shields the conspirators from scrutiny and makes discussion of our grim predicament impossible.
I am a Jew. I am not part of this banking monopoly, nor is the majority of Jews. By way of analogy, the mafia is considered mostly Italian but most Italians do not belong to the mafia.
On the other hand, Italians don’t viciously attack opponents of organized crime and call them “racists” and “hate mongers”. That would look awfully suspicious. Jews compromise themselves by their defense of the Masonic Jewish bankers and their perverse vision for humanity.
The Khazarian Ideology
We cannot understand the modern world unless we appreciate that it is the result of the Masonic conspiracy. People scoff yet the evidence stares them in the face every day.
Lina believes, “Freemasonry plays the same role in Western society as the Communist Party did in the Soviet Union. Without belonging to the freemasonry there is no chance of a fast career, regardless of how talented one is.”
Keep in mind that Communism was a Masonic enterprise and the puzzle starts to take shape.
Lina says Freemasons not only control politics but also virtually every sector of Western society, including science and culture. “The present cultural life has become virtually unconscious,” he writes. “We have witnessed the beginning of cultural senility.” (333)
In his pamphlet “The Open Conspiracy: Blueprint for a World Revolution” (1929) the Freemason H.G. Wells describes an “open secret society” consisting of society’s leading men operating as a hidden force to secure world resources, reduce population through war and replace the nation state with world dictatorship. (340)
Human beings are naturally attracted to good and repulsed by evil. Thus evil always represents itself as good.
To the public, and its own lower ranks, Freemasonry pretends to be dedicated to “making good men better”, humanism, tolerance, and you-name-it.
If this were true, would they have to extract vows of secrecy from members on pain of slitting their throat? Would they have been condemned by many Popes and banned from numerous countries? (84)
I do not wish to impugn the many good and decent men in the lower “Blue Degrees” who are unaware of Freemasonry’s true function and character.
But there is abundant evidence and testimony that Freemasonry is a satanic cult dedicated to the worship of death. (134-138)
For example, when the Italian Grand Orient Lodge was evicted from the Palazzio Borghese in Rome in 1893, the owner found a shrine dedicated to Satan.
The Italian freemasons published a newspaper in the 1880s where they admitted time and again, “Our leader is Satan!” (135)
The Masons also admit to having a revolutionary political agenda.
Typical of statements Lina cites from Masonic publications is the following from a German magazine in 1910: “The driving thought is at all times focused on destruction and annihilation, because the power of this great secret society can only rise from the ruins of the existing order of society.” (272)
The Illuminist Conspiracy is the brake responsible for humanity’s arrested development. Mankind resembles a person suffering from a serious disease and sinking into a coma.
Juri Lina, left, has written a courageous book to revive us. He says we face “the largest spiritual crisis in the history of mankind…They have taken our history, our dignity, our wisdom and our honor, sense of responsibility, spiritual insights and our traditions.”
We are partly to blame, he says: “We have failed to act against the Masonic madness due to our enormous gullibility. We have been totally fooled and ignored the warning signals.”(274)
He ends on a hopeful note, saying evil is dysfunctional and inevitably destroys itself. “Freemasonry carries within it the seeds of its own destruction.” (563)
Wars, revolutions and depressions are all part of a “revolutionary” process designed to frogmarch humanity to “world government” under the rubric of Freemasonry which may be a surrogate for an alliance of occult Khazarian and gentile financial elites.
Their “self-destruction” seems to be our best hope since the public is too feckless and weak to resist.
Sometimes, my brain seems to alternate between depressive and anxious episodes.
I feel like I’m always trading off one for the other, rarely experiencing a “good” day where both remain relatively quiet. If my anxiety isn’t kicking into high-gear, my depression is, and vice versa.
But oftentimes, these two demons will sync up together, both awakening from their slumbers simultaneously to go to war with each other with the intention of making my life a personal living hell.
Anxiety and Depression Essentially Function as Opposites to Each Other
This is a bit of an oversimplification, but generally, anxiety can be understood as an overactive mind and depression as an under-active mind.
I have mostly learned how to cope when one or the other takes over, but what continues to challenge me is when the two strike at the same time.
Anxiety wants me to get up. If I don’t get up, someone will be disappointed, or I’ll miss a deadline, or everyone will think I’m lazy, or I’ll just keep spiraling and spiraling and spiraling.
Depression doesn’t let me get up. If I get up, I’ll have to fake a smile at everyone, or I’ll just hurt more people, or I won’t be able to focus because who can focus on anything when everything you do feels utterly meaningless?
When both flare up at the same time, I’m rendered totally and completely useless. Although my mind may be going a million miles a minute and I want nothing more than to be productive so I can ease some of the tension of worrying over my responsibilities, I physically can’t bring myself to get up.
I can’t move forward because for every racing thought, there is a rope holding it back.
It hurts my head - it feels like my brain is literally pushing against my skull with nowhere to go. It’s dizzying and disorienting; and most of all, it is endlessly frustrating.
It makes the simplest tasks impossible and I just want to scream at myself “WHY CAN’T YOU JUST DO THE THING?”
Dealing with the guilt is the hardest part because there’s nothing I can do but feel every painful sting of it. I WANT to be able to just function properly, but I can’t, and it makes me feel like the world’s biggest failure of a person.
Objectively, I know my brain is sick and that makes doing some things more difficult for me. But even so, I cannot escape the crushing weight of guilt for not being able to act like a “normal” person who can just DO “normal” things.
There’s a siren going off telling me to get my responsibilities done, but there’s also a voice shouting that nothing I do matters so just roll over and die already, and the noise inside my brain leaves me completely paralyzed.
I’m still learning how to cope with when these two opposing forces in my head go up against each other. All I’ve really learned is that there’s nothing to do but go through it.
I try to be gentle with myself, remembering that [perhaps] there are chemicals out of place in my brain and I am not a bad person for that.
Speaking kindly to yourself when you’re fighting mental illness is a lot easier said than done, but I’m trying.
The Origins Of Political Correctness
October 29 2019 | From: Academia / Various Where does all this stuff that you’ve heard about this morning – the victim feminism, the gay rights movement, the invented statistics, the rewritten history, the lies, the demands, all the rest of it – where does it come from?
For the first time in our history, westerners have to be fearful of what they say, of what they write, and of what they think. They have to be afraid of using the wrong word, a word denounced as offensive or insensitive, or racist, sexist, or homophobic.
We have seen other countries, particularly in this century, where this has been the case. And we have always regarded them with a mixture of pity, and to be truthful, some amusement, because it has struck us as so strange that people would allow a situation to develop where they would be afraid of what words they used.
But we now have this situation in this country. We have it primarily on college campuses, but it is spreading throughout the whole society. Were does it come from? What is it?
We call it “Political Correctness.” The name originated as something of a joke, literally in a comic strip, and we tend still to think of it as only half-serious. In fact, it’s deadly serious.
It is the great disease of our century, the disease that has left tens of millions of people dead in Europe, in Russia, in China, indeed around the world. It is the disease of ideology. PC is not funny. PC is deadly serious.
If we look at it analytically, if we look at it historically, we quickly find out exactly what it is. Political Correctness is cultural Marxism. It is Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms.
It is an effort that goes back not to the 1960s and the hippies and the peace movement, but back to World War I. If we compare the basic tenets of Political Correctness with classical Marxism the parallels are very obvious.
First of all, both are totalitarian ideologies.
The totalitarian nature of Political Correctness is revealed nowhere more clearly than on college campuses, many of which at this point are small ivy covered North Koreas, where the student or faculty member who dares to cross any of the lines set up by the gender feminist or the homosexual-rights activists, or the local black or Hispanic group, or any of the other sainted “victims” groups that PC revolves around, quickly find themselves in judicial trouble.
Within the small legal system of the college, they face formal charges – some star-chamber proceeding – and punishment. That is a little look into the future that Political Correctness intends for the nation as a whole.
Indeed, all ideologies are totalitarian because the essence of an ideology (I would note that conservatism correctly understood is not an ideology) is to take some philosophy and say on the basis of this philosophy certain things must be true – such as the whole of the history of our culture is the history of the oppression of women.
Since reality contradicts that, reality must be forbidden. It must become forbidden to acknowledge the reality of our history.
People must be forced to live a lie, and since people are naturally reluctant to live a lie, they naturally use their ears and eyes to look out and say, “Wait a minute. This isn’t true. I can see it isn’t true,” the power of the state must be put behind the demand to live a lie.
That is why ideology invariably creates a totalitarian state.
Second, the cultural Marxism of Political Correctness, like economic Marxism, has a single factor explanation of history. Economic Marxism says that all of history is determined by ownership of means of production.
Cultural Marxism, or Political Correctness, says that all history is determined by power, by which groups defined in terms of race, sex, etc., have power over which other groups. Nothing else matters. All literature, indeed, is about that. Everything in the past is about that one thing.
Third, just as in classical economic Marxism certain groups, i.e. workers and peasants, are a priori good, and other groups, i.e., the bourgeoisie and capital owners, are evil. In the cultural Marxism of Political Correctness certain groups are good – feminist women, (only feminist women, non-feminist women are deemed not to exist) blacks, Hispanics, homosexuals.
These groups are determined to be “victims,” and therefore automatically good regardless of what any of them do. Similarly, white males are determined automatically to be evil, thereby becoming the equivalent of the bourgeoisie in economic Marxism.
Fourth, both economic and cultural Marxism rely on expropriation. When the classical Marxists, the communists, took over a country like Russia, they expropriated the bourgeoisie, they took away their property. Similarly, when the cultural Marxists take over a university campus, they expropriate through things like quotas for admissions.
When a white student with superior qualifications is denied admittance to a college in favor of a black or Hispanic who isn’t as well qualified, the white student is expropriated. And indeed, affirmative action, in our whole society today, is a system of expropriation.
White owned companies don’t get a contract because the contract is reserved for a company owned by, say, Hispanics or women. So expropriation is a principle tool for both forms of Marxism.
And finally, both have a method of analysis that automatically gives the answers they want. For the classical Marxist, it’s Marxist economics. For the cultural Marxist, it’s deconstruction.
Deconstruction essentially takes any text, removes all meaning from it and re-inserts any meaning desired. So we find, for example, that all of Shakespeare is about the suppression of women, or the Bible is really about race and gender.
All of these texts simply become grist for the mill, which proves that “all history is about which groups have power over which other groups.”
So the parallels are very evident between the classical Marxism that we’re familiar with in the old Soviet Union and the cultural Marxism that we see today as Political Correctness.
But the parallels are not accidents. The parallels did not come from nothing. The fact of the matter is that Political Correctness has a history, a history that is much longer than many people are aware of outside a small group of academics who have studied this.
And the history goes back, as I said, to World War I, as do so many of the pathologies that are today bringing our society, and indeed our culture, down.
Marxist theory said that when the general European war came (as it did come in Europe in 1914), the working class throughout Europe would rise up and overthrow their governments – the bourgeois governments – because the workers had more in common with each other across the national boundaries than they had in common with the bourgeoisie and the ruling class in their own country. Well, 1914 came and it didn’t happen.
Throughout Europe, workers rallied to their flag and happily marched off to fight each other. The Kaiser shook hands with the leaders of the Marxist Social Democratic Party in Germany and said there are no parties now, there are only Germans. And this happened in every country in Europe. So something was wrong.
Marxists knew by definition it couldn’t be the theory. In 1917, they finally got a Marxist coup in Russia and it looked like the theory was working, but it stalled again.
It didn’t spread and when attempts were made to spread immediately after the war, with the Spartacist uprising in Berlin, with the Bela Kun government in Hungary, with the Munich Soviet, the workers didn’t support them.
So the Marxists’ had a problem. And two Marxist theorists went to work on it: Antonio Gramsci in Italy and Georg Lukacs in Hungary.
Gramsci said the workers will never see their true class interests, as defined by Marxism, until they are freed from Western culture, and particularly from the Christian religion – that they are blinded by culture and religion to their true class interests.
Lukacs, who was considered the most brilliant Marxist theorist since Marx himself, said in 1919, “Who will save us from Western Civilization?” He also theorized that the great obstacle to the creation of a Marxist paradise was the culture: Western civilization itself.
Lukacs gets a chance to put his ideas into practice, because when the home grown Bolshevik Bela Kun government is established in Hungary in 1919, he becomes deputy commissar for culture, and the first thing he did was introduce sex education into the Hungarian schools.
This ensured that the workers would not support the Bela Kun government, because the Hungarian people looked at this aghast, workers as well as everyone else. But he had already made the connection that today many of us are still surprised by, that we would consider the “latest thing.”
In 1923 in Germany, a think-tank is established that takes on the role of translating Marxism from economic into cultural terms, that creates Political Correctness as we know it today, and essentially it has created the basis for it by the end of the 1930s.
This comes about because the very wealthy young son of a millionaire German trader by the name of Felix Weil has become a Marxist and has lots of money to spend. He is disturbed by the divisions among the Marxists, so he sponsors something called the First Marxist Work Week, where he brings Lukacs and many of the key German thinkers together for a week, working on the differences of Marxism.
And he says, “What we need is a think-tank.” Washington is full of think tanks and we think of them as very modern. In fact they go back quite a ways.
He endows an institute, associated with Frankfurt University, established in 1923, that was originally supposed to be known as the Institute for Marxism.
But the people behind it decided at the beginning that it was not to their advantage to be openly identified as Marxist. The last thing Political Correctness wants is for people to figure out it’s a form of Marxism. So instead they decide to name it the Institute for Social Research.
Weil is very clear about his goals. In 1917, he wrote to Martin Jay the author of a principle book on the Frankfurt School, as the Institute for Social Research soon becomes known informally, and he said, “I wanted the institute to become known, perhaps famous, due to its contributions to Marxism.”
Well, he was successful. The first director of the Institute, Carl Grunberg, an Austrian economist, concluded his opening address, according to Martin Jay, “by clearly stating his personal allegiance to Marxism as a scientific methodology.” Marxism, he said, would be the ruling principle at the Institute, and that never changed.
The initial work at the Institute was rather conventional, but in 1930 it acquired a new director named Max Horkheimer, and Horkheimer’s views were very different. He was very much a Marxist renegade. The people who create and form the Frankfurt School are renegade Marxists.
They’re still very much Marxist in their thinking, but they’re effectively run out of the party. Moscow looks at what they are doing and says, “Hey, this isn’t us, and we’re not going to bless this.”
Horkheimer’s initial heresy is that he is very interested in Freud, and the key to making the translation of Marxism from economic into cultural terms is essentially that he combined it with Freudism.
Again, Martin Jay writes:
“If it can be said that in the early years of its history, the Institute concerned itself primarily with an analysis of bourgeois society’s socio-economic sub-structure,” – and I point out that Jay is very sympathetic to the Frankfurt School, I’m not reading from a critic here – “in the years after 1930 its primary interests lay in its cultural superstructure.
Indeed the traditional Marxist formula regarding the relationship between the two was brought into question by Critical Theory.”
The stuff we’ve been hearing about – the radical feminism, the women’s studies departments, the gay studies departments, the black studies departments – all these things are branches of Critical Theory.
What the Frankfurt School essentially does is draw on both Marx and Freud in the 1930s to create this theory called Critical Theory. The term is ingenious because you’re tempted to ask, “What is the theory?” The theory is to criticize.
The theory is that the way to bring down Western culture and the capitalist order is not to lay down an alternative. They explicitly refuse to do that. They say it can’t be done, that we can’t imagine what a free society would look like (their definition of a free society).
As long as we’re living under repression – the repression of a capitalistic economic order which creates (in their theory) the Freudian condition, the conditions that Freud describes in individuals of repression – we can’t even imagine it.
What Critical Theory is about is simply criticizing. It calls for the most destructive criticism possible, in every possible way, designed to bring the current order down.
And, of course, when we hear from the feminists that the whole of society is just out to get women and so on, that kind of criticism is a derivative of Critical Theory. It is all coming from the 1930s, not the 1960s.
Other key members who join up around this time are Theodore Adorno, and, most importantly, Erich Fromm and Herbert Marcuse.
Fromm and Marcuse introduce an element which is central to Political Correctness, and that’s the sexual element. And particularly Marcuse, who in his own writings calls for a society of “polymorphous perversity,” that is his definition of the future of the world that they want to create.
Marcuse in particular by the 1930s is writing some very extreme stuff on the need for sexual liberation, but this runs through the whole Institute. So do most of the themes we see in Political Correctness, again in the early 30s. In Fromm’s view, masculinity and femininity were not reflections of ‘essential’ sexual differences, as the Romantics had thought.
They were derived instead from differences in life functions, which were in part socially determined. Sex is a construct; sexual differences are a construct.
Another example is the emphasis we now see on environmentalism.
“Materialism as far back as Hobbes had led to a manipulative dominating attitude toward nature.” That was Horkhemier writing in 1933 in Materialismus und Moral.
“The theme of man’s domination of nature,” according to Jay, ” was to become a central concern of the Frankfurt School in subsequent years.”
“Horkheimer’s antagonism to the fetishization of labor, (here’s were they’re obviously departing from Marxist orthodoxy) expressed another dimension of his materialism, the demand for human, sensual happiness.”
In one of his most trenchant essays, Egoism and the Movement for Emancipation, written in 1936, Horkeimer “discussed the hostility to personal gratification inherent in bourgeois culture.”
And he specifically referred to the Marquis de Sade, favorably, for his “protest…against asceticism in the name of a higher morality.”
How does all of this stuff flood in here? How does it flood into our universities, and indeed into our lives today?
The members of the Frankfurt School are Marxist, they are also, to a man, Jewish. In 1933 the Nazis came to power in Germany, and not surprisingly they shut down the Institute for Social Research. And its members fled.
KGB Defector Yuri Bezmenov's Warning to America
29 years ago, Soviet defector and KGB operative Yuri Bezmenov, specializing in the fields of Marxist-Leninist propaganda and ideological subversion; warned us about the silent war being waged against America as part of a long term plan to take over and destroy the American system and way of life.
Watch this clip in amazement as you realize he is describing exactly what's happening in America today, where by Obama and his gang of Marxist usurpers [this part is historical, obviously] who now have control of your government are just the culmination of a very long term plan, but are the ones who are about to bring it into fruition.
Bezmenov was born in 1939 in Mytishchi, near Moscow to a high ranking Soviet Army officer. At the age of seventeen, he entered the Institute of Oriental Languages, a part of the Moscow State University which was under the direct control of the KGB and the Communist Central Committee. In addition to languages, he studied history, literature, and music, and became an expert on Indian culture.
During his second year, Bezmenov sought to look like a person from India; his teachers encouraged this because graduates of the school were employed as diplomats, foreign journalists, or spies.
As a Soviet student, he was also required to take compulsory military training in which he was taught how to play "strategic war games" using the maps of foreign countries, as well as how to interrogate prisoners of war.
They fled to New York City, and the Institute was reestablished there in 1933 with help from Columbia University. And the members of the Institute, gradually through the 1930s, though many of them remained writing in German, shift their focus from Critical Theory about German society, destructive criticism about every aspect of that society, to Critical Theory directed toward American society.
There is another very important transition when the war comes. Some of them go to work for the government, including Herbert Marcuse, who became a key figure in the OSS (the predecessor to the CIA), and some, including Horkheimer and Adorno, move to Hollywood.
These origins of Political Correctness would probably not mean too much to us today except for two subsequent events. The first was the student rebellion in the mid-1960s, which was driven largely by resistance to the draft and the Vietnam War.
But the student rebels needed theory of some sort. They couldn’t just get out there and say, “Hell no we won’t go,” they had to have some theoretical explanation behind it. Very few of them were interested in wading through Das Kapital.
Classical, economic Marxism is not light, and most of the radicals of the 60s were not deep. Fortunately for them, and unfortunately for our country today, and not just in the university, Herbert Marcuse remained in America when the Frankfurt School relocated back to Frankfurt after the war.
And whereas Mr. Adorno in Germany is appalled by the student rebellion when it breaks out there – when the student rebels come into Adorno’s classroom, he calls the police and has them arrested – Herbert Marcuse, who remained here, saw the 60s student rebellion as the great chance.
He saw the opportunity to take the work of the Frankfurt School and make it the theory of the New Left in the United States.
One of Marcuse’s books was the key book. It virtually became the bible of the SDS and the student rebels of the 60s. That book was Eros and Civilization. Marcuse argues that under a capitalistic order (he downplays the Marxism very strongly here, it is subtitled, A Philosophical Inquiry into Freud, but the framework is Marxist), repression is the essence of that order and that gives us the person Freud describes – the person with all the hang-ups, the neuroses, because his sexual instincts are repressed.
We can envision a future, if we can only destroy this existing oppressive order, in which we liberate eros, we liberate libido, in which we have a world of “polymorphous perversity,” in which you can “do you own thing.” And by the way, in that world there will no longer be work, only play.
What a wonderful message for the radicals of the mid-60s! They’re students, they’re baby-boomers, and they’ve grown up never having to worry about anything except eventually having to get a job.
And here is a guy writing in a way they can easily follow. He doesn’t require them to read a lot of heavy Marxism and tells them everything they want to hear which is essentially, “Do your own thing,” “If it feels good do it,” and “You never have to go to work.”
By the way, Marcuse is also the man who creates the phrase, “Make love, not war.”
Coming back to the situation people face on campus, Marcuse defines “liberating tolerance” as intolerance for anything coming from the Right and tolerance for anything coming from the Left. Marcuse joined the Frankfurt School, in 1932 (if I remember right). So, all of this goes back to the 1930s.
In conclusion, America [the West] today is in the throes of the greatest and direst transformation in its history. We are becoming an ideological state, a country with an official state ideology enforced by the power of the state.
In “hate crimes” we now have people serving jail sentences for political thoughts.
And the Congress is now moving to expand that category ever further. Affirmative action is part of it.
The terror against anyone who dissents from Political Correctness on campus is part of it. It’s exactly what we have seen happen in Russia, in Germany, in Italy, in China, and now it’s coming here.
And we don’t recognize it because we call it Political Correctness and laugh it off.
My message today is that it’s not funny, it’s here, it’s growing and it will eventually destroy, as it seeks to destroy, everything that we have ever defined as our freedom and our culture.
Is A False Flag Attack On Seattle About To Happen?
October 28 2019 | From: KochenMitWilli
Forewarning or predictive programming? Whatever the case - one week to go. This needs to be shared far and wide.
This may sound a little loopy but it is seriously recommended that you take the time to watch this very well researched video.
It has been shown very clearly that the 911 attacks were foreshadowed in mainstream entertainment for many years. If you were not already aware of this, then the following video will certainly erase any doubt.
By now we know very well that the 'cabal' often plan certain events very well ahead of time, and nearly always with multiple objectives to be achieved as the outcome of any particular event.
The scary thing is that the foreshadowing of an event in Seattle on November 3 2019 - has been telegraphed for some time - and in exactly the same way that 911 was.
And so this is cause for alarm. However, awareness is key. If, indeed as it appears, that en event has been planned to take place in Seattle thjis coming November 3 - then if enough awareness is generated about this possibility then the plug will have to be pulled.
If you understand the dark religion of the Illuminati, then you will know that they understand that in order for their 'magik' to work they have to follow certain rules. A key one is that they cannot violate free will and therefore must make their plans known.
They do this via devious means, such as the foreshadowing techniques as shown in the following video. They get around the free-will problem but shoving their plans right in front of the noses of the sheeple.
And if the masses are too stupid to figure it out and wise up - then this is equates to tacit
It would appear that it took 911 and subsequent events to really bring this point into awareness. Let's not be fooled again ahead of time. Heads up.
The DOJ's Russiagate Probe Just Turned Into A Criminal Investigation+ Deep State In Total Panic As Durham’s Investigation Confirmed To Have Transitioned To Criminal Phase: Indictments Imminent
October 27 2019 | From: Zerohedge / NaturalNews / Various What began as an administrative review by the Justice Department into the origins of Russiagate has "shifted" to a criminal inquiry, according to the New York Times, citing two people familiar with the matter.
The move will allow prosecutor John H. Durham the power to subpoena documents and witnesses, to impanel a grand jury, and tofile criminal charges.
Durham's progress has been closely monitored by Attorney General William Barr, who appointed the veteran investigator in May, tasking him with looking into FBI and CIA intelligence gathering operations surrounding the 2016 US election.
As the Daily Caller's Chuck Ross notes, Barr said on April 10 that he believed "spying" had taken place against the Trump campaign, and that he doesn't buy former FBI officials' version of how the collusion investigation began.
“Little is known about Durham’s activities so far in the investigation. The Times report said it is unclear when the investigation took on a criminal element, or what specific crime Durham is investigating.
Durham accompanied Barr to Italy late in September as part of an inquiry into U.S. intelligence agents’ activities there during the 2016 campaign. They also inquired about Joseph Mifsud, a mysterious Maltese professor who established contact with Trump aide George Papadopoulos in 2016."
Just over three weeks ago, the Times also reported that President Trump asked the Australian Prime Minister to help Barr uncover the origins of "Russiagate," a move which Justice Department officials said "would be neither illegal nor untoward for Trump to ask."
And according to NBC News, Durham has set his sights on former CIA Director John Brennan and former national intelligence director James Clapper.
Durham's investigation has been running parallel to a probe by Justice Department Inspector General (and registered Democrat) Michael Horowitz, who told Congress on Thursday that he expects his report to be "lengthy," but able to be made mostly available to the public.
“The Durham probe is similar to a Justice Department inspector general’s investigation into the FBI’s surveillance of Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.
Michael Horowitz, the inspector general, told Congress on Thursday that the report of that investigation is “lengthy” and that he anticipates most of it will be made public.
Horowitz has been investigating whether the FBI misled the foreign surveillance court in spy applications against Page.
Investigators relied heavily on the Steele dossier in the applications, though information in that document was largely unverified. Unlike Durham, Horowitz has not had subpoena power, and cannot use a grand jury as part of his investigation."
And of course, with Durham's administrative review turning into a criminal probe, the Times has already given away the predictable response from the left; Barr is investigating the Obama intelligence community to help Trump win in 2020.
“For more than two years, President Trump has repeatedly attacked the Russia investigation, portraying it as a hoax and illegal even months after the special counsel closed it.
Now, Mr. Trump’s own Justice Department has opened a criminal investigation into how it all began…
Justice Department officials have shifted an administrative review of the Russia investigation closely overseen by Attorney General William P. Barr to a criminal inquiry, according to two people familiar with the matter.
The move gives the prosecutor running it, John H. Durham, the power to subpoena for witness testimony and documents, to impanel a grand jury and to file criminal charges."
The illegal coup against Trump was initiated by Hillary Clinton and the criminal deep state
Our analysis of events unfolding over the last few months concludes that interviews with alleged “Trump dossier” author Christopher Steele revealed explosive new evidence that the entire intelligence community coup effort against President Trump was initiated by a Hillary Clinton-funded smear document (the dossier) which wasn’t authored by Steele at all.
The entire operation has always been a deep state coup attempt to reverse the 2016 election by any means necessary. The effort failed, the deep state traitors have been identified and they are about to face justice.
“So what the New York Times is outlining here, is the CIA ran an operation using Mifsud to place information into Papadopoulos, a classic set-up, and the FBI is now claiming they had no idea the CIA was the originating intelligence apparatus for that information. Very interesting…. aligns with the FBI defensive framework from last week.
Well the claim: “The F.B.I. did not use information from the C.I.A. in opening the Russia investigation” is demonstrably false. The CIA produced an “electronic communication” (EC) to the FBI which officially launched the premise of operation “crossfire hurricane’.
That EC has never been released, though it has been seen by congressional investigators.
So whoever this “former American official” is, is lying."
As Lisa Haven explains in this Brighteon video below, Durham’s criminal investigation is “the link to everything” and will expose the greatest cover-up in political history:
“Justice Department Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz told Senate and House lawmakers Thursday that the process of finalizing his report into potential Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) abuses ahead of the 2016 presidential election was “nearing completion,” according to a letter obtained by Fox News.
The “lengthy” draft report “concerns sensitive national security and law enforcement matters,” Horowitz wrote in the letter, adding that he anticipated “the final report will be released publicly with few redactions.”
Horowitz noted that he did not anticipate a need to prepare or issue “separate classified and public versions of the report."
Joe Biden boasted that as vice president he threatened to withhold $1 billion in foreign aid from Ukraine unless they fired the prosecutor looking into a lucrative contract held by his son, Hunter Biden.
Merkel Admits German Multiculturalism Has "Utterly Failed" & Dalai Lama Criticizes Mass Migration, Says “Keep Europe For Europeans”
October 26 2019 | From: Zerohedge / Infowars / Various German Chancellor Angela Merkel says her attempt to create a multicultural society has "utterly failed," and that too little had been required of immigrants who refuse to integrate into German culture.
Merkel told an audience of young members of her Christian Democrats (CDU) that allowing people of differing cultural backgrounds to live side by side without such integration was a huge mistake, according to Reuters, which notes that approximately four million Muslims live in the country.
The stunning admission comes weeks after the former director of Germany's foreign intelligence service, Dr August Hanning,suggested Merkel had created a "security crisis" in Germany due to her open-border policy. (Summit News)
“We have seen the consequences of this decision in terms of German public opinion and internal security – we experience problems very day,”he said.
“We have criminals, terrorist suspects and people who use multiple identities. Those who carried out the Berlin attacks used 12 different identities,” added Hanning.
“While things are tighter today, we still have 300,000 people in Germany of whose identities we cannot be sure. That’s a massive security risk,”he warned
Merkel has been treading a fine line between German nationalists and Islam - telling natives to accept that mosques are now a part of their landscape, though also saying on Saturday that the education of unemployed Germans should take precedent over that of foreign workers (though adding that Germany couldn't get by without skilled foreign workers).
And while the German chancellor speaks out of one side of her mouth, her Labor Minister Ursula von der Leyen (CDU) suggested that the country should lower the barriers to entry for foreign workers in order to supplement the country's lack of skilled labor.
"For a few years, more people have been leaving our country than entering it," she told the Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung, adding "Wherever it is possible, we must lower the entry hurdles for those who bring the country forward."
Christian Social Union (CSU) chairman Horst Seehofer, meanwhile, rejects all attempts to relax immigraion laws, saying last week that Germany has no more room for people from "alien cultures."
According to the German Chamber of Industry and Commerce (DIHK), Germany lacks approximately 400,000 skilled workers.
The remarks were made at the Roman Life Forum earlier this month.
Burke said that Islam “by its definition believes itself to be destined to rule the world” and that many Muslims move to European countries because they are “opportunists”.
The Cardinal was asked “Should a politician who opposes large-scale Muslim immigration be refused a papal blessing?”
Burke replied, “I think the fundamental question here is [whether] someone who resists large-scale Muslim immigration [is] committing an immoral act and therefore should be, let’s say, denied Holy Communion or in some way recognized as a public sinner?”
“To resist large-scale Muslim immigration, in my judgment, is to be responsible in the sense of making sure that those who are immigrating to the country – remember that the definition of the Church’s teaching is that the individuals are not able to find a way of living in their own country and this is not true of immigrants who come who are opportunists, and in particular in the case of Islam, which by its definition believes itself to be destined to rule the world - coming in large numbers to countries,” said Burke, adding, “You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to see what’s happened.”
Pointing to the existence of Islamic no-go zones where “Muslim immigrants have set up their own legal order,” Burke said opposing the spread of this is patriotic.
“And so, to be opposed to wholesale, or large-scale Muslim immigration is, in fact, as far as I’m concerned, the responsible exercise of one’s patriotism in the sense that we - yes, people are true refugees who can’t live in their own country we must receive them and help them in every way.
But this is not the case when you have simply a large-scale immigration,” he said.
While saying he remained a supporter of the EU, the spiritual leader of Tibetan Buddhists said he did not want to see Europe become “Muslim” or “African,” prompting the BBC interviewer to ask, “There’s nothing wrong with that is there?”
While refugees should be taken care of and given an education, the aim for them should be a “return to their own land,” he said.
Gene Roddenberry Based Star Trek On Secret US Navy Space Fleet
October 25 2019 | From: Exopolitics September 8 marked the 50th anniversary of the creation of the Star Trek science fiction series that began in 1966. There is significant evidence that its creator, Gene Roddenberry, did not simply come up with the idea of Star Trek on his own.
Instead he was encouraged to create the series based on classified information surrounding the development of a secret U.S. Navy space fleet that would build a broad extraterrestrial alliance.
This led Roddenberry to come up with the idea of a United Federation of Planets, with its military headquarters in San Francisco.
Roddenberry began developing ideas for a science fiction show after one of his series had bombed in 1964:
“The only reason Roddenberry created Star Trek, at least initially, was to sell another series to a network. He was, if not desperate, anxious… He had just failed with The Lieutenant, for Norman Felton’s Arena Productions.
… No one was clamoring for another series from Roddenberry, or even his scripts. His agent suggested he come up with a space series…
This may have led to what The Outer Limits historians insist are the accurate - if generally unknown - accounts of Roddenberry hanging out at times on the set of The Outer Limits. When I learned this, it wasn’t hard to imagine that series creator, and executive producer, Leslie Stevens … was someone that Roddenberry may have sought to emulate."
The following firmly suggests that Roddenberry and Stevens had reached a business arrangement for the planned sci-fi series, Star Trek:
“Bearing in mind that Roddenberry was contracted to a rival studio and a rival network, the odds are essentially slim to none that the two men didn’t have some kind of business arrangement, whether in writing or not."
If Stevens and Roddenberry had indeed developed a business arrangement for the new Star Trek series, this is where Stevens background becomes critical in understanding the nature of their arrangement. Stevens was the son of a U.S. Navy Vice Admiral Leslie Stevens who died in 1956.
Vice Admiral Stevens was a contemporary of Rear Admiral Rico Botta who according to a former aerospace engineer, William Tompkins, oversaw a covert Navy espionage program out of Nazi Germany to learn about Nazi flying saucers during World War II.
The 29 Navy spies in the program had not only learned that the Nazis had developed up to 30 different flying saucer prototypes, but were also being directly assisted by an extraterrestrial civilization comprising Reptilian hominoids in building secret bases in Antarctica.
Both Admirals Botta and Stevens were leading experts in aerospace engineering and headed top Navy aerospace facilities at various points during their careers. In 1946, both were retroactively promoted to the rank of Rear Admiral as of 1943, for their wartime duties.
Botta went on to head the Naval Air Material Center out of Philadelphia Shipyard from 1950 to 1952. It is from this and similar command assignments that plans began for a secret Navy space fleet aimed to counter what the Nazis had developed in Antarctica.
Similarly, Admiral Stevens was known for his accomplishments in aeronautics and is quoted as having“had a hand in the design or conception of all naval aircraft, aircraft carriers and carrier landing apparatus.” Admiral Stevens’ aeronautics expertise meant that he was almost certainly aware of what Botta had learned about Nazi aerospace projects.
It is more than likely that Admirals Botta and Stevens were the first to comprise a covert Navy leadership group that would oversee the development of a U.S. Navy space fleet based on modern aircraft carrier battle groups that would in time join an interplanetary alliance.
This is precisely what Tompkins says he was asked to do at the Douglas Aircraft Company on behalf of the Navy from 1952 to 1963. Tompkins says that he was covertly assisted by Nordic extraterrestrials while he was helping design kilometers-long spacecraft for future U.S. Navy space battle groups. In interviews, Tompkins has revealed that Nordic extraterrestrials were working directly with senior officers within the U.S. Navy.
Admiral Stevens went on to occupy important positions with the national security council system, including the Psychological Strategy Board where he became Director.
Formally established in 1951 by President Truman, it is one of the interagency boards that was set up to disinform the general public about the reality of flying saucers, while secretly gathering information about what other nations were doing in response to the phenomenon.
William Tompkins confirmed, in a private phone call on August 24, that Admiral Stevens was aware of what the Navy had learned about Nazi Germany’s flying saucer programs.
He further confirmed that Admiral Stevens played a direct role in setting up a secret U.S. Navy space program, and that his son, Leslie Stevens, IV, was aware of what was happening.
Tompkins claims here are consistent with what he says happened from 1985 to 1999, when he ran an extraterrestrial related “Special Projects” out of the U.S. Navy League center in Medford, Oregon. He said that it was common for Navy officers to have their children briefed about secret space programs and alliances with different extraterrestrial races.
This was done in order to prepare the next generation of navy officers and/or leaders for a world where extraterrestrial life was common knowledge. This is similar to another program happening on the U.S. East Coast as described by Catherine Austin Fitts, a former Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.
She was asked to participate in strategy sessions that were being conducted by the Arlington Institute, a non-profit organization headed by John Peterson that was assigned a number of US Navy contracts. Fitts says:
“John asked me to help him with a high level strategic plan Arlington was planning to undertake for the Undersecretary of the Navy…
I met with a group of high level people in the military in the process - including the Undersecretary.
According to John, the purpose of the plan - discussed in front of several military or retired military officers and former government officials - was to help the Navy adjust their operations for a world in which it was commonly known that aliens exist and live among us."
Tompkins has supplied a document confirming that he ran a Special Projects Committee with the U.S. Navy League. Additionally, two retired Navy Officers, Art Lumley (Commander), and Larry Boeck (Captain) have confirmed that Tompkins did discuss extraterrestrial projects at Navy League meetings, and was regarded as an expert on these issues.
Minutes of Board Meeting refers to Special Projects Committee
Tompkins’ testimony confirms that it was common practice for Navy officers, briefed about extraterrestrial life, to pass on some of this highly classified information to their children.
Consequently, it is almost certain that Admiral Stevens revealed to his son, Leslie Stevens, some of the classified details about the existence of extraterrestrial life and secret space programs prior to his death.
It is furthermore very possible, that Stevens, Jr., was part of a Navy sanctioned “soft disclosure” process that would use the television/movie industry to reveal elements of the Navy’s planned secret space program.
All this helps considerably in finally understanding the nature of the business relationship between Roddenberry and Leslie Stevens, Jr. Stevens could not himself directly create a science fiction show revealing details of the classified information given to him by his deceased father, but he very likely received tacit permission by Navy officials, to share it with television/movie producers such as Roddenberry who would fictionalize the information.
Consequently, the business relationship between Gene Roddenberry and Leslie Stevens, suggests that Star Trek was initially based on information gained by Admirals Botta and Stevens. A future U.S. Navy space fleet would be developed that would actively cooperate with Nordic extraterrestrials in an alliance that would counter the Nazis and their Reptilian allies.
In the Star Trek series, the Nordics were depicted as Vulcans, the Reptilians as Klingons, while the Nazis were represented as genetically enhanced humans.
Furthermore, it is topical to recognize that Roddenberry chose the beautiful, iconic city of San Francisco as the military headquarters for his fictional Starfleet Command in Star Trek, elevating this U.S. city in the hearts and minds of generations as a symbol of humanity’s bright future achievements.
It would also directly represent the Navy’s plan for its secret space program becoming a model for integrating other nations in a united partnership.
Two independent sources, former Asian Bureau chief for Forbes Magazine, Benjamin Fulford in 2011, and an anonymous source called the “Hidden Hand” in 2009, have revealed that the Illuminati/Cabal specifically named San Francisco (along with Damascus) as a city that will be made uninhabitable in its Armageddon agenda.
Does San Francisco pose a double threat as both a symbol of hope within the collective psyche, and the truth of a reality it mirrors in the military’s accomplishments? If so, then the Cabal’s goal is not to destroy a city, but to break the collective spirit of a peaceful human vision for a spacefaring future that begins with full disclosure.
The above evidence suggests Star Trek was no mere science fiction series, but was actively encouraged through a business arrangement between Roddenberry and the son of a deceased U.S. Navy admiral, who was directly involved in developing a secret U.S. Navy Space Fleet called Solar Warden.
As we remember the 52nd anniversary of Star Trek, it is worth remembering the roles of U.S. Navy admirals that helped launch the real secret space program upon which Star Trek was modeled.
The Secret Meeting That Changed Rap Music And Destroyed A Generation & The Troubling Case Of Paz de la Huerta And Her (Now Deleted) Instagram Account
October 24 2019 | From: HipHopIsRead / VigilantCitizen / Various After more than 20 years, I've finally decided to tell the world what I witnessed in 1991, which I believe was one of the biggest turning point in popular music, and ultimately American [Western] society.
I have struggled for a long time weighing the pros and cons of making this story public as I was reluctant to implicate the individuals who were present that day.
So I've simply decided to leave out names and all the details that may risk my personal well being and that of those who were, like me, dragged into something they weren't ready for.
Between the late 80's and early 90’s, I was what you may call a “decision maker” with one of the more established company in the music industry. I came from Europe in the early 80’s and quickly established myself in the business.
The industry was different back then. Since technology and media weren’t accessible to people like they are today, the industry had more control over the public and had the means to influence them anyway it wanted.
This may explain why in early 1991, I was invited to attend a closed door meeting with a small group of music business insiders to discuss rap music’s new direction.
Little did I know that we would be asked to participate in one of the most unethical and destructive business practice I’ve ever seen. The meeting was held at a private residence on the outskirts of Los Angeles. I remember about 25 to 30 people being there, most of them familiar faces.
Speaking to those I knew, we joked about the theme of the meeting as many of us did not care for rap music and failed to see the purpose of being invited to a private gathering to discuss its future.
Among the attendees was a small group of unfamiliar faces who stayed to themselves and made no attempt to socialize beyond their circle. Based on their behavior and formal appearances, they didn't seem to be in our industry.
Our casual chatter was interrupted when we were asked to sign a confidentiality agreement preventing us from publicly discussing the information presented during the meeting. Needless to say, this intrigued and in some cases disturbed many of us. The agreement was only a page long but very clear on the matter and consequences which stated that violating the terms would result in job termination.
We asked several people what this meeting was about and the reason for such secrecy but couldn't find anyone who had answers for us. A few people refused to sign and walked out. No one stopped them. I was tempted to follow but curiosity got the best of me. A man who was part of the “unfamiliar” group collected the agreements from us.
Quickly after the meeting began, one of my industry colleagues (who shall remain nameless like everyone else) thanked us for attending. He then gave the floor to a man who only introduced himself by first name and gave no further details about his personal background. I think he was the owner of the residence but it was never confirmed.
He briefly praised all of us for the success we had achieved in our industry and congratulated us for being selected as part of this small group of “decision makers”.
At this point I begin to feel slightly uncomfortable at the strangeness of this gathering. The subject quickly changed as the speaker went on to tell us that the respective companies we represented had invested in a very profitable industry which could become even more rewarding with our active involvement.
He explained that the companies we work for had invested millions into the building of privately owned prisons and that our positions of influence in the music industry would actually impact the profitability of these investments. I remember many of us in the group immediately looking at each other in confusion. At the time, I didn’t know what a private prison was but I wasn't the only one.
Sure enough, someone asked what these prisons were and what any of this had to do with us. We were told that these prisons were built by privately owned companies who received funding from the government based on the number of inmates.
The more inmates, the more money the government would pay these prisons. It was also made clear to us that since these prisons are privately owned, as they become publicly traded, we’d be able to buy shares. Most of us were taken back by this.
Again, a couple of people asked what this had to do with us. At this point, my industry colleague who had first opened the meeting took the floor again and answered our questions. He told us that since our employers had become silent investors in this prison business, it was now in their interest to make sure that these prisons remained filled.
Our job would be to help make this happen by marketing music which promotes criminal behavior, rap being the music of choice.
He assured us that this would be a great situation for us because rap music was becoming an increasingly profitable market for our companies, and as employee, we’d also be able to buy personal stocks in these prisons.
Immediately, silence came over the room. You could have heard a pin drop. I remember looking around to make sure I wasn't dreaming and saw half of the people with dropped jaws.
My daze was interrupted when someone shouted, “Is this a f****** joke?” At this point things became chaotic.
Two of the men who were part of the “unfamiliar” group grabbed the man who shouted out and attempted to remove him from the house. A few of us, myself included, tried to intervene. One of them pulled out a gun and we all backed off.
They separated us from the crowd and all four of us were escorted outside. My industry colleague who had opened the meeting earlier hurried out to meet us and reminded us that we had signed agreement and would suffer the consequences of speaking about this publicly or even with those who attended the meeting.
I asked him why he was involved with something this corrupt and he replied that it was bigger than the music business and nothing we’d want to challenge without risking consequences.
We all protested and as he walked back into the house I remember word for word the last thing he said, “It’s out of my hands now. Remember you signed an agreement.” He then closed the door behind him.
The men rushed us to our cars and actually watched until we drove off.
A million things were going through my mind as I drove away and I eventually decided to pull over and park on a side street in order to collect my thoughts. I replayed everything in my mind repeatedly and it all seemed very surreal to me.
I was angry with myself for not having taken a more active role in questioning what had been presented to us. I'd like to believe the shock of it all is what suspended my better nature. After what seemed like an eternity, I was able to calm myself enough to make it home.
I didn't talk or call anyone that night. The next day back at the office, I was visibly out of it but blamed it on being under the weather. No one else in my department had been invited to the meeting and I felt a sense of guilt for not being able to share what I had witnessed.
I thought about contacting the 3 others who wear kicked out of the house but I didn't remember their names and thought that tracking them down would probably bring unwanted attention.
I considered speaking out publicly at the risk of losing my job but I realized I’d probably be jeopardizing more than my job and I wasn't willing to risk anything happening to my family. I thought about those men with guns and wondered who they were?
I had been told that this was bigger than the music business and all I could do was let my imagination run free. There were no answers and no one to talk to. I tried to do a little bit of research on private prisons but didn’t uncover anything about the music business’ involvement.
However, the information I did find confirmed how dangerous this prison business really was. Days turned into weeks and weeks into months. Eventually, it was as if the meeting had never taken place. It all seemed surreal.
I became more reclusive and stopped going to any industry events unless professionally obligated to do so. On two occasions, I found myself attending the same function as my former colleague. Both times, our eyes met but nothing more was exchanged.
As the months passed, rap music had definitely changed direction. I was never a fan of it but even I could tell the difference. Rap acts that talked about politics or harmless fun were quickly fading away as gangster rap started dominating the airwaves.
Only a few months had passed since the meeting but I suspect that the ideas presented that day had been successfully implemented. It was as if the order has been given to all major label executives.
The music was climbing the charts and most companies when more than happy to capitalize on it. Each one was churning out their very own gangster rap acts on an assembly line.
Everyone bought into it, consumers included. Violence and drug use became a central theme in most rap music. I spoke to a few of my peers in the industry to get their opinions on the new trend but was told repeatedly that it was all about supply and demand.
Sadly many of them even expressed that the music reinforced their prejudice of minorities.
I officially quit the music business in 1993 but my heart had already left months before. I broke ties with the majority of my peers and removed myself from this thing I had once loved.
I took some time off, returned to Europe for a few years, settled out of state, and lived a “quiet” life away from the world of entertainment. As the years passed, I managed to keep my secret, fearful of sharing it with the wrong person but also a little ashamed of not having had the balls to blow the whistle.
But as rap got worse, my guilt grew. Fortunately, in the late 90’s, having the internet as a resource which wasn't at my disposal in the early days made it easier for me to investigate what is now labeled the prison industrial complex.
Now that I have a greater understanding of how private prisons operate, things make much more sense than they ever have.
I see how the criminalization of rap music played a big part in promoting racial stereotypes and misguided so many impressionable young minds into adopting these glorified criminal behaviors which often lead to incarceration.
Twenty years of guilt is a heavy load to carry but the least I can do now is to share my story, hoping that fans of rap music realize how they’ve been used for the past 2 decades.
Although I plan on remaining anonymous for obvious reasons, my goal now is to get this information out to as many people as possible.
Please help me spread the word.
Hopefully, others who attended the meeting back in 1991 will be inspired by this and tell their own stories. Most importantly, if only one life has been touched by my story, I pray it makes the weight of my guilt a little more tolerable.
Paz de la Huerta is an American actress and model who is mostly known for her role in the HBO series Broadwalk Empire and her countless magazine photoshoots.
Between 2005 and 2010, at the height of her career, de la Huerta worked with A-list celebrities and partied with Hollywood’s most powerful people. However, after a series of bizarre and traumatizing events, de la Huerta’s career came to a screeching halt.
Nowadays, de la Huerta is mostly known for appearing in paparazzi videos of her stumbling around while looking heavily intoxicated at social events. She’s also been a frequent subject of ridicule by celebrity gossip sites who have been documenting her erratic behavior for years.
While she was dismissed as “crazy” by mass media a long time ago, de la Huerta hundreds of posts on social media tell a darker story – one that sums up perfectly disgusting, hidden side of the occult elite and the entertainment industry.
Before looking that that (now deleted) Instagram account, here’s a quick look at her past.
Paz de la Huerta’s parents are Ricardo Ignacio de la Huerta y Ozores (Spanish nobleman and 17th Duke of Mandas and Villanueva) and Judith Bruce (and authority on birth control in Third World countries and United Nations Consultant).
Paz obtained her first role at age 12 in the movie 1998 The Object of My Affection which starred Jennifer Aniston and Paul Rudd. She then steadily climbed the stairs to stardom until things took a horrible turn.
In 2011, de la Huerta was nearly killed by a speeding ambulance truck that was driven by a stunt driver on the set of the movie Nurse 3D. This event was highly suspicious, especially when one watches the video of it.
In this disturbing video, it appears that the ambulance actually steered left at the very last second to violently hit Paz. Furthermore, the ambulance was driven by a stunt driver who is literally trained to perform dangerous car stunts. Was it actually a murder attempt? As we’ll see later, the story surrounding this accident and its aftermaths is extremely bizarre.
No matter what the case may be, the accident nearly killed Paz. She filed a $55 million lawsuit against Liongate film claiming that the accident required her to undergo over 20 surgeries and left her unable to work. The case was dismissed.
In November 2018, de la Huerta filed a $60 million lawsuit against Harvey Weinstein, accusing the director of raping her on two separate occasions in 2010 and then embarking on a campaign of harassment that she contends damaged her career.
Paz de la Huerta with Harvey Weinstein at the Soho Grand Hotel in 2010
Contrarily to other 'Me Too' figureheads such as Rose McGowan, de la Huerta’s accusations generated little support and sympathy from mass media and the entertainment industry. Weinstein’s defense team has called her allegations “preposterous and, unfortunately, the product of an unstable personality with a vivid imagination.”
In May 2019, while de la Huerta was working on her lawsuit against Weinstein, she was hospitalized for “severe emotional distress”.
Throughout these difficult times, de la Huerta remained active on Instagram … and that account was terrifying. Indeed, most of her posts were actually calls for help as she accused “evil women” of abusing and torturing her while constantly pushing her to suicide.
For reasons unknown, that IG account was completed deleted in the past weeks. Luckily, since I was actually working on an article before the deletion happened, I’ve saved some screenshots and copied the contents of some captions.
Now, more than ever, I believe these need to be shared because they explain the “why” of de la Huerta’s behavior while shedding light on the dark and disturbing side of the entertainment industry.
At first glance, Paz de la Huerta’s Instagram account appeared to consist of hundreds of selfies mixed with some pics from her glory days.
However, when one took the time to read the captions associated with these pics, things got very dark. Nearly every picture was accompanied by a wall of text where Paz described her constant abuse and trauma at the hands of “evil women”.
A typical IG post by Paz combining a “beauty pic” with a troubling caption about evil women trying to destroy her
Although Paz’ captions often sounded like the ramblings of a crazy person, they actually told a coherent and precise story of systematic abuse at the hands of specific people – notably her own mother. In one post she writes:
“I’ve always been incredibly generous even to my evil mother who if she wanted me to be healthy and successful she wouldn’t have done the unconscionable thing she did to me in Spain that she had tried to do so many times before but my good karma always saved me if I survive this I’m writing a book about maunchhausen bi proxy.”
On several occasions, Paz accuses her mother of Munchausen syndrome by proxy. Here’s a definition of it:
Munchausen syndrome by proxy (MSBP) is a mental health problem in which a caregiver makes up or causes an illness or injury in a person under his or her care, such as a child, an elderly adult, or a person who has a disability. Because vulnerable people are the victims, MSBP is a form of child abuse or elder abuse.
Note: Since most cases of MSBP are between a caregiver (usually a mother) and a child, the rest of this topic will describe that relationship. But it is important to remember that MSBP can involve any vulnerable person who has a caregiver.
The caregiver with MSBP may:
Lie about the child’s symptoms.
Change test results to make a child appear to be ill.
Physically harm the child to produce symptoms.
Victims are most often small children. They may get painful medical tests they don’t need. They may even become seriously ill or injured or may die because of the actions of the caregiver.
Children who are victims of MSBP can have lifelong physical and emotional problems and may have Munchausen syndrome as adults. This is a disorder in which a person causes or falsely reports his or her own symptoms.
Although she was under the strict control of her mother since birth, Paz says that things got worse since the 2011 ambulance accident. In another post she wrote:
“Since my truck accident I’ve been surrounded by these evil women trying to convince me I was sick so they could lock me up for the rest of my life out of envy and fear for their reputations but when I met Mika that night it was a break from the psychological torture.”
In another post she wrote:
“I have been crying for months … it’s inhumane what these monsters have done to me. Because of them I didn’t get my justice against Lionsgate. I was going to marry a man and they messed that up to. My boyfriend of 15 years won’t talk to me because he says I’ve been so naive and he’s afraid I will take my life.
I had a career in Paris before they did the unconscionable. One old assistant of mine brave enough to step forward has saved all of their emails of their plans for me these last years since I had my truck accident.
They’ve been trying to have me committed for the rest of my life only because I hold secrets of years of unconscionable abuse .
I was never going to tell until what they did to me in Spain , the only country they could get away with it. All I did was cry after this one abuser said evil things to me and I was speaking to Micheal rebel the famous therapist that told me to run away from them years ago before they kill me.
They are trying to drive me to suicide, they have been doing it for years. They have gas lit me. (…)
I want my famous friends to read this and help me get away from these abusers who have gas lit me held me prisoner in a city. I have few loved ones and are trying to put me in a cage for the rest of my life because I know too much. I will speak to this assistant who was brave enough to step forward.”
As stated above, Paz claimed that she was abducted in Spain in 2018.
She reportedly spent six months “locked in a cage” while undergoing intense trauma at the hands of “evil women”.
A post about Paz being abducted
In another post she wrote:
“I was making money modeling and I was about to sign with the best agency until I stupidly got on that plane to Spain where evil I didn’t even know existed awaited me.
What can I say? Truck accident, rape, near fatal cuncussion, and I’ve never been a blamer and I’ve never even cared to sue because by heart I’m a very positive resilient woman but this is the greatest injustice I’ve ever endured in my life and never have a witnessed just how cruel humanity is.
I did nothing to warrant being locked up in a cage in a foreign country for six months they are still trying to keep me from having the proper medical care my evil mother has even voiced that she doesn’t want me working well than what am I supposed to be an invalid.”
In another post explained that what happened to her could only happen in Spain – perhaps due to her father’s connections.
“The only reason they got away with what they did was because in Spain my medications which they knew I needed one was illegal and I don’t know how they got away with keeping me there for so long it’s illegal to do that to someone Any where else in the world and because a judge put me there they made my evil abuser my custodian which I’ve had legally changed since and she forbade me from speaking to the two men my lawyer and best friend who had the power to get me out of that hell in a day.
I tried to commit suicide nine times when I was there.”
“do you know the story about the Kennedy girl we’ll she was very beautiful and sexy and vivacious the life of the party her mother was so deadly envious of her an ugly uptight prude like one of my main abusers and she basically did to her daughter what these to evil women tried to do to me lobotomize her the poor girl was robbed of her life and spent the rest of her life staring at a wall … extremely sad story and it almost happened to me I’ve never wanted to sue for any of the injustices I’ve endured until now and I have a killer lawyer share you’re stories with me and let’s support one another these evil women belong in jail.”
On several occasions, de la Huerta mentions an assistant who is willing to come forward and testify about the abuse she underwent in the past years.
In one Instagram post, the assistant wrote a long caption summing up the situation (you can tell that the text was written by another person due to the presence of actual sentences and punctuation).
“My name is Kimberly M., I am writing of behalf of Paz as I was friends with her in 2016-17, during that time witnessed some very bizarre treatment of her by her caretakers.
Before Paz left Los Angeles for Paris I became her assistant for a short period of time, in order to try and help her in a situation that seemed desperate. From the outside, it seemed that she was becoming increasingly frustrated with how her caretakers were handling her and was suspicious of their care.
From my point of view, she needed to be around more good role models, friends and people that cared for her in order for her to find her own stability and eventually start acting and modeling again.
When I started the job I thought this would be the intention of her caretakers as well, but soon found out this was not the case. My main interactions come in dealing with who was my boss for the job, Kimberly. The first signs that Kimberly had ill intentions for Paz came from the fact that she was trying very hard to discourage me taking the job of helping Paz.
Telling me I had no idea what I was getting into and repeatedly calling me to tell me negative things about Paz, often keeping me on the phone for hours at night, trying to convince me that Paz was not a good person and couldn’t be helped.
I could not figure out why she was trying to influence me in this way and soon began to ask questions because I was in disbelief. Some of the things I was told include that Paz was untreatable and too far gone for help.
She then told me that no treatment has worked on Paz in years, and that she has become more of a burden to them (Kimberly, Judith) than was worth putting actual effort into.
One day I still was not completely sold that Paz is untreatable, and confronted Kimberly who got very worked up and revealed to me that they think she is so untreatable, that they have given up and have been actively delaying or sabotaging some of the things Paz was asking for.
The most disturbing thing that was revealed was that they were trying to let her fail, so that she would go mad or cause enough altercations with the police/law to be put in an institution for life.
She also told me that because Paz’s godmother (her client) was the only one contributing to her financial stability, and that she had taken it upon herself to relay negative information to the godmother, sending bad reports (knowing that she had not attempted to facilitate a good report) and convincing her that Paz would be so much of a burden financially overtime, that she should accept her as a lost cause, and have her put away for life in order to save herself the money and trouble, even going as far to make her sound like a danger to others.
Never in my life did I think they would actually be able to follow through on such plans as I do not think Paz is insane, but a particular artist who’s been through a lot of trauma and needs adequate time to grow her own stability and find happiness in her own way.
I may not know the extent of what led to what in her situation, but I know what I witnessed was wrong on a moral level and believe that it may have contributed to their attempt to put Paz being put away in Spain.”
As the assistant wrote, Paz was subjected to “a lot of trauma”. And under details on her social media accounts point towards trauma-based mind control.
Trauma Based Mind Control?
To those who know about the dark side of the entertainment industry, Paz de la Huerta shows signs of trauma-based mind control.
Her early beginnings in the entertainment industry, her abuse at the hands of powerful people and her history of bizarre behavior (a typical result following MK breakdown) are all visible symptoms.
As explained in this article, trauma-based mind control (also known as Monarch programming) is about subjecting a slave to trauma so intense that it causes dissociation which leads to the programming of new alter personas.
In several Instagram posts, Paz actually refers to an alter-ego named Malificient.
An Instagram post about her alter-ego
Like many other victims of trauma-based mind control (such as Kim Noble), Paz also has a penchant for creating extremely symbolic paintings.
A painting by Paz de la Huerta that is replete with MK imagery. It depicts a Virgin-Mary-like figure with a blindfolded child who appears to be subjected to all kinds of foul treatments. Strange fact: In one of her posts, Paz wrote that she replaced memories of her mother by the Virgin Mary
Although she can be easily dismissed as a crazy person who says crazy things (media has been doing it for years), Paz de la Huerta has actually been documenting her story of abuse and control in great detail.
Through her numerous social media posts (the only outlet she had until very recently), de la Huerta provided a first-person account of her systematic destruction at the hands of the people closest to her.
Is she actually crazy or did the abuse make that way? In an infamous interview about Hollywood, Dave Chappelle once said:
“The worst thing to call somebody is crazy. It’s dismissive. I don’t understand this person so they’re crazy.
That’s bullsh*t. These people are not crazy, they’re strong people. Maybe that environment (Hollywood) is a little sick.”
Hollywood is not only “a little sick”. It is very sick. It completely destroys minds, bodies, and souls. It turns strong, intelligent and talented people into spaced-out zombies who appear to be completely out of it.
It takes an incredible amount of strength to come back from mind control at the hands of the occult elite – and many don’t come back from it.
In short, if something suspicious ever happens to Paz de la Huerta, the true cause of it is most likely contained in this article.
How Much Of This Junk Are You Exposed To?
October 23 2019 | From: Inquisitr / Sott / NaturalNews / GreenMedInfo We all know about toxins and poisons in the environment - the slow kill. Keep the populace sick while the globalist corporatocracy bleeds us dry of money for power whilst they get off on their depopulation Eugenics agenda.
Awareness of 'environmental toxins' that are literally all around us helps you keep some of the crap out of your system...
Antibacterial Soap Banned By FDA, Commonly Used Chemicals May Do More Harm Than Good
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has banned antibacterial soap sales in the United States, and the reason why is incredibly disturbing.
Many people have turned to antibacterial soap for years, believing them to be a safe and effective way to remove dirt and germs from the body and hands, and more effective than traditional soap and water. However, when the FDA banned the popular soaps, they informed the public that they might not be so effective after all.
What’s more and infinitely more disturbing, according to the FDA, the chemicals most commonly used in antibacterial soaps may not even be safe.
A total of 19 chemicals often used in antibacterial soaps have been targeted by the FDA, and the agency has given manufacturers only a year to remove them all from the products they are selling (and marketing as safe and effective) to the public.
As The New York Times reports, while nearly 20 chemicals were involved in the decision that led to the antibacterial soap being banned by the FDA, two are the primary culprits. Triclosan and triclocarban are used in both bar and liquid antibacterial soap, and they are almost everywhere.
When the FDA banned antibacterial soap this week based on the risks of using the product often outweighing the benefits, they didn’t ban the questionable chemicals from all products.
Reportedly, at least one toothpaste uses a now-banned chemical, but according to the FDA, in that product it’s risks are less than the benefits it provides to consumers.
While the news that antibacterial soap has been banned by the FDA may be shocking and sudden to some, the truth of the matter is that there have been questions about its safety for years and years.
As Smithsonian Magazine reports, the FDA has been threatening to ban antibacterial soap for years. In the article, published in 2014, cited questions that the FDA had about the safety and effectiveness of antibacterial soap.
Even then, the FDA warned that antibacterial soap would be banned if manufacturers didn’t prove that it was both safe and more effective than using soap and water.
Apparently, the industry was unable to prove that antibacterial soap is safe or provides a public benefit that outweighs the potential risk of exposure of the chemicals used in the product.
At the time of the Smithsonian Magazine article, triclosan (with is banned as part of the FDA’s sweeping decision on antibacterial soap) was used in roughly 30 percent of all bar soap and 75 percent of liquid antibacterial soap. In 2014, the antibacterial soap industry, now banned by the FDA, was worth about $1 billion.
In 2014, the antibacterial soap industry was put on notice by the FDA. They were told to prove the safety of their product by 2016 or see their product banned. Despite the fact that manufacturers had turned antibacterial soap into a $1 billion industry and were given two years, they chose not to put together the required proof that they were selling a product that is safe and effective.
And plenty of people are speculating that the reason that the antibacterial soap industry didn’t prove to the FDA that their product is safe is that they know that it isn’t.
But rather than simply removing it from the market themselves (or demonstrate its safety), the antibacterial soap industry continued to use the questionable chemicals and sell personal hygiene products that may not be safe until the FDA announced that the products were banned.
Even now, antibacterial soap can be legally sold, despite questions about its safety.
In the aftermath of the announcement that the FDA had banned antibacterial soap, public health professionals have overwhelmingly supported the decision, adding that the chemicals in antibacterial soap can alter the hormones of children and even contribute to the problem of antibiotic-resistant superbugs.
“It has boggled my mind why we were clinging to these compounds, and now that they are gone I feel liberated They had absolutely no benefit but we kept them buzzing around us everywhere. They are in breast milk, in urine, in blood, in babies just born, in dust, in water.”
Recent studies into the chemicals found in antibacterial soap products have resulted in some very disturbing discoveries regarding the harm they can do to animals and likely to humans, too.
Among the problems caused by the now-banned products include severe abnormalities having to do with metabolism and reproduction. According to the CDC, the chemicals found in FDA banned antibacterial soap have been found in the bodily waste of 75 percent of U.S. residents.
Kinder and Lindt Chocolate Bars Revealed to Contain Cancer-Causing Carcinogens
Tests carried out by a German watchdog revealed Kinder chocolate bars and two other brands tested positive for a hazardous cancer-causing substance.
Foodwatch called for Ferrero's Kinder Riegel, Lindt's Fioretto Nougat Minis, and Sun Rice Classic Schokohappen by Rübezahl to be taken off the shelves on Monday after tests found "possible carcinogens."
The sweet treats had been contaminated with "so-called aromatic mineral oils (MOAH)," says Foodwatch, but the manufacturers are allegedly reluctant to recall their products.
"The manufacturer is guilty of gross negligence. Instead of clearing the dangerous candy from the shelves and alerting consumers, they [postulate]... that everything was undertaken legally," said Foodwatch's John Heeg.
Foodwatch tested more than 20 different kinds of potato chips and chocolate snacks and found saturated mineral oils (MOSH) which it warned can "accumulate in the human body and [cause] long term damage to organs" with children particularly at risk.
"There is no acceptable levels of mineral oils in food for consumption," Heeg told the German edition of The Local, citing the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) who he says considers MOAHs "likely carcinogenic and mutagenic."
"You can't see it, you can't taste it, but it's in there," warned Hegg. "We recommend not purchasing these products because the levels are simply unacceptable for consumption."
Kinder Riegel, "one of the best-selling chocolate bars in Germany," had the worst MOSH and MOAH values. The chemicals are usually transferred to foods through recycled packaging that previously had been printed with inks which may contain oils.
Foodwatch is calling for strict limits on saturated mineral oils (MOSH) in food and a zero tolerance for aromatic mineral oils (MOAH).
Brain Damaging Heavy Metal Mercury Found in Grocery Products Made With High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS)
HFCS is ubiquitous in the modern processed food supply. It's added to pizza sauce, salad dressings, ketchup and "whole wheat" breads. Did you know it's often contaminated with the toxic heavy metal mercury?
High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is a highly processed sweetener made primarily from corn and found in a plethora of food and beverages on grocery store shelves.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Economic Research Service estimated in 2011 that the average consumer per capita consumes nearly 42 pounds of high fructose corn syrup per year. Not one, but two studies in 2009 found that HFCS commercially produced in America and American-bought HFCS products were tainted with mercury.
The first study published in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Health found that, of twenty samples collected and analyzed from three different manufacturers, nine, or 45 percent, came back tainted with mercury.
The second study by watchdog group Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) purchased fifty-five food items from popular brands off grocery store shelves in the fall of 2008 -- items in which HFCS was the first or second principal ingredient -- and detected mercury in nearly a third of them.
The contamination may have been due to the fact that mercury cells are still used in the production of caustic soda, an ingredient used to make HFCS.
The HFCS mercury plot thickens, however. Online news outlet Grist reported that the lead researcher in the Environmental Health study, Renee Dufault, previously worked as an FDA researcher.
Dufault had apparently turned over the information contained in her HFCS mercury study to the agency back in 2005, but the FDA reportedly sat on it and did nothing, so Dufault went public with it after she retired in 2008.
How Big Food Cornered the Market with a Liquid Sweetener
Initial attempts to get corn syrup widely dispersed into the U.S. food supply in the 1970s didn't really take off because sugar was so cheap and abundant at the time. However, this changed, as U.S.- imposed tariffs decreased sugar imports throughout the 1970s and early 1980s, making sugar significantly more expensive in America than in other parts of the world.
The surface explanation for these tariffs was to protect American sugar farmers; behind the scenes, however, Big Agra interests had lobbied for the policy to promote what would become a new source of sugar - derived from corn - which soon emerged as a popular commodity that was sold at a price significantly cheaper than cane sugar or beet sugar.
Archer Daniels Midland opened the first large-scale plant in 1978 (before they acquired the Clinton Corn Processing Company) to produce 90 percent HFCS and 55 percent HFCS. By January 1980, Coca-Cola began allowing high fructose corn syrup to be used as a sweetener at 50 percent levels with regular sugar; Pepsi Cola followed suit by 1983.
By November 1984, both major soft drink brands had approved full sweetening with HFCS, and HFCS quickly captured 42 percent of the sweetener market. The rising dominance of HFCS allowed it to maintain commercial prices similar to sugar until the 1990s.
Government Money Subsidizing Corn Syrup
For the past several decades, the U.S. government has paid subsidies to American farmers to grow tons of corn (much of which -- nearly 90 percent -- is genetically modified) and shifted domestic agricultural policy to maximize corn crops. This made high-fructose corn syrup and other corn-derived processed ingredients much cheaper for industrial food manufacturers to use.
Today, HFCS is nearly ubiquitous on American grocery store shelves. It can be found in a wide range of items, including candy, ice cream, bread, chips, snacks, soups, soft drinks, fruit drinks and other beverages, condiments, jellies, deli meats, and much, much more.
Overall, Americans consume about fifty to sixty pounds of high fructose corn syrup per capita – an insane amount. HFCS has been linked in scientific research to obesity, diabetes, heart disease, fatty liver and other contributors of bad health and early death.
As the biggest dietary source of fructose, HFCS also promotes insulin resistance and increasing uric acid levels, which contribute to metabolic dysfunction and type 2 diabetes. Further, researchers in 2008 found a correlation between high fructose consumption and liver scarring in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), which is present in nearly a third of American adults.
Corn Refiners Association Attempts to Hoodwink Consumers
On top of lobbying efforts, the Corn Refiners Association, an industry organization of which Archer Daniels Midland a is a key member, launched the website sweetsurprise.com as a media relations ploy to debunk "myths" about HFCS and clarify "The Facts about High Fructose Corn Syrup."
It also ran well-funded TV advertising starting in 2008 sticking up for the industry's favorite sweetener and asserting that "sugar is sugar," which prompted a lawsuit by sugar producers claiming false advertising in 2011. The FDA also demanded the corn industry stop using the term "corn sugar" without approval.
In 2012, the FDA rejected a petition filed by the Corn Refiners Association in 2010 to change the name of high-fructose corn syrup to "corn sugar" for the purposes of food labeling and advertising. The Corn Refiners Association claims that it wanted the name change to "educate consumers," the majority of whom are "confused about HFCS."
To keep reading, get my new book Food Forensics, available now for pre-order everywhere books are sold.