As a result, multiple social media platforms are removing and banning the interview which received more than 1.5 million views in a very short period of time before it was removed. If you want to watch the full interview, you can do so here.
The Facts: A new film titled "Pandemic" has surfaced, and the producers recently released their first instalment and it featured an interview with Dr. Judy Mikovits, PhD. The interview is being deleted all across the internet.
Reflect On: Should people have the right to decide for themselves what is real and what is not instead of having an authoritarian fact-checker doing it for them? Should certain opinions and information be erased?
The term “conspiracy theory” is used a lot these days to debunk information that’s clearly not a conspiracy.
It’s part of the ridicule tactics used by mainstream media and the small group of people who own these networks as they use them to sway public opinions, shape perception, and literally ‘bash’ anything that threatens their interests.
For the past decade, one of the best examples has been the “war on terror.” Many people have since become aware that those who have been providing the solution, have also been involved in creating the problem.
Terrorist organizations have been created, funded and armed by governments who use terrorism to infiltrate other countries for ulterior motives under the guise of good will. This is referred to as false flag terrorism, and it was once called a “conspiracy theory.”
Media is then used to push this justification by enhancing the fear and hysteria that can be created using terrorism, making it seem as if the war is just, when again, it’s being used for ulterior motives abroad and at home in order to heighten the national security state.
Patriotism is also used to enhance this justification, convincing the populace that soldiers are fighting for our freedom. We are living in a time of mass propaganda and brainwashing, and we have been for quite some time.
We will probably get hit with a “fact-check” simply for sharing this article.
Are we seeing the same thing with the new coronavirus? Many ‘prominent’ figures have suggested that yes, we are.
That the new coronavirus is being used to justify authoritarian measures that are being placed upon the population as a result of this pandemic, like enhanced surveillance measures, economic shutdown, the ridicule of other therapies in order to push a vaccine, and forced lockdown.
Edward Snowden is one of many who suggested that governments should simply make, suggest and recommend people do this, this and that, stating that they should simply explain the science and why they think it will help and from there, let people make decisions instead of using force.
Many scientists and doctors have also been quite outspoken about the new coronavirus, providing a lot of evidence suggesting that ‘the powers that be’ are really making this out seem like something far more dangerous than it actually is, and that something strange is happening here.
These expert opinions and evidence are also being subjected to censorship and ridicule. We’ve written about it a lot, and if you’re interested you can refer to the list of articles posted at the end of this one.
The point is, there is a lot of credible information, evidence, expert testimony and science that really highlights this perspective.
What’s even more suspicious is that these perspectives are being blocked and censored by social media platforms and deemed false by mainstream media.
We must ask ourselves, why is there a digital Orwellian authoritarian fact checker patrolling the internet, banning content, and telling people what is real and what is fake instead of letting people decide for themselves?
What is really going on here? These are important questions to ask. Should people not have the right to examine information and sources and use their own discernment?
Mikovits started her career as a lab technician at the National Cancer Institute (NCI) in 1988. She became a scientist and obtained a Ph.D. in biochemistry and molecular biology from George Washington University in 1991.
By 2009, she was research director at the Whittemore Peterson Institute (WPI), a private research center in Reno, Nevada.
Judy was a well known scientist in her field, and was one of the leading scientists in her field. Judy was thrown in prison after she refused to discredit her own research that led to the discovery that retroviruses have been transmitted to 25 million Americans through vaccines.
We covered the story a few years ago, and you can read more about that in detail, here.
Her pandemic interview went viral, with more than 1.5 millions views in a very short period of time.
She and the first part of the film that’s been released are now being heavily attacked by the mainstream media, claiming that everything she has said is completely false and the accusations she has made are also completely false, and no more than a dangerous “conspiracy theory.”
Right now she is experiencing massive character assassination, which is another tactic commonly used by mainstream media.
Social media outlets are scrambling to delete the interview anywhere they can find it. YouTube has also recently announced that they will ban any content that contradicts the World Health Organization (WHO) about the new coronavirus.
The point is, should people not have the ability to decide for themselves?
Right now, the masses are getting bombarded with the idea that Judy is a fraud, and are simply getting one side of the story as she is constantly bashed and dis-credited by mainstream media. Furthermore, her interview has been deleted.
If you want to watch the full interview, you can do so here.
It’s important for people who are interested to be able to access the interview, do their own research, as well as read and listen to how mainstream media is dealing with it. After a thorough examination, they can decide for themselves what they’d like to believe.
That’s why I stayed away from getting into that discussion within this article.
She had a lot to say, about multiple topics including the coronavirus. It goes deep into her side of the story detailing the corruption and fraud that exists within our federal health regulatory agencies.
The point I am making here is that mainstream media and social media outlets are working tirelessly to ban and censor information. Is there any truth at all to what Judy is saying?
That should really be up for the people to decide, and banning the interview only makes people seek it out even more. Can what this renowned scientist really say be completely and utterly false?
"One of the main problems of our time is the public loss of confidence in the scientific community because of a too often corrupt coalition of governmental and corporate entities. Judy Mikovits’s and Kent Heckenlively’s book delves into the midst of this rampant corruption, which hides from the public scientific truths which might go against these corporate economic interests.”
- Dr. Luc Montagnier, 2008 Nobel Laureate for the isolation of the HIV retrovirus
“Kent Heckenlively and Judy Mikovits are the new dynamic duo fighting corruption in science.”
Ben Garrison, America’s #1 political satirist
“What this book teaches you more than anything else is that science is a dangerous game. The notion that science is precise and unambiguous is wrong. When there is doubt, there is the potential for powerful interested parties to make life miserable for a scientist with integrity. Throughout the book, intrigue is seamlessly intertwined with fascinating revelations about the still poorly understood science behind the potential role of retroviruses in mysterious debilitating diseases like chronic fatigue syndrome and autism.”
- Dr. Stephanie Seneff, Senior Research Scientist, MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
The Corruption of Science. The Hydroxychloroquine Lancet Study Scandal. Who Was Behind It? Anthony Fauci’s Intent To Block HCQ on Behalf Of Big Pharma
The Guardian has revealed the scandal behind the hydroxychloroquine study which was intent on blocking HCQ as a cure for COVID-19.
“Dozens of scientific papers co-authored by the chief executive of the US tech company behind the Lancet hydroxychloroquine study scandal are now being audited, including one that a scientific integrity expert claims contains images that appear to have been digitally manipulated.
The audit follows a Guardian investigation that found the company, Surgisphere, used suspect data in major scientific studies that were published and then retracted by world-leading medical journals, including the Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine"
"Several concerns were raised with respect to the veracity of the data and analyses conducted by Surgisphere Corporation and its founder and our co-author, Sapan Desai, in our publication. We launched an independent third-party peer review of Surgisphere …
As such, our reviewers were not able to conduct an independent and private peer review and therefore notified us of their withdrawal from the peer-review process”
The study was allegedly based on data analysis of 96,032 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 between Dec 20, 2019, and April 14, 2020 from 671 hospitals Worldwide. The database, according to the Guardian could not be verified. It was false.
"I did not do enough to ensure that the data source was appropriate for this use. For that, and for all the disruptions – both directly and indirectly – I am truly sorry.”
CEO Dr. Sapan Desai took the blame. Who was behind him?
The Surgisphere Scientific Scam. Who was behind it? Who “commissioned” this Report?
Was the pharmaceutical industry and vaccine lobby group behind this initiative?
The Lancet acknowledges that the study received funding from the William Harvey Distinguished Chair in Advanced Cardiovascular Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital which is held by Dr. Mandeep Mehra.
Was the Surgisphere study intended to provide a justification to block the use of HCQ, as recommended by Dr. Anthony Fauci, advisor to president Trump? Upon reading the study (prior to its retraction), “Dr Fauci, … grinned as he told CNN that “the data shows hydroxychloroquine is not an effective treatment …”Referring to the Surgisphere report: “The scientific data is really quite evident now about the lack of efficacy for it [HCQ],” said Dr. Fauci. (quoted by CNN).
Here is the CNN’s authoritative assessment of Surgisphere’s report (prior to The Lancet’s Retraction):
"Seriously ill Covid-19 patients who were treated with hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine were more likely to die or develop dangerous irregular heart rhythms, according to a large observational study [by Surgisphere] published Friday [May 22, 2020] in the medical journal The Lancet."
Dr. Anthony Fauci who is the Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), has from the very outset led the campaign against hydroxychloroquine(largely on behalf of Big Pharma) invoking similar “scientific arguments” against HCQ, saying categorically there was no cure to COVID-19, and the only solution was the vaccine.
"The campaign to destroy hydroxychloroquine has been waged relentlessly, both by competitor pharmaceutical companies and those who want to destroy the US economy to advance their political agenda.
It is shocking that it has cost hundreds of thousands of lives and billions of taxpayer dollars.
But although the corruption of science for political and/ or financial gain has become a defining characteristic of our age, it is not a new story."
The publication of the Surgisphere study had an immediate impact: According to the Guardian, “Surgisphere data led to global trials of hydroxychloroquine for Covid-19 being halted in May, because it appeared to show the drug increased deaths in Covid-19 patients”.
“Higher Risks of Death” if you take HCQ, according to the study. In the days following the fake Surgisphere Lancet report on May 22, several countries including Belgium, France, Italy, acted to halt the use of hydroxychloroquine. The study had concluded patients taking the anti-malaria drug had a higher risk of death than those who were not taking the medication
It is worth noting that prior to the conduct of the Surgisphere study, Dr. Fauci stated categorically that the use of HCQ had not been studied in relation to the coronavirus. “No proven drug”: “Not Enough Known”. Nonsensical and false statements.
What Fauci failed to mention is that Chloroquine had been “studied” and tested fifteen years ago by the CDC as a drug to be used against coronavirus infections.
Chloroquine was used in 2002 and tested against SARS-1 coronavirus in a study under the auspices of the CDC published in 2005 in the peer reviewed Virology Journal.
The main conclusion of the article was that: Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread. It was used in the SARS-1 outbreak in 2002. It had the endorsement of the CDC.
The main author Dr. Martin J. Vincent together with several of his colleagues were affiliated with the Special Pathogens Branch of the Atlanta based CDC together with co-authors from a Montreal based partner research institution. The main conclusions of this study are that Chloroquine is a tested drug and can be used for SARS-corona virus infections.
Dr. Anthony Fauci has not put forth a treatment which could be applied against COVID-19. What he is saying is that there is no treatment. And then he endorses the fake scientific study by Surgisphere which was subsequently retracted by The Lancet.
Dr. Anthony Fauci has been deliberately blocking a drug which was endorsed by the CDC 15 years ago for treatment of SARS-1 Coronavirus. More recently, it has been used extensively in a number of countries in relation to the Coronavirus or SARS-COV-2 (COVID-19) outbreak. Whose interests is he serving?
So here we all are living our ‘new normal’ – Alert Level 1 in the battle against Covid-19. That’s where we’re expected to stay until a vaccine is available. It’s only at that stage that our borders could fully re-open and New Zealanders would be free to travel.
But what a journey it’s been. Cabinet papers provide details of the key events.
The country’s response to the new coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 outbreak began on 31 January when Cabinet declared it a ‘notifiable disease’ under the Health Act. That allowed Medical Officers of Health to manage the epidemic response.
It was a month later on February 28 that the first case was reported in New Zealand – a woman who had returned from Iran. The headlines announcing the arrival of the virus in New Zealand created panic buying in supermarkets, with some shoppers describing it as a “zombie apocalypse”.
Cabinet did not address our virus problem until March 9, when they declared it a ‘quarantinable disease’. That enabled epidemic notices to be issued if sick passengers at the border needed to be quarantined.
It was not until March 14 that border controls required anyone coming into New Zealand to self-isolate for 14 days.
That was also the day the Prime Minister finally cancelled the planned gathering of 4,000 to commemorate the one-year anniversary of the March 15 terror attacks.
New Zealand’s borders were finally closed on March 19, except for Kiwis returning home, and mass gatherings were restricted to 100 indoors and 500 outdoors.
On March 20, Cabinet considered advice from the Ministry of Health outlining the Alert Level system recommending that the country move to Alert Level 2 for a month:
"We recommend New Zealand move completely to Level 2 immediately and remain there for up to 30 days initially. The move to Level 2 reflects the heightened risk of importing Covid-19 cases at this time as many New Zealanders return home from overseas and we see an uptick in reported cases here.”
The next day, on March 21, the Prime Minister duly announced the Alert Level system to the nation and explained that New Zealand was officially at Alert Level 2.
It was just two days later on March 23, that she again addressed the nation, this time warning there would be tens of thousands of deaths if we didn’t immediately move to Level 3 and two days later to Level 4 for a month-long lockdown of the whole country – apart from essential services.
On April 28, after 4 weeks and 5 days of strict lockdown we finally moved to Level 3, where we stayed for 2 weeks and 2 days, before moving to Level 2 on May 14. The last New Zealand Covid-19 case to be notified was on May 22, but it was not until seventeen days later, on June 8, after 3 weeks and 5 days at Level 2 that we were told we could move to Level 1.
Altogether, New Zealanders spent 81 days in lockdown – 33 in Level 4, 19 in Level 3, and 29 in Level 2. A total of 1,504 Covid-19 cases were reported, with 22 deaths and 1482 recoveries.
All of the deaths were of older people with underlying health issues: three were aged 60-69, seven aged 70-79, seven aged 80-89, and five aged 90 or above.
Multiple Scientists: Coronavirus Altered in Lab to Better Attach to Humans
Multiple highly regarded scientists who have studied C0R0NAVlRUS say that the VlRUS has been manipulated in labs to better attach to human cells.
Turns out, research on that very thing was conducted in the United States until the research was banned in 2013.
In 2014, the research appears to have resumed through funding to several labs in China through payments to Eco Health Alliance. We break down the timeline.
Of the cases, 44 percent were male and 56 percent female. And when it came to age, 36 (2 percent) of the cases were children aged 0-9 years old, 121 (8 percent) were aged 10-19, 358 (24 percent) were aged 20-29, 229 (15 percent) were aged 30-39, 220 (15 percent) were aged 40-49, 246 (16 percent) were aged 50-59, 178 (12 percent) were aged 60-69, 77 (5 percent) were aged 70-79, 30 (2 percent) were aged 80-89, and 9 (0.6 percent) were aged 90 years and over.
The [then] last remaining Covid-19 case was reported as recovered on June 8, the final day of Lockdown 2. The Prime Minister says she did a dance when she heard the news – a story that gained almost as much international media attention as her claim that the virus has been ‘crushed’.
When she told the country we could move to Level 1, the Prime Minister also said, “Here in New Zealand we went hard and early with a single plan that had a dual purpose – to protect lives and livelihoods.”
But just as her claim of going ‘hard and early’ has been challenged by those who say the borders should have been closed far earlier than they were, so too her claim of ‘protecting livelihoods’ is refuted by the tens of thousands of New Zealanders whose jobs and livelihoods have been crushed by her Government’s response to the virus.
New research by this week’s NZCPR Guest Commentator, Economics Professor John Gibson of Waikato University, has assessed the effectiveness of the Government’s lockdown strategy.
Professor Gibson found that no other Government imposed a lockdown as harsh as the one Jacinda Ardern forced onto New Zealanders:
"New Zealand had the most stringent settings for Coronavirus in the world, based on 17 indicators of government response (Hale et al. 2020)… the New Zealand stringency index from March 25 exceeded that for countries like Italy, Spain and France who by then had thousands of Covid-19 deaths.”
The research shows the economic cost of this excessively strict lockdown is estimated to be at least $10 billion, compared to staying at Level 2, which is essentially the stringency level Australia maintained throughout the epidemic, with similar, if not better, health outcomes.
Professor Gibson found that the Government’s decision to impose a lockdown lacked due process – they ignored the Ministry of Health’s advice to stay at Level 2 for a month, and they failed to carry out a proper cost-benefit analysis to assess the impact on the community and the nation:
"One would assume that rigorous cost-benefit analyses accompanied the decision to set the most stringent policy response in the world. Yet Cabinet papers released six weeks later suggest not: the government ignored advice from the Ministry of Health to stay at Level 2 for 30 days, instead jumping to Level 3 after just two days, then Level 4 two days later (Daalder 2020).”
A now discredited paper by Neil Ferguson of Imperial College London, which predicted a massive loss of life unless strict lockdown measures were introduced, appears to have been instrumental in Jacinda Ardern’s decision to impose the most stringent lockdown in the world onto New Zealand.
"Two epidemiological simulations seem to have played a key role: the Imperial College forecast of 0.51 million Covid-19 deaths in the UK and 2.2 million in the US if no changes in individual behaviour or in control measures occurred (Ferguson et al. 2020) and forecasts by University of Otago academics with an on-line simulator that ranged from seven Covid-19 deaths to 14,400, with a mean across the six forecasts of 8,300 deaths (Wilson et al. 2020)…
“The highest death forecasts from the University of Otago may have influenced comments made by the Prime Minister in announcing the lockdown: ‘If community transmission takes off … our health system will be inundated, and tens of thousands New Zealanders will die … it is the reality we have seen overseas… We can stop the spread by staying at home and reducing contact… That is why … effective immediately we will move to Alert Level 3 … after 48 hours we will move to Level 4’.”
Professor Gibson believes
"It is unfortunate that epidemiological simulations had such an impact, as they use flawed models…” and he explains that they assume people will not take preventative action to reduce risk – such as avoiding close contact with others. He also notes that the University of Otago forecasts assumed no tracing and isolation, even though these were a key part of the Government’s strategy.
He also explains that when economist Ian Harrison re-ran the University of Otago forecasts assuming a 50 percent success with tracing and isolation, “the forecast deaths fell by 96 percent”.
Professor Gibson’s research investigated the overall effectiveness of the lockdown strategy in managing the virus, concluding that lockdowns have no effect on Covid-19 deaths:
"Lockdowns are superfluous and ineffective (Homberg 2020)… Real-time activity indicators suggest the threat of Covid-19, rather than lockdown itself, drives behaviour (Chetty et al. 2020).”
So, there we have it – an evidence-based narrative indicating New Zealand could have managed the virus by sticking with the Ministry of Health’s advice to stay at Level 2.
Like Australia, we could have pulled through without needing an “ineffective” lockdown that has wrecked the economy and created devastating consequences for so many New Zealanders.
Having done the damage, the Government’s response has been to borrow an unprecedented $50 billion, pushing New Zealand into decades of deficits and higher taxes as they attempt to mitigate the economic chaos they have caused.
Part of their strategy includes a $20 billion ‘slush fund’ of unallocated expenditure to be used to prop up the economy. Between now and the election, the Prime Minister will be splashing the cash – just as Shane Jones has been doing all along with the Provincial Growth Fund’s $3 billion.
Meanwhile, the reality of the economic damage caused by the lockdown is becoming more apparent as the first wage subsidy runs out. With only businesses that can show a 40 percent or more decline in their turnover able to apply for an extension of the wage subsidy scheme, others are facing the grim reality of no longer being able to retain a full contingent of staff on reduced turnovers.
The Warehouse is in this situation. They can foresee the decline of shop-front retail, as the lockdown recession and the increasing popularity of on-line sales forces the company to cut costs by closing poorer performing stores and reducing staff numbers by 1,000.
The Prime Minister’s response to those job losses is indicative of her lack of understanding of the damage her harsh lockdown has caused. She was reported as saying:
"I’m angry. If I’m speaking frankly… The Government of course, and taxpayers, are taking a huge hit because we are prioritising keeping as many businesses and individuals employed and up and running as we can.”
If she had appreciated that most businesses operating in a competitive environment do not have the means to absorb an extended period of reduced income without cutting costs and staff, she may have been less inclined to order all businesses to close down.
Instead she may have realised that by trusting New Zealanders and giving them a chance, most business could have continued operating with social distancing and good hygiene practices in place, just as supermarkets did.
To cushion the blow for workers made redundant because of the lockdown – like those from the Warehouse, the Government has introduced a higher unemployment benefit rate.
They say, “The payment will be available for 12 weeks from 8 June for anyone who has lost their job due to the impact of COVID-19 since March 1. It will pay $490 a week to those who lost full-time work and $250 for part-time. The payment will not be taxed.”
As a result, a two-tier unemployment benefit system has now been created – anyone who registered before 8 June will be receiving around $250 after tax, while anyone on this ‘premium’ benefit, will get almost double.
Now that the country is returning to our “new normal” the focus is on managing the fallout from the lockdown. At some stage, the mountainous debt accumulated by the Ardern Government will need to be repaid. The Green Party wants a capital gains tax.
While Prime Minister Ardern has ruled out capital gains taxes under her watch, what’s the likelihood there will be a change of heart - “But we couldn’t predict COVID-19” – shortly after the election!
The Ongoing Destruction Of The Minds Of Children & The Mass Dumbing Down Of Humanity Is Now Confirmed By Scientists June 28 2020 | From: Zerohedge / NaturalNews "There can be no greater stretch of arbitrary power than to seize children from their parents, teach them whatever the authorities decree they shall be taught, and expropriate from the parents the funds to pay for the procedure." - Isabel Paterson
Compulsory schooling is a travesty. To call it education is absurd.
Real education is lifelong learning as an individual, while compulsory public schooling is the indoctrination of children as a collective exercise to bring all down to the lowest level.
Prisons called schools are simply the forced means to stifle individual brilliance while promoting sameness and monotony. The result of this brainwashing is meant to teach children to obey orders, and to be satisfied spending their lives in a virtual cage of ignorance, to never become entrepreneurs and dissenters.
With the recent death of the great John Taylor Gatto, the loss of a giant is evident. He was not only a pioneer in real education, but he discovered the true nature and genius that exists in so many children.
The controllers who use the government school system as a way to dumb down the masses fully understand this potential genius.
They are very fearful of it. So fearful in fact, that more than 100 years ago, they designed a mandatory school system as a way to control the common people.
By training them to be good citizens and members of a collective society instead of individuals, the few could continue to control the many.
The experiment called compulsory schooling, now referred to as “public education,” began in Massachusetts in 1852, and became widespread just after the turn of the twentieth century.
By 1910 the majority of children were in public schools.
Since that time “education” as administered by the state has been a horrible failure, if learning was the desired end. But learning and knowledge were never the goals of forced schooling; training the young to honor authority, discipline, and nationalism were the true goals sought.
In that regard, public schooling has been completely successful. These institutions became the vehicle used to teach children to be managed instead of managing themselves. They have produced a soft society consumed by doubt and incompetence, and one that can function only as a mass.
In order to change this dynamic, a real education is necessary, but so long as parents continue to shirk their responsibility by allowing unknown state employees to raise and train their children, things can only get worse.
John Gatto knew that teaching reading, writing, and arithmetic could be accomplished in as few as 100 hours.
The improvement of those skills would be self-taught at the appropriate time and place, as self-taught persons are far more advanced than those subject to and dependent on mass schooling. Any real study of most kids educated at home will expose this truth. As I see it, it is up to parents to save their own children. That will not be an easy task, as most parents are products of the same state-schooling system that exists today, and were taught long ago not to rock the boat or question authority.
Everything should be questioned, and everything should be scrutinized. Questioning authority is the bane of the state apparatus, which is the reason compulsory schooling was implemented in the first place. It continues unabated as the dominant training discipline of this country’s young.
Take a look around and you may be shocked.
How many have lost their imagination? How many seek counseling? How many feel inadequate and consider suicide? How many do you know who manage their lives by taking prescription drugs? How many are bored, emotionally wrecked, and afraid?
Most of those people, a very large portion of the population, can no longer function as individuals. Such behavior should be expected, as the product turned out by the mandatory government school system has little ability to think and act without guidance.
That is a direct result of being a prisoner of state-sponsored indoctrination centers from infancy to adulthood. That is why public schooling is anathema to free-thinking, self-reliant, and responsible individuals.
Mass schooling guarantees a weak and compliant population, one that has lost the ability to think critically. It is an all-consuming addiction to mediocrity, and an escape from excellence.
No society can continue to be free and prosper under such conditions. Why, as John Gatto asked, are we turning our kids over to total strangers who can mold their minds with state propaganda for twelve years?
It is time for parents to take back their children, and rescue them from a life of dependency.
The Mass Dumbing Down Of Humanity Is Now Confirmed By Scientists
Some mainstream media pundits are finally beginning to notice a disturbing trend that we’ve been warning about here at Natural News for quite some time now: the trend towards dumbness and idiocracy throughout the West.
In one recent op-ed published by NBC News, author Evan Horowitz pegs this trend as a widespread IQ decline, indicating that intelligence levels are now trending downwards after many decades of moving upwards.
There’s also the great untouchable: vaccination. No fake news writer or correspondent has thus far indicated a willingness to even suggest that vaccines and the chemicals they contain might be harming children’s brains – but the truth is that they are.
And let’s not forget about the growing litany of pharmaceutical drugs that’s constantly hitting the market, as many of these chemical concoctions contain substances that are known to impair childhood development.
“Diversity” and Multiculturalism Linked to Falling IQs Throughout the West
There’s yet another elephant in the room that Horowitz actually does mention, but subsequently denies as being a legitimate factor in plunging IQ rates, and that’s third-world immigration.
Though it’s extremely politically incorrect to suggest such, the continued onslaught of “migrants,” “refugees,” and “undocumented” peoples into Western countries is, in fact, having a detrimental effect on the collective state of intelligence in such nations.
Since, as President Trump revealed while still on the campaign trail, countries south of the U.S. border aren’t “sending their best,” the general level of societal intelligence is on a perpetual slide downwards – with no end in sight.
As explained by Anatoly Karlin, writing for The Unz Review, the “low base” of poorly-educated immigrants that’s flooding the U.S. and much of Western Europe is having a net-negative effect on IQ averages, as indicated by quantitative data collected from PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) tests.
Though such data are sure to be dubbed by the Left as “racist,” it speaks for itself: Wherever third-world immigrants are flooding first-world countries, intelligence levels on the whole are noticeably decreasing.
"Given the strong dependence between national IQ and economic prosperity, the globalist open borders project presents a serious challenge to the long-term viability of the First World cognitive engines that drive the vast bulk of technological progress – progress that is already threatened by the dysgenic trends embedded in post-Malthusian society and the banal fact that problems tend to get harder, not easier, as you ascend the technological ladder,” Karlin writes.
“This is not to even mention the risk of ‘institutional contagion’ from newcomers who are culturally and perhaps biologically incompatible with that unique blend of individualism and commitment to the commonwealth that facilitated the rise of European civilization.”
Karlin’s full article is available for your educational enrichment at The Unz Report.
To learn more about how the vaccination scam is damaging children and also contributing to the decline of intelligence, be sure visit VaccineHolocaust.org.
Michael Tellinger "The Cabal Are Fighting For Survival" June 27 2020 | From: DinarRecaps
Watching the USA from the outside is like watching a great tragedy taking place - with the villains running freely causing more and more destruction - shifting the blame onto those who want to uphold peace and harmony and to simply live a beautiful life.
For all my friends in the USA - please be aware that your country is under full blown attack by the same Rothschild funded Bolshevik insurgent agents that caused most of the destruction and chaos in the world over the past 250 years.
This is the most dangerous organized crime syndicate on Earth. They have killed presidents, started wars, over-turned governments, abducted, tortured, extorted, bribed and murdered millions of people to retain their control over most of the world's governments to date.
Among their more famous victims have been: Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Archduke Franz Ferdinand 1914; Tsar Nikolai Romanov 1918, JFK in 1963, Hendrik Verwoerd South African Prime minister 1966, and many world leaders who defied their banking system - including Muammar Gaddafi of Libya.
Donald Trump is the first leader to have broken that control and removed them from power in the USA by taking control of the FED.
This is why the attacks on him are so vicious and relentless, and they come from all sides.
Since the USA was always the Rothschild's strongest territory - to control the rest of the world, with its powerful army, these global criminals have pulled out all the stops to overturn a duly elected president. They have activated and unleashed all their assets to achieve this.
Since Trump controls the army and the FED, their main tool is the mainstream media, with its repeating lies and propaganda 24/7 to poison the minds of the people. They are fighting for their survival.
They will lie to your face, use human tragedy and emotion in their favour against you, destroy the economy, destroy cities and monuments, bring down an entire country, kill and deceive everyone - just to achieve victory. Please be aware of this. If they cannot destroy Trump - they will be finally destroyed after 250 years of global control.
If you live in the USA, it is very difficult to get a clear view of the situation, because most of the US media is part of the Cabal and toxic with ant Trump propaganda. Trump's victory will liberate all other countries from the Rothschild control of all central banks and bring freedom to people everywhere.
Whether you like Trump or not, is not the issue - he is the only world leader who has defeated the Rothshilds by hijacking their central bank in the USA.
This happened quietly during March 2020, and without any media coverage, because the media is owned by the same of Rothschild banking empire.
Trump Takes Control Of The FED - Leads the Way For Other Countries To Follow
President Donald Trump breaks a 250-year long stranglehold of the Royal Political Elite and their central banks.
Since the 1760s and the rise of the Rothschild banking empire, the world has been held hostage by the global banking elite families, led by the Rothschilds - creating the largest organised crime syndicate on Earth - larger than all other crime syndicates combined - more brutal, more bloodthirsty and yet completely visible to all.
They have abducted, tortured, bribed, extorted and murdered all their opponents to stay in control. They launched most of the wars in history, invaded countries and removed any threat with brutal force over and over again.
They have more blood on their hands than all other crime syndicates combined.
Many honest leaders, presidents and prime ministers have tried to free their countries from the banksters' stranglehold over this period, but so far, in over 250 years, no one has succeeded. Until now.
President Donald J Trump has quietly taken over the Federal Reserve Bank of the USA, in the last 2 weeks of March 2020 - without any fanfare or massive media exposure.
In a cunning move, Trump is now in complete control of the largest Reserve Bank on Earth - without any violence or bloodshed - by simply absorbing the FED into the Treasury Department.
It may take some time for this to sink in - But this is a pivotal moment in more that 250 years - will other leaders follow the USA president, or are they too fearful?
Additional:Read about the
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
everything within it's
power to denigrate Trump - as he is part of the effort to take
Illuminati down once and for
And the Alliance effort operates beyond the bounds of countries - out of neccessity; as that is how the Luciferian
Do you think you can trust the mainstream media? Look at whom they target. One must wonder why 'they' also do not
At least the USA will not invade your country, as they have done before - to topple the "rogue" leadership in order to retain control of the central bank - because the USA is leading this historic break-away moment.
If only 10 countries of the world do this - take control of their central banks - and in essence rename then Peoples Banks - we will rapidly break the Rothschild stranglehold over humanity and usher in a new era of freedom from economic slavery - prosperity and abundance for all.
Honouring The Trailblazers June 26 2020 | From: WakeUpWorld
We are in the midst of a massive shift in consciousness that is sweeping our sweet little planet. So why not take a moment and honour all of the brave souls, the “unsung heroes” who came here before us to assist with this shift and make it happen?
The empaths, the sensitives, lightworkers, wayshowers, and all those who were holding light and transmuting the dense energies long before the rest of us, so that others may awaken as well. They were the ones who were “awake” before the word “awake” ever had a deeper, more profound meaning. For many years, they have been the souls on the “front lines” of this awakening.
Some trailblazers were very aware of their role and courageously used their voice and called “bullshit” on the injustices and dishonesty of others, as they were able to see through it all with crystal clear vision.
They were often the activists and the leaders of social movements. They were those ahead of their time, who established newsletters and platforms such as this one, intended to help awaken the masses.
For many, they remained out of the spotlight and the world stage, choosing to personally guide those closest to them. And others, either aware of it or not, they went about their trailblazing in a more subtle fashion, choosing to show the way for others by simply living their lives as the example.
You know, the ones who were eating organic before eating organic became a trend, before it was even called “organic”, and before there were countless studies to prove that organic eating is indeed healthier for us.
They were the ones who took risks and followed their intuition. They were the ones who, in spite of all logical reasoning, sold everything they had and moved across the globe simply because their soul was calling them there, only to discover the many synchronicities, growth opportunities and reasons for this choice.
They were the people who were not satisfied with conformity and the status quo of getting a job that didn’t fulfill them just to pay the bills and buy things they don’t need, and then hope to one day retire and enjoy life, if there’s anything left of it.
They snuck puppies into care homes just to see the faces of the residents light up with joy.
They were the ones who refused to accept ill health as their destiny, and just a side effect of “growing old.”
They were the dreamers who knew that their dreams were important. They understood that peace and freedom are a right, not a privilege.
They were often exposed to trauma, abuse, and other challenging life situations.
They were the ones who refused to be a victim and instead chose to accept responsibility for their life and learn the lessons that were intended for them to learn.
They are the ones for whom experience did not harden their hearts, but instead, they chose to transcend and help others with their lessons.
They have a genuine love and affection for all of humanity, regardless of culture or skin colour.
Chances are, you likely recognize many of these examples either in yourself, or in others that you know. I have been blessed to have trailblazers in my life and to call them my friends. I honestly don’t know what I would do without their wisdom and support.
They have a strength and an unwavering nerve that comes with experience. They know exactly what they are capable of and there isn’t a whole lot that can surprise them.
One really has to appreciate those who were doing this great work at a time when the energies were so very dense. They were working with the limited tools, opportunities, support and knowledge that they had at the time, before the internet allowed information to flow freely, and before the term “the Shift” was even coined.
It could be said that they had to learn “the hard way”. (My own mother endured health issues for many years until, thanks to the vast amount of information on the internet, she finally discovered her health problems were all symptoms triggered by the mercury fillings in her mouth.)
At 32 years old myself, I realize that I am not speaking with decades upon decades of experience, but I can feel and see the effects of this Shift. There is such a greater acceptance of other ideas and concepts that were quite taboo only a short time ago, even from when I took my first level of Reiki training in 2010.
It is nothing now to hear people speaking of energy work and mindfulness as though they are everyday topics. But it wasn’t always this way…
I am in deep gratitude for all of those who came before me, and bravely lit the way so that I could step into who I really am.
Beyond Your Comfort Zone
While the trailblazers certainly had their hefty share of challenges, my generation is, of course, facing challenges as well. We are learning to play in a new arena. The energies are changing quickly and our sensibilities and our bodies are trying to keep up. We are living within a higher dimension but still dealing with people and the limited concepts of the third dimension.
These are the days when we can become tired, or fed up with the world. When our expanded awareness threatens to become too much for our sensibilities to handle. We understand how it might be nice to live in ignorance, to not be so aware and feel so responsible.
And these are the days when a trailblazer will swoop into our life, our unassuming angels, to comfort and remind us of how amazing we are and of the great work we are doing. They restore our energy and tell us, “don’t give up, you’ve come so far. There are greater things ahead of you if you push beyond your comfort zone.”
The trailblazers have taught me compassion, patience, humility, and when I needed it, tough love. They have been there to assure me, “no, you’re not crazy”, or else, “this isn’t easy, but it is worth it.” They have reminded me that change is necessary and that there is vast potential that awaits within uncertainty.
Sometimes they have come into my life to stay, others have passed through, or were there only for a short time when I really needed them. On occasion, it was just a chance encounter or conversation in the line up of a grocery store.
And as you read this, no matter your age or where you feel you are at on this path, take a moment to honour yourself. Because the truth is, we are all trailblazers in our own, unique way.
We all have gifts to share with the rest of the world. And for every moment that we are living in our truth, or expressing our authentic selves, we are lighting the way and lending a hand for the next person to do the same.
No matter what “hat” we are wearing in this lifetime, absolutely everything that we do makes a difference. And every time that we are true to who we are and express our authentic selves, we light the way for another soul to do the same. It is absolutely no accident that you are here at this time.
And that is something that every trailblazer will tell you; you are doing more than you can possibly know right now, but one day, it will be easy for you to see.
Nuggets of Wisdom from the Trailblazers
I would like to leave you with a few nuggets of wisdom and advice for this particular time that we are in that have recently been shared with me from my friends, “the trailblazers”;
Right now, it is of utmost importance to listen to your body. These energies are intense. In fact, the most intense that they have ever felt. This is huge work we are doing, and if you don’t get the much needed rest that your body is requiring, you will get burn out and end up needing to take a lot of time to recover.
So if you are feeling like you need more sleep even though your mind is telling you that you shouldn’t, tell your mind very gently to f*#k off!
Not everything that you feel is actually yours. You are transmuting dense energies for so many souls other than yourself, so honour the importance of that by listening to your body.
Do what ever it takes to stay grounded and balanced, be it taking regular nature walks, spending time with loved ones, meditating, simply sharing healing time with a pet by stroking their fur, going for a swim, or watching a sunset. Listen to your soul and pay attention to what fills you with a sense of peace and contentment.
The other evening I sat on my deck and gazed into the setting sun. There was a magical glow cast upon my yard, and as I sat there, I allowed my eyes to lose focus and simply see the “light” that seemed to be glowing from within everything around me. It was then that I heard a gentle voice say, “now you are seeing the love that is in all things.”
Needless to say, I was filled with a calm that I wouldn’t have had if I hadn’t sat down and taken a few moments to enjoy the sunset. Nature is here for us, always. Spending time with the trees is also very effective.
They understand what we are going through right now, and you will feel your energy lighten considerably in their presence. I prefer to hug them or climb up into their limbs and wrap my arms around them for full effect.
Eat healthy and drink lots of water. Again, this is about honouring our bodies with proper fuel.
If you have fear, learn from it, integrate it. But do not let it stop you. We are here for self-actualization. It is wise to be wary, and to practice discernment, but try not to live in fear. This is when our vibration drops and we are left feeling powerless. Fear is there to teach us something, so focus on what that lesson may be, not the fear itself.
Check in with yourself often. Just a simple question such as “Am I on the right track?” It is simply to confirm that you are aware of why you do what you are doing and for what reasons.
Follow the guidance of your heart as our brains can’t keep up to this shift. They always need to “know” what is going to happen and what the outcome will be. This is not how we operate on this level.
As I’ve been told, “we are in a new arena. The rules are changing.” I had a message similiar to this pop into my awareness as I was enjoying an evening bike ride, “I am not of this world, I don’t play by these rules.”
I felt as though it was a reminder from my higher self to not get caught up in the drama and anxiety of the third dimension and all of the “shoulds” that we feel we have to surrender to to feel happy and successful.
Stay humble. Just when you think you have it all figured out, your awareness will expand and you will realize just how much you didn’t know. We can only grow so much at one time, because if we tried to keep going and going, our bodies could never handle it. This is where the burn out comes in.
So remember that if you feel as though you have plateaud, this is simply a lookout point to your next stage of awareness. As long as you are willing, you will continue to grow, but trust that it cannot happen too quickly.
And above all, you can do this. Trust yourself. There is always help available, and you have many guides that are working with you. Not to mention, the Universe is on your side. Just think about the grand scope of that for a moment. The entire Universe which is capable of all things is on our side.
Meet the Universe halfway, and expect to be helped in magical ways that you would never expect.
Lastly, I would like to extend my deep appreciation to all of the trailblazers of the world, those who I have had the pleasure to meet and to talk to across the miles, and for the countless souls that I haven’t. Thank you. This world is a better place because of you.
I hope that you have found this article helpful. I would love to hear from you! I can be reached via my website jessieklassen.com. While there, feel free to sign up for my free weekly newsletter where I share my experiences, advice, learnings and lessons on how to connect with Nature and improve your life.
Why Are People So Concerned About 1080? June 25 2020 | From: EnvirowatchRangitikei / Various
With the ranks of those who oppose the aerial spreading of 1080 swelling exponentially, you may well be asking, why are folk so concerned about this poison?
In the following video clip lawyer Sue Grey and Waikato Regional Councillor for Taupo, Kathy White, explain how they attempted to present the poisoning register to members of parliament (on a typically windy day) …
The article by Jenese James on the GrafBoys’ press release on 89 (dead & not tested) Kiwi has had 54,000 shares to date on facebook.
People are outraged at what is coming to light and rightly so. I personally began researching the independent information about 1080 after watching the documentary by the GrafBoys called Poisoning Paradise.
These two Kiwi guys were raised in the bush, they know their stuff. Their doco has won four international awards (see here also) and yet, get this - NZ television will not play it here in our own country. They are assuming that we cannot listen & judge for ourselves?
Does that not raise alarm bells for you? It should.
That doco was the starting point that left me with enough question marks around the official line, to prompt me to look further than DoC’s own research.
Kathy White: 1080 – The Unintended Consequences for Water, Wildlife and Us
Kathy White, a Waikato Regional Councillor (in NZ), shares her excellent presentation with the FLORA & FAUNA Aotearoa Sustainable Conservation Conference attendees, about the use of 1080 and pest control, health effects and more.
That is literal too, for the research DoC uses to justify the alleged safety of aerial distribution of 1080 in NZ is 70% in-house, writes Reihana Robinson in her book The Killing Nation.
So what is coming to light then? Does NZ’s Department of Conservation (DoC) not have our best interests at heart? The best interests of our native flora & fauna? Don’t they have all the right checks & balances in place?
Do they not have a body of scientific data & research (including follow up data) justifying the use of this poison, that has been banned incidentally by most other countries on the planet?
Well, as it turns out, no they don’t appear to have a sound, watertight body of scientific data that actually proves 1080 is both safe & achieving (after 60+ years) what it set out to do.
"… there is not a single scientifically credible study showing that aerial 1080 when used on the mainland is of net benefit to any species of New Zealand’s native fauna. Thus the upside for native species is entirely unproven, despite 15 years of increasingly desperate attempts by DoC to show one."
- Pat and Quinn Whiting-OKeefe, Scientists
In light of this, people are understandably worried about their food sources.
If it’s touted as being ‘safe’, safe in our food, safe in water and so on, yet the science has any kind of question mark over it, then logically, folk will be concerned. I certainly am. The authorities should be practicing the precautionary principle:
"The precautionary principle is the concept that establishes it is better to avoid or mitigate an action or policy that has the plausible potential, based on scientific analysis, to result in major or irreversible negative consequences to the environment or public even if the consequences of that activity are not conclusively known, with the burden of proof that it is not harmful falling on those proposing the action.
It is a major principle of international environmental law and is extended to other areas and jurisdictions as well.”
Should they not be stopping the use of aerially dropped 1080 until the studies are done as a US Biophysicist from Tufts University has suggested?
Many NZers hunt and fish for their food [Photo: Courtesy of Hikoi of a Poisoned Nation FB page]NZers are keen hunters and fishers. Wild food (pigs and deer, fish & eels from the rivers, koura from the streams, whitebait and so on) are a staple for many.
This is their families’ kai (food). The rivers and bush or forests are their food cupboard. And now they are seeing that source becoming a safety risk because a toxic poison is being dumped into it and has been for 60+ years.
In spite of verbiage telling us it’s harmless as a cup of tea or a packet of crisps (potato chips) (the oft quoted justifications on blogs by pro 1080 folk).
So not only is there concern about contamination of hunted animals, but contamination of the flora as well.
"Not only is 1080 highly toxic to mammals, birds and insects- one scientist has even discovered that it is toxic to plants and so forests do not do so well after 1080 drops.
Take for instance the recent poisoning of the family in Putaruru in the Waikato. This family, after beginning a meal of wild pork, fell instantly ill and had to be rushed to hospital by ambulance.
The scenario that followed is revealing indeed regarding the apparent cover up that is going on with regard to testing possible victims of 1080 poisoning.
A Doctor suspected 1080 as the source of the problem early in the piece as records showed when they were finally released after some of the usual foot dragging that seems to be characteristic of any request by the public for official documentation around possible 1080 poisoning.
The familycould not even access their own records! Not only did the hospital fail to test for 1080 within the required time frame, the fact that the patients were literally tied to their beds because of the violent convulsions characteristic of 1080 poisoning, was never mentioned in the media.
The ongoing mantra from mainstream media on this was ‘botulism’
And if you are a tourist, it is better in my opinion, not to drink from the streams as many have been observed doing. Observers have described how tourists are sometimes not even aware of the purpose of 1080 drops going on right over their heads. So much for public warnings.
Invariably what I am seeing in the reports, articles and general chat by eye witnesses is that the toxicity of 1080 is totally downplayed. It is even being taught in children’s school texts that 1080 is ‘not very dangerous’ to humans.
This is a substance that is banned in most countries. That kills all breathing organisms from insect life to worms, right up to larger animals such as horses.
And yet we are supposed to believe it specifically targets pests? How ever is that possible? Another miracle from NZ’s Department of Conservation? Read Dr Meriel Watts’ exposé of that theory.
Then we heard this year from research by the Graf Brothers that the authorities have changed the rules to allow the dropping of 1080 into our waterways without a Regional Council consent.
They can now effectively bypass the pesky Resource Management Act. And dropping it they are. Prior to this, it was ending up in waterways anyway as witnesses have shown with their many photographs posted online.
The late Bill Benfield’s research revealed that a drop in the Hunua Ranges, home of Auckland’s town water supply, saw the water filters filled with 1080 pellets!
Seriously. In addition, there is No antidote! It is undetectable as the cause of death if tests are not done early enough.
"To date there are no known epidemiological studies that have been carried out in relation to 1080 and potential adverse health effects on humans."
- NZ Ministry of Health 2008
Then there is the risk to outdoors people who simply walk or hike. Over the past three years I’ve seen various reports of folk out picnicking, out tramping or simply enjoying the scenery, rained down on by 1080 pellets.
Hiker Whitney Robie died of suspected 1080 poisoning however NZ’s authorities lost her heart thereby rendering the cause undetectable
Two women fell ill after this kind of scenario while innocently out for a picnic. Nobody will of course admit to any link between their illness & exposure to 1080.
The most upsetting of all the examples of this has been that of the young US woman who died following a tramp in the Queenstown area. Her Doctor suspected 1080 poisoning & tried to bring about an investigation into that. Her heart was sent for testing as to the cause of her cardiac rest and unbelievably the NZ lab lost her heart. Seriously.
They lost her heart! Dr Charlie Baycroft a retired MD, recently warned the public that if anybody dies from 1080 poison nobody will know.
He was threatened with prosecution by the Ministry of Health for publicly advising folk how to go about getting tested if they feared poisoning.
Are you beginning to feel uneasy at all about our wild food sources?
I read a comment just the other day by a woman who has stopped taking her children to a recreational/scenic area where she’s noticed signs up saying it’s been treated with 1080.
I spoke recently with a university lecturer on the poisoning program, he has noticed a proliferation of poison signs when he goes into the bush.
The NZ authorities changed the animal welfare act to allow this. To top it off, adding insult to injury, they are forced to lie about this in the paperwork should they desire compensation for their losses. Hobson’s choice.
Then there was the Whitianga debacle. The attendance by one concerned man at the scene of the unloading of 1080 in the CBD of Whitianga with no public warnings or signage out as legally required, a man who was subsequently assaulted by a security guard, was himself charged with assault, the case eventually dismissed but leaving him with more than $22K in court costs.
If you were at all conspiratorial you might think a clear message was being sent to the public. You can read about that at these links.
Then in Levin a Horizons storage facility where 1080 was stored caught fire,with apparently no public warnings in place. I observed myself, comments on social media by a man who had noticed symptoms of illness following that fire.
He lived in the vicinity. His conversation around the effects cut abruptly short I noticed.
More recently we’ve had revelations on lack of safety with 1080, by an ex employee of Horizons. Diluted solutions of 1080 were sprayed all over the Palmerston North landfill by a contractor surprised that he was allowed to do this. What of the leachate from that dump?
What of public in the vicinity of the spraying? What of the earth it was sprayed onto? Of nearby water sources / streams / ditches and so forth?
Data sheets warn against baits entering waterways (Photo: TV-Wild)
"ERMA’s Agency warned that “No studies have been conducted using standard international guidelines to assess the route and rate of degradation of 1080 in soil. The rate of such degradation under New Zealand conditions is uncertain.”And regarding water: ”Overall, the relevance of the aquatic plant/water studies to the degradation of 1080 in water in NZ is not clear.”
And yes there is more that folk are concerned about.
The birds. Frequently we are reading comments by people who note there is no birdsong … no birds in the bush.
Folk who have lived long enough to remember how things used to be, like an 82 year old gentleman recently who said the Kiwi, Kereru, Kea, Weka & Tui had all disappeared from where he lived on the West Coast.
Reports also come from people who aren’t even anti 1080 or even aware of these drops. Tourists. One I read commented that since their last trip to NZ in the ’70s the birds were noticeably scarce.
The GrafBoys & others have posted videos online following 1080 drops & illustrated the lack of birdsong. Listen below.
Below a blogger comments about Lake Matheson in the South Island:
"Lake Matheson, near Fox Glacier township, South Westland. When I lived there many years ago (Fox Glacier I mean) there was so much birdlife. The day I took that photo there was nothing. You can see what a beautiful morning it was.
There was a pair of Paradise ducks on the lake, I saw one male Tomtit, and I heard one Grey Warbler. In one hour of walking round the lake that was all the birdsong I heard. A real “Rachel Carson” moment ! PS That area is also overrrun with tourists and campervans now too.
No - people who oppose the use of aerial 1080 are not terrorists as mainstream media is doing their utmost to portray them as.
They simply do not want their food sources & their environment poisoned. I think that is a fair request. We are constantly told that 1080 is the best tool in the tool box, yet there are alternatives & the most glaringly obvious is trapping with all of it’s obvious benefits.
Employment, trade & food. But no, DoC don’t want a bar of it."
It seems pertinent at this point to highlight one of the apparent major incentives for the continuation of 1080 drops, as a former Mayor of Taupo expounded:
Orillion, the company in Whanganui that makes 1080 baits is a State Owned Enterprise, its two share holders are the Minister of Finance & the Minister of Primary Industry. (Info at 2.40 in this video.)
People need to look beyond the diversions mainstream is constantly throwing out … were the dead birds on Parliament steps killed by 1080 or blunt force? Seriously? What does it matter?
Some better questions to ask would be … were the 89 dead Kiwi documented in DoC’s own records killed with 1080? Or was the young female hiker’s heart really lost?
These are questions however that mainstream media quietly & persistently ignore. It is fairly obvious who they are working for & their current mandate is clearly painting any persons who are against poisoned food & environments as dangerous terrorists.
And we are never of course going to hear answers to those questions … figuring them out for ourselves really isn’t rocket science though is it?
NOTE: For further articles on 1080 use categories at left of the news page.
There are links also on our 1080 resources page to most of the groups, pages, sites etc that will provide you with further information to make your own informed decision on this matter.
If you are pro poisoning of the environment, EnvirowatchRangitikei is not the place to espouse your opinions. Mainstream would be the place to air those. This is a venue for sharing the independent science you won’t of course find there.
Finally we don’t endorse violence in any way shape or form.
Central Banking Exposed: Central Banks Only Care About Debt, Profit And Control June 24 2020 | From: FinalWakeUpCall / Various
The Crime is Money That No One Ever Earned is Used to Capture People’s Real Wealth.
The Bank for International Settlements: Meet The Secretive Group That Runs The World
Why people are put into debt and how paper money ruins society.
In 1815, Nathan Rothschild, one of five sons of Mayer Amschel Bauer, pulled off one of the most devious financial schemes in history.
This was the origin of today’s economic problems.
What followed clearly shows that history has not been a random series of events, but rather a carefully planned and executed ‘design’ of land, wealth, and resource-grabbing by a small number of wealthy and privileged individuals bent on world domination.
These procedures have been executed on such a massive scale that it is almost incomprehensible, not to mention that it seems impossible, but as the old saying goes; “The best kept secrets are the ones hidden in plain sight.”
During the Battle of Waterloo in 1815, Nathan Rothschild ‘purchased’ England, but his scheme was also historically significant for another reason: It showed how ‘fabricating’ a disaster can lead to massive financial gains.
He bought the Bank of England (BoE), which is the central bank of the United Kingdom and the model on which most other central banks in the entire world have been constructed.
Subsequently, by having control over the creation of money out of nothing and charging interest over that money, the Rothschilds have been accumulating virtual ownership across the globe, by engineering booms and busts for centuries to advance their agenda.
The difference between booms and busts is quite simply, the amount of ‘money’ in circulation and its perceived value. The Rothschilds dictate both.
Central Banks Only Care About Debt, Profit and Control
Doing away with all Central Banks is the most important goal for humanity as a way out of our debt-enslavement.
The tip of this iceberg are the traitors, treasonous individuals, and those committing crimes, but the real crime is against humanity with the creation of a fiat currency out of thin air, through the collaboration of numerous corporations around the world managing entire countries’ finances.
All the while, these criminals attach interest to the fake money that they are lending to governments and their citizens, enslaving each and every individual to the central bank system.
Presently, the Q-PLAN is getting rid of the whole Central Banking system. Because the Central Banks are not for the people, they have no allegiance to countries and their citizens.
Additional:Read about the Alliance that has
been working behind
the scenes for decades to take down the 'Cabal' within the work of David Wilcock.
Some of those reading this may be confused because the cabal-controlled mainstream media is doing
everything within it's
power to denigrate Trump - as he is part of the effort to take the Illuminati down once and for
The rich are becoming richer, and the middle class poorer, thanks to the bribed government puppets, who have implemented laws stating that this credit money is legal tender and must be used and accepted to buy valuables, while it is in essence worthless paper money.
Power and Fake Money Corrupts
Power and fake money corrupts. It is a lethal combination that not only destroys people but also nations.
Sadly, it has now reached a point in history, where the unlimited amounts of fiat money that have been created will eventually destroy whole continents, ultimately destroying the world’s monetary paper system completely.
The destruction of currencies has been the norm throughout history, as no paper or fiat currency has ever survived.
Therefore, it is to no avail to constantly introduce monetary systems that are not backed by value, these can never be sound and will not withstand the test of time.
Power, coupled with fiat money seems to have such a corrupting effect on everyone who enters politics, as the urge to print and spend money that doesn’t exist, proves time and time again to be totally irresistible.
Why People Are Put Into Debt
No one is immune to debt, and the majority of us are in some form of financial debt. Not having enough money, and especially being in debt, causes serious physical and mental distress.
This is why banks put people into debt, while a world without any debt is possible. The world’s central banks have criminally and deviously stolen the sovereign power of control from almost every government.
Privately-owned Central Banks create the nation’s ‘official money’, called legal tender, or Promissory Notes, better known as fiat money without intrinsic value, only backed by faith, but not by gold or silver.
Then they loan it out to the nation’s government, where the people pay back the government’s debt via income tax on wages, as well as the interest the government incurs when it borrows the money from the central bank, that they themselves could have issued interest free.
Governments’ debt is then expanded through fractional reserve expansion by commercial banks through loans to the public with further interest attached.
Central banks need to keep creating more money since extra money is needed to pay back all this interest, which is deliberately not created with the original money supply, thus the money to pay for this interest does not exist.
This causes inflation, as the value of each individual bank note decreases, as prices go up, forcing people to work even more hours – not just to pay all the interest back, but also to buy the things they could afford before.
Inflation decreases the purchasing power of money, resulting in increased prices.
In a free market, the value of precious metals would also increase, so its purchasing power would be maintained. – Higher prices generate higher taxes, offering governments yet another incentive to profit from currency debasement.
Paper Money Ruins Society
The secret of the Central Banks was already known by the founding fathers of America.
They knew that once a Central Bank was established in the country, the country would not survive. It would become corrupt to the core and major problems would occur.
George Washington wrote in a letter in 1786 to Andrew Jefferson;
"Paper money has the effect of ruining commerce, obliterating honesty and opening the door to every manifestation of fraud, and injustice conceivable.”
Paper money is poverty, Jefferson observed, it is only the ghost of money but not money itself. In 1817, it was stated that paper money abuses are also inevitable, and by breaking up the measure of value, it makes it a lottery of all private properties.
Paper money was unjustly declared to be money, concluded James Madison (1751-1836), who served as the 4th President of America. It is unconstitutional, he added, for it effects the rights of property as it takes away equal value in land.
The founding fathers recognised the perils of ‘legal tender’ paper money, which coerces people to accept something that may be inherently worthless, which is precisely the case with today’s fiat money.
The founding fathers knew that paper money corrupts, as it creates a wealth effect that destroys the nation.
They knew exactly the secret of the central bank system.
They concluded; We need to have a standard that is accepted around the world. The next best thing, though it may be not perfect, is gold.
The only stable value for a currency is its convertibility into gold. As a result, the US became the most successful country in the world from 1789 – 1971. This was already foreseen by James Madison prior to 1789.
Gold is the only universal currency. It is the only commodity, along with silver that people have historically agreed upon to use as money. This allows fixed exchange rates between countries.
That simplifies trade and investment. But what followed was disastrous for the economy of the world, as the private Central Bankers didn’t like this. Central Bankers don’t like a stable system that they don’t control.
They like a system in which they can promote corruption, create wars, and they can profit off of the warring countries and off of the people that are forced to go into debt to make ends meet.
This is the reason why they have steered the populace away from what the founding fathers intended for them, which is gold-backed money.
They steer people to other things like the stock market, derivatives, paper contracts on gold and silver, convincing them that gold and silver are worthless, that they are not really significant or valuable.
They are shiny, but that is about it. For the rest they are simply insignificant, barbarous relics People really don’t need to hold gold or silver.
The Central Bankers began to indoctrinate everyone into thinking that their system is the only one. – In 1913, the indoctrination began in the education system, brainwashing everyone into believing that their system is the only system.
To accomplish this, in 1913 all economic books were completely changed, introducing their economic indoctrination to the public, educating them that the Central Bank is exceptional and important, as it helps the people to live a better and more prosperous life.
Over the course of a few generations, people lost sight of the importance of gold and silver and the knowledge of what sound money really was.
They even lost sight of what an economic system without a Central Bank really was.
In the meantime, behind the scenes, the Central Bank initiators started corrupting certain individuals, and from that time onwards, corruption has become widespread.
Once this becomes public knowledge, the populace at large will rise up against the Central Bank and we will learn how, we and the next generations will have to fight to prevent the Central Banks from ever setting foot in the door again in the future.
History has revealed that they always attempt to come back again when people aren’t paying attention. Just because they go, does not mean they are gone forever.
They are corrupt, and will try to sneak in again. Henceforth, people will have to fight and keep fighting for sound money.
There is no necessity for a private corporation that controls the issuance of money. It has to be a system of ‘we, the people’ who create the currency, so we, the people can use it without interest attached.
Then everyone will be shown how great an economy can really be without a Central bank. This is where the patriots want to take us, while the awake are together already headed in that direction.
Synchronicity Happens For A Reason -There Are No Accidents And No Coincidences June 23 2020 | From: WooWooMedia
Have you stumbled upon an old friend? Seeing someone doing the same thing or speaking the same words as you? Or maybe experienced an accident? Are you thinking ‘Oh! What a coincidence!’ or ‘I could skip accidents like this…’
Well, you shouldn’t, because every single coincidence brings a message to you.
In fact, there are no coincidences and accidents - there’s only synchronicity, and everything happens for a reason.
Revealing Synchronicity - The Science Behind Coincidence
The truth is, everything in our life is linked. From the past, to the present and future - every single coincidence or accident we stumble upon is linked. No matter how small or big of a movement is, it is all about synchronicity.
Whether you feel like you are having a perfect day and everything goes smoothly, or experience a bad period in which ‘a lot of coincidences happen,’ the universe is sending you a message. People and things happening in an exact moment is nothing but synchronicity and, fortunately, there is a way to accept it.
Do you know the saying “When the student is ready, the master appears”?
That is exactly how synchronicity is explained. Whenever you are synchronized with something you truly want, you are more likely to meet that thing, which is why similar people meet ‘accidentally’. The thing is, they are tuned in to the exact same frequency, and synchronicity does its best to match them.
Yes, There Is A Way To Create Synchronicity
Now that you understand how the spiritual sync works, it’s time to tell you that…
YOU CAN CREATE SYNCHRONICITY.
‘How on Earth do I do that?’, you may be asking yourself.
Well, synchronicity works best for people who believe it to be true. So, for starters, you should believe in it and stop saying that every event is an accident or a coincidence. The thing is, if you are saying this, you are sending a weak spiritual signal to the universe, as opposed to the strong signal that the universe sends you by syncing everything around you.
By understanding synchronicity and seeing things not as an ordinary, but a committed person, you are able to connect more deeply with your inner sync, and actually don’t work hard to make the things you want happen. Instead, you will just believe in them and let them happen, without any force whatsoever.
So, let’s face it… Synchronicity is just like a mirror and whatever you commit to and believe in, will reflect back to you.
That being said, if you agree with the law of syncing, you will be able to connect deeply and send strong messages on a spiritual level. Aside from this, you will be a better person, more confident and committed towards every action you bring.
In a nutshell, understanding synchronicity translates to establishing harmony in everything that you seek - and being ‘consciously aware’ of everything happening around you.
Turning The Tide - And See Chances Work For You instead Of Against You
If you have ever heard of the Murphy’s Law and believe in it, you are on a good way to understanding synchronicity. Yes, it’s a common fact that when something goes wrong, it may just continue going wrong over time.
The idea behind this is that synchronicity can also work against you. However, if you expect bad things to happen and continue believing in the Murphy’s Law, you are syncing with your inner negativity.
The Science Behind The Chance Meeting - Not A ‘Coincidence’
Bumped into someone somewhere? Thinking it’s a coincidence, luck or chance? The real answer in this ‘accident’ is the science of chance meeting.
You can start notice synchronicities with people, numbers, events etc. Remember to accept synchronicity in its real form, as a way of spiritual and universal intelligence constantly trying to teach us, reach us and share love, support and guidance.
Learn to be open to synchronicity and start living a meaningful life!
Sharyl Attkisson: How Media Narratives Became More Important Than Facts
& Every Nation Must Declare War Against Big Tech
June 22 2020 | From: Zerohedge / NaturalNews / Various The day that I told CBS News I wished to leave my job as investigative correspondent ahead of my contract, I didn’t give a reason. I didn’t see the point because the problem wasn’t fixable. Nor was it isolated to CBS News.
My own take is that - as our industry has changed in ways that have become undeniable to most - I was a bit of the canary in the coal mine.
By that, I mean I believe I was among the first to really pay attention to the increasingly effective operations to shape and censor news - the movements to establish narratives rather than follow facts - and to see the growing influence of smear operations, political interests, and corporate interests on the news.
It’s not that I’m smarter than my peers, and I’m surely far less smart than many, but my particular brand of off-narrative reporting happened to draw the intense attention of the smear operators and propagandists, so I began to study it.
A case in point: the smear that was promulgated when I left CBS. It was often incorrectly reported that I told CBS management I was quitting due to liberal media bias.
That false story turned out to be convenient for both political sides, and largely survives today. It simply wasn’t rooted in fact. And I don’t recall reporters even asking me whether it was true.
Once a few articles reported that it was, others simply copied the claim and adopted it as if established fact, eventually without attribution. Now there would be no point in trying to clarify it.
After all, Wikipedia says it’s true. No going back from that.
Powerful smear groups and certain interests - including some within CBS at the time - started the narrative that I was “conservative,” not because they necessarily believed it, but as a tool to “controversialize” the reporting I was doing that was contrary to powerful interests.
The idea is that if I can be portrayed as a partisan, then my reporting can be more easily dismissed.
The Narrative Requires
In fact, prior to the operation to push the narrative that I was “conservative,” my reporting had been lauded by a diverse group of observers, including the likes of Rachel Maddow, who once delivered an entire monologue on an investigative expose I did on the “charity” of then-Rep. Stephen Buyer (R- Ind.).
My most recent Emmy award was for an undercover investigation into Republican fundraising.
But the narrative requests - nay, requires - that we forget all that. We must focus on the supposed miraculous metamorphosis. Depending on who’s spinning, they may insist I was a rational journalist who went crazy one day and flew to the dark side of conservatism.
Or they may say I used to be a devoted liberal, but decided the big money was in pandering to Republicans, so I sold out. The details aren’t important. You are simply to come away with the notion that my reporting is now politically conflicted.
Another example of this narrative: Many news reports comment that I work for the “conservative” Sinclair Broadcast Group. Fair enough - Sinclair is run by a family that’s made no secret of their conservative political leanings.
But the reporters who note this political connection apparently fail to recognize the inherent conflict in the fact that they eagerly label the conservative group; yet I don’t think they reported that I worked for the “liberal” CNN, the “liberal” PBS, or the “liberal” CBS.
Some reporters lack the self-awareness and objectivity to understand they are revealing themselves when they selectively apply labels in a one-sided fashion. They are servicing a narrative, even if unintentionally.
When I worked at CNN, it was owned by a billionaire Democrat donor (Ted Turner) - a good boss, by the way. When I worked for CBS, the management (Sumner Redstone, Les Moonves) were rich Democrat donors - also, a great company to work for during most of my 20 years there.
Sinclair has likewise been a terrific employer to date. They haven’t forced editorial biases in the reporting on my program. The program is mostly apolitical, addressing topics such as the underreported dangers of MRI dye or how American farmers are suffering under the current trade war with China.
When we address politics, you are as likely to see an interview with Rep. Eric Swalwell, a Democrat, as you are to see Sen. Lindsey Graham, a Republican.
But there’s the narrative...
When a national print media reporter wrote about my program a couple of years ago, he incorrectly referred to it as “conservative.”
Later, when asked if he’d ever actually seen the program, he admitted he hadn’t.
It’s not that it would be difficult to - well - actually do a little bit of reporting rather than repeat a narrative: My weekly program is on at least a half-dozen times each week in the city where this reporter is based, and it’s posted online.
As easy as it was for him to do some first-hand reporting, he chose to repeat the narrative.
Lara Logan, who recently left CBS News, has also been speaking out about her observations regarding the decline of fair and objective journalism.
She’s likewise been attacking the narratives. As such, she has been subjected to them. That’s how it works. Obviously (says the narrative), she is a disgruntled conservative who is not to be believed.
Or (says the narrative), she’s perhaps a little unbalanced. (You know, all that war reporting and stress. Poor Lara.)
The truth is, Lara is extremely clear-eyed on these issues. And she and I are far from alone in our views on the state of the media.
We agree there is terrific journalism being committed on a daily basis at organizations from The New York Times to local news stations.
However, we agree that national media has also largely become co-opted by powerful interests who understand how to direct the news landscape in a way that services certain narratives and agendas.
I have heard support from hundreds of journalists, college professors, and media observers during the last several years. I have been reached out to by reporters in print and on TV, by national and local news, by students and a Pulitzer Prize winner.
The effort to expose flaws and conflicts in media reporting is growing stronger, not weaker, despite the narratives.
The desire to affect improvements is building. Make no mistake: Not all of us are free to speak publicly, but there are a lot of us.
In fact, as I explain in this uncensored video, below, the aggressive censorship, thought control and election meddling of the tech giants is flat-out incompatible with civil society.
Techno-fascists like Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey are un-elected and answer to no one, yet they now solely determine what thoughts, views and opinions you are allowed to speak or read.
This is incompatible with human freedom and must be halted.
As I explain in this 37-minute artistic expression “rap beats” video with lyrics, it is time for President Trump to declare war on the techno-fascists and for America to rise up and defeat, dismantle and disable the scourge of techno-fascism in the same way we worked together to defeat the Third Reich.
If some of the words are not easy to follow, that’s because this is an artistic expression rap song, not a simple audio lecture.
The Working Poor In NZ: Poverty & Soup Kitchens On The Increase In Neo-Liberal’s New Look ‘Godzone’
June 21 2020 | From: EnviroWatchRangitikei / TVNZ / Various Isn’t it great how ‘they’ rename & reframe everything to fool the gullible?
Remember how they called gutting our economy, ‘restructuring’?. In other countries it got called ‘structural adjustment’.
Lining up at the food banks? Sleeping in cars? Tents? Third highest child poverty globally?
Neo-liberlaism isn not working so let’s stop pretending it is. Social Welfare was only ever a safety net that humanizes capitalism.
Neo-liberal? Forget the net. We had a woman living in a tent in Whanganui recently, while the corporately knighted Keys of the world swan around the world with several million dollar mansions to choose from.
I trust my family. Having people in my life I love and trust makes everything far more meaningful and pleasant. I hope people reading this likewise have a circle of trust they’ve built over the years.
On the other hand, you should never trust anyone or anything that hasn’t given you good reason to do so, and if someone or something gives you good reason not to trust them, you should never forget that.
The more power a person or institution has in society, the less trustworthy they tend to be. I don’t say this because it’s fun to be cynical, I say this because my life experience has demonstrated its accuracy.
In the 21st century alone, I’ve been given good reason to distrust all sorts of things around me, including the U.S. government (all governments really), intelligence agencies, politicians, mass media, Wall Street and Silicon Valley, to name a few.
These power centers make up “society” as we know it in 2020, which is really just massive concentrations of lawless financial and political power obfuscating rampant criminality behind the cover of various ostensibly venerable institutions.
What’s most remarkable is how many people still maintain trust in so many of these provably untrustworthy organizations and industries, which speaks to the power of propaganda as well as the comfort of denial.
That said, the ground is clearly beginning to shift on this front.
As more and more people recognize that the system’s designed to work against them, increased numbers will reject conventional wisdom and search for an alternative framework.
Unfortunately, this next step can be equally treacherous and it’s important not to jump from the frying pan into the fire.
This is where social media comes into play. It offers an endless array of opinions and analysis that you don’t get from mass media, but it’s also filled with bad actors, professional propagandists and con artists.
At this point, everyone knows that social media is the new information battleground, so every character or institution with malicious intent is aggressively playing in this arena and often with boatloads of money.
The charlatans at MSNBC will have you believe it’s just the Russians or Chinese, but every government and every single special interest on the planet is now involved.
They’re all on social media in one form or another, trying to push you in a specific direction that’s usually not in your best interests.
It took me a while, but I’ve finally recognized how unthoughtful and treacherous social media is whenever some big news event hits.
Important arguments quickly lose all nuance and devolve into binary talking points and agendas. People split into teams in a way that feels very much akin to the traditional, and now largely discredited, red / blue political theater.
For covid-19, it felt like half of Twitter thought it was an extinction-level event, while the other half was convinced the whole thing was a hoax.
In the aftermath of George Floyd, you were either cheering on the civil unrest, or wanted to send in the military. Increasingly, if you aren’t in one of two manufactured camps on any issue you’ll be shouted down and ostracized.
That’s not the kind of discussion I’m here for.
As someone who’s found great value in Twitter over the years, I’ve become far more careful in how I use it and where to direct my attention and energy.
It reminds me of Mos Eisley in Star Wars, a wretched hive of scum and villainy, but simultaneously a place you can connect with Han Solo and get a spaceship.
Lindsay Perigo: New Zealand Is A Police State
June 19 2020 | From: BreakingViews / Various There is now apparently a police-compiled Enemies List circulating among New Zealand's totalitarian Globalist elite, such as Comrade Ardern, Comrade Andrew Little, Comrade Winston Peters and new Human Wrongs Commissar Comrade Paul Hunt, a lackey of raving anti-Semite and hard-core socialist Comrade Jeremy Corbyn, all advancing the agenda of the most evil man on the planet, George Soros.
(Why was this Islamo-Marxist fascist Paul Hunt brought over to destroy our Bill of Rights?! At whose expense?!)
From many accounts police are actively harassing people on this list.
Freedom of Expression
Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form.
That's what NZ and UK Labour want to destroy, Section 14 of our Bill of Rights (lifted from the UN Declaration of Universal Human Rights), and anything resembling it, in all countries hitherto free or semi-free.
What you could consider doing instead, though, Thought Police, is gathering signatures on my Citizens' Pledge.
If everyone signed up to this, understood it and meant it, we wouldn't have to worry about a thing, now would we?! It goes as follows:
“Just as I reserve the right to hold and express my opinions on any matter whatsoever, I promise to respect the right of all others to do the same. I renounce unreservedly the use of coercion and violence in the promotion of my opinions."
It shouldn't be hard to get signatures.
A recent poll on Stuff, quickly removed when the results were so decisively un-PC, showed 90% of respondents saying that while Israel Folau's anti-gay tweets were offensive, they certainly shouldn't be illegal.
How The Deep State ‘Justifies’ Itself In America
June 18 2020 | From: StrategicCulture / Various On October 30th 2019, there was a panel discussion broadcast live on C-Span from the National Press Club and the Michael V. Hayden Center.
John Brennan amplified upon the thought, and there was yet more applause. However, that thought hadn’t been invented by McLaughlin; it instead had evolved recently in the pages of the New York Times. Perhaps the discussants had read it there.
Instead of America’s ‘news’-media uncritically trumpeting what government officials assert to be facts (as they traditionally do), we now have former spooks uncritically trumpeting what a mainstream ‘news’-medium has recently concocted to be the case - about themselves.
They’ve come out of the closet, about being the Deep State. However, even in that, they are lying, because they aren’t it; they are only agents for it.
In America, the Deep State ‘justifies’ itself in the ‘news’-media that it owns, and does so by falsely ‘defining’ what the “Deep State” is (which is actually the nation’s 607 billionaires, whose hired agents number in the millions).
They mis-‘define’ it, as being, instead, the taxpayer-salaried career Government employees, known professionally as “the Civil Service.” (Although some Civil Servants - especially at the upper levels - are agents for America’s billionaires and retire to cushy board seats, most of them actually are not and do not.
And the “revolving door” between “the public sector” and “the private sector” is where the Deep State operations become concentrated.
That’s the core of the networking, by which the billionaires get served. And, of course, those former spooks at the National Press Club said nothing about it. Are they authentically so stupid that they don’t know about it, or is that just pretense from them?)
How the Deep State’s operatives perpetrate this deception about the meaning of “Deep State” was well exemplified in the nine links that were supplied on October 28th by the extraordinarily honest anonymous German analyst who blogs as “Moon of Alabama” and who condemned there (and linked to) 9 recent articles in the New York Times, as posing a threat against democracy in America.
As I intend to argue here, the 9 articles are, indeed, aimed at deceiving the public, about what the true meaning of the phrase “the Deep State” is.
However, he didn’t explain the tactic the NYT’s editors (and those former spooks) use to deceive the public about the Deep State, and this is what I aim to do here, by showing the transformation, over time, in the way that that propaganda-organization, the New York Times, has been employing the phrase “Deep State” - a remarkable transformation, which started, on 16 February 2017, by the newspaper’s denying that any Deep State exists in America but that it exists only in corrupt nations; and which gradually transitioned into an upside-down, by asserting that a Deep State does exist in the United States, and that it fights against corruption in this country.
The first of these NYT articles was published on 16 February 2017, and it denied that the US has any “Deep State” whatsoever.
The second, published on 6 March 2017, blamed President Trump (since the NYT represents mainly Democratic Party billionaires) for mainstreaming the phrase “the Deep State” into American political discourse, and it alleged that that phrase actually refers only to “countries like Egypt, Turkey and Pakistan, where authoritarian elements band together to undercut democratically elected leaders.”
The third, published on 10 March 2017, repeated this allegation, that this phrase applies only to “the powerful deep states of countries like Egypt or Pakistan, experts say.”
The fourth, published on 5 September 2018, was an anonymous op-ed from a Government employee who condemned Trump and “vowed to thwart parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.”
“This isn’t the work of the so-called deep state. It’s the work of the steady state.” So: still the NYT’s editors were hewing to their propaganda-line, that no “Deep State” exists in America - there are just whistleblowers, here.
The fifth, on 18 December 2018, said, for example, that “Adam Lovinger, a Pentagon analyst, was one of the first to wrap himself in the deep state defense” - namely, that they consist of “people who have been targeted for political reasons.”
So, the NYT’s editors were now reinforcing their new false ‘definition’ of “Deep State,” as consisting just of Government whistleblowers.
The sixth, on 6 October 2019, said, “President Trump and some of his allies have asserted without evidence that a cabal of American officials - the so-called deep state - embarked on a broad operation to thwart Mr. Trump’s campaign.
The conspiracy theory remains unsubstantiated.” So: the NYT’s editors were back, again, to denying that there is any “Deep State” in America.
This was a signal, from them, that they were starting to recognize that they’d need to jiggle their ‘definition’ of “Deep State,” at least a bit.
The seventh, on 20 October 2019, was by a member of the Editorial Board, and it boldly proclaimed, about “the deep state,” “Let us now praise these not-silent heroes.”
The propagandists now had settled firmly upon their new (and previously merely exploratory) ‘definition’ of “Deep State,” as consisting of whistleblowers in the US Government’s Civil Services, “individuals willing to step up and protest the administration’s war on science, expertise and facts.”
The eighth, on 23 October 2019, equated “the deep state” even more boldly with the impeachment of President Trump: “Over the last three weeks, the deep state has emerged from the shadows in the form of real live government officials, past and present, who have defied a White House attempt to block cooperation with House impeachment investigators and provided evidence that largely backs up the still-anonymous whistle-blower.”
The ninth, on 26 October 2019, which came from “a contributing opinion writer and professor of history,” alleged that the origins of “the deep state” are to be found with Teddy Roosevelt in the 1880s, when “A healthy dose of elitism drove Roosevelt’s crusade, as the spoils system had been the path to power for immigrant-driven political machines in big cities like New York.
Yet the Civil Service laws he and others created marked the beginning of a shift toward a fairer, less corrupt public realm.”
In other words: the Deep State, in America, are not perpetrators of corrupt government (such as in “countries like Egypt, Turkey and Pakistan, where authoritarian elements band together to undercut democratically elected leaders”), but are instead courageous enemies of corrupt government; and they are instituted by the aristocracy here (today’s American billionaires), in order to reduce, if not eliminate, corruption in government (which, the Times now alleges, originates amongst, or serves, the lower classes).
The lessons about Big Brother, which were taught by George Orwell in his merely metaphorical masterpiece 1984, were apparently never learned, because even now - as his “Newspeak” is being further refined so that black is white, and good is bad, and truth is falsehood - there still are people who subscribe to the propagandists and cannot get enough of their ridiculous con-games.
Though in some poor countries, a corrupt Deep State rules; a Deep State rules in America so as to reduce if not prevent corruption, the New York Times now concludes.
You can see how it’s done, in those nine NYT articles. Isn’t it simply amazing there?!
Nutrition And Mental Health + ADHD Is A Fabricated Disease, Says Reputed Neurologist
June 17 2020 | From: BePure / Sott Last week I attended a conference by Dr Julia Rucklidge from the University of Canterbury where she presented her groundbreaking research on the treatment of mental health disorders such as ADHD, bipolar, depression and anxiety using therapeutic doses of micronutrients.
More and more we are seeing that what we eat, and what we absorb from our food choices, affect more than our physical appearance and physical fitness.
Related: Nutrition And Mental Health
Yes these things are important, but actually there are numerous benefits to eating a nutrient-dense diet with supporting products that don’t get mentioned. And they should. Our mental health is something that affects every interaction we have with ourselves, our families, our work colleagues and our friends.
The takeaway message from this conference is the prevalence of mental health problems in the modern world is concerning. According to Dr Rucklidge:
“There is a very real danger of mental health care bankrupting our society in terms of cost and social implications.”
In this blog I’m going to address the link between nutrition and mental health. There are many other factors involved in the prevention and treatment of mental illness. We are only addressing nutrition in this blog as it is such an important factor to consider.
The Whole Picture
One in ten New Zealanders are on antidepressants. This is an eight-fold increase in total prescription numbers from 1998.
There has been a four-fold increase in claimed disability financial support due to psychiatric disorders in New Zealand from 1991 to now. Both these figures are supplied through Statistics New Zealand’s annual reports.
In a period of time where more “cutting edge medicines” have been researched, developed and trialled on our population, rates of mental health disorders continue to rise.
The long term results from the National Institute of Mental Health’s (NIMH) MTA study found that children taking medication for ADHD for longer than 24 months showed “significant markers not of beneficial outcome, but of deterioration… medicated children were also slightly smaller, and higher delinquency scores.” Source: The MTA cooperative randomised clinical trial.
It’s fair to say our current gold standards are not working, so what else has changed in this time period?
Food And Stress
This increase in mental health conditions follows the same exponential rise of obesity and type two diabetes from the 1970s to now. We know that the rise in medical knowledge and the availability of medications hasn’t resolved the problem, nor has a 300% increase in gym memberships, so what has changed to negatively affect our mental and metabolic health?
I firmly believe, and the evidence supports this idea, that what we are eating and the nutrients we give to our bodies drastically affect our weight, energy, metabolic health AND mental health in both negative and positive ways.
For many people gluten, refined grains and sugar can cause problems affecting everything from digestion, mood, skin disorders like rashes and eczema, to joint pain, weight gain, migraines, thyroid disorders, mental health disorders and behavioural issues such as ADHD.
Gluten is a protein found in wheat, barley, and rye, and is what gives bread its stretch. Many nutritionists now believe many people - not just those with gluten intolerance or Celiac Disease - should avoid gluten as it is a known contributor to leaky gut.
This is problematic for mental health conditions because if serotonin is not kept within your gut and digestive tract, it cannot engage in chemical reactions within your brain to increase your mood.
Refined grains and sugar cause blood sugar spikes and energy crashes as insulin is produced to mitigate the quick rush of glucose and fructose. You can read in length about the problem with refined grains and sugar.
Lastly, the stress of modern living has a huge impact on our mental health. Cortisol is a stress hormone that is activated by everything from traffic, fighting with a loved one, worry, anxiety, excessive caffeine intake and even exercise. Cortisol initiates our fight or flight response in our nervous system. In ancestral times this response was necessary for fleeing from danger.
In the modern world, we perceive danger to be everywhere (i.e we release cortisol) despite the fact we aren’t running away from a lion. This constant flood of cortisol prevents our “rest and digest” nervous system from operating. This prevents recovery from exercise or the day’s stressors, the production of growth hormone and serotonin as well as preventing sleep and digestion.
Managing stress is critical for those people with mental health concerns.
The Brain Gut Connection
Current research in the field of microbiome health and mental health conditions confirms the theory our stomach is our second brain. There are several reasons for this. The first is Serotonin.
Serotonin is your happiness hormone. It is a neurotransmitter that relays messages from all areas of your brain to your cells. An imbalance or deficiency in serotonin is thought to influence the brain in a way that causes depression.
Up to 70% of your bodies total serotonin lives in your digestive tract. If you have leaky gut, a food intolerance or gut dysbiosis through poor diet or antibiotic use, the serotonin can leak out of your gut and is then unable to do its job in your brain.
The second factor has to do with the nutritional and energy demands of our brains. Our brains are approximately 2% of our body weight. However, it consumes 20-40% of our metabolism. In other words, it is constantly and disproportionately demanding nutrients and oxygen. One litre of blood enters your brain every minute, carrying whatever nutrients it has access to.
Giving it nutrient dense food and access to as many nutrients as possible is critical for mental health.
So What Can We Do?
Dr Rucklidge’s research suggests we need to ensure good nutrient-density in our diets and use therapeutic doses of micronutrients to support mental health conditions.
“Micronutrients such as zinc, vitamin D, Essential Fatty Acids and many more have been used in many open label trials across anxiety, sleep issues, bipolar disorder and ADHD.
All have shown significant reductions in psychiatric and psychological symptoms. Response rates range from 50-80% improvements."
Source: Dr Julia Rucklidge at the University of Canterbury.
The current medical model seeks to use medication first before addressing stress, food, sleep and nutrient deficiencies. I would personally love to see this equation flipped. If we can address dietary and lifestyle factors first, along with nutrient support, while using medication sparingly on a case-by-case basis, we can greatly improve the mental health of our nation.
If you or a loved one are currently struggling with depression-like symptoms, bipolar ADHD or anxiety please seek assistance. You can contact your GP or health care provider, the BePure team at email@example.com, www.depression.org.nz or the depression helpline at 0800 111 757.
He is well-known for his pioneering work in developmental psychology at Harvard University, where he has spent decades documenting how babies and small children grow, and is an exceptional and highly-regarded researcher.
So it may be surprising to learn that he believes the diagnosis of ADHD (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder) is an invention - and only benefits the pharmaceutical industry and psychiatrists.
Mislabeling Mental Illness
"That is the history of humanity: Those in authority believe they're doing the right thing, and they harm those who have no power", says Jerome Kagan.
In an interview with Spiegel, Kagan addressed the skyrocketing rates of ADHD in America, which he attributes to "fuzzy diagnostic practices."
He illustrated his point with the following example:
Say fifty years ago you have a 7-year-old who is bored in school and exhibits disruptive behavior. Back then, he would be labeled as lazy. But today, that same child is said to suffer from ADHD. That's why we've seen such a dramatic increase in the disorder.
Every child who is having problems in school is sent to see a pediatrician, who then claims it's ADHD and prescribes Ritalin.
"In fact, 90 percent of these 5.4 million kids don't have an abnormal dopamine metabolism. The problem is, if a drug is available to doctors, they'll make the corresponding diagnosis," he said.
"We could get philosophical and ask ourselves: "What does mental illness mean?"
If you do interviews with children and adolescents aged 12 to 19, then 40 percent can be categorized as anxious or depressed.
But if you take a closer look and ask how many of them are seriously impaired by this, the number shrinks to 8 percent.
Describing every child who is depressed or anxious as being mentally ill is ridiculous.
Adolescents are anxious, that's normal. They don't know what college to go to. Their boyfriend or girlfriend just stood them up. Being sad or anxious is just as much a part of life as anger or sexual frustration," Kagan told Spiegel.
What are the implications for the millions of children who are inaccurately diagnosed as mentally ill? Kagan believes it's devastating because they think there is something fundamentally wrong with them.
He's not the only psychologist to raise the alarm about this trend, but Kagan and others feel they're up against:
"An enormously powerful alliance: pharmaceutical companies that are making billions, and a profession that is self-interested."
Kagan himself suffered from inner restlessness and stuttering as a child, but his mother told him: "There's nothing wrong with you. Your mind is working faster than your tongue." He thought at the time: "Gee, that's great, I'm only stuttering because I'm so smart." If he had been born in the present era, he most likely would have been classified as mentally ill.
ADHD isn't the only mental illness epidemic among children that worries Kagan, depression is another.
In 1987, about one in 400 American teenagers was using an antidepressant. By 2002, the numbers leaped to one in 40.
He feels it's another overused diagnosis, simply because the pills are available.
Instead of immediately resorting to pharmaceutical drugs, he thinks doctors should take more time with the child to find out why they aren't as cheerful, for instance. At the very least, a few tests should be carried out - and an EEG for certain, especially since studies have shown that people who have heightened activity in the right frontal lobe respond poorly to antidepressants.
Kagan remembers going into a textbook-type depression after a major research project he was involved with failed. He had insomnia and met all the other clinical criteria for depression. But since he knew what the cause was, he didn't seek professional help. After six months, the depression was gone.
Under normal circumstances, he would have been diagnosed as mentally ill by a psychiatrist and put on medication.
But here lies an important distinction: when a life event overwhelms us, it's common to fall into a depression for a while. But there are those who have a genetic vulnerability and experience chronic depression; they are mentally ill.
It's crucial to look not only at the symptoms, but the causes.
This is where psychiatry drops the ball, as it's the only medical profession that establishes illness on symptoms alone.
Such a blind spot opens the door for new maladies - like bipolar disorder, which we never used to see in children. As it stands today, nearly a million Americans under the age of 19 are diagnosed with it.
"A group of doctors at Massachusetts General Hospital just started calling kids who had temper tantrums bipolar. They shouldn't have done that. But the drug companies loved it because drugs against bipolar disorders are expensive. That's how the trend was started. It's a little like in the 15th century, when people started thinking someone could be possessed by the devil or hexed by a witch," said Kagan.
When asked if there are alternatives to pharmaceutical drugs for behavioral abnormalities, Kagan said we could look at tutoring, as an example, for kids diagnosed with ADHD. After all, it's never the ones who are doing well in school that are diagnosed, it's always the children who are struggling.
Dangerous Products That We’re Unknowingly Using In Our Day-To-Day Life
+ The Cancer Risk To People Who Drink Chlorinated Water Is 93% Higher Than Those Who Don’t June 16 2020 | From: NewEasternOutlook / EnvirowatchRangitikei / Varous
In today’s highly controversial and aggressive world, virtually anything can present a threat to the life of a human being, not just wars, climate change, or short-sighted and often criminal actions of certain politicians.
As it has been shown by a number of scientific studies, the activities of a number of American corporations present a very real threat the well-being of the population mainly due to the use of genetically modified substances in their products while manufacturing substandard health and beauty aids.
The truth is that it’s the people of developing countries that are being affected by these fraudulent business practices the most, since Western corporations try to suppress any information about the health effects of their products to obtain maximum profit.
At the end of the twentieth century British scientists have come to a sensational conclusion that parabens are capable of penetrating the skin barrier and are being accumulated in the tissues of the body, causing cancer, hormone system failures, endocrine system suppression, and skin diseases.
Research made this finding while studying malignant tumors in breast tissue, all of which contained parabens, Later on, these findings were confirmed by Canadian and French scientists.
Parabens are artificial preservatives that are often used in the pharmaceutical and cosmetic industry by a number of Western corporations.
Even though they are effectively increasing the shelf life of a product, while remaining relatively cheap to use, parabens pose a serious threat to human health and well-being.
From time to time one can come across articles on the harmful effects of parabens in Europe and the United States, forcing certain companies to replace parabens with less harmful preservatives. However, the markets of developing countries, especially those with hot and humid climates, are flooded with Western cosmetic products that contain the dangerous substance.
In order to attract international attention to this danger, the French Le Monde went as far as to publish a list of the 400 Western pharmaceutical products containing parabens and that are, therefore, dangerous for use or consumption.
In this list one may find the baby cream Biafine, such cough medicines as Clarix, Codotussyl, Drill, Hexapneumine, Humex, Pectosan, and Rhinathiol, stomach relief medicine such as Maalox, Gaviscon, Josacine, and antibiotic Zinnat, along with a list of other drugs produced by Western corporations and actively advertised for mass consumption.
As it has been pointed out by French journalists, numerous studies have shown that drugs from this list compromise the functioning of the hormone system, especially the reproductive ability of men and women, and may result in cancer.
At the same time, scientists are stressing the danger of hydro-alcoholic gels which were brought to the market in the wake of the artificially created hysteria around the “danger” of the so-called “bird flu,” the H1N1. These gels are advertised as the ultimate solution for sanitizing hands and body in the absence of soap.
A study carried out by the University of Missouri and published in the Plos ONE journal shows that hydro-alcoholic gels make a person more susceptible to Bisphénol-A.
In 2010, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) officially recognized that Bisphénol-A is harmful to human health due to the negative effect it has on brain functions and the reproductive system. It also causes a number of cancers (in both women and men) – in particular, prostate cancer, breast cancer as well as autism, depression, reproductive and endocrine systems failure, delays in brain development, diabetes, obesity, and cardiovascular disease.
Yet another study conducted in Argentina showed that 85% of the women’s hygienic pads presented a serious threat to women since they contain the chemically hazardous substance known as glyphosate.
This fact was revealed by researchers of the National Argentine University of La Plata at a recent congress of physicians in Buenos Aires, upon examining sanitary towels and sanitary pads produced with the use of genetically-modified cotton that was grown using Roundup herbicide of the American company Monsanto-Bayer.
As we learn from this study,after the use of this herbicide, all cotton products contain this carcinogenic substance. For this reason, there’s been a massive movement in many countries through the collection of signatures to force such producers as Tampax or Always to state the composition of their products.
The Cancer Risk To People Who Drink Chlorinated Water Is 93% Higher Than Those Who Don’t
This information is from well known Dr Mercola. If you go to the link you can download his free ebook, an excellent resource that will show you how to protect yourself and your loved ones from health risks by choosing the best water to drink and bathe in.
Need I repeat? We need to be vigilant in what we expose ourselves to today because corporate interests are such that they will focus on profits not on your health. Be vigilant and be informed.
What if that clear, clean-looking liquid you use every day – to quench your thirst, to bathe and shower in, and to wash your dishes and laundry in contributed to dozens of everyday ailments, including…heart attacks, tiredness, sinus problems, sperm count, risk of miscarriage, a weakened immune system and many more.
Truth is, the water we use in and around our homes is far from the fresh, pure resource you might assume. And the worst part is…
Americans are ingesting from 300 to 600 times what the Environmental Protection Agency considers a “safe” amount while chlorine itself is relatively benign, and was created to help keep us free from infectious diarrheas, it reacts with organic materials which already dissolve in water, forming chemicals (known as DBP’s) that are over 100 times more toxic than chlorine…
According to the U.S. Council of Environmental Quality, the cancer risk to people who drink chlorinated water is 93 percent higher than among those whose water does not contain chlorine.
The residents of a small town in Pennsylvania who ate diets rich in saturated animal fats and milk had no heart attacks – until they switched from mountain spring water to fluoridated water.
Research from the University of Nijmegen in the Netherlands discovered that people who swam in chlorinated pools or polluted waters as children had 2.2 to 2.4 times the risk of developing melanoma compared to those who did not swim in chlorinated waters.
Male smokers who drank chlorinated tap water for more than 40 years had double the risk of bladder cancer as smoking males who drank non-chlorinated water.
Harvard Professor Exposes Google And Facebook & NZ Police Trialled Facial Recognition Tech Without Clearance June 15 2020 | From: Mercola / RadioNewZealand / Various
In recent years, a number of brave individuals have alerted us to the fact that we're all being monitored and manipulated by big data gatherers such as Google and Facebook, and shed light on the depth and breadth of this ongoing surveillance.
Among them is social psychologist and Harvard professor Shoshana Zuboff.
Her book, "The Age of Surveillance Capitalism," is one of the best books I have read in the last few years. It's an absolute must-read if you have any interest in this topic and want to understand how Google and Facebook have obtained such massive control of your life.
Story at a Glance
In her book, “The Age of Surveillance Capitalism,” social psychologist and Harvard professor Shoshana Zuboff reveals how the biggest tech companies in the world have hijacked our personal data - so-called “behavioral surplus data streams” - without our knowledge or consent and are using it against you to generate profits for themselves
Companies like Facebook, Google and third parties of all kinds have the power - and are using that power - to target your personal inner demons, to trigger you, and to take advantage of you when you’re at your most vulnerable to entice you into action that serves them, commercially or politically
Your entire existence - even your shifting moods, deciphered by facial recognition software - has become a source of revenue for corporate entities as you’re being cleverly maneuvered into doing (and typically buying) or thinking something you may not have done, bought or thought otherwise
Facebook’s massive experiments, in which they used subliminal cues to see if they could make people happier or sadder and affect real-world behavior offline, proved that - by manipulating language and inserting subliminal cues in the online context - they can change real-world behavior and real-world emotion, and that these methods and powers can be exercised “while bypassing user awareness”
The Google Nest security system has a hidden microphone built into it that isn’t featured in any of the schematics for the device. Voice data, and all the information delivered through your daily conversations, is tremendously valuable to Big Data, and add to their ever-expanding predictive modeling capabilities
In recent years, a number of brave individuals have alerted us to the fact that we're all being monitored and manipulated by big data gatherers such as Google and Facebook, and shed light on the depth and breadth of this ongoing surveillance.
Among them is social psychologist and Harvard professor Shoshana Zuboff.
"In a room where people unanimously maintain a conspiracy of silence, one word of truth sounds like a pistol shot."
- Czesław Miłosz
Harvard Professor Exposes Google and Facebook
Her book reveals how the biggest tech companies in the world have hijacked our personal data - so-called "behavioral surplus data streams" - without our knowledge or consent and are using it against us to generate profits for themselves.
WE have become the product. WE are the real revenue stream in this digital economy.
"The term 'surveillance capitalism' is not an arbitrary term," Zuboff says in the featured VPRO Backlight documentary.
"Why 'surveillance'? Because it must be operations that are engineered as undetectable, indecipherable, cloaked in rhetoric that aims to misdirect, obfuscate and downright bamboozle all of us, all the time."
"Reveals a merciless form of capitalism in which no natural resources, but the citizen itself, serves are a raw material."
She also explains how this surveillance capitalism came about in the first place.
As most revolutionary inventions, chance played a role. After the 2000 dot.com crisis that burst the internet bubble, a startup company named Google struggled to survive. Founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin appeared to be looking at the beginning of the end for their company.
By chance, they discovered that "residual data" left behind by users during their internet searchers had tremendous value.
They could trade this data; they could sell it. By compiling this residual data, they could predict the behavior of any given internet user and thus guarantee advertisers a more targeted audience. And so, yosurveillance capitalism was born.
The Data Collection You Know About Is the Least Valuable
Comments such as "I have nothing to hide, so I don't care if they track me," or "I like targeted ads because they make my shopping easier" reveal our ignorance about what's really going on.
We believe we understand what kind of information is being collected about us. For example, you might not care that Google knows you bought a particular kind of shoe, or a particular book.
However, the information we freely hand over is the least important of the personal information actually being gathered about us, Zuboff notes. Tech companies tell us the data collected is being used to improve services, and indeed, some of it is.
But it is also being used to model human behavior by analyzing the patterns of behavior of hundreds of millions of people.
Once you have a large enough training model, you can begin to accurately predict how different types of individuals will behave over time.
The data gathered is also being used to predict a whole host of individual attributes about you, such as personality quirks, sexual orientation, political orientation - "a whole range of things we never ever intended to disclose," Zuboff says.
How Is Predictive Data Being Used?
All sorts of predictive data are handed over with each photo you upload to social media. For example, it's not just that tech companies can see your photos. Your face is being used without your knowledge or consent to train facial recognition software, and none of us is told how that software is intended to be used.
As just one example, the Chinese government is using facial recognition software to track and monitor minority groups and advocates for democracy, and that could happen elsewhere as well, at any time.
So that photo you uploaded of yourself at a party provides a range of valuable information - from the types of people you're most likely to spend your time with and where you're likely to go to have a good time, to information about how the muscles in your face move and alter the shape of your features when you're in a good mood.
By gathering a staggering amount of data points on each person, minute by minute, Big Data can make very accurate predictions about human behavior, and these predictions are then "sold to business customers who want to maximize our value to their business," Zuboff says.
Your entire existence - even your shifting moods, deciphered by facial recognition software - has become a source of revenue for many tech corporations. You might think you have free will but, in reality, you're being cleverly maneuvered and funneled into doing (and typically buying) or thinking something you may not have done, bought or thought otherwise.
And, "our ignorance is their bliss," Zuboff says.
The Facebook Contagion Experiments
In the documentary, Zuboff highlights Facebook's massive "contagion experiments," in which they used subliminal cues and language manipulation to see if they could make people feel happier or sadder and affect real-world behavior offline. As it turns out, they can. Two key findings from those experiments were:
By manipulating language and inserting subliminal cues in the online context, they can change real-world behavior and real-world emotion
These methods and powers can be exercised "while bypassing user awareness"
In the video, Zuboff also explains how the Pokemon Go online game - which was actually created by Google - was engineered to manipulate real-world behavior and activity for profit.
She also describes the scheme in her New York Times article, saying:
"Game players did not know that they were pawns in the real game of behavior modification for profit, as the rewards and punishments of hunting imaginary creatures were used to herd people to the McDonald's, Starbucks and local pizza joints that were paying the company for 'footfall,' in exactly the same way that online advertisers pay for 'click through' to their websites."
You're Being Manipulated Every Single Day in Countless Ways
Zuboff also reviews what we learned from the Cambridge Analytica scandal. Cambridge Analytica is a political marketing business that, in 2018, used the Facebook data of 80 million Americans to determine the best strategies for manipulating American voters.
Christopher Wylie, now-former director of research at Cambridge Analytica, blew the whistle on the company's methods. According to Wylie, they had so much data on people, they knew exactly how to trigger fear, rage and paranoia in any given individual.
And, by triggering those emotions, they could manipulate them into looking at a certain website, joining a certain group, and voting for a certain candidate.
So, the reality now is, companies like Facebook, Google and third parties of all kinds, have the power - and are using that power - to target your personal inner demons, to trigger you, and to take advantage of you when you're at your weakest or most vulnerable to entice you into action that serves them, commercially or politically.
It's certainly something to keep in mind while you surf the web and social media sites.
"It was only a minute ago that we didn't have many of these tools, and we were fine," Zuboff says in the film. "We lived rich and full lives. We had close connections with friends and family.
Having said that, I want to recognize that there's a lot that the digital world brings to our lives, and we deserve to have all of that. But we deserve to have it without paying the price of surveillance capitalism.
Right now, we are in that classic Faustian bargain; 21st century citizens should not have to make the choice of either going analog or living in a world where our self-determination and our privacy are destroyed for the sake of this market logic. That is unacceptable.
Let's also not be naïve. You get the wrong people involved in our government, at any moment, and they look over their shoulders at the rich control possibilities offered by these new systems.
There will come a time when, even in the West, even in our democratic societies, our government will be tempted to annex these capabilities and use them over us and against us. Let's not be naïve about that.
When we decide to resist surveillance capitalism - right now when it is in the market dynamic - we are also preserving our democratic future, and the kinds of checks and balances that we will need going forward in an information civilization if we are to preserve freedom and democracy for another generation."
Surveillance Is Getting Creepier by the Day
But the surveillance and data collection doesn't end with what you do online. Big Data also wants access to your most intimate moments - what you do and how you behave in the privacy of your own home, for example, or in your car.
Zuboff recounts how the Google Nest security system was found to have a hidden microphone built into it that isn't featured in any of the schematics for the device.
"Voices are what everybody are after, just like faces," Zuboff says. Voice data, and all the information delivered through your daily conversations, is tremendously valuable to Big Data, and add to their ever-expanding predictive modeling capabilities.
She also discusses how these kinds of data-collecting devices force consent from users by holding the functionality of the device "hostage" if you don't want your data collected and shared.
For example, Google's Nest thermostats will collect data about your usage and share it with third parties, that share it with third parties and so on ad infinitum - and Google takes no responsibility for what any of these third parties might do with your data.
You can decline this data collection and third party sharing, but if you do, Google will no longer support the functionality of the thermostat; it will no longer update your software and may affect the functionality of other linked devices such as smoke detectors.
Two scholars who analyzed the Google Nest thermostat contract concluded that a consumer who is even a little bit vigilant about how their consumption data is being used would have to review 1,000 privacy contracts before installing a single thermostat in their home.
Modern cars are also being equipped with multiple cameras that feed Big Data. As noted in the film, the average new car has 15 cameras, and if you have access to the data of a mere 1% of all cars, you have "knowledge of everything happening in the world."
Of course, those cameras are sold to you as being integral to novel safety features, but you're paying for this added safety with your privacy, and the privacy of everyone around you.
Pandemic Measures Are Rapidly Eroding Privacy
The current coronavirus pandemic is also using "safety" as a means to dismantle personal privacy. As reported by The New York Times, March 23, 2020:
"In South Korea, government agencies are harnessing surveillance-camera footage, smartphone location data and credit card purchase records to helptrace the recent movements of coronavirus patients and establish virus transmission chains.
In Lombardy, Italy, the authorities are analyzing location data transmitted by citizens' mobile phones to determine how many people are obeying a government lockdown order and the typical distances they move every day. About 40 percent are moving around "too much," an official recently said.
In Israel, the country's internal security agency is poised to start using a cache of mobile phone location data - originally intended for counterterrorism operations - to try to pinpoint citizens who may have been exposed to the virus.
As countries around the world race to contain the pandemic, many are deploying digital surveillance tools as a means to exert social control, even turning security agency technologies on their own civilians …
Yet ratcheting up surveillance to combat the pandemic now could permanently open the doors to more invasive forms of snooping later. It is a lesson Americans learned after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, civil liberties experts say.
Nearly two decades later, law enforcement agencies have access to higher-powered surveillance systems, like fine-grained location tracking and facial recognition - technologies that may be repurposed to further political agendas …
'We could so easily end up in a situation where we empower local, state or federal government to take measures in response to this pandemic that fundamentally change the scope of American civil rights,' said Albert Fox Cahn, the executive director of the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project, a nonprofit organization in Manhattan."
Zuboff also discusses her work in a January 24, 2020, op-ed in The New York Times.6,7 "You are now remotely controlled. Surveillance capitalists control the science and the scientists, the secrets and the truth," she writes, continuing:
"We thought that we search Google, but now we understand that Google searches us. We assumed that we use social media to connect, but we learned that connection is how social media uses us.
Our digital century was to have been democracy's Golden Age. Instead, we enter its third decade marked by a stark new form of social inequality best understood as 'epistemic inequality' … extreme asymmetries of knowledge and the power that accrues to such knowledge, as the tech giants seize control of information and learning itself …
Surveillance capitalists exploit the widening inequity of knowledge for the sake of profits. They manipulate the economy, our society and even our lives with impunity, endangering not just individual privacy but democracy itself …
Still, the winds appear to have finally shifted. A fragile new awareness is dawning … Surveillance capitalists are fast because they seek neither genuine consent nor consensus. They rely on psychic numbing and messages of inevitability to conjure the helplessness, resignation and confusion that paralyze their prey.
Democracy is slow, and that's a good thing. Its pace reflects the tens of millions of conversations that occur … gradually stirring the sleeping giant of democracy to action.
These conversations are occurring now, and there are many indications that lawmakers are ready to join and to lead. This third decade is likely to decide our fate. Will we make the digital future better, or will it make us worse?"
Epistemic inequality refers to inequality in what you're able to learn.
"It is defined as unequal access to learning imposed by private commercial mechanisms of information capture, production, analysis and sales. It is best exemplified in the fast-growing abyss between what we know and what is known about us," Zuboff writes in her New York Times op-ed.
Google, Facebook, Amazon and Microsoft have spearheaded the surveillance market transformation, placing themselves at the top tier of the epistemic hierarchy. They know everything about you and you know nothing about them. You don't even know what they know about you.
"They operated in the shadows to amass huge knowledge monopolies by taking without asking, a maneuver that every child recognizes as theft," Zuboff writes.
"Surveillance capitalism begins by unilaterally staking a claim to private human experience as free raw material for translation into behavioral data. Our lives are rendered as data flows."
These data flows are about you, but not for you. All of it is used against you - to separate you from your money, or to make you act in a way that is in some way profitable for a company or a political agenda. So, ask yourself, where is your freedom in all of this?
If a company can cause you to buy stuff you don't need by sticking an enticing, personalized ad for something they know will boost your confidence at the exact moment you're feeling insecure or worthless (a tactic that has been tested and perfected, are you really acting through free will?
If an artificial intelligence using predictive modeling senses you're getting hungry (based on a variety of cues such as your location, facial expressions and verbal expressions) and launches an ad from a local restaurant to you in the very moment you're deciding to get something to eat, are you really making conscious, self-driven, value-based life choices? As noted by Zuboff in her article:
"Unequal knowledge about us produces unequal power over us, and so epistemic inequality widens to include the distance between what we can do and what can be done to us. Data scientists describe this as the shift from monitoring to actuation, in which a critical mass of knowledge about a machine system enables the remote control of that system.
Now people have become targets for remote control, as surveillance capitalists discovered that the most predictive data come from intervening in behavior to tune, herd and modify action in the direction of commercial objectives.
This third imperative, 'economies of action,' has become an arena of intense experimentation. 'We are learning how to write the music,' one scientist said, 'and then we let the music make them dance' …
The fact is that in the absence of corporate transparency and democratic oversight, epistemic inequality rules. They know. They decide who knows. They decide who decides. The public's intolerable knowledge disadvantage is deepened by surveillance capitalists' perfection of mass communications as gaslighting …
On April 30, 2019 Mark Zuckerberg made a dramatic announcement at the company's annual developer conference, declaring, 'The future is private.' A few weeks later, a Facebook litigator appeared before a federal district judge in California to thwart a user lawsuit over privacy invasion, arguing that the very act of using Facebook negates any reasonable expectation of privacy 'as a matter of law.'"
We Need a Whole New Regulatory Framework
In the video, Zuboff points out that there are no laws in place to curtail this brand-new type of surveillance capitalism, and the only reason it has been able to flourish over the past 20 years is because there's been an absence of laws against it, primarily because it has never previously existed.
That's the problem with epistemic inequality. Google and Facebook were the only ones who knew what they were doing. The surveillance network grew in the shadows, unbeknownst to the public or lawmakers.
Had we fought against it for two decades, then we might have had to resign ourselves to defeat, but as it stands, we've never even tried to regulate it.
This, Zuboff says, should give us all hope. We can turn this around and take back our privacy, but we need legislation that addresses the actual reality of the entire breadth and depth of the data collection system.
It's not enough to address just the data that we know that we're giving when we go online. Zuboff writes:
"These contests of the 21st century demand a framework of epistemic rights enshrined in law and subject to democratic governance. Such rights would interrupt data supply chains by safeguarding the boundaries of human experience before they come under assault from the forces of datafication.
The choice to turn any aspect of one's life into data must belong to individuals by virtue of their rights in a democratic society. This means, for example, that companies cannot claim the right to your face, or use your face as free raw material for analysis, or own and sell any computational products that derive from your face …
Anything made by humans can be unmade by humans. Surveillance capitalism is young, barely 20 years in the making, but democracy is old, rooted in generations of hope and contest.
Surveillance capitalists are rich and powerful, but they are not invulnerable. They have an Achilles heel: fear. They fear lawmakers who do not fear them.
They fear citizens who demand a new road forward as they insist on new answers to old questions: Who will know? Who will decide who knows? Who will decide who decides? Who will write the music, and who will dance?"
How to Protect Your Online Privacy
While there's no doubt we need a whole new legislative framework to curtail surveillance capitalism, in the meantime, there are ways you can protect your privacy online and limit the "behavioral surplus data" collected about you.
Robert Epstein, senior research psychologist for the American Institute of Behavioral Research and Technology, recommends taking the following steps to protect your privacy:
Use a virtual private network (VPN) such as Nord, which is only about $3 per month and can be used on up to six devices. In my view, this is a must if you seek to preserve your privacy. Epstein explains:
"When you use your mobile phone, laptop or desktop in the usual way, your identity is very easy for Google and other companies to see. They can see it via your IP address, but more and more, there are much more sophisticated ways now that they know it's you. One is called browser fingerprinting.
This is something that is so disturbing. Basically, the kind of browser you have and the way you use your browser is like a fingerprint. You use your browser in a unique way, and just by the way you type, these companies now can instantly identify you.
Brave has some protection against a browser fingerprinting, but you really need to be using a VPN. What a VPN does is it routes whatever you're doing through some other computer somewhere else.
It can be anywhere in the world, and there are hundreds of companies offering VPN services. The one I like the best right now is called Nord VPN.
You download the software, install it, just like you install any software. It's incredibly easy to use. You do not have to be a techie to use Nord, and it shows you a map of the world and you basically just click on a country.
The VPN basically makes it appear as though your computer is not your computer. It basically creates a kind of fake identity for you, and that's a good thing. Now, very often I will go through Nord's computers in the United States. Sometimes you have to do that, or you can't get certain things done. PayPal doesn't like you to be in a foreign country for example."
Nord, when used on your cellphone, will also mask your identity when using apps like Google Maps.
Do not use Gmail, as every email you write is permanently stored. It becomes part of your profile and is used to build digital models of you, which allows them to make predictions about your line of thinking and every want and desire.
Many other older email systems such as AOL and Yahoo are also being used as surveillance platforms in the same way as Gmail. ProtonMail.com, which uses end-to-end encryption, is a great alternative and the basic account is free.
Don't use Google's Chrome browser, as everything you do on there is surveilled, including keystrokes and every webpage you've ever visited. Brave is a great alternative that takes privacy seriously.
Brave is also faster than Chrome, and suppresses ads. It's based on Chromium, the same software infrastructure that Chrome is based on, so you can easily transfer your extensions, favorites and bookmarks.
Don't use Google as your search engine, or any extension of Google, such as Bing or Yahoo, both of which draw search results from Google. The same goes for the iPhone's personal assistant Siri, which draws all of its answers from Google.
Alternative search engines suggested by Epstein include SwissCows and Qwant. He recommends avoiding StartPage, as it was recently bought by an aggressive online marketing company, which, like Google, depends on surveillance.
Don't use an Android cellphone, for all the reasons discussed earlier. Epstein uses a BlackBerry, which is more secure than Android phones or the iPhone. BlackBerry's upcoming model, the Key3, will be one of the most secure cellphones in the world, he says.
Don't use Google Home devices in your house or apartment - These devices record everything that occurs in your home, both speech and sounds such as brushing your teeth and boiling water, even when they appear to be inactive, and send that information back to Google. Android phones are also always listening and recording, as are Google's home thermostat Nest, and Amazon's Alexa.
Clear your cache and cookies - As Epstein explains in his article:
"Companies and hackers of all sorts are constantly installing invasive computer code on your computers and mobile devices, mainly to keep an eye on you but sometimes for more nefarious purposes.
On a mobile device, you can clear out most of this garbage by going to the settings menu of your browser, selecting the 'privacy and security' option and then clicking on the icon that clears your cache and cookies.
With most laptop and desktop browsers, holding down three keys simultaneously - CTRL, SHIFT and DEL - takes you directly to the relevant menu; I use this technique multiple times a day without even thinking about it.
You can also configure the Brave and Firefox browsers to erase your cache and cookies automatically every time you close your browser."
Don't use Fitbit, as it was recently purchased by Google and will provide them with all your physiological information and activity levels, in addition to everything else that Google already has on you.
NZ Police Trialled Facial Recognition Tech Without Clearance
Police conducted a trial of controversial facial recognition software without consulting their own bosses or the Privacy Commissioner.
The American firm Clearview AI's system, which is used by hundreds of police departments in the United States and several other countries, is effectively a search engine for faces - billing itself as a crime-fighting tool to identify perpetrators and victims.
New Zealand Police first contacted the firm in January, and later set up a trial of the software, according to documents RNZ obtained under the Official Information Act.
However, the high tech crime unit handling the technology appears to have not sought the necessary clearance before using it.
Privacy Commissioner John Edwards, who was not aware police had trialled Clearview Al when RNZ contacted him, said he would expect to be briefed on it before a trial was underway. He said Police Commissioner Andrew Coster told him he was also unaware of the trial.
"He's concerned it was able to happen without a high-level sign-off, and [the] involvement of my office," Edwards said, following a phone conversation with Coster on Tuesday.
"They will be looking at protocols, how they do evaluate new technologies."
Police declined to be interviewed, and would not address the record of Coster's remarks.
"Police undertook a short trial of Clearview AI earlier this year to assess whether it offered any value to police investigations," said Detective Superintendent Tom Fitzgerald, who is the national manager of criminal investigations, in a statement.
"This was a very limited trial to assess investigative value. The trial has now ceased and the value to investigations has been assessed as very limited and the technology at this stage will not be used by New Zealand Police."
Prior to the statement from Fitzgerald, police spokespeople told RNZ on two separate occasions in the past week - on 7 and 11 May - that the trial was still underway. A spokesperson later said these statements were incorrect.
Clearview Al, whose early financial backers include New Zealand citizen Peter Thiel, has built a database of about 2.8 billion faces by lifting users' images from social media sites like Facebook, a practice that violates most of these companies' terms of service.
The software has not been independently tested, but in one "accuracy test result" the company sent New Zealand Police, the report concluded the software had 100 percent accuracy in a facial recognition test of all US members of congress.
"Clearview can be used for counter-terrorism to quickly and accurately identify suspects and build up investigations using public information," employee Marko Jukic told police in a 31 January email. The company reportedly later fired Jukic after it emerged he published controversial views online.
Police would not say what they used Clearview AI for in the trial, or who had access to it. Clearview, which has been used in the US to solve everything from mailbox thefts to cases of child sexual abuse, did not respondfine youngto questions about its relationship with New Zealand police.
The Great Transition: The Shadow Ruling Force Behind The Central Banks Secrecy Is Repugnant In A Free And Open Society June 14 2020 | From: FinalWakeUpCall Monolithic and Ruthless Conspiracy: The Central Bankers’ crimes are legendary and more than can be listed here.
By providing large-scale loans to practically all countries and people, those have become dependent of the hidden ruling power. Governments that want to remain independent are vigorously addressed and enforced; their leaders are unseated, or murdered
If this is not possible through means of political propaganda, or being economically sanctioned, the CIA, Mossad, or otherwise military force will achieve their objective to submit them to the NWO-regime.
The bloodline Archon families want to control the world, which required the joining of forces of the 13 influential bloodline families.
The ultimate goal was, and still is, to create a world dictatorship with one leader at the top, located in Jerusalem - Israel.
As a matter of fact, even China’s government is ultimately run by a - Nazi-Rothschild- central bank, which dictates and controls the flow of money all over the world in every nation in which central banks are located.
They obtained full control, and have 100% – 5 eyes support that makes their authority unquestioned and unchallenged.
Anyone involved in this buy and bribe scheme knows that it is in their own interest to participate in agreement to the given instructions. It really is a world-wide spread epidemic, and much worse than anyone can imagine.
The structure it is condoned under the current legal system of admiralty law. Defeating the truly evil enemy, should be people’s key priority! Let’s target the shadow controlling forces behind these central banks and put an end to this global corruption once and for all.
The real rulers in Washington DC are the invisible Luciferian Khazarians, they exercise their power from behind the scenes. Today the path to total dictatorship in the Western World can be laid by strictly legal means, unseen and unheard by Congress or Parliament, even the President, nor the people.
Officially, Constitutional Governments are implemented. But within our governments and political systems, another body is representing another form of these governments, it is the bureaucratic elite which believes that Constitutions are useless, as they are sure being on the winning side of the game.
All the strange developments in policy agreements like the refuge crisis, may be traced back to this group who are going to make us over to suit their desire. The harm done to all people on our planet will take generations to correct. But all will be corrected, if we the people wake up and take back control!
Secrecy is Repugnant in a Free and Open Society
Trump is threatening to disturb the Deep State’s control game as no other modern President before him ever has done, except President John F. Kennedy who was murdered for his opposition against the Deep State. He said on April 27th, 1961 in an address to newspaper publishers;
“The very word ‘secrecy’ is repugnant in a free and open society, and we are as a people, inherently and historically, opposed to secret societies, secret oaths, and secret proceedings…
For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence. It depends on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice.
It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific, and political operations. Its preparations are concealed, not published, its mistakes are buried, not headlined, its dissenters are silenced, not praised, no expenditure is questioned, no secret is revealed…
I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people… The high office of President has been used to foment a plot to destroy the American’s freedom, and before I leave office I must inform the citizen of his plight.”
Unfortunately, the news media was and still is owned by the very foes President Kennedy was trying to defeat and those foes killed the President two and a half years later.
Unaware of the Risks
Even today, people are so unaware and have no idea of the risks President Trump is taking by challenging the Deep State, specifically the US military industrial complex MIC.
The mainstream media still do their utmost to discredit the President of the United States and try to overthrow him in order that the utterly corrupt elite that rule the western world can continue to hold on to power and to protect the massive budget of the MIC- complex, that along with the Israel Lobby, funds the elections of those who rule us.
They also tried multiple times to start a nuclear world war using Syria, North Korea, Iran, and other hotspots.
It is important to remember and that cannot be repeated often enough: these people try to kill you and your family, and are still doing so.
The Asian secret societies learned of the Deep State Nazi plans to murder 90% of humanity by successfully eavesdropping on their secret meetings. In 2003, the cabal were spreading the engineered SARS disease – a bioweapon designed specifically to target the Asian race, which became their call to arms.
The Europeans, particularly the Germans, are doing some serious chess moves that will make Mr. Trump’s job ahead easier. The powers that are feeling resentful of Mr. Trump are also moving in a healthy direction for all of us.
Mr. Trump is doing a great job that isn’t understood by the public at large and probably not known by himself, as the whole operation is scripted by the Alliance.
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
This has become part of the whole scenario: it represents the undercurrent that is behind everything. It’s a crowd together of folks trying to keep this at bay. As, many of us wake-up and join the patriot crowd.
Where we go one, we go all. The Deep State won’t succeed; their turning point may have been passed.
The Central Banking system is currently owned by the Archon bloodline families that control more wealth than the better off 3.5 billion of the world’s population. Inequality is a drastic understatement.
The BIS – Bank for International Settlements – is a privately owned bank that oversights 60 Central banks including: The Bank of England, the Federal Reserve the European Central Bank and the Bank of Japan.
The BIS controls 95% of global wealth. The BIS was created as a control bank that would supervise the damage reparation settlements of Germany and its allies after WW1. It then morphed into the demon financial control center that it is today.
The monetary system from its inception till today is privately owned by the Rothschild and a few other families.
The Governments pay Central Banks with taxpayers’ monies to compensate for the interest of their counterfeit debt money, which they could have issued themselves free of any interest charge.
Moreover, taxpayers’ contributions fund the Vatican Bank, Queen’s Bank of England, and all other Central Banks across the globe instead of their own government. People’s energy money makes it possible that Central Banks can charge again interest on the reimbursed tax funds.
Evidently, this corrupt system is also funding international child trafficking, including all black terrorist operations, etc.
No Need for Central Banks
Moreover, there is no need for Central banks, as the people controlled governments can issue the money themselves free of interest, without debt! – There is no anchor against the ever-increasing money supply that is destroying the world’s reserve currency.
New out of air-printed money is constantly created to fight deflation to avoid a depression. The world Central banks cannot accept deflation; they are trying to offset this by printing money to generate inflation. And, so have the populace since 1972 two third of their savings lost.
As there is no velocity in the money circulation, they cannot generate the outcome they want. The Central Bankers have no power to turn this around, but resort to continuously printing money that no one spends, so the money has little effect on the economy.
If they don’t find a way to increase the velocity of money, there will be no inflation and higher prices, if money velocity keeps slowing down, the world will be mired in a deflationary trap that scares the hell out of the central bankers, as debt burdens go up in real terms. Tax revenues decrease. Banks fail. When the role of complication is ignored, they are putting the system at risk of collapse.
It is still an open question whether the world needs a reserve currency and it certainly does not when money is linked to something tangible.
There is no need for central banks to create money without limits either – as has been proven during the era 1870 – 1914 when the gold standard acted independently and effectively.
IMF says, “debt is unsustainable”, but central banks don’t solve the problem. They like to keep the world in a limbo of debt, so that countries and people need to take on more debt.
The Central Bankers business model is to putcountries and people in more debt, it is a pattern and they know this, but most of the people don’t know that.
The puppet governments and politicians are bought and paid for to do these things. The only way around this is to get rid of the central banks.
Look at Greece, it is in trouble again, the central bank’s fix was not a fix, it was a band aid and it was only meant to last for a couple of years, then the country would need more debt.
Another noticeable aspect is housing appreciation that is beginning to slow, prices are coming down which means those who purchased at the height of the market will be underwater and those who purchased during the last financial crisis will be worse off. Even, the pension systems are in trouble and there are noticeable signs of this. Once the market, real estate, and the rest crashes it will be game over.
And, that is why the economy is rapidly falling apart. And here comes the narrative battle, either Trump or the FED-Central Bank is going to be in charge to tell this story.
What you have to do is to prepare for the transition and make sure you have sufficient food in store as there is a life-size possibility that supplies will be disturbed.
Be assured that this great transition is coming for which most people aren’t prepared; they will go through a very difficult period of time.
The Alliance with the patriots do there best to make the transition easy as possible. Let’s hope that Trump will have the narrative, as the central banks don’t care about the people, the more we suffer the better they like it.
Eventually, the Deep State players and agendas will dissolve under the upcoming transparency with equality for all. Everyone has to know how to fix the system, where the risks are hidden, and how with the least intrusive means possible can be changed.
Amongst others, it will be by asset backed currencies, then everything else could start to be fixed. How and what is explained in the next issue. Stay tuned!
The World Waves Goodbye To The Era Of Globalization June 13 2020 | From: TheEpochTimes / Various
Post-pandemic order will be very different as many governments retreat from global economic integration.
Globalization, which has shaped the world economic order over the past few decades, was already in trouble before the pandemic. And with the emergence of COVID-19, the retreat from global economic integration has gained momentum, setting in motion a global reordering that’s expected to play out over decades.
President Donald Trump said that the lessons learned from the pandemic vindicate his “America First” policies.
While he came under fire for his protectionist stance, which has caused a fundamental shift in the world trade order in the past few years, the pandemic has proven that he was right and globalists were wrong, he said.
"In many ways, we’ve learned a lot, and we’re going to bring back manufacturing that we could never have done without this,” he told Fox Business on May 14.
“A lot of people are saying, ‘Trump was right.’ I’ve been talking about this for a long time.”
“Stupid supply chains” are all over the world, he said, noting that “one little piece of the world goes bad and the whole thing is messed up.”
Trump believes the era of “globalists” who wanted to “make the world wealthy” at Americans’ expense has also come to an end.
"I don’t even know where these people come from. But those days are over. And if nothing else, over the last two months, it’s been proven to be right.”
With the pandemic, public opinion has also shifted against globalization. People in the United States have been disturbed to find that their health depends on China, which is the dominant supplier of protective equipment and crucial drugs.
Overreliance on a single country for life-saving equipment and medicines during the pandemic has exposed the vulnerability of global supply chains. It’s also raised concerns about the purity and safety of thousands of drugs that are made in China.
In the video below, Truthstream Media discusses one of themost dangerous and ideologically insane root organizations of modern globalism and the "new world order- The Fabian Society.
Click on the image above to view a larger version in a new window
The Fabians are notorious for their obsession with incremental tyranny and the erasure of individual and national sovereignty.
Though other organizations like the Council On Foreign Relations have now taken over at the forefront of the globalist effort, the Fabians were the foundation, the beginning of the modern push towards an everlasting totalitarian empire ruled by the elites.
Understanding their history and tactics helps us to understand exactly what is taking place today.
The "Brave New Word" is being established now, and it must be stopped...
A survey by Pew Research Center in March found that roughly two-thirds of Americans now have an unfavorable view of China.
And over the recent weeks, more and more countries have been calling for Beijing to be held accountable for the regime’s initial response to the outbreak.
The World After the Pandemic
The post-pandemic order will be very different, as many governments across the world are also giving up on globalization and talking about decoupling from China.
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi took to national television on May 12 to announce his new stimulus package, with an ambition to create “a self-reliant India.” The plan is expected to boost the “Make in India” initiative and the country’s manufacturing capacity.
Last month, Japan’s prime minister, Shinzo Abe, announced that his government was setting aside more than $2 billion in funds to help Japanese firms shift production out of China.
President Emmanuel Macron of France told the Financial Times on April 16 that the pandemic;
"Will change the nature of globalization, with which we have lived for the past 40 years,” adding that “it was clear that this kind of globalization was reaching the end of its cycle, it was undermining democracy.”
Similar to the manner in which different countries reacted to the supply chain disruptions, the Trump administration has ramped up efforts to make the United States “more independent, self-sufficient, and resilient.”
On May 14, Trump signed an executive order that gave the U.S. International Development Finance Corp. new powers to support manufacturers in the United States.
The overseas investment agency normally invests in economic development projects in other countries. With this new order, it will also help key industries producing vital goods and services in the United States.
On May 18, the Trump administration signed a $354 million contract with Phlow Corp., a Virginia-based company, to manufacture critical medicines and drug ingredients for use in the fight against the coronavirus.
Phlow will work with a team of private industry partners to manufacture at facilities in the United States, including a new facility to be built in Virginia.
Trump earlier predicted that the United States could be self-sufficient in medicine “within two years.”
The White House is also planning to release an executive order that will require federal agencies to purchase U.S.-made medical products. The order is expected to help create a market for manufacturers to invest and produce in the United States.
There is a strong bipartisan push to craft legislation to reduce U.S. reliance on Chinese products, which accounted for almost 18 percent of U.S. imports of goods in 2019.
The virus, which has sent shock waves through supply chains, has also forced company boards to rethink the risks associated with their business models.
In an apparent win for the Trump administration’s efforts to bring manufacturing to the United States, Taiwan Semiconductor, the world’s largest contract chipmaker, on May 14 announced plans to build a production factory in Arizona.
The company said it would invest roughly $12 billion for the plant, which is scheduled to open by 2024. It plans to employ about 1,600 people while indirectly generating thousands of other jobs.
Companies will face pressure from shareholders, regulators, and governments to make supply chains more local and resilient to prevent future shocks.
However, moving supply chains may take longer than predicted, according to Jim Reid, a Deutsche Bank strategist.
"An unwinding of global value chains should strengthen the position of workers in Western economies,” he wrote in a report.
“If Western workers have been the main victim of globalization, they stand to benefit from deglobalization. But this structural effect will take decades, not years, to feed through.”
Globalist Playbook: Great Depression II June 12 2020 | From: ClassicCapital / Various
This Time America’s President Is On Our Side.
Under an unrelenting counterattack by Trump-led military, law enforcement and financial forces, the globalist cabal launched its best-shot retaliation: a laboratory-designed virus, said to be highly contagious, deadly and capable of shutting down commerce and society worldwide, producing millions of deaths and economic depression.
In late March, President Donald Trump green-lighted state governors to limit non-essential commercial activity and to require healthy Americans to shelter in place. [Comment: A setup to let the tyrants expose themselves.]
Americans, especially those living in states with “blue” governors, were to get a preview of society controlled as the globalist cabal has in mind.
Our challenge is to pull back from the abyss after a sobering glimpse and re-establish the American republic, featuring full human rights as envisioned by the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Recognizing and interpreting current historic events correctly is nearly impossible for a person of any age who does not know the true history of the Great Crash of 1929 at the New York Stock Exchange and the ensuing Great Depression of 1931-1940.
The 71 years delay was surely because the “powerful pecuniary force” described by Henry George in 1880 as writing laws and molding thought in every nation continued to wield great power in America and the world today.
Now we call that “powerful pecuniary force” the globalist cabal because its declared objective is to destroy every national government and to rule the world in a single dynasty without a middle class – only rulers and their subjects.
The Most Important Revolutionary Event
The Great Depression of 1929 into the 1940s was not the first major attack – even of the 20th Century – by the globalist cabal against America’s middle class.
World War I (aka “the Great War”) and the “Spanish flu” of 1918 had already completed well planned and ruthlessly executed campaigns to destroy millions of human lives around the world.
Then the Great Crash of 1929 stopped America’s tax-cut-fueled economic growth of the 1920s in its tracks by launching collusive, massive short-selling of corporate shares on a pre-arranged signal.
The short selling was “naked,” i.e., the shares were neither borrowed nor delivered to the buyers. The naked short sales were covered, if at all, at much lower prices by the time NYSE clerks got around to searching for the shares sold.
Under questioning by Stalin’s police in 1938, a highly ranked operative of the cabal ranked the 1929 Crash as the most important revolutionary event of the century.
This testimony seems to confirm both the planning of the Crash and the scale of its damage to the middle class, since the number one ranking placed the Crash as more significant than creation of the Fed, the income tax, the Great War, the 1918 influenza or the violence which deposed and executed Russia’s Czar Nicholas II, his wife and his children – each of them a devout Christian.
Hapless Herbert Hoover did nothing to slow, much less punish, rampant financial market fraud centered at the New York Stock Exchange.
Then he signed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act in June, 1930, which shut down export-import trade by 70% within 18 months. Finally, during his campaign for re-election in 1932, Hoover proposed and signed retroactive income tax hikes quadrupling the lowest rate and trebling the highest rate.
So much for the U.S. president elected with highest public opinion of his abilities. Hoover, so to speak, was ridden out of the White House on a rail.
As soon as he took power, FDR eliminated the vital rights of individual Americans to exchange dollars for gold at a guaranteed price of $20.67/oz.
After confiscating gold from Americans for $20.67/oz, FDR devalued the dollar to $35/oz. in January, 1934, while buying radical amounts of gold on foreign exchange.
To pay for the gold, Roosevelt sold government bonds to the public and raised taxes – draining already scarce currency and capital from the American economy.
As previously reported here, during his first two terms as president, Franklin D. Roosevelt took money from the severely depressed American economy by means of sharply increased taxes and government bonds, using the revenues to buy 13,185.3 metric tons of gold – trebling U. S. gold holdings – and FDR refused to allow that gold to be monetized.
This secret conduct by FDR reduced the money supply so drastically prices of assets, goods and services fell, enabling the rich to acquire land, factories, oil, minerals and labor at fire sale prices.
Spending of federal funds to buy gold had the appearance of fiscal policy, but it was accompanied by FDR’s insistence that the gold purchased not be monetized as required by gold standard trading agreements at the time.
This subtle treachery shrank the money supply severely, thereby producing sharply deflationary monetary effects. As money supply shrank, prices of goods and services plummeted, and “nobody has any money” became the common plaint across America.
If the Rothschild-controlled Fed had done all this, the Fed would likely have drawn criticism for causing the Great Depression. But FDR did it with no historian or economist pointing blame at him for the damage done, even to the present date.
FDR also raised income tax rates and/or added new taxes every year he was president, except 1939, when the Democrat-controlled House refused to do so after losing 80+ seats in the 1938 off-year elections.
FDR instigated foreclosures of homes, farms and business loans by sharply raising bank reserves (cutting lending capacity in half) in 1936 and 1937, when banks were not otherwise stressed.
Yet the globalist cabal still preserves Roosevelt’s hallowed stature as hero of common people in America and worldwide.
World War II, Korea, Vietnam, closing of the gold window in 1971 (after most of FDR’s gold purchases had been sold to Rothschild and Rockefeller banks for $35/ounce), the attempted assassination of President Reagan, the Middle East wars, the Tech Crash of 2000-2002, the “financial terrorism” of 2008, the rapid escalation of dollar devaluation, the flagrantly desperate coup attempt to evict Donald Trump from the American presidency, and now the COVID-19 shutdown of economic activity to impose Great Depression II – each and all of these events fit perfectly into the globalist cabal’s 1901 plan to destroy the middle class entirely.
Launched this election year 2020, the COVID-19 weapon already has achieved sharper drop in employment nationally than during the Great Depression and major disruptions of food production and delivery to Americans.
This brings to mind FDR-inspired actions early in his first term during the 1930s requiring six million baby pigs to be slaughtered and buried (to “raise the price of pork”) – each with the true objective of causing mass starvation.
Should we note the pivotal difference between America’s dilemmas in the Great Depression as contrasted with 2020? The U.S. presidents during the 1930s, Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt – especially FDR – served as operatives of the globalist cabal.
Donald Trump, to the contrary, adamantly opposes globalism. Trump favors independent, well-led nations of people with shared interests and heritage: nationalism. America First! is his central thesis and campaign slogan.
The point deserving emphasis in the mindset and thinking of Americans in 2020 is that the globalist cabal’s central objective – to destroy the middle class entirely – has been pursued relentlessly from 1901 through 2020.
The same objective is presently central to blue-state management of this current COVID-19 pandemic. The globalist cabal controls “shadow governments” in each nation, certainly including China and America.
These shadow governments, sometimes called Deep State, cooperate with each other internationally to achieve the cabal’s objective of global dictatorship.
Reports indicate Deep State operatives in America cooperated with Deep State operatives in China to create and to spread the COVID-19 virus in both countries and elsewhere.
They hoped to thwart effective efforts to protect against the virus and, if possible, to provoke war between the two nations, thereby reducing human population and the middle class.
Huge Deficits, Helicopter Cash Attack Savings
From previous writings here, you know that Federal Reserve Notes are fiat currency which appear to have value only because the federal government requires those “notes” to be accepted as legal tender for all public and private debts.
In addition, all federal taxes are payable only in such Fed notes, which do not promise expressly to deliver anything of value.
Thus, as the number of Fed notes grows, the risk of loss in purchasing power grows for those who accept the Fed’s paper in exchange for work and other assets.
Federal spending is already sharply in deficit, made much worse by the virus attack and resulting sharp drop in employment and production.
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 Putin?
The government spending may succeed in getting us into recovery stage. But monetary reform must accompany the recovery so Americans can avoid yet another cycle of feeding the globalist cabal’s network of central banks and financial fraud.
Spending of $3 Trillion or $6 Trillion by Congress to “restore” prosperity drains its value from the savings of Americans and all people who have worked for pay in dollars.
The Fed notes are paper with only an implied promise of actual value. Every new note created in excess of current production of value gets its value from the currency already earned and saved.
Hard-earned savings sink in purchasing power with every act by Congress spending dollars borrowed into existence.
When the U.S. government contemplates borrowing during one fiscal year seven times the amount of monetary base created in the history of the nation through 2008, how much longer is the Fed’s fiat monetary system likely to last? Not long.
No More Bretton Woods
As the Federal Reserve’s end draws nearer, we are likely to hear the Bretton Woods System established in 1944 mentioned in reverential terms as a benchmark for which we should aim.
Until 1971, the U.S. dollar was the currency required for international trade among member nations, and their central banks could exchange dollars for gold from the U. S. Treasury at the rate of $35/oz.
But Bretton Woods got Americans no closer to having gold rather than paper in their pockets for their labor and production, as they enjoyed before FDR’s executive order of 1933.
Is Psychiatry Bullshit? + Fourteen Lies That Our Psychiatry Professors Taught Us In Medical School June 11 2020 | From: Sott / GlobalResearch
Some Psychiatrists View The Chemical-Imbalance Theory As A Well-Meaning Lie.
In the current issue of the journal Ethical Human Psychology and Psychiatry, Australian dissident psychiatrist Niall McLaren titles his article, "Psychiatry as Bullshit" and makes a case for just that.
In 2011, Ronald Pies, editor-in-chief emeritus of the Psychiatric Times, stated;
“In truth, the 'chemical imbalance' notion was always a kind of urban legend - never a theory seriously propounded by well-informed psychiatrists."
And in 2013, Thomas Insel, then director of the National Institute of Mental Health, offered a harsh rebuke of the DSM, announcing that because the DSM diagnostic system lacks validity, the: "NIMH will be re-orienting its research away from DSM categories."
So, the great controversy today has now become just how psychiatry can be most fairly characterized given its record of being proven wrong about virtually all of its assertions, most notably its classifications of behaviors, theories of "mental illness" and treatment effectiveness/adverse effects.
Among critics, one of the gentlest characterizations of psychiatry is a "false narrative," the phrase used by investigative reporter Robert Whitaker (who won the 2010 Investigative Reporters and Editors Book Award for Anatomy of an Epidemic) to describe the story told by the psychiatrists' guild American Psychiatric Association.
In "Psychiatry as Bullshit," McLaren begins by considering several different categories of "nonscience with scientific pretensions," such as "pseudoscience" and "scientific fraud."
"Pseudoscience" is commonly defined as a collection of beliefs and practices promulgated as scientific but in reality mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method. The NIMH director ultimately rejected the DSM because of its lack of validity, which is crucial to the scientific method.
The criteria for DSM illness are not objective biological ones but non-scientific subjective ones (which is why homosexuality was a DSM mental illness until the early 1970s).
Besides lack of scientific validity, the DSM lacks scientific reliability, as clinicians routinely disagree on diagnoses because patients act differently in different circumstances and because of the subjective nature of the criteria.
"Fraud" is a misrepresentation, a deception intended for personal gain, and implies an intention to deceive others of the truth - or "lying." Drug companies, including those that manufacture psychiatric drugs, have been convicted of fraud, as have high-profile psychiatrists (as well as other doctors).
Human rights activist and attorney Jim Gottstein offers an argument as to why the APA is a "fraudulent enterprise"; however, the APA has not been legally convicted of fraud.
To best characterize psychiatry, McLaren considers the category of "bullshit," invoking philosopher Harry Frankfurt's 1986 journal article "On Bullshit" (which became a New York Times bestselling book in 2005).
What is the essence of bullshit? For Frankfurt, "This lack of connection to a concern with truth - this indifference to how things really are - that I regard as of the essence of bullshit."
Frankfurt devotes a good deal of On Bullshit to differentiating between a liar and a bullshitter. Both the liar and the bullshitter misrepresent themselves, representing themselves as attempting to be honest and truthful. But there is a difference between the liar and the bullshitter.
The liar knows the truth, and the liar's goal is to conceal it.
The goal of bullshitters is not necessarily to lie about the truth but to persuade their audience of a specific impression so as to advance their agenda. So, bullshitters are committed to neither truths nor untruths, uncommitted to neither facts nor fiction. It's actually not in bullshitters' interest to know what is true and what is false, as that knowledge can hinder their capacity to bullshit.
Frankfurt tells us that liar the hides that he or she is "attempting to lead us away from a correct apprehension of reality." In contrast, the bullshitter hides that "the truth-values of his statements are of no central interest to him."
“In truth, the 'chemical imbalance' notion was always a kind of urban legend - never a theory seriously propounded by well-informed psychiatrists."
What Pies omits is the reality that the vast majority of psychiatrists have been promulgating this theory. Were they liars or simply not well-informed? And if not well-informed, were they purposely not well-informed?
If one wants to bullshit oneself and the general public that psychiatry is a genuinely scientific medical specialty, there's a great incentive to be unconcerned with the truth or falseness of the chemical imbalance theory of depression.
Bullshitters immediately recognize how powerful this chemical imbalance notion is in gaining prestige for their profession and themselves as well as making their job both more lucrative and easier, increasing patient volume by turning virtually all patient visits into quick prescribing ones.
Prior to the chemical imbalance bullshit campaign, most Americans were reluctant to take antidepressants - or to give them to their children.
But the idea that depression is caused by a chemical imbalance that can be corrected with Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor antidepressants sounded like taking insulin for diabetes.
Correcting a chemical imbalance seemed like a reasonable thing to do, and so the use of SSRI antidepressants skyrocketed.
In 2012, National Public Radio correspondent Alix Spiegel began her piece about the disproven chemical imbalance theory with the following personal story about being prescribed Prozac when she was a depressed teenager:
“My parents took me to a psychiatrist at Johns Hopkins Hospital. She did an evaluation and then told me this story: "The problem with you," she explained, "is that you have a chemical imbalance. It's biological, just like diabetes, but it's in your brain.
This chemical in your brain called serotonin is too, too low. There's not enough of it, and that's what's causing the chemical imbalance. We need to give you medication to correct that." Then she handed my mother a prescription for Prozac. "
When Spiegel discovered that the chemical imbalance theory was untrue, she sought to discover why this truth had been covered up, and so she interviewed researchers who knew the truth.
Alan Frazer, professor of pharmacology and psychiatry and chairman of the pharmacology department at the University of Texas Health Sciences Center, told Spiegel that by framing depression as a deficiency - something that needed to be returned to normal - patients felt more comfortable taking antidepressants.
“If there was this biological reason for them being depressed, some deficiency that the drug was correcting, then taking a drug was OK."
For Frazer, the story that depressed people have a chemical imbalance enabled many people to come out of the closet about being depressed.
Frazer's rationale reminds us of Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky's book Manufacturing Consent, the title deriving from presidential adviser and journalist Walter Lippmann's phrase "the manufacture of consent" - a necessity for Lippmann, who believed that the general public is incompetent in discerning what's truly best for them, and so their opinion must be molded by a benevolent elite who does know what's best for them.
There are some psychiatrists who view the chemical imbalance theory as a well-meaning lie by a benevolent elite to ensure resistant patients do what is best for them, but my experience is that there are actually extremely few such "well-meaning liars." Most simply don't know the truth because they have put little effort in discerning it.
I believe McLaren is correct in concluding that the vast majority of psychiatrists are bullshitters, uncommitted to either facts or fiction. Most psychiatrists would certainly have been happy if the chemical-imbalance theory was true but obviously have not needed it to be true in order to promulgate it.
For truth seekers, the falseness of the chemical imbalance theory has been easily available, but most psychiatrists have not been truth seekers.
It is not in the bullshitters' interest to know what is true and what is false, as that knowledge of what is a fact and what is fiction hinders the capacity to use any and all powerful persuasion. Simply put, a commitment to the truth hinders the capacity to bullshit.
Fourteen Lies That Our Psychiatry Professors Taught Us In Medical School.
Myth # 1:
“The FDA (US Food and Drug Administration) tests all new psychiatric drugs”
False. Actually the FDA only reviews studies that were designed, administered, secretly performed and paid for by the multinational profit-driven drug companies.
The studies are frequently farmed out by the pharmaceutical companies by well-paid research firms, in whose interest it is to find positive results for their corporate employers. Unsurprisingly, such research policies virtually guarantee fraudulent results.
Myth # 2:
“FDA approval means that a psychotropic drug is effective long-term”
False. Actually, FDA approval doesn’t even mean that psychiatric drugs have been proven to be safe – either short-term or long-term! The notion that FDA approval means that a psych drug has been proven to be effective is also a false one, for most such drugs are never tested – prior to marketing – for longer than a few months (and most psych patients take their drugs for years).
The pharmaceutical industry pays many psychiatric “researchers” – often academic psychiatrists (with east access to compliant, chronic, already drugged-up patients) who have financial or professional conflicts of interest – some of them even sitting on FDA advisory committees who attempt to “fast track” psych drugs through the approval process.
For each new drug application, the FDA only receives 1 or 2 of the “best” studies (out of many) that purport to show short-term effectiveness. The negative studies are shelved and not revealed to the FDA. In the case of the SSRI drugs, animal lab studies typically lasted only hours, days or weeks and the human clinical studies only lasted, on average, 4- 6 weeks, far too short to draw any valid conclusions about long-term effectiveness or safety!
Hence the FDA, prescribing physicians and patient-victims should not have been “surprised” by the resulting epidemic of SSRI drug-induced adverse reactions that are silently plaguing the people.
Indeed, many SSRI trials have shown that those drugs are barely more effective than placebo (albeit statistically significant!) with unaffordable economic costs and serious health risks, some of which are life-threatening and known to be capable of causing brain damage.
Myth # 3:
“FDA approval means that a psychotropic drug is safe long-term”
False. Actually, the SSRIs and the “anti-psychotic” drugs are usually tested in human trials for only a couple of months before being granted marketing approval by the FDA. And the drug companies are only required to report 1 or 2 studies (even if many other studies on the same drug showed negative, even disastrous, results).
Drug companies obviously prefer that the black box and fine print warnings associated with their drugs are ignored by both consumers and prescribers. One only has to note how small the print is on the commercials.
In our fast-paced shop-until-you-drop consumer society, we super-busy prescribing physicians and physician assistants have never been fully aware of the multitude of dangerous, potentially fatal adverse psych drug effects that include addiction, mania, psychosis, suicidality, worsening depression, worsening anxiety, insomnia, akathisia, brain damage, dementia, homicidality, violence, etc, etc.
But when was the last time anybody heard the FDA or Big Pharma apologize for the damage they did in the past?
And when was the last time there were significant punishments (other than writs slaps and “chump change” multimillion dollar fines) or prison time for the CEOs of the guilty multibillion dollar drug companies?
Myth # 4:
“Mental ‘illnesses’ are caused by ‘brain chemistry imbalances’”
False. In actuality, brain chemical/neurotransmitter imbalances have never been proven to exist (except for cases of neurotransmitter depletions caused by psych drugs) despite vigorous examinations of lab animal or autopsied human brains and brain slices by neuroscientist s who were employed by well-funded drug companies.
Knowing that there are over 100 known neurotransmitter systems in the human brain, proposing a theoretical chemical ”imbalance” is laughable and flies in the face of science.
Not only that, but if there was an imbalance between any two of the 100 potential systems (impossible to prove), a drug – that has never been tested on more than a handful of them – could never be expected to re-balance it!
Such simplistic theories have been perpetrated by Big Pharma upon a gullible public and a gullible psychiatric industry because corporations that want to sell the public on their unnecessary products know that they have to resort to 20 second sound bite-type propaganda to convince patients and prescribing practitioners why they should be taking or prescribing synthetic, brain-altering drugs that haven’t been adequately tested.
Myth # 5:
“Antidepressant drugs work like insulin for diabetics”
False. This laughingly simplistic – and very anti-scientific – explanation for the use of dangerous and addictive synthetic drugs is patently absurd and physicians and patients who believe it should be ashamed of themselves for falling for it.
There is such a thing as an insulin deficiency (but only in type 1 diabetes) but there is no such thing as a Prozac deficiency.
SSRIs (so-called Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors – an intentional mis-representation because those drugs are NOT selective!) do not raise total brain serotonin.
Rather, SSRIs actually deplete serotonin long-term while only “goosing” serotonin release at the synapse level while at the same time interfere with the storage, reuse and re-cycling of serotonin (by its “serotonin reuptake inhibition” function).
(Parenthetically, the distorted “illogic” of the insulin/diabetes comparison above could legitimately be made in the case of the amino acid brain nutrient tryptophan, which is the precursor molecule of the important natural neurotransmitter serotonin.
If a serotonin deficiency or “imbalance” could be proven, the only logical treatment approach would be to supplement the diet with the serotonin precursor tryptophan rather than inflict upon the brain a brain-altering synthetic chemical that actually depletes serotonin long-term!
Myth # 6:
“SSRI ‘discontinuation syndromes’ are different than ‘withdrawal syndromes’”
False. The SSRI “antidepressant” drugs are indeed dependency-inducing/addictive and the neurological and psychological symptoms that occur when these drugs are stopped or tapered down are not “relapses” into a previous ”mental disorder” - as has been commonly asserted - but are actually new drug withdrawal symptoms that are different from those that prompted the original diagnosis
The term “discontinuation syndrome” is part of a cunningly-designed conspiracy that was plotted in secret by members of the psychopharmaceutical industryin order to deceive physicians into thinking that these drugs are not addictive.
The deception has been shamelessly promoted to distract attention from the proven fact that most psych drugs are dependency-inducing and are therefore likely to cause “discontinuation/withdrawal symptoms” when they are stopped.
The drug industry knows that most people do not want to swallow dependency-inducing drugs that are likely to cause painful, even lethal withdrawal symptoms when they cut down the dose of the drug.
Myth # 7:
“Ritalin is safe for children (or adults)”
False. In actuality, methylphenidate (= Ritalin, Concerta, Daytrana, Metadate and Methylin; aka “kiddie cocaine”), a dopamine reuptake inhibitor drug, works exactly like cocaine on dopamine synapses, except that orally-dosed methylphenidate reaches the brain more slowly than snortable or smoked cocaine does.
Therefore the oral form has less of an orgasmic “high” than cocaine.
Cocaine addicts actually prefer Ritalin if they can get it in a relatively pure powder form.
When snorted, the synthetic Ritalin (as opposed to the naturally-occurring, and therefore more easily metabolically-degraded cocaine) has the same onset of action but, predictably, has a longer lasting “high” and is thus preferred among addicted individuals.
The molecular structures of Ritalin and cocaine both have amphetamine base structures with ring-shaped side chains which, when examined side by side, are remarkably similar. The dopamine synaptic organelles in the brain (and heart, blood vessels, lungs and guts) are unlikely to sense any difference between the two drugs.
Myth # 8:
“Psychoactive drugs are totally safe for humans”
False. See Myth # 3 above. Actually all five classes of psychotropic drugs have, with long-term use, been found to be neurotoxic (ie, known to destroy or otherwise alter the physiology, chemistry, anatomy and viability of vital energy-producing mitochondria in every brain cell and nerve). They are therefore all capable of contributing to dementia when used long-term.
Any synthetic chemical that is capable of crossing the blood-brain barrier into the brain can alter and disable the brain. Synthetic chemical drugs are NOT capable of healing brain dysfunction, curing malnutrition or reversing brain damage.
Rather than curing anything, psychiatric drugs are only capable of masking symptoms while the abnormal emotional, neurological or malnutritional processes that mimic “mental illnesses” continue unabated.
Myth # 9:
“Mental ‘illnesses’ have no known cause”
False. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM, published by the American Psychiatric Association, is pejoratively called “the psychiatric bible and billing book” for psychiatrists.
Despite its name, it actually has no statistics in it, and, of the 374 psychiatric diagnoses in the DSM-IV (there is now a 5th edition) there seem to be only two that emphasize known root causes.
Those two diagnoses are Posttraumatic Stress Disorder and Acute Stress Disorder. The DSM-V has been roundly condemned as being just another book that laughingly pathologizes a few more normal human emotions and behaviors.
In my decade of work as an independent holistic mental health care practitioner, I was virtually always able to detect many of the multiple root causes and contributing factors that easily explained the signs, symptoms and behaviors that had resulted in a perplexing number of false diagnoses of “mental illness of unknown origin”.
Many of my patients had been made worse by being hastily diagnosed, hastily drugged, bullied, demeaned, malnourished, incarcerated, electroshocked (often against their wills and/or without fully informed consent).
My patients had been frequently rendered unemployable or even permanently disabled as a result – all because temporary, potentially reversible, and therefore emotional stressors had not been recognized at the onset.
Because of the reliance on drugs, many of my patients had been made incurable by not having been referred to compassionate practitioners who practiced high quality, non-drug-based, potentially curable psychotherapy.
The root causes of my patient’s understandable emotional distress were typically multiple, although sometimes a single trauma, such as a rape, violent assault or a psychological trauma in the military would cause an otherwise normally-developing individual to decompensate.
But the vast majority of my patients had experienced easily identifiable chronic sexual, physical, psychological, emotional and/or spiritual traumas as root causes – often accompanied by hopelessness, sleep deprivation, serious emotional or physical neglect and brain nutrient deficiencies as well.
The only way that I could obtain this critically important information was through the use of thorough, compassionate (and, unfortunately, time-consuming) investigation into the patient’s complete history, starting with prenatal, maternal, infant and childhood exposures to toxins (including vaccines) and continuing into the vitally important adolescent medical history (all periods when the patient’s brain was rapidly developing).
My clinical experience proved to me that if enough high quality time was spent with the patient and if enough hard work was exerted looking for root causes, the patient’s predicament could usually be clarified and the erroneous past labels (of “mental illnesses of unknown origin”) could be thrown out.
Such efforts were often tremendously therapeutic for my patients, who up to that time had been made to feel guilty, ashamed or hopeless by previous therapists.
In my experience, most mental ill health syndromes represented identifiable, albeit serious emotional de-compensation due to temporarily overwhelming crisis situations linked to traumatic, frightening, torturous, neglectful and soul-destroying life experiences.
My practice consisted mostly of patients who knew for certain that they were being sickened by months or years of swallowing one or more brain-altering, addictive prescription drugs that they couldn’t get off of by themselves.
I discovered that many of them could have been cured early on in their lives if they only had access – and could afford – compassionate psychoeducational psychotherapy, proper brain nutrition and help with addressing issues of deprivation, parental neglect/abuse, poverty and other destructive psychosocial situations.
I came to the sobering realization that many of my patients could have been cured years earlier if it hadn’t been for the disabling effects of psychiatric drug regimens, isolation, loneliness, punitive incarcerations, solitary confinement, discrimination, malnutrition, and/or electroshock.
The neurotoxic and brain-disabling drugs, vaccines and frankenfoods that most of my patients had been given early on had started them on the road to chronicity and disability.
Myth # 10:
“Psychotropic drugs have nothing to do with the huge increase in disabled and unemployable American psychiatric patients”
False. See Myths # 2 and # 3 above. In actuality recent studies have shown that the major cause of permanent disability in the “mentally ill” is the long-term, high dosage and/or use of multiple neurotoxic psych drugs – any combination of which, as noted above, has never been adequately tested for safety even in animal labs.
Many commonly-prescribed drugs are fully capable of causing brain-damage long-term, especially the anti-psychotics (aka, “major tranquilizers”) like Thorazine, Haldol, Prolixin, Clozapine, Abilify, Clozapine, Fanapt, Geodon, Invega, Risperdal, Saphris, Seroquel and Zyprexa, all of which can cause brain shrinkage that is commonly seen on the MRI scans of anti-psychotic drug-treated, so-called schizophrenics – commonly pointed out as “proof” that schizophrenia is an anatomic brain disorder that causes the brain to shrink! (Incidentally, patients who had been on antipsychotic drugs – for whatever reason – have been known to experience withdrawal hallucinations and acute psychotic symptoms even if they had never experienced such symptoms previously.)
Of course, highly addictive “minor” tranquilizers like the benzodiazepines (Valium, Ativan, Klonopin, Librium, Tranxene, Xanax) can cause the same withdrawal syndromes. They are all dangerous and very difficult to withdraw from (withdrawal results in difficult-to-treat rebound insomnia, panic attacks, and seriously increased anxiety), and, when used long-term, they can all cause memory loss/dementia, the loss of IQ points and the high likelihood of being mis-diagnosed as Alzheimer’s disease (of unknown etiology).
Myth # 11:
“So-called bipolar disorder can mysteriously ‘emerge’ in patients who have been taking stimulating antidepressants like the SSRIs”
False. In actuality, crazy-making behaviors like mania, agitation and aggression are commonly caused by the SSRIs. That list includes a syndrome called akathisia, a severe, sometimes suicide-inducing internal restlessness – like having restless legs syndrome over one’s entire body and brain.
Akathisia was once understood to only occur as a long-term adverse effect of antipsychotic drugs (See Myth # 10). So it was a shock to many psychiatrists (after Prozac came to market in 1987) to have to admit that SSRIs could also cause that deadly problem.
It has long been my considered opinion that SSRIs should more accurately be called “agitation-inducing” drugs rather than “anti-depressant” drugs.
The important point to make is that SSRI-induced psychosis, mania, agitation, aggression and akathisia is NOT bipolar disorder nor is it schizophrenia!
Myth # 12:
“Antidepressant drugs can prevent suicides”
False. In actuality, there is no psychiatric drug that is FDA-approved for the treatment of suicidality because these drugs, especially the so-called antidepressants, actually INCREASE the incidence of suicidal thinking, suicide attempts and completed suicides.
Drug companies have spent billions of dollars futilely trying to prove the effectiveness of various psychiatric drugs in suicide prevention.
Even the most corrupted drug company trials have failed! Indeed what has been discovered is that all the so-called “antidepressants” actually increase the incidence of suicidality.
The FDA has required black box warning labels about drug-induced suicidality on all SSRI marketing materials, but that was only accomplished after over-coming vigorous opposition from the drug-makers and marketers of the offending drugs, who feared that such truth-telling would hurt their profits (it hasn’t).
What can and does avert suicidality, of course, are not drugs, but rather interventions by caring, compassionate and thorough teams of care-givers that include family, faith communities and friends as well as psychologists, counselors, social workers, relatives (especially wise grandmas!), and, obviously, the limited involvement of drug prescribers.
Myth # 13:
“America’s school shooters and other mass shooters are ‘untreated’ schizophrenics who should have been taking psych drugs”
False. In actuality, 90% or more of the infamous homicidal – and usually suicidal – school shooters have already been under the “care” of psychiatrists (or other psych drug prescribers) and therefore have typically been taking (or withdrawing from) one or more psychiatric drugs.
SSRIs (such as Prozac) and psychostimulants (such as Ritalin) have been the most common classes of drugs involved. Antipsychotics are too sedating, although an angry teen who is withdrawing from antipsychotics could easily become a school shooter if given access to lethal weapons. (See www.ssristudies.net).
The 10% of school shooters whose drug history is not known, have typically had their medical files sealed by the authorities – probably to protect authorities such as the drug companies and/or the medical professionals who supplied the drugs from suffering liability or embarrassment.
Important Comment:It should be noted that in most cases such 'False Flag' shooter events, that Mind-Controlled assets are used in order to carry out events pushing Cabal-driven agenda's such as gun control.
In virtually EVERY case the 'perpetrators' are on multiple prescription drugs for mental health issues.
This is not a comfortable subject but it is one that you will need to confront sooner or later, as the truth will become common knowledge at some point.
Interspersed with the rest of this section are details of the reality which hides behind the prescription drugs and their side effects -
The powerful drug industry and psychiatry lobby, with the willing help of the media that profits from being their handmaidens, repeatedly show us the photos of the shooters that look like zombies.
They have successfully gotten the viewing public to buy the notion that these adolescent, white male school shooters were mentally ill rather than under the influence of their crazy-making, brain-altering drugs or going through withdrawal.
Contrary to the claims of a recent 60 Minutes program segment about “untreated schizophrenics” being responsible for half of the mass shootings in America, the four mentioned in the segment were, in fact, almost certainly being already under the treatment with psych drugs – prior to the massacres – by psychiatrists who obviously are being protected from public identification and/or interrogation by the authorities as accomplices to the crimes or witnesses.
Because of this secrecy, the public is being kept in the dark about exactly what crazy-making, homicidality-inducing psychotropic drugs could have been involved.
The names of the drugs and the multinational corporations that have falsely marketed them as safe drugs are also being actively protected from scrutiny, and thus the chance of prevention of future drug-related shootings or suicides is being squandered.
Such decisions by America’s ruling elites represent public health policy at its worst and is a disservice to past and future shooting victims and their loved ones.
The four most notorious mass shooters that were highlighted in the aforementioned 60 Minutes segment included the Virginia Tech shooter, the Tucson shooter, the Aurora shooter and the Sandy Hook shooter whose wild-eyed (“drugged-up”) photos have been carefully chosen for their dramatic “zombie-look” effect, so that most frightened, paranoid Americans are convinced that it was a crazy “schizophrenic”, rather than a victim of psychoactive, brain-altering, crazy-making drugs that may have made him do it.
Parenthetically, it needs to be mentioned that many media outlets profit handsomely from the drug and medical industries.
Therefore those media outlets have an incentive to protect the names of the drugs, the names of the drug companies, the names of the prescribing MDs and the names of the clinics and hospitals that could, in a truly just and democratic world, otherwise be linked to the crimes.
Certainly if a methamphetamine-intoxicated person shot someone, the person who supplied the intoxicating drug would be considered an accomplice to the crime, just like the bartender who supplied the liquor to someone who later committed a violent crime would be held accountable.
A double standard obviously exists when it comes to powerful, respected and highly profitable corporations.
A thorough study of the scores of American school shooters, starting with the University of Texas tower shooter in 1966 and (temporarily) stopping at Sandy Hook, reveals that the overwhelming majority of them (if not all of them) were taking brain-altering, mesmerizing, impulse-destroying, “don’t give a damn” drugs that had been prescribed to them by well-meaning but too-busy psychiatrists, family physicians or physician assistants who somehow were unaware of or were misinformed about the homicidal and suicidal risks to their equally unsuspecting patients (and therefore they had failed to warn the patient and/or the patient’s loved ones about the potentially dire consequences).
Most practitioners who wrote the prescriptions for the mass shooters or for a patient who later suicided while under the influence of the drug, will probably(and legitimately so) defend themselves against the charge of being an accomplice to mass murder or suicide by saying that they were ignorant about the dangers of these cavalierly prescribed psych drugs because they had been deceived by the cunning drug companies that had convinced them of the benign nature of the drugs.
Myth # 14:
“If your patient hears voices it means he’s a schizophrenic”
False. Auditory hallucinations are known to occur in up to 10% of normal people; and up to 75% of normal people have had the experience of someone that isn’t there calling their name. (www.hearing-voices.org/voices-visions).
Nighttime dreams, nightmares and flashbacks probably have similar origins to daytime visual, auditory and olfactory hallucinations, but even psychiatrists don’t think that they represent mental illnesses.
Indeed, hallucinations are listed in the pharmaceutical literature as a potential side effect or withdrawal symptom of many drugs, especially psychiatric drugs.
These syndromes are called substance-induced psychotic disorders which are, by definition, neither mental illnesses nor schizophrenia.
Rather, substance-induced or withdrawal-induced psychotic disorders are temporary and directly caused by the intoxicating effects of malnutrition or brain-altering drugs such as alcohol, medications, hallucinogenic drugs and other toxins.
Psychotic symptoms, including hallucinations and delusions, can be caused by substances such as alcohol, marijuana, hallucinogens, sedatives, hypnotics, and anxiolytics, inhalants, opioids, PCP, and the many of the amphetamine-like drugs (like Phen-Fen, [fenfluramine]), cocaine, methamphetamine, Ecstasy, and agitation-inducing, psycho-stimulating drugs like the SSRIs).
Psychotic symptoms can also result from sleep deprivation, sensory deprivation and the withdrawal from certain drugs like alcohol, sedatives, hypnotics, anxiolytics and especially the many dopamine-suppressing, dependency-inducing, sedating, and zombifying anti-psychotic drugs.
Examples of other medications that may induce hallucinations and delusions include anesthetics, analgesics, anticholinergic agents, anticonvulsants, antihistamines, antihypertensive and cardiovascular medications, some antimicrobial medications, anti-parkinsonian drugs, some chemotherapeutic agents, corticosteroids, some gastrointestinal medications, muscle relaxants, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medications, and Antabuse.
The very sobering information revealed above should cause any thinking person, patient, thought-leader or politician to wonder:
“How many otherwise normal or potentially curable people over the last half century of psych drug propaganda have actually been mis-labeled as mentally ill (and then mis-treated) and sent down the convoluted path of therapeutic misadventures – heading toward oblivion?”
In my mental health care practice, I personally treated hundreds of patients who had been given a multitude of confusing and contradictory mental illness labels, many of which had been one of the new “diseases of the month” for which there was a new psych “drug of the month” that was being heavily marketed on TV.
Many of my patients had simply been victims of unpredictable drug-drug interactions (far too often drug-drug-drug-drug interactions) or simply adverse reactions to psych drugs which had been erroneously diagnosed as a new mental illness.
Extrapolating my 1,200 patient experience (in my little isolated section of the nation) to what surely must be happening in America boggles my mind.
There has been a massive epidemic going on right under our noses that has affected millions of suffering victims who could have been cured if not for the drugs.
The time to act on this knowledge is long overdue.
It's Important To Understand What Drives The Prime Minister June 10 2020 | From: Stuff / Various
To understand the idealogical beliefs of Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern we can look back to her time as president of the International Union of Socialist Youth.
It is important to understand political ideologies because they provide a lens into the underpinning beliefs and values that guide political goals and decision-making.
We would be fools to believe political decisions are primarily evidence based.
Given we are facing what is likely to be many years of economic turmoil and hardship, the political ideology of our Government needs to be laid bare so we can gain insights into what a post-Covid-19 New Zealand economy might look like.
Arguably, the Government revolves around Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern – she calls the shots..
It’s a fair assumption to suggest that at the time of entering Parliament, an MP’s political views and beliefs are set and are the motivation to enter politics in the first place.
Accordingly, to understand Ardern’s political ideology it is important to revisit 2008, when she entered Parliament as a Labour list-MP.
Earlier in 2008 Ardern was elected president of the International Union of Socialist Youth. In early 2009, just two months after becoming an MP, Ardern presided over the union's World Council annual meeting in her capacity as president.
Official records of that meeting give us insights into Ardern’s political ideology. For example, the meeting documents state the aim of the union is to “defend and spread our core socialist principles”.
The 2009 union meeting is relevant not just because Ardern was president, but because the official resolutions outlined “progressive answers to the financial crisis” – aka the global financial crisis or GFC.
Given Ardern and her comrades had “progressive answers to the financial crisis”, those answers might now be used to guide us through the turmoil and hardship of post-Covid-19.
By the way, I have used "comrade" because it is how union members referred to themselves throughout the 2009 meeting.
The definition of "comrade" from An Encyclopedic Dictionary of Marxism, Socialism and Communism is as follows:
"Originally, one who shares the same chamber. The term has been adopted by socialists and communists for party members.”
I do not use "comrade" disparagingly here, as indeed Ardern herself used the term 15 times in just seven minutes at this public event.
Comrade Jacinda Ardern Like You've Never Seen Her Before
So, what “progressive answers to the financial crisis” did Ardern and her comrades come up with? Did they propose ideas that would stimulate the economy so businesses could thrive thereby creating job opportunities?
Not quite. Instead, Ardern and her comrades stated:
"Redistribution will lead to more financial stability and justice. As IUSY we struggle for redistribution between the north and the south and for redistribution between the poor and the rich, because we believe in equality and justice.”
On the same trajectory, Ardern and her comrades said:
"Human beings are born with unequal resources available. We as young socialists believe in a social democratic system which secures a redistribution of resources.”
Oh, I get it now. Ardern and her comrades think it’s best that everyone is equal and this is achieved through securing a “redistribution of resources”.
After resources – aka your income and wealth – has been "redistributed’" what happens when some people start accumulating more income and wealth than others?
Does that mean that the clock needs to be reset so everyone is equal again? And how often should the reset occur?
For example, if Ardern and her comrades take away your income and wealth and give it to me, but through either hard work, initiative, entrepreneurial spirit and luck you manage to have more income and wealth than I have in say a year from now, does that mean I get to have more of your income and wealth so we become equal again?
I suppose that is exactly what Ardern and her comrades mean because they further stated:
"Today’s dominating economical system of Western capitalism has contributed to the unequal distribution of wealth worldwide.”
I wonder then what is the exact point whereby "inequality" becomes acceptable?
For example, is a 20 per cent gap of "inequality" acceptable? Or does it need to be closer, like 10 per cent?
Or do we all need to have the exact same amount of income and wealth?
I don’t know. But what I do know is Ardern and her comrades provided the above answers in 2009 and now she is leading us into the economic recovery of post-Covid-19..
Helen Clark, Don McKinnon Front NZ Chapter Of US Think-Tank: Aspen Institute
& The Mundane Reality Of Think Tanks June 9 2020 | From: Scoop / AustralianInstituteOfInternationalAffairs / Various
Former Prime Minister Helen Clark and former Secretary-General for the Commonwealth, Sir Don McKinnon, are throwing their political capital and global profile behind the establishment of the New Zealand chapter of a respected US-based think tank, the Aspen Institute.
Another globalist machination appears in New Zealand
"Based in Queenstown, Aspen Institute NZ is a non-partisan and non-ideological organisation focused on education and policy," said inaugural director, Christine Maiden Sharp.
Headquartered in Washington DC and chaired by the Clinton-era US Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, the institute claims 11 locations globally and operations in 14 countries, of which New Zealand is the latest. Each branch is self-funding but the identities of key donors are not disclosed.
A clue to the calibre of its backing, however, is the presence of NBR Rich Lister and Dunedin commercial big-foot Sir Eion Edgar on the nine-member Aspen Institute NZ board.
Maiden Sharp's LinkedIn profile also carries endorsements from Marc Holtzman, a politically connected, Hong Kong-based American banker who owns property in the Gibbston Valley.
The institute intends to run a programme of "forums to encourage constructive dialogue on critical issues that matter to New Zealanders and for all New Zealanders”, Maiden Sharp said in a statement.
It ran an inaugural seminar for key supporters in Queenstown this week on artificial intelligence. It was moderated by globally recognised AI and robotics expert, Neil Jacobstein, who is joining the board.
"Aspen Institute NZ’s top priority is encouraging young New Zealanders and individuals from diverse backgrounds to participate in and shape meaningful dialogue.
We plan to focus on climate change, technology, and inequality / intolerance in our first three years.
That will include people from all walks of life, as well as New Zealand and international topic experts.”
Clark, who recently started her own New Zealand-focused policy think tank, the Helen Clark Foundation, said Aspen's local chapter will:
"Help raise the standard of debate on issues that matter most to New Zealanders, provide access to an extraordinary global network and enable current and future leaders to contribute to new ideas on key issues on a world stage".
McKinnon said "there is no forum like it for long-term policy discussions".
"The international name Aspen is a draw card and New Zealand is a well-respected democratic society. This will be a step up for New Zealand’s international engagement."
In the statement, Albright welcomed the New Zealand chapter to the Aspen fold, saying the country had "inspired us all by showing resilience and a commitment to democratic values in the face of hate", in a clear reference to the March 15 terrorist attacks on mosques in Christchurch.
McKinnon will chair the nine-member board, of which his co-patron, Clark, is not a member.
Other board members include Sir Maarten Wevers, former head of the Office of the Prime Minister and Cabinet during the Clark and Key eras, Federated Farmers chair Katie Milne, Lisa Tumahai, kaiwhakahaere - chair- of the South Island's Ngai Tahu iwi, Sport NZ chair Bill Moran, and Jane Taylor, a barrister and professional director who chairs Christchurch electricity network Orion NZ, the Predator Free 2050 initiative, government science agency Manaaki Whenua Landcare Research, and is deputy chair of Radio New Zealand.
Think tanks are a source of fascination for scholars and the media. The reality of influencing policymaking is far more prosaic and think tanks have had to evolve with changing political landscapes and technology.
The term think tank often conjures images of groups of individuals who have secret meetings with governments, organisations that act as secret support or recruitment bases for political parties or those who receive funding from dubious sources to push a certain agenda.
The activities of right wing British think tanks such as the Adam Smith Institute and Institute of Economic Affairs have come under scrutiny in the past few years; they have been accused of colluding with the media and government to spread a neoliberal agenda.
There are elements of truth in these perceptions about think tanks and what they do but the reality is less cloak-and-dagger and far more transparent.
Comment: Read the links in this article about specific think tanks and quite a different picture emerges
Since the 1960s, think tanks have evolved to adapt to the changing political landscapes around them and to make use of new technology, first with the emergence of the 24-hour news cycle and more recently with the rise of social media.
Scholars have divided think tanks in the Anglophone world into two waves: the first being described by scholars as the old guard institutes or “Universities without Students” and the second wave as being advocacy think tanks or “New Partisans”.
The first wave of think tanks were a progression in a longer intellectual tradition that dated back to the 16th and 17th century France where academic groups would assist monarchs with creating and implementing new legislation and policies.
TheFabian Societyis considered to be one of the oldest think tanks in the English-speaking world. It began as an organisation in the United Kingdom that advocated for political change through more gradual reforms; its strategies to influence governments lay in publishing pamphlets and holding meetings with intellectuals and members of government.
The first American think tank to emerge was the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (CEIP) in 1907. Like the Fabian Society, the CEIP held events and published pamphlets to try to influence policymaking
The activities of the Fabian Society and the CEIP would pave the way for a number of other think tanks such as the Brookings Institute, the RAND Corporation and the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA).
These think tanks had broad policy agendas and tended to have structures that have been described as resembling universities without students because their staffers tended to have academic backgrounds and favoured longitudinal research published in journal articles or books.
They were elite focused: they produced work that was meant for academics, the civil service and governments. Often their work debated big ideas, such as economic theory, rather than providing specific and instructional policy suggestions.
The first wave of think tanks avoided expressing political biases or aligning themselves with particular political parties.
The creation of the IEA in 1955 signalled an evolution in the development of think tanks. While the IEA favoured academic-style publications that contributed to theoretical debates - and aimed this work at elites in government and academia - unlike its predecessors, the IEA had a very clear ideological bias towards economic liberalisation and free markets.
Its founder, Antony Seldon, set up the think tank to promote neoliberalism as an alternative to the then-dominant Keynesian economic discourse in the UK. The IEA was separate to the Conservative Party, but due to its views found itself closely aligned with the Conservatives.
The second wave of think tanks began to emerge in the 1960s, starting with the Heritage Foundation in the US.
These think tanks were aware of the obstacles faced by their predecessors; although engaging in academic debates may have had some benefits, the reality was that if these think tanks wanted to make greater impacts in policy debates, they needed to broaden their scope.
The emergence of the 24 hour news cycle also had a significant impact on the work of think tanks; think tanks now had to move away from producing longer, academic-style publications and had to start developing work that could be produced quickly, was accessible to a wide audience and could be broken down into soundbites.
Think tanks began to realise that in utilising the media they could save both time and money and also reach a much wider audience.
The second-wave think tank model accepted that direct influence over governments was not possible and, in doing so, created strategies that were designed to generate policy debates in public forums such as television, newspapers and events such as debates and lectures.
The success of the early second-wave think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation lead to a proliferation of think tanks across the Anglophone world, including left-wing think tanks such as Demos and the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) in Britain.
Think tanks play an important role in democracies; they provide the information and ideas that create and contribute to public policy debates. Removed from governments and the civil service, these organisations have the ability to propose ideas that are not hampered by party partisanship and can be radical.
With the rise of social media, think tanks now do not have to rely solely on the media to disseminate their work and ideas; they can do it themselves in a way that has the potential to reach a wider global audience.
While the term “think tank” may create misconceptions about their reach and influence over governments, the reality is that think tanks have had to change their strategies to create public and indirect policy debates with governments as the opportunities to directly influence them in private were limited or non-existent.
This is now especially true as think tanks have to compete with many others, both within their political systems and globally.
The Outside And The Inside June 8 2020 | From: WakingTimes
We’re all outsiders and insiders in various respects. Social circles, generally speaking, are just one aspect but they often affect us to drastic degrees.
Acceptance by others and needing a sense of “belonging” are strong driving forces in most people’s lives. Sometimes these coincide with our need for a sense of purpose, but often what ultimately drives our heart can alienate us from previous surroundings as we progress through life.
I know for myself my close acquaintances that I still resonate with have narrowed down drastically, but then again I’ve had several drastic shifts. But this has always been the case in my life, with each new paradigm dissolution or correction, as many have experienced.
Going through what appears to be loneliness in taking a new direction and leaving the old life behind is a precious opportunity.
In most cases we don’t see that as the case when we’re younger and learning about this earthly place and getting knocked around by this mechanistic matrix, but we get the hang of it as life progresses.
Social conditioning and group consciousness are weird things to integrate and fully grasp, and often even individual changes are part of a larger shift and new “collectives” form outside the old ones with new awarenesses arising.
These then gain their own group characteristics which in turn are broken out of in various ways, sometimes shifting the “group” think and status, and sometimes birthing another potential tectonic shift in awareness.
What’s evident in most collectives is the formation of new sets of stated or unstated control mechanisms, mores, and regulations for a host of reasons.
Religions are a great example, how a system with the stated intention to liberate and empower actually becomes a highly controlled diversion from real truth, giving the illusion of freedom.
How we allow these encrusted, paralytic structures to do what they do is a massive subject, but we essentially draw these upon ourselves as a personal extension of our own lack of awareness of ourselves.
We can be free, and are, at any and all given times, yet we succumb to external control for a wide variety of reasons.
These are fundamentally driven by fear – a literal fear of freedom, of what we consider to be the “unknown”, because it directly implies taking responsibility. This can be largely driven by fear of scarcity – being without our basic needs for food, shelter and community.
As long as that’s the driving force, humanity is a sitting duck for anyone seeking to manipulate the controls in any way possible.
The amazing and wondrous truth underlying any social system is that any and all control mechanisms can be easily thrown off in a heartbeat by not falling for the illusion of fear.
Fear is another huge subject as it permeates so many of our mental and emotional mechanisms and eludes recognition for what it is, being so deeply woven into the lower vibrational human fabric and our fascination for it which can lure us in without our realizing it.
Are You a True Outcast?
If so, treasure it. In fact cherish it. There’s freedom there.
You don’t want to be “accepted” or on the inside of any confinement system in this low dimension. In fact, just about everything we experience in this realm of limitation is a potential trap, no matter how innocuous anything may seem.
Anything that limits or even hints at conditions and restrictions, watch out. If it encloses, encircles, is conditional and draws unnecessary boundaries, it’s not your friend and it’s time to make tracks outta there.
It’s just another control system within the overarching control matrix, no matter how cleverly disguised. We draw these conditions upon our unawakened selves. Layers upon layers of them. But we’re getting there as we work our way out of the cocoon we were born into and our wings of truly awakened flight develop.
Once we bend to conformity we’ve lost our edge. Living truly consciously is an open agreement to be freewheeling together, which is a whole different “story”.
That’s when what’s essential connects us and remains the focus. Otherwise any and every new normalcy bias will take control, pick up on social as well as negative spiritual rules and “norms”, and quash true freedom of expression individually and collectively.
Just look how imagination is treated like a fanciful flight into fantasy, when it’s actually our highest expression of creativity.
Being your true individual heart-led self might seem to be “lonely” at first but just give it time. A whole new world will open up to you. The seeming loss of old, restricting and conditional acquaintances and surroundings is a small price to pay to explore the boundless nature of existence.
So why do such an “uncomfortable” thing as to be your true sovereign self? It depends on where your head and heart are at and what your priorities are. What’s more important to you? Truth, or comfort just surviving in someone else’s construct, group or otherwise?
We live in our own shadows or that of others when we could be basking in the light, if we’re willing to step out. Aren’t you tired of the same old stories, including your own? It’s not that hard, it just takes a little honesty with yourself and you’re off and running. But don’t stop. There’s always new enclosures seeking to trip you off into another new construct.
It’s fear that keeps us confined. Fear of many things, most of which are intensely reinforced by this group agreement called society. And fear is all based on lies, complete lies.
It’s more obvious by the day that the world doesn’t need to be the way it is, yet the personal implications of our own responsibility regarding this group projection continue to escape most.
The wonderfully empowering reality is that as we honestly pursue truth these energizing and liberating dynamics take hold no matter what.
Truth is not popular, especially when it touches on cherished beliefs or sensitive personal issues. It’s very painful at first, even though it liberates the true essence of who we truly are.
No worries, it only means constant change. And wow, the worlds that open up are beyond comprehension!
Stay on the outside. The infinite knows no boundaries.
“Being an outsider to some extent, someone who does not “fit in” with others or is rejected by them for whatever reason, makes life difficult, but it also places you at an advantage as far as enlightenment is concerned. It takes you out of unconsciousness almost by force.”
DOJ Has Evidence That Antifa, Other Similar Groups Have ‘Instigated’ Violent Activity: Barr& Antifa, Other Far-Left Groups Exploit Protests For ‘Revolution’ June 7 2020 | From: TheEpochTimes / Various
The Department of Justice has evidence that the far-left extremist organization Antifa and other similar groups have been behind the recent riots in order to fuel their own violent agenda, according to Attorney General William Barr.
Barr told reporters at a June 4 presser that there are “three different sets of actors” involved, including peaceful demonstrators, opportunistic looters, and extremist agitators. Foreign actors have also played a role in the violence, he said.
"We have evidence that Antifa and other similar extremist groups, as well as actors of a variety of different political persuasions, have been involved in instigating and participating in the violent activity,” he said.
“We are also seeing foreign actors playing all sides to exacerbate the violence.”
While most have peacefully demonstrated, Barr said, some “have hijacked protests to engage in lawlessness, violent rioting, arson, looting of businesses, and public property assaults on law enforcement officers and innocent people, and even the murder of a federal agent.”
"There are extremist agitators who are hijacking the protests to pursue their own separate and violent agenda,” he said.
So far, the government has made 51 arrests for federal crimes in connection with the rioting. On May 31, President Donald Trump announced that his administration would designate Antifa as a terrorist organization.
The FBI has also directed 200 joint terrorism task forces from across the country to help law enforcement with apprehending and charging violent agitators.
What started as peaceful protests over the death of George Floyd on May 25, who said multiple times he couldn’t breathe and became nonresponsive while a police officer knelt on his neck, has been exploited and turned into violent chaos.
At the same presser, FBI Director Christopher Wray said that “anarchists like Antifa and other agitators” are “exploiting the situation to pursue violent, extremist agendas.”
"These individuals have set out to sow discord and upheaval rather than join in the righteous pursuit of equality and justice,” Wray said.
The violence has sprung up in many states. As of June 3, the U.S. Marshals Service has reported damage and vandalism to “21 federal courthouses located in 15 different states and the District of Colombia,” according to U.S. Marshals Service Director Donald W. Washington.
“There has been damage and vandalism to many other federal properties,” he added.
While it is their “absolute duty” to protect people exercising constitutional rights, this doesn’t apply to “rioters, arsonists, thieves, looters, and their protagonists [who] are criminals,” said Washington.
During a question-and-answer segment, Barr also pointed out the “witches brew that we have of extremists, individuals, and groups that are involved.”
He noted the disinformation on this front in that there have been members “posing as different groups.”
"The intelligence being collected by our U.S. attorneys office, particularly integrated by the FBI from multiple different sources is building up,” he said.
“There are some specific cases against individuals, some Antifa-related.”
“There are some groups that don’t have a particular ideology other than anarchy,” Barr said.
"There’s some groups that want to bring about a civil war - the boogaloo group, that has been on the margin on this as well, trying to exacerbate the violence.”
Police departments in several states in recent days have warned of materials being purposely planted in certain locations so as to fuel rioting.
The Kansas City Police Department in Missouri stated on Twitter that it “learned of & discovered stashes of bricks and rocks” in some areas “to be used during a riot,” and asked people to report such cases to authorities to be removed.
Days later, the Minneapolis Police Department warned of “incendiary materials and accelerants” such as water bottles filled with gasoline found hidden in bushes and neighborhoods.
The FBI has “quite a number of ongoing investigations” against “violent anarchists extremists” according to Wray, including what he described as “those motivated by Antifa, or an Antifa-like ideology.”
“We categorize and treat those as domestic terrorism investigations and are actively pursuing them through our joint terrorism task forces,” he said. “What tactics they use varies widely sometimes from city to city, sometimes even from night to night.”
Communist groups - including the extremist organization Antifa - are hijacking what started out as peaceful protests over the death of an unarmed black man to usher in a revolution, according to officials, experts, videos, and anarchists’ own words.
That charge comes amid an unprecedented and coordinated effort behind the riots, the likes of which have never been seen before and which span across multiple states and involve often violent street-level tactics.
Bernard B. Kerik, former police commissioner of the New York City Police Department, said Antifa “100 percent exploited these protests,”noting that their various websites control and dictate where protests start.
"It’s in 40 different states and 60 cities; it would be impossible for somebody outside of Antifa to fund this,” he told The Epoch Times.
“It’s a radical, leftist, socialist attempt at revolution.”
Operations including coordination, equipment, and travel costs would likely cost “tens of millions of dollars,” Kerik said.
A friend of his, an FBI agent, told him she was at Newark airport on May 29 where she observed “probably 25 of these Antifa kids walking in through the airport.”
"They’re coming from other cities,” he said. “That cost money. They didn’t do this on their own. Somebody’s paying for this.
What Antifa is doing is they’re basically hijacking the black community as their army,” Kerik said.
“They instigate, they antagonize, they get these young black men and women to go out there and do stupid things, and then they disappear off into the sunset.”
Photos later pulled offline appeared to show protesters with military-grade communications radios and earpieces, Kerik said, noting:
"They have to be talking to somebody at a central command center with a repeater. Where do those radios go to?”
Andy Ngo, a journalist who has covered Antifa extensively, said the group is organized in “multiple units” with scouts that monitor the perimeter of an area, providing live audio or text updates. Others carry out violent missions with weapons and firebombs.
The extremist group is “horizontally” organized; it doesn’t have a public leader, since it’s part of their ideology that there should be no authority, Ngo said.
According to John Miller, the NYPD’s deputy commissioner of Intelligence and Counterterrorism, these outside radical groups have organized scouts, medics, and even supply routes of rocks, bottles, and accelerants;
"For breakaway groups to commit vandalism and violence.” These groups have planned for violence in advance, using encrypted communications", he said.
Mike Griffin, a longtime political activist from Minneapolis, told The New York Times there were people he never witnessed before demonstrating, including “well-dressed young white men in expensive boots carrying hammers and talking about torching buildings.”
“I know protests, I’ve been doing it for 20 years,” he said.
"People not affiliated with the protests are creating havoc on the streets.”
Communism expert Trevor Loudon, meanwhile, told The Epoch Times that Antifa is only one part of the picture, noting that “every significant communist or socialist party in the United States has been involved in these protests and riots from the beginning.”
According to Loudon, “Communist Party USA, Liberation Road, Freedom Road Socialist Organization, Democratic Socialists of America, Revolutionary Communist Party, Workers World Party, and the Party for Socialism and Liberation” have been involved, among others.
One protester who came upon a large pile of bricks while filming live called it a “setup,” as a man by his side quipped, “Ain’t no damn construction around here.”
Police departments in several states in recent days have warned of materials being purposely planted in certain locations so as to fuel rioting.
The Kansas City police department in Missouri stated on Twitter that it “learned of & discovered stashes of bricks and rocks” in some areas “to be used during a riot,” and asked people to report such cases to authorities to be removed.
Days later, the Minneapolis Police department warned of “incendiary materials and accelerants” such as water bottles filled with gasoline found hidden in bushes and neighborhoods.
Some videos, meanwhile, show African Americans objecting to bricks being handed to their peers.
Loudon, who is also a contributor to The Epoch Times, said the bricks and other examples were part of a “terrorist military operation” and that the whole thing had been “completely organized and long preplanned.”
“If the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis hadn’t sparked these riots, the next one would have,” he said.
"People need to understand that there are hundreds of foreign-trained agitators and organizers operating in this country, and tens of thousands more disciplined communists.”
Numerous social media posts and videos also depict African American protesters objecting to rioting perpetrated by groups of white men clad in full black outfits - the black costume has long been associated with Antifa.
In Oakland, a group of Caucasians dressed in full black gear and armed with hammers started destroying and breaking into a building as African Americans nearby voiced their opposition.
One video appears to show a predominantly white crowd of people destroying a Minneapolis Police Department building, some also dressed in full black gear.
Another video purportedly in Baltimore shows African American protesters begging white people, also clad in black, to stop rioting.
Peaceful protesters in Washington, meanwhile, tackled an “Antifa rioter” who was hammering the pavement to get blocks of concrete to throw. Protesters then handed over the rioter to the police.
At a May 30 press conference, Attorney General William Barr said the violence appears to be;
"Planned, organized, and driven by far-left extremist groups and anarchic groups using Antifa-like tactics.”
In a twitter thread, Ngo said the destruction of businesses isn’t only opportunism but is tied to Antifa and Black Lives Matter (BLM) ideology to “abolish capitalism & have regime change. To do that, they have to make economic recovery impossible.”
“Militant antifa cells across the country mobilized to aid BLM rioters,”Ngo said. “Every part of the rioting has a purpose. Fires destroy economy. Riots can overwhelm police & even military. All of it leads to a destabilized state if maintained.”
Gabriel Nadales, a former Antifa member, told Jan Jekielek, host of The Epoch Times’ “American Thought Leaders” series, that to really be a part of Antifa is to do two things:
"One is to share their violent ideology and be willing to fight for them at any turn, and the second is to actually do it. It’s not just about having anti-conservative beliefs,” he said.
Communist groups have played a role in the recent protests. On May 27, the Democratic Socialists of America’s (DSA) Twin Cities chapter issued a call for supplies for “comrades protesting at the 3rd precinct (at Lake and Minnehaha).” An AutoZone store was set ablaze in the same area, amid widespread looting.
"Destroying America will be the culmination of my life's work.”
Such groups also appear to have played a role in funding. On May 28, DSA’s Twin Cities chapter asked on Twitter to“Please also give to the TCDSA solidarity fund, because people will need help in the days and weeks ahead!” DSA chapters in Seattle, Memphis, Los Angeles, and Metro Atlanta have called for donations amid the protests.
Liberation News, a newspaper of the Party for Socialism and Liberation, wrote in a staff statement on May 26 that it’s a “critical period” to “sharpen our resolve to build organizations capable of waging militant class struggle.”
Act Leader David Seymour: Kiwis Need To Resist An 'Orwellian Future'
& Zuckerberg Complains About FCC’s Lack Of Free Speech Regulations - Wants More Silencing Of Voices, But Especially Conservative Voices June 6 2020 | From: NewZealandHerald / TheGatewayPundit / Various
Act leader David Seymour said creating a "public decency tribunal" would be "the stuff of police states and third world dictators".
New Zealand is at risk of facing an "Orwellian future" if the Government wades too far into what is, and is not, considered hate speech, Act Leader David Seymour says.
He said that Justice Minister Andrew Little's comments about what he called an anti-Māori pamphlet suggest that Little thinks the Government should be responsible for shutting down comments it thinks are foolish.
The pamphlet, titled One Treaty One Nation, calls for an end to state partnership with Māori, scrapping the Waitangi Tribunal, Māori electorates and wards and said Māori have benefited from colonisation lifting them out of "a violent stone age existence".
The pamphlet was dropped in people's mailboxes in Auckland and is now the subject of a complaint which has been lodged with the Advertising Standards Authority.
Speaking to the Herald about the pamphlet, Little said it was racist and that its author was "an ignorant fool".
He said it was a matter for the Human Rights Commission.
But Seymour said it appears that Little was saying these types of comments should be illegal.
"If people weren't allowed to make stupid and historically inaccurate statements, we'd have to close down Parliament, but that is what Justice Minister Andrew Little seems to be suggesting in his response to a One Law for All pamphlet this weekend."
Seymour said Little was not claiming the pamphlet incites, or threatens violence, or that it was defamatory.
Zuckerberg Complains About FCC’s Lack Of Free Speech Regulations - Wants More Silencing Of Voices, But Especially Conservative Voices
Everyone’s favorite self appointed world speech policeman, Mark Zuckerberg, recently took part in a long form sit down interview with leftist hack “journalist” George Stephanopoulos on ABC, where they talked about user’s privacy on Facebook, putting “strong data controls in place” for policing speech.
Zuckerberg also complained that there’s too much free speech, especially “divisive” political speech, even suggesting that the FCC should regulate speech online.
Conservatives dominated social media in 2016 where they were able to get the truth uncensored. Facebook ended that in 2017 and 2018.
The Gateway Pundit spoke with two of the top conservative publishers in America.
Floyd Brown is a conservative author, speaker and media commentator. In 2008 Floyd launched Western Journal which quickly became one of the top conservative websites in America.
By 2016 Floyd’s organization of Western Journal and other conservative websites under his umbrella had more than a billion page views. Since 2016 Floyd’s organization lost 75% of its Facebook traffic.
Likewise, we spoke with Jared Vallorani from Klicked Media. Jared traveled to Washington DC with The Gateway Pundit and website owners at 100%FedUp in June to discuss Facebook targeting against conservative publishers with Republican lawmakers.
Jared told The Gateway Pundit his organization Klicked Media, which hosts over 60 conservative websites, lost 400 million page views from Facebook in the last six months if you compare the traffic to a year ago.
Jared said, “We lost 70% to 80% of our traffic if you compare January to May 2017 vs Jan to May 2018.”
If you combine the total number of page-views lost by just these two conservative online publishers you are looking at a loss of over 1.5 billion page-views from Facebook in one year.
These are numbers from just two of the top conservative publishers in America. This does not include the thousands of other conservative publishers across the country who lost all of their traffic coming from Facebook.
Here at The Gateway Pundit our Facebook traffic has been effectively eliminated after we were ranked as the 4th most influential conservative publisher in the 2016 election.
The fact that Facebook is targeting conservative publishers should not be a surprise to Gateway Pundit readers.
The information describes how Facebook engineers planned and went about policing political speech.
So when Facebook says they want to crack down on speech, they mean conservative speech.
Stephanopoulos framed the discussion by claiming that Facebook isn’t “doing more to police fake news and hate speech,” before they go on to describe exactly what Zuckerberg doesn’t like and what the answers should be.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Let’s talk about the regulation, your call for regulation. As you know, it’s been met with some skepticism, in some corners.
Let’s just tick through some of the questions and have you answer them. One of them is some people see this as a smart tactic to block more-dramatic action.
Like, Elizabeth Warren’s called to break up the company. How do you respond to that?
ZUCKERBERG: Well, I’ve spent most of the last few years trying to address these major social issues that we find ourselves at the center of, so everything from policing harmful content, to preventing election interference, to making sure that we have strong data controls in place.
And I’m proud of the progress that we’ve made. There’s a lot more to do. But we’ve made a lot of progress over the last couple of years.
And one of the things that I now have more of an appreciation about is that, in each of these areas there is a question of, what decisions should be left to a private company to make, especially around things like speech and expression for so many people around the world?
And where should we have either industry or more government regulation? And I can give you a few examples of where I think this is really important.
You know, after 2016, when we saw what Russia tried to do, in interfering in the election - we’ve implemented a lot of different measures to verify any advertiser who’s running a political ad to create an archive of all the political ads, so anyone can see what advertisers are running, who they’re targeting, how much they’re paying - any other ads that they say. [?]
But one of the things that’s unclear is, actually, what is the definition of a political ad, right? And that’s a really fundamental question for this.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Does it have to say, “Vote for,” or, “Vote against,” for example…
ZUCKERBERG: Well, yeah. That’s exactly right.
All of the laws around political advertising today primarily focus on a candidate and an election, right, so, “Vote for this candidate in this election.”
But that’s not, primarily, what we saw Russia trying to do and other folks who were trying to interfere in elections. And what we saw them doing was talking about divisive political issues.
They’d run, simultaneously, different campaigns on social media trying to argue for immigration or against immigration.
And the goal wasn’t, actually, to advance the issue forward. It was just to rile people up and be divisive. But the current laws around what is political advertising don’t consider discussion issues to be political.
So that’s just one of the examples of where you know, it’s not clear to me, after working on this for a few years now, that we want a private company to be making that kind of a fundamental decision about, you know, what is political speech?
STEPHANOPOULOS: And how do you respond to someone who says, “But wait a second. That’s your responsibility. It’s your platform. It’s your company?”
ZUCKERBERG: Well, I think, broadly, we would say that setting the rules around political advertising is not a company’s job, right?
I mean, there’s been plenty of the rules in the past. It’s just that, at this point they’re not updated to the modern threats that we face or the modern kinds of nation state trying to interfere in each other’s elections.
We need new rules, right? It’s not, you can’t say that an election is just some period before people go to vote. I mean, the kind of information operations that these folks are trying to do now are ongoing, permanently.
So I just think that we need new rules on this. Now, at Facebook, we’re doing the best that we can on each of these issues.
But I think, ideally, you would have standards that you would want all of the major companies to be abiding by.
STEPHANOPOULOS: You’re already seeing the FCC push back fairly hard against this, two commissioners, I think, saying, “No, we don’t want to get into the business of policing the First Amendment.”
ZUCKERBERG: Yeah. I don’t think that that’s what this is, though, right? I think it’s you can say that kind of any regulation around what someone says online is protected.
But I think that that’s clearly not right today. I mean, we already do have regulations around what you can do, in terms of political advertising.
And even without getting into saying, you know, “Okay, here’s the type of content. And here’s what we’re going to define as, you know, hate speech,” for example - I still think it would be a positive step to demand that companies issue transparency reports around, well, here’s the amount of content on your service or that is every kind of harmful category.
Here’s the amount of hate speech. Here’s the amount of misinformation. Here’s the amount of bullying of children. Because by making that transparent, that puts more pressure on companies in order to be able to manage that. And people, publicly, can see which companies are actually doing a good job and improving and which ones need to do more.
I’m actually - we release our transparency report on how we’re proactively finding all of these harmful kinds of content.
Today, it’s every six months. But I’ve committed that we’re going to get to every quarter. Because I actually think that it’s as important - that kind of a transparency report around content, as the quarterly financial statements that we report.
I mean, this is, like, really critical stuff for society. So I don’t think that anyone would say that having companies have to be transparent about the amounts of harmful content is any kind of First Amendment issue.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So can you drill down in on it a little more? What do you envision when you see this regulation? Who’s doing it? What exactly are they doing?
ZUCKERBERG: Well, it’s different things in each category. For policing harmful content, I think it should start with transparency of every major internet service about - take any - every single category of harmful content.
And I think you should have to, basically, report what the prevalence of that? So what percent of the content on your service is, you know, inciting violence, for example, or hate speech?
And then you should have to report how much of that you identified proactively and built systems to go get and be able to manage - versus how much of it did someone in your community have to tell you about, and you had to deal with it reactively? So that’s the first step, is transparency.
Even FCC commissioner Brendan Carr took exception to this:
Here’s the long form of the interview, which, knowing how the far left media works, may or may not have been edited or had multiple takes done of certain answers to protect Zuckerberg from looking too much like an idiot.
The reason why we feel separate from nature is first and foremost because we’ve been physically removed from it. Ever since our childhood, many of us don’t have the opportunity to spend much time in natural surroundings.
This is especially true for children who grow up in big cities, who aren’t allowed to spend much time outdoors, and where natural spots are nearly non-existent. So, they rarely have the chance to climb trees, to listen to birds or to swim in the sea.
School is also contributing to our separation from nature. Conventional schools place children in artificial environments (e.g. classrooms), where they are forced to stay seated for hours upon hours every day and pay attention to a board right in front of them.
Rarely do classes take place in nature, and when they do, they last only for a short while.
Most schools don’t teach children how to grow food. Therefore, most children don’t come in contact with plants and soil. All they learn about nature is through books, and even that knowledge is fragmented.
That’s because school teaches children to see chemistry, biology, physics and other sciences as divided up in different compartments, and not as interconnected and interdependent fields, which they are.
Hence, on top of the physical removal from nature, there’s also a cognitive separation that pulls us further away from it.
By the time we reach adulthood, many of us feel so disconnected from the natural world that we don’t want to spend much time in it. Nature feels weird, wild and even inimical to us.
So we prefer to spend most of our time indoors, and we experience nature mainly in the form of products.
For example, the food we eat has been grown, chopped up and often precooked before packaged and sold to us. We don’t feel the need to grow our own food - we can just find what we want in the supermarket.
Because we are not involved in the production of what we eat, we have no idea what it takes to produce it.
For example, we often buy and eat animal flesh re-shaped in the form of burgers, not realizing that what we’re actually consuming is the parts of an animal that had its throat slit and was possibly abused throughout its entire life.
The same applies for all our consumer choices, whether we’re talking about the water we drink, the clothes we wear, the furniture we have, the electronic devices we use, and so on.
But even when we hear about this, most of us are so desensitized that we don’t really care. Our separation from nature has made us treat it merely as a bunch of objects that lack sentience or inherent value.
The only value they have, we believe, is what they can offer us. In other words, nature is out there for us to exploit. Animals don’t really suffer, we claim, and even if they do, ultimately they were created for us to eat, so why care if they are abused and killed? They serve the purpose they’re supposed to serve.
This mindset of separation has resulted in the destruction of the world we notice all around us.
The sea is poisoned, so is the land, so is the air. And all that because of human activity. If we were feeling connected with nature, how could we choose to destroy it? We wouldn’t, for that would mean intentionally destroying part of our own body, since nature is our larger body.
As long as we believe that we’re separate from nature, we will keep on harming it, and that’s because we won’t be able to feel love for it.
Love arises within us only in experiences of connection, so to heal our relationship with nature, we need to start seeing it as an extension of ourselves - or better, we need to start seeing ourselves as an extension of nature.
But how exactly can we snap out of the illusion of separateness? How can we dismantle our old, narrow sense of self and build a new one that embraces all that is alive? This, my friends, is the biggest challenge of our times.
The “Mandela Effect” concept emerged from one of those quirky ideas.
“Many of us - mostly total strangers - remember the exact same events with the exact same details. However, our memories are different from what’s in history books, newspaper archives, and so on.
This isn’t a conspiracy theory, and we’re not talking about “false memories.” Many of us speculate that parallel realities exist, and we’ve been “sliding” between them without realizing it. (Others favor the idea that we’re each enjoying holodeck experiences, possibly with some programming glitches. In my opinion, these aren’t mutually exclusive.)
At this website, we’re using discussions to research real, alternate history and possible explanations for this phenomenon.
I started this website for additional research. I thought it was an interesting fringe topic (and potential book topic) for my spare time.
It’s turned into something much bigger."
Examples of the Mandela Effect
Below is a list of some of the most well-known examples, but this is just a fraction of what has been reported. Visit the Mandela Effect website where you can see people's testimonies posted of their experiences with these topics and many more.
1. Berenstein or Berenstain Bears?
Many people who visit the Mandela Effect website have fond memories of the Berenstein Bears books.
They read them as children, or family members read them aloud. It’s a cherished childhood memory. However, the books in this timestream are Berenstain Bears. A, not E, in last syllable.
That’s not what most visitors seem to remember.
The following are among the many memories people have shared, sometimes as part of longer comments. The vast majority recall the books as Berenstein Bears.
In March 2014, JM said:
"I too clearly remember it as ‘Berenstein’ even though I never read the books. Why would anyone change that? Seems irrelevant."
Jennifer Shepherd said:
"I had overlooked the material here about people remembering the popular children’s books as being Berenstein Bears, not Berenstain Bears; I just saw that today and it blew my mind! I was a meticulous spelling nerd as a child and have ZERO doubt that the books the kids were reading were about the Berenstein Bears.
I tried to research Library of Congress and trademark info today, to see if maybe there had at some point been a changeover due to multiple parties using variations of the name. Nope, the official records state that the series was always Berenstain, after the very real last names of the authors (Berenstain.)"
2. 50 or 52 United States?
Many people recall the United States including 51 or 52 states, not 50.
The interesting point is that the memories are fairly consistent, and include Puerto Rico as a state. One teacher suggested this is a common misunderstanding. The daughter of a teacher said that she clearly recalls her mother teaching students that the 52 states included Puerto Rico.
So, is this simple confusion or a glimpse into alternate geography in another timestream?
One respondent listed the 52 states as he recalls them, including Puerto Rico and D.C.:
1. Alabama, 2. Alaska, 3. Arizona, 4. Arkansas 5. Colorado 6. California, 7. Connecticut, 8. Delaware, 9. Florida, 10. Georgia, 11. Hawaii, 12. Illinois, 13. Indiana, 14. Idaho, 15. Iowa, 16. Kentucky, 17. Kansas, 18. Louisiana, 19. Massachusetts, 20. Maryland, 21. Mississippi, 22. Maine, 23. Missouri, 24. Michigan 25. Minnesota, 26. Montana, 27. New Jersey, 28. New York, 29. North Carolina 30. New Hampshire, 31. Nevada, 32. Nebraska, 33. North Dakota 34. New Mexico, 35. Oklahoma, 36. Ohio, 37. Oregon, 38. Pennsylvania, 39. Puerto Rico. 40. Rhode Island 41. South Carolina, 42. South Dakota, 43. Tennessee, 44. Texas, 45. Utah, 46. Virginia, 47. Vermont, 48. Wisconsin, 49. West Virginia, 50. Washington, 51. Wyoming, 52. Washington DC
So, I think the question really is: In an alternate timeline, did Puerto Rico already become a state? Or, did the District of Columbia become one, separately or as well?
Or, is this simply confusion over districts, territories, and states?
3. Nelson Mandela – The Memories, So Far
The previous post, Nelson Mandela Died in Prison? triggered so many, varied responses, it’s difficult to find the Mandela memories in the 150+ comments that followed.
Here are some of them, as of February 2013. (If you leave a comment at this post, do me a favor: Keep it about Nelson Mandela memories. I’m in the process of separating the various memories into individual posts, for people interested in stories related to just one kind of memory.)
Perry Were noted:
"Both my wife and I remember Nelson Mandela dying in prison. Included in this memory are the funeral snippets on TV and a legal flap over book rights involving his Widow."
C. A. Low said:
"I have experienced this many times. Not only Mandela’s death, but also the death of Muammar Gaddafi several years ago…"
When I checked Google Insights, the following terms were listed in the current Rising Searches.
When the term is indicated as “Breakout,” it means it has at least a 5000% increase in searches, relative to the recent past.
Currently, most of those searches are coming from: Canada, USA, UK, Ireland, Australia, Portugal and Hungary, in that order.
Is there a logical explanation for this quirky surge? I’m looking for a logical explanation.
It might simply be the confusing headline from Fox -“Patrick Swayze’s widow Lisa Niemi blasts tabloids for coverage of husband’s cancer” - which didn’t make it clear that he was hospitalized over two years ago.
That seems the most likely explanation. However, I’m also wondering if this is Mandela Effect again. I’d like to think there’s a parallel world in which Patrick Swayze is alive and well, even if - in that reality - he’s briefly in the hospital, hopefully for something minor.
Patrick Swayze, the talented actor, dancer and singer, was born on August 18, 1952 and left this world on September 14, 2009.
His acting career was highlighted by many wonderful films in which he starred, including Ghost, Point Break and Dirty Dancing.
5. Tiananmen Square and “Tank Boy”
Recently, visitors have mentioned Tiananmen Square and “Tank Boy.”
The following are some of the many comments by people who recall “Tank Boy” being run over and perhaps killed.
In September 2011, Angel said:
"I remember “tank boy” getting run over by the tank at Tiananmen Square. My husband doesn’t. We googled it and apparently he didn’t get run over. I have a very vivid memory though. I remember seeing a video of it. I remember learning this in 7th grade history."
Joy, Marna Ehrich, and Sez agreed.
In August 2012, Bree said:
"I remember TANK BOY getting run over. My partner and myself were talking about Tiananmen Square and tank boy. I mentioned how horrible it was that he was killed, my partner had no memory of that and thought I was crazy. He had to go on YouTube to show me that he lived. As i watched i had no recollection of that event of him living."
"Same here I remember seeing blood on the street after the tank rolled over him and how the backlash nearly caused communism to fall apart in china and then they switched to the capitalistic command economy. This is so weird."
6. Curious George and Dual Memories
In real life, almost everyone I’ve surveyed remembers Curious George with a tail.
Most usually know he was a chimp (though some books said he’s a “little monkey”), so he shouldn’t have had a tail… but they have specific memories of him with a tail.
That’s an interesting alternate memory. I did a fairly thorough search of Google Images, and found nothing showing Curious George with a tail. (If I overlooked an actual Curious George image with a tail, let me know.)
But, that’s not the only interesting (I almost said “curious”) thing about this particular memory.
It’s also the first where I’ve seen people pause and say:
"Wait. I remember him with a tail, but I can also see him without one. How can that be…?”
People have reported many dual memories at this site. That’s when two conflicting memories - nearly identical in most (but not all) respects - seem to be competing with each other.
Sometimes, both memories seem equally “real.” More often, people report the other memory as something vague, distant, or less real. However, they’re adamant that they have both memories, and can’t explain why.
So, I’m interested in your memories of Curious George. I’m also interested in how widespread the dual memory phenomenon might be.
In my real-life surveys, the Curious George question created a dramatic spike in bewildered responses involving dual memories.
And, in one case, pausing to reflect on the Great Pumpkin issue, the person realized he had dual memories for that Halloween special, as well: One in which Linus fell asleep and missed the Great Pumpkin, and one in which Linus was alone when he saw the Great Pumpkin.
7. Forrest Gump
If you recall the famous line from the Forrest Gump movie, which of the following did Forrest say?
a. “Life was like a box of chocolates…”
b. “Life is like a box of chocolates…”
The answer in this reality is A: “Life was like a box of chocolates…”. In my original response to this issue, I said:
"Forrest Gump’s accent is fairly heavy, and he doesn’t always enunciate clearly, but - the the film clip - I hear “was” far more than “is.”"
Here’s that clip from the film:
Also refer to Wikipedia ("Life is like a box of chocolates":
Appeared in the 1994 film Forrest Gump, when the lead character Forrest Gump (played by Tom Hanks) says “Mama always said life was like a box of chocolates. You never know what you’re gonna get.” [Emphasis added.]
The book Norwegian Wood by Haruki Murakami, first published in Japanese in 1987, and in English in 1989, has the following: “Just remember, life is like a box of chocolates.” … “You know, they’ve got these chocolate assortments, and you like some but you don’t like others? And you eat all the ones you like, and the only ones left are the ones you don’t like as much? I always think about that when something painful comes up. “Now I just have to polish these off, and everything’ll be OK.’ Life is a box of chocolates.”
I’m not sure how much accent and enunciation, as well as pop culture references, have contributed to this apparent alternate memory. So, I can’t say this is a Mandela Effect issue.
However, one-for-one, everyone I’ve asked in real life about this quotation has been 100% certain the line was “Life is like a box of chocolates…”
8. Moving Countries: Does History Explain Alternate Geographical Memories?
A West Wing clip highlights some issues that make accurate geography challenging. While this was intended as a humorous scene, some people get lost in the political implications, and label this “liberal propaganda.”
In the context of alternate geography, political agendas (if there are any) aren’t the point. History - and how it might continue to influence our maps - is relevant.
Here’s the video:
So, I think we need to look at current maps for modern-day references, and then at old maps to see if our memories are based on them.
People have reported a variety of locations that have moved.
Maybe our “alternate” memories are based on older maps from childhood geography classes, and those maps have been corrected in recent years.
The next is a topological map. So, we know where the country is, and what it looks like, on today’s maps in this timestream.
Then, I’d look at old maps of Ceylon, an earlier name for Sri Lanka. I like to go back as far as I can, and then work forward to the 21st century.
The first map is dated around 1535, by Claudius Ptolemy. To determine the suggested location, a north-south orientation is needed. First, look at where the mountains are, compared with current maps. Then, Indian geographical references must be used.
Click on the image above to open a larger version in a new window
Based on the mountains, I’d guess that this showed Ceylon southwest of India. (Correct me if my reference points are wrong. I didn’t check the smaller islands indicated on that map, and they may suggest a different orientation.)
A map from around 1650 shows only the outline and geography of Ceylon, with no nearby land masses, except very small islands. So, this map isn’t especially relevant to our study of Ceylon’s location in relation to India.
What caught my interest was how different the shape was, in this map. I studied where the mountains are indicated, to get a sense of this map’s orientation. (This is one of several illustrations from Plantas das fortalezas, pagodes & ca. da ilha de Ceilão, a book by a cartographer and illustrator.)
Here’s another map from around 1700 – 1710, by Heinrich Scherer. Relative to India, this map suggests the southeast location indicated on maps in our current timestream. (This actual map came from the Maps Collection at the Library of Congress “American Memory” site.)
The really old maps are intriguing, but the earlier the map, the more questionable its accuracy.
It looks as if “alternate geography” memories of Sri Lanka’s location aren’t based on 20th century maps that were recently corrected. As far back as 1700 - and perhaps earlier - Sri Lanka (Ceylon) was represented at the southeast side of India.
More “Moving” Countries and Changing Geography
Many people remember islands, land masses, and countries in alternate locations. Some of those memories are startlingly similar.
I discussed this in two previous articles. The first was about Sri Lanka’s location, since that had attracted considerable comment.
The other article was about checking older maps, in case newer maps have been altered for political reasons. I showed the process I’d used to clarify Sri Lanka’s location, then and now.
However, specific countries and land masses seem to recur in our discussions. I’m moving those comments to this newer post, so they’re all in one location. (No pun intended.)
Many of the “altered” locations are around the Indian Ocean, but some are not. New Zealand and land masses around Korea have been the most surprising (and consistent), so far.
So far, the major location discrepancies seem to relate to:
And then there are odd media references, such as the globe in the movie, Dazed and Confused. Are they pranks, Easter eggs, or the kinds of references that document a dramatically changing global landscape?
Close-up below and the actual world as we know it below right.
Academic Warns: Young People’s Ignorance Of Socialism Risks “Absolute Catastrophe” & Goodbye Free Internet, Government Is Already Here June 3 2020 | From: SummitNews / StrategicCulture / Various “They were never taught about it.”
Canadian academic Jordan Peterson warns that socialism is so appealing to young people because they are “unbelievably ignorant” about the history of the 20th century.
During an event hosted by The Heritage Foundation this week, the clinical psychologist and best-selling author said that millennials are embracing far-left ideology because they weren’t taught about its disastrous outcomes at school.
“People are unbelievably ignorant of history,” said Peterson.
“What young people know about 20th-century history is nonexistent, especially about the history of the radical left. How would you know? They are never taught about it so why would they be concerned about it?”
He also explained that the simplistic socialist notion of caring for as many people as possible was very alluring for people who had an emotional view of humanity.
Young people are “emotionally drawn to the ideals of socialism, say, or the left, because it draws its fundamental motivational source from a kind of primary compassion, and that is always there in human beings,” said Peterson.
Peterson also blamed the “unholy marriage of the postmodern nihilism with this Marxist utopian notion” for the breakdown in social and family unity, a process which has produced an “absolute catastrophe”.
A major poll last year found that the majority of US millennials would prefer to live under socialism than capitalism.
Goodbye To The Internet: Interference By Governments Is Already Here
There is a saying attributed to the French banker Nathan Rothschild that "Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes its laws."
Conservative opinion in the United States has long suspected that Rothschild was right and there have been frequent calls to audit the Federal Reserve Bank based on the presumption that it has not always acted in support of the actual interests of the American people.
That such an assessment is almost certainly correct might be presumed based on the 2008 economic crash in which the government bailed out the banks, which had through their malfeasance caused the disaster, and left individuals who had lost everything to face the consequences.
Be that as it may, if there were a modern version of the Rothschild comment it might go something like this: “Give me control of the internet and no one will ever more know what is true.”
The internet, which was originally conceived of as a platform for the free interchange of information and opinions, is instead inexorably becoming a managed medium that is increasingly controlled by corporate and government interests.
Those interests are in no way answerable to the vast majority of the consumers who actually use the sites in a reasonable and non-threatening fashion to communicate and share different points of view.
The United States Congress started the regulation ball rolling when it summoned the chief executives of the leading social media sites in the wake of the 2016 election.
It sought explanations regarding why and how the Russians had allegedly been able to interfere in the election through the use of fraudulent accounts to spread information that might have influenced some voters.
In spite of the sound and fury, however, all Congress succeeded in doing was demonstrating that the case against Moscow was flimsy at best while at the same creating a rationale for an increased role in censoring the internet backed by the threat of government regulation.
Given that background, the recent shootings at a synagogue in Pittsburgh and at mosques in Christchurch New Zealand have inevitably produced strident demands that something must be done about the internet, with the presumption that the media both encouraged and enabled the attacks by the gunmen, demented individuals who were immediately labeled as “white supremacists.”
“Let’s be clear, social media is the lifeblood of the far-right. The fact that a terror attack was livestreamed should tell us that this is a unique form for violence made for the digital era.
The infrastructure of social media giants is not merely ancillary to the operations of terrorists - it is central to it [and] social media giants assume a huge responsibility to prevent and stop hate speech proliferating on the internet.
It’s clear the internet giants cannot manage this alone; we urgently need a renewed conversation on internet regulation… It is time for counter-terrorism specialists to move into the offices of social media giants.”
It's the wrong thing to do, in part because intelligence and police services already spend a great deal of time monitoring chat on the internet. And the premise that most terrorists who use the social media can be characterized as the enemy du jour “white supremacists” is also patently untrue.
Using the national security argument to place knuckle dragging “counter-terrorism specialists” in private sector offices would be the last thing that anyone would reasonably want to do.
If one were to turn the internet into a government regulated service it would mean that what comes out at the other end would be something like propaganda intended to make the public think in ways that do not challenge the authority of the bureaucrats and politicians.
In the US, it might amount to nothing less than exposure to commentary approved by Mike Pompeo and John Bolton if one wished to learn what is going on in the world.
Currently I and many other internet users appreciate and rely on the alternative media to provide viewpoints that are either suppressed by government or corporate interests or even contrary to prevailing fraudulent news accounts.
And the fact is that the internet is already subject to heavy handed censorship by the service providers, which one friend has described as “Soviet era” in its intensity, who are themselves implementing their increasingly disruptive actions to find false personas and to ban as “hate speech” anything that is objected to by influential constituencies.
Blocking information is also already implemented by various countries through a cooperative arrangement whereby governments can ask search engines to remove material.
Google actually documents the practice in an annual Transparency Report which reveals that government requests to remove information have increased from less than 1,000 per year in 2010 to nearly 30,000 per year currently.
Not surprisingly, Israel and the United States lead the pack when it comes to requests for deletions. Since 2009 the US has asked for 7,964 deletions totaling 109,936 items while Israel has sought 1,436 deletions totally 10,648 items. Roughly two thirds of Israeli and US requests were granted.
And there is more happening behind the scenes. Since 2016, Facebook representatives have also been regularly meeting with the Israeli government to delete Facebook accounts of Palestinians that the Israelis claim constitute “incitement.”
Israel had threatened Facebook that non-compliance with Israeli deletion orders would “result in the enactment of laws requiring Facebook to do so, upon pain of being severely fined or even blocked in the country.”
And censorship also operates as well at other levels unseen, to include deletion of millions of old postings and videos to change the historical record and rewrite the past.
To alter the current narrative, Microsoft, Google, YouTube, Twitter and Facebook all have been pressured to cooperate with pro-Israel private groups in the United States, to include the powerful Anti-Defamation League (ADL).
The ADL is working with social media“to engineer new solutions to stop cyberhate” by blocking “hate language,” which includes any criticism of Israel that might be construed as anti-Semitism by the new expanded definition that is being widely promoted by the US Congress and the Trump Administration.
Censorship of information also increasingly operates in the publishing world. With the demise of actual bookstores, most readers buy their books from media online giant Amazon, which had a policy of offering every book in print.
Government regulation combined with corporate social media self-censorship means that the user of the service will not know what he or she is missing because it will not be there.
And once the freedom to share information without restraint is gone it will never return.
On balance, free speech is intrinsically far more important than any satisfaction that might come from government intrusion to make the internet less an enabler of violence.
If history teaches us anything, it is that the diminishment of one basic right will rapidly lead to the loss of others and there is no freedom more fundamental than the ability to say or write whatever one chooses, wherever and whenever one seeks to do so.
Brainwashing And The New Vocabulary: 12 Words & Phrases We Never Want To Hear Again & Just Like 9/11 Did, COVID-19 Is Shifting Human Consciousness In A Major Way
June 2 2020 | From: Zerohedge / CollectiveEvolution / Various Remember how after September 11th happened, there was that nasty bill that formed the TSA and authorized all sorts of surveillance against the American people and they called it, ironically, The Patriot Act?
Of course, we knew then that the bill was anything but patriotic, however, that didn’t stop it from being passed and trampling all over the constitution.
The word “patriot” was perverted by those in power who wanted everyone to fall in lockstep with the unconstitutional searches at airports and many other invasions into our privacy.
The Facts: Major events have a lasting impact on human consciousness, and help people see what they once never saw before. This appears to be happening with the new coronavirus.
Reflect On: How do events like 9/11, and the new coronavirus impact human consciousness?
Which brings us to another word that doesn’t mean what people think it means – it was all done in the name of “safety.”
If you’ve been watching any type of media coverage or reading articles, you’ve probably seen or heard a plethora of words and phrases which are currently being perverted due to the coronavirus pandemic. I don’t know about you, but if I never heard “safe” or “new normal” again, I’d be a much happier person.
If you feel like people are being brainwashed through repetition, that’s because they are.
Quite simply, these buzzwords and several others we’ll discuss are being used to indoctrinate the public. As Joseph Goebbels, the Reich Minister of Propaganda of Nazi Germany, wrote:
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.
The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie.
It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
We’re incredibly divided right now and the words are being as fuel to the fiery arguments taking place both online and in-person, during altercations in which one party feels the other party is being callous and horrible.
Let’s take a look at this hostile takeover of our vocabulary with a dozen words I’d like to have stricken from conversations, advertising, and the media.
1. The New Normal
While it’s absolutely true we’re never going “back to normal” like we were before the pandemic, there’s a “new normal” being foisted upon us which is blatantly fueled by fear. Earlier on in the lockdown, I used this phrase a few times in reference to the economy. Sorry about that.
The “new normal” is most often used to get people to accept whatever unconstitutional or undignified rule that people in charge want us to find tolerable, like taped squares on the floor that we’re supposed to stand in while waiting in properly spaced lines.
You know how cats will curl up in a taped-off square on the floor as though it was a box? Now they want humans to do that for the privilege of buying alcohol or food.
Other bizarre “new normal” activities are having your temperature taken by someone brandishing an infrared thermometer gun, scurrying around in a mask in stores trying to avoid other humans like you’re playing some kind of weird game of tag, and publicly shaming those who don’t act terrified because they clearly hate old people.
Social media outlets even made little frames for your profile pictures bearing those wildly annoying words. Articles encouraging us to hunker down in our homes reminded us that everyone, rich or poor, was “in this together” too.
It’s just that the rich people were “in this together on yachts and private islands while the rest of us crammed into the kitchen on Zoom meetings with our employers while banning our kids from streaming anything so we had enough internet.
3. Stay Home
Stay home. Just stay home.
How many times did you hear this phrase early in the lockdown?
You probably lost count at umpteen million. #StayHome was a viral hashtag on Twitter, people ended social media status updates encouraging others to just “stay home,” and we were all told that if we didn’t “stay home” we were risking the lives of every person we loved and a few we hated because we were going to unconsciously spread the virus and kill people.
Clearly the only people who were asymptomatic were the a$$holes who wouldn’t “stay home.” They were COVID Marys and COVID Marks, thoughtlessly spreading illness to old people and kids with cancer merely because they wouldn’t just “stay home.”
In order to get us to all “stay home” stores in some states took to establishing what their government felt were “essential” purchases, and banning all other purchases even if you were already in the same store.
(More on the word “essential” in a moment. Thoughtless people didn’t realize if you only bought lettuce or a gallon of milk, you wouldn’t pass on your cooties. Cooties were only passed when you bought duvet covers or garden seeds.
Jeez. Stay home, you jerks.
4. Social Distancing
Another phrase that makes me want to snarl viciously at those using it is “social distancing.”
I’ll admit, I’ve always had an invisible personal space bubble I don’t like having invaded, but the whole social distancing thing means now that stores have arrows telling you which way you can walk down an aisle and the afore-mentioned taped boxes or Xs on the floor for standing in an appropriately social-distanced line.
Due to “social distancing” we spent months being unable to visit with loved ones, go into restaurants to eat, or go into the liquor store aisles to select our own much-needed whiskey.
We’ll continue socially distancing in all sorts of ridiculous ways in the “new normal” future, with venues only allowing a small portion of their former capacity of customers inside at a time.
Hand in hand with social distancing is the phrase “six feet.” If someone gets too close to you in the store, you can shout angrily from behind your mask, “Six feet, mofo!” and it’s perfectly acceptable.
Six feet is the gold standard, the protective bubble that keeps you “safe” from getting COVID 19 when you can’t “stay home.”
All those Xs on the floor of stores are measured out to be six feet apart. Children returning to school will have to stay six feet away from other children while marching around the playground in dismal formation. Offices are being redesigned so everyone can stay six feet away from everyone else.
The word “essential” has also been corrupted. If you were able to keep working throughout the entire lockdown, it’s because you were an “essential” worker doing an “essential” job. “Essential” was defined separately by the governor of each state, so it varied from place to place.
My daughter, who works in a beauty supply store, was initially not “essential” but a month in when everyone’s roots began to show, she became essential and got the travel papers to prove it.
The word “essential” was also used to describe purchases that the government felt were important enough for you to be allowed to make in person, and for trips outside the home.
It was “essential” to go to the grocery store, the doctor, the pharmacy, and out to walk your dog. However, the dog had to be walked on neighborhood streets with all the other people essentially walking their dogs, instead of on a trail out in the forest alone, because the trails were closed because they weren’t essential.
Depending on the business you’re in, you may have heard the word “pivot” until you wanted to vomit. Small businesses were super-busy “pivoting” to try and stay afloat while loans meant for them went to billionaires and giant corporations.
You could “pivot’ by manufacturing something else – something “essential” like hand sanitizer – or by offering delivery or curbside pickup of your products.
Some of the “pivoting” was just different marketing. Buy this laundry soap, because we’re washing clothes for healthcare workers in it. Buy our car, because we support essential workers. Buy from us because here’s how we’re keeping our employees safe.
Other “pivots” were allowing people to work from home, supporting your customers in different ways, and selling goods from an appropriate social distance, like literally selling new vehicles over the internet and dropping them off in people’s driveways.
8. Uncertain or Unprecedented Times
How many emails could possibly have the subject line starting with “in these uncertain times” or “in these unprecedented times”?
It turns out, a whole lot. I can’t enumerate how many emails I got assuring me that various companies had my back in these “uncertain times.” Everyone from Victoria’s Secret to my internet service provider sent me a message letting me know how they were doing business in these “unprecedented times.”
Car brands had commercials about why you needed a particular vehicle during these uncertain times because we all definitely need a new car while the business that employs us is trying to pivot.
Articles had headlines about handling these “uncertain times.” I confess, I too had an article about uncertainty early in the crisis. Again, sorry I used that word.
The continued use of this word makes people eager to latch on to anything that is “certain.” It makes them want to accept “the new normal” so they don’t have to be so “uncertain.” And since all this is “unprecedented” we have no idea what that “new normal” is going to be, so it can be anything, no matter how draconian.
9. Flatten the Curve
When the lockdowns were first announced back in March, the entire goal was to “flatten the curve.” That meant that hospitals would not be overwhelmed like the hospitals in Italy and China.
Instead of a graph going straight up into the stratosphere, we’d have a gentle hill, spacing out the illnesses.
Everything became about “flattening the curve.” You can’t “flatten the curve” while going about your business. CBS News explained (while using 4 of our least favorite words and phrases):
"Communities are being urged to practice social distancing, some schools are closing, sports and cultural events are being canceled, and companies are asking employees to work from home - even if they’re not experiencing coronavirus symptoms.
Many are wondering why they are essentially self-quarantined despite the fact that they’re not sick.The answer has to do with “flattening the curve” - an answer that could leave some people confused.
You’ve likely seen “flattening the curve” graphs being used in articles and shared on social media as a way to explain the importance of responding aggressively to curb the spread of the coronavirus. But what does it mean to flatten the curve, and how do we do it?
Friday on “CBS This Morning,” CBS News chief medical correspondent Dr. Jon LaPook explained what has become a buzzword in the wake of the outbreak.
“Is it really worth while to do all of this social distancing and hand washing? The answer is yes,” Dr. LaPook said.
“Normally, right now - without any measures - the epidemic might go up [sharply] and go down.That peak number of cases could overload the system and that’s what people are worried about.”
The most overused word in this entire list of hijacked vocabulary has to be “safe.”
If taking a shot every time you heard or read the word “safe” was a drinking game, we’d all be wasted by 9:30 am.
Out of all the words I never want to use again, “safe” is the penultimate. The word was already hijacked somewhat by the “safe spaces” nonsense where people were supposed to go when they felt vulnerable because somebody said something mean or wore a MAGA hat around them.
Now, “safe” has crossed the Rubicon. Every other article on the internet is about remaining “safe.” Church marquees want you to stay away from service to be “safe.”
Instead of saying “bye” or “see ya later,” the salutation when someone is leaving is now and implorement to “stay safe.”
Some things that used to be okay but now aren’t safe are: kids playing at a playground, adults shaking hands with other adults when doing business, going for a hike, eating at a table in a restaurant, getting your hair cut, or basically having fun in any way beyond playing a wild game of Scrabble against those with whom you are “staying at home.”
You all know that Ben Franklin quote about safety and liberty. I’m not even going to quote it.
11. & 12. Dishonorable Mentions: “Curbing the Spread” and “Wash Your Hands”
While not used quite to the same dizzying level as the words above, I’m also pretty sick of hearing about “curbing the spread” of the coronavirus and “washing my hands.”
First of all, every business that sent me an “uncertain” or “unprecedented” email wanted me to know what they were doing to “curb the spread” of the virus. Every White House or gubernatorial press conference explained with deep sincerity how following all the rules would result in a “curb of the spread” of COVID19.
(Of course, they also said the lockdown was only going to be for 2 weeks, and here we are finally emerging 60 days later in some parts of the country, almost as long a time as I predicted in the analysis I wrote back in March when a whole bunch of readers said I was nuts. Let me also note that the lockdown has not yet been completely lifted in several highly populated parts of the US.)
And I was already washing my hands, thank you very much. If you need to be told to wash your hands as an adult, you clearly missed out on some important childhood lessons.
This is what brainwashing is like.
If you ever wondered what it was like brainwashing somebody, this is what it’s like. Having the same words used over and over, words that used to mean something, until they begin to come out of your mouth too.
When you consistently hear these phrases and the opposite of these phrases is used to incite irrational fear, that’s brainwashing.
I’m not being a paranoid, tinfoil-tiara-wearing nutcase when I tell you that we’re all the targets of a mass media operation to make us accept this draconian outrageous “new normal.”
When you hear things over and over again, when you hear a script coming from the mainstream media, from social media, your sucker of a neighbor who snitches on kids playing outside, and when every other article has one or more of these words in the headline, there’s an agenda.
And that agenda is going to result in the loss of more freedom and the addition of more surveillance. (Anyone looking for a contact tracing job?)
I’m not saying that this virus wasn’t real or that it wasn’t a public health threat. It was. The fact that things didn’t get as bad as predicted doesn’t mean that the measures taken were unnecessary – it means they worked. But it doesn’t mean that those measures need to be continued forever and ever.
However…as with all things, when the government gets a little bit of extra power and control, they become greedy for more. They didn’t let this crisis go to waste, and they aren’t letting any grass grow under their feet while they plot to make all this nonsense permanent.
A fearful, indoctrinated populace is a populace that is easy to control.
Just Like 9/11 Did, COVID-19 Is Shifting Human Consciousness In A Major Way
It’s truly an exciting time to be alive, and that’s because more and more people are “waking up” to concepts about our reality and the overall human experience that they were once previously unaware of. This has been happening for decades, but every single year it seems to amplify, and the process of our ‘awakening’ seems to accelerate rapidly.
This type of ‘awakening’ happens in all areas that surround human life. People learn deep truths about health and medicine, education, geopolitics, consciousness, extraterrestrials and much more.
The idea that a small group of corporations and the people that run them have a strong hold on our perception, thoughts, emotions, and reactions regarding information and major world events is now far from a mere “conspiracy theory” in the eyes of many.
It can be seen quite clearly, and mainstream media has been exposed as the true bearer of “fake news” by many people.
Events like the coronavirus simply accelerate the process of awakening, and expose mainstream media outlets for what they truly are in this moment.
There’s a reason why mainstream media has such strong connections to intelligence agencies and have their roots in psychological warfare. You can find documentation and examples of that in an article I published a while ago here.
A quote from Edward Bernays, known as the father of public relations, is powerful because it sums up these thoughts quite well:
"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society.
Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.
We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of.”
As the months and years went on, more and more people grew suspicious of their government’s explanation of what happened that day, this included many politicians and academics as well, further adding fuel to the fire.
Evidence came forward, science was done and whistleblowers spoke out, giving us a very clear idea that what we were told happened that day, most certainly did not.
Today, many polls show that more than half of the American people alone don’t believe the official explanation of what really happened that day.
Since 9/11, hundreds of millions of people have become aware of “false flag” terrorism, which is the idea that the ‘powers that be’ created these events, fund terrorism, stage them, and then use these events to justify the infiltration of another country for ulterior motives.
They basically create the problem, in several different ways, and then propose the solution.
Organizations like Wikileaks and whistleblowers like Edward Snowden have proved, as well as explained, how events like these are used to justify a heightening national security state, one where more and more of our basic rights and freedoms are stripped from us under the guise of ‘goodwill.’
But these events have shifted human consciousness. People become aware of how our world truly works and functions, a process we call ‘Breaking The Illusion‘ here at CE.
People begin to see that the world they think is real is actually not, and that things like corruption exist within the geopolitical realm, an important realization if you wish to reflect on whether our political process truly serves us or not.
This then changes the perception of people around the world, causing us to choose new paths and actions as to how to live our lives in society. Paths that would not change if we never ‘broke the illusion.’
Another major event is happening right now, the COVID-19 pandemic. When it comes to COVID-19, what has many people asking questions is the ban and censorship of information.
"Fauci's wife is NHI Director in charge of biological ethics and human experimentation so no wonder Gate's whaccines get approved quickly without proper testing and why the sheeple are conditioned to sacrifice themselves "for the good of society" to be NHI/CDC/Big Pharma LAB RATS in the Rockefeller eugenics program.
Here have another shot. This one has chips in it and nanobots... for your health... and insanity."
For example, YouTube is now actively banning any content that contradicts anything that the World Health Organization (WHO) states with regards to the new coronavirus. Vimeo recently banned a documentary exposing “Big Pharma’s” influence within the WHO.
These blatant forms of censorship have some upset, but many others see it as an eyebrow-raising moment, showing quite clearly the corruption that exists in our world and the efforts that are put forth to control the perception of the masses. We then begin to ask why?
Controlling information and what people think is important if you wish to control their lives. This is why ‘Breaking The Illusion’ is one of the first steps in the CE formula to shift consciousness. After all, why do you think people like Julian Assange are in jail, and people like Edward Snowden are living in exile?
"How far have we sunk if telling the truth becomes a crime? How far have we sunk if we prosecute people that expose war crimes for exposing war crimes?
How far have we sunk when we no longer prosecute our own war criminals? Because we identify more with them, than we identify with their people that actually expose these crimes.
What does that tell about us and about our governments? In a democracy, the power does not belong to the government, but to the people.
But the people have to claim it. Secrecy disempowers the people because it prevents them from exercising democratic control, which is precisely why governments want secrecy.
With COVID-19, we are also seeing a large number of people questioning the measures that multiple governments have taken to lockdown countries.
We are seeing people question the information that’s being put out by our federal health agencies, including the World Health Organization.
We have seen a number of scientists in the field, as well as doctors, also question the official narratives, and we have seen people like Edward Snowden, and many more, explain how this ‘pandemic’ is being used for ulterior motives. You can access those articles at the end of this article if you’re interested.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, we are now living in a time where a digital authoritarian ‘fact checker’ is patrolling the internet and censoring content it deems as ‘false.’
It does not matter if the information is true or false, backed by science or not, or whether it’s simply an opinion, if it doesn’t align with the mainstream narrative, you are not meant to see it or trust it.
Should people not have the right to examine information, check sources, decide for themselves what is real and what is fake?
COVID-19 has simply accelerated the process of awakening, and it’s also made even more people aware of the censorship of information that’s taking place. Along with the censorship of information, comes ridicule, and bashing by mainstream media in order to oppose and instantaneously shut down any opposite narrative.
Narratives that go against mainstream media narratives are not acknowledged or countered, they are simply ridiculed and deemed a “conspiracy theory.”
The point is, events like this serve the collective. They wake us up, they help us see, they help shift the perceptions about our world and our world ‘leaders’ and serve as a catalyst for more people to start asking questions, and to see that what we are told is not always what is.
New Zealand MP Simon O'Connor Expose the World Coup and Warns of Absolute Tyranny Covid Agenda
This is why events as such, although hard in many senses, and real in many ways, do indeed move humanity forward in a ‘positive’ direction. What’s happening now is not a tragedy, it’s exciting, and it’s not as bad as they’ve made it out to be.
World’s Elite Try To Wipe Out All Knowledge And Use Of Natural Cures, While They Privately Use Them For Their Own Longevity June 1 2020 | From: NaturalNews / Various
The dark side of Western medicine has been erased from U.S. history books and from Google search results, along with any trace of truth about the success of natural cures and homeopathic medicine.
Any doctors or scientists who attempt to “peer review” natural remedies are stripped of their medical license or research funding by the corrupt American Medical Association (AMA) and Big Pharma.
How did Rockefeller accomplish this? He funded bogus research by a man named Andrew Flexner, who then authored the infamous Flexner Report of 1910.
Flexner used the money to visit every U.S. medical school, and with the backing of the AMA, reduced the number of physicians while limiting “authorization” of any new medical school licenses to doctors who supported only chemical medicine.
The Rockefeller family waged war on natural cures and holistic healing, while privately using them for his own health.
Today’s mainstream medicine is nothing but sick care management, where chemical pills are dished out to quell symptoms of deep-rooted illnesses, and surgery, radiation and chemotherapy are used to only temporarily stave off organ failure, heart attacks, and cancer.
Most of the richest Americans know better than to eat GMOs, drink tap water, get flu shots, or ever even consider chemotherapy for cancer.
These elitists eat organic food daily, they take organic supplements, and they visit naturopathic physicians when they get sick. The only time they visit hospitals is for emergencies when they incur a deep cut or broken bones.
John Davison Rockefeller, Sr. was America’s first billionaire. He lived to be 97 years old, thanks to a strict food and medicine regime that did not involve eating the chemicals he found in his petroleum, coal, gasoline, and oil industries.
Rockefeller led a double life as the ultimate hypocrite. He was a business bully who cheated on his wife and tried to bury natural cures (while he used them himself), but ironically he suffered from anxiety and died of pneumonia.
Rockefeller Jr. became the Post WWII industrial “emperor” of chemical agriculture and chemical medicine.
After the U.S. helped Great Britain defeat the Nazis, U.S. politicians and business magnates built a chemical “empire” of their own in America. Hitler had used his own “Big Pharma” (I.G. Pharben) to create chemicals for warfare and the gas chambers.
Now, America would use many of those same chemists and chemicals to manufacture U.S. food and medicine, all part of a huge scheme (invented and funded by the Rockefellers) to make a fortune off the sickened masses, who would never believe their amazing country was turned so evil by monopolists.
Most people these days who get cancer think it’s hereditary. They think it’s genetic. That’s how bad the system has them fooled.
They believe every word that comes out of their doctor’s mouth – the same doctor who would never take chemo himself, and who graduated from a school sponsored, funded, and controlled by Big Pharma and the Rockefellers.
Today, nearly all conventional food is covered and smothered in chemical pesticides. Today, nearly all conventional food contains genetically engineered pesticides that continue spreading in the human gut, fueling immune disorders and cancer cell development.
Today, nearly all conventional medicine contains deadly chemicals that cause the body to remain acidic, breeding more disease and disorder. It’s a wicked formula that the elitists know and avoid at all costs.
Furious Trump Threatens Twitter For "Interfering In The 2020 Presidential Election" After "Misinformation" Fact-Check + Trump’s Order Pushes Social Media To Cease ‘Unfair’ Speech Restrictions
May 31 2020 | From: Zerohedge / TheEpochTimes / Various Hours after Twitter slapped a CNN Fact-Check on a Tuesday tweet by President Trump claiming that mail-in-ballots will be "substantially fraudulent," Trump lashed out - accusing Twitter of "now interfering in the 2020 Presidential Election" by "saying my statement on Mail-In Ballots, which will lead to massive corruption and fraud, is incorrect, based on fact-checking by Fake News CNN and the Amazon Washington Post."
"Twitter is completely stifling FREE SPEECH, and I, as President, will not allow it to happen!" he added.
In a statement emailed to Bloomberg, Trump re-election campaign manager Brad Parscale said that Twitter's move to add fact-check links to the two tweets demonstrates the social network's "clear political bias," adding that:
"Partnering with the biased fake news media ‘fact checkers’ is only a smoke screen Twitter is using to try to lend their obvious political tactics some false credibility."
President Trump Signing an Executive Order to Protect and Uphold the Free Speech
Mere hours after Kara Swisher appeared on CNBC to call on Twitter to establish a panel of 'content reviewers' who can help the platform tag and remove "misinformation" - i.e. information that doesn't neatly fit the narrative being pushed by one of Swisher's employers, the New York Times - it looks like the company is taking a major step in that direction.
For the first time, Twitter has tagged tweets by President Trump as "misinformation", and appended a link where readers can "get the facts" below the tweet's primary text.
The tweet, sent earlier today by the president, was the latest in a series of missives opposing mail-in ballots, which the president has insisted would lead to widespread voter fraud.
According to Twitter spokesperson Katie Rosborough, who spoke to the Washington Post about the new policy, Trump's tweets "contain potentially misleading information about voting processes and have been labeled to provide additional context around mail-in ballots."
Evidence of widespread voter fraud in the US has yet to materialize, despite the fact that half the country seems to think that Russia somehow rigged the election in President Trump's favor.
But instead of allowing readers to reason this out for themselves (something that shouldn't be all that difficult given the thousands of replies calling Trump a racist liar), Twitter is stepping in to play the role of arbiter of truth.
An opinion column published in today's WSJ hinted at a notion that has become increasingly obvious in the Trump era: An absolute truth is an extremely rare thing.
Even the NYT has allowed a defined, liberal perspective infect its reporting over the years, as the column's writer argued, and if the media wants to regain the trust of the public, it's time to acknowledge that it doesn't have some kind of monopoly on the truth.
Twitter has reportedly considered affixing warning labels to Trump's tweets in the past, though Dorsey has insisted that Twitter would never remove a tweet from Trump, as Swisher urged the company to do.
However, apparently, a letter sent to Dorsey by the widower of a former intern in then-Congressman Joe Scarborough's office begging the company to remove several Trump tweets - tweets that allegedly perpetuated a 'conspiracy' about the death of the man's wife - pushed the company over the edge. Though notably those tweets haven't been touched.
Now, will Twitter apply the same scrutiny to Joe Biden?
And on issues of science, upon which science will twitter rely?
Though the company hasn't said much, we suspect this won't be an isolated incident. Will twitter now go full-on CCP and hire a 'propaganda board' to review all content on the site? We imagine we'll learn more about the company's plans in the coming days.
Trump’s Order Pushes Social Media To Cease ‘Unfair’ Speech Restrictions
President Donald Trump signed an executive order on May 28 directing federal agencies to develop regulations under an existing law that protects social media companies from being sued for user content. The regulations aim to protect users from unfair or deceptive content restriction practices employed by these companies.
The order may force social media giants such as Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube to relax their content restrictions, especially on political speech, lest they risk losing significant liability protections.
Days ago, Twitter added a new “fact-checking” label on two of Trump’s tweets, to which he responded by accusing the company of election interference.
"The choices that Twitter makes when it chooses to suppress, edit, blacklist, shadowban are editorial decisions, pure and simple,” the president said.
“In those moments, Twitter ceases to be a neutral public platform and [becomes] an editor with a viewpoint, and I think we can say that about others also.”
Trump accused Twitter of “selectively applying” its fact-check labeling, noting that they have the power to choose what to fact-check and what to ignore or promote. He said it was nothing more than “political activism.”
"I think you all see it yourselves, this censorship and bias is a threat to freedom itself,” he said.
“Imagine if your phone company silenced or edited your conversation.”
Trump called for new regulations under section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act to make it that social media companies that engage in “censoring” or “political conduct” will not “be able to keep their liability shield.”
Section 230 largely exempts online platforms from liability for content posted by their users, although they can be held liable for content that violates anti-sex trafficking or intellectual property laws.
The law was meant to protect a “fledgling industry,” said Attorney General William Barr during Trump’s announcement of the executive order, adding that it has since been “stretched way beyond its original intention, and people feel that on both sides of the aisle.”
The law allows companies to restrict or remove content “in good faith” if they consider it “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable.”
The protections, however, weren’t intended to apply to services that act more as publishers than platforms, Barr indicated.
"When they put on their own content, like fact check content, onto other people’s content, and when they curate their collection and when they start censoring particular content, including in many cases at the direction of foreign governments, like communist China, they become publishers,” he said.
Trump’s order directs the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to develop regulations for what is and isn’t “good faith” on the part of online platforms.
During that time, it collected over 16,000 complaints of online censorship. The website will be reestablished and the complaints it receives will be sent directly to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which will summarize them in a public report.
Trump will order the FTC to “consider taking action” against online platforms for engaging in “unfair or deceptive acts or practices” if they “restrict speech in ways that do not align with those entities’ public representations about those practices,” the order says.
The FCC will also be directed to propose regulations that it “concludes may be appropriate to advance the policy” set forth in the order.
"Communication through these channels has become important for meaningful participation in American democracy, including to petition elected leaders,” the order says.
“These sites are providing an important forum to the public for others to engage in free expression and debate.”
It mentions the 1980 Supreme Court case of Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, which established that states are free to pass laws that allow free expression on private property.
That suggests that the White House would support states that grant their residents additional rights when browsing the internet - such as the right to free speech. Online platforms would then be forced to respect those rights when providing services in such states.
Barr accused the tech giants of using their influence to sway public discussion:
"There’s a bit of a bait and switch that’s occurred in our society. These companies grew because they held themselves out as free public forums where a variety of diverse voices could come on and be heard.
That’s how they grew. That’s how they attracted the eyeballs. That’s why people joined them,”he said.
Maori Artifacts Point To Early Polynesian Settlement In New Zealand May 30 2020 | From: LiveScience
Archeologists in New Zealand are starting to unravel the mysteries of an early settlement near the northern tip of the islands that may have been founded by some of the first Polynesians to arrive in the region around 700 years ago.
The dig was a joint project between archaeologists from New Zealand government agencies and Otago University, and local Maori groups The artifacts from Moturua Island include a pendant made from shell that appears to have originated in tropical Pacific waters, which may have been brought by the earliest generations of Polynesian settlers, who developed New Zealand's indigenous Maori culture in the centuries that followed, say the researchers.
The archaeological site, located beside a beach at Mangahawea Bay on Moturua island, about 124 miles (200 kilometers) north of the city of Auckland, was first excavated by archaeologists from the University of Auckland in 1981. [See Photos of the Early Maori Site in New Zealand]
Although some research on the bones of Polynesian dogs ("kuri" in Maori) found at the site was published a few years later, details of the excavation itself were not formally written up, and the bulk of the archaeological work from the site remains unpublished almost 40 years later.
"Everyone's known about it, everyone knows that it's potentially important, but no one's actually been able to do any work on it,” said Andrew Blanshard, a ranger for New Zealand’s Department of Conservation, who initiated the project that led to the latest dig at Moturua Island in February of this year.
Now, some of the artifacts from the 1981 dig, along with bone fish hooks, shell fragments and the bones of animals found in a stone-lined underground oven, or hangi, on the site will undergo scientific testing for the first time, Blanshard said.
This is part of an effort to determine if the site may have once been home to some of the first Polynesians to settle in New Zealand, which is thought to have been in the late 13th century, he added.
Among the key findings at the site during the latest excavations are the cooked remains of seals, shellfish and moa - New Zealand's largest flightless bird, now extinct. Moa disappeared from the region due to predation soon after the first humans settled in New Zealand, Blanshard told Live Science.
The researchers are also focusing attention on the type of shell used in a pendant found at the site in 1981, which appears to be a species of pearl oyster - tropical shellfish that are not found in cold New Zealand waters, he said.
If the shell in the pendant is confirmed to be mother-of-pearl, then it may have been brought to New Zealand by some of the very earliest settlers from tropical parts of Polynesia: "But at this stage, it's still very much a wish, rather than something we can prove," Blanshard said.
The archaeological site on Moturua Island in New Zealand's Bay of Islands may prove be one of the earliest Maori settlements ever found
Blanshard became interested in this archeological "cold case" when he helped build a walking track around the island in 2006.
After being told that the results from the 1981 dig were never written up and published, and that the artifacts from the site remained undated, “I decided that we probably needed to think about doing something a little bit better than that,” he said. [The 25 Most Mysterious Archaeological Finds on Earth]
Blanshard spent nine years locating the artifacts, field notebooks and other research from the 1981 dig to prepare for this year's excavations. Many of the items were found in the archives of universities and government departments in different cities around New Zealand, he said.
The notebooks, in particular, enabled the new team of archeologists to make sense of the field work that was carried out in 1981.
"We were able to redig one of their holes, and have a look at the sides of the hole - what we would call the profile - and that allows us to better understand the samples and artifacts that we've got from the 1981 excavation," Blanshard said, "so it starts to fill in the blanks of the jigsaw."
The excavation at Moturua Island earlier this year was a partnership between New Zealand's Department of Conservation, the government agency Heritage New Zealand, archeologists from the University of Otago at Dunedin in the South Island, and two local Maori clans: Ngati Kuta and Patu Keha.
Heritage New Zealand archaeologist James Robinson, who led the latest dig on Moturua Island, said the involvement of the local Maori was important in helping the researchers to understand the various functional areas of the site, such as the structures of buried storage pits for sweet potatoes, or "kumara," of a type still being used in Maori communities in the area in the 1950s.
Although carbon dating on various items recovered during the latest dig will not be completed for several months, Robinson told Live Science that "we're happy at this stage to say that we're dealing with what's sometimes referred to as an archaic [Maori] or an early Polynesian site."
The latest dig has also revealed signs of archeological layers that indicate the site was occupied successively during different periods of Maori cultural development - an unusual find in New Zealand, where many early sites were often abandoned when some key local resource became scarce, Robinson said.
Initial research from the latest Moturua Island dig was presented at an archaeological conference in New Zealand earlier this year, and scientific papers about the findings, combining the work done by the 1981 and 2017 dig teams, are currently being prepared for publication, he said.
"It's an interesting site - it's one that deserved the attention that led to it being excavated in 1981, but it's really important that these things do get published and analyzed properly," Robinson said.
The Railroading Of Michael Flynn – How It Happened And Why It Matters + Top GOP Lawmaker Says There Will Be ‘Criminal Referrals’ Against Mueller Team
May 29 2020 | From: CommentaryMagazine / TheEpochTimes / Various In their final encounter during the transition following the 2016 election, Donald Trump’s incoming national-security adviser surprised Barack Obama’s outgoing national-security adviser.
Susan Rice writes in her memoir that the Michael Flynn she was dealing with had nothing in common with the firebrand she had watched leading a “lock her up” chant against Hillary Clinton at the Republican National Convention a few months earlier.
Flynn, a retired general and the former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, was respectful and subdued, eager for her advice. When Rice extended her hand and wished him the best of luck, Flynn asked her for a hug.
He needed it more than he could possibly have known.
Flynn did not then know that leaders of the FBI and the Justice Department were out for his head. They suspected he was a Russian agent - despite the fact that a counterintelligence investigation into Flynn launched five months earlier by the FBI had found no evidence for such a claim.
Three weeks into the Trump administration, the Flynn hunt bagged its trophy. The newly installed national-security adviser was compelled to quit.
The stated rationale was that Flynn had lost the confidence of the new vice president because he had supposedly misled Mike Pence about some phone calls between Flynn and the Russian ambassador to the United States.
That those phone calls became public knowledge was almost certainly the result of Obama-administration leaks of highly sensitive intelligence information.
That was February. In May, the Flynn hunt resumed. Robert Mueller was named a special prosecutor tasked with investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election and possible ties to Donald Trump and his presidential campaign.
After months of aggressive targeting, Mueller succeeded in getting Flynn to plead guilty to lying to the FBI - even though the actual FBI agents who had interviewed Flynn assessed that he hadn’t lied at all. Still later, when Flynn’s lawyers sought documents that would clear him of the charge he had lied, the Justice Department fought to keep them secret.
Finally, in May 2020, another Justice Department investigation was concluded. The Trump administration went to court and moved to drop the federal government’s case.
As it did so, it released shocking documents from inside the executive branch that reveal the extent of the injustices done to Flynn.
The stunning response from senior Obama officials, including Obama himself, was to condemn the supposed politicization of the Trump Justice Department. Now the Judge hearing Flynn’s case has paused the motion. Michael Flynn is still in limbo.
This is the story of the railroading of Michael Flynn.
In August 2016, the FBI launched a counterintelligence probe into Flynn, who had become a key member of Trump’s foreign-policy team two years after Barack Obama humiliated Flynn by removing him from his post at the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency.
The FBI and the Justice Department were spooked by Flynn’s proximity to the Republican nominee for president. They knew Flynn had taken money from RT, the Russian propaganda network dedicated to boosting Vladimir Putin, and had been seated next to Putin at a dinner in Moscow he had been paid to attend.
Given how peculiarly well-disposed Trump and his campaign had been toward Russia, the notion that something untoward might have been going on didn’t seem far-fetched - especially since Flynn was openly bitter about how Obama had defenestrated him.
But the anti-Flynn probe came up empty, and by January 4, 2017, the case agent in charge of the probe had drafted the paperwork necessary to close the file on Flynn.
At the last minute, the case agent’s supervisor told the case agent to hold off because FBI Director James Comey wanted to keep the case open.
Comey had learned that during the previous week, Flynn had had the misfortune of returning a phone call from the Russian ambassador to the United States, Sergey Kislyak, while Flynn was on vacation in the Dominican Republic.
The FBI was listening in.
In those December 29 calls (Flynn had had to phone back a few times because reception was choppy), Flynn had urged Kislyak not to escalate tensions with the United States.
Obama had just expelled 35 of Russia’s spies and had levied minor sanctions against Putin’s intelligence agencies as a rebuke for election meddling.
According to the motion to drop his prosecution, Flynn’s request was “consistent with him advocating for, not against, the interests of the United States.”
Moreover, Flynn’s communications with Kislyak “gave no indication that Mr. Flynn was being directed and controlled by the Russian federation.”
At a White House meeting on January 5, 2017, President Obama asked the attendees what they thought about sharing the most privileged information his intelligence agencies had gathered about Russia’s efforts to meddle in the 2016 election with the incoming Trump team.
Present were Joe Biden, Rice, Comey, and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates. According to both Rice’s memoir and a memo memorializing the meeting (dated January 20, 2017), the president stressed that everything the FBI did in this sensitive matter should be “by the book.”
In fact, nothing was done by the book - not by Obama’s deputies and not by Obama. At the end of the meeting, Obama pulled Yates and Comey aside. It was at this point that Yates learned from Obama of the Flynn–Kislyak call.
Obama’s full knowledge of the Flynn investigation is still unknown. According to newly declassified transcripts of her interview with Mueller’s team, Yates grew increasingly frustrated over the next two weeks with Comey’s efforts to keep the Trump team in the dark about the Flynn probe because she found Comey’s explanations of his investigation confusing and inconsistent.
First of all, Comey raised the prospect in the January 5 meeting that Flynn may have violated the Logan Act. The act, which makes it a crime for a private citizen to engage in the making of U.S. foreign policy without explicit authorization from the executive branch, is a 220-year-old relic - a product of the John Adams administration.
It has never been successfully used to prosecute anyone, and no American has been charged with breaking it since before the Civil War. Bringing up this old chestnut suggests that the FBI was looking for any conceivable pretext to keep its Flynn hunt alive.
To that end, the FBI officer overseeing the Flynn case, Peter Strzok, eagerly provided a Congressional Research Service report on the history and utility of the Logan Act to FBI lawyer Lisa Page, who was working in the office of Comey’s deputy, Andrew McCabe [We know this from a trove of documents released in conjunction with the motion to drop the prosecution of Flynn.].
In his 2019 memoir, McCabe writes that in “high-level discussion at the relevant agencies and at Justice, the question arose: Was this a violation of the Logan Act?”
Yates, we learn from the Mueller transcript, was dubious about predicating a criminal investigation on this ridiculously antiquated and never-used law.
Indeed, Comey told the House Intelligence Committee in March 2017 that the FBI had not been pursuing the question of Flynn’s supposed violation of the Logan Act because the Justice Department had not asked the FBI to investigate the matter.
And yet the Logan Act was part of the FBI’s ongoing investigation. Handwritten notes from March 2017 by former Acting Assistant Attorney General Dana Boente said the broader FBI probe into the possible conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia in part “focused on the Flynn investigation and potential criminal violations of the Logan Act.” (This detail comes from the December 2019 report on the FBI’s investigation issued by Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz.)
Moreover, a recently declassified “scope memo” on the Mueller probe - a document defining the range of issues Mueller was to examine - drafted on August 2, 2017, by then Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein authorized Mueller’s team to investigate whether Flynn had “committed a crime or crimes by engaging in conversations with Russian government officials during the period of the Trump transition.”
The only crime or crimes that could be found in this case would either be outright espionage or a violation of the Logan Act.
The idea that Flynn had behaved illegally, let alone unethically or immorally or unconventionally, in discussing U.S. foreign policy with the Russians during the transition is beyond absurd. He was the incoming national-security adviser.
Phone calls between incoming senior administration officials and foreign governments are common during a presidential transition.
And given what is now known about the context of that phone call, the initial spin in the press that Flynn’s conversation with Kislyak had undermined the outgoing administration’s policy was misleading.
Why this reliance on the Logan Act in the first place? According to regulations, FBI investigations into “federal crimes or threats to national security or to collect foreign intelligence” require a “predicate.”
The FBI cannot establish the predicate at will, the rules state: “The initiation of a predicated investigation requires supervisory approval at a level or levels specified by FBI policy.”
It seems likely that Comey was looking for a rationale to continue the FBI’s pursuit of Flynn because the original rationale - the question of whether Flynn was a Russian asset - had come up empty.
He could no longer legally investigate Flynn because the initial search had reached its end.
Only it hadn’t.
As it happens, the FBI case manager for the Flynn investigation, Joe Pientka, had indeed drafted a memo closing the Flynn investigation - but he hadn’t filed it formally.
Because of Pientka’s “incompetence” (the word was Peter Strzok’s, in a delighted text exchange on January 4, 2017, with his paramour Page), the probe was not shut down and a new predicate wasn’t required.
In his motion to dismiss the prosecution of Flynn, U.S. Attorney Timothy Shea said this “sidestepped a modest but critical protection that constrains the investigative reach of law enforcement: the predication threshold for investigating American citizens.”
Until the end of April 2020, Pientka’s memo was kept from Flynn’s counsel and the public. It has been released only now because career U.S. attorney Jeffrey Jensen completed his review of Flynn’s case and declassified documents relevant to it.
The Pientka memo provides far more detail on the status of the Flynn investigation than was previously known - and what it shows isn’t pretty.
We learn from the memo that after the FBI ran down a lead provided by a confidential human source about Flynn’s contact with a person with links to the Russian state, the bureau could not confirm that any such relationship ever existed.
That source was likely Stefan Halper, a fellow at Cambridge University and an intelligence community insider. Halper was being paid by the U.S. government to inform on Flynn as well as another Trump campaign aide, George Papadopoulos.
Flynn’s suspected contact, whose name is redacted in the memo, is likely Svetlana Lokhova. She is a Russian-born academic who, the Guardian and other news outlets reported in 2017, had traveled in the same car with Flynn as they left a Cambridge University seminar in 2016.
These stories made it seem as if Lokhova was luring Flynn into a honey trap, during which sex is offered for blackmail leverage later on. “The CIA and FBI were discussing this episode, along with many others, as they assessed Flynn’s suitability to serve as national security adviser,” the Guardian reported.
The Lokhova story was a smear. Two months after it was published, the Guardian was forced to append an embarrassing correction.
The correction read in part, “Her lawyers have also subsequently informed us that she does not have privileged access to any Russian intelligence archive. We also wish to make clear, for the avoidance of doubt, that there is no suggestion that Lokhova has ever worked with or for any of the Russian intelligence agencies.” Last year, Lokhova sued Halper and several news organizations for the smear against her.
Pientka’s memo also reveals that FBI agents searched multiple databases inside the intelligence community for derogatory information on Flynn and found nothing.
This is much more significant than a Google search of classified databases; this would have been a scouring of the intelligence provided by spies and electronic eavesdropping on Russia’s own intelligence activities, the same sources and data that informed the government’s assessment of Russia’s election interference.
The memo says the investigation yielded so little that senior management recommended closing the case before even interviewing Flynn.
In March 2017, a month after Flynn had resigned, Comey told Congress that he thought he may have wanted to close the investigation in late December or early January. But after he became aware of the Flynn–Kislyak conversation, he wanted to keep it open to see whether there was anything the investigators were missing.
These events would lead to the FBI interview that Mueller would later use to coerce the guilty plea out of Flynn. Comey told Congress that nothing much happened in the Flynn matter until David Ignatius published a column in the Washington Post on January 12, 2017.
In that column, Ignatius revealed that Flynn had made the phone calls to the Russian ambassador during which the two discussed the sanctions that Obama levied against Russia.
Three days later, on January 15, Mike Pence appeared on CBS’s Face the Nation and was asked about the revelation in Ignatius’s column. Pence said that Flynn had told him there had been no discussions of sanctions.
Here’s what Comey told the House Intelligence Committee he wanted his agents to do: “We had this disconnect publicly between what the vice president was saying and what we knew. And so before we closed an investigation of Flynn, I wanted them to sit before him and say, ‘What is the deal?’”
That is not at all what the agents did.
The FBI discussed several strategies for the interview. In the end, Pientka and Strzok settled on an approach designed to lead Flynn to dissemble.
They decided they would not show him the transcript of his Kislyak call. They would not inform Flynn that he was the subject of a criminal or counterintelligence investigation. And they would not remind him that it was a crime to lie to FBI agents. Strzok would later recall that Flynn saw his interrogators as allies.
In his motion to withdraw his 2017 plea for lying to the FBI, Flynn reiterated that he did not have a clear recollection of the conversation with Kislyak and did not intentionally lie to Pientka and Strzok.
He also said he is generally tightlipped with interlocutors outside his chain of command. “My baseline reaction to questions posed by people outside of superiors, immediate command, or office of responsibility is to protect sensitive or classified information, except upon ‘need to know’ or the proper level of security clearance,” he wrote.
Flynn did not believe he was being interviewed as part of a criminal or counterintelligence investigation (indeed, this was something Comey took great pains to conceal from Trump’s White House, whose lawyers might have counseled caution to Flynn or sat in on the interview, as would be typical).
Therefore, Flynn did not feel that Strzok and Pientka were out to get him; if anything, he thought he outranked them and that they were in effect his underlings.
More telling, Strzok and Pientka did not detect any of the body language or ticks associated with lying. Considering that Pientka had attended a briefing with Flynn during the campaign in order to assess Flynn’s baseline mannerisms, this assessment has credibility.
Comey, on his 2018 book tour, would later deny that the agents had thought Flynn was being truthful. But transcripts show that when asked under oath in the closed session with the House Intelligence Committee if Flynn lied to his agents, Comey said, “I don’t know. I think there is an argument to be made that he lied. It is a close one.”
The FBI’s official record of that interview, known as a 302, also discredits Comey’s after-the-fact spin. It shows that Flynn said he did not remember details when asked by the FBI agents.
When prompted if he had asked Kislyak not to engage in a “tit for tat,” Flynn responded that he didn’t remember. Shea, in his motion, writes that “the statements in question were not by their nature easily falsifiable.
In his interview, Mr. Flynn offered either equivocal (‘I don’t know’) or indirect responses, or claimed to not remember the matter in question.”
The 302 record also shows that Comey’s initial justification to Congress in March for the interview was misleading. “My judgment,” he said, “was we could not close the investigation of Mr. Flynn without asking him what is the deal” with the “disconnect” between what he told Kislyak and what he told Pence.
But the agents never asked Flynn direct questions about his conversation with Pence.
Once the interview was over, Comey reversed his position on informing the new White House about the national security adviser and sent the White House the call transcripts.
Before that, he had said he worried that informing anyone on the Trump team would jeopardize the bureau’s investigation.
After, Comey told deputy Attorney General Sally Yates that he thought briefing the vice president about the phone-call transcripts was fine.
She did so just before she was fired on January 30. As a result, Pence initially believed Flynn had lied to him, and on February 13, Trump forced Flynn to resign.
Pence has since changed his mind. He said on May 11 of this year that he would welcome Flynn back to the White House and no longer believes that Flynn deliberately misled him.
After Shea’s motion to end Flynn’s prosecution was sent to the court on May 7, the former acting assistant attorney general for national security, Mary McCord, took public issue with it.
In an op-ed for the New York Times, she accuses Shea - and by extension Attorney General William Barr - of twisting words that she provided in an interview to the FBI about key events after the fact to support the motion.
McCord acknowledges there were disagreements between Comey and Yates on notifying the incoming Trump administration of Flynn’s Kislyak call. At the same time, she says her interview does not support Shea’s claim that the call was immaterial to the counterintelligence investigation.
McCord’s argument is premised on the disconnect between the Pence interview and the transcript of the Flynn–Kislyak call. She writes:
“The Russians would have known what Mr. Flynn and Mr. Kislyak discussed. They would have known that, despite Mr. Pence’s and others’ denials, Mr. Flynn had in fact asked Russia not to escalate its response to the sanctions.
Mr. Pence’s denial of this on national television, and his attribution of the denial to Mr. Flynn, put Mr. Flynn in a potentially compromised situation that the Russians could use against him.”
McCord is not arguing that the call in and of itself was material to a counterintelligence investigation. Instead McCord echoes what Yates herself testified to Congress in 2017 - that because of the conversation about sanctions, Flynn had made himself vulnerable to blackmail following the Pence interview.
But this is a strange argument: If the Russian government intended to blackmail Flynn over lying to Pence about an innocuous phone call with Kislyak, it would have had no leverage.
Before the call, Flynn coordinated his response with the Trump transition team. Even Comey didn’t think much of the blackmail theory.
On March 7, 2017, he told the House Intelligence Committee in closed session that it was “possible” Flynn could be blackmailed about his phone call but that it “struck me as a bit of a reach, though, honestly.”
Taking a step back, there is a more fundamental question: What business was it of McCord or Yates if Pence lied on Face the Nation?
Why did they assume that Flynn lied as opposed to misremembered? Perhaps it was Pence who lied, because he was asked a question he found difficult to answer on national television. None of these obvious questions appear to have been asked by the Justice Department leadership.
The only reason Yates’s testimony on this was accepted at face value in 2017 is that most of the Washington establishment was in a panic, stoked by the opposition-research dossier funded by the Hillary Clinton campaign and produced by Christopher Steele.
Indeed, that dossier was the primary piece of information in the FBI’s possession that suggested the Trump campaign sought a quid pro quo with Russia on the matter of Russian sanctions.
The Steele dossier alleges that a low-level campaign aide named Carter Page was a conduit in Russia for dirt on Clinton and in exchange had secured a deal to lift more significant sanctions if Trump was elected.
By the spring of 2017, FBI agents had ample evidence the dossier was hokum, as the December 2019 report by the Justice Department’s inspector general shows in great detail.
Steele’s sources, upon being contacted by FBI agents, would not support its most explosive claims, and the initial wiretaps on Page failed to disclose any confirmation of Steele’s allegations.
Nonetheless, the dossier was submitted four times to the secret FISA surveillance court to obtain and renew eavesdropping warrants on Page.
The FBI never sought a warrant to eavesdrop on Flynn. But the FBI was listening to Kislyak’s calls. Comey authorized that Flynn’s name would be unmasked on those transcripts of the December 29 call and shared the information with FBI leadership as well as the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
Obama also knew about the phone calls, as the January 5 meeting indicated. McCabe and Comey have both said that they learned about the calls after the intelligence community was tasked with trying to find out why Putin had not escalated in response to Obama’s decision to expel 35 Russian spies.
Flynn’s request helped explain why. But:
“There is no way a reasonable person could conclude that a move to prevent a tit-for-tat escalation was evidence that Flynn was a Russian agent or asset.”
As most of the press homed in on whether Flynn discussed the sanctions Obama had imposed, Flynn told the Daily Caller that he did discuss the expulsion of the 35 Russian spies with Kislyak in his last interview as national-security adviser. “It wasn’t about sanctions.
It was about the 35 guys who were thrown out,” he said. “So that’s what it turned out to be. It was basically, ‘Look, I know this happened. We’ll review everything.’ I never said anything such as, ‘We’re going to review sanctions,’ or anything like that.”
It’s obviously fair to ask why, if Flynn hadn’t really lied, he would have pled guilty to one count of making false statements in his FBI interview.
The plea itself makes no reference to Flynn saying the Trump administration would later review the sanctions - and as a matter of fact, the sanctions never were lifted. It says that Flynn lied to the FBI agents when he said he did not ask Kislyak to refrain from escalating the situation and that he did not remember “a follow-up conversation in which the Russian ambassador stated that Russia had chosen to moderate its response to those sanctions as a result of Flynn’s request.”
It goes on to say Flynn lied to FBI agents about his requests of members of the UN Security Council either to delay or vote against a resolution pushed by the Obama administration chastising Israeli settlements.
He made this request of Kislyak, who informed him that Russia would not oppose the resolution. Flynn never shared these details with the FBI agents who interviewed him on his fourth day on the job as national-security adviser.
From the perspective of the FBI’s investigation into possible coordination, collusion, or conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia, this is the thinnest of gruel. Nonetheless, the motion says that Flynn’s “false statements and omissions impeded and otherwise had a material impact on the FBI’s ongoing investigation.”
Given what is known now, those words are more of a lie than anything Flynn said to the FBI agents who interviewed him. To recap: At this point in the investigation, the FBI had already investigated whether Flynn had been a witting or unwitting Russian agent and had found nothing.
The bureau also had in its possession the transcript of Flynn’s call to Kislyak. And as Shea’s motion shows, Flynn’s communications to Kislyak on sanctions should have been considered evidence that he was not a Russian agent or asset.
The reason that Flynn put his name to something he knew was not true was that Mueller’s investigators were squeezing him on an unrelated matter.
In August 2016, Flynn took a contract to represent a Dutch firm known as Inovo BV on a project aimed at investigating and defaming Fetullah Gulen, a charismatic Turkish cleric who had become a mortal enemy of Turkey’s president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and was living in exile in Pennsylvania.
In 2016, Erdogan survived a military coup he blamed on Gulen’s followers. Erdogan’s regime sought Gulen’s extradition back to Turkey, where he would almost certainly have faced the death penalty.
Taking that contract showed horrendous judgment on Flynn’s part. He was the Trump campaign’s national-security adviser and had no business getting himself in the middle of this.
That said, it was a potential political problem for Trump, not the national-security threat that many in the resistance now say it was. It’s fair game for journalists and Democrats to make a stink about the Inovo contract.
But it was highly unusual for Flynn’s missteps in this case to be the basis for a criminal prosecution on the grounds that Flynn had violated the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA).
Before Mueller was appointed special prosecutor, FARA violations were treated for the most part the way you’d treat a speeding violation.
A 2016 Justice Department inspector general report found only seven criminal prosecutions for FARA violations in the half-century from 1965 to 2015. Most of the time, violators were told to amend their forms and at worst pay a fine.
Mueller decided to use FARA as a useful cudgel to nail people he wanted to flip to get them to spill the beans on Trump. He brought a FARA charge against former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort, who was also convicted on more serious charges of money laundering and other crimes. Mueller’s team decided they could use the threat of a FARA prosecution to squeeze Flynn as well.
Flynn had initially registered the Inovo contract in August 2016 through a less stringent law known as the Lobbying Disclosure Act. He did so on the advice of his counsel at the time. And when Flynn took the contract, that advice was sound.
The legal environment for FARA registrations was quite permissive at the time. But at the end of 2017, and with Mueller in hot pursuit and with unlimited resources, Flynn - and his son, Michael Jr. - could have found themselves facing years in prison. So Flynn, in financial ruin and wishing to get his son out of Mueller’s crosshairs, agreed to cooperate.
And cooperate he did. Before his first sentencing hearing at the end of 2018, Mueller’s team initially recommended no jail time for Flynn, in part because he was a good cooperative witness.
Over time, though, Flynn began to regret his decision. Some of this was because of the failure of Mueller’s investigation to bring a single charge against any American for coordinating with Russia’s influence operation in 2016.
Some of it was also because details about the government’s own misconduct in the investigation began to leak out.
So in 2019, Flynn ended his relationship with his lawyers from Covington and Burling, the ones who had filed his initial FARA registration forms on the Inovo matter and who had also represented his partner Bijan Rafiekian, who had also been indicted on FARA violations.
Flynn also began to back out of his cooperation with the government’s case against Rafiekian. In July 2019, prosecutors decided they would not call Flynn as a witness and threatened to prosecute Flynn as a co-conspirator.
At first Flynn’s lack of cooperation didn’t matter because that same month, a jury found Rafiekian guilty of being an unregistered agent for the government of Turkey. But the judge in the case overturned the jury verdict in a blistering judgment on the prosecution. “The government has failed to offer substantial evidence from which any rational juror could find beyond a reasonable doubt” that Rafiekian was an agent of Turkey
The judge’s ruling was significant for Flynn in one important respect. In 2017, during the run-up to Flynn’s plea agreement, the Wall Street Journal reported that Flynn and his son had been approached by Turkish government officials to try to kidnap Gulen and bring him back to Turkey in exchange for $15 million.
A November 10 story in the Journal said that Mueller’s team was investigating the matter. Flynn’s lawyers have categorically said this episode never happened. There is no mention of the episode in the prosecution of Rafiekian.
The one on-the-record source for this allegation was former CIA Director James Woolsey, who himself sought a contract with Turkey to defame Gulen.
Since Shea’s motion was entered before Judge Emmet Sullivan, Democrats and the FBI’s defenders have raged at the injustice of it all.
Obama himself, in comments to his administration’s alumni, said, “That’s the kind of stuff where you begin to get worried that basic - not just institutional norms - but our basic understanding of rule of law is at risk. And when you start moving in those directions, it can accelerate pretty quickly, as we’ve seen in other places.”
This is now the party line for the resistance - to its immense discredit. On May 12, Judge Sullivan ruled that he will hear arguments for Flynn’s guilt from outside parties, further delaying when Flynn will learn his fate.
What Jensen uncovered in his review was not only an injustice against Flynn but an assault on the peaceful transition of presidential power.
The FBI’s job is not to entangle the new president’s national-security adviser in a spurious investigation. Justice is not served when dubious threats of prosecution are leveraged to get political opponents to plead guilty to lies they did not tell.
There is another side to this as well. For all of the former prosecutors and pundits appalled that Flynn, who confessed to lying to the FBI, is no longer being charged with that crime, where is their outrage at all of the lies told by his accusers?
Compare Flynn’s treatment to McCabe’s. Flynn was humiliated and bankrupted for allegedly lying to Pence and FBI agents over a phone call that advanced U.S. interests.
Meanwhile, the Justice Department inspector general found in 2018 that McCabe “knowingly provided false information” in three separate interviews during an investigation into self-serving leaks published by the Wall Street Journal about an aborted investigation into the Clinton Foundation in 2016.
That report also found that McCabe admonished more junior FBI agents for the leaks that he himself had authorized. Today, McCabe is a contributor at CNN.
His opinions are still taken seriously at places like the esteemed Lawfare website. He remains in the good graces of the Trump resistance.
Or consider Strzok, the FBI agent who schemed with Lisa Page. When Strzok testified before the House Judiciary Committee in 2018 and was asked whether his animus toward Trump, as expressed in text messages to Page throughout 2016, may have influenced his judgment in handling the Trump–Russia investigation, he balked. “I can assure you at no time in any of these texts did those personal beliefs ever enter into the realm of any action I took,” he said.
#Obamagate: The Manchurian Candidate
“This isn’t just me, you don’t have to take my word for it, there were multiple layers of people above me and below me, they would not tolerate any improper behavior in me any more than I would tolerate it in them, that is who we are at the FBI.”
Just who was the FBI when Comey was its director and Strzok was overseeing the investigation into Flynn and Trump–Russia?
Their FBI lied to the surveillance court on multiple occasions and led the public to believe it had a powerful cause to suspect a conspiracy between Trump and Russia when it didn’t have the goods. It not only did “tolerate … improper behavior.” Their FBI exemplified it.
And that is a bitter irony for the republic.
When Flynn was designated to become Trump’s national-security adviser, much of Washington remembered his angry speech the prior summer at the Republican convention when he had led the crowd in the chant of “lock her up” that so startled and upset Susan Rice.
A line had been crossed in that episode: A retired three-star general and the candidate he was advising had chosen to treat their political opponent like a criminal.
Little did Flynn know that only five months later, that was exactly what the FBI and Justice Department would do to him.
Top GOP Lawmaker Says There Will Be ‘Criminal Referrals’ Against Mueller Team
Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), the GOP ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee, said Republicans have expanded their investigation into the origins of the Trump-Russia probe and will be making “criminal referrals” against special counsel Robert Mueller’s team.
Nunes told Fox News on Sunday that Republicans will be making the criminal referrals “in coming weeks,” against unspecified individuals associated with the Trump-Russia probe.
“We’ve also expanded our investigation into the Mueller team and everything that happened with Mueller and the people at DOJ and FBI that were above Mueller,”Nunes told legal analyst Gregg Jarrett.
He said to expect more actions as more information comes out about the circumstances of the launch of the investigation into allegations of a criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia to swing the 2016 election.
“And so, we will be making criminal referrals in the coming weeks against the Mueller team. We’re just now putting that together and, of course, as always, waiting on more documents that we really need to come out,” the California congressman added.
Mueller and his team probed the “Russian collusion” allegations but found insufficient evidence to recommend prosecution.
On the program, Nunes told Jarrett his perspective regarding the investigation into the Trump campaign, which he called by its operational name “Crossfire Hurricane.”
"This started as a dirty campaign operation run by the Clinton campaign,” Nunes said. “At some point they got dirty operatives involved, including the dirty cops," he said.
"Now, remember, in the middle of 2016, the dirty cops that are involved, it’s almost impossible to believe it didn’t reach the highest levels of the Department of Justice, when they opened so-called Crossfire Hurricane,” he said.
Nunes, in a tweet Sunday, announced his appearance on Fox, a message Trump retweeted, with his own comment that called the vindication of his first National Security Adviser, Gen. Michael Flynn, “part of the greatest Criminal Hoax in American History!”
The president has variously referred to the alleged agency and investigational bias against him in the lead-up to and execution of Crossfire Hurricane, including as a “witch hunt” and a “Russia hoax.”
The Global Fascist State: Physical Control Of The Global Population Is Impossible May 28 2020 | From: FinalWakeUpCall / Various
Centralised, controlled Global fascist state:The momentum for the completion of the New World Order (NWO) through centralised control of global politics, business, banking, military and media is gaining pace by the day, and is clearly evident through the large scale spying upon us.
Whenever a hidden agenda is about to be implemented, something occurs to scare the people, justifying the action for implementation. Our world is more and more becoming a recurrence of fascist Nazi Germany, before WWII. This is, in accordance with the plans of the Deep State Brotherhood, the new world that awaits the global population.
The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), and multinational corporations already control most Governments;promoting the one world government through their control of the media, foundation grants, and education; with power exerted over all issues of the day; they already control almost all avenues; they have the financial power to promote the “New World Order”.
The key to their success is the control and manipulation bythe international bankers of the money systems of almost every nation, while making it appear as though they are controlled by the government.
If you wish to live in a world that is “urbane” enough to be run by a world government, managed by the Brotherhood of the élite and global bankers, then by all means, continue to follow the mainstream media to get all your information.
If, however, the idea of a select coterie of a global intellectual-financial elites running the world does not sound like the ideal society for humanity’s future, then it is time to come into action.
By battling the tide of misinformation and by helping to expose the dangers of the ‘New World Order.’
People have neither the slightest idea, nor the insight of the restrain that is going to be put on them. They would rather ignore the obvious and go into denial of the truth that has already become reality. Instead, people prefer assuring each other that they would never take people’s freedoms away and make us serfs of the elite.
Humanity has on a large scale given away its mind and its responsibility – it is advisable to consider the broader consequences of this behaviour for human existence.
When we give away our mind and responsibility, we give away our freedom and hence, our lives.
If enough people do it, we give the world away, and that is precisely what has been done throughout history. We’re now entering a fascist society, as was the case before WWII. The leaders of this era, such as Benito Mussolini in Italy and Adolf Hitler in Germany embodied the state and they claimed indisputable power, transforming countries into fascist states.
Now history is repeating itself and soon the world will become a fascist society all over again. The only difference is that this time, a few families, alias – the elite – are manipulating the entire planet, through the globalisation of business, banking and communications.
The primary goal of their control is to keep the people in ignorance, fear and at war. Divide, rule and conquer and keep the most important information secret.
Those who have applied these methods to control humanity for thousands of years are members of the same force, following a long-term Brotherhood Agenda, which now is reaching its point of completion.
So, the global fascist state is upon us. People must wake up now – and see this as their “final wake up call” – to mobilise and organise themselves to rebel against this injustice, as the real power is still with the many of us, and not with the few of the elites!
Infinite Power is Within Every Individual:
Infinite power is within each and every individual. The reason we are controlled is not because we don’t have the power to decide our own destiny, it is that we unknowingly give that power away when we don’t take responsibility for our destiny on all fronts.
When something happens that we don’t like, we look for someone else to blame. When there is a problem, people think first what are they, our so-called leaders going to do about it.
But remember it is they who have secretly created most problems, and they consequently respond to people’s demands by offering a ‘solution’ that always entails more centralisation of power and erosion of our freedom.
Man Sends Audition Tape To Globalists To Be Crisis Actor in Next False Flag Hilarious Satire Skit
If you want to give more power to the police, security agencies and military, that is exactly what they want the public to ask for, then they ensure there is more crime, more violence and more terrorism, and so they increasingly get exactly what they want, ever-increasing control and power.
Once people are in fear of being attacked by terrorists, they will demand to have their freedoms taken away, to protect them from what they have been manipulated to become – ‘fearful’.
As Benjamin Franklin once so typically stated:
“Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
The 9/11 Twin Tower destruction in New York in 2001 and the Global warming meme are both classic examples of ‘Problem - Reaction - Solution’ manipulations.
Physical Control of the Global Population is Impossible:
In short it is a technique of ‘problem - reaction - solution’. Create the problem; encourage the reaction that something has to be done about, and then offer the solution, their solution. In other words:
Create chaos and then offer a solution to restore order on people’s request, a solution which serves their agenda.
The masses are herded and directed by emotional and mental control. This is the only way their rules can be implemented. However, the few elites cannot control billions of people physically, unless a large number of people are involved.
So physical control of the global population is impossible. But when you can manipulate the way people feel and think to the point that they decide to do what they want us to do, by demanding to introduce regulations that they want to have implemented, then the door is set open for Centralised Global Control, by making people believe that it is their own idea.
Consequently, humanity becomes mind-controlled.
People are Mind Controlled:
The question is not how many people are mind-controlled, but how few are not. When you believe the news stories in the media, and allow these to affect your perception of events, your mind is controlled.
The answer to freedom of thought and perception is to take your mind back to conclude and decide for yourself.
The choice of interpretations is yours and not someone else’s. Remember they always want to have your mind, because once they have it, they have you. So keep your mind objective under all circumstances.
Think for yourself and don’t allow others to think for you, and if we All do this, their Agenda will not be able to be implemented and we will keep our freedoms, it’s as simple as that. Come into action now in the interest of our children, future generations, and in our own interest.
Remember; the secret Agenda is a conspiracy of minds, of people and events to ensure that the plans of the elite are employed. They conspire to put their people into positions of power, with hidden, stringent instructions to make the agenda happen, by conspiring to create events which will make the public demand the Agenda be implemented in complete ignorance of the devastating consequences.
It is frightening that we have entered the world George Orwell envisioned and wrote about in 1984 of mass surveillance, as portrayed in the movie ‘The Truman Show’.
Stick Your New World Order Up Your Arse!
Recently numerous scandals have revealed the surveillance state of the West and put it up for show. Whistleblowers have been warning about this for years!
But saying you were right won’t help you in the long run. Now we know that the government is listening, recording, and duplicating everything we do online or over the phone, it’s time to start taking action. It’s time to take back our right to privacy.
Although we may not fear Chinese tanks rolling through our streets, make no mistake; our most basic rights are under attack: reporters are being investigated and suspended by Government officials for exposing scandals, legislation is designed to water down our privacy rights and the NSA acts like it was nothing more than a necessity to crack down on terrorists, while presenting the matter as though they have the authority to do so.
Watch the powerful explanation of Snowden; it’s a lot easier, as was put forth by him, to change this intrusion on civilisation as has been laid out in the above writing: Be objective and make up your own mind; deciding for yourself.
It means you are most likely feeling more joy than pain, and more expansion than contraction.
An Authentic Life = A Purposeful Life
Living authentically also means that you are living a life on purpose. Which is why I think living authentically is so important. You came here with a role to play, and the closer you are to living what is truest for you, the closer you will be to fulfilling that purpose.
It is in this walking out of your purpose that you will feel the greatest sense of satisfaction within your life. Which is really the whole point! The more on purpose you are, the better you will feel.
Here are ten habits of people who are living on purpose to help inspire you to step more into your truth and live a life closer to the one that you desire.
1. The Opinions of Others Don’t Not Throw Them Off Of Their Course:
There will always be people who think what you are doing is wrong. We all have conditioned ideas about how we ‘should’ behave, what kinds of things we should and should not do, what kind of jobs we should have, and so on.
Those who are living their truths will be able to listen to people around them without being thrown off course by criticism or questioning. They are tuned into their own center and that is what leads and directs them.
2. They Can Compassionately See Others Points Of View:
Those who are living in their truth can openly and honestly listen to others, and fully hear what they have to say.
They tend to be more interested in getting to know the person that they are speaking with as a unique individual, rather than needing to justify their own opinions and thoughts based on what the person they are speaking with is saying.
3. They Do Not Need Others To Agree With Them To Feel Secure:
They are happy to agree to disagree. Again they are living their lives from their internal compass, which means not everyone who they talk to has too agree with what they are doing or what they feel is the truth.
They realize that truth can be very individual and subjective, and they are OK with that.