The bald faced-lies and warped reasoning that are thinly disguised and hidden within a club sandwich that also contains some elements of truth and reference to reality; are what the 'ruling class' have arrogantly served to us, and relied upon for so long - in order to pull the wool over the eyes of what they term as the "sheeple".
But the people are becoming more and more aware that they are being lied to - that there is a thin veil, an opaque veneer of deception that exists between what they are being told and a set of hidden agendas.
The people are increasingly seeing now that they are being decieved, being fed cover stories. They are getting a sense of what is really going on with the politicians and their masters, the multinational corporatocracy.
One of the latest and most obvious examples of their shams is the TPPA - the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement.
If this agreement is really so beneficial to us all - why is it being negotiated in secret; why are the people not allowed to know what they 'rulers' are attempting to shoe-horn us into?
This section not only details the activities of the Cabal, but also positive movements countering their agendas.
We see this playing out with the recent developments with respect to the likes of Nigel Farage and Donald Trump (despite the negative spin that the Cabal-controlled mainstream media attempts to put on such developments that are in fact positive).
Four Things Globalists Think You’re Too Stupid To Understand June 11 2017 | From: Infowars / Various
An in-depth look at 'psyche' of globalists.
Most Americans by now have read or heard Infowars warn about the dangers of globalists, and the “new world order,” but the sheer amount of information can be overwhelming - and it’s easy just to throw out the information, or trust someone else to take action.
Instead of just examining the raw facts (he said, she said, time, place, date) and then hoping people connect the dots (often a maze that would make a minotaur dizzy), Infowars will provide an in-depth look at the “psyche” of globalists.
And, we will endeavor to probe the basic assumptions that guide their daily lives - rather than hem and haw at the objectively horrible things they do and say.
After reading our exposé, any Infowarrior will understand for themselves “why” globalists do what they do.
Globalists have one central goal in life: to eliminate nation-states and replace them with global institutions run remotely, without the consent of average citizens, usually by themselves.
Don’t take my word for it. Consider the remarks of David Rockefeller, preeminent globalist and master of the universe, until his death in March, 2017:
“We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications …
“It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government.
The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.”
That does not sound very democratic, does it? Globalists usually have a God-complex, believing they know what is best for approximately 9 billion people - or worse, believing the 9 billion people are irrelevant. In that sense, globalists will often “break it to rebuild it” along the lines of their worldview.
Example: Globalists want a global currency, and historically, they admit as much. So they require every nation to install a central bank, de-link their currencies from gold, and then accept hyper-inflated worthless paper as “money” until all the bubbles have popped, the world economy is vaporized and a globally-controlled monetary system replaces it.
“Order out of chaos,” or “Ordo ab chao,” is the motto of Thirty-third Degree Freemasons. America’s political ruling class is dominated by Thirty-Third Degree Freemasons, men who believe they see the “light” and are the “light-bearers” to the rest of humanity.
Chaos is where globalists think they are in control.
Maurice Strong definitely supported chaos during his life. Strong was the former chairman of the World Economic Forum (WEF), the CEO of Petro-Canada and briefly president of the U.N. Conference on Environment and Development. Strong is responsible for Agenda 21.
Strong told people 30 years ago:
"Each year, the World Economic Forum convenes in Davos, Switzerland … What if a small group of these world leaders were to conclude that the principal risk to the Earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? … Isn’t the only hope … that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
Scary? And he was in a position to do it. Globalists often work slowly and over many decades, so the switch could go at any moment.
Mega-billionaire Hungarian Nazi war criminal George Soros made similar predictions (more like his “to-do list”) in 2012.
Warning of “riots” and “brutal clampdowns,” Soros said,
“We are facing an extremely difficult time, comparable in many ways to the 1930s, the Great Depression … The worst-case scenario is a collapse of the financial system. …
“It will be an excuse for cracking down and using strong-arm tactics to maintain law and order, …a society where individual liberty is much more constrained, which would be a break with the tradition of the United States.”
The challenge as globalists see it, is for the rest of us to get out of our own way and accept their benevolent, enlightened guidance.
It may not be for a lack of effort, but most people faced with the apocalypse are usually more concerned about losing their house, food, electricity and healthcare - all of which are put in the crosshairs by stated globalist goals.
2. Heaven is a Place on Earth
Globalists believe that, irrespective of the facts, nations are the cause of all the war, famine and economic inequality in the world. It is a religious belief. Without a basic assumption that nations are bad, everything else globalists believe is impossible. “The grass is always greener,” basically.
Conversely, “Utopia” is real to globalists; it isn’t something achieved in death (as with Christians, Jews or Muslims). Utopia is the result of things done in a certain mathematical order, in a certain way - hence, the globalist obsession with “fairness” and equal distribution of resources among nations.
Example: The Paris Agreement, the Kyoto Protocol, Copenhagen - all “climate” agreements packaged and marketed to the great unwashed only several years apart from each other. America said “Hell no” to all three of these agreements, even if a president’s pen got overeager.
Every one of these alleged attempts to “fight climate change” have two things in common: First, the U.S. is the only country who is expected to take things seriously, and second, the content of the agreements has nothing whatsoever to do with climate change.
Hidden in each “climate agreement” are “taxes,” or “reparations,” and surprise, America is expected to transfer up to half its total wealth (estimates range from $300 billion to $9 trillion) to the other signatories.
“It’s the economy, stupid,” to paraphrase a raging network liberal pundit.
Copenhagen demanded America repay“adaptation debt.” This is not optional for ratifying countries. And unlike previous climate agreements, Copenhagen empowers a new U.N. council to compel rich nations to comply.
The globalists must redistribute America’s wealth to satisfy their utopian OCD. It is a zero-sum game in their minds. Making money takes money from somewhere else.
“Climate change” is economic terrorism by any other name.
3. The Ends Justify the Means
Globalists do not typically (with very few exceptions) value human life. They will use staged military conflicts and kill millions to validate their belief in world government.
Example: The “police action” in Korea was the first time American soldiers were placed under “United Nations” command, which included Soviet generals. President Truman gave Soviet military leaders copies of U.S. troop movements, and the Soviets predictably informed the North Koreans and Chinese - who slaughtered many brave young American soldiers. To what did they owe their blood and tragic end?
Truman’s Secretary of State Dean Acheson later recalled:
“The only reason I told the President to fight in Korea was to validate NATO.”
General Lin Piao, commander of the Chinese forces, would later comment:
“I never would have made the attack and risked my men and my military reputation if I had not been assured that Washington would restrain General MacArthur. …”
And war is not the only time human life is sacrificed to promote the geographical consolidation favored by globalists.
Pandemics, mass refugee migrations, and terrorist attacks targeting a nation’s collective psyche are also valuable, because they undermine the sense of safety previously associated with a national space.
Prof. Robert Pastor, “Father of the North American Union,”
“The 9/11 crisis made Canada and the United States redefine the protection of their borders. …What I’m saying is that a crisis is an event which can force democratic governments … to create a North American Community.”
The nation no longer acts as a “house” in the mind of citizens, is no longer a shelter. Something bigger must replace the inadequate, outdated nation-state, and guess who is waiting in the wings to offer a new vision? That’s right: globalists.
Example: The recent rash of semi-weekly Muslim terrorist attacks are a perfect example of globalist “crisis” politics. Governments are known to have advance knowledge of many of these attacks, and yet nothing is done to prevent them from occurring. How can this be? We find our answer in the many “global” solutions to “terrorism” heard often the day after the newest tragedy, sold in a package worthy of a used car salesman.
In short, globalists generally support anything that invalidates national borders and overwhelms public infrastructure — even if totally manufactured — in order to justify greater surrender of national control to bigger and more geographically expansive entities.
4. Bite-Sized Elephants:
“If you’re going to eat an elephant, eat it one bite at a time,” goes an old adage.
It’s definitely about the destination, not the journey, for globalists. Globalists believe in multiple paths to the finish line, as long as nations are destroyed, and an enlightened elite - presumably them - will be in charge.
Example: For this reason, globalists will even pay to create an enemy, and the former Soviet Union was the best enemy money could buy.
Lincoln P. Bloomfield, recently Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs in 2005 from a State Department paper he wrote in 1962:
“…If the communist dynamic were greatly abated, the West might lose whatever incentive it has for world government … If there were no communist menace, would anyone be worrying about the need for such a revolution in political arrangements?”
Example: In addition to manufacturing threats, globalists have an even craftier way to attack nation-states: regionalization. This is where entire groups of countries are convinced to share more and more with their neighboring countries, until a single economy, single set of institutions and shared identity replace old national identities.
Zbigniew Brzezinski, former National Security Advisor in 1995:
“We cannot leap into world govt. in one quick step … The precondition … is progressive regionalization, because thereby we can move toward larger, more stable, more cooperative units.”
Exposed: The Nazi Roots Of The European Union June 10 2017 | From: JonRappoport
This is an intelligence briefing. Here I present the bare bones of what has been happening before our eyes… if we would see it.
Once upon a time, there was an industrial combine in Nazi Germany called IG Farben. It was the largest chemical/pharmaceutical octopus in the world. It owned companies, and it had favorable business agreements with companies from England to Central America to Japan.
The author of The Devil’s Chemists, Josiah DuBois, traveled to Guatemala, on a fact-finding mission, in the early days of World War 2, and returned with the comment that, as far as he could tell, Guatemala was “a wholly owned subsidiary of Farben.”
The pharmaceutical empire was and is one of the major forces behind the European Union (EU). It is no accident that these drug corporations wield such power. They aren’t only involved in controlling the medical cartel; they are political planners.
This is how and why Big Pharma fits so closely with what is loosely referred to as the New World Order. The aim of enrolling every human in a cradle-to-grave system of disease diagnosis and toxic drug treatment has a larger purpose: to debilitate, to weaken populations.
This is a political goal. It facilitates control.
IG Farben’s main component companies, at the outbreak of World War 2, were Bayer, BASF, and Hoechst. They were chemical and drug companies. Farben put Hitler over the top in Germany as head of State, and the war was designed to lead to a united Europe that would be dominated by the Farben nexus.
The loss of the war didn’t derail that plan. It was shifted into an economic blueprint, which became, eventually, the European Union.
The European Commission’s first president was Walter Hallstein, the Nazi lawyer who, during the war, had been in charge of post-war legal planning for the new Europe.
As the Rath Foundation reports: In 1939, on the brink of the war, Hallstein had stated, “The creation of the New Law [of the Nazis] is ONLY the task of the law-makers!”
In 1957, with his reputation sanitized, Hallstein spoke the words in this manner: “The European Commission has full and unlimited power for all decisions related to the architecture of this European community.”
Post-war, IG Farben was broken up into separate companies, but those companies (Bayer, Hoechst, and BASF) came roaring back, attaining new profit highs.
In 1992, I was deeply engaged in researching the specific devastating effects of medical drugs. Eventually, I concluded that, at the highest levels of power, these drugs weren’t destructive by accident. They were intended to cause harm.
This was covert chemical warfare against the population of the planet. The Rockefeller-Standard Oil-Farben connection was a primary piece of the puzzle.
It was, of course, Rockefeller (and Carnegie) power that had forced the birth of pharmaceutical medicine in America, with the publication of the 1910 Flexner Report. The Report was used to excoriate and marginalize Chiropractic, Homeopathy, Naturopathy, and other forms of traditional natural practice, in favor of what would become the modern juggernaut of drug-based treatment.
The FDA knows these death figures. “Unintended” and “accidental” can no longer be applied to this ongoing holocaust.
The pharmaceutical industry itself also knows those death figures.
To understand the dimensions and history of the ongoing chemical warfare against the population, in the form of medical drugs (and of course pesticides), one must factor in the original octopus, IG Farben.
World War 2 never ended. It simply shifted its strategies.
In any fascist system, the bulk of the people working inside the system, including scientists, refuse to believe the evidence of what is happening before their own eyes. They insist they are doing good.
They believe they are on the right side. They see greater top-down control as necessary and correct. They adduce “reasonable” explanations for inflicted harm and death.
World War 2 is still underway. The battleground has been changed, and the means are far cleverer.
Sun Tzu wrote: “Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy’s resistance without fighting… The best victory is when the opponent surrenders of its own accord before there are any actual hostilities…It is best to win without fighting.”
This is what has been happening: invisible warfare.
The Death Throws Of The Cabal June 9 2017 | From: Farouk
Everybody seems anxious at this time to figure out what is really going on in our precious world. This is my understanding that may add some enlightenment and hope to calm your fears.
It is important to understand that the fear-based debt slavery system is reaching its termination primarily because large segments of the global population are awakening to the obvious fraud that this system is based upon, particularly those people that are the financed enforcers (military, police, courts).
The last throws of this Cabal entrenched system are now seen in their funded riots, murders of anyone that can expose the truth, street violence and any attempt to start WW3.
The collapse is based on the difference between “REAL” versus “FAKE”. The entire corporate world is based on fake entities being given “so called” legal status over FAKE PEOPLE (names in capital letters).
This has created FAKE PAPER WEALTH and allowed the Western financial Cabal to rape the rest of the world by giving cheap paper for real goods and services. That is now coming to an end as more and more people are refusing to take inflated colored paper and are demanding real “trade” versus “commerce”.
The Western financial Cabal through their voting control of the UN/IMF/BIS, Rothschild’s controlled Central Banks and Incorporated Country Government’s Finance Ministers are now attempting to kick the can down the road by making the IMF’s Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) the new Global Currency (of enslavement). This is nothing more than ass-wipe paper.
To counter this Western move has been the creation of the BRICS alliance, Asian International Investment Bank (AIIB) and the CHIPS financial transfer system.
This is basically a mirror system to the Western financial system but with “gold” backing and Eastern control. This is still a system of financial commerce but in effect it levels the financial playing field by throwing a financial monkey wrench into the IMF’s scam.
So the current situation is one of a stand-off between two teams, one with tons of colored paper and the other with gold bricks. This can only result in an eventual global revaluation of all currencies.
But before this can happen, several things have to happen. Firstly, the US has to asset-back its currency. The problem there is that 80+% of Federal Reserve US Dollar Notes are held overseas as commercial deposits and Central Bank reserves and used to finance international commerce.
The bigger problem is that the FED has no collateral backing, is not part of the US Government (as it is a foreign owned bank) and thus the paper or digits are essentially worthless. Ouch! The whole World economy feels that pinch.
So the bigger problem is that the whole World doesn’t want to see their Dollars devalued and pay for the con job that was perpetrated on them. So how do you keep the US Dollar from collapsing?
The simple financial trick is to split the domestic USD (FED Notes) from the Internationally held commerce US Dollars, then set up a new International Institution backed by gold to swap the international US Dollars for a Universal Global Currency.
That, of course, will collapse the FED and the US Treasury will then have to issue new Treasury notes. It also means that the US will lose control of global trade and its new Treasury currency will then be traded as any other currency and no longer be a reserve currency.
This also means that the IMF and BIS will also collapse as no one wants to put any more gold into these corrupt institutions, particularly those that have millions of tons in Asian bunkers and have been prevented from using this collateral to help mankind.
This means that the new International Financial Control Institution will be primarily funded by the fire breathing Dragons of the East who have the gold and will be willing to swap old FED paper for a new gold backed certificate. The old FED Dollars will then be used as a proprietary claim and lien against the owners and assets of the FED which will effective foreclose them all.
That is the game play, but there are still many hurdles to overcome and pitfalls to circumvent. China, for example, is a key cog in this wheel. Their Rothschild proxy, #2 Mr. Wang is bidding to overthrow Mr. Xi in the upcoming elections, and if that happens China will be in a bigger mess and this would delay any international financial readjustments. Expect funded uprisings there.
Similarly old Hades and LeGarde are desperately trying to defend the IMF and its claims to being THE ONLY INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL INSTITUTION. That is a phony tale and it is time to strip away their international immunity. Fraud is illegal globally - like it or not!
We do expect a Win-Win outcome, especially with world leaders like Trump, Putin and Xi and fire breathing Dragons backing Neil Keenan and Group-K. Change is coming. There will be a better world.
And in the end, none of this will matter at all when replicator technologies are released or some idiots crack our world in have with advanced weapons. Then what?
Trump Launches Operation 1776
Alex Jones calls out the LEFT for giving in to Jihadist terrorists and trying to bring trump down because he is the real deal. Fake liberals hate America and can’t stand for what it stands for.
They can’t stand the fact that president Trump is bringing back populism like never before and it has the libtards running scared!
The Vision Of Technocracy June 8 2017 | From: JonRappoport “Well, boys, we’ve got this strange thing called THE INDIVIDUAL. Could somebody tell me what he is? He’s not conforming to our algorithms. He’s all over the place. And while we’re at it, what the hell is this IMAGINATION? It keeps slipping out of our grasp, it doesn’t fit the plan…”
Technocrats say they want to wipe out poverty, war, and inequality. But in order to achieve these lofty goals (or pretend to), they need to re-program humans.
Technocracy is the basic agenda and plan for ruling global society from above, so we need to understand it from several angles.
Consider a group of enthusiastic forward-looking engineers in the early 20th century. They work for a company that has a contract to manufacture a locomotive. This is a highly complex piece of equipment.
On one level, workers are required to make the components to spec. Then they must put them all together. These tasks are formidable. On another level, various departments of the company must coordinate their efforts. This is also viewed as a technological job. Organizing is considered a technology.
When the locomotive is finished and delivered, and when it runs on its tracks and pulls a train, a great and inspiring victory is won.
And then…the engineers begin to think about the implications. Suppose the locomotive was society itself? Suppose society was the finished product? Couldn’t society be put together in a coordinated fashion? And couldn’t the “technology of organizing things” be utilized for the job?
Why bother with endlessly arguing and lying politicians? Why should they be in charge? Isn’t that an obvious losing proposition? Of course it is.
Engineers could lay out and build a future society that would benefit all people. Disease and poverty could be wiped out. Eliminating them would be part of the blueprint.
This “insight” hit engineers and technicians like a ton of bricks. Of course! All societies had been failures for the same reason: the wrong people were in charge.
Armed with this new understanding, engineers of every stripe began to see what was needed. A revolution in thinking about societal organization. Science was the new king. And science would rule.
Of course, for an engineered world to work, certain decisions would have to be made about the role of the individual. Every individual. You couldn’t have an air-tight plan if every human were free to pursue his own objectives. Too many variables. Too much confusion. Too much conflict. Well, that problem could be solved. The individual’s actions would be tailored to fit the coordinated operations of the planned society.
The individual would be “one of the components of the locomotive.” His life would be connected to other lives to produce an exemplary shape.
Yes, this could imply a few problems, but those problems could be worked out. They would have to be worked out, because the overriding goal was the forming of a world organization. What would you do if one bolt (an individual human) in one wheel of a locomotive was the wrong size? You would go back and correct the error. You would re-make the bolt.
Among technocrats, the overall vision superseded the glaring need to “remake” individuals who would fit in. It was perfectly all right to re-program the individual.
Other people entered the game. High-echelon Globalists saw technocracy as a system they could use to control the population. Essentially, an already-misguided vision of a future technocratic utopia was hijacked. Something bad was made much worse.
In a nutshell, this is the history of technocracy. A locomotive is a society? No. That was the first fatally flawed idea. Everything that followed was increasingly bizarre.
Unfortunately, many people in our world believe in Globalism, if you could call a partial vague view a legitimate belief. They dreamily float on all the propaganda cover stories - greatest good for the greatest number of people; no more poverty; equality of sharing; reducing the carbon footprint; a green economy; “sustainable development”; international cooperation; engineering production and consumption of goods and services for the betterment of everyone; and all of this delivered from a central platform of altruistic guidance.
If you track down the specifics that sit under these cover stories, you discover a warped system of planning that expresses control over the global population. The collective utopia turns out to be a sham. Waking up is hard to do? Breaking up is hard to do? They must be done.
A workable technological fix is a very nice achievement when the project is a machine. But transferring that glow of victory to the whole of society is an illusion. Anything that calls itself education would tackle the illusion as the first order of business.
Engineering society requires engineering humans. That is the fatal flaw. It’s called mind control. Any genuine artist, any builder of communities, any sane activist, any honorable visionary stands outside technocracy, and is not part of this program. Instead, his thrust is toward more individual freedom and a more open society with greater decentralization of power.
Decentralization is the key.
The use of technology does not imply living inside its control. The use of technology does not imply that society should be laid out like a giant machine with fitted parts.
Those futurists who have offered “overall plans” for the disposition of society generally ignore or sidestep the issue of who is going to administer the plan. To say this is an error is a vast understatement.
Where is one far-reaching center of power in our world that would run society with a primary concern for the freedom of the individual?
We are looking at an inherent contradiction. All such centers of power are, first and foremost, dedicated to their own survival. And after that, they are dedicated to control of the territory they believe they own. THE INDIVIDUAL is a messy thing that needs to be sidelined or dealt with as a disruptive element.
I speak to those people who understand that the idea of the free, independent, powerful, and creative individual is being sidelined, shelved, sent down the memory hole. This is no accident. This isn’t just a devolutionary trend. Technocrats see this as a necessary action, in order to “clean up” their equation for the civilization they’re building. The individual is a slippery variable that throws a monkey wrench into formulas.
Imagination never dies. It belongs to the individual. It isn’t property of the group. It enables solutions that eradicate problems and get out ahead of problems before they raise their heads.
Time and time again, the individual, as he wends his way through life, encounters persons and organizations that consider imagination a negative. In the clearly defined shapes of society, imagination must take a back seat to planning.
Is the individual resistant to such manipulations, or does he give in? This is the key question.
Does the individual view society as an operation that can potentially lift up individuals and empower them? Or does he give in to the idea that society should create more and more dependent people?
The individual can be a source of spreading freedom, or he can defend the notion that there are an endless number of “entitlements” that must be honored.
Technocracy promotes entitlements as a doorway into the future. Its ultimate entitlement goes this way: you have the right to be re-programmed to believe you have a slot in the future world; we will make this slot as attractive as possible; you will serve the overall good as we engineer it.
That is the fundamental justification for the Welfare State. It’s the justification for a future technocratic policy which will assign citizens energy quotas. A citizen would be permitted to consume a set amount of energy in a given time period. (So-called smart meters are a step in that direction. The meters enable more specific measurements of energy consumption.)
This is how technocracy imagines the future…
Shaping The Future: Israel Tutors Its Children In Fear And Loathing June 8 2017 | From: Sott
A display of Israeli-style community policing before an audience of hundreds of young schoolchildren was captured on video last week. Were the 10-year-olds offered road safety tips, advice on what to do if they got lost, or how to report someone suspicion hanging around the school?
No. In Israel, they do things differently. The video shows four officers staging a mock anti-terror operation in a park close to Tel Aviv. The team roar in on motorbikes, firing their rifles at the "terrorist".
As he lies badly wounded, the officers empty their magazines into him from close range. In Israel it is known as "confirming the kill". Everywhere else it is called an extrajudicial execution or murder. The children can be heard clapping.
It was an uncomfortable reminder of a near-identical execution captured on film last year. A young army medic, Elor Azaria, is seen shooting a bullet into the head of an incapacitated Palestinian in Hebron. A military court sentenced him to 18 months for manslaughter in February.
There has been little sign of soul-searching since. Most Israelis, including government officials, call Azaria a hero. In the recent religious festival of Purim, dressing up as Azaria was a favorite among children.
There is plenty of evidence that Israel's security services are still regularly executing real Palestinians.
The Israeli human rights group B'Tselem denounced the killing last week of a 16-year-old Jerusalem schoolgirl, FatimaHjeiji, in a hail of bullets. She had frozen to the spot after pulling out a knife some distance from a police checkpoint. She posed no threat, concluded B'Tselem, and did not need to be killed.
The police were unrepentant about their staged execution, calling it "a positive, empowering" demonstration for the youngsters. The event was hardly exceptional.
In communities across Israel this month, the army celebrated Israel's Independence Day by bringing along its usual "attractions" - tanks, guns and grenades - for children to play with, while families watched army dogs siccing yet more "terrorists".
In a West Bank settlement, meanwhile, the army painted youngsters' arms and legs with shrapnel wounds. Blood-like liquid dripped convincingly from dummies with amputated limbs. The army said the event was a standard one that "many families enjoyed".
The purpose of exposing children at an impressionable age to so much gore and killing is not hard to divine. It creates traumatised children, distrustful and fearful of anyone outside their tribe. That way they become more pliant soldiers, trigger-happy as they rule over Palestinians in the occupied territories.
A few educators have started to sense they are complicit in this emotional and mental abuse.
Holocaust Memorial Day, marked in Israeli schools last month, largely avoids universal messages, such as that we must recognise the humanity of others and stand up for the oppressed. Instead, pupils as young as three are told the Holocaust serves as a warning to be eternally vigilant - that Israel and its strong army are the only things preventing another genocide by non-Jews.
Last year Zeev Degani, principal of one Israel's most prestigious schools, caused a furor when he announced his school would no longer send pupils on annual trips to Auschwitz. This is a rite of passage for Israeli pupils. He called the misuse of the Holocaust "pathological" and intended to "generate fear and hatred" to inculcate extreme nationalism.
It is not by accident that these trips - imparting the message that a strong army is vital to Israel's survival - take place just before teenagers begin a three-year military draft.
Increasingly, they receive no alternative messages in school. Degani was among the few principals who had been inviting Breaking the Silence, a group of whistle-blowing soldiers, to discuss their part in committing war crimes.
In response, the education minister, Naftali Bennett, leader of the settlers' party, has barred dissident groups like Breaking the Silence. He has also banned books and theatre trips that might encourage greater empathy with those outside the tribe.
Polls show this is paying off. Schoolchildren are even more ultra-nationalist than their parents. More than four-fifths think there is no hope of peace with the Palestinians.
But these cultivated attitudes don't just sabotage peacemaking. They also damage any chance of Israeli Jews living peacefully with the large minority of Palestinian citizens in their midst.
Half of Jewish schoolchildren believe these Palestinians, one in five of the population, should not be allowed to vote in elections. This month the defence minister, Avigdor Lieberman, called the minority's representatives in parliament "Nazis" and suggested they should share a similar fate.
This extreme chauvinism was translated last week into legislation that defines Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people around the world, not its citizens. The Palestinian minority are effectively turned into little more than resident aliens in their own homeland.
Degani and others are losing the battle to educate for peace and reconciliation. If a society's future lies with its children, the outlook for Israelis and Palestinians is bleak indeed.
Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His latest books are Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East (Pluto Press) and Disappearing Palestine: Israel's Experiments in Human Despair (Zed Books).
Three Questions You’re Not Supposed To Ask About Life In A Sick Society June 7 2017 | From: WakingTimes “It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.” - J. Krishnamurti
Society is directed by a never-ending mainstream narrative which is always evolving, and always reaching new dramatic peaks in sensationalism and hype. They fill your mind with topics they select, they keep your attention on these topics, and they invite and encourage you to argue amongst each other about these topics.
In this way our collective attention is permanently commandeered, preventing us from diving too deeply into matters which have more than a superficial impact on day-today life.
Free-thinking is the ability and willingness to explore of ideas and areas of the mind which are yet undiscovered or are off-limits. It is a vanishing art that is deliberately being stamped out by a control system which demands conformity, acquiescence and obedience of body, mind, and spirit.
For your consideration, here are three questions you’re not supposed to ask about life in our profoundly sick society.
1. Who Owns the Money Supply, and the World’s Debt?
Pretty much the entire world is in financial debt, an insidious form of slavery which enables the exploitation of human beings and of all things in nature. It’s maddening when you think about it. The United States alone supposedly owes some $20 trillion, while the world at large owes a shocking $215 trillion?
Money is just a medium of exchange which facilitates transactions between people. In and of itself it has no intrinsic value as we could just as easily use sea shells instead of dollar bills and still be able to get things done.
But today’s money is the property of private third-parties who rent it out to national governments, who then use the labor of their citizens as collateral against these loans. This is a highly refined form of slavery, which has already put future unborn generations of human beings in debt.
Ownership means having the explicit right to use, control and dispose of something in the manner of your choosing. The one thing you are born with that you take with you to your death is your own body, but do you own it? If not you, then who does own your body?
If this question were already settled in our society then there wouldn’t be ever-increasing pressure on those who choose to refuse vaccines. Children battling cancer and other serious illnesses wouldn’t be forced to take chemo and radiation under penalty of law and under threat of being taken from their parents.
We are rapidly approaching a time when people will be required by law to take psychotropic medications as citizens were in Aldous Huxley’s dystopian classic, Brave New World.
Do you own your body, or does it belong to the state?
3. Why is the Exploration of Consciousness Restricted and Illegal?
The most effective prisons are not material, but are constructed inside the mind. Perception, opinion and understanding are all dynamic concepts, not at all static.
These can all change in the blink of an eye just because a new idea or experience resonates with you in a special way. Our evolution depends on our ability to expand the frontiers of what’s possible, and when the mind is held in confinement by an entrenched system and powerful cultural paradigm, progress, even happiness, is stunted.
"This is the way freedom is hijacked - not all at once, out in the open, but stealthily, little by little, behind closed doors, and with our own agreement.
How will we be able to resist when so many of us have already willingly handed over the keys to our own consciousness to the state and accepted without protest that it is OK to be told what we may and may not do, what we may and may not explore, even what we may and may not experience, with this most precious, sapient, unique, and individual part of ourselves?
If we are willing to accept that then we can be persuaded to accept anything.”
To honour a man under whose watch we’ve descended to 41K homeless, and 3rd highest in child poverty in the world’s developed nations, who is very happy to tax himself & his ilk 2.8% while those in the poverty stats are taxed a whole 28% nearly a third of their income … all makes a hollow farce of the knighthoods in my opinion.
You will find this barrister on facebook, consider connecting with him and finding out more truth on this corrupt nation.
And as for honouring former Mayor Duffy, under whose watch we in the Horowhenua heard whistleblowers telling us how he coerced councillors to vote as ‘expected’, and who displays total disrespect for tangata whenua (see our Local Gov Watch pages / Horowhenua for more info on those issues). Such is the rot now in our once democratic nation. Wake up folks & see what’s really happening.
We were reminded not so long ago by the Greens of Key’s real legacy.
Gareth Hughes on the Prime Minister's PoorLeadership
“Your desperate, lumbering, grasping attempt at building a legacy with a flag won’t mask the realities.
Hungry kids up
Housing costs up
Electricity costs up
Foreign ownership up
Once you may have been a national leader but now you look like just a National Party leader.” Read More of transcript or watch the video.
And not so long ago UNICEF declared we were third on the list for highest child poverty in the developed world. If you go to their website they’re actually pondering on how to solve this!
And the powers that be have just honoured the leader under whose watch this has developed! Join the dots people.
This is not normal. It’s not right. And they are wanting you to honour Key right along with them, in the hope you won’t notice it’s not right.
"A car, a garage, a motel room or boarding house is not a home.
No child should grow up in one.
Please make housing a priority when you cast your vote this year.”
Watch Bruce’s award winning documentary to remind you how this state of affairs developed. No, not the result of lazy parents (those ones who are taxed 28% if they manage to find a job, and another 33% if they should manage to find a second job as many do – while corporations pay almost no tax) it is a faulty neo lib economic set up that never intended for those aforementioned parents to win.
Trickle down is a scam.
Mind The Gap
Award winning documentary maker Bryan Bruce investigates the failure of Neo-liberal economics in New Zealand and what we could do about it. Mind The Gap won Gold at the 2014 New York International Film and Television Awards.
Finally (and there are actually more issues I haven’t touched on like NZ’s very high suicide rate) – with our 41K homeless, a reminder that in Auckland 33K homes sit empty, owned by people who don’t even live here, while the Nats have been hocking off all the State Homes our predecessors built with blood sweat and tears after the bankers wars they fought in.
The rationale for selling has been to pay off debt, whilst, as Bryan Bruce points out in our article links above, the Housing Corporation was operating at a profit. These people lie to us without even blinking.
So Key has a knighthood that in my opinion means absolutely nothing, in fact it is a damning reflection on the state of our once democratic nation that is now wholly sold out to the banking fraternity that is slowly but surely entwining the entire planet into its plan of global governance aka new world order, aka Agenda 21 / 2030 that really aims to inventory and control all land and resources on the planet.
(Reference; Treasury data between 2008-2016 Statistics NZ data 2008-2016 Reserve Bank data 2008-2016 Auckland City pollution data 2008-2016 Wellington City pollution records 2008-2016 Queenstown City Council records 2008-2016 )
Between 2008- 2016:
The greatest increase in Population In NZ’s history. from 4.2 million in 2008 to 4.7 million today (500,000 people)
Mortgage debt res $247.5 billion record high, 28 % increase in last 5 years
Consumer debt $ 15.4 billion, 16 % increase in last 5 years
Business debt, $91.34 billion
Agriculture debt, $59.42 billion, record high
Govt debt $ 112 billion Nov 2016
( all figures from Statistics NZ, Reserve Bank, Treasury)
500 000 extra people over the last 8 years, not one new hospital and the longest elective surgery wait lists in years.
Between2008-2015 no extra funding for Police. Fewer Police per capita pre-Key to post- Key
36 million dollars taken out of DOC’s budget ( 2015 ) to pay for the costs of Immigration.
Massive blowout in Corrections budget to pay for Prisons, 40 million dollars.
Massive growth costs in Roading, Schooling, Health, Pensions, and Government Bureaucracy.
More competition for our Fisheries.
More demand /competition for our fresh water resources.
More vehicles registered than ever in our history, over an 8 year period.
Record environmental damage ( air pollution, landfill waste )recorded by councils in a number of main centres. Auckland, Wellington, Hamilton Queenstown.
Enormous congestion problems now encountered in some of the main centres.
What You’re Not Being Told About The Paris Climate Agreement June 6 2017 | From: TheAntiMedia
President Trump’s decision to withdraw the United States from the Paris Climate Accord has thrown the world into a blazing furnace full of weeping and gnashing of teeth - or the political world, at least, has been thrown into a fiery tizzy.
Former President Barack Obama broke his silence, saying, in part, that with this decision the Trump administration “joins a small handful of nations that reject the future.”
Former Secretary of State John Kerry lambasted Trump’s decision as:
"An ignorant, cynical appeal to an anti-science, special-interest faction,” as well as saying, “This choice will rightly be remembered as one of the most shameful any president has made.”
And the list goes on and on and on. To hear these people talk, apparently, the human race can only progress into the future and create new industries and technologies if we are flogged into it begrudgingly by our ‘wise’ government and corporate leaders.
Are we really ready to presume what human society will look like several decades from now? Are we seriously expected to believe that government action is the only way to tackle the problem of climate change?
If we fail to use the heavy hand of government to brave the future, why should we assume the human race will fail to innovate and adapt to complex challenges on its own?
Imagine, if you will, a world where you cannot turn to governments to solve problems such as climate change. How would you achieve your righteous ends? Would you simply do nothing if you could not turn to government?
I ask because too often, noble goals serve as a Trojan horse for political control.
Governments often present us with grand solutions as gifts for our real and perceived problems, but once inside the gates, they proceed to saddle our communities with a slew of regulations, mandates, taxes, diktats, quotas, subsidies, penalties and the like. The cursed gift of government, it seems, is always a central plan that conflates voluntary cooperation, collective action, and even community itselfwith centralized political control.
But we do not need the trappings of central planning to solve our collective problems. Society can run itself, thank you very much; it needs no single creator or director.
Society already has great gifts for solving complex human issues - individual liberty, initiative, and ingenuity, along with the free and open exchange of goods and ideas - and we need not sacrifice these liberal benefactors of the modern world to dream impossible dreams and fight unbeatable foes.
The greatest achievements of the human race have not come from government committees and accords, but from intrepid yet everyday individuals working in concert to tackle the unknown and implacable through innovation and persuasion.
Yet, rather than allowing people to freely choose and coordinate their own plans in our common struggle against nature, too many people first brand other people as the problem.
Too many would rather rely on commanding and controlling others to fix humanity’s wicked problems than freely solve the problem themselves. Too many conflate the government’s failure to act as society signaling we are resigned to do nothing - thus, the weeping and gnashing of teeth over Donald Trump’s recent decision.
I find all the hysterics and tears of hubris laughable. This mindset deserves to be mocked for its lack of imagination and obsequious acceptance of corporate cronyism and global governance as the only path to the future; it deserves to be mocked for claiming the singular appearance of “doing something” (without much effect) is better than actually tackling the problem from many different directions.
It deserves to be mocked even on environmental activist grounds as a list of empty promises and half-measures, as a perversion of the cause, just as a free trader may mock NAFTA or an anti-war activist may mock Barack Obama receiving the Nobel Peace Prize; and it deserves to be mocked for how little it respects the ability of average people to change their station and adapt to the changing world on their own without the pretentious prodding of government leaders.
I’m willing to bet the existence of the entire human race that without the Paris Climate Accord, we will rise to meet the challenge of climate change successfully.
Further, if we would shrink government generally - i.e. give average people the freedom to think and trade as they wish in the energy sector or any other industry - then by the accord’s own target year of 2100, the market (which is simply free people trading and producing as they wish based on their own enlightenment) will have reduced carbon emissions and given us new technologies beyond the wildest dreams of those now bemoaning the U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord.
In fact, the U.S. clean energy sector has grown leaps and bounds in only the last few years despite the lack of a robust central plan. Coal is already giving way to cleaner forms of energy and will continue to do so no matter what Donald Trump promises the miners of West Virginia.
And the fact that there is this burgeoning clean energy industry does not mean we should engage in crony capitalism and wealth redistribution between nations to “prime the pump.” Picking winners and losers in the clean energy sector is just as bad as doing so in any other sector (including the fossil fuels industry.)
No, if we wish to solve the climate change problem, I suggest we try, first and foremost, tocreate products and services that will actually make people’s lives better immediately rather than imposing immense costs upfront with no clear time horizon wherein we reap the benefits.
Just as one need not convince people of evolution before they take vaccines or life-saving drugs, there’s no need to convince people of the science of climate change if you can sell them a better, cheaper, cleaner, and more practical way to power their lives. Shaming, lecturing, and trying to control people’s behavior through the political process for unclear results and opaque benefits is not serving this cause well, as sound as the science and as noble as the cause may be.
Ironically enough, Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris accord may very well usher in a new era of initiative absent the federal government. After Trump’s decision, many industry leaders, mayors, and governors pledged to pursue solutions to climate change absent the federal government.
As the CEO of General Electric Jeff Immelt tweeted;
"Climate change is real. Industry must now lead and not depend on government.”
That’s the spirit, Jeff, but my only question is: what the hell have you been waiting for?
Industry and the people of the United States should have been saying this long ago. It’s time to stop looking to central governments and global committees - whether the issue is climate change or poverty or education or whatever - to make our world a better place.
The time for us to pursue the future ourselves is long overdue, and it would be a shame to sell ourselves and the future short because we’re too busy bickering over political power.
The Collapse Of France June 4 2017 | From: PaulCraigRoberts / Various
The brainwashed and insouciant French electorate has voted to abolish the French nation. In five years France will exist only as a geographical location, a province in “Europe,” itself a province in global capitalism.
The French had a last chance to save their nation, but they could not do it because the French have been convinced that to be French is to be fascist and racist.
Therefore, the French electorate defeated Marine Le Pen, the leader of the only political party that stands for France.
After five years under Macron, nothing will be left of France. Macron, the choice of Washington and the international bankers, represents, in the words of Diana Johnstone:
“The trans-Atlantic elite totally committed to ‘globalization,’ using whatever is left of the power of national governments to weaken them still further, turning over decision-making to ‘the markets’ - that is, to international capital managed by the major banks and financial institutions, notably those located in the United States, such as Goldman-Sachs.”
Macron defines himself as a “diversityite,” declaring that “there is no such thing as French culture.” Macron’s Minister of Armies and Defense declares that she “does not feel French.”
Macron follows the Russophobic line of the American neoconservatives, and rode to his inauguration in a military vehicle.
It is unclear why Putin went to France to meet today with Macron, who is totally in Washington’s pocket. Perhaps the Russian government believes that the terror attacks in France are real and hopes to finally convince one Western government to join Russia in “the war against terrorists.”
Or perhaps Putin wanted to see if Macron has any awareness of the conflict with Russia toward which Washington is pushing Europe.
Perhaps Macron’s invitation to Putin was Washington’s suggestion, the purpose of which is to keep Putin ever hopeful of Western cooperation while Washington finalizes its attack plan.
Only two countries stand in the way of Washington’s world hegemony: Russia and China. Of the two obstacles, Russia is perceived as the largest constraint on US unilateralism. Europe is dependent on Russian energy, and Russia’s nuclear weapons systems are highly advanced.
The fact that Russia’s national sovereignty depends so much on Putin’s leadership makes Russia the most vulnerable to Washington’s intrigue. Putin can be removed by assassination. But China’s leadership cannot, because it is collective.
There is democracy within the ruling Chinese political party. Washington’s focus on China is to discredit the ruling party by using US financed organizations within China for this purpose.
Washington is driving the world into a major conflict. The Russian and Chinese governments must know by now that they are targeted. As their hopes for diplomacy continue to be rebuffed by Washington and Europe, they will reach the conclusion that their only choice is surrender or war.
Comment: It's important to note that Mr. Roberts is not aware of the existence of the Allicance that is working to take down the cabal.
Getting Assange: The Untold Story June 3 2017 | From: Sott
Julian Assange has been vindicated because the Swedish case against him was corrupt. The prosecutor, Marianne Ny, obstructed justice and should be prosecuted.
Her obsession with Assange not only embarrassed her colleagues and the judiciary but exposed the Swedish state's collusion with the United States in its crimes of war and "rendition".
Had Assange not sought refuge in the Ecuadorean embassy in London, he would have been on his way to the kind of American torture pit Chelsea Manning had to endure.
This prospect was obscured by the grim farce played out in Sweden.
“It's a laughing stock," said James Catlin, one of Assange's Australian lawyers. "It is as if they make it up as they go along".
It may have seemed that way, but there was always serious purpose. In 2008, a secret Pentagon document prepared by the "Cyber Counterintelligence Assessments Branch" foretold a detailed plan to discredit WikiLeaks and smear Assange personally.
The "mission" was to destroy the "trust" that was WikiLeaks' "centre of gravity". This would be achieved with threats of "exposure [and] criminal prosecution".Silencing and criminalizing such an unpredictable source of truth-telling was the aim.
Perhaps this was understandable. WikiLeaks has exposed the way America dominates much of human affairs, including its epic crimes, especially in Afghanistan and Iraq: the wholesale, often homicidal killing of civilians and the contempt for sovereignty and international law.
These disclosures are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution. As a presidential candidate in 2008, Barack Obama, a professor of constitutional law, lauded whistle blowers as "part of a healthy democracy [and they] must be protected from reprisal".
In 2012, the Obama campaign boasted on its website that Obama had prosecuted more whistle blowers in his first term than all other US presidents combined. Before Chelsea Manning had even received a trial, Obama had publicly pronounced her guilty.
Few serious observers doubt that should the US get their hands on Assange, a similar fate awaits him. According to documents released by Edward Snowden, he is on a "Manhunt target list".
Threats of his kidnapping and assassination became almost political and media currency in the US following then Vice-President Joe Biden's preposterous slur that the WikiLeaks founder was a "cyber-terrorist".
Hillary Clinton, the destroyer of Libya and, as WikiLeaks revealed last year, the secret supporter and personal beneficiary of forces underwriting ISIS, proposed her own expedient solution: "Can't we just drone this guy?"
According to Australian diplomatic cables, Washington's bid to get Assange is "unprecedented in scale and nature". In Alexandria, Virginia, a secret grand jury has sought for almost seven years to contrive a crime for which Assange can be prosecuted. This is not easy.
The First Amendment protects publishers, journalists and whistle blowers, whether it is the editor of the New York Times or the editor of WikiLeaks. The very notion of free speech is described as America's "founding virtue" or, as Thomas Jefferson called it, "our currency".
Faced with this hurdle, the US Justice Department has contrived charges of "espionage", "conspiracy to commit espionage", "conversion" (theft of government property), "computer fraud and abuse" (computer hacking) and general "conspiracy". The favoured Espionage Act, which was meant to deter pacifists and conscientious objectors during World War One, has provisions for life imprisonment and the death penalty.
Assange's ability to defend himself in such a Kafkaesque world has been severely limited by the US declaring his case a state secret. In 2015, a federal court in Washington blocked the release of all information about the "national security" investigation against WikiLeaks, because it was "active and ongoing" and would harm the "pending prosecution" of Assange.
The judge, Barbara J. Rothstein, said it was necessary to show "appropriate deference to the executive in matters of national security". This is a kangaroo court.
For Assange, his trial has been trial by media. On August 20, 2010, when the Swedish police opened a "rape investigation", they coordinated it, unlawfully, with the Stockholm tabloids. The front pages said Assange had been accused of the "rape of two women". The word "rape" can have a very different legal meaning in Sweden than in Britain; a pernicious false reality became the news that went round the world.
Less than 24 hours later, the Stockholm Chief Prosecutor, Eva Finne, took over the investigation. She wasted no time in cancelling the arrest warrant, saying:
“I don't believe there is any reason to suspect that he has committed rape." Four days later, she dismissed the rape investigation altogether, saying, "There is no suspicion of any crime whatsoever."
Enter Claes Borgstrom, a highly contentious figure in the Social Democratic Party then standing as a candidate in Sweden's imminent general election. Within days of the chief prosecutor's dismissal of the case, Borgstrom, a lawyer, announced to the media that he was representing the two women and had sought a different prosecutor in Gothenberg. This was Marianne Ny, whom Borgstrom knew well, personally and politically.
On 30 August, Assange attended a police station in Stockholm voluntarily and answered the questions put to him. He understood that was the end of the matter. Two days later, Ny announced she was re-opening the case.
At a press conference, Borgstrom was asked by a Swedish reporter why the case was proceeding when it had already been dismissed. The reporter cited one of the women as saying she had not been raped. He replied, "Ah, but she is not a lawyer."
On the day that Marianne Ny reactivated the case, the head of Sweden's military intelligence service - which has the acronym MUST - publicly denounced WikiLeaks in an article entitled "WikiLeaks [is] a threat to our soldiers [under US command in Afghanistan]".
Both the Swedish prime minister and foreign minister attacked Assange, who had been charged with no crime. Assange was warned that the Swedish intelligence service, SAPO, had been told by its US counterparts that US-Sweden intelligence-sharing arrangements would be "cut off" if Sweden sheltered him.
For five weeks, Assange waited in Sweden for the renewed "rape investigation" to take its course. The Guardian was then on the brink of publishing the Iraq "War Logs", based on WikiLeaks' disclosures, which Assange was to oversee in London.
Finally, he was allowed him to leave. As soon as he had left, Marianne Ny issued a European Arrest Warrant and an Interpol "red alert" normally used for terrorists and dangerous criminals.
Assange attended a police station in London, was duly arrested and spent ten days in Wandsworth Prison, in solitary confinement. Released on £340,000 bail, he was electronically tagged, required to report to police daily and placed under virtual house arrest while his case began its long journey to the Supreme Court.
He still had not been charged with any offence. His lawyers repeated his offer to be questioned in London, by video or personally, pointing out that Marianne Ny had given him permission to leave Sweden. They suggested a special facility at Scotland Yard commonly used by the Swedish and other European authorities for that purpose. She refused.
For almost seven years, while Sweden has questioned forty-four people in the UK in connection with police investigations, Ny refused to question Assange and so advance her case.
Assange asked the Swedish authorities for a guarantee that he would not be "rendered" to the US if he was extradited to Sweden. This was refused. In December 2010, The Independent revealed that the two governments had discussed his onward extradition to the US.
Contrary to its reputation as a bastion of liberal enlightenment, Sweden has drawn so close to Washington that it has allowed secret CIA "renditions" - including the illegal deportation of refugees.
The rendition and subsequent torture of two Egyptian political refugees in 2001 was condemned by the UN Committee against Torture, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch; the complicity and duplicity of the Swedish state are documented in successful civil litigation and in WikiLeaks cables.
“Documents released by WikiLeaks since Assange moved to England," wrote Al Burke, editor of the online Nordic News Network, an authority on the multiple twists and dangers that faced Assange, "clearly indicate that Sweden has consistently submitted to pressure from the United States in matters relating to civil rights.
There is every reason for concern that if Assange were to be taken into custody by Swedish authorities, he could be turned over to the United States without due consideration of his legal rights."
The war on Assange now intensified. Marianne Ny refused to allow his Swedish lawyers, and the Swedish courts, access to hundreds of SMS messages that the police had extracted from the phone of one of the two women involved in the "rape" allegations.
Ny said she was not legally required to reveal this critical evidence until a formal charge was laid and she had questioned him. Then, why wouldn't she question him? Catch-22.
When she announced last week that she was dropping the Assange case, she made no mention of the evidence that would destroy it.
One of the SMS messages makes clear that one of the women did not want any charges brought against Assange, "but the police were keen on getting a hold on him".
She was "shocked" when they arrested him because she only "wanted him to take [an HIV] test". She "did not want to accuse JA of anything" and "it was the police who made up the charges". In a witness statement, she is quoted as saying that she had been "railroaded by police and others around her".
Neither woman claimed she had been raped. Indeed, both denied they were raped and one of them has since tweeted, "I have not been raped." The women were manipulated by police - whatever their lawyers might say now. Certainly, they, too, are the victims of this sinister saga.
Katrin Axelsson and Lisa Longstaff of Women Against Rape wrote:
“The allegations against [Assange] are a smokescreen behind which a number of governments are trying to clamp down on WikiLeaks for having audaciously revealed to the public their secret planning of wars and occupations with their attendant rape, murder and destruction...
The authorities care so little about violence against women that they manipulate rape allegations at will. [Assange] has made it clear he is available for questioning by the Swedish authorities, in Britain or via Skype. Why are they refusing this essential step in their investigation? What are they afraid of?"
Assange's choice was stark: extradition to a country that had refused to say whether or not it would send him on to the US, or to seek what seemed his last opportunity for refuge and safety.
Supported by most of Latin America, the government of tiny Ecuador granted him refugee status on the basis of documented evidence that he faced the prospect of cruel and unusual punishment in the US; that this threat violated his basic human rights; and that his own government in Australia had abandoned him and colluded with Washington.
The Labor government of the then prime minister, Julia Gillard, had even threatened to take away his Australian passport - until it was pointed out to her that this would be unlawful.
The renowned human rights lawyer, Gareth Peirce, who represents Assange in London, wrote to the then Australian foreign minister, Kevin Rudd:
“Given the extent of the public discussion, frequently on the basis of entirely false assumptions... it is very hard to attempt to preserve for him any presumption of innocence.
Mr. Assange has now hanging over him not one but two Damocles swords, of potential extradition to two different jurisdictions in turn for two different alleged crimes, neither of which are crimes in his own country, and that his personal safety has become at risk in circumstances that are highly politically charged."
It was not until she contacted the Australian High Commission in London that Peirce received a response, which answered none of the pressing points she raised. In a meeting I attended with her, the Australian Consul-General, Ken Pascoe, made the astonishing claim that he knew "only what I read in the newspapers" about the details of the case.
In 2011, in Sydney, I spent several hours with a conservative Member of Australia's Federal Parliament, Malcolm Turnbull. We discussed the threats to Assange and their wider implications for freedom of speech and justice, and why Australia was obliged to stand by him. Turnbull then had a reputation as a free speech advocate. He is now the Prime Minister of Australia.
I gave him Gareth Peirce's letter about the threat to Assange's rights and life. He said the situation was clearly appalling and promised to take it up with the Gillard government. Only his silence followed.
For almost seven years, this epic miscarriage of justice has been drowned in a vituperative campaign against the WikiLeaks founder. There are few precedents. Deeply personal, petty, vicious and inhuman attacks have been aimed at a man not charged with any crime yet subjected to treatment not even meted out to a defendant facing extradition on a charge of murdering his wife.
That the US threat to Assange was a threat to all journalists, and to the principle of free speech, was lost in the sordid and the ambitious. I would call it anti-journalism.
Books were published, movie deals struck and media careers launched or kick-started on the back of WikiLeaks and an assumption that attacking Assange was fair game and he was too poor to sue. People have made money, often big money, while WikiLeaks has struggled to survive.
The previous editor of the Guardian, Alan Rusbridger, called the WikiLeaks disclosures, which his newspaper published, "one of the greatest journalistic scoops of the last 30 years". Yet no attempt was made to protect the Guardian's provider and source. Instead, the "scoop" became part of a marketing plan to raise the newspaper's cover price.
With not a penny going to Assange or to WikiLeaks, a hyped Guardian book led to a lucrative Hollywood movie. The book's authors, Luke Harding and David Leigh, gratuitously described Assange as a "damaged personality" and "callous".
They also revealed the secret password he had given the paper in confidence, which was designed to protect a digital file containing the US embassy cables. With Assange now trapped in the Ecuadorean embassy, Harding, standing among the police outside, gloated on his blog that "Scotland Yard may get the last laugh".
Comment: Luke Harding is very probably an agent of the British security services. He is particularly bent on lying about Putin, but no target assigned to him escapes his vile tradecraft.
Luke Harding: British Oxford anti-journalist
Journalism students might well study this period to understand the most ubiquitous source of "fake news" - as from within a media self-ordained with a false respectability and as an extension of the authority and power it courts and protects.
The presumption of innocence was not a consideration in Kirsty Wark's memorable live-on-air interrogation in 2010.
“Why don't you just apologise to the women?" she demanded of Assange, followed by: "Do we have your word of honour that you won't abscond?"
On the BBC's Today programme, John Humphrys bellowed:
“Are you a sexual predator?"
Assange replied that the suggestion was ridiculous, to which Humphrys demanded to know how many women he had slept with.
“Would even Fox News have descended to that level?"wondered the American historian William Blum. "I wish Assange had been raised in the streets of Brooklyn, as I was. He then would have known precisely how to reply to such a question: 'You mean including your mother?'"
Last week, on BBC World News, on the day Sweden announced it was dropping the case, I was interviewed by Greta Guru-Murthy, who seemed to have little knowledge of the Assange case.
She persisted in referring to the "charges" against him. She accused him of putting Trump in the White House; and she drew my attention to the "fact" that "leaders around the world" had condemned him. Among these "leaders" she included Trump's CIA director. I asked her, "Are you a journalist?"
The injustice meted out to Assange is one of the reasons Parliament reformed the Extradition Act in 2014.
“His case has been won lock, stock and barrel," Gareth Peirce told me, "these changes in the law mean that the UK now recognises as correct everything that was argued in his case. Yet he does not benefit."
In other words, he would have won his case in the British courts and would not have been forced to take refuge.
Ecuador's decision to protect Assange in 2012 was immensely brave. Even though the granting of asylum is a humanitarian act, and the power to do so is enjoyed by all states under international law, both Sweden and the United Kingdom refused to recognise the legitimacy of Ecuador's decision.
Ecuador's embassy in London was placed under police siege and its government abused. When William Hague's Foreign Office threatened to violate the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, warning that it would remove the diplomatic inviolability of the embassy and send the police in to get Assange, outrage across the world forced the government to back down.
During one night, police appeared at the windows of the embassy in an obvious attempt to intimidate Assange and his protectors.
Since then, Assange has been confined to a small room without sunlight. He has been ill from time to time and refused safe passage to the diagnostic facilities of hospital. Yet, his resilience and dark humour remain quite remarkable in the circumstances. When asked how he put up with the confinement, he replied, "Sure beats a supermax."
It is not over, but it is unravelling. The United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention - the tribunal that adjudicates and decides whether governments comply with their human rights obligations - last year ruled that Assange had been detained unlawfully by Britain and Sweden. This is international law at its apex.
Both Britain and Sweden participated in the 16-month long UN investigation and submitted evidence and defended their position before the tribunal.
In previous cases ruled upon by the Working Group - Aung Sang Suu Kyi in Burma, imprisoned opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim in Malaysia, detained Washington Post journalist Jason Rezaian in Iran - both Britain and Sweden gave full support to the tribunal. The difference now is that Assange's persecution endures in the heart of London. Comment: In other words: "It's only international law when we bloody well say it is."
The Metropolitan Police say they still intend to arrest Assange for bail infringement should he leave the embassy. What then? A few months in prison while the US delivers its extradition request to the British courts?
If the British Government allows this to happen it will, in the eyes of the world, be shamed comprehensively and historically as an accessory to the crime of a war waged by rampant power against justice and freedom, and all of us.
Russia Hoax Fail: Clapper Says Again ‘No Smoking Gun’ Evidence Of Trump Collusion With Russia & The Case Against The Media June 1 2017 | From: TheGatewayPundit / Uncensored / Various
Former DNI James Clapper said AGAIN in an interview with NBC’s Chuck Todd on Sunday that he saw no “smoking gun” evidence of collusion between the Trump camp and Russian state actors.
Clapper: “I have to say, you know, at the time I left, I did not see any smoking gun certitude evidence of collusion, but it certainly was appropriate for given all the signs…certainly appropriate and necessary for the FBI to investigate.”
James Clapper said he shared the same concerns with former CIA Director, John Brennan, claiming his ‘dashboard warning light was clearly on’:
“I will tell you that my dashboard warning light was clearly on, and I think that was the case with all of us in the intelligence community, very concerned with the nature of these approaches to the Russians.”
“If you put that in context with everything else we knew the Russians were doing to interfere with the election, and just the historical practices of the Russians, who typically are almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever, which is a typical Russian technique, so we were concerned.”
White House officials want to police President Trump's tweets, which will no doubt isolate Trump from his power base: the people who voted him into office. Kit Daniels reporting.
This interview with James Clapper dovetails on his May 14 interview where he also said that there was no Russian collusion.
Former CIA Director, John Brennan also said in a recent testimony that there was no collusion and that the Russians have tried to interfere with the US dating back to the 1960’s so this is nothing new, folks. The Russian narrative is just a fake news story to distract from the 8 year crime spree also known as the Obama administration.
Obama, Hillary and the rest of the Deep State were counting on a Hillary election victory so their crimes wouldn’t come to light.
James Clapper Full One-On-One Explosive Interview with Chuck Todd
1.You said nothing when Obama used drone strikes to execute people abroad.
2. You said nothing about Russia for 50 years until Trump was inaugurated.
3. You said nothing about Hillary’s campaign manager’s brother being paid $175,000 to lift U.S. sanctions on Russia.
4. You said nothing when Obama engaged in military interventionism in Libya without Congressional approval.
5. You said nothing Obama greatly expanded presidential power through the use of Executive Orders.
6. You said nothing when Obama filled his White House with lobbyists after he said he wouldn’t.
7. You said nothing when Obama gave 47 of his fundraisers Administration jobs.
8. You said nothing about the murders and rapes at the hands of illegal immigrants.
9. You said nothing when Hillary’s net worth rose over $100 million as Secretary of State, in part, because her husband took money from foreign governments.
10. You said nothing after Obama’s net worth rose over $10 million as President.
11. You said nothing when Obama’s Justice Dept. wiretapped/surveilled reporters such as James Rosen and the AP.
12. You said nothing when Obama restricted immigration 6 times with Executive Orders.
13. You said nothing when Obama set a record for deportations.
14. You said nothing when Bill Clinton met Loretta Lynch on the airport tarmac during the Clinton investigation.
15. You said nothing when Hillary was fed debate questions.
16. You said nothing when Obama and Hillary lied about a video and Benghazi.
17. You said nothing when Obama’s IRS abused the rights of taxpayers.
18. You said nothing when Obama’s White House held meetings with lobbyists in coffee shops near White House to avoid disclosure requirements.
19. You said nothing when Eric Holder sold the guns you hate to criminals and some were used to kill Americans.
20. You said nothing when the Clinton’s took White House property.
21. You said nothing when Hillary laughed off defending a child-rapist.
22. You said nothing when Hillary lied about her private use of a private email server as Secretary of State.
23. You said nothing when Janet Reno, under Bill Clinton, used a tank to kill the Branch Dividians.
24. You said nothing when, on May 13, 1985, a bomb was dropped on a row house in Philadelphia to uproot the black liberation group known as Move, resulting in a fire that eventually burned down 61 houses, killed 11 people (including five children) and injured dozens.
25. You said nothing was Elian Gonzales was forcibly deported using guns.
26. You said nothing when George Soros paid protesters to burn parts of Ferguson.
27. You said nothing about states’ rights until Trump’s Executive orders on immigration.
28. You said nothing about Obama’s smoking.
29. You said nothing about the record numbers of people on government assistance.
30. You said nothing about the number of part time and low paying jobs under the Obama recovery.
31. You said nothing when Obama had SWAT teams raid a Gibson guitar factory and seize property, on the purported basis that Gibson had broken India’s environmental laws - but no charges were filed.
32. You said nothing when Obama claimed that the Fort Hood shooting was “workplace violence” rather than terrorism.
33. You said nothing about when Obama ended some terror asylum restrictions, by allowing asylum for people who provided only “insignificant” or “limited” material support of terrorists.
34. You said nothing when the national debt doubled under Obama.
35. You said nothing when 9 times the Supreme Court unanimously overturned Obama’s expansive use of Executive Power.
36. You said nothing when Obama dismissed charges filed by Bush Administration against New Black Panther Party members who were videotaped intimidating voters at a Philadelphia polling station during the 2008 election.
37. You said nothing when Obama released Guantanamo detainees were released and went back to kill Americans.
38. You said nothing when Obama unilaterally changed Congressional law by Executive Order.
39. You said nothing when Obama fired an inspector general after investigating an $850,000 AmeriCorps grant received by a nonprofit run by former NBA star and Obama supporter Kevin Johnson.
40. You said nothing about the 36 Obama’s executive office staffers that owed $833,970 in back taxes
41. You said nothing when Obama Killed four Americans overseas in counter-terrorism operations without a judicial process.
So if you are voicing your objections about three months of Trump, I’m sorry but we can’t hear you over the deafening silence still echoing in our ears!
A quote from Senator Barry Goldwater. In his biography entitled “Goldwater” - the late Arizona Senator said:
"I believe the media should live by a more honorable code. They should publicly apologize for errors that reflect adversely on anyone, explain how or why they made the error, and offer that retraction in a position of equal prominence in the print media or the same slot for radio and television.
They should be forced to live by the same accountability as do all public services.”
John Podesta In A Frenzy Converting $40B Clinton Foundation Assets Into Gold, Diamonds & Artwork + Leaked Documents On Spying Show Former FBI Director Comey Shared Secret Intel On Americans With Private Parties June 1 2017 | From: DCclothesline / TheGatewayPundit / Various
Independent journalist George Webb says that after President Trump fired FBI director James Comey, longtime Democrat operative and Clinton loyalist John Podesta is in a frenzy to unload $40 billion from the Clinton Foundation - by buying up art, gold and diamonds, and spreading them out all over the world - before those assets are seized by a new FBI director.
Beginning at the 0:30 mark in the video below, Webb says: “Right now . . . John Podesta is buying up artwork between every Jewish art dealer.”
Webb is asked: “How do you know that?” Webb answers:
"I have a contact within the French intelligence that’s told me that. So they’re buying up artwork right now in every, they know every art dealer that he’s buying art from . . . .
What you’re dealing with is Trump could go get that 40 billion dollars right now and seize those assets.
So before a new FBI director is named - [Acting FBI Director Andrew] McCabe knows all about the $40 billion - you start moving this stuff to gold, diamonds, artwork and so forth, and you put it in your network . . . out into as many different countries as possible, so it’ll be so difficult to actually go seize.
You have a contractual issue or an international issue every time you try to get some of this stuff that’s been moved. The money right now is being moved by John Podesta to artwork, diamonds and gold.“
"Webb sees the Seth Rich murder as just a small part of a much bigger picture of high-level racketeering by Hillary Clinton, her minions and whoever she’s fronting. It’s an outrageous amount of money that’s been amassed over some twenty years.”
Webb calls the Clintons’ racketeering, including drug running, the Clinton rat line.Bruce continues:
"Webb then proceeds to . . . illustrate how the drug-running between Afghanistan and Punjab, to Pakistan, to Turkey’s Incirlik airbase to NATO, in Mons, Belgium.
Webb says, large military transport planes, like C-130s are used to transfer raw opium from Afghanistan to Pakistan, where they are refined into opioid medications, which are then contracted-out by mobbed-up doctors, to places like the VA (US Department of Veterans Affairs), where these generic drugs (usually watered-down to half- or quarter-strength) are distributed from Belgium.
He says information about all of the above can be found in the Congressional Blackberry phone network.
He describes these activities as, ‘Just Mena [Arkansas] Airport, on a global scale, just longer distances…It’s very simple: drugs go one way, arms go the other way….’ Half of the cargo gets left in Belgium and the rest comes to the US. In the past, he’s mentioned Offut Air Force Base in Nebraska, as well as an airport in Rockford, Illinois, where drugs were smuggled in shipments of mangoes and Basmati rice.
Except that instead of the $1 million per day worth of cocaine being brought in at Mena, Webb claims, in an another one of his blizzard of micro-posts, that Offut AFB receives $1 billion per day (!) in opioids.”
"The FBI has illegally shared raw intelligence about Americans with unauthorized third parties and violated other constitutional privacy protections, according to newly declassified government documents that undercut the bureau’s public assurances about how carefully it handles warrantless spy data to avoid abuses or leaks.
In his final congressional testimony before he was fired by President Trump this month, then-FBI Director James Comey unequivocally told lawmakers his agency used sensitive espionage data gathered about Americans without a warrant only when it was “lawfully collected, carefully overseen and checked.”
Once-top secret U.S. intelligence community memos reviewed by Circa tell a different story, citing instances of “disregard” for rules, inadequate training and “deficient” oversight and even one case of deliberately sharing spy data with a forbidden party.
For instance, a ruling declassified this month by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) chronicles nearly 10 pages listing hundreds of violations of the FBI’s privacy-protecting minimization rules that occurred on Comey’s watch.
The behavior the FBI admitted to a FISA judge just last month ranged from illegally sharing raw intelligence with unauthorized third parties to accessing intercepted attorney-client privileged communications without proper oversight the bureau promised was in place years ago.
The court also opined aloud that it fears the violations are more extensive than already disclosed.
“The Court is nonetheless concerned about the FBI’s apparent disregard of minimization rules and whether the FBI is engaging in similar disclosures of raw Section 702 information that have not been reported,” the April 2017 ruling declared.
The Justice Department inspector general’s office declassified a report in 2015 that reveals the internal watchdog had concerns as early as 2012 that the FBI was submitting ‘deficient” reports indicating it had a clean record complying with spy data gathered on Americans without a warrant.”
Sara Carter reports:
"The FBI illegally shared data it collected with unauthorized third parties and federal contractors according to a document recently declassified by the foreign intelligence surveillance court.
10 pages from the FISA court show a history of violations in the FBI like one case where the foreign intelligence data on an American in U.S. was disclosed to a forbidden party.”
Anonymous: De-Mystifying The Concept Of The Deep State + Doctor Explains Why The Public Is So Stupid - Trusting The Government & Fake News May 31 2017 | From: TheGatewayPundit / Various
Demystifying the Concept of the Deep State – A Mutual Back-Scratch Society of Political Machines, A Hierarchy of Powerful Interests Collectively Running the Show from Positions of Hiding, Stratified According to Degree of Power.
Unfortunately, a wide swath of America sees everything through a political filter - left wing versus right win, etc. So since President Trump is currently using the term “deep state,” people of a so-called left orientation may tune out if they are not already familiar with the concept of the deep state.
So I think it’s important to get past people’s filters, no matter where their position is along the political spectrum.
Probably the best way to get the concept across is to explain that the deep state is nothing new.
What’s new is the depth and breadth of it and the number and power of the tools they have at their disposal: intelligence institutions and networks, the internet, hacking capabilities, majorities of politicians that are bought and paid for, etc.
The deep state is simply a newer, bigger, and more powerful version of the political machines of America’s past, like Tammany Hall and Mayor Richard Daley of Chicago.
The entire nation of Mexico is an example of political machines run amok.
The deep state in Mexico is organized crime, because it subverts the democratic process.In my opinion, any discussion of the deep state should begin with a simple explanation of what the deep state actually is, so people will see that it’s not some far-fetched conspiracy theory or self-serving propaganda tool to be used against one’s political opponents.
It’s important to get through people’s ideological and political filters so they can see that this issue is relevant to everyone and is a real, and dangerous and massive problem. And there’s nothing mysterious about it. The political machines have grown up! They have merged. And it is a hierarchy, with people at the top of it.
The deep state is about power behind the scenes trying to subvert the democratic process. It’s been around since the beginning of America.
President Washington was very familiar with political machines and was disgusted by them. They sprang up more or less spontaneously as soon as the United States Constitution was finished.
It’s nothing new. But the deep state in its current stage of evolution is gargantuan. And the potential for evil is unprecedented. Even Hitler couldn’t have dreamed of such power.Here’s a good article on machine politics. (The Encyclopedia of Chicago).
Cover Stories Are Used To Control Explanations & Medical Propaganda Headlines For Gullible Minds May 31 2017 | From: JonRappoport / PublicIntelligence / Various
Years ago James Jesus Angleton left me with the impression that when an intelligence agency, such as the CIA, pulls off an assassination, bombing, or any event with which the agency does not wish to be associated, the agency uses the media to control the explanation by quickly putting into place a cover story that, along with several others, has been prepared in advance.
The fact that it made no sense did not stop many from believing it. It did not occur to people more gullible than thoughtful that a gangster would simply get another woman and not take the risk of assassinating the US president over a woman. The last thing the Mafia would want would be for Attorney General Robert Kennedy to bring the law down on the Mafia like a ton of bricks.
Another cover story was that Castro did it. This made even less sense. JFK had nixed the Joint Chiefs/CIA plan to invade Cuba, and he had refused air cover to the CIA’s Bay of Pigs invasion. JFK would certainly not be on Castro’s hit list.
Another cover story was that Lyndon Johnson was behind Kennedy’s assassination. As I wrote, there is no doubt that LBJ covered up the Joint Chiefs/CIA/Secret Service plot against JFK, as any president would have done, because the alternative was to destroy the American people’s confidence in the US military and security agencies.
The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court also covered up the plot, as did the Warren Commission, the media, and the Congress.
The “Johnson did it” story is the most preposterous of all. The Joint Chiefs, CIA, Secret Service, Chief Justice, Congress, and Media are not going to participate in the murder of a President and its coverup just for the sake of the VP’s personal ambition. The idea that so many strong institutions would permit a VP to murder a President for no reason other than the personal ambition of the VP is beyond absurdity.
Speaking of cover stories, I wonder if that is what we are witnessing in the leaked information to the New York Times about the Manchester Bombing. The only point of the leak is to set the story in place. The British complaints about the leaked information serve to disguise the leak’s purpose.
Setting a story in place early crowds out other explanations. Remember, the government claims to have had no warning of 9/11 but knew instantly who did it and set the story in place. The same for the Paris events, the Nice event, the Boston Marathon bombing, and I think all the others.
Authorities quickly come up with a story and names of those responsible. The alleged perpetrators or patsies, take your choice, are always dead and, thereby, unable to deny that they did it or say who put them up to it. The only exception that comes to mind is the younger brother who has been associated with the Boston Marathon bombing.
Despite two police attempts to shoot him to death, he inconveniently survived, but has never been seen or heard from. At his orchestrated trial, his court appointed attorney confessed for him, and the jury convicted on her confession.
Remember, Oswald was shot dead by Jack Ruby before Oswald was questioned by police. There is no explanation for an armed private citizen being inside the jail with Oswald and positioned to shoot him at close range. Clearly, Oswald was not to be permitted to give his story. And no patsy since has either.
Aside from filling space, their main function is to assure the public that “advances are always being made” and “good things are right around the corner.” It’s much better, for example, than, “Well, this month we didn’t discover a single important datum. Here’s hoping for better luck in June.”
A brief examination of medical-story headlines reveals that these stories are lacking in a little thing called reality; or they announce something so obvious it hardly merits mention, much less a full-blown study to establish what any person with a few working brain cells already knows.
Here are a few such headlines from a popular medical site (medicalnewstoday). They represent a mere few days’ worth of vital…baloney:
HOW DOES POOR SLEEP AFFECT OUR ABILITY TO LEARN? A STUDY INVESTIGATES.
Well, poor sleep makes it harder to concentrate the next day. End of study. Thanks. We’re newly enlightened. Where’s my check?
LONELINESS MAY HARM SLEEP QUALITY FOR YOUNG ADULTS.
Another stunning revelation. The boy is lonely. He doesn’t sleep well. We never would have imagined such a connection without a meticulous study.
CHRONIC PAIN AMPLIFIES THE BRAIN’S REACTION TO NEW INJURIES.
The insights keep coming. A person already in a state of chronic pain reacts more severely to new pain than a person who isn’t suffering from chronic pain. Give the researchers a Nobel and a trip to Disneyland.
RESEARCHERS PINPOINT HOW DIESEL FUMES COULD CAUSE ‘FLARE-UP’ OF RESPIRATORY SYMPTOMS.
Someone with respiratory disease could experience trouble when breathing diesel fumes. Wow. A mind-bending correlation. And we need to know the exact mechanism of the flare-up because…?
Researchers are going to develop a drug that will eliminate the problem? “Do you have TB? Now you can walk through diesel fumes without a reaction.” Sure. The drug is called Thorazine. You’ll still have a severe reaction, but you won’t know it. Or anything else.
LARGE META-ANALYSIS IDENTIFIES NEW GENES ASSOCIATED WITH INTELLIGENCE.
GENES RESPONSIBLE FOR SEVERE CONGENITAL HEART DISEASE IDENTIFIED BY RESEARCHERS.
I love stories about “breakthroughs” in gene research. First of all, try to find one version of gene therapy for any disease that works across the board. Good luck. But you can find thousands of articles about “advances” in the research. They hint at glorious innovations coming to your neighborhood soon.
So let me know when this genetic discovery about heart disease results in a treatment that actually reverses the condition. And as for genes associated with intelligence, it’s easy as pie to make claims, as long as you don’t have to try to increase IQ with an injection.
Getting the point? Researchers can obtain all sorts of money to do studies that then posit some correlation between a condition and various gaggles of genes - as long as they don’t have come up with an actual gene therapy that works. It’s a great con. Nice work if they can get it, and they can.
THE SECRET TO COMBATING PANCREATIC CANCER MAY LIE IN SUPPRESSION OF A COMMON PROTEIN.
Yes, it may. Or it may not. Who can say? We’ll have to wait and see. Give the researchers another decade. Meanwhile, read about lots of “maybes.” It’s possible that a steady diet of “maybe” articles will increase your intelligence, help you sleep better at night, reverse heart disease, and decrease your reaction to diesel fumes.
It’s also possible the articles will turn you into a creature with the IQ of a tree-dwelling sloth.