It is easy to get bogged down in the negative, especially with so much "fear porn" in the alternative media nowadays.
But it is important to take note of the positive developments and achievements that people and groups all over the world are reporting on an ever increasing scale.
We, the people, will succeed in freeing ourselves from the enslavement of the cabal and theier Babylonian-money-magic , and we will see and end to the reign of the faux-leaders as the Old World Order crumbles and the truth comes out.
Humanity will move into true freedom, without nefarious 'elite' rulers, and into a wonderful era where the people determine their own destinies.
Hunter S. Thompson’s Thought-Provoking Letter On Finding Purpose And Meaning In Life + Where Our Biggest Regrets Come From March 20 2017 | From: TheUnboundedSpirit
“I was not proud of what I had learned, but I never doubted that it was worth knowing.” - Hunter S. Thompson
For most people, life seems like a drudgery that they have to endure until they die. They are not living to their fullest potential and hence can’t make the most out of life. They feel that they have no purpose and that their life lacks meaning. They are semi-living, enduring all the pain that the universe throws on their shoulders.
But how can one savor life? And how can one find meaning and purpose?
In April of 1958, when asked those questions by his friend, Hume Logan, 22-year-old Hunter S. Thompson responded by writing a thought-provoking letter sharing his advice. The letter is short yet profound, and the fact that at the time Thompson was yet to be successful makes it even more important.
Without further ado, here’s Thompson’s monumental letter that will make you reconsider your life, as well as inspire and motivate you to squeeze the juice out of every moment that existence brings on your way.
You ask advice: ah, what a very human and very dangerous thing to do! For to give advice to a man who asks what to do with his life implies something very close to egomania.
To presume to point a man to the right and ultimate goal - to point with a trembling finger in the RIGHT direction is something only a fool would take upon himself.
I am not a fool, but I respect your sincerity in asking my advice. I ask you though, in listening to what I say, to remember that all advice can only be a product of the man who gives it.
What is truth to one may be disaster to another. I do not see life through your eyes, nor you through mine. If I were to attempt to give you specific advice, it would be too much like the blind leading the blind.
“To be, or not to be: that is the question: Whether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or to take arms against a sea of troubles … ” (Shakespeare)
And indeed, that IS the question: whether to float with the tide, or to swim for a goal. It is a choice we must all make consciously or unconsciously at one time in our lives. So few people understand this!
Think of any decision you’ve ever made which had a bearing on your future: I may be wrong, but I don’t see how it could have been anything but a choice however indirect - between the two things I’ve mentioned: the floating or the swimming.
But why not float if you have no goal? That is another question. It is unquestionably better to enjoy the floating than to swim in uncertainty. So how does a man find a goal?
Not a castle in the stars, but a real and tangible thing. How can a man be sure he’s not after the “big rock candy mountain,” the enticing sugar-candy goal that has little taste and no substance?
The answer - and, in a sense, the tragedy of life - is that we seek to understand the goal and not the man. We set up a goal which demands of us certain things: and we do these things.
We adjust to the demands of a concept which CANNOT be valid. When you were young, let us say that you wanted to be a fireman.
I feel reasonably safe in saying that you no longer want to be a fireman. Why? Because your perspective has changed. It’s not the fireman who has changed, but you. Every man is the sum total of his reactions to experience.
As your experiences differ and multiply, you become a different man, and hence your perspective changes. This goes on and on. Every reaction is a learning process; every significant experience alters your perspective.
So it would seem foolish, would it not, to adjust our lives to the demands of a goal we see from a different angle every day? How could we ever hope to accomplish anything other than galloping neurosis?
The answer, then, must not deal with goals at all, or not with tangible goals, anyway. It would take reams of paper to develop this subject to fulfillment. God only knows how many books have been written on “the meaning of man” and that sort of thing, and god only knows how many people have pondered the subject. (I use the term “god only knows” purely as an expression.)
There’s very little sense in my trying to give it up to you in the proverbial nutshell, because I’m the first to admit my absolute lack of qualifications for reducing the meaning of life to one or two paragraphs.
These are merely suggestions. If you’re genuinely satisfied with what you are and what you’re doing, then give those books a wide berth. (Let sleeping dogs lie.) But back to the answer.
As I said, to put our faith in tangible goals would seem to be, at best, unwise. So we do not strive to be firemen, we do not strive to be bankers, nor policemen, nor doctors.WE STRIVE TO BE OURSELVES.
But don’t misunderstand me. I don’t mean that we can’t BE firemen, bankers, or doctors - but that we must make the goal conform to the individual, rather than make the individual conform to the goal.
In every man, heredity and environment have combined to produce a creature of certain abilities and desires - including a deeply ingrained need to function in such a way that his life will be MEANINGFUL. A man has to BE something; he has to matter.
As I see it then, the formula runs something like this: a man must choose a path which will let his ABILITIES function at maximum efficiency toward the gratification of his DESIRES.
In doing this, he is fulfilling a need (giving himself identity by functioning in a set pattern toward a set goal), he avoids frustrating his potential (choosing a path which puts no limit on his self-development), and he avoids the terror of seeing his goal wilt or lose its charm as he draws closer to it (rather than bending himself to meet the demands of that which he seeks, he has bent his goal to conform to his own abilities and desires).
In short, he has not dedicated his life to reaching a pre-defined goal, but he has rather chosen a way of life he KNOWS he will enjoy.
The goal is absolutely secondary: it is the functioning toward the goal which is important. And it seems almost ridiculous to say that a man MUST function in a pattern of his own choosing; for to let another man define your own goals is to give up one of the most meaningful aspects of life - the definitive act of will which makes a man an individual.
Let’s assume that you think you have a choice of eight paths to follow (all pre-defined paths, of course). And let’s assume that you can’t see any real purpose in any of the eight. THEN - and here is the essence of all I’ve said - you MUST FIND A NINTH PATH.
Naturally, it isn’t as easy as it sounds. You’ve lived a relatively narrow life, a vertical rather than a horizontal existence. So it isn’t any too difficult to understand why you seem to feel the way you do.
But a man who procrastinates in his CHOOSING will inevitably have his choice made for him by circumstance.
So if you now number yourself among the disenchanted, then you have no choice but to accept things as they are, or to seriously seek something else.
But beware of looking for goals: look for a way of life. Decide how you want to live and then see what you can do to make a living WITHIN that way of life. But you say, “I don’t know where to look; I don’t know what to look for.”
And there’s the crux. Is it worth giving up what I have to look for something better? I don’t know - is it? Who can make that decision but you? But even by DECIDING TO LOOK, you go a long way toward making the choice.
If I don’t call this to a halt, I’m going to find myself writing a book. I hope it’s not as confusing as it looks at first glance. Keep in mind, of course, that this is MY WAY of looking at things. I happen to think that it’s pretty generally applicable, but you may not. Each of us has to create our own credo - this merely happens to be mine.
If any part of it doesn’t seem to make sense, by all means call it to my attention. I’m not trying to send you out “on the road” in search of Valhalla, but merely pointing out that it is not necessary to accept the choices handed down to you by life as you know it.
There is more to it than that - no one HAS to do something he doesn’t want to do for the rest of his life.
But then again, if that’s what you wind up doing, by all means convince yourself that you HAD to do it. You’ll have lots of company.
And that’s it for now. Until I hear from you again, I remain,
Where Our Biggest Regrets Come From
Stop for a moment and reflect on how you’ve lived your life up to this moment. Now imagine that you continue living pretty much the same way until you reach the age of 70 and look back upon your life. Would you be content with the way you’ve lived?
When people are young, they usually don’t spend any of their time contemplating on thoughts like this one. They think that life is too long, and that they don’t need to worry about such a hypothetical question. But years pass by quickly and they suddenly find themselves in an old age.
If you could name the things you most regret about, what would they be? I’m sure you could find plenty of things that you’ve done and which had negative consequences in your life and perhaps in the lives of others, and which you would undo if you had the chance to return to the past and live anew. But would any of those things be the ones you regret the most?
If you asked me, I’d say that what we humans regret the most usually aren’t things that we did. Rather, they are things that we didn’t do. Let me explain.
In life’s journey, we all make mistakes, which most of the time help us learn, grow and make better choices later on, by pointing out the bad choices we’ve made in the past, and urging us to change our actions in order to correct them and avoid repeating them in the future.
Mistakes are a necessary and inevitable part of life, and although many people are disappointed by their past mistakes, these usually don’t make it to their Life’s Biggest Regrets list. Why?
For two reasons: Firstly, because they didn’t consciously choose to make them (who would choose to make a mistake, if one knew beforehand that it was a mistake?) and secondly, because they’ve learned something out of their mistakes which helped them mature into wiser individuals.
Therefore, our biggest regrets in life don’t lie in things that we did. Rather, they lie in things that we wanted to do but we never gave a try. When you try to achieve something and you commit a mistake, you at least know that you tried, and that in itself is a very satisfying feeling, because you grabbed the opportunity to give yourself a chance - even if that was tiny - at succeeding.
When, however, you don’t even make an effort to succeed out of fear that you might make mistakes and fail, then that’s a sure-fire way to fill yourself with regrets that will continuously torment your mind. By not having given it a try, you yourself took any chance of succeeding away from your hands by your own decision, and you can’t know what would have happened otherwise.
By not having tried to succeed, you, in a sense, chose to fail, and you’ll most probably forever regret that choice, if what you wanted to achieve was and still is important to you.
The question is, if our biggest regrets don’t come from our failed attempts to succeed, but from not attempting to succeed at all, then why are most people so afraid of encountering failure?
The Fear of Failure
From a very young age most of us have been conditioned to fear failure. You see, we’re living in a very competitive world, where people constantly compare themselves with one another and try their best to outdo one another.
In this world, we’ve been taught that by wining over others (for example, by getting better grades than our classmates at school or receiving a higher salary than our colleagues at work), we’re proving our worth to ourselves and the world, and that those who are better at doing so are the ones who manage to live the “good” life - the rest are just failures whose life is meaningless and not worth-living.
No wonder, therefore, we believe that failure is one of the worst things that can happen to us, and that we should avoid it no matter what.
As a result, many people stop trying out new things in life and don’t set out to achieve their desired goals, even those which mean a lot to them and would contribute to their well-being, lest they make mistakes and encounter failure which they are so afraid of. In order to avoid failure, they’ve given up all their efforts to succeed.
But what is the point of living this way? To not live the way one deep down wants to live, how can one enjoy life and be content? It’s impossible.
Unfortunately, that’s exactly what most of us are doing: living a life we don’t care about. Doing things that don’t matter to us. Things which, instead of lifting up our spirit and helping us spread the wings of our consciousness, are burdening us with all sorts of problems.
And what are we doing about it? Nothing - we just sit and wait, until a moment comes when we can’t do anything, even if we want to, because we don’t have enough energy left anymore.
All we have left is regrets that are torturing our soul and don’t allow us to relax and let go of life with dignity, knowing that we’ve made the most out of it while we could.
Failure is Better than Regret
If you don’t want to end up this way, you need to reconsider your life. Ask yourself in all honesty: “Is the way I’m living serving my happiness?” If not, think of what it would take for you to live in a way that fills your heart with joy. And whatever that is, go for it with all your might.
To do so, you’ll most probably have to endure a lot of adversities and suffering, and you might make a lot of mistakes along your journey. But no matter how painful that is or how many failures you encounter, keep going, being aware that giving up is the only true failure in life.
Of course, be sure to choose your battles carefully. Many people are striving for years upon years to achieve things that won’t and can’t contribute to their well-being.
For example, some are constantly trying to become financially wealthy and acquire as many expensive possessions as they can afford, unable to realize that, although money can fill their pockets, and material objects can fill their houses, none of these can fill their hearts.
Some others, to give another example, are in an endless pursuit of sexual partners to sleep around with, not realizing that sex can’t substitute for the intimacy and loving affection they deep down desire.
So when I am saying “do what brings you joy,” I don’t mean what provides you with superficial, temporary egoistic gratification.
I mean what truly makes you feel fulfilled and turns your life into a celebration. Like engaging yourself in creative work you feel passionate about.
Or forming genuine relationships with like-minded people you enjoy sharing your being with. Or spreading kindness and contributing your gifts to the world for the benefit of all beings on earth.
These are some things that can bring us lasting contentment and peace of mind, but most of us don’t give our attention to.
Life is short, so don’t waste it doing things that don’t put a smile on your face. Focus on doing what allows you to live totally and savor every single moment you’ve been offered by existence.
Will that be easy? Probably not. Will it be worth it? Certainly yes. And, even if you fail at living to your fullest potential, you’ll still gain a lot along your way, for as the saying goes, it’s not the destination that matters, but the journey itself.
Nothing is more amazing than the highly improbable fact that we exist. We often ignore this fact, oblivious to the reality that instead of something there could be nothing at all, i.e. why is there a universe (poignantly aware of itself through us) and not some void completely unconscious of itself?
Consider that from light, air, water, basic minerals within the crust of the earth, and the at least 3 billion year old information contained within the nucleus of one diploid zygote cell, the human body is formed, and within that body a soul capable of at least trying to comprehend its bodily and spiritual origins.
Given the sheer insanity of our existential condition, and bodily incarnation as a whole, and considering that our earthly existence is partially formed from sunlight and requires the continual consumption of condensed sunlight in the form of food, it may not sound so farfetched that our body emits light.
Indeed, the human body emits biophotons, also known as ultraweak photon emissions (UPE), with a visibility 1,000 times lower than the sensitivity of our naked eye. While not visible to us, these particles of light (or waves, depending on how you are measuring them) are part of the visible electromagnetic spectrum (380-780 nm) and are detectable via sophisticated modern instrumentation.
The Physical and “Mental” Eye Emits Light
The eye itself, which is continually exposed to ambient powerful photons that pass through various ocular tissues, emit spontaneous and visible light-induced ultraweak photon emissions. It has even been hypothesized that visible light induces delayed bioluminescence within the exposed eye tissue, providing an explanation for the origin of the negative afterimage.
These light emissions have also been correlated with cerebral energy metabolism and oxidative stress within the mammalian brain.
And yet, biophoton emissions are not necessarily epiphenomenal. Bókkon’s hypothesis suggests that photons released from chemical processes within the brain produce biophysical pictures during visual imagery, and a recent study found that when subjects actively imagined light in a very dark environment their intention produced significant increases in ultraweak photo emissions.
This is consistent with an emerging view that biophotons are not solely cellular metabolic by-products, but rather, because biophoton intensity can be considerably higher inside cells than outside, it is possible for the mind to access this energy gradient to create intrinsic biophysical pictures during visual perception and imagery.
Our Cells and DNA Use Biophotons To Store and Communicate Information
Apparently biophotons are used by the cells of many living organisms to communicate, which facilitates energy/information transfer that is several orders of magnitude faster than chemical diffusion. According to a 2010 study;
“Cell to cell communication by biophotons have been demonstrated in plants, bacteria, animal neutriophil granulocytes and kidney cells.”
Researchers were able to demonstrate that:
“…different spectral light stimulation (infrared, red, yellow, blue, green and white) at one end of the spinal sensory or motor nerve roots resulted in a significant increase in the biophotonic activity at the other end.” Researchers interpreted their finding to suggest that “…light stimulation can generate biophotons that conduct along the neural fibers, probably as neural communication signals.”
Even when we go down to the molecular level of our genome, DNA can be identified to be a source of biophoton emissions as well. One author proposes that DNA is so biophoton dependent that is has excimer laser-like properties, enabling it to exist in a stable state far from thermal equilibrium at threshold.
Technically speaking a biophoton is an elementary particle or quantum of light of non-thermal origin in the visible and ultraviolet spectrum emitted from a biological system. They are generally believed to be produced as a result of energy metabolism within our cells, or more formally as a;
“…by-product of biochemical reactions in which excited molecules are produced from bioenergetic processes that involves active oxygen species,"
The Body’s Circadian Biophoton Output
Because the metabolism of the body changes in a circadian fashion, biophoton emissions also variate along the axis of diurnal time.
Research has mapped out distinct anatomical locations within the body where biophoton emissions are stronger and weaker, depending on the time of the day:
“Generally, the fluctuation in photon counts over the body was lower in the morning than in the afternoon. The thorax-abdomen region emitted lowest and most constantly. The upper extremities and the head region emitted most and increasingly over the day.
Spectral analysis of low, intermediate and high emission from the superior frontal part of the right leg, the forehead and the palms in the sensitivity range of the photomultiplier showed the major spontaneous emission at 470-570 nm.
The central palm area of hand emission showed a larger contribution of the 420-470 nm range in the spectrum of spontaneous emission from the hand in autumn/winter. The spectrum of delayed luminescence from the hand showed major emission in the same range as spontaneous emission.”
The researchers concluded that “The spectral data suggest that measurements might well provide quantitative data on the individual pattern of peroxidative and anti-oxidative processes in vivo.”
Meditation and Herbs Affect Biophoton Output
Research has found an oxidative stress-mediated difference in biophoton emission among mediators versus non-meditators.
Those who meditate regularly tend to have lower ultra-weak photon emission (UPE, biophoton emission), which is believed to result from the lower level of free radical reactions occurring in their bodies.
In one clinical study involving practitioners of transcendental meditation (TM) researchers found:
“The lowest UPE intensities were observed in two subjects who regularly meditate. Spectral analysis of human UPE has suggested that ultra-weak emission is probably, at least in part, a reflection of free radical reactions in a living system.
It has been documented that various physiologic and biochemical shifts follow the long-term practice of meditation and it is inferred that meditation may impact free radical activity.”
Interestingly, an herb well-known for its use in stress reduction (including inducing measurable declines in cortisol), and associated heightened oxidative stress, has been tested clinically in reducing the level of biophotons emitted in human subjects.
Known as rhodiola, a study published in 2009 in the journal Phytotherapeutic Research found that those who took the herb for 1 week has a significant decrease in photon emission in comparison with the placebo group.
Human Skin May Capture Energy and Information from Sunlight
Perhaps most extraordinary of all is the possibility that our bodily surface contains cells capable of efficiently trapping the energy and information from ultraviolet radiation.
A study published in the Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology in 1993, titled, “Artificial sunlight irradiation induces ultraweak photon emission in human skin fibroblasts,” discovered that when light from an artificial sunlight source was applied to fibroblasts from either normal subjects or with the condition xeroderma pigmentosum, characterized by deficient DNA repair mechanisms, it induced far higher emissions of ultraweak photons (10-20 times) in the xeroderma pigmentosum group.
The researchers concluded from this experiment that “These data suggest that xeroderma pigmentosum cells tend to lose the capacity of efficient storage of ultraweak photons, indicating the existence of an efficient intracellular photon trapping system within human cells.“ More recent research has also identified measurable differences in biophoton emission between normal and melanoma cells.
“Melanin is capable of transforming ultraviolet light energy into heat in a process known as “ultrafast internal conversion”; more than 99.9% of the absorbed UV radiation is transformed from potentially genotoxic (DNA-damaging) ultraviolet light into harmless heat.”
If melanin can convert light into heat, could it not also transform UV radiation into other biologically/metabolically useful forms of energy?
This may not seem so farfetched when one considers that even gamma radiation, which is highly toxic to most forms of life, is a source of sustenance for certain types of fungi and bacteria. More on melanin-mediated energy production here.
Gerald Pollack, PhD, who wrote The 4th Phase of Water has identified water molecules, which constitute 99% of the molecules in our body by number, as capable of storing the energy of sunlight like batteries and driving the majority of processes within our body as a primary, non-ATP-based source of energy.
In fact, the lunisolar tidal force, to which the Sun contributes 30% and the Moon 60 % of the combined gravitational acceleration, has been found to regulate a number of features of plant growth upon Earth.
Intention Is a Living Force of Physiology
Even human intention itself, the so-called ghost in the machine, may have an empirical basis in biophotons.
A recent commentary published in the journal Investigacion clinica titled “Evidence about the power of intention” addressed this connection:
“Intention is defined as a directed thought to perform a determined action. Thoughts targeted to an end can affect inanimate objects and practically all living things from unicellular organisms to human beings.
The emission of light particles (biophotons) seems to be the mechanism through which an intention produces its effects.
All living organisms emit a constant current of photons as a mean to direct instantaneous nonlocal signals from one part of the body to another and to the outside world. Biophotons are stored in the intracellular DNA. When the organism is sick changes in biophotons emissions are produced.
Direct intention manifests itself as an electric and magnetic energy producing an ordered flux of photons. Our intentions seem to operate as highly coherent frequencies capable of changing the molecular structure of matter.
For the intention to be effective it is necessary to choose the appropriate time. In fact, living beings are mutually synchronized and to the earth and its constant changes of magnetic energy. It has been shown that the energy of thought can also alter the environment.
Hypnosis, stigmata phenomena and the placebo effect can also be considered as types of intention, as instructions to the brain during a particular state of consciousness.
Cases of spontaneous cures or of remote healing of extremely ill patients represent instances of an exceedingly great intention to control diseases menacing our lives.
The intention to heal as well as the beliefs of the sick person on the efficacy of the healing influences promote his healing.
In conclusion, studies on thought and consciousness are emerging as fundamental aspects and not as mere epiphenomena that are rapidly leading to a profound change in the paradigms of Biology and Medicine.”
So there you have it. Science increasingly agrees with direct human experience: we are more than the atoms and molecules of which we are composed, but beings that emit, communicate with, and are formed from light.
A majority of 64 percent of respondents said they think Trump can successfully repeal the Affordable Health Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare, with 62 percent believing Trump can replace it.
A majority of 56 percent believe Trump will indeed pass a federal tax overhaul, while a majority of 62 percent think he can pass an infrastructure spending bill.
The major issue which Americans believe Trump will struggle to implement is his promise to build the proposed Wall on the Southern border.
Close to half, 46 percent, said that they see it as very or somewhat likely that a wall will be agreed upon this year. However, most respondents, close to three quarters, think it likely that the Trump administration will deliver on reducing the number of immigrants allowed into the United States.
“We polled voters on ten of Trump’s biggest stated priorities. For all of those agenda items except one - the border wall - a majority believe they will be accomplished in the first year,” Morning Consult Chief Research Officer and Cofounder Kyle Dropp said, adding “Those are high expectations.”
The survey also noted that more voters feel “excited” or “satisfied” about the successful implementation of the outlined 10 proposals than those who would be “disappointed” or “upset.”
The most enthusiasm was reserved for the creation of new jobs, with 42 percent saying they are “excited” to see that happen, and a further 40 percent adding they would be “satisfied.”
The findings come in the wake of news that the U.S. created 298,000 new jobs after Trump’s first full month in office, shattering expectations by a margin of over 100,000.
The poll also found that only 41 percent believe Russian meddling had any impact on the US election. 42 percent said they do not believe Russia affected the result at all.
Fifty-six percent support appointing a special prosecutor to investigate alleged ties between Trump staff and the Russian government. However, most who advocate such a move are Democratic supporters, while Republicans and Independents are less supportive.
The astounding list of achievements: [The controlled Cabal-owned Mainstream Media conveniently avoid reporting the positive progress being made by Trumpand the Alliance that is taking the 'establishment' down in real time.]
With Donald Trump approaching his first 50 days in office and with today’s news that the U.S. has added 235,000 new jobs, it’s truly astounding to consider what Trump has achieved in just the short time he has been president.
Trump is already beginning to fulfil his promise of being the best jobs president ever.
U.S. employers added jobs beyond expectations in both January (238,000) and February (235,000), with the unemployment rate falling to 4.7% and wages growing 2.8%. According to Bloomberg, America’s labor market is getting better “by any measure”.
Trump has cut the U.S. debt burden by $68 billion dollars.
Since the day of his inauguration, Trump has wiped $68 billion off the national debt, which had ballooned to $19,947 billion under Obama.
Manufacturing is at its most robust since 1984.
The Philly Fed Index, a survey of how well manufacturers are doing, hit its highest level since 1984.
Small and medium businesses are confident about the future.
The NFIB Small Business Optimism Index is at its highest level since 2004. Economic confidence is surging.
The stock market keeps topping record highs.
The Dow closed above 20,000 for the first time ever days after Trump’s inauguration and hasn’t stopped rising since. The Dow has surged more than 2500 points since Trump was elected – a 12 per cent spike.
Samsung is moving jobs back to the U.S. as a result of Trump’s election.
The technology giant will invest $300 million in expanding U.S. production facilities, creating around 500 jobs.
Exxon moving jobs back to the U.S. as a result of Trump’s election.
Exxon will spend $20 billion over 10 years on 11 plants along the Gulf Coast, creating a whopping 45,000 jobs for American workers.
Trump saved the Carrier plant in Indiana.
Trump stopped the Indianapolis air conditioning plant from relocating to Mexico, saving hundreds of jobs.
Fiat will invest $1 billion in two U.S. factories
Fiat Chrysler is set to invest $1 billion in two factories in Toledo and Detroit, an expansion that will create 2,000 jobs.
Hasbro is to start making play-doh in the U.S. again.
U.S. Hasbro, Inc. is returning to the U.S. and will make the beloved children’s modeling clay in a Massachusetts factory rather than in China or Turkey.
Trump signed an executive order ending Obama’s onerous regulations on the coal industry.
Obama tried to bankrupt the coal industry, Trump is revitalizing it.
Trump killed the Trans Pacific Partnership trade deal.
This would have handed yet more power over to unelected globalists, creating a global regulatory structure detrimental to all Americans.
Illegal immigration from Mexico is down 40 per cent in Trump’s first month.
Border crossings have already dropped by 40 per cent, according to the DHS as Trump moves forward with his campaign promise to build a wall.
Trump issued an executive order to end “sanctuary cities”.
Trump has ordered the DOJ and Homeland Security to withhold federal funds from cities that harbor criminal illegal aliens.
Trump began the repeal and replacement of Obamacare.
Although Speaker Ryan’s Obamacare replacement is being rightly condemned, Trump has at least set in motion the repeal of this disastrous policy which has seen premiums skyrocket and choice diminished.
Trump selected Neil Gorsuch for the Supreme Court.
Gorsuch is a strict constitutionalist and will defend fundamental freedoms, protecting Americans from the scourge of judicial activism.
Trump approved the Dakota Access Pipeline and the Keystone Pipeline.
The long awaited approval of these projects will create jobs and reduce gas prices for all Americans.
Trump cut funding for international abortions.
American taxpayers are no longer paying for babies to be aborted by international non-governmental agencies.
Trump returned the power to make decisions on “transgender bathrooms” to the states
The president ordered the DOJ to “withdraw a motion filed by former President Barack Obama seeking to allow transgender students in public schools to use the restroom with which they identify.”
Trump and his team have accomplished all of this in just under 50 days, despite the best efforts of the Democrats and the deep state to sabotage his embryonic administration at every stage.
This list would be a phenomenal achievement for a president who is entering office with momentum, political capital and fair media treatment, but Trump has accomplished it all even in the face of total resistance, sabotage and dirty tricks from the left and the establishment media.
Trump Supports Rand Paul Healthcare Plan: Weekly Address 3-10-17
It involves a massive cache of data ranging from the years 2013-2016.
Inside this data, according to WikiLeaks, are the tools the CIA has been using for years to wreak digital havoc on the world. According to the release:
“Recently, the CIA lost control of the majority of its hacking arsenal including malware, viruses, trojans, weaponized “zero day” exploits, malware remote control systems and associated documentation.
This extraordinary collection, which amounts to more than several hundred million lines of code, gives its possessor the entire hacking capacity of the CIA.
The archive appears to have been circulated among former U.S. government hackers and contractors in an unauthorized manner, one of whom has provided WikiLeaks with portions of the archive."
WikiLeaks notes that this is only the first part of a series they are calling “Year Zero,” which is comprised of 8,761 documents and files from an isolation high-security network situated inside the CIA’s Center for Cyber Intelligence in Langley, Virgina.
“Year Zero,” according to WikiLeaks, introduces the scope and direction of the CIA’s global covert hacking program, its malware arsenal and dozens of “zero day” weaponized exploits against a wide range of U.S. and European company products, include Apple’s iPhone, Google’s Android and Microsoft’s Windows and even Samsung TVs, which are turned into covert microphones.
This leak exposes the massive hacking powerhouse the CIA has become in the last decade - surpassing even that of the NSA.
“Since 2001 the CIA has gained political and budgetary preeminence over the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA).
The CIA found itself building not just its now infamous drone fleet, but a very different type of covert, globe-spanning force - its own substantial fleet of hackers.
The agency’s hacking division freed it from having to disclose its often controversial operations to the NSA (its primary bureaucratic rival) in order to draw on the NSA’s hacking capacities."
What is also notable about this leak is the fact that it reveals another Snowden-type whistleblower within the massive spying apparatus. This time, however, knowing how the US treats whistleblowers, the source has chosen to remain anonymous.
“The source details policy questions that they say urgently need to be debated in public, including whether the CIA’s hacking capabilities exceed its mandated powers and the problem of public oversight of the agency.
The source wishes to initiate a public debate about the security, creation, use, proliferation and democratic control of cyberweapons.”
Cyber weapons pose a massive threat to the entire world’s infrastructure as they can be used by anyone from rival states, cyber mafias, and even teenage hackers.
According to Julian Assange;
“There is an extreme proliferation risk in the development of cyber ‘weapons’. Comparisons can be drawn between the uncontrolled proliferation of such ‘weapons’, which results from the inability to contain them combined with their high market value, and the global arms trade.
But the significance of ‘Year Zero’ goes well beyond the choice between cyberwar and cyberpeace. The disclosure is also exceptional from a political, legal and forensic perspective.”
Noting the severe implications of releasing these hacking tools publicly, WikiLeaks will avoid distributing the ‘armed’ version of the cyber weapons “until a consensus emerges on the technical and political nature of the CIA’s program and how such ‘weapons’ should analyzed, disarmed and published.”
To quantify the sheer size and scope of Vault 7, WikiLeaks notes that just part 1:
“Already eclipses the total number of pages published over the first three years of the Edward Snowden NSA leaks.”
One of the most ominous techniques profiled by WikiLeaks in Vault 7 is “Weeping Angel,” developed by the CIA’s Embedded Devices Branch (EDB) - a cyber weapon that infests smart TV’s and transforms them into microphones.
As WikiLeaks reports, after infestation, Weeping Angel places the target TV in a ‘Fake-Off’ mode, so that the owner falsely believes the TV is off when it is on.
In ‘Fake-Off’ mode the TV operates as a bug, recording conversations in the room and sending them over the Internet to a covert CIA server.
Upon news of ‘Weeping Angel,’ Kim Dotcom chimed in, noting that it is not just TV’s the CIA can control to spy on you.
CIA’s arsenal includes numerous local and remote “zero days” developed by CIA or obtained from GCHQ, NSA, FBI or purchased from cyber arms contractors such as Baitshop. The disproportionate focus on iOS may be explained by the popularity of the iPhone among social, political, diplomatic and business elites.
These techniques permit the CIA to bypass the encryption of WhatsApp, Signal, Telegram, Wiebo, Confide and Cloackman by hacking the “smart” phones that they run on and collecting audio and message traffic before encryption is applied.
Many of these infection efforts are pulled together by the CIA’s Automated Implant Branch (AIB), which has developed several attack systems for automated infestation and control of CIA malware, such as “Assassin” and “Medusa”.
WikiLeaks put the world on notice with the news of the encrypted torrent file Vault 7 last night, and, at 8:06 am EST, they tweeted out the key to unlock it.
Assange was planning a press conference to go over the data dump this morning. However, shortly before it was supposed to begin, they announced the Facebook and Periscope streams were under attack.
As for why WikiLeaks chose to release this information now, they explain:
"WikiLeaks published as soon as its verification and analysis were ready.
In Febuary the Trump administration has issued an Executive Order calling for a “Cyberwar” review to be prepared within 30 days.
While the review increases the timeliness and relevance of the publication it did not play a role in setting the publication date."
Finally, WikiLeaks leaves the rest of the data mining up to the public.
"WikiLeaks has intentionally not written up hundreds of impactful stories to encourage others to find them and so create expertise in the area for subsequent parts in the series.
They’re there. Look. Those who demonstrate journalistic excellence may be considered for early access to future parts."
The Free Thought Project is one of those outlets that will be bringing you our analysis of important information we find within these leaks. We will keep you updated as this, the largest leak in US history, unfolds.
In an appearance with Lou Dobbs, Napolitano laid out what the deep state is for the general public, and dropped bombshell after bombshell about its power to influence the behavior of presidents, obtain all manner of information about the general public and steer the direction of the country – regardless of which political group is supposedly in charge.
“Really, it’s been around since 1947: the deep state – the part of the government that never charges, regardless of which party controls Congress and which party is in the White House,” he explained.
“There are many, many aspects of the deep state; we’re talking about the intelligence community deep state – people in the intelligence community that have access to so much information about everyone."
“They can manipulate the President of the United States, and if they don’t like what he says, they can embarrass him, and if they want to control his thought patterns and decision making, they’ll keep information away from him.”
“Donald Trump has fallen victim to that, and he knows it, and he knows he has to stop it,” he concluded.
Napolitano asserted that Trump’s call for a congressional investigation into possible wiretapping and illegal surveillance of his campaign headquarters at Trump Tower is a nightmare for the deep state and their enablers in the federal government.
“[It is] the last thing his enemies in the intelligence community want, because if the American public learns that they have access to everything we type and everything we say, they will be repulsed by the power that this deep state group has that Congress gave them – they didn’t create this on their own,” he said.
“Congress enacted three pieces of legislation, which, with perverse interpretations of this legislation before a secret court, let’s them gather everything we say in real-time.”
Big Brother is Here - Zakharova Warns of Orwellian US Media
Have a listen to what Zakharova has to say in relation to "fake news". Is there a deliberate campaign to undermine trust in all traditional media, so that the public can no longer form an opinion?
The institution of the media, which was once revered and trusted for its journalistic standards, has now sunk so low that the average person is unable to accept it.
This can be dangerous, as it drives people to a new source - the internet. While alternative media, for the most part, is grassroots in protest to the mainstream media - many sources online are also false and it can difficult to determine an article's validity.
The media was once the fourth estate, whose role in a 'free and fair' democracy was to check, balance and scrutinise the actions of the state.
Today, the media is PR for the state - there is no lie they won't propagate, irrespective of the repercussions it has.
Napolitano referenced the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court as the “secret court” which reviews and approves virtually all requests by the federal government to spy on foreign individuals present in the United States and intercept all of their communications, but these same requests – which are rarely denied – are being used to spy on Americans in shocking fashion.
“One of the FISA court warrants that I saw was, ‘for every customer of Verizon in the United States,’” revealed Napolitano.
“That’s 113 million people – including most of the federal government.”
Dobbs and Napolitano discussed the depth to which the inter-agency spying occurs, noting that even Congress, high-ranking military officers, and Supreme Court justices are intimately monitored.
“If they will surveil journalists, if they will spy on U.S. senators, why would they hesitate to spy on a presidential candidate?” concluded Dobbs.
Just weeks ago, Senator Charles Schumer lobbed a hardly-veiled threat at President Trump on behalf of the deep state, after Trump revealed that rogue elements of the intelligence community were leaking classified information about his conversations and meetings to the fifth column media and politicians.
“You take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you,” said Schumer with a smile.
Chuck Schumer Says CIA is Plotting Revenge Against President Trump
Jim Hanson, vice president of the Center for Security Policy, told Fox News that his sources believe Obama administration operatives could be facing jail time if a proper investigation is carried out into illegal surveillance of Donald Trump and his campaign.
“Does anybody on earth with an above-room-temperature IQ believe [Obama] didn’t know about it and approve it? Of course he did,” Hanson said. “I’ve heard from inside the administration there may be people going to jail.”
ExtremeTech Explains: All About The Dark Web, And How To Use It + How To Start Browsing The Web Anonymously March 9 2017 | From: ExtremeTech / Digg
If you’ve paid any attention to online marketplaces for illegal goods like the now-defunct Silk Road or the FBI’s investigations into criminal in cyberspace, chances are you’ve heard the term “dark web.” Curious about what it means? You’ve come to the right place
The dark web is sometimes called onionland because of its content accessible only using services like Tor.
The rest of the internet is simply referred to as the clearweb, since it isn’t generally encrypted.
How Does the Dark Web Work?
The dark web works just about the same as the regular internet: it uses the same TCP/IP framework to transmit HTTP and FTP traffic within and between networks, over the same phone, cable or FiOS lines that carry regular internet traffic.
Content on the dark web consists of HTML webpages and their assets, just like it does on the rest of the web. In fact, under the hood, the dark web is the same as the regular web, with two important exceptions that also distinguish the dark web from the deep web.
First: the dark web isn’t indexed by search engines. Second, content on the dark web can’t be accessed with regular web browsing software alone; additional software is required to make the networks talk to one another.
This is because content on the dark web is hosted on overlay networks, which are physically connected to the internet but aren’t accessible to web crawlers.
That relative inaccessibility is because the dark web uses a complete, but fundamentally different, network addressing system than the web addresses most of us know and use.
Browsers like Chrome and Firefox are programmed to access website files using the DNS index, which turns a file’s unique address on its unique server into a string of text that you can type into your address bar.
Sites indexed by the DNS registry are accessible via top-level domains like .com and .org, among others.
After ICANN opened up the suffixing system to other strings of text, we started to see web addresses that look like home.cern and bit.ly - but you can still type those into your address bar and get to a website, because they’re in the official DNS registry.
Dark websites don’t participate in the DNS system, and web crawlers don’t have the software to get onto the dark web, so the dark web and the clearweb don’t really cross-pollinate.
How the Mysterious Dark Net is Going Mainstream
Content obscured in this way can still be accessed, but you need the right software. It’s a bit like a Wi-Fi network that doesn’t broadcast its SSID: you can only get access if you already know exactly how to find it.
Some content accessible only through Tor is hosted at a .onion pseudo-top-level domain, which means that in the right software, you might type in foobar.onion and get to the Foobar dark website.
Such software, including the Tor browser bundle, is capable of bridging the differences in network behavior between the dark web and the clearweb. But that only works when you’re using a compatible browser and have the right encryption.
Tor, Freenet and I2P are the most commonly cited examples of software capable of accessing the dark web. Typing a .onion address into your Chrome address bar won’t get you anywhere.
Click on the image above to open a larger version in a new window
Furthermore, many if not most .onion sites are generated sixteen-character “non-mnemonic” alphanumeric strings, rather than being composed of words like most clearweb URLs.
There also exists a difference in the path web traffic takes on the clearnet versus the dark web. Tor is valuable because it sends your own web traffic through multiple different network nodes, masking its origin and destination.
There’s significant overlap between VPNs and the dark web; both services use encryption and multiple network nodes to anonymize traffic. But VPNs deal with clearweb sites that participate in the DNS system, while dark web browsers deal with domains not recognized by ICANN.
What Is The Dark Web Used For?
The structure of the dark web makes it anonymizing, which means that first and foremost, it’s used for anonymous communication and web browsing. This accounts for the vast majority of network traffic through Tor.
Why seek out anonymity? To read and write about things that might get you in trouble, like political dissent or whistleblowing. The same technology that enables Tor is capable of tunneling out from behind the Great Firewall of China, and the US government contributes to the development of such software.
Anonymity also brings out those who wish to do illegal things. A 2014 study found that of the different kinds of sites on the dark net, there are more markets devoted to drugs and guns than any other kind of dark site, including forums, bitcoin laundering, hacking, fraud, whistleblowing and even regular old porn.
To paraphrase Jim Jeffries, if you want to murder someone, you can’t just walk up to Pier 31 and shout “GUNS, WHO WANTS TO SELL ME SOME GUNS!?” But with a website like an evil eBay that lists weapons and other contraband for sale, all of a sudden you don’t have to know someone with “black market connections.” You just have to be able to install some software.
Tor hidden services are the other thing the dark web does, and they’re what gives the dark web its shady reputation. Hidden services refers to dark sites where both the host and the visitor are anonymous to one another. That technology enables dark web sites that host illegal content to persist.
Hidden services account for only 1.5% of the Tor network volume. But the overwhelming majority of resources requested over Tor hidden services - fully 80% of that traffic - were requests from child abuse sites.
Outgoing traffic from the dark web flowed mainly between botnets and their hidden control servers. More detail on Tor’s traffic patterns and how much of its total bandwidth is used for illegal activities is available in a blog post by the Tor project.
The dark web is notoriously dodgy territory for both buyers and sellers. Law enforcement has been chipping away at the nominal anonymity afforded by software like Tor, and anything of interest on the dark web is as likely to be a scam as it is to be a honeypot.
Between social engineering and software vulnerabilities, it is a realm best accessed while wielding some trustworthy anti-malware.
For a long time, the Silk Road was the biggest game in darknet commerce. It allowed users to sell a great many illegal things, and inspired a number of similarly designed copycat markets.
Transactions there were conducted in bitcoins and other virtual currency, and then goods were shipped through the mail. But a high-profile bust and ensuing court case put several Silk Road admins in jail.
The media spotlight has impinged on the Silk Road’s relative obscurity, reducing its value as a black marketplace.
While Uncle Sam contributes to the development of Tor and similar anonymity resources, the government is also known to take more of a proprietary approach, considering even the dark web to be within American jurisdiction when site hosting is in question.
The dark net is an excellent example of how difficult it is to prevent criminals from using anonymizing services designed to protect honest dissenters. Tor’s anonymizing functions are critically important to people who rely on it to discuss sensitive topics without fear of reprisal.
The debate over how much light should be shone into the dark web is an ongoing topic of discussion. How much illegal activity should be allowed to maintain Tor’s positive benefits, and is there a way to unmask child molesters and other illicit activity without compromising the security that makes the dark web work?
Mathematician breaks down how to defend against quantum computing attacks.
The simplest way to look at anonymous internet browsing is a three-pronged approach. You need to make sure all of your accounts are secure. You need to hide your internet traffic. And you need to encrypt your communications with other.
Secure Your Accounts
Even if everything you do and say on the web is entirely anonymous, that's all moot if someone can still duck into your email or bank account. So, before you start thinking about masking your online activities, check and make sure what's already on the web is accessible only to you.
The best way to do that is to make sure each and every one of your accounts has two-factor authentication. Two-factor authentication, as the name implies, requires two things to log into an account.
The first is a password. The second is an external verification method such as a text message or an external verification app like Google Authenticator.
With two-factor authentication, someone could have your password but they can't log into your account without your phone where the text messages and authenticator apps live. It's kinda like using a key to get into your house and then being greeted by a very large man who, politely but firmly, asks you to recite a 6-digit number that's magically just popped into your head.
Sounds pretty awesome, right? The all-important caveat, however, is that not all websites have two-factor authentication implemented. Which is bad, because like chains, your account security is only as strong as the weakest link.
Anyone with your password and motivated enough could just log into a non-two-factor-protected account, dig around for some personal info and then social engineer their way into a two-factor protected account.
So yeah, you're going to want to make sure everything is doubly-secure.
You could dig around in the settings pages of the dozens or so web services you use to find if they do in fact offer two-factor authentication. That would be practicing a respectable amount of diligence on your part and we respect you for that.
But you could also just head to two-factor-auth.org and browse their handy list of services that use the security measure.1 And if you're unsure just how many internet accounts you have lying around, a good starting point is checking our your saved passwords in your browser of choice.
Hide Your Traffic
Shoring up account security is arguably the hardest part of this whole endeavor. The more technically complex process of encrypting your internet traffic is, practically-speaking, much easier.
Which: You have two choices, slow and free or fast and, erm, not-free.
The slow and free option is the Tor browser. Running on a modified version of the Firefox browser, Tor - which is short for The Onion Router - uses something called "onion routing" model to hide your traffic. Simply put, it works, but it can be slow as heck.
Normally, internet traffic works like passing a note in class. You write who the note is to so everyone else knows who to eventually pass it to, you write who it's from so the recipient can pass a note back, and it's also full of that hot gossip people want.
What Tor does is take that note and wrap it in a bunch of different notes that only certain people can open.
So a note that you want to eventually sent to Jenny is wrapped in three other notes that first goes off to Carl who opens the note and is instructed to pass that note to Terry who is then instructed to pass the note to Amy who is then instructed to finally to Jenny.
Ideally, there are so many notes being passed around that even the most watchful observer has no idea where one starts and the other ends.
A virtual private network (VPN), on the other hand, is much faster since you're just connecting to another network somewhere else on the globe. As the name suggest, it is like you're walking into another office somewhere else on the planet and (virtually) plugging an ethernet cable into your computer.
To the outside observer it just looks like some server in Switzerland is accessing Netflix.com. And if you choose a VPN that encrypts and does not log your traffic, it's impossible for anyone to see your web activities.
To draw on the passing-notes-in-class metaphor again, a VPN is like getting the principal to come to your classroom, pull Jenny out of the room and ask her if she likes you.
That said, it does come at a price. For a VPN that is fast and secure expect to pay somewhere around $10 a month. And although we do not endorse this practice, one of the added benefits of using a VPN is that you can access region locked content on various streaming services.
Keep Your Private Conversations Private
It's rude enough for a stranger to even eavesdrop on your conversations in a place as public as a park. So opting to use messaging services with end-to-end encryption doesn't make you some sort of criminal or tin foil hat-wearing nut.
Whether you mind or not, there are organizations out there that are just scooping up every chat (Hello NSA!) you send out over the internet.
No one is actively looking at them, or might ever look at them, but they're listening so you might as well turn some music on or something.
It's sort of like taping over your webcam or looking both ways before you cross the street - it's such an easy and painless thing to do that it far outweighs the consequences of not doing that thing.
What you're looking for is chat with end-to-end encryption - where only you can the recipient can decrypt the messages.
To, again, reuse the passing-a-note-in-class analogy, you and your friend both have a unique way to confirm you are who you say you are - in real life, handwriting; on the internet, a public key.
Click on the image above to view a larger version in a new window
The note is then encrypted using a randomly-generated cipher, which then is then also encrypted and can only be decrypted with the receiver's private key.
Admittedly, the analogy kinda breaks down here, but the end result is that this system ensures that messages sent to a single person can only be read by that person.
That said, trying to convince all your contacts to download yet another messaging app is not the easiest thing in the world. Luckily, popular messaging apps like iMessage, Facebook Messenger and WhatsApp all employ end-to-end encryption.
Keeping your accounts secure, and encrypting your traffic and communications will bring you 95 percent of the way towards keeping the snoops out. That said, there are a few considerations here and there you might want to keep in mind.
Most importantly is to keep in mind how you connect to the internet and who you're sharing that connection with.
It's like using someone else's phone to call your friend. They now have your friends number, and in a more dated-reference, on a landline they have the option of picking up the phone in another room to eavesdrop.
Second is determining the physical location of the cloud services you use. It's a bit of a doomsday scenario, but if the government comes knocking for your data, it's much easier for a company who has servers overseas to deny that request.
So, for instance, in terms of usability Dropbox is a good cloud storage solution. However, all of their servers are based in the US, so if a subpoena drops for your data, you're kinda SOL. Clowdwards.net - a service that'll help you navigate the various VPN and cloud storage services - recommends Sync as an alternative.
Again, we want to stress that doing any of this will not make you some kind of a trenchcoat-wearing kook.
But really, even in a society where there's zero threat of someone peeking in on our online activities, there's no solid reason to just kinda leave this stuff hanging out in the breeze.
You tear up your credit card offers and bills, right? So, make sure your internet activities are anonymized.
DeepStateGate: Trump Ends The Wiretapping Innuendo Game By Dealing Himself In & Incompetent And A Criminal: Obama’s Wiretapping Of President Trump Icing On The Cake Of Worst President Ever March 8 2017 | From: Breitbart / TheGatewayPundit / Various
The White House statement on “DeepStateGate” - President Donald Trump’s allegations that former President Barack Obama ordered surveillance on him during his 2016 presidential campaign - has the feel of cards and chips thumping down on the table.
The White House is placing a substantial bet on what Congress will uncover. Don’t expect those cards to be dealt swiftly because such investigations take time.
The Trump administration can distinguish itself by cooperating energetically with this one and helping it move forward quickly. Rest assured that no matter how long it takes, the media will never consider it “old news” as long as there remains any chance for anyone connected with the Trump 2016 campaign to get in trouble over contacts with the Russians.
It’s possible one reason Trump issued his explosive tweets on surveillance was to make everyone put up or shut up.
That might already be working, as some of the more aggressive dealers in unsubstantiated innuendo are suddenly admitting they don’t have any actual evidence. There can’tbe any hard evidence if Trump is super-duper wrong about Obama administration surveillance:
Until now, Democrats and their media have been pleased to create the impression that all kindsof wiretapping operations were conducted against the Trump campaign, uncovering many scandalous, possibly illegal connections.
Only by reading those articles carefully does one discover the sources are highly speculative and the evidence is thin at best.
The much-discussed New York Times piece from January 19 is a perfect example of this.
It begins by matter-of-factly confirming the existence of the wiretaps everyone in Obamaworld is now swearing are a figment of Donald Trump’s imagination.
Mountains of innuendo about connections between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence have been spun out of what these abruptly non-existent intercepts contained, according to the anonymous leakers who currently drive almost 100 percent of mainstream media coverage.
But if you read that New York Times article carefully, it admits the communications intercepts may not exist, and if they do, no one can confirm what they actually say (emphasis added):
“American law enforcement and intelligence agencies are examining intercepted communications and financial transactions as part of a broad investigation into possible links between Russian officials and associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump, including his former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, current and former senior American officials said.
The continuing counterintelligence investigation means that Mr. Trump will take the oath of office on Friday with his associates under investigation and after the intelligence agencies concluded that the Russian government had worked to help elect him.
As president, Mr. Trump will oversee those agencies and have the authority to redirect or stop at least some of these efforts.
It is not clear whether the intercepted communications had anything to do with Mr. Trump’s campaign, or Mr. Trump himself. It is also unclear whether the inquiry has anything to do with an investigation into the hacking of the Democratic National Committee’s computers and other attempts to disrupt the elections in November.
The American government has concluded that the Russian government was responsible for a broad computer hacking campaign, including the operation against the D.N.C."
Whatever President Trump’s intentions were in using Twitter to touch off this firestorm, one of the immediate effects has been letting the gas out of all those speculative Trump stories.
The Democratic media is now furiously working to prove all of its own previous coverage of the Trump-Russia allegations was little more than idle speculation, every bit as lacking in hard evidence as Trump’s accusation that Obama was tapping his phones.
After months of unfounded allegations and badly sourced speculation intended to cripple his administration, maybe Trump wanted to prove that only one side of the partisan divide is permitted to make “wild allegations.”
Obama’s plants in the Deep State can leak whatever they please, law and truth be damned.
They can get an avalanche of hostile coverage moving with a few phone calls or emails. The media feels no contrition when the story turns out to be exaggerated or completely false, eagerly turning to the same Obama holdovers as sources for the next big phony scoop.
No one on Trump’s team, including the president himself, is allowed to reciprocate in kind. We are meant to feel bottomless outrage that Trump would level unsubstantiated allegations against Obama, but apparently, Obama’s minions can launch a constant barrage of unsubstantiated allegations against Trump.
Intentionally or accidentally, Trump just forced the press to admit how weak the bulk of those allegations were. The wiretapping timeline that has drawn so much attention since Saturday night was largely based on mainstream media reporting.
The media is effectively saying;
“Hey, wait, we were just blowing smoke. We didn’t think anyone would take those reports seriously and build a case that Obama was wiretapping Trump.
We just wanted to make Trump look bad by pumping up vague rumors that he and his campaign might have been under observation!”
Amazingly, the same media that just went through 48 hours of convulsions over a bogus “perjury” charge against Attorney General Jeff Sessions is happy to cite an actual, admitted perjurer, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, as an unimpeachable source on the exact issue he lied about to Congress.
"All of this was part of a coordinated planned campaign by people that are linked to Barrack Obama."
There are still senior people in jobs at the Director of National Intelligence office, the office of the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency that ought to be fired, Larry Johnson, retired CIA and State Department official, told RT.
They also expect the American people to trust former Obama adviser Ben Rhodes, who openly bragged of his ability to mislead credulous reporters and construct phony narratives to sell the Iran nuclear deal.
The Obama administration’s enthusiasm for surveillance and using government power against its political enemies is a matter of shameful record. The no-holds-barred “Resistance” mindset among Democrats is painfully obvious. If they are running a “silent coup” against Trump, it’s the loudest silent coup in history. You can scarcely sleep at night over the racket this silent coup makes.
Sorry, DNC Media, no sale. In the absence of hard evidence one way or the other, Team Obama is not going to win a credibility shootout with Team Trump.
McCarthy’s Sunday post on the matter is well worth reading in full. His key point is that some highly unusual FISA requests for surveillance on the Trump campaign weremade and were denied by the court, as very few such requests are.
The Obama administration was persistent and eventually obtained the authorization it wanted, but there is reason to suspect it was not entirely candid with the FISA court on its final, successful request.
McCarthy points out that if Obama believed half of what the Democrats tout as sacred truth about the Russians working with Trump’s campaign, he would have been negligent notto authorize the kind of surveillance Trump is angry about, and there is “a less than zero chance” surveillance could have been imposed “without consultation between the Justice Department and the White House.”
Robert Barnes at LawNewz also explores the idea of the FISA court approving a warrant that was submitted without Trump’s name but “which Obama then misused to spy on Trump and many connected to Trump.”
He suggests the most serious legal jeopardy that might be facing the people involved in such an effort would be perjury for lying to the FISA court and the dissemination of collected intelligence that should have been kept tightly classified. Instead, he cites reports that Obama acted to reduce the restrictions on sharing this information and to preserve material that should have been destroyed.
What McCarthy and Barnes are describing is plausible and consistent with the behavior of the Obama administration over many years. That doesn’t mean it’s automatically true, but it shouldbe investigated, every bit as thoroughly as Russian activity in the 2016 election cycle.
Trump’s weekend tweets may have finally put an end to speculative reporting, strategic leaking, and innuendo. Perhaps the only way to end that game was for Trump to deal himself in.
“Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my “wires tapped” in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!"
He next tweeted:
“Is it legal for a sitting President to be “wire tapping” a race for president prior to an election? Turned down by court earlier. A NEW LOW!"
Next the President tweeted:
“I’d bet a good lawyer could make a great case out of the fact that President Obama was tapping my phones in October, just prior to Election!"
The final for four tweets concerning the wire tapping:
“How low has President Obama gone to tapp my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!"
Not surprising after the shock of what was presented by the current President to the public, the left wing media, their Democrat allies and the few #NeverTrump Republicans who align in their opposition to President Trump went all in for former President Obama.
Their responses no longer surprise America.
Americans would be shocked if they criticized former President Obama. As a result of the recent Presidential campaign, Americans are used to seeing the corrupt media and Democrats (including #NeverTrumpers) react as they do.
Now America is supposed to believe that the narcissist President Obama was looking out for America when he tapped President Trump at Trump Tower during the election?
This former President who chose not to investigate his former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, for known abuses with foreign entities in her Clinton Foundation, felt the need to wire tap her competitor during the election for no known reason?
Based on his deceiving track record, it is clear that President Obama wanted to gain information against future President Trump that he could use against him.
This is Obamagate. Hopefully, the final chapter in Obama’s failed Presidency.
Unlike the media that is still cheerleading for serial liar Obama, most Americans stand by the side of their current President Trump, and rightly so.
See the Following for More Reasons Why Obama is the ‘Worst. President. Ever’:
EU nationalists are paving the way for a “new” Europe, she said. She added:
“I am thrilled to see that Europeans are speaking out against the Union, and calling for a Europe of nations. We will build a better Europe, whether Mrs Merkel and Mr Schulz like it or not.”
The presidential hopeful - who is more or less guaranteed a place in the final round of the spring election – said if elected president she would renegotiate, if not scrap, EU treaties as an initial step towards creating a Europe of nations.
United States In Deep Turmoil As Trump Confronts The Establishment + Trump To Release Hidden Technology? - Disruptive Technology And Free Energy Under Donald Trump? March 4 2017 | From: JournalNeo / SitsShow
With the departure of the Trump’s national security adviser, political crisis in the US has only depended and is likely to exacerbate into a full-fledged struggle for power and control between Trump and what some call ‘deep-state.’
Comment: This article come across as a bit negative. Bare in mind that to most, the existence of the Alliance that is working to take down the Cabal - and that supports Trump - is working terelessly behind the scenes. Major movements are taking place behind the scenes that very few are yet aware of. While the mainstream media are lying whores and cabal propagandists (whether they knoe it or not), many independent media commentators are plain and simply just out of the loop.
The Conservative Tribune reports, President Donald Trump was elected on the promise that he would “drain the swamp” of corruption in Washington and that he would appoint to his Cabinet only people who would help him do it.
While Donald Trump is an elected president of the United States of America, he doesn’t seem to be able to exercise power in actual terms. This is evident from the way a so-called ‘pro-Russian’ adviser has been forced to resign.
Following this resignation an intense debate has emerged in the US, leading a considerable number of people, 48 per cent according to a recent poll, reject the way Trump has performed in the first month of his presidency. Already Trump has retracted on Crimea.
Accordingly, he is in no hurry to engage Russia in Syria nor does he consider NATO to be “obsolete.” In the same vain, his U-turn towards China is something that nobody could foresee during his election campaign.
As of now, a great deal of Trump’s election rhetoric is dead and lies buried deep inside the rubric of deep structures of power, marking the very first instance of its sort when an American president has found himself deeply at odds with the system. And, there is no certainty that he can or may overcome this tussle and emerge as the American ‘knight in a shining armour.’
While this may or may not happen, a lot of questions about Trump’s ability to steer the course of American foreign and domestic policies have emerged following Flynn’s resignation and with it the so-called crisis of legitimacy has deepened, leaving minimum to no space for Trump to freely determine the course of American policy making.
How does Donald Trump win against the evil trying to stop his Administration? Financial expert Catherine Austin Fitts contends, “Trump wins by staying focused on the real issues. The U.S. economy needs a variety of things, including turning the federal budget around.
The reality is the federal budget has a negative return to taxpayers. It’s got to be turned positive. That comes down to tax reform, infrastructure and it comes down to Obama Care. Trump is the Titanic Turner, and he needs to stick to the big issues. He has to make sure the shriek-o-meter does not destroy his top lieutenants and put space between him and them. Otherwise, the pigs are going to step in and run things.”
In closing, Fitts says, “What’s killing this economy is corruption and lawlessness. That’s what’s killing the economy. We need to deal with these problems.”
The crisis, or the power struggle, has depend to an extent where an American elected president has been forced to publicly blame American intelligence agencies for feeding media with information against him and claimed that today`s America was `just like Russia`.
The Russophobia campaign is, indeed, being fed to the American public and the declining support for Trump is a direct result of this spread of false information than an outcome of an actual ‘bad performance.’
The media leaks have already led to Michael Flynn`s resignation. The Washington Post has recently reported that Flynn had “discussed sanctions” with a Russian official during the transition period, although Flynn had assured Vice President Mike Pence that this did not happen.
In turn, The New York Times noted on February 14, 2017, that other officials of the Trump administration and his election campaign have had contacts with Russian intelligence agents as well.
The media`s propagandist claims has certainly irked Trump who went to his favourite medium of communication Twitter to fire off a series of tweets, attacking the media as well as the intelligence agencies. In at least two tweets, Trump named the agencies the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) and National Security Agency (NSA) that he said were `running a campaign against him`.
`The real scandal here is that classified information is illegally given out by `intelligence` like candy. ‘Very un-American’, he tweeted. `Information is being illegally given to the failing New York Times and Washington Post by the intelligence community.
The crisis that has thus ensued and which is being fanned out by the mainstream US media is asking for changes in the policies, particularly towards Russia about Crimea and co-operation in Syria, that Trump had advocated during his election campaign.
We have already seen that some of it has already changed. What this retraction implies, in political terms, is that the establishment has also shown that it has the ability and the grit to undermine Trump if he were to deviate from their script - a script that is premised on the existence of an enemy (Russia) and which the establishment and the deep-state can use to protect, enhance and materialize its own political and economic interests in both domestic and global political and economic arenas.
The “Russophobia” based containment of Donald Trump is, however, not going to remain exclusive to the US’ domestic political circles.
On the contrary, it is likely, and already has, to expand into international political arena and is going to define and shape Trump’s relations with the US’ European allies, who in turn are neither comfortable with Trump’s foreign policy nor are going to allow him to retract the US-NATO security system (read: NATO is no longer “obsolete”).
Interestingly enough, this ‘trans-Atlantic Russophobia’ is being transformed into a new Cold War. The NATO defence ministers have been recently been discusing the presence of their fleets in the Black Sea in a closed summit in Bruselrs.
Clearly, the western bloc on the whole loathes Trump, creating an unprecedented disequilibrium within the Western alliance wherein Trump leads the alliance, but the partners do not know how far he is to be taken seriously due to his inability to control things (read: establishment’s course of action is more appealing to the NATO allies for its anti-Russia, pro-sanctions commitments).
The Trump administration has lost, by losing Flynn, its authority and the ability to guide the American public to its vision.
On the contrary, the media-establishment nexus has hijacked Donal Trump’s own vision, forcing him to forget his election rhetoric promises and come out in the open to fight for his political survival through social media.
Just as Trump’s confrontation with the American establishment is causing unease in the domestic and European political arena, Trump’s fight with the establishment is being equally fought in both domestic and European arenas.
Whereas Trump has resorted to twitter to fight back a sustained media campaign, in the European arena he has hit back by re-casting doubts over the US’ commitment to NATO.
That is to say, while he no doubt has willy-nilly accepted NATO as the “bedrock” of American security, Mattis’ remarks at NATO defence ministers’ meeting show that the crisis is not yet over and that it will remain unsettled unless the dust of the tussle between Trump and American establishment remains in the air - something that may not happen overnight - and unless the all-powerful American establishment succeeds in modifying Trump into a typical Neo-Con hawk.
President Trump Addresses the Joint Session of Congress
Blockchain Rules: Regulating A Game-Changing New Technology & Bitcoin’s Top Rival Is Up 90% And Ready To Ditch Mining March 2 2017 | From: Scoop / Bloomberg Blockchain - the technology powering Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies - is poised to transform the way we buy things, do business, and many other areas of everyday life.
As banks and governments around the world grapple with how to harness this rising disruptive force, a team of legal and banking experts is taking the first step toward developing a framework for regulating them in New Zealand and Australia.
Comment:The reason we find the 'cryptocurrency' topic so interesting is that informed insiders have stated that the concept of "Bitcoin" was developed by the Alliance as an insurance policy - such that if the Cabal tried to completely nose-dive the global financial system into oblivion - that an alternative
modality would be in place. And so; the concept of 'cryptoocurrencies' stands as not only a back-up, but as a palpable deterrent mechanism.
At the moment, cryptocurrencies are highly volatile and speculative, mostly operating on the economy’s fringe. But rapid technological developments mean they are set to go mainstream.
Their disruptive power arises partly from the way they allow people and businesses to transact value directly from payer to payee, either locally or across the globe, bypassing banks and other traditional third parties.
"There are, though, risks associated with cryptocurrencies, some not yet known, which is why this work is important. Currently, cryptocurrency transactions cannot be reversed and most new transaction technology relates to small sums.
What happens when a consumer’s life savings are sent to the wrong person by accident or a person’s private key is compromised? Then there are issues of privacy. How are a person’s financial details kept private when the information is accessible by those that have access to a particular blockchain?”
“We’re on the cusp of radical and disruptive change, and this poses challenges for lawmakers and regulators around the world,” says Associate Professor Alex Sims from the University of Auckland, who is leading the team tasked with developing the Trans-Tasman framework thanks to a $50,000 Law Foundation grant.
“With major companies such as Microsoft now accepting virtual currency payments, it’s feasible that blockchain technology will become ubiquitous within the next decade."
“Currently, there is no law regulating cryptocurrencies in New Zealand, however people have had their bank accounts closed because their bank suspected them of dealing in cryptocurrencies,” she says.
A core element of these digital currencies – called “cryptocurrencies” because they rely on extremely strong cryptography - is the blockchain. Invented in 2008 with the birth of Bitcoin, a blockchain is a list or digital ledger that records transactions and stores them in secure “blocks”.
Each block is then “chained” to the next with a cryptographic signature. The names of parties who make the transactions never appear on the blockchain, instead public keys are used, allowing for confidentiality.
Copies of blockchains are stored across thousands of computers within a network.
This makes them more secure than conventional bank accounts, as a hacker would have to hack into thousands of computers at the same time to change more than 50 percent of the copies, and anomalous transactions not replicated throughout the majority of the network would be ignored or effectively rejected.
The blockchain also allows for “smart contracts”, which could be game-changing in many areas of life.
Associate Professor Sims, who is head of Commercial Law at the University of Business School, says banks and credit card companies realise their role as gate-keepers and middle-people in financial transactions is under threat.
“If cryptocurrencies become widespread, it could slash banks’ profits. Banks are trying to use the new technology between themselves because the benefits are massive, but they are going to try to limit how others use it. There is a real danger that if the banks get their way, the benefits of cryptocurrencies may be reduced or even lost,” she says.
"There are, though, risks associated with cryptocurrencies, some not yet known, which is why this work is important. Currently, cryptocurrency transactions cannot be reversed and most new transaction technology relates to small sums.
What happens when a consumer’s life savings are sent to the wrong person by accident or a person’s private key is compromised? Then there are issues of privacy. How are a person’s financial details kept private when the information is accessible by those that have access to a particular blockchain?”
Associate Professor Sims and her co-researchers, Professor of Banking and Finance David Mayes from the Business School, and Dr Kanchana Kariyawasam of Australia’s Griffith University Business School, are focussed on striking the best balance between the interests of blockchain stakeholders – consumers, businesses, other parties – and the interests of regulators.
"The danger is if you regulate too much, you won’t get the full benefits, but if you regulate too lightly, you could see problems such as money laundering,” says Associate Professor Sims.
The grant for the project is the first from a new $2 million Information Law and Policy Project (ILAPP) that the Law Foundation established to develop law and policy around IT, data, information, artificial intelligence and cyber-security.
Law Foundation Executive Director, Lynda Hagen, says;
"“Digital currencies are likely to revolutionise the finance world and beyond, creating significant challenges for law and regulation. This important new research is the first work approved under our Information Law and Policy Project that will better prepare New Zealand for the challenges ahead and help build New Zealand’s future digital competence.”
Associate Professor Sims: “This is a critical first step towards streamlining the regulatory framework in the Asia-Pacific region, as well as globally.”
Over the next year, the researchers will investigate:
How blockchain technology emerged, and the issues, risks and opportunities it brings
How much blockchain technology falls within existing regulation and how outmoded law will be reformed to benefit this promising technology sector
Examples from other countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom and Estonia, who are further down the track in exploring new policy models for the blockchain age
Bitcoin’s Top Rival Is Up 90% And Ready To Ditch Mining
Marco Streng’s computer servers are what make Ethereum tick. Thousands strong, they whir day and night, solving the complex math riddles that are essential to verifying transactions on the hottest new platform in the world of cryptocurrencies and blockchains.
Without these machines, or those deployed by Streng’s biggest rivals, there would be no Ethereum.
Ethereum’s developers set course for mining-free model
Blockchain seen as potential backbone for business, finance
But mining, as the practice is called, is costly and inefficient and, frankly, a bit weird. And Ethereum’s developers have always envisioned a time in which the cumbersome process of brute-force computing would be replaced by a system that relies simply on collateral.
That time, some four years after the network was first proposed, is now. The developers want to put this “proof-of-stake” model, called Casper, into place by year-end.
The stakes are high. If Ethereum is going to take advantage of the potential that companies like JPMorgan, Microsoft and IBM see in its underlying transaction technology, the blockchain, as the potential backbone that could reshape modern business and finance, it needs to gain wide adoption to become something of a de facto standard.
Without mining, Ethereum “will be more usable, more secure and more scalable too,” said Vlad Zamfir, who’s been working on Casper since 2014.
The main draw of the blockchain is that it’s a cryptographically secured list of transactions that can be shared, which backers say could dramatically improve how financial services, supply-chain and health-care industries are run. (Think immediate settlement of bank transfers and securities trades, as well as near-real-time tracking of food products or research samples.)
Ethereum also allows for the use of “smart contracts,” or pieces of computer code that make the terms of such agreements operate automatically.
Miners have been critical to the growth of Ethereum. The market for ether, the digital currency used to pay miners who support the network, has soared 90 percent this year alone.
It’s the second-most popular cryptocurrency behind bitcoin, which has gained 24 percent in the same span, setting records almost every day as investors look to hedge against potential global uncertainty and hope for a bitcoin-based exchange-traded fund to get regulatory approval.
Even before Ethereum was first released in 2015, developers had envisioned moving away from the mining-based model, known among tech geeks as “proof-of-work.”
As the network gets more popular, the computations the miners need to complete to validate transactions get harder and harder. Not only has this created the potential for bottlenecks, like those already plaguing bitcoin, but it’s also set off an environmentally taxing arms race among the biggest miners, which run server farms consuming vast amounts of electricity.
And to many techno-utopian enthusiasts, using all that computing power to continually solve what amounts to pointless problems is a big waste.
That’s where Casper comes in. Rather than rewarding miners with the most computing power, the “proof-of-stake” model requires that users put up collateral if they want to collect fees for validating transactions.
The more collateral you put up, the more money you can get paid for verifying transactions.
It would take power away from miners like Streng, who have to approve software changes, and make it easier to implement improvements on the fly.
A handful of bitcoin miners in China have already hamstrung some attempts to increase that cryptocurrency’s capacity. (Miners can’t vote against the switch.)
The move will make Ethereum “more attractive in large-scale applications,” said William Mougayar, author of “The Business Blockchain.”
Hyperledger, a blockchain venture with more than than 100 members including IBM, JPMorgan and American Express, could adopt Ethereum’s “proof-of-stake” model if it’s successful, according to Brian Behlendorf, the consortium’s executive director.
It could also help put the network in “a league of our own,” Andrew Keys, head of global business development at startup ConsenSys, the world’s largest Ethereum-centric blockchain software engineering company.
No Sure Thing
Making “proof-of-stake” work is hardly a foregone conclusion. Casper’s rollout has been delayed before. And the use of deposits potentially increases the risk of hacking. (While Zamfir said he’s working to make sure hackers can’t steal deposits, he couldn’t rule out the possibility, however remote, that an attack could, in effect, delete the money.)
Streng, who stands to lose out if Casper is implemented, is wary. “There’s a lot of incentive for people to game the system,” he said.
Trust in Ethereum was badly shaken last summer, when a hacker stole millions from a project called the DAO. Developers had to rush to implement a software change, which ended up splitting the Ethereum community in two. Now, each operates its own, separate blockchain.
Zamfir says the benefits outweigh the risks. One of the biggest is “transaction finality.” Unlike most blockchain technologies, which require multiple verifications, settlement on Casper can occur much faster. With some enhancements, the feature could ultimately enable Ethereum to process more payments faster -- a key selling point for financial companies.
Mona El Isa, a former Goldman Sachs trader who runs Melonport AG, which builds software for fund managers who invest in digital assets on Ethereum, is confident that developers can work out any kinks with Casper.
“In these early stages of this new technology, you can’t expect everything to go right,” El Isa said.
If Casper ultimately happens, Streng says it won’t be the end of the world. He can redeploy his servers to mine other cryptocurrencies or become a depositor on Ethereum instead. But he isn’t holding his breath just yet. Implementing such a sweeping change isn’t going to be easy and it’s still possible the plan could be scrapped altogether, he says.
“The developers have very bright minds,” he said. Nevertheless, “they wouldn’t risk the Ethereum network, in my opinion.”
Russia Calls For Elimination Of Khazarian Mafia World Order + Globalist Corporations Are Blind In The Face Of Doom February 27 2017 | From: Geopolitics / JonRappoport Speaking at the Munich Security Conference, we are told that Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov “called Saturday for an end to a world order dominated by the West and said Moscow wanted to establish a ‘pragmatic’ relationship with the United States.”
This is certainly a devastating blow on New World Order agents like John McCain and the Neoconservatives, who never get tired of drinking other people’s blood in the Middle East and elsewhere. And this is just the beginning:
"Lavrov said that the time when the West called the shots was over and, dismissing NATO as a relic of the Cold War, added: ‘I hope that (the world) will choose a democratic world order - a post-West one - in which each country is defined by its sovereignty.’
Lavrov said Moscow wanted to build relations with Washington which would be ‘pragmatic with mutual respect and acknowledgement of our responsibility for global stability.’”
Lavrov, whether he notices or not, is asking for the return of practical reason in the political firmament. His plea is certainly congruent with what Kant would call the categorical imperative, which seeks universal principles.
As I have argued in the past, the categorical imperative prohibits contradiction and irrationality precisely because it is based on the moral law itself. It states:
"Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.”
This obviously throws the New World Order ideology out the window because the New World Order itself cannot be universalized. New World Order agents continue to destroy one country after another with no moral principle whatsoever.
What is so astonishing to much of the world is that New World Order agents see nothing wrong in obliterating men, women and children. They have absolutely no remorse. Listen to Ann Coulter very carefully here:
"Sorry we have to use your country, Iraqis, but you let Saddam come to power, and we are going to instill democracy in your country.”
Serving your country. Wake up. Serving the Agenda of the N W O
To “instill democracy,” men, women and children have to die. Mothers have to mourn for their babies, and fathers have to dislocate. This “democracy” is basically hell on earth.
Coulter and her bosses continue to live in a dream world where practical reason plays no role. That seems to be far-fetched, perhaps it is pertinent to bring in flaming Jewish Neocon Michael Ledeen. He declared:
"‘Creative destruction is our middle name, both within our society and abroad. We tear down the old order every day, from business to science, literature, art, architecture, and cinema to politics and the law.
Our enemies have always hated this whirlwind of energy and creativity which menaces their traditions (whatever they may be) and shames them for their inability to keep pace… We must destroy them to advance our historic mission.’”
As it turns out, the New World Order which the Khazarian Mafia and their lackeys have established over the years is not based on the pursuit of the truth or moral principles but on the pursuit of categorical lies, colossal hoaxes, deceptive means, and complete fabrications.
You remember how New World Order agents led the American people into Iraq? You remember how they led the “sheeple” into Afghanistan and then Libya? Remember how they wanted to do the same thing in Syria?
You see, no one can universalize the New World Order ideology because it is existentially and fundamentally incoherent. And Kant would have almost certainly thrown it in the dustbin of history once and for all.
The moral or universal law, says Kant, is what binds us all together as rational creatures. Any deviation from the moral law is a recipe for disaster. So, any system that seeks to dismiss the moral law must be wrong precisely because that system will inevitably be incoherent and metaphysically worthless.
Kant continues to say that for an action to be good;
"It is not enough that it should conform to the moral law - it must also be done for the sake of the moral law.”
Kant again kills the New World Order ideology here. And if you think that Kant is off the mark, listen to flaming Neocon John Bolton:
"It is a big mistake to for us to grant any validity to international law… because over the long term, the goal of those who think that it really means anything are those who want to constrict the United States.”
In other words, people like Bolton are paid to lie to the American people. They are Satanists.
Obviously Sergei Lavrov seems to have treated on Kant’s canvas when he essentially called for an end to the New World Order, which is Satanism in disguise. It should not be a surprise that New World Order agents are still mad and sad that Russia is still playing a major role in establishing what Lavrov calls a “pragmatic” world order.
But who has established the New World Order ideology around the world? Who is behind perpetual wars in Iraq and elsewhere? Who is behind massive illegal immigration in America and even Europe?
The short answer is… the Khazarian Mafia.
Russia is messing up their world, and they want to fight back - not on moral terms, but on an essentially diabolical principle. Russia stopped them from obliterating Syria, and they will never forgive Vladimir Putin for that political sin.
Globalist Corporations Are Blind In The Face Of Doom
People don’t fully appreciate the capacity of mega-corporations. The 300 largest companies account for roughly 25% of all international trade.
And, even more startling, these behemoths are operating their production lines at half-strength. Why? Because only 1.5 billion people in the world have enough money to rate as true consumers.
So these corporations, which are the leading lights of the Globalist agenda, are looking and hoping for many more customers.
Meanwhile, Rockefeller Globalists are hyping the pseudoscience of manmade warming, in order to convince nations to cut their energy production. That plan, of course, would further erode the ability of mega-corporations to find new consumers. Indeed, Globalists are all for wrecking economies and deepening poverty - aims which infect the lifeblood of corporations.
We are looking at a huge crack - a contradiction - in the very foundation of the Globalism.
And if you want to take this farther, the notion of radical depopulation across the planet would do even graver harm to corporate dreams and ambitions. Far fewer consumers.
There are wild and woolly solutions. For example, provide a basic income to every human on Earth; or make governments the sole payer to corporations for their products, which are then dispensed to the population in a mad universal welfare scheme. In either case, you would have a new currency system.
Governments would openly and blandly create money out of thin air, as needed, to fund these harebrained schemes. Governments already invent money, but this would be occurring on a far larger scale, and without any pretense of legitimacy.
Given the propensity of governments to run their programs according to dizzyingly psychotic guidelines, I see no way the mega-corporations would welcome these “innovations.”
In short, the corporations are buying a pie-in-the-sky con. They insist on believing the favors and concocted advantages the Globalists are offering them in the marketplace are wonderful; but in fact, the long-term situation is a no-win. It’s a narrowing road, and a crack-up is coming.
Globalists are shrinking the worldwide consumer base. They want a chaos-ridden dystopia, which they will control with an iron hand. In that scenario, the mega-corporations will also shrink to shadows of their former selves. Their usefulness will rapidly decay.
Memo to CEOs: why don’t you try waking up? Your whole elite movement is a walking contradiction, and you’re on the downside.
Why don’t these CEOs wake up? Because their short-term greed exceeds their long-term vision. For them, it’s an easier way to live. Take the money and run.
Zealandia: Study Confirms Earth Has Hidden Continent + Eight Things You Need To Know About Zealandia, Our Brand New Continent February 25 2017 | From: RT / TRTWorld / Various Earth has a concealed continent called ‘Zealandia’ hidden in the Pacific Ocean and attached to New Zealand, according to newly published research.
A team of 11 researchers found that New Zealand and New Caledonia are actually part of a huge 4.9 million sq km (1.89 million square-mile) single slab of continental crust that is separate from Australia.
Related:Why All World Maps Are Wrong The study, published by the Geological Society of America, found that the region is 94 percent submerged, mostly as a result of crustal thinning before the supercontinental break-up, using upgraded satellite-based elevation and gravity map technology.
"The scientific value of classifying Zealandia as a continent is much more than just an extra name on a list," the scientists wrote. "That a continent can be so submerged yet unfragmented makes it a useful and thought-provoking geodynamic end member in exploring the cohesion and breakup of continental crust."
The team says it should be considered a geological continent, rather than the previously-held theory that it was a collection of continental islands and fragments.
"Based on various lines of geological and geophysical evidence, particularly those accumulated in the last two decades, we argue that Zealandia is not a collection of partly submerged continental fragments but is a coherent 4.9 Mkm2 continent,” the study concludes.
As geologists count Europe and Asia as one giant continent called ‘Eurasia’, the new addition of Zealandia brings the total number of official geologic continents to seven.
Zealandia’s crust thickness typically ranges from 10 to 30km (six to 19 miles) and is roughly the size of India. It’s believed to have broken off from Antarctica about 100 million years ago, and then again from Australia about 80 million years ago.
Researchers behind the study are calling Zealandia a “realisation” rather than a “discovery”, as New Zealand has been considered a continent in its own right by some experts in the field for years.
"This is not a sudden discovery but a gradual realisation; as recently as 10 years ago we would not have had the accumulated data or confidence in interpretation to write this paper," the study’s authors wrote.
“Zealandia illustrates that the large and the obvious in natural science can be overlooked.”
Zealandia meets the first three criteria, the authors argue, and it has well-defined limits of a large land mass of 4.9 million sq. km. It therefore merits the label of continent.
The Australian continent doesn’t include New Zealand or New Caledonia
5. It would be the smallest continent on earth
The total area that Zealandia covers is 4.9 million sq. km. That's half the size of the US or Canada, and more than half of Australia. Despite that, if it's recognised as such, Zealandia will be the world's smallest continent.
However, Nick Mortimer, the principal author of the study, says there is no official body that can declare Zealandia a continent. It's up to scientists and future studies to make the idea mainstream.
6. 94 percent of Zealandia is underwater
Only 5 percent of Zealandia is above water and inhabitable. “If you pulled the plug of oceans, it’d be all revealed”says Mortimer - and that part is made up of New Zealand, New Caledonia, Norfolk Islands, Lord Howe Island Group, and Elizabeth and Middleton Reefs. Most of these islands are populated, except Elizabeth and Middleton Reefs.
7. The new label may not have any impact on foreign policy...
Although New Zealand is part of Zealandia, recognising it as a continent won’t mean that the country has a shot at new territorial claims, as maritime borders were agreed upon a long time ago.
8. …but it does count for scientists
"The scientific value of classifying Zealandia as a continent is much more than just an extra name on a list," researchers said. "That a continent can be so submerged yet unfragmented" makes it useful for "exploring the cohesion and breakup of continental crust."
Spain Sets Massive Precedent - Charges Its Central Bankers In Court February 24 2017 | From: ActivistPost First, Iceland, and now Spain has taken on the Big Bankers responsible for financial calamity, as the country’s highest national court charged the former head of Spain’s central bank, a market regulator, and five other banking officials over a failed bank leading to the loss of millions of euros for smaller investors.
This, of course, markedly departs from the mammoth taxpayer giveaway - commonly referred to as the bailout - approved by the U.S. government ostensibly to “save” the Big Banks and, albeit unstated, allow the enormous institutions to continue bilking customers without the slightest fear of penalty.
Errant bankers and financiers, it would seem, typically manage to either evade actually being charged, or escape hefty fines and time behind bars.
Spain’s Supreme Court last year ruled“serious inaccuracies” in information about the listing led investors to back Bankia in error, thus the bank has since paid out millions of euros in compensation.
But Spanish authorities could not abide the telling findings of a years-long investigation into the failed listing, as Wolf Streetexplains,
“As part of the epic, multi-year criminal investigation into the doomed IPO of Spain’s frankenbank Bankia – which had been assembled from the festering corpses of seven already defunct saving banks – Spain’s national court called to testify six current and former directors of the Bank of Spain, including its former governor, Miguel Ángel Fernández Ordóñez, and its former deputy governor (and current head of the Bank of International Settlements’ Financial Stability Institute), Fernando Restoy.
It also summoned for questioning Julio Segura, the former president of Spain’s financial markets regulator, the CNMV [National Securities Market Commission] (the Spanish equivalent of the SEC in the US).
The six central bankers and one financial regulator stand accused of authorizing the public launch of Bankia in 2011 despite repeated warnings from the Bank of Spain’s own team of inspectors that the banking group was ‘unviable.’"
As AFP reports, “The National Court validated conclusions made by prosecutors who concluded that when ‘an unviable entity has been listed on the stock market, its administrators or auditor should not shoulder all the responsibility.’”
Specifics of the charges have not yet been made apparent, but as The Economist reports:
“The court is questioning why they allowed Bankia to sell shares in an initial public offering in 2011, less than a year before Bankia’s portfolio of bad mortgage loans forced the government to seize control of it.
It said there was evidence the regulators had ‘full and thorough knowledge’ of Bankia’s plight. After its nationalisation, it went on to report a €19.2bn ($24.7bn) loss for 2012, the largest in Spanish corporate history."
Internal emails and documents played a crucial role in ultimately bringing the central banking officials to task for the failure of Bankia - inspectors bringing issues to the attention of superiors were allegedly ignored.
One email cited by The Economist came from an inspector who warned Bankia was “a money-losing machine,” for which an IPO would not solve. Another report, deemed “devastating by the court,” saw an inspector advise Bankia to seek a private buyer rather than proceed with the listing.
An inquiry into “the participation of other players, such as officials in the central bank,” was also urged by the National Court.
As The Economist points out, Spanish judges are generally reluctant to sentence first-time financial criminals to prison; though five Novacaixagalicia executives had five-year suspended sentences - levied for embezzlement in 2015 - abruptly enforced in January.
Meanwhile, taxpayers in the United States have yet to see Big Bankers criminally responsible for the financial ruin of so many Americans brought to any semblance of justice for their wrongdoing.
Top 10 Food And Medicine Myths You Probably Fell For At Some Point + How The Mind Treats “Impossible Things That Couldn’t Be Happening” February 21 2017 | From: NaturalNews / JonRappoport Everybody wants to be healthy, well-informed and financially free, but most of us receive the wrong advice, believe in popular myths, get sick from ridiculous illnesses that are totally preventable and curable, and then spend our money trying to get ourselves “fixed” by doctors who don’t understand a lick about nutrition.
All this while we keep eating the same bad food and taking the same symptom cover-up, chemical-based medicines.
Why do we heed all this bad advice and consume chemicals to treat chemical disorders? We do this because corporations are very sneaky, and they push the same lies over and over, across different mediums and even through the mouths of shill doctors, dentists, scientists, academics, journalists and the like.
You hear the Big Food and Big Pharma tales repeatedly, and then you start to believe them. You read them everywhere; you hear them on television. You read them in Prevention Magazine or via WebMD. You look them up in Wikipedia and your MD regurgitates them for bonus cash.
Let’s put an end to all this self-inflicted misery. So, here they come and here they’ll go – away for good, now that you know better. Don’t fall for the top 10 food and medicine myths!
1. Milk… It Does a Body Good
Wrong! Think about this for a minute: Humans are the only animals that drink milk after infancy and from another animal; it’s just not normal.
Plus, all dairy products cause excess mucus to accumulate in the body and lead to inflammation.
2. Red meat is Worse for Your Body Than Chicken, Turkey or Pig
Most meat in America comes from confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs) where the animals are cooped up in overcrowded pens, rarely if ever see sunlight or pastures, are shot up with synthetic hormones (that cause cancer), injected with massive amounts of antibiotics to stave off bacterial infections, fed genetically modified feed (that also causes cancer) and slaughtered inhumanely – then processed with bleach, ammonia, nitrates and nitrites for human consumption.
So, with that in mind, it doesn’t really matter if the meat is red, brown, white or green, because it’s all doing the same chronic damage to the humans that consume it regularly. “Eat less red meat?” Try eating no processed meat and you’ll be far better off.
3. Organic Canola Oil is a Healthy Choice
Everything organic is not healthy. Let’s go there. Organic means it doesn’t contain chemical-based insecticides, algaecides, fertilizers and herbicides. What it doesn’t mean is that it’s free of heavy metals or trace amounts of dangerous chemicals.
Canola is not a natural plant to this earth. Canola comes from rapeseed, which is toxic to all animals. What the manufacturers do is remove the stench of rapeseed using hexane, a constituent vapor of gasoline, but there’s still some left in the final product. Irrespective of whether canola is organic or not, it strangles your mitochondria (cells) that need oxygen to function.
Organic canola also inhibits enzyme function. Plus, the omega-3 fatty acids of processed canola oil are transformed during the deodorizing process into trans-fatty acids. The reason why canola is particularly unsuited for consumption is that it contains a very long-chain fatty acid called erucic acid, which is associated with fibrotic heart lesions.
Organic Soy (That’s Unfermented) is a Healthy Choice
Some people think if a product is organic, it’s “good to go.” Wrong. You still need to stay informed. Let’s talk about any soy that’s not fermented, including the organic stuff. Big Food is quickly buying up medium-sized organic companies and pushing soy and canola like it’s healthy.
Just over the past 15 years, 3,000 new soy-based foods, all labeled “certified organic” have hit the shelves. Why? Big Food likes to trick healthy-minded people, that’s why. Remember, Big Food works hand-in-hand with Big Pharma.
All soy that’s not fermented screws with the balance of human estrogen and testosterone. Got breast cancer or “Low-T?” Did you know unfermented soy is linked to immune-system malfunctions, thyroid dysfunction and cognitive decline?
Yep. In fact, hundreds of health studies reveal infant abnormalities, kidney stones and food allergies thanks to soy consumption. No soy was fit to eat until the discovery of fermentation techniques during the Chou Dynasty. Your organic soy “protein” may be causing you chronic deficiencies in amino acid uptake. Destroy the soy myth and protect your body.
5. Vaccines No Longer Contain Mercury (Thimerosal), and the CDC Even Says So
The CDC says they removed mercury from all childhood vaccines over a decade ago, but they’re lying. Influenza vaccines contain massive amounts of mercury and are highly recommended by the CDC for pregnant women, infants 6 months old, and every person for every year of their lives thereafter.
Yes, influenza vaccines (flu shots) are one of the main causes of the flu and still contain thimerosal, formaldehyde, aluminum and other dangerous preservatives, adjuvants, emulsifiers and virus “deadeners.”
6. Chemotherapy is the Best Chance to Beat Cancer Once You’ve Been Diagnosed
Fact: Chemotherapy yields a miserable 2.3 percent success rate on average. Another fact: 75 percent of MDs and oncologists would never take chemotherapy themselves nor recommend it for their family members.
Chemotherapy destroys the human immune system – the one thing humans need the most to fight off cancer.
Quite ironic, huh? Natural remedies for cancer are abundant and inexpensive, including vitamin C, garlic, oregano oil, CBD oil, hemp seed oil, chaga and reishi mushrooms, baking soda in water, and of course, plenty of vitamin D.
7. Many Cancer Cases Are Inherited in Our Genes From Our Parents or Their Parents
Doctors tell patients almost everything is inherited from their parents so they won’t go out and seek natural remedies that work. Why would any greedy doctor want you cured when you’ll never come back to them? Most cancer is caused by chemical consumption, period.
8. There is No Cure for Cancer
The search for the cure is the ultimate boondoggle. Honest scientists have been curing cancer for decades – even brain cancer. Google the Burzynski Clinic and you’ll be blown away!
When little fragmentary stories about this fact emerge in the mainstream press, they’re one-offs. There is no serious follow-up and no deep investigation. Therefore, the public isn’t aroused.
On May 3, 2016, the Washington Post ran an article detailing deaths from medical errors. This bomb dropped: doctors’ errors account for “about 9.5 percent of all deaths annually in the United States.”
Let that sink in. Roughly one out of every 10 deaths in the US is caused by medical errors. (Under “errors,” you can include a wide range of toxic treatment.)
No major newspaper or news network pounds on this factoid day after day. It’s here and then it’s gone. It’s on the level of: “The last seven presidents have been assassinated. And now, here’s the weather.”
Something else is going on, too. I’ll lay it out for you. Most of the general public, and many reporters, can’t even begin to absorb that medical-death statistic. It bounces off them. They either reject it out of hand, misread it, or fail to transport it to the part of their mind where they think about things.
The statistic is virtually invisible to them. “Let’s see, 10% of all deaths in America are caused by the medical system. REJECTED.”
I even had one person tell me ten percent “wasn’t very much.” I’ve had people change the subject rapidly when I presented them with the statistic. “Car accidents are terrible. My aunt was in a car crash and she…”
So it isn’t just major media. People are running their own fake news operation on themselves.
This has been called “cognitive dissonance” or some other fancy name. It’s just the “bounce phenomenon.” A fact bounces off a person. It has no effect. I’ve dealt with this for more than 30 years as a reporter. I’m in the business of presenting “bounce-able” facts. I’ve seen the full array of reactions, time and time again.
ONE OUT OF EVERY TEN DEATHS IN AMERICA [READ: THE WEST] IS CAUSED BY THE MEDICAL SYSTEM.
Bounce, bounce, bounce. Here is another process that goes on in the mind. It starts this way: WELL, IF THAT WERE TRUE, THEN…
The person starts to think about the boggling fact. He starts to flesh out the implications. And he stops. Because the implications are too much. His mental processes and his basic orientation aren’t flexible enough to deal with them.
I’ve been interviewed and watched this happen. The interviewer begins to absorb what I’ve just told him, and he quickly backs away and redirects the conversation. Or tries to. I bring him back to the boggling fact. But it’s like trying to drive a faulty car. He just can’t make it. He stalls. His wheels spin, and then he gets out of the car and moves on to something else.
Here is a paraphrase of such an exchange. The interviewer was telling me about the purported effects of a disease he claimed was being caused by a virus. I happened to know the virus had never been isolated from a single human being, so I asked him:
“How many deaths would you say occur from the disease, every year in the US?” He puffed up his chest a bit and said, “At least a thousand. It’s terrible.” I said, “Well, did you know that the medical system is the third leading cause of death in America, behind heart disease and cancer?”
BOUNCE. NOTHING REGISTERED.
He said, “This virus I’m talking about can spread rapidly…” Bounce.
Perhaps the most interesting conversation I’ve ever had illustrating the bounce phenomenon occurred at the home of an acquaintance who is a psychologist. I mentioned that every year in the US the medical system kills a minimum of 225,000 people, and then I got part-way into explaining how most people don’t even register the fact when they come across it.
He launched into a major lecture about cognitive dissonance, deploying a few pseudo-technical terms I’d never heard of. I let him go on for a few minutes and then I stopped him. I asked, “Can you remember what I said that started you down this path?”
He scratched his chin, thought about it, and said no. In his case, the bounce brought on a case of outright amnesia.
Of course, I’ve mentioned medically caused death to doctors. Their comments go something like this: “That couldn’t be true.” “That was just one study.”
Then I say no, there are other confirming studies, and I cite them. At that point the big bounce happens, and they change the subject. Or they look at their watches. Or they walk away.
I’ve found reporters more honest - as long as I’m talking to them off the record, and preferably after a few drinks. One reporter said, “I know. But we can’t write about that. We’d get reamed out.”
I don’t care what journalism schools and editors claim the profession is all about. I know what it’s about. You overturn reality. That’s what you do.
In the process, you reveal there are people who are creating that reality for all of us. And if that is true, and it is, then each individual is capable of inventing his own reality. A better one. Along the way, certain facts are going to jump up out of the hopper that tear conventional thinking and perception to shreds.
TEN PERCENT OF ALL DEATHS IN AMERICA [THE WEST] ARE CAUSED BY THE MEDICAL SYSTEM.
“Wow. That would make it the third leading cause of death. That means the more people who are in the system, the more deaths. The public has to know about this…”
No bounce. Ah, now we’re on to something.
The Marijuana Conspiracy February 20 2017 | From: TPUC
They say marijuana is dangerous. pot is not harmful to the human body or mind. marijuana does not pose a threat to the general public. Marijuana is very much a danger to the oil companies, alcohol, tobacco industries and a large number of chemical corporations.
Big businesses, with plenty of dollars and influence, have suppressed the truth from the people. The truth is, if marijuana was utilized for its vast array of commercial products, it would create an industrial atomic bomb!
The super rich have conspired to spread misinformation about the plant that, if used properly, would ruin their companies.
Where did the word ‘marijuana’ come from? In the mid 1930s, the M-word was created to tarnish the good image and phenomenal history of the hemp plant – as you will read. The facts cited here, with references, are generally verifiable in the Encyclopedia Britannica which was printed on hemp paper for 150 years:
All schoolbooks were made from hemp or flax paper until the 1880s. (Jack Frazier. Hemp Paper Reconsidered. 1974.)
It was legal to pay taxes with hemp in America from 1631 until the early 1800s. (LA Times. Aug. 12, 1981.)
Refusing to grow hemp in America during the 17th and 18th centuries was against the law! You could be jailed in Virginia for refusing to grow hemp from 1763 to 1769 (G. M. Herdon. Hemp in Colonial Virginia).
George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and other founding fathers grew hemp. (Washington and Jefferson Diaries. Jefferson smuggled hemp seeds from China to France then to America.)
Benjamin Franklin owned one of the first paper mills in America, and it processed hemp. Also, the War of 1812 was fought over hemp. Napoleon wanted to cut off Moscow’s export to England. (Jack Herer. Emperor Wears No Clothes.)
For thousands of years, 90% of all ships’ sails and rope were made from hemp. The word ‘canvas’ is Dutch for cannabis. (Webster’s New World Dictionary.)
80% of all textiles, fabrics, clothes, linen, drapes, bed sheets, etc.,were made from hemp until the 1820s, with the introduction of the cotton gin.
The first Bibles, maps, charts, Betsy Ross’s flag, the first drafts of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were made from hemp. (U.S. Government Archives.)
The first crop grown in many states was hemp. 1850 was a peak year for Kentucky producing 40,000 tons.Hemp was the largest cash crop until the 20th century. (State Archives.)
Oldest known records of hemp farming go back 5000 years in China, although hemp industrialization probably goes back to ancient Egypt.
Rembrandt’s, Van Gogh’s, Gainsborough’s, as well as most early canvas paintings, were principally painted on hemp linen.
In 1916, the U.S. Government predicted that by the 1940s all paper would come from hemp and that no more trees need to be cut down. Government studies report that 1 acre of hemp equals 4.1 acres of trees. Plans were in the works to implement such programs. (U.S. Department of Agriculture Archives.)
Quality paints and varnishes were made from hemp seed oil until 1937. 58,000 tons of hemp seeds were used in America for paint products in 1935. (Sherman Williams Paint Co. testimony before the U.S.Congress against the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act.)
Henry Ford’s first Model-T was built to run on hemp gasoline and the car itself was constructed from hemp! On his large estate, Ford was photographed among his hemp fields. The car, ‘grown from the soil,’ had hemp plastic panels whose impact strength was 10 times stronger than steel. (Popular Mechanics, 1941.)
In 1938, hemp was called ‘Billion Dollar Crop.’ It was the first time a cash crop had a business potential to exceed a billion dollars. (Popular Mechanics, Feb. 1938.)
Mechanical Engineering Magazine (Feb. 1938) published an article entitled ‘The Most Profitable and Desirable Crop that Can be Grown.’ It stated that if hemp was cultivated using 20th century technology, it would be the single largest agricultural crop in the U.S. and the rest of the world.
The following information comes directly from the United States Department of Agriculture’s 1942 14-minute film encouraging and instructing ‘patriotic American farmers’ to grow 350,000 acres of hemp each year for the war effort
“…[When] Grecian temples were new, hemp was already old in the service of mankind. For thousands of years, even then, this plant had been grown for cordage and cloth in China and elsewhere in the East. For centuries prior to about 1850, all the ships that sailed the western seas were rigged with hempen rope and sails.
For the sailor, no less than the hangman, hemp was indispensable… Now with Philippine and East Indian sources of hemp in the hands of the Japanese… American hemp must meet the needs of our Army and Navy as well as of our industries…
The Navy’s rapidly dwindling reserves.When that is gone, American hemp will go on duty again; hemp for mooring ships; hemp for tow lines; hemp for tackle and gear; hemp for countless naval uses both on ship and shore. Just as in the days when Old Ironsides sailed the seas victorious with her hempen shrouds and hempen sails. Hemp for victory!”
Certified proof from the Library of Congress, found by the research of Jack Herer, refutes claims of other government agencies that the 1942 USDA film ‘Hemp for Victory’ did not exist.
Hemp cultivation and production do not harm the environment. The USDA Bulletin #404 concluded that hemp produces four times as much pulp with at least four to seven times less pollution.
From Popular Mechanics, February 1938:
“It has a short growing season… It can be grown in any state… The long roots penetrate and break the soil to leave it in perfect condition for the next year’s crop.
The dense shock of leaves, 8 to 12 feet above the ground, chokes out weeds. …Hemp, this new crop can add immeasurably to American agriculture and industry.”
In the 1930s, innovations in farm machinery would have caused an industrial revolution when applied to hemp. This single resource could have created millions of new jobs generating thousands of quality products. Hemp, if not made illegal,would have brought America out of the Great Depression.
William Randolph Hearst (Citizen Kane) and the Hearst Paper Manufacturing Division of Kimberly Clark owned vast acreage of timberlands. The Hearst Company supplied most paper products. Patty Hearst’s grandfather, a destroyer of nature for his own personal profit, stood to lose billions because of hemp.
In 1937, DuPont patented the processes to make plastics from oil and coal. DuPont’s Annual Report urged stockholders to invest in its new petrochemical division.
Synthetics such as plastics, cellophane, celluloid, methanol, nylon, rayon, Dacron, etc., could now be made from oil.Natural hemp industrialization would have ruined over 80% of DuPont’s business.
Andrew Mellon became Hoover’s Secretary of the Treasury and DuPont’s primary investor. He appointed his future nephew-in-law,Harry J.Anslinger, to head the Federal Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs.
Secret meetings were held by these financial tycoons. Hemp was declared dangerous and a threat to their billion dollar enterprises. For their dynasties to remain intact, hemp had to go.
These men took an obscure Mexican slang word: ‘marijuana’ and pushed it into the consciousness of America.
A media blitz of ‘yellow journalism’ raged in the late 1920s and 1930s. Hearst’s newspapers ran stories emphasizing the horrors of marijuana. The menace of marijuana made headlines. Readers learned that it was responsible for everything from car accidents to loose morality.
Films like Reefer Madness (1936), Marijuana: Assassin of Youth (1935) and Marijuana: The Devil’s Weed (1936) were propaganda designed by these industrialists to create an enemy. Their purpose was to gain public support so that anti-marijuana laws could be passed.
Examine the following quotes from The Burning Question, aka Reefer Madness:
Acts of shocking violence;
Under the influence of the drug he killed his entire family with an ax;
More vicious, more deadly even than these soul-destroying drugs (heroin, cocaine) is the menace of marijuana!
Reefer Madness did not end with the usual ‘the end.’ The film concluded with these words plastered on the screen: ‘Tell your children.’
In the 1930s, people were very naive, even to the point of ignorance. The masses were like sheep waiting to be led by the few in power. They did not challenge authority. If the news was in print or on the radio, they believed it had to be true. They told their children, and their children grew up to be the parents of the babyboomers.
On April 14, 1937, the prohibitive Marijuana Tax Law, or the bill that outlawed hemp, was directly brought to the House Ways and Means Committee. This committee is the only one that can introduce a bill to the House floor without it being debated by other committees.
The Chairman of the U.S. Senate, Ways and Means Committee, at the time,Robert Doughton, was a DuPont supporter. He insured that the bill would pass Congress.
Dr. James Woodward, a physician and attorney, testified too late on behalf of the American Medical Association. He told the committee that the reason the AMA had not denounced the Marijuana Tax Law sooner was that the Association had just discovered that marijuana was hemp.
Few people, at the time, realized that the deadly menace they had been reading about on Hearst’s front pages was in fact passive hemp. The AMA understood cannabis to be a medicine found in numerous healing products sold over the last hundred years.
In September of 1937, hemp became illegal. The most useful crop known became a drug and our planet has been suffering ever since.
Congress banned hemp because it was said to be the most violence-causing drug known. Harry Anslinger, head of the Drug Commission for 31 years, promoted the idea that marijuana made users act extremely violent.
In the 1950s, under the Communist threat ofMcCarthyism, Anslinger then said the exact opposite: marijuana will pacify you so much that soldiers would not want to fight.
Today, our planet is in desperate trouble. Earth is suffocating as large tracts of rain forests disappear. Pollution, poisons and chemicals are killing people. These great problems could be reversed if we industrialized hemp. Natural biomass could provide all of the planet’s energy needs that are currently supplied by fossil fuels.
The Wonder Plant
Hemp has a higher quality fiber than wood fiber. Far fewer caustic chemicals are required to make paper from hemp than from trees. Hemp paper does not turn yellow and is very durable. The plant grows quickly to maturity in a season where trees take a lifetime.
All plastic products should be made from hemp seed oil. Hempen plastics are biodegradable! Over time, they would break down and not harm the environment.
Oil-based plastics, the ones we are very familiar with, help ruin nature. They do not break down and will do great harm in the future.
The process to produce the vast array of natural (hempen) plastics will not ruin the rivers as DuPont and other petrochemical companies have done.
Ecology does not fit in with the plans of the oil industry and the political machine.Hemp products are safe and natural.
Medicines should be made from hemp. We should go back to the days when the AMA supported cannabis cures.‘Medical Marijuana’ is given out legally to only a handful of people while the rest of us are forced into a system that relies on chemicals. Pot is only healthy for the human body.
World hunger could end. A large variety of food products can be generated from hemp. The seeds contain one of the highest sources of protein in nature.
Also: They have two essential fatty acids that clean your body of cholesterol. These essential fatty acids are not found anywhere else in nature! Consuming pot seeds is the best thing you could do for your body. Eat uncooked hemp seeds.
Clothes should be made from hemp. Hemp clothing is extremely strong and durable over time.You could hand clothing, made from pot, down to your grandchildren. Today, there are American companies that make hemp clothing; usually 50% hemp.
Hemp fabrics should be everywhere. Instead, they are almost underground. Superior hemp products are not allowed to advertise on fascist television.
Kentucky, once the top hemp producing state, made it illegal to wear hemp clothing! Can you imagine being thrown into jail for wearing quality jeans?
The world is crazy. But that does not mean you have to join the insanity. Get together. Spread the news. Tell people, and that includes your children, the truth. Use hemp products. Eliminate the word ’marijuana.’Realize the history that created it.
Make it politically incorrect to say or print the M-word. Fight against the propaganda (designed to favor the agenda of the super rich) and the bullshit.Hemp must be utilized in the future.We need a clean energy source to save our planet. Industrialize hemp!
The liquor, tobacco and oil companies fund more than a million dollars a day to Partnership for a Drug-Free America and other similar agencies.We have all seen their commercials. Now, their motto is: ‘It’s more dangerous than we thought.’ Lies from the powerful corporations, that began with Hearst, are still alive and well today.
The brainwashing continues. Now, the commercials say: If you buy a joint, you contribute to murders and gang wars. The latest anti-pot commercials say: If you buy a joint… you are promoting terrorism! The new enemy (terrorism) has paved the road to brainwash you any way they see fit.
There is only one enemy: the friendly people you pay your taxes to, the war-makers and nature destroyers.With your funding, they are killing the world right in front of your eyes.
Half a million deaths each year are caused by tobacco. Half a million deaths each year are caused by alcohol. No one has ever, ever died from smoking pot!!
In the entire history of the human race, not one death can be attributed to cannabis. Our society has outlawed grass but condones the use of the killers: tobacco and alcohol.
Hemp should be declassified and placed in drug stores to relieve stress. Hardening and constriction of the arteries are bad, but hemp usage actually enlarges the arteries, which is a healthy condition. We have been so conditioned to think that smoking is harmful. That is not the case for passive pot.
Ingesting THC, hemp’s active agent, has a positive effect: relieving asthma and glaucoma. A joint tends to alleviate the nausea caused by chemotherapy. You are able to eat on hemp. This is a healthy state of being.
[one personal note. During the pregnancy of my wife, she was having some difficulty gaining weight.We were in the hospital. A nurse called us to one side and said: “Off the record, if you smoke pot… you’d get something called the munchies and you’ll gain weight.” I swear that is a true story.]
The stereotype for a pothead is similar to a drunk, bubble-brain.Yet, the truth is one’s creative abilities can be enhanced under its influence. The perception of time slightly slows and one can become more sensitive.
You can more appreciate all arts, be closer to nature and generally feel more under the influence of cannabis. It is, in fact, the exact opposite state of mind and body as the drunken state. You can be more aware with pot.
The pot plant is an alien plant. There is physical evidence that cannabis is not like any other plant on this planet. One could conclude that it was brought here for the benefit of humanity. Hemp is the only plant where the males appear one way and the females appear very different, physically!
No one ever speaks of males and females in regard to the plant kingdom because plants do not show their sexes. Except for cannabis. To determine what sex a certain, normal, earthly plant is, you have to look internally, at its DNA. A male blade of grass (physically) looks exactly like a female blade of grass.
The hemp plant has an intense sexuality. Growers know to kill the males before they fertilize the females. Yes, folks, the most potent pot comes from ‘horny females.’
The reason this amazing, very sophisticated, ET plant from the future is illegal has nothing to do with how it physically affects us.
Pot is illegal because billionaires want to remain billionaires!
“And I will raise up for them a plant of renown, and they shall be no more consumed with hunger in the land.”
– Ezekiel 34:29.
P.S. I think the word ‘drugs’ should not be used as an umbrella-word that covers all chemical agents. Drugs have come to be known as something bad. Are you aware there are legal drugstores?!
Yep, in every city. Unbelievable. Each so-called drug should be considered individually. Cannabis is a medicine and not a drug. We should dare to speak the truth no matter what the law is.
When Will The West Wake Up To The Fact That the World Has Changed February 19 2017 | From: JournalNeo The changes that are taking place in today’s world often are so rapid and unpredictable that they leave certain US and European politicians utterly confused.
The state those people often find themselves in can be most accurately described as panic, as they feel the floor falling out from beneath their feet.
They are unable to explain why the comfortable carefree life that they’ve enjoyed for decades is nowhere to be found, while the presumably unipolar world they’ve created suddenly looks multipolar.
In their understanding, the sole superpower should be determining the way our world works, and this situation should be carried on indefinitely. Perhaps those gentlemen didn’t care enough to study Hegel back when they were students.
When repetitive processes accumulate, they lead to a qualitative change in any system. It would be a mistake to assume that the changing balance of power in the world today can be sidestepped or ignored.
How can one fail to recognize the fact that China’s buying power has already surpassed Washington’s? Is it possible to ignore the fact that Russia’s actions in Syria have tipped the scales in favor of the legitimate government, creating preconditions for a political settlement of the conflict?
Additionally, it would be naive at best to underestimate the importance of demographic trends. Is it even possible not to take into account the rapid growth of India’s population, which has recently hit the mark of 1.2 billion, while this impressive population is making rapid advancements in high-tech industries?
So by stating that the world would remain unipolar drives oneself into a cruel trap.
This leads to the belief that events are taking place around the world randomly, unrelated to these changes taking really taking place. Then Brexit is an accident, Italians voting against constitutional reform is also an accident, and then, out of the blue, Donald Trump wins the presidential election in the US.
And how many more of such “accidents” are going to happen in the upcoming elections in the Netherlands, France, Germany, and across the rest of Europe? The easiest thing to do in this situation is to dig one’s head in the sand and take the ostrich position, but this will only complicate matters even further.
Sometimes, indeed, it’s amazing how deceiving Cold War stereotypes can be, as some political analysts believe that the West should dominate every aspect of human life until the end of time.
Then you can push the blame for all of your failures on the behind the scenes machinations of alleged enemies.
Meanwhile, the list of domestic problems in most Western countries are only getting bigger after decades of exploitation of the people. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the rich have cynically assumed that they were in no need to share profits with both the workers and the middle class.
As a result, income inequality has reached enormous proportions: the eight richest men in the world accumulated the same wealth as half of the world’s population. An average American or Brit is starting to realize that his expectations are much lower than those that his parents had.
All these facts combined with demographic factors lead to a fairly explosive mixture, when ordinary citizens no longer trust their governments, while corrupt officials are not only simply unresponsive, they are annoying to the point of the people seeking alternatives.
As a result of these changes, Chinese and India are preparing to occupy the center stage of international politics, followed by a number of Asian, African, and Latin American countries. Meanwhile, some politicians in the West see Russia’s meddling behind these changes.
For instance, the man behind the Hillary Clinton election campaign, Clinton Robbie Mock in his recent article for The Guardian noted that the biggest danger to the West is Russia’s political influence, therefore it must be eradicated. Is this anything short of absurd?
Further still, Foreign Policy magazine would publish an article drafted by two prominent experts who used to work for the Obama Administration: Hal Brands, a Henry A. Kissinger Distinguished Professor of Global Affairs at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS), and Choline Kala, an associate professor in the Security Studies Program at Georgetown University’s Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service.
They would criticize in every way the thesis that Donald Trump has repeatedly voiced during his election campaign and even after becoming the new US president.
The thesis that the US and Russia are natural allies in the fight against terrorism, and that it’s only natural that cooperation should begin in Syria. According to the above mentioned authors, a US alliance with Russia in Syria is strategic suicide for the United States.
Without providing any arguments, those scholars argue that even if Donald Trump does nothing to intensify the fight against ISIS, Mosul and Rakka will be liberated in the next few months. This kind of alleged scientific analysis simply makes the activities of radical organizations easier, as they prepare new attacks.
There’s a real danger that ISIS and Jabhat al-Nusra will get their hands on weapons of mass destruction, and then what?
This brings us back to the UN General Assembly of October 2015, when Vladimir Putin demanded the West: to answer: Do you realize what you have done?
How To Be Lucky February 19 2017 | From: Nautilus
It pays to imagine your life is on a winning streak.
“Luck is believing you’re lucky.” - Tennessee Williams, A Streetcar Named Desire
In 1995, a wounded 35-year-old woman named Anat Ben-Tov gave an interview from her hospital room in Tel Aviv. She had just survived her second bus bombing in less than a year.
“I have no luck, or I have all the luck,” she told reporters. “I’m not sure which it is.”
The news story caught the eyes of Norwegian psychologist Karl Halvor Teigen, now an emeritus professor at the University of Oslo. He had been combing through newspapers to glean insights into what people consider lucky and unlucky.
Over the following years, he and other psychologists, along with economists and statisticians, would come to understand that while people often think of luck as random chance or a supernatural force, it is better described as subjective interpretation.
“One might ask, do you consider yourself lucky because good things happen to you, or do good things happen to you because you consider yourself lucky?” says David J. Hand, author of The Improbability Principle, emeritus professor of mathematics and a senior research investigator at Imperial College, London.
Smart Parkers: Game theory reveals drivers who found spots near where they work early in their search continued to search in a narrow radius in the following days. If they didn’t find spots near work early on, they searched in a wider radius.
Psychology studies have found that whether you identify yourself as lucky or unlucky, regardless of your actual lot in life, says a lot about your worldview, well-being, and even brain functions.
It turns out that believing you are lucky is a kind of magical thinking - not magical in the sense of Lady Luck or leprechauns.
A belief in luck can lead to a virtuous cycle of thought and action. Belief in good luck goes hand in hand with feelings of control, optimism, and low anxiety. If you believe you’re lucky and show up for a date feeling confident, relaxed, and positive, you’ll be more attractive to your date.
Feeling lucky can lead you to work harder and plan better. It can make you more attentive to the unexpected, allowing you to capitalize on opportunities that arise around you.
In a study comparing people who consider themselves lucky or unlucky, psychologist Richard Wiseman of the University of Hertfordshire, author of the 2003 book The Luck Factor, asked subjects to count the pictures in a newspaper. But there was a twist: He put the solution on the second page of the newspaper.
“The unlucky people tended to miss it and the lucky people tended to spot it,” he writes.
One of the easiest measures you can take to improve your luck is to shake things up.
On the other hand, feeling unlucky could lead to a vicious cycle likely to generate unlucky outcomes. Psychologist John Maltby of the University of Leicester hypothesized that beliefs in being unlucky are associated with lower executive functioning - the ability to plan, organize, and attend to tasks or goals.
In a 2013 study, he and colleagues found a link between a belief in being unlucky and lower executive function skills like switching between tasks and creative thinking.
Then in 2015, he and other colleagues found more electrical activity related to lower executive function in the brains of 10 students who believed themselves very unlucky than in the brains of 10 students who believed themselves very lucky.
“People who believe in bad luck didn’t necessarily engage in some of the processes that are needed to bring about positive outcomes,” Maltby says.
He offers a simple example of running out of ink in the middle of a print job. “The lucky person will have got a spare cartridge just in case because they have planned ahead. When the cartridge runs out they’ll say, ‘Oh, aren’t I lucky, I bought one earlier, that’’ fantastic,’ ” Maltby says.
“However, the unlucky person won’t have planned ahead, won’t have done the cognitive processes, so when the printer cartridge runs out and they’re left with something to print, they go, ‘Oh, I’m so unlucky.’ ”
If this kind of vicious cycle takes hold, it can make a big difference. Economists Victoria Prowse and David Gill of Purdue University think responses to bad luck might even explain part of the gender gap seen in the workforce.
In a lab experiment using a competitive game that involved both skill and luck, they found that women were more discouraged by bad luck than men. After experiencing bad luck, women had a greater tendency to reduce the amount of effort they put into the next round of the competition, even when the game’s stakes were small.
Luck frequently plays a role in careers, Prowse points out. Whether you get a job could depend on how much time a manager has to look at resumes, or whether she likes a color you wear to the interview. Companies often hold competitions that pit employees such as salespeople against each other.
“Even a small reduction in the effort of a woman after one interaction, where she gets unlucky, could potentially mean you miss the opportunity of getting promoted and getting to the next level, which has all sorts of future repercussions,” she says.
“It would be dangerous to dismiss these small differences as something that couldn’t potentially accumulate to something we really care about.”
While personality and gender seem to play a role, random events could also kick-start a virtuous lucky cycle or a vicious unlucky cycle. Economist Alan Kirman of the École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales in Paris realized this could be the case when he worked in an office with relatively few parking places nearby.
One guy on his team always seemed to get lucky with parking spots close to the office, while another always had to park far away and walk. To figure out why, the team created a simple game-theory model to simulate the situation. It revealed that if would-be parkers happened to find spots near work early on, they continued to search in a narrow radius in the following days.
If they didn’t find spots near work early on, they began to search in a wider radius. Guess who had lucky streaks when it came to finding spots near work? The ones who were actually looking for them.
At least in the simulation, the parkers quickly sorted themselves into lucky and unlucky groups, without any reference to personality or gender, Kirman says. That means that a good or bad luck cycle could happen to anybody without their conscious knowledge.
It also means that, to the extent that life is a zero-sum game like parking, our bad luck cycle could be facilitating someone else’s good luck cycle - and that’s maddening. “The unlucky guys learn to choose the spots far back and leave the spots for other spots for the guys who are ‘lucky,’ ” Kirman says.
If you believe you’re lucky and show up for a date feeling confident, relaxed, and positive, you’ll be more attractive to your date.
Of course, believing in your own good luck isn’t always a good thing. In gambling, for example, lucky streaks are never what they seem. Take the case of online sports betting.
Juemin Xu, a graduate student at University College London, and her advisor, experimental psychologist Nigel Harvey, analyzed a 2010 database of 565,915 sports bets made by 776 online gamblers. In all those bets, they found something apparently at odds with laws of probability: Bettors were more likely to win after winning.
Those lucky streaks weren’t supernatural, Xu says; they were generated by the “gambler’s fallacy” - the widespread but misguided notion that your luck must eventually change. Thinking that a loss was imminent after a run of wins, bettors would make safer and safer bets, generating an even longer run of wins.
Unfortunately, the bettors didn’t make much money off of these streaks; over time, they still tended to lose to the house. “The best strategy in gambling is to control loss,” Xu says.
Teigen points out that, in many activities, lucky is the opposite of safe. In one study he found that people who have lucky stories are often those who have taken a lot of serious, often careless, risks.
For example, a woefully inexperienced paraglider told him about having averted a crash. Ultimately, that approach to courting luck could backfire.
“I am a little bit careful about wishing people good luck,” he says. “I’d rather they be safe than lucky.”
The trick, then, may be to find the areas of life where you can be both safe and lucky.
In the early 2000s, Wiseman capped his long study of lucky people with the creation of what he called a “luck school,” in which he gave unlucky people exercises that taught them to spot chance opportunities, listen to their guts, take an optimistic view, and not dwell on mistakes - in other words, to do the things that lucky people do.
He reported that, a month later, 80 percent of the unlucky people in his school said they were happier and luckier.
One psychology study coined the “George Bailey effect,” named for the jolt of happiness that comes from being surprised that a good thing can and did happen to you.
One of the easiest measures you can take to improve your luck is to shake things up. Think about the case of looking for parking. If you always default to the areas with merely tolerable spots, you’ll never find a really good spot.
Similar types of routines can settle in at work, at home, or in your social life. To introduce variety, one of Wiseman’s subjects picked a color before going to a party and then introduced himself to all of the people wearing that color. Another frequently took different routes to work.
More difficult, perhaps, is to learn how to not dwell on bad luck. Studies have found that people who are victims of assaults and accidents tend to ruminate on questions like “Why me?” or “What did I do wrong?”
This strategy is adaptive only if the victim can learn something that will help them avoid a similar disaster in the future. But that’s often not the case, and people are left with envy, self-blame, and useless, invasive thoughts.
However, certain kinds of unfortunate events - even very serious ones - seem to result in the mirror-opposite of this line of thinking. Teigen and his colleagues read interviews with 85 Norwegian tourists who took family vacations in Southeast Asia in the winter of 2004.
When the devastating earthquake and tsunami hit, their and their children’s lives were at risk, their Christmas holidays ruined.
Unlucky, right? Well, not from their perspective. Two years later, 95 percent of them said they had been lucky to survive, not unlucky to have picked that moment to travel there. (The remaining 5 percent said they had been a combination of lucky and unlucky.)
The key to deciding whether an event is lucky or unlucky is the comparison you make between the actual event and the “counterfactual” alternative you’re imagining, Teigen says. The people asking “Why me?” are making an upward comparison to other people who weren’t assaulted or who avoided an accident.
The people who feel lucky to have survived are comparing themselves downwardly to people who had a worse fate. Both are valid interpretations, but the downward comparison helps you to hold on to optimism, summon the feel-good emotion of gratitude, and to weave a larger narrative in which you are the lucky protagonist of your life story.
Consider George Bailey in It’s a Wonderful Life. He embraces life again after an angel takes him on a tour of what the world would have been like had he never been born.
In a 2008 study, researchers found that subjects who took themselves on a similar mental journey - thinking about a counterfactual life path in which a positive event like meeting a future spouse never happened - ended up “a little bit happier” than those who simply thought about the positive event itself.
The jolt of happiness, which they called the “George Bailey effect,” comes from being surprised that a good thing can and did happen to you.
When times are tough, it might seem frivolous to cultivate a belief in luck. But that belief, psychologists say, can cast a spell that heals our wounds and gives us another shot at success, whether we’ve survived a bombing or just been on a bad date.
Farage Blisters EU Parliament, Forecasts 2017 Populist Surge & Putin’s 2007 Munich Speech Radiated Leadership Idealism & Wisdom February 17 2017 | From: Infowars / Geopolitics Brexit architect Nigel Farage continued to warn the EU Parliament of their impending demise in an address to the Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy (EFDD) Group in Strasbourg, France.
Farage hammered the parliamentarians on their open borders policies, which can only be attributed to a disconnect with the overwhelming will of their peoples and blind adherence to globalist dogma, or an intentional destruction of the continent – or both.
“I feel like I’m attending a meeting of a religious sect here this morning,” began Farage, with gusto. “It’s as if the global revolution of 2016 – Brexit, Trump, the Italian rejection of the referendum – has completely bypassed you.”
“You can’t face the fact that this bandwagon is going to roll across Europe in the elections of 2017,” he chided, referring to key political races in the Netherlands, France, and Germany, that all feature anti-globalist, pro-national sovereignty candidates either leading the polls or gaining support.
“A lot of citizens recognize that this form of centralized government simply doesn’t work, whether it’s the miseries inflicting upon a country like Greece by the Euro, the unemployment caused by bad regulation, or the feeling that none of us are as safe in our cities as a result of the disastrous common asylum policy.”
Farage rejected a prior statement by former Belgian prime minister and current candidate for president of European parliament, Guy Verhofstadt, who claimed that Europeans desire to expand the powers and policies of the EU.
“The people want less Europe, and we see this again and again when people have referendums and they reject aspects of EU membership,” Farage said in rebuttal. “I have no doubt that many of you here, when you hear what I am about to say, will probably despise your own voters.”
“Just last week, Chatham House, the reputable group, published a massive survey from 10 European member states, and only 20% of people want immigration from Muslim countries to continue.”
The survey of 10,000 Europeans revealed that 55% of respondents desired all immigration from Muslim countries be completely halted – a nearly 3-to-1 ratio.
Chatham House also noted, “Majorities in all but two of the ten states agreed, ranging from 71% in Poland, 65% in Austria, 53% in Germany and 51% in Italy to 47% in the United Kingdom and 41% in Spain. In no country did the percentage that disagreed surpass 32%.”
“(This) means your voters have a harder line position on this than Donald Trump, or myself, or frankly any party sitting in this parliament,” asserted Farage. “I simply cannot believe that you are blind to the fact that even Mrs. Merkel has now made a u-turn and wants to send people back.”
“The fact is: the European Union has no future at all in its current form, and I suspect you’re in for as big a shock in 2017 as you were in ’16.”
Italy Votes Against EU Takeover As Globalism Implodes
On a rare occasion, when security leaders from both sides of the Atlantic gathered to hear each other’s policy position on security, and Vladimir Putin stunned his audience when he basically said that a unipolar world will eventually destroy itself and lead to chaos, directly in front of John McCain, Angela Merkel, and the Israeli delegation, among others.
The reaction, i.e. body language, from the perpetual warmongers is priceless…
Here’s the full translation from WaPost:
Putin’s Prepared Remarks at 43rd Munich Conference on Security Policy
Putin (in Russian): “Thank you very much dear Madam Federal Chancellor, Mr Teltschik, ladies and gentlemen!
I am truly grateful to be invited to such a representative conference that has assembled politicians, military officials, entrepreneurs and experts from more than 40 nations.
This conference’s structure allows me to avoid excessive politeness and the need to speak in roundabout, pleasant but empty diplomatic terms. This conference’s format will allow me to say what I really think about international security problems.
And if my comments seem unduly polemical, pointed or inexact to our colleagues, then I would ask you not to get angry with me. After all, this is only a conference. And I hope that after the first two or three minutes of my speech Mr Teltschik will not turn on the red light over there.
Therefore. It is well known that international security comprises much more than issues relating to military and political stability. It involves the stability of the global economy, overcoming poverty, economic security and developing a dialogue between civilisations.
This universal, indivisible character of security is expressed as the basic principle that “security for one is security for all”. As Franklin D. Roosevelt said during the first few days that the Second World War was breaking out: “When peace has been broken anywhere, the peace of all countries everywhere is in danger.”
These words remain topical today. Incidentally, the theme of our conference — global crises, global responsibility — exemplifies this.
Only two decades ago the world was ideologically and economically divided and it was the huge strategic potential of two superpowers that ensured global security.
This global stand-off pushed the sharpest economic and social problems to the margins of the international community’s and the world’s agenda. And, just like any war, the Cold War left us with live ammunition, figuratively speaking. I am referring to ideological stereotypes, double standards and other typical aspects of Cold War bloc thinking.
The unipolar world that had been proposed after the Cold War did not take place either.
The history of humanity certainly has gone through unipolar periods and seen aspirations to world supremacy. And what hasn’t happened in world history?
However, what is a unipolar world? However one might embellish this term, at the end of the day it refers to one type of situation, namely one centre of authority, one centre of force, one centre of decision-making.
It is world in which there is one master, one sovereign. And at the end of the day this is pernicious not only for all those within this system, but also for the sovereign itself because it destroys itself from within.
And this certainly has nothing in common with democracy. Because, as you know, democracy is the power of the majority in light of the interests and opinions of the minority.
Incidentally, Russia – we – are constantly being taught about democracy. But for some reason those who teach us do not want to learn themselves.
I consider that the unipolar model is not only unacceptable but also impossible in today’s world. And this is not only because if there was individual leadership in today’s – and precisely in today’s – world, then the military, political and economic resources would not suffice. What is even more important is that the model itself is flawed because at its basis there is and can be no moral foundations for modern civilisation.
Along with this, what is happening in today’s world – and we just started to discuss this – is a tentative to introduce precisely this concept into international affairs, the concept of a unipolar world.
And with which results?
Unilateral and frequently illegitimate actions have not resolved any problems. Moreover, they have caused new human tragedies and created new centres of tension. Judge for yourselves: wars as well as local and regional conflicts have not diminished. Mr Teltschik mentioned this very gently. And no less people perish in these conflicts – even more are dying than before. Significantly more, significantly more!
Today we are witnessing an almost uncontained hyper use of force – military force – in international relations, force that is plunging the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts. As a result we do not have sufficient strength to find a comprehensive solution to any one of these conflicts. Finding a political settlement also becomes impossible.
We are seeing a greater and greater disdain for the basic principles of international law. And independent legal norms are, as a matter of fact, coming increasingly closer to one state’s legal system. One state and, of course, first and foremost the United States, has overstepped its national borders in every way. This is visible in the economic, political, cultural and educational policies it imposes on other nations. Well, who likes this? Who is happy about this?
In international relations we increasingly see the desire to resolve a given question according to so-called issues of political expediency, based on the current political climate.
And of course this is extremely dangerous. It results in the fact that no one feels safe. I want to emphasise this — no one feels safe! Because no one can feel that international law is like a stone wall that will protect them. Of course such a policy stimulates an arms race.
The force’s dominance inevitably encourages a number of countries to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Moreover, significantly new threats – though they were also well-known before – have appeared, and today threats such as terrorism have taken on a global character.
I am convinced that we have reached that decisive moment when we must seriously think about the architecture of global security.
And we must proceed by searching for a reasonable balance between the interests of all participants in the international dialogue. Especially since the international landscape is so varied and changes so quickly – changes in light of the dynamic development in a whole number of countries and regions.
Madam Federal Chancellor already mentioned this. The combined GDP measured in purchasing power parity of countries such as India and China is already greater than that of the United States. And a similar calculation with the GDP of the BRIC countries – Brazil, Russia, India and China – surpasses the cumulative GDP of the EU. And according to experts this gap will only increase in the future.
There is no reason to doubt that the economic potential of the new centres of global economic growth will inevitably be converted into political influence and will strengthen multipolarity.
In connection with this the role of multilateral diplomacy is significantly increasing. The need for principles such as openness, transparency and predictability in politics is uncontested and the use of force should be a really exceptional measure, comparable to using the death penalty in the judicial systems of certain states.
However, today we are witnessing the opposite tendency, namely a situation in which countries that forbid the death penalty even for murderers and other, dangerous criminals are airily participating in military operations that are difficult to consider legitimate. And as a matter of fact, these conflicts are killing people – hundreds and thousands of civilians!
But at the same time the question arises of whether we should be indifferent and aloof to various internal conflicts inside countries, to authoritarian regimes, to tyrants, and to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction? As a matter of fact, this was also at the centre of the question that our dear colleague Mr Lieberman asked the Federal Chancellor.
If I correctly understood your question (addressing Mr Lieberman), then of course it is a serious one! Can we be indifferent observers in view of what is happening? I will try to answer your question as well: of course not.
But do we have the means to counter these threats? Certainly we do. It is sufficient to look at recent history. Did not our country have a peaceful transition to democracy?
Indeed, we witnessed a peaceful transformation of the Soviet regime – a peaceful transformation! And what a regime! With what a number of weapons, including nuclear weapons! Why should we start bombing and shooting now at every available opportunity? Is it the case when without the threat of mutual destruction we do not have enough political culture, respect for democratic values and for the law?
I am convinced that the only mechanism that can make decisions about using military force as a last resort is the Charter of the United Nations.
And in connection with this, either I did not understand what our colleague, the Italian Defence Minister, just said or what he said was inexact. In any case, I understood that the use of force can only be legitimate when the decision is taken by NATO, the EU, or the UN. If he really does think so, then we have different points of view.
Or I didn’t hear correctly. The use of force can only be considered legitimate if the decision is sanctioned by the UN. And we do not need to substitute NATO or the EU for the UN. When the UN will truly unite the forces of the international community and can really react to events in various countries, when we will leave behind this disdain for international law, then the situation will be able to change.
Otherwise the situation will simply result in a dead end, and the number of serious mistakes will be multiplied. Along with this, it is necessary to make sure that international law have a universal character both in the conception and application of its norms.
And one must not forget that democratic political actions necessarily go along with discussion and a laborious decision-making process.
Dear ladies and gentlemen!
The potential danger of the destabilisation of international relations is connected with obvious stagnation in the disarmament issue.
Russia supports the renewal of dialogue on this important question.
It is important to conserve the international legal framework relating to weapons destruction and therefore ensure continuity in the process of reducing nuclear weapons.
Together with the United States of America we agreed to reduce our nuclear strategic missile capabilities to up to 1700-2000 nuclear warheads by 31 December 2012.
Russia intends to strictly fulfil the obligations it has taken on. We hope that our partners will also act in a transparent way and will refrain from laying aside a couple of hundred superfluous nuclear warheads for a rainy day.
And if today the new American Defence Minister declares that the United States will not hide these superfluous weapons in warehouse or, as one might say, under a pillow or under the blanket, then I suggest that we all rise and greet this declaration standing. It would be a very important declaration.
Russia strictly adheres to and intends to further adhere to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons as well as the multilateral supervision regime for missile technologies. The principles incorporated in these documents are universal ones.
In connection with this I would like to recall that in the 1980s the USSR and the United States signed an agreement on destroying a whole range of small- and medium-range missiles but these documents do not have a universal character.
Today many other countries have these missiles, including the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea, India, Iran, Pakistan and Israel. Many countries are working on these systems and plan to incorporate them as part of their weapons arsenals. And only the United States and Russia bear the responsibility to not create such weapons systems.
It is obvious that in these conditions we must think about ensuring our own security.
At the same time, it is impossible to sanction the appearance of new, destabilising high-tech weapons. Needless to say it refers to measures to prevent a new area of confrontation, especially in outer space.
Star wars is no longer a fantasy ¿ it is a reality. In the middle of the 1980s our American partners were already able to intercept their own satellite.
In Russia¿s opinion, the militarisation of outer space could have unpredictable consequences for the international community, and provoke nothing less than the beginning of a nuclear era. And we have come forward more than once with initiatives designed to prevent the use of weapons in outer space.
Today I would like to tell you that we have prepared a project for an agreement on the prevention of deploying weapons in outer space. And in the near future it will be sent to our partners as an official proposal. Let’s work on this together.
Plans to expand certain elements of the anti-missile defence system to Europe cannot help but disturb us. Who needs the next step of what would be, in this case, an inevitable arms race? I deeply doubt that Europeans themselves do.
Missile weapons with a range of about five to eight thousand kilometres that really pose a threat to Europe do not exist in any of the so-called problem countries.
And in the near future and prospects, this will not happen and is not even foreseeable. And any hypothetical launch of, for example, a North Korean rocket to American territory through western Europe obviously contradicts the laws of ballistics. As we say in Russia, it would be like using the right hand to reach the left ear.
And here in Germany I cannot help but mention the pitiable condition of the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe.
The Adapted Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe was signed in 1999. It took into account a new geopolitical reality, namely the elimination of the Warsaw bloc. Seven years have passed and only four states have ratified this document, including the Russian Federation.
NATO countries openly declared that they will not ratify this treaty, including the provisions on flank restrictions (on deploying a certain number of armed forces in the flank zones), until Russia removed its military bases from Georgia and Moldova. Our army is leaving Georgia, even according to an accelerated schedule.
We resolved the problems we had with our Georgian colleagues, as everybody knows. There are still 1,500 servicemen in Moldova that are carrying out peacekeeping operations and protecting warehouses with ammunition left over from Soviet times. We constantly discuss this issue with Mr Solana and he knows our position. We are ready to further work in this direction.
But what is happening at the same time? Simultaneously the so-called flexible frontline American bases with up to five thousand men in each. It turns out that NATO has put its frontline forces on our borders, and we continue to strictly fulfil the treaty obligations and do not react to these actions at all.
I think it is obvious that NATO expansion does not have any relation with the modernisation of the Alliance itself or with ensuring security in Europe. On the contrary, it represents a serious provocation that reduces the level of mutual trust. And we have the right to ask: against whom is this expansion intended?
And what happened to the assurances our western partners made after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact? Where are those declarations today? No one even remembers them. But I will allow myself to remind this audience what was said. I would like to quote the speech of NATO General Secretary Mr Woerner in Brussels on 17 May 1990.
He said at the time that: “the fact that we are ready not to place a NATO army outside of German territory gives the Soviet Union a firm security guarantee”. Where are these guarantees?
The stones and concrete blocks of the Berlin Wall have long been distributed as souvenirs. But we should not forget that the fall of the Berlin Wall was possible thanks to a historic choice – one that was also made by our people, the people of Russia – a choice in favour of democracy, freedom, openness and a sincere partnership with all the members of the big European family.
And now they are trying to impose new dividing lines and walls on us ¿ these walls may be virtual but they are nevertheless dividing, ones that cut through our continent. And is it possible that we will once again require many years and decades, as well as several generations of politicians, to dissemble and dismantle these new walls?
Dear ladies and gentlemen!
We are unequivocally in favour of strengthening the regime of non-proliferation. The present international legal principles allow us to develop technologies to manufacture nuclear fuel for peaceful purposes. And many countries with all good reasons want to create their own nuclear energy as a basis for their energy independence. But we also understand that these technologies can be quickly transformed into nuclear weapons.
This creates serious international tensions. The situation surrounding the Iranian nuclear programme acts as a clear example. And if the international community does not find a reasonable solution for resolving this conflict of interests, the world will continue to suffer similar, destabilising crises because there are more threshold countries than simply Iran.
We both know this. We are going to constantly fight against the threat of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
Last year Russia put forward the initiative to establish international centres for the enrichment of uranium. We are open to the possibility that such centres not only be created in Russia, but also in other countries where there is a legitimate basis for using civil nuclear energy.
Countries that want to develop their nuclear energy could guarantee that they will receive fuel through direct participation in these centres. And the centres would, of course, operate under strict IAEA supervision.
The latest initiatives put forward by American President George W. Bush are in conformity with the Russian proposals. I consider that Russia and the USA are objectively and equally interested in strengthening the regime of the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their deployment.
It is precisely our countries, with leading nuclear and missile capabilities, that must act as leaders in developing new, stricter non-proliferation measures. Russia is ready for such work. We are engaged in consultations with our American friends.
In general, we should talk about establishing a whole system of political incentives and economic stimuli whereby it would not be in states¿ interests to establish their own capabilities in the nuclear fuel cycle but they would still have the opportunity to develop nuclear energy and strengthen their energy capabilities.
In connection with this I shall talk about international energy cooperation in more detail. Madam Federal Chancellor also spoke about this briefly – she mentioned, touched on this theme. In the energy sector Russia intends to create uniform market principles and transparent conditions for all.
It is obvious that energy prices must be determined by the market instead of being the subject of political speculation, economic pressure or blackmail.
We are open to cooperation. Foreign companies participate in all our major energy projects. According to different estimates, up to 26 percent of the oil extraction in Russia – and please think about this figure – up to 26 percent of the oil extraction in Russia is done by foreign capital.
Try, try to find me a similar example where Russian business participates extensively in key economic sectors in western countries. Such examples do not exist! There are no such examples.
I would also recall the parity of foreign investments in Russia and those Russia makes abroad. The parity is about fifteen to one. And here you have an obvious example of the openness and stability of the Russian economy.
Economic security is the sector in which all must adhere to uniform principles. We are ready to compete fairly.
For that reason more and more opportunities are appearing in the Russian economy. Experts and our western partners are objectively evaluating these changes. As such, Russia’s OECD sovereign credit rating improved and Russia passed from the fourth to the third group. And today in Munich I would like to use this occasion to thank our German colleagues for their help in the above decision.
Furthermore. As you know, the process of Russia joining the WTO has reached its final stages. I would point out that during long, difficult talks we heard words about freedom of speech, free trade, and equal possibilities more than once but, for some reason, exclusively in reference to the Russian market.
And there is still one more important theme that directly affects global security. Today many talk about the struggle against poverty. What is actually happening in this sphere? On the one hand, financial resources are allocated for programmes to help the world’s poorest countries – and at times substantial financial resources.
But to be honest — and many here also know this – linked with the development of that same donor country’s companies. And on the other hand, developed countries simultaneously keep their agricultural subsidies and limit some countries’ access to high-tech products.
And let’s say things as they are – one hand distributes charitable help and the other hand not only preserves economic backwardness but also reaps the profits thereof. The increasing social tension in depressed regions inevitably results in the growth of radicalism, extremism, feeds terrorism and local conflicts.
And if all this happens in, shall we say, a region such as the Middle East where there is increasingly the sense that the world at large is unfair, then there is the risk of global destabilisation.
It is obvious that the world’s leading countries should see this threat. And that they should therefore build a more democratic, fairer system of global economic relations, a system that would give everyone the chance and the possibility to develop.
Dear ladies and gentlemen, speaking at the Conference on Security Policy, it is impossible not to mention the activities of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). As is well-known, this organisation was created to examine all – I shall emphasise this – all aspects of security: military, political, economic, humanitarian and, especially, the relations between these spheres.
What do we see happening today? We see that this balance is clearly destroyed. People are trying to transform the OSCE into a vulgar instrument designed to promote the foreign policy interests of one or a group of countries. And this task is also being accomplished by the OSCE’s bureaucratic apparatus which is absolutely not connected with the state founders in any way.
Decision-making procedures and the involvement of so-called non-governmental organisations are tailored for this task. These organisations are formally independent but they are purposefully financed and therefore under control.
According to the founding documents, in the humanitarian sphere the OSCE is designed to assist country members in observing international human rights norms at their request.
This is an important task. We support this. But this does not mean interfering in the internal affairs of other countries, and especially not imposing a regime that determines how these states should live and develop.
It is obvious that such interference does not promote the development of democratic states at all. On the contrary, it makes them dependent and, as a consequence, politically and economically unstable.
We expect that the OSCE be guided by its primary tasks and build relations with sovereign states based on respect, trust and transparency.
Dear ladies and gentlemen!
In conclusion I would like to note the following. We very often – and personally, I very often – hear appeals by our partners, including our European partners, to the effect that Russia should play an increasingly active role in world affairs.
In connection with this I would allow myself to make one small remark. It is hardly necessary to incite us to do so. Russia is a country with a history that spans more than a thousand years and has practically always used the privilege to carry out an independent foreign policy.
We are not going to change this tradition today. At the same time, we are well aware of how the world has changed and we have a realistic sense of our own opportunities and potential.
And of course we would like to interact with responsible and independent partners with whom we could work together in constructing a fair and democratic world order that would ensure security and prosperity not only for a select few, but for all.
Thank you for your attention."
What Is The Ether, Dark Matter And Dark Energy? + The Big Secret Of Quantum Mechanics February 16 2017 | From: Omnithought / DivineCosmos
My innerstanding of the ether is that it is the invisible energy “substance” that exists behind the fabric of space-time. Every thought is manifested in the ether before it is manifested in the material world.
The ether holds the Cosmos together and is the “space” where imaginary, past, present, and future information are stored. In other words, no one has discovered anything, because the thing that they “discovered” has already existed in the ether.
In certain occult teachings, the ether is known as the fifth element. In Sanskrit it is called Akasha, which is the essence of all things in the material world. Today, physicists call it “dark energy”.
From the ether emerges the other elements, which are space (expansiveness and infinity), air (mobility), fire (temperature), water (fluidity), and earth (solidity). These five elements are not based on physical qualities but spiritual qualities. Because everything in the material world emerges from the ether, without it the material world will vanish into nothingness.
Every known thought… Every known idea… every invention known to man exists in THE ETHER
“The ether is a great cosmic mass of eternal forces of vibration. It is made up of both destructive vibrations and constructive vibrations. The space between the planets is very much alive, that it is the highest form of vibration known, the vibrations of THOUGHT.
The Ether is all around us. We access the ether at will through thinking but some people can access it at higher levels… which we will discuss in the free e-book. When Alexander Graham Bell gave us the telephone, he hinted that it had been done before? “The old devices have been reinvented,” he observed. The Earth.
Beautiful earth in her majestic state when formed was nothing as it looks today… We can only now view the earth in the 3 dimensional frequency range but the earth has many dimensions. So now we have established that there was no missing link found simply because there is no such thing as a missing link.
All cultures began suddenly-and fully developed 6000 years ago. They did not rise to their peak. They were at their peak from the beginning.”
Our ancestors had access to the ether of thought and knew the answers to every question.
Every idea ever known to man is stored in the Ether, some call the AKASHIC RECORDS or the HEALA ARC EHEON.
Every thought are not our own. Every Inventor in history went with his bio plasmatic body attached to the silver cord and accessed these thoughts.
The inventor knew how to put all these ideas together piece by piece for the invention to come together. Also people in their sleep can acquire great ideas, inventions and mathematical and scientific blue prints that form these inventions.
Great writings are acquired in the same way. Before the deluge this was done so much easier than now as humanity was tuned in to higher frequency of consciousness a direct link to the intelligence source. So no one up to this day has ever discovered anything, just a rediscovery.
Think of the human mind like this: a state of the art computer with a hard drive having access to every possible infinite supply of software programs that’s never ever ending. …That’s the Ether…… The fabricated stories of alien spirits or channeling the dead are all communications of thought in the ether. Channelors channel thoughts from the ether. Every human brain communicates with Infinite Intelligence… but only a few know how to master it…
Explanation Of The Ether
What is Dark Matter and Dark Energy?
What is dark energy? What is dark matter? Well, if we knew exactly we would have a nobel prize – we know that they exist though. So what do we know about those strange things?
The big secret is that "dark matter," "dark energy," the "quantum foam," and so on - the energy that most scientists now believe must be creating matter - has fluid-like properties.
I call this energy the Source Field and have conclusively proven that it thinks. The Source Field is, quite literally, the energetic manifestation of the Universal Mind.
The vibrations of the fluid - any change in its basic state - is what we would call a thought. What was the "one [and] only important statement" of the confederation, in session 1 of the Law of One Series?
1.0 The confederation of Planets in the Service of the Infinite Creator has only one important statement That statement, my friends, as you know, is "All things, all of life, all of the creation is part of one original thought."
At the quantum level, these geometric vibrations of the Source Field - of the Universal Mind - turn into atoms and molecules.
Dr. Robert Moon, who was part of a small team entrusted to develop the atomic bomb in the Manhattan Project, discovered this geometry in the nucleus of the atom in 1987. Dr. Moon solved many different quantum physics problems by developing this model. In Moon's
model there are no particles in the atom. Each proton in the nucleus is simply one corner of a geometric shape. Oxygen, for example, has eight protons. A cube has eight points - four on the square on top, and four on the square on the bottom.
The nucleus of the atom also has "shells" in it in Dr. Moon's new model. Once you finish building one geometry, and more energy keeps coming in, another geometry beings to form around the first one.
This new model also explains how atoms can appear to be "waves" and "particles" at the same time. They can appear to be both because they are made of fluid-like energy that is vibrating.
If you measure the energy like a wave you will see a wave. If you look for a particle, you will see one of these geometric points and find a proton.
Ultimately this means that everything we see in the universe is an energy vibration. Nothing really exists as a solid object.
The mystery becomes even deeper once we see that you can create your own geometric vibrations in this fluid-like energy - which I call the Source Field - with your own thoughts.
You can use this to "magnetize" certain things to you, such as in the Law of Attraction. As you become more advanced, you could use this same power to levitate objects with your mind, or even manifest physical objects out of thin air. Great masters like Jesus were able to do this because they understood the big secret: they are the Source Field.
Thoughts are things. Or, as the young student of the Oracle said to Neo in The Matrix:
ORACLE STUDENT: Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only try to realize the truth.
NEO: What truth?
STUDENT: There is no spoon
NEO: There is no spoon?
STUDENT: Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends - it is only yourself.