If that news isn't stark enough for the future of humankind, these chemicals are also making us dumber. A recent piece in the New York Times drew attention to an important issue: endocrine-disrupting chemicals in everyday consumer products are killing or disabling sperm and making men sterile.
The numbers are extremely troubling. Scientists say that approximately 90% of sperm in a typical young man are misshapen, meaning they are unable to swim correctly. Additionally, sperm counts have decreased sharply over the last seventy-five years. As one researcher bluntly stated, "Not everyone who wants to reproduce will be able to."
Our grandfathers may not have been able to understand our smart phones, but their ability to produce offspring vastly outpaced our own.
There's a great deal of evidence to suggest endocrine-disrupting chemicals are the major cause of this problem. They're found in plastics, pesticides, and many other products. Quite simply, these chemicals disrupt the proper functioning of hormones.
One study by Canadian scientists found that adding endocrine disruptors to Lake Ontario turned male fathead minnows into intersexual fish (fish with both male and female characteristics), which are unable to reproduce. Unfortunately, it is far from the only study positing a link between chemicals and infertility.
The mayhem caused by these chemicals appears to happen in utero, when endocrine disruptors mimic certain hormones and confuse the biological process that turns a fetus into a male.
Chemical exposure, unfortunately, affects far more than just reproductive health. A recent study discussed in The Atlantic details the damage that certain environmental contaminants - including endocrine disruptors, but also lead, ethanol, mercury, arsenic, and more - can have on the brain. These effects include lower IQs, ADHD, autism spectrum disorder, and more.
"Our very great concern," the authors of the new study write, "is that children worldwide are being exposed to unrecognized toxic chemicals that are silently eroding intelligence, disrupting behaviors, truncating future achievements, and damaging societies."
The authors also note that genetic factors account for only 30 to 40% of all cases of brain development disorders. They suggest that environmental exposures to industrial chemicals are causing a "silent pandemic of neurodevelopmental toxicity."
What are federal regulators doing to deal with the rise in infertility and this "silent pandemic" of brain disorders? Not much. Humans have made, found, or used over 50 million unique chemicals, yet federal regulators have tested only 200. And only five of those were deemed harmful enough to be subject to new regulations.
This isn't simply a case of federal agencies being asleep at the wheel. Sometimes it's plain old corruption, as we'll see in the next piece in this week's Pulse of Natural Health.
Genetics Are The New Eugenics: How GMO’s Reduce The Human Population
& This Major Report On GMO Safety Has Just One Small Problem: Undisclosed Conflicts Of Interest May 5 2021 | From: GlobalResearch / Sott
Last year, we had a series of mergers in the agribusiness’ GMO-corporations worldwide. This has created an alarming concentration of corporate power in the hands of basically three corporate groups.
The first one is Bayer AG of Germany, which made a friendly takeover of Monsanto. The reason for this was that Monsanto became identified in the public mind as pure evil and everything bad about GMO’s, which was accurate.
This became a burden on the whole GMO project. So, Bayer stepped in, which has a friendly image of an aspirin, harmless, nice company, but in fact is the company that invented heroin in the 1880’s and made gas for the ovens of Auschwitz during WWII.
It’s one of the dirtiest agribusiness companies in the world with a series of homicides and pesticides that killed off bee colonies and many other things that are essential to life and to nature.
ChemChina – China State Chemical giant – for some reason took over Swiss Syngenta, which makes weed-killers.
Then, Dow Chemicals and DuPont merged their GMO businesses together.
So, we have three gigantic corporate groups worldwide controlling the genetically-modified part of the human food chain.
As dangerous as the GMO crops are and the more they sell, it is becoming more and more obvious that they are the chemicals that by contract must be applied to those GMO seeds by the corporations.
They demand that if you buy roundup ready soybeans or corn, you must use Monsanto (now Bayer) roundup.
Therefore, this is giving more corporate power to the GMO industry than ever before and that’s an alarming trend. They are putting pressure on the bureaucracy in Brussels.
One example: there was a massive public campaign against the renewal of the license of the European Commission for Glyphosate. Glyphosate is the most widely used weed-killer in the world. Glyphosate is the main ingredient in Monsanto’s roundup. The other ingredients are Monsanto’s corporate secret, but the combination of them is one of the most deadly weed-killers.
The World Health Organization’s body responsible for assessing genetic dangers made a ruling the last year that Glyphosate was a probable cancer-causing agent.
The license came up for automatic renewal last year – a 15-year license. The EU commission for health was prepared to automatically renew it for 15 years. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), which is responsible allegedly for the health and safety of European citizens, recommended approval based on a German study by the German Food Safety Agency that was simply lifted 100% from studies given by the private corporation Monsanto!
So, the whole chain was corrupt from the beginning and all the information was rigged. In reality tests have shown that in minuscule concentrations, lower than in recommended levels in Europe and in the US, Glyphosate causes kidney disease, liver disease, and other illnesses that are potentially fatal.
Now, Glyphosate has shown up in urine tests, in urban drinking water, in gardens, in ground water and so forth. And that gets into the system of childbearing women, for example, with embryo. It’s all in this!
The EU commission, despite a million petitions – this is a record setting – and despite recommendations from leading scientists around the world to not renew the license, made a compromise under huge industry pressure and renewed it for 18 months. Why did they renew it for that time?
Because at the end of 18 months, they were told by Bayer and Monsanto that the takeover of those two giant corporations will be completed and Bayer is going to replace Glyphosate with another, likely more deadly toxin, but not so well-known as Glyphosate. So, they simply bought time. And that is just one example.
This agenda of GMO is not about the health and safety; it’s not about increasing crop yields – that’s a lie that has been proven in repeated tests in North America and all around the world.
Crop yields for farmers, using GMO plants, may increase slightly for the first 1-2 harvest years, but ultimately decline after 3-4 years.
It comes out of the 1920s-1930s Eugenics movement. The Rockefeller Foundation during the 1930’s, right up to the outbreak of World War II when it became politically embracing too, financed the Nazi Eugenics experiments of Kaiser Wilhelm Institute in Berlin and in Munich.
Why did they do this? Their goal was the elimination of what they called “undesirable eaters”. That is called population reduction.
After the war, the head of the American Eugenic Society, who was a good friend of John D. Rockefeller, at the annual conference of the American Eugenic Society said:
"From today, the new name of eugenics is genetics”.
Moreover, if you keep that in mind – genetic engineering, the Human Genome Project and so forth – they all are scientific frauds. Russian scientists have proven that the entire Genome Project utterly disregarded 98% of the scientifically valuable data in favor of 2% that was completely nonsense and a waste of billions of dollars.
Therefore, they have been obsessed with the idea of how to reduce human population in a way that would not be so obvious as simply going out and carrying out mass-sterilization.
Actually, they have done that in Central America together with the World Health Organization by giving certain vaccines that they cooked-up to have abortive effects.
The organization of the Catholic Church became suspicious because the shots were given only to women, not to men. And they found that there was buried in the vaccine an abortive effect that made it impossible for women to conceive and bear children. This is all covert population reduction.
These are the Western patriarchs who believe they are the gods, sitting on the throne with great dignity, controlling mankind. I think they are a bunch of fools, but they have this agenda of genetic manipulation. It’s against nature, it’s chemically unstable.
And I have to congratulate the Russian Federation that they had the courage and the moral concern for their own population to ban GMO cultivation across Russia.
That was a step forward for mankind. I would hope that Russia will use its influence to get China to do the similar thing, because their agriculture is in dire need of some healthy Russian input. But this step by Russia to make a GMO-free agriculture is a great step for mankind.
This Major Report On GMO Safety Has Just One Small Problem: Undisclosed Conflicts Of Interest
Researchers allege undisclosed conflicts of interest on a National Academies of Sciences panel. About a year ago, the prestigious National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine produced a 584-page report assessing the health, environmental, and agronomic impact of genetically modified crops.
Not surprisingly, the report did little to "end the highly polarized dispute over biotech crops," concluded New York Times reporter Andrew Martin in an article just after the report's release. He added that both sides of the debate "pointed approvingly to findings that buttressed their viewpoint and criticized those that did not."
And a new paper, published in the peer-reviewed journal PLOS-One, ups the temperature of that long-simmering debate.
The authors - Sheldon Krimsky, a professor in the Department of Urban and Environmental Policy and Planning at Tufts, and Tim Schwab, a researcher at Food & Water Watch - found that 6 of the 20 scientists who contribute to NASEM's GMO report had ties to the ag-biotech industry that weren't disclosed in the paper.
Five of them "had patents or industry research funding" while they served on the committee, and another one "reported receiving industry research funding" a few years before.
As Krimsky and Schwab note, the NASEM paper states that the GMO assessment, launched only after face-to-face conversations;
"Determined that no one with an avoidable conflict of interest is serving on the committee."
They also uncovered another undisclosed potential conflict: The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, a nonprofit institution, has had substantial funding from the very companies whose products were assessed in the report:
"The organization's annual financial reports do not give exact figures but note that three leading agricultural biotechnology companies (Monsanto, DuPont, and Dow) have given up to $5 million dollars each to the NASEM."
The National Academies even hosted a 2015 workshop on communicating the science of GMO crops to the public, funded in part by Monsanto and DuPont.
The PLOS-One findings do not invalidate the findings of the GMO assessment, of course. Having a financial interest in an industry does not automatically make a scientist incapable of commenting honestly on that industry's products. Fred Gould, professor of entomology at North Carolina State University and the chair of the committee that wrote the report, defended it in an email.
"The one implicit rule on our committee was that if you wanted something to go into the report, you had to back it up with evidence that was acceptable to everyone on the committee," he wrote.
"No one person could steer the committee with an opinion. I welcome people to scrutinize the accuracy of our report." (Gould was not one of the six committee members found by the PLOS authors to have industry ties.)
In a statement, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine denied that members of the committee violated conflict-of-interest disclosure norms. NASEM maintains a;
"Stringent, well-defined, and transparent conflict-of-interest policy, with which all members of this study committee complied," the statement reads. "It is unfair and disingenuous for the authors of the PLOS article to apply their own perception of conflict of interest to our committee in place of our tested and trusted conflict-of-interest policies."
However, NASEM's published policy on the topic mentions "patents, copyrights, and other intellectual property" and "research funding and other forms of research support" as potential conflicts of interest.
William Kearney, deputy executive director and director of media relations for NASEM, said the group sees such relationships as conflicts only when they're worth at least $10,000. By NASEM's reckoning, none of the committee members violated the group's disclosure policy.
All of that said, the undisclosed relationships uncovered by Krimsky and Schwab raise questions about the NASEM's ability to fulfill its mission of providing "nonpartisan, objective guidance for decision makers on pressing issues." And as Krimsky and Schwab also note, the National Academies' problem with conflicts of interest is long-standing.
Back in 2006, the Center for Science in the Public Interest issued a report finding that nearly a fifth of the scientists appointed to one of the group's panels over a three-year period had "direct financial ties to companies or industry groups with a direct stake in the outcome of that study."
The Drugs May Be The Problem - Inconvenient Truths About Big Pharma And The Psychiatric Industry + Psychologist Speaks Out: Psychiatry Is Misleading Public About Mental Disorders May 4 2021 | From: NaturalBlaze / Sott / Various
I borrowed the title from psychiatrist Peter Breggin’s ground-breaking 1999 book Your Drug May Be Your Problem.
Thousands of Big Pharma whistle-blowers like me, along with millions of other skeptics concerning the alleged safety (now disproven) and alleged efficacy (now disproven) of Big Pharma’s often toxic and often addictive psych drugs, are justifiably concerned with the huge influence that the for-profit, essentially amoral, multinational pharmaceutical corporations have over the medical establishment, including the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention), the FDA (Food and Drug Administration), the NIMH (National Institute of Mental Health) and academic psychiatry.
Many whistle-blowers that have been trying to expose the frailties and fraudulence of the psychiatric drug industry regard Dr Breggin as a mentor, and increasingly, many survivors of psychiatric drug addiction and neurotoxicity feel the same. His books occupy a significant section in my personal library.
I have spent many hours reading and studying Breggin’s books.
Over and over again, I have confirmed the veracity of his evidence and applied his insights in my past practice of holistic mental healthcare, where I saw hundreds of patients who had been seriously sickened by and addicted to irrational cocktails of psych drugs, which has been prescribed in trial-and-error experimental fashions.
Sometimes, when all the psych drugs and their combinations and dosages of drugs had been tried and failed (usually making the patient worse), brain-disabling and seizure-inducing electroshock, the ultimate psychiatric method of last resort, was added, with the predictable loss of employability, personality and memory – both short-term and long-term.
Sadly, because Breggin has been such a big threat to the profitability of Big Pharma and the practice of psychiatry, he has unfairly been regarded as a medical heretic, and therefore he, his courageous truth-telling and his books have been essentially black-balled by psychiatrists and the medical establishment.
Despite the fact that his ideas are considered heretical in mainstream psychiatry, his books continue to be inspirational and educational for psychiatric patients who know that they have been sickened and/or made worse by the use of brain-disabling drugs and electroshock.
Breggin is a giant among psychiatric whistle-blowers and a huge thorn in the side of the super-wealthy and obscenely profitable multinational psychopharmaceutical corporations (and much of academic psychiatry).
He has been influential with free-thinking physicians and feared by establishment types ever since his first ground-breaking book was published in 1991.
That book was titled Toxic Psychiatry: Why Therapy, Empathy and Love Must Replace the Drugs, Electroshock and Biochemical Theories of the ‘New Psychiatry’.
Last year was the 25th anniversary of Toxic Psychiatry’s publication and I dedicated a recent seminar that I did in St Paul, MN to him. It needs to be emphasized that Breggin’s books are virtually banned books in polite medical establishment circles. They are rarely found on mainstream book-seller’s store shelves, and they are absent from hospital libraries that are designed for physician education.
“We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth… For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it might cost, I am willing to know the whole truth, to know the worst, and to provide for it.”
- Patrick Henry (1775)
“It would be good for humankind and bad for the fishes if all the drugs were thrown into the sea.”
- Dr. William Osler
“One of the first duties of the physician is to educate the masses not to take medicine…The good physician treats the disease; the great physician treats the patient who has the disease… The person who takes medicine must recover twice, once from the disease and once from the medicine.”
- Dr. William Osler
“Prozac and its successor antidepressants cause sexual dysfunction in as many as 70% of people taking them.”
- Dr Loren Mosher
Among the approximately 2 dozen books Dr Breggin has written during his long career as author and practicing psychiatrist (he is still curing patients at age 80) is his Brain-Disabling Treatments in Psychiatry: Drugs, Electroshock and the Role of the FDA (1997, revised in 2008).
That book exposed the corrupted pseudoscience and out-and-out bribery that has enabled the psychopharmaceutical industry to convince the CDC, the FDA, the NIMH, and academic psychiatry (all of which have enormous power in essentially every medical school and major medical clinic in the nation), to thrive by foisting their potentially addictive, potentially brain-damaging and potentially dementia-inducing synthetic psych drugs (and their potentially brain-damaging electroshock “treatments”) onto an unsuspecting, indoctrinated and often naive healthcare industry (and the brain-washed populace).
Pharmaceutical money in the hundreds of millions are showered upon those supposedly independent groups every year.
Corporate, for-profit “science” has not been recognized as pseudoscience and therefore has been spreading, thanks to the propaganda that is repeated endlessly in the popular media that overwhelms the accurate, unbiased neuroscience research that is published (but not read by most physicians) in relatively obscure journals.
Non-corrupted “pure” science that doesn’t rely on Big Pharma money can only be done if the influence of big money isn’t a factor.
And the journal articles written about that science are being written by conscientious and under-funded research scientists who haven’t been bought or co-opted by the pharmaceutical corporations that are collectively known as Big Pharma.
The full title of Dr Breggin’s 1999 book, co-authored with Dr David Cohen, is Your Drug May Be Your Problem: How and Why to Stop Taking Psychiatric Medications.
Psychiatrist William Glasser wrote the following in the forward to the first edition:
"Nowhere does the false medical thinking (that there is a drug cure for almost all common diseases) do more harm than in the modern psychiatric argument that mental illness is easily diagnosed and then cured by a side-effect-free drug.
Nowhere is the correct psychiatric thinking more evident than in the books by Peter Breggin. In them he explains clearly that patients with mental illnesses are in almost all instances suffering from their inability to connect with important people in their lives and need help in making these vital connections.
He supports safe, drug-free counseling as a more effective way to help people, and I enthusiastically agree with this premise."
Psychiatrist Alberto Fergusson wrote:
"This book is one of the most important things that has happened to psychiatry and especially to so-called ‘psychiatric patients’ during this century.
Having worked for more than 20 years with so-called schizophrenics – the main victims of the abuse by prescribed psychiatric drugs – I can say that Breggin and Cohen must be praised for the courage they have had to unmask many pseudo-scientific conclusions frequently present in supposedly scientific literature.”
Psychiatrist Douglas C. Smith endorsed the book with this:
"One hundred years from now, people will read current psychiatric textbooks with the same incredulity we have about blood-letting and snake oil.
Your Drug May Be Your Problem will be remembered as the turning point and as the beacon that showed the way out of these dark days of widespread psychiatric drugging. Breggin and Cohen provide us with critical information we need to know in order to make informed decisions about psychiatric drugs, including when and how to stop taking them.
They present it all within a coherent philosophy of life and health that makes the routing use of psychiatric drugs obsolete. If you have reached that inevitable point of being disillusioned with your psychiatric drug, this book will be your best friend and guide.”
In 2008, another of Breggin’s ground-breaking books was published. It was titled Medication Madness: A Psychiatrist Exposes the Dangers of Mood-altering Medications. The liner notes say:
"Medications for everything from depression and anxiety to (so-called) ADHD and insomnia are being prescribed in alarming numbers across the country, but the “cure” is often worse than the original problem.
“Medication Madness” is a fascinating, frightening and dramatic look at the role that psychiatric medications have played in 50 case histories of suicide, murder, and other violent, criminal and bizarre behaviors…
“Psychiatric drugs frequently cause individuals to lose their judgment and their ability to control their emotions and actions. The book raises and examines the issues surrounding personal responsibility when behavior seems driven by drug-induced adverse reactions and intoxication.
“Many categories of psychiatric drugs can cause potentially horrendous reactions. Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft, Adderall, Ritalin, Concerta, Xanax, lithium, Zyprexa and other psychiatric medications may spellbind patients into believing they are improved when too often they are becoming worse.
Psychiatric drugs drive some people into psychosis, mania, depression, suicide, agitation, compulsive violence and loss of self-control without the individuals realizing that their medications have deformed their way of thinking and feeling.
The book documents how the FDA, the medical establishment and the pharmaceutical industry have oversold the value of psychiatric drugs. The book serves as a cautionary tale about our reliance on potentially dangerous psychoactive chemicals to relieve our emotional problems and provides a positive approach to taking personal charge of our lives.”
The Tragic Story of the Soteria Project and the Plot to Kill it (A Conspiracy Between Big Pharma, the NIMH and Academic Psychiatry)
“Psychiatry has been almost completely bought out by the drug companies… We’re so busy with drugs that you can’t find a nickel being spent on [non-drug] research.”
- Dr Loren Mosher
Psychiatrist Loren Mosher (who earned degrees from both Harvard and Stanford) was the highly esteemed founder of the experimental “Soteria Project: Community Alternatives for the Treatment of Schizophrenia” from 1971 to 1983.
Five years before his untimely death in 2004, Dr Mosher endorsed Breggin’s Your Drug May Be Your Problem. He wrote:
"Confronting current psychiatric drug prescribing practice head-on is a daunting task and we owe Drs Breggin and Cohen a vote of thanks for openly speaking the truth.
Despite what the pharmaceutical companies would have us believe, we don’t need ‘a better life through chemistry.’ This book will help debunk this myth and provide practical advice on how to avoid psychiatric drugs and get off them.”
The Soteria Project proved that patients with first onset psychotic breaks could actually be cured without the need for coercive, in-patient psychiatry or the so-called “anti-psychotic/major tranquilizer” drug treatments that were considered the standard of care in all of America’s in-patient psychiatric facilities.
One only has to recall Jack Nicholson’s psych ward in One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest where everybody was forced to take the authoritarian Nurse Ratched’s Thorazine at “Medication Time”.
Neither Nurse Ratched, the psychiatrists nor the treatment staff working on Randle McMurphy’s ward had any idea that the antipsychotic drugs that were routinely administered commonly caused permanent iatrogenic brain damage, including tardive dyskinesia, tardive dementia, Parkinson’s disease, brain shrinkage and sexual dysfunction, not to mention a high incidence of the following antipsychotic drug-induced signs and symptoms: akathisia, depression, suicidality, homicidality, disability, unemployability, homelessness, loss of IQ points, chronic constipation, dry mouth, premature death, and general feelings of zombification.
Thorazine, and its sister “first generation” anti-psychotic drugs like Mellaril and Haldol, and every other so-called anti-psychotic drug ever made since then (including the second generation/“atypical” antipsychotics (and even the SSRIs) that wouldn’t come to market until the 1990s, have been found to cause diabetes, obesity, gynecomastia, pituitary dysfunction, cardiac rhythm disturbances, sudden death, etc.
Soteria’s lucky patients had been randomized into the Soteria Project and therefore most of them avoided being falsely labeled as life-long chronic schizophrenics.
Most importantly, most of them didn’t wind up as permanent patients on life-long psych drugs.
If it hadn’t been for the existence of the Soteria Project, they would have instead been sent to a typical coercive Southern California insane asylum, where they were told that they had a non-existent chemical brain imbalance and therefore had to be on dependency-inducing, brain-altering and brain-damaging psychiatric drugs for the rest of their lives.
Because of the luck of the draw many Soteria patients were cured of their temporary psychosis at far less costs of care and without the brain damage.
Some of the Soteria patients went on to lead normal lives following their discharge. In contrast, the vast majority of the patients who had been randomized into the “insane asylums”, wound up chronically drugged with dangerous, untested (for safety) cocktails of drugs, often for the rest of their lives (which were destined to be shortened by 25 years because of the drugs).
Tragically, especially for the millions of future mis-diagnosed (and therefore mis-treated) so-called “chronic schizophrenics” since then, the Soteria Project was sabotaged by Dr Mosher’s own National Institute of Mental Health.
The obviously unwelcome positive findings that were coming out of the Soteria Project were accurately seen by the establishment types in the NIMH, Big Pharma and Big Psychiatry as an economic threat to their industries, and they had to act to subvert the project. Scandalously, the project was defunded in 1983.
Psychology Professor Tells Truth About Psychiatry - "The Emperor Wears No Clothes"
In a posthumously published book (2004), Dr Mosher and his co-authors describe the highly successful innovative, non-drug therapeutic approach that was given to Soteria’s patients by the young, caring, altruistic, but non-professional staff.
The book was titled Soteria: From Madness to Deliverance. It told the story of the noble experiment that managed to alleviate the temporary mental suffering of some otherwise doomed fellow humans who would have been put at risk of permanent life-long drug-induced disabilities rather than given a chance at a cure.
A good description of the project can be read at Robert Whitaker’s Mad In America website.
"Soteria is the story of a special time, space, and place where young people diagnosed as ‘schizophrenic’ found a social environment where they were related to, listened to, and understood during their altered states of consciousness.
Rarely, and only with consent, did these distressed and distressing persons take ’tranquilizers’. They lived in a home in a California suburb with nonmedical caregivers whose goal was not to ‘do to’ them but to ‘be with’ them.
The place was called ‘Soteria’ (Greek for deliverance), and there, for not much money, most recovered. Although Soteria’s approach was swept away by conventional drug-oriented psychiatry, its humanistic orientation still has broad appeal to those who find the mental health mainstream limited in both theory and practice.”
One can appreciate the anguish that Mosher and all the committed and enthusiastic non-professional healers felt when the NIMH pulled the plug on the experiment. Mosher became disillusioned with the APA and eventually resigned.
Loren Mosher’s 1998 Letter of Resignation from the APA: “I want no part of it anymore.”
Here are excerpts from Mosher’s letter of resignation from the APA, a professional trade and lobbying organization to which he had been a long-time member. For good reason, he called the APA the American Psychopharmaceutical Association.
He unintentionally outlines in his resignation letter the well-known strategy of how dysfunctional organizations often try to get rid of their best people (especially the creative and talented ones who also happen to be a threat to the less competent and ingrained upper management types whose positions of power, influence and seniority may be at risk).
Making life miserable for promising up-and-coming employees is commonly orchestrated by threatened superiors by demoralizing the subordinates into quitting the organization.
Such cowardly attacks can avoid controversy and legal entanglements. Mosher felt the pressure and logically resigned, saying “I want no part of it anymore”. Here is some of Mosher’s resignation letter:
"The trouble began in the late 1970s when I conducted a controversial study: I opened a program — Soteria House - where newly diagnosed schizophrenic patients lived medication-free with a young, nonprofessional staff trained to listen to and understand them and provide companionship.
The idea was that schizophrenia can often be overcome with the help of meaningful relationships, rather than with drugs, and that such treatment would eventually lead to unquestionably healthier lives.
“The experiment worked better than expected. Over the initial six weeks, patients recovered as quickly as those treated with medication in hospitals.
“The results of the study were published in scores of psychiatric journals, nursing journals and books, but the project lost its funding and the facility was closed. Amid the storm of controversy that followed, control of the research project was taken out of my hands.
I also faced an investigation into my behavior as chief of the National Institute of Mental Health’s Center for Studies of Schizophrenia and was excluded from prestigious academic events.
By 1980, I was removed from my post altogether. All of this occurred because of my strong stand against the overuse of medication and disregard for drug-free, psychological interventions to treat psychological disorders.
“I soon found a less politically sensitive position at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Maryland. Eight years later, I re-entered the political arena as the head of the public mental health system in Montgomery County, Md., but not without a fight from friends of the drug industry.
The Maryland Psychiatric Society asked that a state pharmacy committee review my credentials and prescribing practices to make sure that Montgomery County patients would receive proper (read: drug) treatments.
In addition, a pro-drug family advocacy organization arranged for more than 250 furious letters to be sent to the elected county executive who had hired me. Fortunately, my employers were not drug industry-dominated, so I kept my position.
“Why does the world of psychiatry find me so threatening? Because drug companies pour millions of dollars into the pockets of psychiatrists around the country, making them reluctant to recognize that drugs may not always be in the best interest of their patients.
They are too busy enjoying drug company perks: consultant gigs, research grants, fine wine and fancy meals
“Pharmaceutical companies pay through the nose to get their message across to psychiatrists across the country. They finance symposia at the two predominant annual psychiatric conventions, offer yummy treats and music to conventioneers, and pay $1,000-$2,000 per speaker to hock their wares.
It is estimated that, in total, drug companies spend an average of $10,000 per physician, per year, just on “education”.
“And, of course, the doctors-for-hire tell only half the story. How widely is it known, for example, that Prozac and its successor antidepressants cause sexual dysfunction in as many as 70% of people taking them?…
“Recently, it was dues-paying time for the American Psychiatric Association, and I sat there looking at the form. I thought about the unholy alliance between the APA and the drug industry.
I thought about how consumers are being affected by this alliance, about the overuse of medication, about side effects and about alternative treatments.
I thought about how irresponsibly some of my colleagues are acting toward the general public and the mentally ill. And I realized, I want no part of it anymore.”
The demise of the Soteria Project is just another of the multitude of daily examples of amoral, non-human, sociopathic corporations doing what is best for their bottom line and not what is best for the people that are targets of their dangerous products. We are all poorer for their actions.
Psychologist Speaks Out: Psychiatry Is Misleading Public About Mental Disorders
Dr. Toby Watson, a clinical psychologist is the former Chief Psychologist for the State of Wisconsin Department of Corrections, and the past International Executive Director of the International Society of Ethical Psychology and Psychiatry (ISEPP).
He is an outspoken critic of psychiatric industry's claim that mental disorders are biological or medical conditions despite the fact there are no scientific or medical tests to back up this claim.
He has submitted written testimony and research to the FDA on the dangers of SSRI antidepressants and Electroshock; he has testified before the Congress of Mexico against psychotropic drugging of children and for 15 years has educated the courts and people about the harmful outcomes of psychiatric treatment, including how psychotropic drugs can cause violent and suicidal behavior.
The Darkening Clouds Of Totalitarianism May 3 2021 | From: NZPCR / Various
“Totalitarianism: form of government that theoretically permits no individual freedom and that seeks to subordinate all aspects of individual life to the authority of the state.” - Encyclopaedia Britannica
Under Jacinda Ardern’s stewardship, New Zealand is becoming a totalitarian state.
Another giant leap down that path was announced last week in the form of a Cabinet paper outlining plans to criminalise free speech.
But before we examine the detail, let’s remind ourselves of two other significant expansions of State authority that are already underway.
The first involves State control of the entire economy under the guise of ‘climate change’.
As a result of the Prime Minister imposing the harshest carbon restrictions in the world onto New Zealand, the Climate Commission is foreshadowing the need for central planning on a grand scale, if the country is to meet our obligations under the United Nations Paris Agreement.
But the question is, why is our Prime Minister sacrificing our economy and living standards, when most other countries are doing nothing? Surely it can’t just be to look good when standing before the United Nations – or can it?
Shouldn’t the PM be held accountable, not to the UN, but to New Zealanders, for the economic damage she is inflicting onto our country?
The second area of totalitarian control involves the undermining of democracy itself.
The Ardern Government has already abolished our democratic right to prevent local councils from introducing Maori wards. Now they are replacing democracy with separatist rule.
According to their He Puapuareport, the UN’s Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples will be enacted by 2040.
To achieve that goal, our constitution will be replaced with one that elevates the Treaty of Waitangi into supreme law, Maori tikanga will replace the common law, and the country will be governed through a 50:50 Crown-Maori ‘partnership’.
Under what will, in effect, be a tribal dictatorship, democracy will cease to exist. It’s time to say “No”! To defend democracy and equal rights we have launched a “Declaration of Equality” – to find out more, please click here.
The Prime Minister is now embarking on an even more threatening assault on our freedom – this time on our freedom of speech.
New Zealanders’ right to free speech is enshrined in section 14 of the 1990 Bill of Rights Act:
"Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form.”
That freedom is limited by the 1993 Human Rights Act. Section 61 makes it a civil offence to express:
"Threatening, abusive, or insulting” opinions that are likely “to excite hostility against or bring into contempt any group of persons… on the ground of colour, race, or ethnic or national origins.”
Under Section 131 intentionally inciting hostility is a criminal offence that can result in imprisonment of up to three months or a fine of up to $7,000.
However, as a public safeguard, such prosecutions need the approval of the Attorney-General.
According to the Human Rights Commission New Zealanders’ right to make controversial or offensive remarks is not undermined by these laws – they only restrict those who are inciting serious ethnic tension or unrest:
"Only where there is the potential for significant detriment to society can the right to freedom of expression be limited.”
While prosecutions have been rare, many other constraints on free speech also exist.
The regulators dealing with complaints about published material are the Broadcasting Standards Authority, the Advertising Standards Authority, and the New Zealand Press Council.
Counter Spin Media: ANZAC Launch Day: Episode 1
A must watch for Kiwis. Exposing the CCP and the agenda of Arderns handlers.
The promised public consultation never eventuated. Instead of an open and transparent process, secret discussions were held with groups campaigning for harsher laws.
The Ministry of Justice chief executive Andrew Kibblewhite claimed hate speech was a “tricky thing” to navigate.
They wanted to keep discussions “away from the political fray”, to prevent them being “derailed” and to “avoid protests”.
In the end, New Zealand First refused to support any restrictions of New Zealanders’ right to free speech.
As a result, Labour promised a law change in their 2020 election manifesto:
"Labour will extend legal protections for groups that experience hate speech, including for reasons of religion, gender, disability or sexual orientation, by ensuring that we prohibit speech that is likely to incite others to feel hostility or contempt towards these groups under the Human Rights Act.”
Their plan was to use the Human Rights Act to provide statutory protection to groups based not only on ‘race’, but on religion, gender, disability and sexual orientation as well.
Just after the election, the Royal Commission into the Christchurch shootings released its report including proposals to strengthen hate speech laws.
They recommended criminalising anyone deliberately inciting hostility by inserting section 131 of the Human Rights Act into the Crimes Act, increasing the penalties from three months in jail to at least two years, including ‘religion’ as a protected characteristic alongside ‘race’, and broadening the scope of ‘hate speech’ from an intent to ‘incite’ hostility to an intent to ‘stir’ it up.
But this week’s NZCPR Guest Contributor political commentator Chris Trotter is questioning the Government’s plan to enact Royal Commission recommendations to restrict our freedom, when nothing could have stopped the ‘lone wolf’ attack:
"Though bitterly contested by those firmly convinced that the Christchurch Mosque Shootings represent something more than the crime of a Lone Wolf terrorist, the Royal Commission’s finding that no state agency could have prevented Tarrant from carrying out his deadly intent – except by chance – is correct.
He understood that, for his ‘mission’ to succeed, he must do nothing to draw the attention of the authorities – and, God help us all, he didn’t.
Against such careful and pitiless premeditation, all the laws on our statute books are powerless.
The state can punish Lone Wolves, but it cannot stop them. In attempting to minimise the terrorist threat, however, the state can eliminate our freedoms."
Fourth, while the Royal Commission recommended increasing the legal protection from groups based on ‘race’ to include ‘religion’ as well, the Minister wants it expanded to include “all groups listed under the prohibited grounds of discrimination in section 21 of the Human Rights Act”.
That means that under Jacinda Ardern’s Labour Government, you will not only have to mind your Ps and Qs when it comes to discussing race and religion, but also sex, marital status, ethical belief, disability, age, political opinion, employment status, family status, and sexual orientation as well.
In fact, it seems the only group that will not be protected by Minister Faafoi’s new law will be white able-bodied working age males!
But it gets worse.
It appears the Ardern Government is planning on using these law changes to massively expand the concept of ‘incitement to discriminate’.
The Minister explained his intention as follows:
"Examples of inciting discrimination of a group include encouraging their exclusion or unfavourable treatment in the provision of goods and services, rental housing, or employment.
In my view, as it is unlawful to discriminate against population groups, it should also be unlawful to incite others to discriminate against these groups.”
Landlords and employers should beware – if someone alleges unfavourable treatment it appears the Police may well come knocking!
Many other changes are proposed by Minister Faafoi, including some that are being withheld from the public.
One in particular deals with the complaints process – paragraph 51 of the Cabinet paper ends with, “Groups spoken with also expressed their desire to address discrimination and hate speech in society more broadly than just through the incitement process”; but how that is to be put into effect in paragraph 52, is fully redacted.
With the chilling effect these proposed changes would have on society plain to see, and George Orwell’s warning;
"If you control the language, you control the mind” ringing out loud and clear, is paragraph 52 proposing a new department of Thought Police?
In Jacinda Ardern’s totalitarian State, few New Zealanders will speak their mind for fear of a criminal prosecution.
It will be a very ominous day for New Zealand when the Police are given the power to become the enforcement unit of politicians and activists against those expressing contrary opinions.
Through the imposition of State authority over the economy using carbon regulations, over democracy through separatist rule, and over free speech using hate speech laws, New Zealand is well on its way to becoming a shadow of the vibrant, free society that we all love.
Let’s be absolutely clear – these changes herald the most dramatic expansion of the influence of government in New Zealand’s history, and it’s happening at an extraordinary pace while Jacinda Ardern’s socialist government has a three year window of unbridled control.
It is also happening with very limited scrutiny given the lack of independence in the media and a lack of transparency from the government itself.
While all of these changes are seismic, the threat to the freedom of expression is the most ominous.
Free speech is essence of a free society.
It is the very oxygen of a democracy and individuality. Free speech is how knowledge is developed and shared, and it remains the most effective bulwark against tyranny.
As the former Minister of Justice Andrew Little explained;
"Protecting freedom of speech is vital to hold those in authority to account, challenge the socially and culturally dominant, and enable society to progress.
Freedom of speech can give force to new ideas, but also cause discomfort and offence. It is usually the first right to be lost under oppressive regimes, and among the first to be restored, at least in name, after revolutionary change.”
With these proposals having been approved by Cabinet, it is clear that under Jacinda Ardern’s controlling regime, she is planning to not only take away our right to criticise others, but also our right to criticise her and her Party.
Including ‘political opinion’ as a protected characteristic in hate speech laws puts New Zealand on a course to become the North Korea of Oceania.
A Quick Review Of Fake Medical Diagnostic Tests + Author Exposes The “Vaccine Deep State”- A Massive Criminal Fraud And Embezzlement Ring Inside The CDC May 2 2021 | From: JonRappoport / NaturalNews
Over the years, during my investigations of deep medical fraud, I’ve uncovered diagnostic tests that are wrong-headed, misleading, and fallacious.
1: Antibody test. This is given to detect the presence of a specific germ in a human. However, prior to 1985, a positive test was generally taken as a sign of good health: the patient’s immune system detected the germ and defeated it.
However, after 1985, public health agencies and doctors reversed field. They claimed a positive test showed the person was ill or was going to become ill. No true science backed up this claim.
In fact, a vaccine purportedly produces antibodies and, therefore, is said to confer immunity - but the very same antibodies, generated naturally by the body, signal illness. This is absurd.
2: The PCR test. The Polymerase Chain Reaction tests for the presence of virus in a patient. It takes a tiny sample, which technicians assume is a genetic piece of a virus far too small to observe, and amplifies it many times, so it can be identified.
But in order to cause disease in a human, a huge quantity of virus (easily observed without the PCR) needs to be present. Therefore, a PCR test-result indicates nothing about disease - except that medical personnel couldn’t find enough virus in a person, to begin with, to assume the person was ill or would become ill.
3: MRI brain imaging. As I reported this morning, a significant bug in the software had been discovered in 2015. The software, not medical personnel, is responsible for creating the brain images. Therefore, 40,000 published papers relying on MRI results have been invalidated.
4: All tests resulting in a diagnosis of any of the 300 officially certified mental disorders. There are no definitive tests. No blood, saliva, hair tests. No genetic assays. No brain scans. All so-called mental disorders are diagnosed on the basis of consulting menus of behaviors. This is pseudoscience.
5: All tests designed to assess the effectiveness of vaccines. The only marker is: does the vaccine produce antibodies in a human. But antibodies are only one aspect of the immune system. They aren’t the whole picture. There are numerous studies that reveal vaccinated persons coming down with the disease against which they were supposedly protected.
Food for thought: “Publications by the World Health Organization show that diphtheria is steadily declining in most European countries, including those in which there has been no immunization. The decline began long before vaccination was developed.
There is certainly no guarantee that vaccination will protect a child against the disease; in fact, over 30,000 cases of diphtheria have been recorded in the United Kingdom in fully immunized children.” (Leon Chaitow, Vaccination and Immunization, p. 58.)”
6: Unsupported claims from public health officials. No tests at all. For example, at the height of the so-called Swine Flu epidemic, in the fall of 2009, the CDC secretly stopped counting cases in America.
Why? Because the overwhelming percentage of blood samples taken from the most likely Swine Flu patients, sent to labs, were coming back with no trace of Swine Flu or any other kind of flu.
In other words, the epidemic was a dud and a hoax. Based on this vacuum of evidence, the CDC went on to estimate that, in America, there were 22 MILLION cases of Swine Flu.
But don’t worry, be happy. Keep your mouth shut and obey all doctors’ orders.
Author Exposes The “Vaccine Deep State”- A Massive Criminal Fraud And Embezzlement Ring Inside The CDC
One of the most explosive books you’ll ever read that documents the shocking criminal enterprise known as the CDC - including details of fraud, cover-ups and embezzlement - is called Master Manipulator - The Explosive True Story of Fraud Embezzlement and Government Betrayal at the CDC by James Ottar Grundvig. You can find the book at this Barnes & Noble link.
The book is published by Skyhorse Publishing, which I consistently find to be the single most courageous publisher of truth books in America. Time and time again, so many of the best titles exposing fraud, corruption and criminality inside the “status quo” are published by Skyhorse.
The foreward for Master Manipulator is written by none other than Sharyl Attkisson, and the introduction is penned by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. who states:
"This is a story of how CDC used a con man to gull the public and ended up getting conned itself! Poul Thorsen is a world-class villain whose manipulation of health data gave CDC and big pharma what they wanted: a report clearing thimerosal of any possible role in the autism crisis.
His story merits a book length expose because the fraud he casually helped orchestrate has had a monumental impact on the health of millions of children globally."
Master Manipulator is a must-read for anyone hoping to be truly informed about the depths of criminality and fraud inside the CDC, “science” and the vaccine industry. One section in particular is especially noteworthy.
The monolith of the CDC-FDA-NIH is supposed to be separated by a divide with the big pharma vaccine producers. But since the NIH rejected the Swedish scientist’s brief that all thimerosal should be removed from vaccines in 1992, there has been little to no separation of powers, policies, messaging, or enforcement between government oversight and industry manufacturers.
The separation of church and state doesn’t exist anymore in the vaccine industry, not with Vaccine Court squashing all comers, the Dick Armey “Lilly Rider” slipped into the 2002 Homeland Security Act, and the FDA’s approval to double the doses of aluminum adjuvants in several vaccines.
Vaccines today are part of a program rife with ROT and deception.
In a September 2007 hearing by the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions for “Thimerosal and Autism Spectrum Disorders: Alleged Misconduct - this was a case of one hand washing the other.
It read: While the five studies in question may have varying connections to the CDC and/or vaccine manufacturers, their value to consideration of an alleged link between vaccines and autism is a matter for the experts of the ISR Committee, and not for Congress.
What the findings got wrong by one half of the government to keep Congress in its place, since they were not qualified to review scientific data, as good as the “experts” that false assertion was nothing more than a ruse, a smokescreen.
What Congress needs to do is evaluate the human side of this tragedy and ongoing fraud. It has nothing to do with science - no scientific expertise is required, just the nose to follow the money.
It has everything to do with corruption, cover-up, relentless greed, pulling the ripcords on golden parachutes, shielding vaccine makers from harm, all while exposing millions of babies, children, and people around the world to great harm.
Congress needs only to examine agendas, follow the email trails, and begin to pull the weeds that have infested the CDC, FDA, and NIH lawn, removing all of the ROT as they should have done in 1990 with the Agent Orange finding.
Had they done that, then maybe Coleen Boyle would have become a librarian instead of the director of NCBDDD, and Diana Schendel would have done good collaborative studies instead of the studies that had a fixed objective to show no association, and maybe Poul Thorsen wouldn’t have been invited to come to the CDC as a visiting professor or been able to secure funding for the cooperative agreements because the “hunt for good data” never would have taken place.
Why is it so hard for mainstream media, independent journalists, and government officials on both sides of the aisle to grasp the dangers of micro small toxins?
If they believe that the unseen greenhouse gas particulates and molecules can superheat the world and change climate, why is it so hard to believe that traces of mercury and aluminum in vaccines have harmed so many once promising, healthy children for the past two decades?
If a grown man can die from a tiny amount of venom in a bee sting, then why is it so hard to believe that trace amounts of metals in babies who weight from seven to twenty-five pounds can have adverse reactions to being injected with toxins, especially when all of their bodies - from the central nervous and immune systems to the brain and lungs - are under development?
“Less is more” is a motto that our politicians need to take up with the Vaccine Deep State and rein it in. If they cannot do it, don’t have the will to do it, don’t have the balls to do it, or won’t expend the political capital to do it, a tipping point will soon one day force there hand.
When will that occur? When 1 in 40 babies are born on the spectrum? One in 25 babies born? How about 1 in 10?
Will the rate of autism incidence have to soar to that sky high number for our government to react and belatedly realize that the autism epidemic has been real all along, and its long-over due to do something about it?
The next generation, who will be born over the next decade, is awaiting your call to action. Will you act?
May 1st: The Day Slavery System Transferred From Monarchies To The Corporations May 1 2021 | From: Geopolitics
On May 1st, the world labour movements commemorate once again their tangible contribution to our collective development as a human species. This is also the day when they blow their horns on the massive inequality and the continued exploitation of the labour force.
There was never a year when the movement celebrated this day for the kindness of the Corporatists. It doesn’t exist. That’s never the intention.
The May Day celebration has its pagan roots, which traditionally marked the return of spring [northern hemisphere], and is actually performed with the girls circling and dancing in jubilation around a pole, or the Phallus.
The establishment of different religious groupings has been the earliest tool for social control. However, this divide and conquer method have its limit in the growing awareness of the subjects.
The era of the Reformation came as a shock to the Vatican-led world order of the day. This was started in 1517 with the publication of the Ninety-Five Theses by Martin Luther, and continued on by John Calvin, Huldrych Zwingli, and other Protestant reformers in the 16th century.
The Reformation Movement would later be hijacked by the Jesuits by embedding itself with Freemasonry.
The underlying idea is to prevent the full destruction of the Roman Empire, disguised as the Vatican Church, by transferring power perceptively away from the Crown itself and into the Corporation, i.e. the management of the working class, or slaves, from the direct control of the monarchies and the dukes at that time, into a shell of private corporations, which they will ultimately control from the top.
Indeed, the Jesuits and Freemasonry continue to play their cloak and dagger games until today. And it serves us better if we assume that we are much better off taking care for ourselves than trust any of them.
In response to the Reformation Movement, another Order must be established by these various control freak European secret societies. Since then, the global game between serfs and landlords had been upgraded.
As a result of this major system’s upgrade, the slaves are now allowed to house and feed for themselves in an atmosphere of the freedom of movement across continents, so that their inherent creativity and industry can be exploited along the way.
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.”
- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
This novel idea of a “free thinking slave” comes from the Enlightened Ones of the Bavarian Illuminati, which was founded on May 1, 1776, purposely to establish the New World Order, a world order where they are still in full control of through a Pyramid of Cartels.
The first stage of this counter-reformation, however, only “freed” the White Slaves, but the colored race will not enjoy their illusion of freedom for another century with the Emancipation Proclamation of Abraham Lincoln on January 1, 1863.
It could be said that even the establishment of the United States of America itself was a major part of this Jesuit-hijacked Reformation Movement that was sweeping across the Atlantic, which was established on July 4, 1776, exactly 65 days from the establishment of the Bavarian Illuminati.
While the establishment of the American republic saw the explosion of human creativity, it also was showing its potential of an uncontrollable society in much of the 20th century. Something must be done about it.
So, the Globalists started to transfer their industries to the tamed and more controlled population of the East, to show the Western population how to behave properly amidst a growing economic prosperity.
Remember, they can only allow relative prosperity for the mass slaves in only the latter would allow themselves to be “guided” by them – the self-proclaimed “Enlightened Ones.”
"The Vatican word Corporation comes from corpus, or corpse, a dead body; Holocaust means a burnt offering, whether from a “Thirty Years War” or from a false flag."
From the great Reformation started in the 1500s, to the New World Order of the late 1600s, to the Vatican / UN-led “all-inclusive” global economy, Agenda 2030, the slaves must continue to work for the Elite, even if current technological realities have superseded labor in all facets of human existence.
Instead, the Control Maniacs are now moving in for the kill by maximizing the full potential of artificial intelligence, a product of the slave’s creativity, to automate the control of the more sophisticated slaves of the day.
This is now an ongoing system’s upgrade known as Technocratic Dictatorship.
As always, they are still steps ahead of the working class because what has raised the latter’s awareness in the last 3 decades, is also making them apathetic to the fundamental problems of the day. At most, the majority are only content of waging their dissent against the slavery system with mere poking at the keyboard.
Unless the ongoing social media revolution is not translated into an actual raising of the pitchforks and torches, the will of the sick minority will always rule the day - the First of May will always be the Day of the Illuminati.
We created these tools of science for the purpose of gifting freedom to the multitude. We did, while the Elite engaged themselves in worthless club functions, mass orgies, and in their boredom, plan which country they could reduce to rubbles next.
The self-proclaimed “Enlightened Ones” turned out to be the Deluded Ones. Their continued use of aggressive force, blatant lies and deceptions to control populations does not emanate from an enlightened thinking.
We are the saner bunch, always have been. They aren’t.
They might have successfully projected themselves as a powerful organization through the establishment of various groups, think thanks, foundations, financial institutions, but all of these are merely part of the House of Cards that they are hiding themselves from.
Now that the people are beginning to wake up to the mind games that they’ve been playing along, the entire House of Cards is shaken, just like in the early days of the Reformation. But only a potent action could finish the job and bring the entire control system down, this time around.
Power is never given. It must be taken away from them.
The Slavery System by any other name, i.e. from Monarchy to Corporatocracy, to the current trajectory of Technocracy, must be brought down for good.
I have spent the better part of a week trying to think of a better way to approach my writing. Forgive me if I have come to the conclusion that most of what I say is not really “getting” through to people!
"It just does not seem like anything I say is making a “dent”….
And, for those of my dedicated readers and followers who decided to read it… We have this quote from William Tompkins!
William Tompkins likes to say throughout his interviews that “everything you’re told is a lie”. He claims that many of the systems and sciences we pursue, such as astronomy, medicine, etc., have been seeded with lies to trick us.
This harks back to his claim that every government on Earth right now is under Reptilian control. Whether that turns out to be true or not remains to be seen, but certainly, so much deception has already been uncovered in so many areas of life that it is wisest to remain open to this possibility."
How many times have I said myself that same thing: Everything You’re Told is a Lie
You see, what we have now, and are experiencing is extreme cognitive dissonance, where the minds and brains of most human beings just can not process that ALL of it’s “programs” are faulty!
This is what the LUCIFERIANS have done to humanity. It is “they” who gave you your “beliefs”, and they who gave you your “truths” (which were lies), and they who are running the show even now. So, when somone finally comes out and tells you the REAL TRUTH, it is so huge that it is difficult to even know where to start changing things.
They gave us their “courts”, (Laws), they gave us their “religions” (beliefs), they gave us their “systems” (Governments), and let me once again state exactly what you need to hear - The Truth.
All of it is a lie. It’s a CON GAME of epic and monumental proportions, and you, (yes, even you) have been “conned” all of your life. Here is the difficulty with this: We have been trained (yes trained) just like dogs and cats, to be OBEDIANT, to what we were “told” were the rules.
Only these rules were not made in heaven as we thought, but were made in HELL instead. These rules were not GODS rules, but man’s rules! (And the worlds governments are STILL AT IT, and making crazy and insane rules which NO ONE wants to follow)
Just ask yourself this logical question…, and be very honest!
WHY do you suppose there is a plan on the drawing board to KILL 90 percent of humanity?
The answer is clear. “They” realize that the population is waking up from the CON, and they also realize that once that happens, they will have lost positive control of the surface humanity.
Now, before I continue, guys like me are ALWAYS condemned by the readers for pointing out the problem, but offering no solutions. Here, I will offer suggestions to make a difference. You, and everyone one else who you are in contact with, must make the “decision” that you will no longer play or participate in their evil game.
Taking any and every action you can to be “in defiance” of their rules, their cons, and their “systems”
We need to become the resistance
We need to stop consenting to every single thing we are told we need to do, and start OBJECTING
When India was fighting for it’s Independence from Great Britian, tens of thousands of workers and men simply stopped particpating and consenting! Even if they were beaten, they stopped consenting, and that is how they won their freedom.
This battle will not be won without COURAGE, and if you think it can, then by all means, see if being a coward gets you anything, but a first class seat in a FEMA camp.
Now, for those who don’t know me, and think I’m joking or have not done my reasearch, or am talking off the top of my head, here are several articles written by: Anna von Reitz, (posted on the Maine Republic) which spell out and show you the extent of the GREAT CON in fine details.
So You Want Solutions?
Well, how about this? The court system is messed up because it has been turned into a giant debt collection agency run by the creditors of the Federal Government and its “State of State” franchises.
The rest of the story is that they are collecting on fraudulent debts - debts that:
1) Don’t exist for the most part - and that:
2) Aren’t your debts
Moreover, these courts are being run as quasi-military tribunals in military districts, under the pretense that the “American Civil War” was ever an actual war.
It wasn’t. It was never Declared by the actual Congress and no Peace Treaty ending it exists, either. It was and is nothing but an illegal commercial mercenary operation on our shores that has been enforced and promoted by disloyal military commanders and criminals in Congress and clueless Presidents.
So, given the fact that these “courts” are foreign military tribunals here on our soil as the result of an illegal and immoral commercial mercenary action now 150 years old - and that they are collecting on debts that are odious and fraudulent by nature.
And given the fact that Donald Trump is now the “Commander in Chief” and able to order the District Commanders to shut these so-called courts down and reopen the courts we are owed….
Why not light a firecracker up Commander-in-Chief Trump’s rump and suggest that he do so, post haste? Tell him that Judge Anna can show him precisely how and when this system got set up and how it has been abused, and what his power is with respect to ending the hideous mockery that “stands for” a court system in this country right now.
The Financial Curse
Banks create money out of thin air.
Banks are thought of as deposit taking institutions that lend money. The legal reality is that banks don’t take deposits and banks don’t lend money.
A deposit is not actually a deposit. It’s not a bailment. It’s not held in custody. At law the word “deposit” is meaningless.
The law courts and various judgments have made it very clear that if you “give” your money to a bank, even though it’s called a “deposit”, this money is simply a loan to the bank.
So there is no such thing as a deposit. It is a loan to the bank. So banks borrow their money from the public.
“Surely they are lending money?” you say. Not at all. Banks don’t “lend” money.
Banks - again at law it’s very clear - they are in the business of purchasing “securities”. That’s it.
So you say, “I want a loan.”
Fine. Here is the loan contract. Here is the “offer letter”, and you sign it. At law, it is very clear that you have issued a “security”, namely a “promissory note”, and the bank is going to purchase that “promissory note / security”.
That’s what’s happening. What the bank is doing, is very different from what it presents to the public that it’s doing.
But, you say, “So the bank purchases my promissory note, but how do I get my money?”
The bank will then say, “You will find it in your account with us.” That would be technically correct.
If they say, “We’ll transfer it to your account”, that would be wrong because no money is transferred at all, from anywhere, inside the bank, or outside the bank.
Why? Because what we call a “deposit” is simply the bank’s record of its debt to the public. Now the bank also owes you money, and the bank’s “record” of the money it owes you is what you think you’re getting as money.
That’s all it is. And that is how the banks create the money supply. The money supply consists of 97% of bank deposits, and these are created out of nothing by the banks when they “lend”, because they invent fictitious so-called customer “deposits”.
Why? The bank simply restates - a slightly incorrect accounting term - what is an “accounts payable liability” arising from the loan contract, having purchased your “promissory note” as a customer deposit, but nobody has deposited any money.
I wonder how the FDIC deals with this because in the financial sector you’re not supposed to mislead your customers.
In such a case, you loan (“give”) the bank the title to your collateral via your signed “promissory note / security” and the bank monetizes this by selling it to the non-federal Federal Reserve Bank to get the money the bank loans (“gives back”) to you disguised as a loan.
In other words, you “give” the bank your “signature” via you “promissory note / security” which the bank then monetizes via the non-federal Federal Reserve Bank, and the bank gives you back the value of your signature as a so-called “loan”.
We are on a “promissory note” standard, instead of a “gold” money standard.
If you don’t pay the money that the bank gives you back to the bank, plus interest, the bank then takes your stuff ! (It really doesn’t want you to repay the so-called loan; it would simply rather just take your stuff).
150 Years of British Criminality – The Very Short Version
We are Third Party Beneficiaries with respect to the National Trust created in the Preamble and are indemnified in the British system under two Royal Sovereign Seals - the seal of King George the III with respect to the delegated powers, and the seal of William Belcher with respect to the undelegated powers, otherwise known as the Great Seal of the United States.
William Belcher inherited his sovereignty as a result of the Norman Conquest of Britain and Wales. Thus, the Definitive Treaty of Peace, Paris, 1783, calls George III the “prince of the United States” and does not mention who the actual Head of State - the “king” of the United States - was. Later generations simply presumed it was the British Monarch, with results disastrous to them and to us.
This split of delegated and undelegated powers held by two sovereigns in international jurisdiction ultimately resulted in the situation we have today, where the delegated powers are held by the British-backed United States and the undelegated powers are held by the “states and people” under the Belcher Seal and operated by the United States of America by default.
The misunderstanding about our states (and also, therefore, our state offices) comes about because people don’t grasp the difference between the international jurisdiction of the sea and the national jurisdiction of the land.
Everything discussed above, including the National Trust established by the Preamble, exists only in the international jurisdiction of the sea and has nothing to do with our sovereignty on the land.
We have all been taught to focus on the Constitution but that is substantially a red herring in that it discusses only our position with respect to the foreign international jurisdiction and says nothing about our own sovereign domain.
This can be excused in that our land jurisdiction was never the subject of The Constitution, so why would the Founders talk about that? We were expected to know the basis of our own sovereignty on the land, just as we were expected to know the history and protect our own Common Law Courts from British meddling.
Two centuries later, the situation speaks for itself.
As to our sovereignty on the land which vests itself in our nations called “states” for international purposes, that sovereignty derives from entirely different authorities and specifically begins with a land grant and settlement made by the King of Spain via (yet another) Treaty of Paris in 1778.
The situation was that the British King was financing both sides of the Revolution to hedge his bets - he emerged the victor to a greater or lesser extent, either way.
The King of France was intermediary funneling funds to the Americans. The King of Spain, however, had grudges against both the King of Britain and the King of France - and he was in charge of the land jurisdiction worldwide, thanks to the claims of the Holy See and its “dispensations” under the Unam Sanctum Trust.
So while the Americans were concluding their treaty with France to secure what most of them believed was French support for the American Revolution, the King of Spain quietly granted the entire continent (absent Spain’s holdings of course) to the rebels via the “other” Treaty of Paris, 1778.
If they could win the war, the land was already vouchsafed to them - and as of 1778, it was available to them to use as collateral to borrow against internationally.
This is how the Americans financed their loans from the French King who was actually acting as a pass-through agent for King George III. They wagered their claim to the land given to them by the Spanish King and used it as collateral.
If George III had won the ground war, he would have won the whole shooting match; as it was, he emerged with a tidy debt owed by the Americans and a great deal of leverage, which he used to secure the delegated powers granted to him and his proxy government in DC.
The land claim passed from the Spanish King to the colonies, which in the years immediately following the end of open hostilities with Britain (1783-1789) undertook a number of inter-colony initiatives to settle the land jurisdiction claims.
This all focused on settling the national borders of the separate nation-states, establishing trade relationships, currencies, treaties with respect to international commercial issues, taxation, interstate travel, security of the international Post Roads and Post Offices, and similar concerns.
As for the basic grant of land jurisdiction, they issued another trust known as The Supreme Republican Declaration of the United Colonies, grandfathering in the original thirteen colonies as a union of land jurisdiction states, and claiming all the rest of the land jurisdiction for themselves and their progeny subject to later arrangements and acquisitions.
The later arrangements were solidified by the Northwest Ordinance which provided for the orderly creation and inclusion of territories and from the territories the creation of new nation-states which would be enabled to enter the union under the Equal Footing Doctrine.
The inclusion of “other acquisitions” such as the Louisiana Purchase and the Republic of Texas and the Spanish Settlement followed the same basic pattern of establishing a form of territorial government and later, upon enrollment in the original union, a separate state government.
Throughout this discussion we are talking about geographically defined nations and their body politics simply called, “California” or “Wisconsin” or “Ohio”.
References in law books to these states always use the style “states”- no capitalization whatsoever. These are the sovereign states from which our sovereignty on the land of this continent derives. These states are nations in the fullest sense of the word, just like Britain or France.
They are completely different and separate from any “State of __________”, and in fact, the word “of” means “separate from, apart from, or belonging to”, so “State of Delaware” is talking about what? The international corporation used by the actual state known as Delaware and its people to operate in international commerce.
In trade, Delaware needs no “State of _________” to conduct business within its own borders or with other unincorporated sovereign states and nations. It is only when it wishes to engage in incorporated business transactions with the other nation-states, like the State of California, or with other countries like France, that it needs to use an incorporated “State of ___________”.
And therein lies the rub.
Each state retains its right to conduct trade within its borders and also retains the right to trade with other sovereign nations; it uses a “State of _________” corporation to operate in international commerce outside its borders— and the proxy “Federal Government” run by the British Monarch has delegated control of international commerce. This control is exercised by operating all incorporated businesses in all states as franchises of the United States, Inc.
So now you know the difference between the actual land jurisdiction sovereign state and the fact that each one is, in fact, a separate nation, an entire country unto itself, plus you know what the “State of _________” entity is and what it is used for and who controls it and why.
None of the states operated in international commerce until after the Civil War. At that time, The United States of America, Inc. was formed, and the original states were forced to write new “state constitutions”.
Under these new constitutions (all constitutions are debt agreements) the corporation used by the actual sovereign state was obliged to operate under names styled like this: California State, Wyoming State, Florida State.
Meanwhile, the name “State of California” and “State of Wyoming”, etc. was “adopted” by totally different entities under new ownership.
This switch and the use of the same old names applied to different corporate entities led up to the greatest fraud in human history. The “State of Illinois” prior to the Civil War was an entirely different beastie and under completely different ownership that the “State of Illinois” after the Civil War and the same pattern applies across the whole country.
There is a state constitution prior to the Civil War and a new state constitution after the Civil War.
Fast forward again to the 1930’s. FDR is working as liaison for the United States, Inc. at the Geneva Conventions, May, 1930.
As a business ploy, the G-5 nations agree by private treaty to bankrupt their “international corporations” and discharge all debts left over from the First World War.
Three years later, Roosevelt, now elected President of the United States, carries through and by sleight of hand and deceptive wordsmithing, sets up a constructive fraud by which the California State, Illinois State, and other land jurisdiction corporations are “assumed” to be sureties standing good for the debts of the United States, Inc. even though they are owned and operated by the United States of America, Inc.
This isn’t a corporate take-over. It’s just plain old commercial fraud in which false claims are made against the assets of a Third Party and false assumptions then lead to that innocent victim being charged for the debt via a process of commercial liens and titles and hypothecation of debt.
The American states and people were raped, pillaged, and plundered by the United States, Inc. and the British Crown from 1930 to 1999, when all debts of the bankruptcy of the United States of America were discharged and settled and our “States” doing business as “California State” and “Wisconsin State” were left derelict and adrift, mere shells - and in exactly the same condition as a man recovering from bankruptcy.
All this was accomplished in Breach of Trust and Commercial Contract by the British Monarch and the British Government operating under color of law on our land, pretending to be our friends, allies, and protectors.
As a result of their vicious fraud our State corporations were left in financial ruin, but like a man recovering from bankruptcy, not dead.The vermin responsible for palming off their odious debts on us have tried by every means to “finish us off” in the intervening years, without success.
All this history is necessary for you to know before I can answer your “simple” question about the oaths of office owed to our actual States.
The “vacated offices” that we are occupying belong to the land jurisdiction state and are operated as offices of the formerly bankrupted “Alaska State”, “California State” and so on. These offices were “vacated” during the long bankruptcy and so far as the vermin responsible for this circumstance are concerned, it was never anticipated that they would be re-occupied by the states and the people they belong to.
During the bankruptcy, these States were operated by “State of State Legislatures” functioning as Bankruptcy Trustees - corporate con artists overseeing the rape and the pillaging, but nonetheless “representing” the state in the position of Trustees.
These legislatures operating in that capacity continued to pass “Session Laws” to administer the affairs of the victims. Thus, for example, we have Session Laws that establish the “California State” under a new “state constitution” in 1879, and we have Session Laws established for the bankrupt entity throughout the bankruptcy.
It is via the circa 1870’s “constitutions” creating the Wisconsin State, Louisiana State and so on, that we maintain a chain of title and succession of contract back to the original Constitution and are enabled to enforce it.
It is via the Session Laws related to the “second” state constitutions that we obtain the offices and the oaths.
All land jurisdiction offices are exercised under red ink. Business signatures are in script in Upper and Lower Case.
All land jurisdiction transactions are understood to be in trade, not commerce, and are not under the control of the United States.
Our business as State officials and State Citizens is all conducted under unincorporated business structures locally (hence the need for all state and county assemblies to operate as unincorporated businesses) and under undelegated powers internationally - note the red Post Marks.
All commerce is exercised in blue ink. Commercial signatures of “Account Holders” are in script in Upper and Lower Case. All sea jurisdiction transactions entered into by US PERSONS are understood to be in commerce. You are considered to be acting as a US PERSON if you retain such a PERSON.
You surrender these PERSONS via surrendering the BC to the Secretary of the Treasury and appoint him your Fiduciary and credit the United States of America, U.S. Treasury, without recourse.
That settles the issue of whether you are operating as a State Citizen or a US Citizen.
This entire history from the Civil War to date is nothing but a nasty scam designed by the British to bilk their Creditors and palm off their debts on innocent Third Parties, but once you have the history and the names nailed down, it gets easier to comprehend.
So when guys like myself, start writing and asking for the rest of humanity to “please wake up”, it isn’t just some joke or some opinion we are espousing. Humanity has until now been SLEEP WALKING into it’s own grave, and was for quite some time!
The trouble with trying to do this job is that we are not only up against the Satanists and the Luciferians, but are also up against very well meaning men and women who, have “taken the bait” and swallowed the new CON of the New Age.
In the new Con of the New Age, there are countless real spiritual “teaching” which have been “bastardiszed” into something they are not. The true and real meaning has been flipped or inverted so that it does NOT mean what it was supposed to mean.
The biggest of which is very simply this: Don't focus on negative things: a teaching, which the NEW AGE has bastardized into a very strange teaching which good men and women have come to believe means that you don’t even acknowledge real and truthful “information” about what is happening in the world if it can be catagorized as negative.
This is the height of ABSURDITY, and, as David Icke points out, INFORMATION is neither negative or positive, it is just information (or knowledge).
KNOWLEDGE IS NOT A BAD THING
And it happens to be a fundament requirement in order to make progress.
No problem can ever be solved if you don’t “know” what the problem is or how it is being created, or even better who is doing it. And it's not just the Cabal causing problems, we also have the 'New Agers' and their channeled entities!
As David Icke says in the Title of one of his books: HUMANITY, GET OFF YOUR KNEES. Get off your knees and QUESTION EVERYTHING! There are no authority figures that you need to “obey".
The only real and true authority is the prime creator. There is only ONE AUTHORITY in this Universe, and no one on Earth represents him, not the Queen, nor the Pope, nor the Jesuits, nor the Police, nor the Governments, NOT ANYONE.
What will it really take for us to become free? Courage - nothing more, nothing less. We won't get out of this mess by ignoring it.
How The Deep State ‘Justifies’ Itself In America
April 29 2021 | From: StrategicCulture / Various On October 30th 2019, there was a panel discussion broadcast live on C-Span from the National Press Club and the Michael V. Hayden Center.
John Brennan amplified upon the thought, and there was yet more applause. However, that thought hadn’t been invented by McLaughlin; it instead had evolved recently in the pages of the New York Times. Perhaps the discussants had read it there.
Instead of America’s ‘news’-media uncritically trumpeting what government officials assert to be facts (as they traditionally do), we now have former spooks uncritically trumpeting what a mainstream ‘news’-medium has recently concocted to be the case - about themselves.
They’ve come out of the closet, about being the Deep State. However, even in that, they are lying, because they aren’t it; they are only agents for it.
In America, the Deep State ‘justifies’ itself in the ‘news’-media that it owns, and does so by falsely ‘defining’ what the “Deep State” is (which is actually the nation’s 607 billionaires, whose hired agents number in the millions).
They mis-‘define’ it, as being, instead, the taxpayer-salaried career Government employees, known professionally as “the Civil Service.” (Although some Civil Servants - especially at the upper levels - are agents for America’s billionaires and retire to cushy board seats, most of them actually are not and do not.
And the “revolving door” between “the public sector” and “the private sector” is where the Deep State operations become concentrated.
That’s the core of the networking, by which the billionaires get served. And, of course, those former spooks at the National Press Club said nothing about it. Are they authentically so stupid that they don’t know about it, or is that just pretense from them?)
How the Deep State’s operatives perpetrate this deception about the meaning of “Deep State” was well exemplified in the nine links that were supplied on October 28th by the extraordinarily honest anonymous German analyst who blogs as “Moon of Alabama” and who condemned there (and linked to) 9 recent articles in the New York Times, as posing a threat against democracy in America.
As I intend to argue here, the 9 articles are, indeed, aimed at deceiving the public, about what the true meaning of the phrase “the Deep State” is.
However, he didn’t explain the tactic the NYT’s editors (and those former spooks) use to deceive the public about the Deep State, and this is what I aim to do here, by showing the transformation, over time, in the way that that propaganda-organization, the New York Times, has been employing the phrase “Deep State” - a remarkable transformation, which started, on 16 February 2017, by the newspaper’s denying that any Deep State exists in America but that it exists only in corrupt nations; and which gradually transitioned into an upside-down, by asserting that a Deep State does exist in the United States, and that it fights against corruption in this country.
The first of these NYT articles was published on 16 February 2017, and it denied that the US has any “Deep State” whatsoever.
The second, published on 6 March 2017, blamed President Trump (since the NYT represents mainly Democratic Party billionaires) for mainstreaming the phrase “the Deep State” into American political discourse, and it alleged that that phrase actually refers only to “countries like Egypt, Turkey and Pakistan, where authoritarian elements band together to undercut democratically elected leaders.”
The third, published on 10 March 2017, repeated this allegation, that this phrase applies only to “the powerful deep states of countries like Egypt or Pakistan, experts say.”
The fourth, published on 5 September 2018, was an anonymous op-ed from a Government employee who condemned Trump and “vowed to thwart parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.”
“This isn’t the work of the so-called deep state. It’s the work of the steady state.” So: still the NYT’s editors were hewing to their propaganda-line, that no “Deep State” exists in America - there are just whistleblowers, here.
The fifth, on 18 December 2018, said, for example, that “Adam Lovinger, a Pentagon analyst, was one of the first to wrap himself in the deep state defense” - namely, that they consist of “people who have been targeted for political reasons.”
So, the NYT’s editors were now reinforcing their new false ‘definition’ of “Deep State,” as consisting just of Government whistleblowers.
The sixth, on 6 October 2019, said, “President Trump and some of his allies have asserted without evidence that a cabal of American officials - the so-called deep state - embarked on a broad operation to thwart Mr. Trump’s campaign.
The conspiracy theory remains unsubstantiated.” So: the NYT’s editors were back, again, to denying that there is any “Deep State” in America.
This was a signal, from them, that they were starting to recognize that they’d need to jiggle their ‘definition’ of “Deep State,” at least a bit.
The seventh, on 20 October 2019, was by a member of the Editorial Board, and it boldly proclaimed, about “the deep state,” “Let us now praise these not-silent heroes.”
The propagandists now had settled firmly upon their new (and previously merely exploratory) ‘definition’ of “Deep State,” as consisting of whistleblowers in the US Government’s Civil Services, “individuals willing to step up and protest the administration’s war on science, expertise and facts.”
The eighth, on 23 October 2019, equated “the deep state” even more boldly with the impeachment of President Trump: “Over the last three weeks, the deep state has emerged from the shadows in the form of real live government officials, past and present, who have defied a White House attempt to block cooperation with House impeachment investigators and provided evidence that largely backs up the still-anonymous whistle-blower.”
The ninth, on 26 October 2019, which came from “a contributing opinion writer and professor of history,” alleged that the origins of “the deep state” are to be found with Teddy Roosevelt in the 1880s, when “A healthy dose of elitism drove Roosevelt’s crusade, as the spoils system had been the path to power for immigrant-driven political machines in big cities like New York.
Yet the Civil Service laws he and others created marked the beginning of a shift toward a fairer, less corrupt public realm.”
In other words: the Deep State, in America, are not perpetrators of corrupt government (such as in “countries like Egypt, Turkey and Pakistan, where authoritarian elements band together to undercut democratically elected leaders”), but are instead courageous enemies of corrupt government; and they are instituted by the aristocracy here (today’s American billionaires), in order to reduce, if not eliminate, corruption in government (which, the Times now alleges, originates amongst, or serves, the lower classes).
The lessons about Big Brother, which were taught by George Orwell in his merely metaphorical masterpiece 1984, were apparently never learned, because even now - as his “Newspeak” is being further refined so that black is white, and good is bad, and truth is falsehood - there still are people who subscribe to the propagandists and cannot get enough of their ridiculous con-games.
Though in some poor countries, a corrupt Deep State rules; a Deep State rules in America so as to reduce if not prevent corruption, the New York Times now concludes.
You can see how it’s done, in those nine NYT articles. Isn’t it simply amazing there?!
Harvard Professor Exposes Google And Facebook & NZ Police Trialled Facial Recognition Tech Without Clearance April 28 2021 | From: Mercola / RadioNewZealand / Various
In recent years, a number of brave individuals have alerted us to the fact that we're all being monitored and manipulated by big data gatherers such as Google and Facebook, and shed light on the depth and breadth of this ongoing surveillance.
Among them is social psychologist and Harvard professor Shoshana Zuboff.
Her book, "The Age of Surveillance Capitalism," is one of the best books I have read in the last few years. It's an absolute must-read if you have any interest in this topic and want to understand how Google and Facebook have obtained such massive control of your life.
Story at a Glance
In her book, “The Age of Surveillance Capitalism,” social psychologist and Harvard professor Shoshana Zuboff reveals how the biggest tech companies in the world have hijacked our personal data - so-called “behavioral surplus data streams” - without our knowledge or consent and are using it against you to generate profits for themselves
Companies like Facebook, Google and third parties of all kinds have the power - and are using that power - to target your personal inner demons, to trigger you, and to take advantage of you when you’re at your most vulnerable to entice you into action that serves them, commercially or politically
Your entire existence - even your shifting moods, deciphered by facial recognition software - has become a source of revenue for corporate entities as you’re being cleverly maneuvered into doing (and typically buying) or thinking something you may not have done, bought or thought otherwise
Facebook’s massive experiments, in which they used subliminal cues to see if they could make people happier or sadder and affect real-world behavior offline, proved that - by manipulating language and inserting subliminal cues in the online context - they can change real-world behavior and real-world emotion, and that these methods and powers can be exercised “while bypassing user awareness”
The Google Nest security system has a hidden microphone built into it that isn’t featured in any of the schematics for the device. Voice data, and all the information delivered through your daily conversations, is tremendously valuable to Big Data, and add to their ever-expanding predictive modeling capabilities
In recent years, a number of brave individuals have alerted us to the fact that we're all being monitored and manipulated by big data gatherers such as Google and Facebook, and shed light on the depth and breadth of this ongoing surveillance.
Among them is social psychologist and Harvard professor Shoshana Zuboff.
"In a room where people unanimously maintain a conspiracy of silence, one word of truth sounds like a pistol shot."
- Czesław Miłosz
Harvard Professor Exposes Google and Facebook
Her book reveals how the biggest tech companies in the world have hijacked our personal data - so-called "behavioral surplus data streams" - without our knowledge or consent and are using it against us to generate profits for themselves.
WE have become the product. WE are the real revenue stream in this digital economy.
"The term 'surveillance capitalism' is not an arbitrary term," Zuboff says in the featured VPRO Backlight documentary.
"Why 'surveillance'? Because it must be operations that are engineered as undetectable, indecipherable, cloaked in rhetoric that aims to misdirect, obfuscate and downright bamboozle all of us, all the time."
"Reveals a merciless form of capitalism in which no natural resources, but the citizen itself, serves are a raw material."
She also explains how this surveillance capitalism came about in the first place.
As most revolutionary inventions, chance played a role. After the 2000 dot.com crisis that burst the internet bubble, a startup company named Google struggled to survive. Founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin appeared to be looking at the beginning of the end for their company.
By chance, they discovered that "residual data" left behind by users during their internet searchers had tremendous value.
They could trade this data; they could sell it. By compiling this residual data, they could predict the behavior of any given internet user and thus guarantee advertisers a more targeted audience. And so, yosurveillance capitalism was born.
The Data Collection You Know About Is the Least Valuable
Comments such as "I have nothing to hide, so I don't care if they track me," or "I like targeted ads because they make my shopping easier" reveal our ignorance about what's really going on.
We believe we understand what kind of information is being collected about us. For example, you might not care that Google knows you bought a particular kind of shoe, or a particular book.
However, the information we freely hand over is the least important of the personal information actually being gathered about us, Zuboff notes. Tech companies tell us the data collected is being used to improve services, and indeed, some of it is.
But it is also being used to model human behavior by analyzing the patterns of behavior of hundreds of millions of people.
Once you have a large enough training model, you can begin to accurately predict how different types of individuals will behave over time.
The data gathered is also being used to predict a whole host of individual attributes about you, such as personality quirks, sexual orientation, political orientation - "a whole range of things we never ever intended to disclose," Zuboff says.
How Is Predictive Data Being Used?
All sorts of predictive data are handed over with each photo you upload to social media. For example, it's not just that tech companies can see your photos. Your face is being used without your knowledge or consent to train facial recognition software, and none of us is told how that software is intended to be used.
As just one example, the Chinese government is using facial recognition software to track and monitor minority groups and advocates for democracy, and that could happen elsewhere as well, at any time.
So that photo you uploaded of yourself at a party provides a range of valuable information - from the types of people you're most likely to spend your time with and where you're likely to go to have a good time, to information about how the muscles in your face move and alter the shape of your features when you're in a good mood.
By gathering a staggering amount of data points on each person, minute by minute, Big Data can make very accurate predictions about human behavior, and these predictions are then "sold to business customers who want to maximize our value to their business," Zuboff says.
Your entire existence - even your shifting moods, deciphered by facial recognition software - has become a source of revenue for many tech corporations. You might think you have free will but, in reality, you're being cleverly maneuvered and funneled into doing (and typically buying) or thinking something you may not have done, bought or thought otherwise.
And, "our ignorance is their bliss," Zuboff says.
The Facebook Contagion Experiments
In the documentary, Zuboff highlights Facebook's massive "contagion experiments," in which they used subliminal cues and language manipulation to see if they could make people feel happier or sadder and affect real-world behavior offline. As it turns out, they can. Two key findings from those experiments were:
By manipulating language and inserting subliminal cues in the online context, they can change real-world behavior and real-world emotion
These methods and powers can be exercised "while bypassing user awareness"
In the video, Zuboff also explains how the Pokemon Go online game - which was actually created by Google - was engineered to manipulate real-world behavior and activity for profit.
She also describes the scheme in her New York Times article, saying:
"Game players did not know that they were pawns in the real game of behavior modification for profit, as the rewards and punishments of hunting imaginary creatures were used to herd people to the McDonald's, Starbucks and local pizza joints that were paying the company for 'footfall,' in exactly the same way that online advertisers pay for 'click through' to their websites."
You're Being Manipulated Every Single Day in Countless Ways
Zuboff also reviews what we learned from the Cambridge Analytica scandal. Cambridge Analytica is a political marketing business that, in 2018, used the Facebook data of 80 million Americans to determine the best strategies for manipulating American voters.
Christopher Wylie, now-former director of research at Cambridge Analytica, blew the whistle on the company's methods. According to Wylie, they had so much data on people, they knew exactly how to trigger fear, rage and paranoia in any given individual.
And, by triggering those emotions, they could manipulate them into looking at a certain website, joining a certain group, and voting for a certain candidate.
So, the reality now is, companies like Facebook, Google and third parties of all kinds, have the power - and are using that power - to target your personal inner demons, to trigger you, and to take advantage of you when you're at your weakest or most vulnerable to entice you into action that serves them, commercially or politically.
It's certainly something to keep in mind while you surf the web and social media sites.
"It was only a minute ago that we didn't have many of these tools, and we were fine," Zuboff says in the film. "We lived rich and full lives. We had close connections with friends and family.
Having said that, I want to recognize that there's a lot that the digital world brings to our lives, and we deserve to have all of that. But we deserve to have it without paying the price of surveillance capitalism.
Right now, we are in that classic Faustian bargain; 21st century citizens should not have to make the choice of either going analog or living in a world where our self-determination and our privacy are destroyed for the sake of this market logic. That is unacceptable.
Let's also not be naïve. You get the wrong people involved in our government, at any moment, and they look over their shoulders at the rich control possibilities offered by these new systems.
There will come a time when, even in the West, even in our democratic societies, our government will be tempted to annex these capabilities and use them over us and against us. Let's not be naïve about that.
When we decide to resist surveillance capitalism - right now when it is in the market dynamic - we are also preserving our democratic future, and the kinds of checks and balances that we will need going forward in an information civilization if we are to preserve freedom and democracy for another generation."
Surveillance Is Getting Creepier by the Day
But the surveillance and data collection doesn't end with what you do online. Big Data also wants access to your most intimate moments - what you do and how you behave in the privacy of your own home, for example, or in your car.
Zuboff recounts how the Google Nest security system was found to have a hidden microphone built into it that isn't featured in any of the schematics for the device.
"Voices are what everybody are after, just like faces," Zuboff says. Voice data, and all the information delivered through your daily conversations, is tremendously valuable to Big Data, and add to their ever-expanding predictive modeling capabilities.
She also discusses how these kinds of data-collecting devices force consent from users by holding the functionality of the device "hostage" if you don't want your data collected and shared.
For example, Google's Nest thermostats will collect data about your usage and share it with third parties, that share it with third parties and so on ad infinitum - and Google takes no responsibility for what any of these third parties might do with your data.
You can decline this data collection and third party sharing, but if you do, Google will no longer support the functionality of the thermostat; it will no longer update your software and may affect the functionality of other linked devices such as smoke detectors.
Two scholars who analyzed the Google Nest thermostat contract concluded that a consumer who is even a little bit vigilant about how their consumption data is being used would have to review 1,000 privacy contracts before installing a single thermostat in their home.
Modern cars are also being equipped with multiple cameras that feed Big Data. As noted in the film, the average new car has 15 cameras, and if you have access to the data of a mere 1% of all cars, you have "knowledge of everything happening in the world."
Of course, those cameras are sold to you as being integral to novel safety features, but you're paying for this added safety with your privacy, and the privacy of everyone around you.
Pandemic Measures Are Rapidly Eroding Privacy
The current coronavirus pandemic is also using "safety" as a means to dismantle personal privacy. As reported by The New York Times, March 23, 2020:
"In South Korea, government agencies are harnessing surveillance-camera footage, smartphone location data and credit card purchase records to helptrace the recent movements of coronavirus patients and establish virus transmission chains.
In Lombardy, Italy, the authorities are analyzing location data transmitted by citizens' mobile phones to determine how many people are obeying a government lockdown order and the typical distances they move every day. About 40 percent are moving around "too much," an official recently said.
In Israel, the country's internal security agency is poised to start using a cache of mobile phone location data - originally intended for counterterrorism operations - to try to pinpoint citizens who may have been exposed to the virus.
As countries around the world race to contain the pandemic, many are deploying digital surveillance tools as a means to exert social control, even turning security agency technologies on their own civilians …
Yet ratcheting up surveillance to combat the pandemic now could permanently open the doors to more invasive forms of snooping later. It is a lesson Americans learned after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, civil liberties experts say.
Nearly two decades later, law enforcement agencies have access to higher-powered surveillance systems, like fine-grained location tracking and facial recognition - technologies that may be repurposed to further political agendas …
'We could so easily end up in a situation where we empower local, state or federal government to take measures in response to this pandemic that fundamentally change the scope of American civil rights,' said Albert Fox Cahn, the executive director of the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project, a nonprofit organization in Manhattan."
Zuboff also discusses her work in a January 24, 2020, op-ed in The New York Times.6,7 "You are now remotely controlled. Surveillance capitalists control the science and the scientists, the secrets and the truth," she writes, continuing:
"We thought that we search Google, but now we understand that Google searches us. We assumed that we use social media to connect, but we learned that connection is how social media uses us.
Our digital century was to have been democracy's Golden Age. Instead, we enter its third decade marked by a stark new form of social inequality best understood as 'epistemic inequality' … extreme asymmetries of knowledge and the power that accrues to such knowledge, as the tech giants seize control of information and learning itself …
Surveillance capitalists exploit the widening inequity of knowledge for the sake of profits. They manipulate the economy, our society and even our lives with impunity, endangering not just individual privacy but democracy itself …
Still, the winds appear to have finally shifted. A fragile new awareness is dawning … Surveillance capitalists are fast because they seek neither genuine consent nor consensus. They rely on psychic numbing and messages of inevitability to conjure the helplessness, resignation and confusion that paralyze their prey.
Democracy is slow, and that's a good thing. Its pace reflects the tens of millions of conversations that occur … gradually stirring the sleeping giant of democracy to action.
These conversations are occurring now, and there are many indications that lawmakers are ready to join and to lead. This third decade is likely to decide our fate. Will we make the digital future better, or will it make us worse?"
Epistemic inequality refers to inequality in what you're able to learn.
"It is defined as unequal access to learning imposed by private commercial mechanisms of information capture, production, analysis and sales. It is best exemplified in the fast-growing abyss between what we know and what is known about us," Zuboff writes in her New York Times op-ed.
Google, Facebook, Amazon and Microsoft have spearheaded the surveillance market transformation, placing themselves at the top tier of the epistemic hierarchy. They know everything about you and you know nothing about them. You don't even know what they know about you.
"They operated in the shadows to amass huge knowledge monopolies by taking without asking, a maneuver that every child recognizes as theft," Zuboff writes.
"Surveillance capitalism begins by unilaterally staking a claim to private human experience as free raw material for translation into behavioral data. Our lives are rendered as data flows."
These data flows are about you, but not for you. All of it is used against you - to separate you from your money, or to make you act in a way that is in some way profitable for a company or a political agenda. So, ask yourself, where is your freedom in all of this?
If a company can cause you to buy stuff you don't need by sticking an enticing, personalized ad for something they know will boost your confidence at the exact moment you're feeling insecure or worthless (a tactic that has been tested and perfected, are you really acting through free will?
If an artificial intelligence using predictive modeling senses you're getting hungry (based on a variety of cues such as your location, facial expressions and verbal expressions) and launches an ad from a local restaurant to you in the very moment you're deciding to get something to eat, are you really making conscious, self-driven, value-based life choices? As noted by Zuboff in her article:
"Unequal knowledge about us produces unequal power over us, and so epistemic inequality widens to include the distance between what we can do and what can be done to us. Data scientists describe this as the shift from monitoring to actuation, in which a critical mass of knowledge about a machine system enables the remote control of that system.
Now people have become targets for remote control, as surveillance capitalists discovered that the most predictive data come from intervening in behavior to tune, herd and modify action in the direction of commercial objectives.
This third imperative, 'economies of action,' has become an arena of intense experimentation. 'We are learning how to write the music,' one scientist said, 'and then we let the music make them dance' …
The fact is that in the absence of corporate transparency and democratic oversight, epistemic inequality rules. They know. They decide who knows. They decide who decides. The public's intolerable knowledge disadvantage is deepened by surveillance capitalists' perfection of mass communications as gaslighting …
On April 30, 2019 Mark Zuckerberg made a dramatic announcement at the company's annual developer conference, declaring, 'The future is private.' A few weeks later, a Facebook litigator appeared before a federal district judge in California to thwart a user lawsuit over privacy invasion, arguing that the very act of using Facebook negates any reasonable expectation of privacy 'as a matter of law.'"
We Need a Whole New Regulatory Framework
In the video, Zuboff points out that there are no laws in place to curtail this brand-new type of surveillance capitalism, and the only reason it has been able to flourish over the past 20 years is because there's been an absence of laws against it, primarily because it has never previously existed.
That's the problem with epistemic inequality. Google and Facebook were the only ones who knew what they were doing. The surveillance network grew in the shadows, unbeknownst to the public or lawmakers.
Had we fought against it for two decades, then we might have had to resign ourselves to defeat, but as it stands, we've never even tried to regulate it.
This, Zuboff says, should give us all hope. We can turn this around and take back our privacy, but we need legislation that addresses the actual reality of the entire breadth and depth of the data collection system.
It's not enough to address just the data that we know that we're giving when we go online. Zuboff writes:
"These contests of the 21st century demand a framework of epistemic rights enshrined in law and subject to democratic governance. Such rights would interrupt data supply chains by safeguarding the boundaries of human experience before they come under assault from the forces of datafication.
The choice to turn any aspect of one's life into data must belong to individuals by virtue of their rights in a democratic society. This means, for example, that companies cannot claim the right to your face, or use your face as free raw material for analysis, or own and sell any computational products that derive from your face …
Anything made by humans can be unmade by humans. Surveillance capitalism is young, barely 20 years in the making, but democracy is old, rooted in generations of hope and contest.
Surveillance capitalists are rich and powerful, but they are not invulnerable. They have an Achilles heel: fear. They fear lawmakers who do not fear them.
They fear citizens who demand a new road forward as they insist on new answers to old questions: Who will know? Who will decide who knows? Who will decide who decides? Who will write the music, and who will dance?"
How to Protect Your Online Privacy
While there's no doubt we need a whole new legislative framework to curtail surveillance capitalism, in the meantime, there are ways you can protect your privacy online and limit the "behavioral surplus data" collected about you.
Robert Epstein, senior research psychologist for the American Institute of Behavioral Research and Technology, recommends taking the following steps to protect your privacy:
Use a virtual private network (VPN) such as Nord, which is only about $3 per month and can be used on up to six devices. In my view, this is a must if you seek to preserve your privacy. Epstein explains:
"When you use your mobile phone, laptop or desktop in the usual way, your identity is very easy for Google and other companies to see. They can see it via your IP address, but more and more, there are much more sophisticated ways now that they know it's you. One is called browser fingerprinting.
This is something that is so disturbing. Basically, the kind of browser you have and the way you use your browser is like a fingerprint. You use your browser in a unique way, and just by the way you type, these companies now can instantly identify you.
Brave has some protection against a browser fingerprinting, but you really need to be using a VPN. What a VPN does is it routes whatever you're doing through some other computer somewhere else.
It can be anywhere in the world, and there are hundreds of companies offering VPN services. The one I like the best right now is called Nord VPN.
You download the software, install it, just like you install any software. It's incredibly easy to use. You do not have to be a techie to use Nord, and it shows you a map of the world and you basically just click on a country.
The VPN basically makes it appear as though your computer is not your computer. It basically creates a kind of fake identity for you, and that's a good thing. Now, very often I will go through Nord's computers in the United States. Sometimes you have to do that, or you can't get certain things done. PayPal doesn't like you to be in a foreign country for example."
Nord, when used on your cellphone, will also mask your identity when using apps like Google Maps.
Do not use Gmail, as every email you write is permanently stored. It becomes part of your profile and is used to build digital models of you, which allows them to make predictions about your line of thinking and every want and desire.
Many other older email systems such as AOL and Yahoo are also being used as surveillance platforms in the same way as Gmail. ProtonMail.com, which uses end-to-end encryption, is a great alternative and the basic account is free.
Don't use Google's Chrome browser, as everything you do on there is surveilled, including keystrokes and every webpage you've ever visited. Brave is a great alternative that takes privacy seriously.
Brave is also faster than Chrome, and suppresses ads. It's based on Chromium, the same software infrastructure that Chrome is based on, so you can easily transfer your extensions, favorites and bookmarks.
Don't use Google as your search engine, or any extension of Google, such as Bing or Yahoo, both of which draw search results from Google. The same goes for the iPhone's personal assistant Siri, which draws all of its answers from Google.
Alternative search engines suggested by Epstein include SwissCows and Qwant. He recommends avoiding StartPage, as it was recently bought by an aggressive online marketing company, which, like Google, depends on surveillance.
Don't use an Android cellphone, for all the reasons discussed earlier. Epstein uses a BlackBerry, which is more secure than Android phones or the iPhone. BlackBerry's upcoming model, the Key3, will be one of the most secure cellphones in the world, he says.
Don't use Google Home devices in your house or apartment - These devices record everything that occurs in your home, both speech and sounds such as brushing your teeth and boiling water, even when they appear to be inactive, and send that information back to Google. Android phones are also always listening and recording, as are Google's home thermostat Nest, and Amazon's Alexa.
Clear your cache and cookies - As Epstein explains in his article:
"Companies and hackers of all sorts are constantly installing invasive computer code on your computers and mobile devices, mainly to keep an eye on you but sometimes for more nefarious purposes.
On a mobile device, you can clear out most of this garbage by going to the settings menu of your browser, selecting the 'privacy and security' option and then clicking on the icon that clears your cache and cookies.
With most laptop and desktop browsers, holding down three keys simultaneously - CTRL, SHIFT and DEL - takes you directly to the relevant menu; I use this technique multiple times a day without even thinking about it.
You can also configure the Brave and Firefox browsers to erase your cache and cookies automatically every time you close your browser."
Don't use Fitbit, as it was recently purchased by Google and will provide them with all your physiological information and activity levels, in addition to everything else that Google already has on you.
NZ Police Trialled Facial Recognition Tech Without Clearance
Police conducted a trial of controversial facial recognition software without consulting their own bosses or the Privacy Commissioner.
The American firm Clearview AI's system, which is used by hundreds of police departments in the United States and several other countries, is effectively a search engine for faces - billing itself as a crime-fighting tool to identify perpetrators and victims.
New Zealand Police first contacted the firm in January, and later set up a trial of the software, according to documents RNZ obtained under the Official Information Act.
However, the high tech crime unit handling the technology appears to have not sought the necessary clearance before using it.
Privacy Commissioner John Edwards, who was not aware police had trialled Clearview Al when RNZ contacted him, said he would expect to be briefed on it before a trial was underway. He said Police Commissioner Andrew Coster told him he was also unaware of the trial.
"He's concerned it was able to happen without a high-level sign-off, and [the] involvement of my office," Edwards said, following a phone conversation with Coster on Tuesday.
"They will be looking at protocols, how they do evaluate new technologies."
Police declined to be interviewed, and would not address the record of Coster's remarks.
"Police undertook a short trial of Clearview AI earlier this year to assess whether it offered any value to police investigations," said Detective Superintendent Tom Fitzgerald, who is the national manager of criminal investigations, in a statement.
"This was a very limited trial to assess investigative value. The trial has now ceased and the value to investigations has been assessed as very limited and the technology at this stage will not be used by New Zealand Police."
Prior to the statement from Fitzgerald, police spokespeople told RNZ on two separate occasions in the past week - on 7 and 11 May - that the trial was still underway. A spokesperson later said these statements were incorrect.
Clearview Al, whose early financial backers include New Zealand citizen Peter Thiel, has built a database of about 2.8 billion faces by lifting users' images from social media sites like Facebook, a practice that violates most of these companies' terms of service.
The software has not been independently tested, but in one "accuracy test result" the company sent New Zealand Police, the report concluded the software had 100 percent accuracy in a facial recognition test of all US members of congress.
"Clearview can be used for counter-terrorism to quickly and accurately identify suspects and build up investigations using public information," employee Marko Jukic told police in a 31 January email. The company reportedly later fired Jukic after it emerged he published controversial views online.
Police would not say what they used Clearview AI for in the trial, or who had access to it. Clearview, which has been used in the US to solve everything from mailbox thefts to cases of child sexual abuse, did not respondfine youngto questions about its relationship with New Zealand police.
Ardern Intent On Smashing Free Speech April 27 2021 | From: OliviaPierson / Various
Free Speech means Free Speech even when you disagree with it.
Great. Our Mother Country, the United Kingdom once was lucky enough to have Margaret Thatcher as their celebrated Iron Lady to alleviate the sick excesses of socialism in Britain during the 80s decade.
"Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form.”
This cornerstone freedom of our civilisation allows us to debate robust ideas of any kind in any manner: religion, sex, standards of decency, human conduct, economics, immigration, social welfare, technology, science, medicine and foreign affairs.
Our government plans to bastardise that central liberty in effect to something despicably close to:
"Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, except if that expression may be perceived by anyone as an incitement of disharmony, based on an intent to stir up, maintain or normalise hatred, through threatening, abusive or insulting communications.”
This regressive decline of a nation from live-and-let-live liberty to emotionally subjective and heavily policed constraints is what happens when dumbed-down, Marxism-infected activists preoccupied with impression-management skills become prime ministers in order to enact vicious agendas upon citizens who are too busy to bother much with political matters - it’s much easier in the face of bad governance to just go along to get along, and that bobbing head with the gummy grin on TV looks “nice enough.”
Vast years of luxurious peace and prosperity have resulted in unparalleled political apathy without the required intellectual vigilance to maintain such a gold standard of a status quo.
Citizens have shamefully forgotten that this peace and luxury was bought at the very highest price of all: with the blood, sweat and tears of our forefathers.
Democracies cannot function without freedom of speech and that is exactly why all totalitarian regimes throughout human history, from Xerxes to Xi Jinping, outlaw this civilising principle first before outlawing everything else that they don’t like.
Opposition is never allowed to stand unmolested (not that NZ has much in that regard anyway) because real opposition spreads, so long as people are free to think, speak, mock, satirise and criticise.
Nothing is more dangerous to NZ than this destructive intention from our government and they, the autocrats who now rule us, know damn-well what they are doing and it is precisely done to silence even a hint of opposition to their twisted, anti-freedom ideology which has been looming ever since the Christchurch mosque shootings of 2019.
It was this tragic event which conveniently (for her) saw Ardern suddenly bring up hate speech laws - as if any new laws would’ve stopped a killer such as Brenton Tarrant from slaying anyone.
They would not have. Unhinged murderers will continue to do terrible things whether they are free to talk about them or not, and Tarrant did not.
Sure, he wrote a manifesto, but that was only released to the public immediately before he went on his rampage. He was the typically quiet, super polite, loner weirdo next door who didn’t say much even when the police interviewed him for his gun license - even they suspected nothing.
But although the Christchurch massacre has been the great excuse to see their way clear to restricting free speech, speech which may hurt the sensitive feelings of anyone now living in this country, this is just a mighty and opportunistic ruse - and many people here know that.
Limiting free speech has become an obsession with the ignoble courtiers of Wokedom right throughout the Western world. Even the most rudimentary glance at media will show you just how successful they’ve been at wasting police time in the United Kingdom.
Don’t make any comment about homos or lesbians, don’t criticise anybody who changes their sex, don’t dare to criticise disabled people even accidentally, don’t say anything which could be ever so slightly construed as a criticism of black people or brown people - and now after Covid, don’t criticise Asians.
Above all, never ever criticise women, no matter how flakey, shallow, manipulative or vapid they might actually be - just look the other way and say nothing especially if you happen to be a man.
In the Book of Woke, to transgress against that last one is akin to a mortal sin.
Women rule, men drool. Got it? Of course male jerks exist in abundance too, but I cannot imagine that too many of those will run crying to the nearest police officer to get a hate speech charge slapped on an irritated woman who just ruthlessly sized him up verbally. Women however…
When Jacinda Ardern was first elected as PM, a woman who before being groomed for office had accomplished precisely zero as a liberated human being, I asked a few ladies in the circle of my acquaintance why the heck they voted for her?
You know what the answer was (and said with a straight face too)? “I think it’s great to see women in positions of power and want to see more of it,” or sentiments similar.
In other words, they voted for her because she possessed a vagina. These are women who emotionally rail sharply against all other forms of sexism, even those depicted in satire.
They were too lost in their culturally sanctioned disdain of the mythical patriarchy to notice the irony.
Well, now they can behold the reality of what that woman in power is really like as she stands ready to pounce on the free thoughts and expressions of the entire country, if they even bother to notice.
What is Agenda 2030? If you don’t know, you may just be proving my point about people lacking vigilance as they cannot be bothered keeping up with political matters happening all around them.
Agenda 2030 is no joke. It’s one world communism (of course they like to call it socialism, the C-word is always avoided) being enacted by globalist entities as we speak - and the China-released SARS-CoV-2 virus was their greatest gift to removing cherished, Western human freedoms which are as much of an obstacle as President Trump was.
Just peruse the World Economic Forum’s website - the Davos crowd adore Ardern for a reason, and it isn’t her commitment to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, for she does not jibe with that language.
Their adoration for Ardern lies in her relentless use of their favourite euphemism “sustainability,” or as Ardern always says in her signature smiley baby-talk, “susdainabuludy.”
What’s that a euphemism for? Centralised controls over everything from food production and diets to economics and social interactions, including how we speak about ideas and each other. “Be koind!”
Jacinda Ardern is proving herself to be that which all decent men (and women) fear from the so-called fairer sex - a tyrant with a lust for power to silence all criticism of her incompetence, her weakness and her disgustingly anti-freedom lunges.
All Marxists are the same when scratched or tested.
She stands in complete contrast to the freedom loving, truly powerful Dame Margaret Thatcher whom I wish were still with us if only to directly give a two-bit, little Ms. Fascista in the colonies a piece of her formidable mind.
[The only pushback I can see right now against this evil intent from our government is coming from the ACT Party, though it remains characteristically lukewarm, but you can sign their petition here.]
Let's Review 50 Years Of Dire Climate Forecasts And What Actually Happened & New Zealand Climate Commission’s Radical Plan April 26 2021 | From: MishTalk / NZCPR / Various
Here are 21 headlines from various news sources regarding dire climate predictions over the last 50 years.
"Last week, Glacier National Park announced that it will be changing signs warning that its signature glaciers would disappear by 2020. The park says the signs, put in more than a decade ago, were based on the best available predictions at the time.
In terms of the predictions, the latest that I’ve seen actually comes from a group of Swiss researchers. So I would have to look at their results in more detail than is possible from looking at the paper they published to be able to say definitively when all the glaciers are are hosed and no longer present, but certainly by 2100.”
New Predictions and Stories
February 2021: “It’s long past time for the Senate to take a leading role in combating the existential threat of our time: climate,” said Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer.
Ocasio-Cortez called the fight to mitigate the effects of climate change her generation’s “World War II.”
“Millennials and Gen Z and all these folks that come after us are looking up, and we’re like, ‘The world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change, and your biggest issue is how are we gonna pay for it?’ ” she said.
OAC then blasted the GOP for taking her doomsday prediction literally.
We have had 50 years of this kind of BS and yes, many people do take it literally.
Q: What happened when Merkel went along with the Greens and did away with nuclear?
A: Germany imports more coal-based energy from neighboring states and is more dependent on Russia for natural gas.
Q: Is wind and solar ever going to make a serious dent in China’s growing energy demands.
Q: What happened in France when Macron pushed through a gas tax to support the Green movement?
A: How quick we forget the Yellow-Vest Revolt that went on for months.
I have yet to see AOC, John Kerry, any Mish reader, or anyone else address any of the above questions in detail.
Final Questions to All Those Demanding Government Do Something
What the hell are you doing?
The #1 thing someone can proactively do eliminate their carbon footprint is to stop breathing.
Since that seems a bit impractical, the #2 thing someone can do is not have kids.
Instead, most demand the government do something. What?
Until someone can put a realistic price on this while addressing my questions, forgive me for not agreeing that a total rise in the ocean of 3 inches in the last 20 years is the existential threat of our time.
Many of my readers blame me and Libertarians in general. They understand neither.
As noted above I am anti-coal. Why? It pollutes with SO2 and NOx causing acid, respiratory illnesses, and it kills fish.
I have seen too many environmental cleanups. I have never commented on this before but my degree at the University of Illinois was in Environmental Engineering.
I have bashed China’s air and water pollution consistently for decades. I have bashed Germany’s diesel industry consistently too. Doing nothing about actual poison and doing nothing about CO2 are two very different things.
There is nothing Libertarian about letting companies pollute then walk away in bankruptcy. One clever reader researched my coal and water pollution stance and noted I said the same things in 2006. Indeed I did.
Believe in man-made climate change all you want. There is some truth to it although the models have not been remotely accurate to say the least.
After 50 years of nonsense hype, it’s no wonder anyone with a modicum of common sense is more than a bit skeptical of these dire predictions and the alleged urgency to do something immediately about them.
If after all these now laughable headlines, you still have faith in the predictions, why?
And if you don’t believe the predictions, then do you still want to spend $90 trillion to solve the alleged problem?
Earlier this year the Climate Commission released their draft report to the Government. It is so extreme that even typically conservative economists are expressing alarm.
Without any exaggeration, if implemented, the Commission’s plan would radically transform New Zealand, from a country which is still founded on free market principles, to a bureaucratically controlled and centrally planned economy.
Before we look into the detail, let’s remind ourselves of New Zealand’s climate policy journey.
As a good global citizen reliant on international trade, successive governments supported the United Nations’ emerging climate agenda that led to Helen Clark’s Labour Government signing the Kyoto Protocol in 2002.
The decision was controversial, since the focus of global concern was on man-made greenhouse gases produced by industrialisation, whereas half of New Zealand’s emissions are produced naturally by cows and sheep.
The situation was exacerbated when the Clark Government introduced an Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), which again was a mechanism used primarily to regulate emissions produced by industrial societies, not rural ones.
John Key’s National Government strengthened the ETS but left out agriculture since the only way to reduce ruminant emissions is through reducing stock numbers, which would decimate our export sector and economic wellbeing.
Despite contributing only 0.16 percent of global man-made greenhouse gas emissions, New Zealand signed the Paris Climate Agreement in 2016, setting an international target of reducing emissions by 30 percent below 2005 levels by 2030.
In 2017, Labour’s new leader, Jacinda Ardern, claimed climate change was her generation’s “nuclear-free moment”. Once elected, the Prime Minister wasted no time in eliminating the oil and gas sector to demonstrate to the global community that she was leading the fight against climate disaster.
In 2019, the ETS was strengthened through the introduction of a cap on emissions.
The Zero Carbon Act was passed, setting the harshest domestic targets in the world – reducing emissions of long-lived gases to net zero by 2050 and methane emissions by 24-47 percent by 2050 – and establishing the Climate Commission.
The Commission’s key role is to advise the Government on how to best meet New Zealand’s Paris targets, as well as to review the scientific evidence on methane emissions.
Their members are: Chairman Dr Rod Carr, a former University of Canterbury vice-chancellor; Deputy Ngai Tahu’s Lisa Tumahai; Dr Harry Clark, head of New Zealand’s Agricultural Research Centre; Victoria University Professor James Renwick and Dr Judith Lawrence, both former IPCC lead authors; Massey University Professor Nicola Shadbolt, a former Fonterra director; and Motu economist Catherine Leining, who was trained as a climate leader by Al Gore.
It should be remembered, that in spite of claims by climate activists to the contrary, New Zealand is comparatively clean and green. We have relatively little heavy industry, more than 80 percent of our electricity already comes from renewable sources, and half of our emissions are naturally produced by animals.
Our geography and low population density, however, means that since public transport and urban cycle ways cannot be used by many families, cars will need to remain an essential part of the Kiwi way of life.
So, what is the Climate Commission recommending?
Their report, which refers to “Aotearoa” 635 times and the country “New Zealand” only twice, represents central planning on steroids. They propose changing the way New Zealanders live and they urge the Government to do more:
“The Government must pick up the pace. Aotearoa will not meet its targets without strong and decisive action now to drive low emissions technologies and behaviour change across all sectors.”
Race-based rights and the Treaty ‘partnership’ fabrication are central to their plan:
"Care should be taken to make sure climate related policies do not further compound historic grievances for Maori.
To give effect to the Treaty Partnership, central and local government need to acknowledge iwi / Maori rights to exercise rangatiratanga and kaitiakitanga in a joint plan to reduce emissions.”
Comment: Oh for fucks sake. This is leftist PR horse shit - for starters.
They promote urban intensification, even though the virus pandemic has clearly shown that lower density living is safer and provides a better quality of life than “the more compact pedestrian-oriented cities typical of Europe and many parts of Asia” that they favour.
They would close “aluminium and methanol production” and “switch away from coal, diesel and gas to electricity”. This would mean “No further natural gas connections to the grid, or bottled LPG”, which would force “restaurants, cafes and bars . . . to move away from natural gas”.
In their socialist utopia, not only would there be no backyards for BBQs, there would be no gas to fuel them either.
When it comes to farming, the Commission is ruthless: “our path would see dairy and sheep and beef animal numbers each reduced by around 15% from 2018 levels by 2030. This compares with an 8 - 10% reduction projected under current policies.”
This dashes the hopes of farmers that the Commission would examine the science and recognise that as a short-lived component of a natural cycle that sees greenhouse gases sequestered by farmland forests, grasslands and soil, methane should be excluded from emissions reduction goals.
Instead, the Commission recommends harsher targets: “We advise that the reductions in emissions of biogenic methane… could be between 49% and 60% below 2017 levels by 2100.”
Since this would dramatically force up the cost of all dairy foods and meat, it represents a serious contravention of the UN’s requirement that government policy to reduce emissions must not compromise food production.
This week’s NZCPR Guest Commentator, former Science and Technology Minister Barry Brill, the Chairman of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, is scathing about the Commission’s plan:
"The Climate Commission’s first report is a huge disappointment. It is little more than a well-polished propaganda vehicle. With its woke-word-smithed style, it could just as easily have been published by Greenpeace…
The report leaves almost all the key questions unanswered… is dominated by subjective value judgments, biased assumptions and activist-speak.
It is cliched, jargon-ridden and has no novel ideas. It produces no new insights or data and offers no quantified cost-benefit analysis for any one of its many pain inducing recommendations.”
The Climate Commission regards the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as an authority, except, it seems, when it comes the role of our ETS. The Commission states: “The Emissions Trading Scheme alone won’t get us to where we need to be. Action is needed across all sectors of the economy.”
Yet advice from the IPCC contradicts that claim – once a country has an ETS in place, no other policy interventions are necessary: “if a cap and trade system has a sufficiently stringent cap to affect emission‐related decisions, then other policies have no further impact on reducing emissions”.
Since New Zealand already has a fully functioning ETS in place, it seems other policy recommendations are superfluous!
The ETS is a cap-and-trade system that requires businesses to purchase emissions units from the Government for every tonne of carbon dioxide they produce. A sinking cap means that over time the price of those units increases, creating an incentive for businesses to reduce emissions.
To see how it works, let’s consider an economy made up of just two companies – a dairy farm and a greenhouse tomato grower, each producing 2,000 tonnes of emissions a year and each needing to purchase 2,000 emission units under the ETS.
If the Government then reduces the ETS emissions cap from 4,000 tonnes to 3,000, each company receives 1,500 units and will need to reduce their emissions by 500 tonnes.
However, because the dairy farmer doesn’t want to kill any cows he will be 500 units short, while the tomato grower, who is planning to install a more efficient boiler that would halve his emissions to 1,000 tonnes, will have 500 units spare.
So, they do a deal. The dairy farmer leaves his emissions unchanged at 2,000 tons by buying the 500 spare units from the tomato grower to cover his excess.
The money assists the grower to install his new boiler and halve emissions to 1,000 tonnes. Between them they achieve the 3,000 tonne cap – the dairy farmer still produces 2,000 tonnes while the tomato grower produces 1,000.
This is how the ETS works – it enables emissions to be reduced at the lowest cost to the economy. If the Government intervenes with taxpayer-funded subsidies, while that would assist individual businesses, it can’t reduce emissions, because that is controlled by the cap.
Over time, if the Government continues to reduce the emissions cap and force prices high enough, then, for example, the ETS levy on the price of petrol, which at the present carbon price of $39 a tonne is around 11 cents a litre, will drive pump prices so high that more Kiwis will consider switching to electric cars.
This can be done without the need for government subsidies or import restrictions.
Furthermore, since greenhouse gas emissions are a global problem, and reducing one tonne of carbon from the atmosphere in New Zealand is the same as reducing it from any other country, the ETS should be opened so Kiwi companies can deal with others around the world to reduce emissions at a lower cost.
Dr Oliver Hartwich, the Executive Director of the New Zealand Initiative, points out the benefits:
"A recent paper in the American Economic Review reported that a forest conservation project in Uganda managed to sequester carbon for a cost of $US1 per tonne.
Previously, we found projects in the Brazilian Amazon rainforest achieving a carbon offset for $US2 a tonne. But even at a conservatively-high $10 a tonne, New Zealand could offset all its net emissions for an annual cost of under $600 million.
Imagine that: If New Zealand entered a partnership with countries like Brazil and Uganda we would become net carbon neutral tomorrow – not in 2050.
Such a deal has a precedent. Switzerland and Peru recently announced a carbon offsets deal. Peru will receive funding for sustainable development, and Switzerland will receive credits for lower emissions.
The deal is recognised under the Paris climate agreement, to which New Zealand is a signatory.”
By opening up the ETS so New Zealand can use Paris Agreement rules to meet its international obligations at the lowest possible cost – as Switzerland is clearly doing – the immense economic disruption and suffering the Climate Commission is recommending could be avoided.
Unless inflicting pain and suffering is Jacinda Ardern’s goal, that is exactly what her Government should be doing.
During 2020, the global pandemic essentially forced much of the world’s economy to shut down, dramatically reducing emissions of man-made carbon dioxide.
Yet, contrary to climate model expectations, there has been no decrease in CO2 in the atmosphere.
Does this mean the models are wrong – that the human impact on the climate is too insignificant to register and that, contrary to the claims of extremists, it is nature, not mankind, that controls the climate?
Instead of investigating this significant anomaly, the Climate Commission ignored it, claiming, “The climate science is clear, the direction of climate policy is laid out and the time for accelerated climate action is now.”
In 2015, Christiana Figueres, the Executive Secretary of United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, revealed that the objective of environmental activism is not to save the planet from ecological calamity but to destroy the free market economic system:
"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”
Is that the real agenda of New Zealand’s Climate Commission – and the Government?
Barry Brill has provided a submission that can be viewed here, and a second article that can be viewed here.
For ANZAC Day: All Wars Are Bankers' Wars April 25 2021 | From: MichaelRivero / Various Sources
A very eloquent and relatively concise video discourse on how and why the title of this piece is so tragically true, followed by a very detailed article for those who wish to read more.
This really is a must see / must read piece to be aware of the real history of banking and warmongering over the last 100 years - along with the how and why such nefarious plans were implemented; and to what ends.
This exposes the same plan that is being rolled out globally, not just in the United States.
"The common enemy of all human kind are private central banks issuing the public currency as a loan at interest, and as history will show, they will do anything up to, and including global war - to keep their lock on yours and your children's economic wellbeing and productivity.
We are not a free society. Media will tell us that we are free, but we are not free.
We are slaves, our slave chains are made of paper - and that paper is the Federal Reserve note [including the central bankster issued debt-based-notes of every other country]."
Too few of our leaders have tried to stand up to this system of enslavement, usually with lethal results. But if all of the people of the world stood up at the same time and said "No more private central banks", it will come crashing down, just as slavery did, just as rule by divine right did and we will be embarking on a new era in human history where the emphasis on human development is on the people and not on the money junkies.
[Note: This does not mean we should not remember the dead, who were duped into giving their lives for lies.]
"Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin. The Bankers own the Earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create deposits, and with the flick of a pen they will create enough deposits to buy it back again.
However, take it away from them, and all the fortunes like mine will disappear, and they ought to disappear, for this world would be a happier and better world to live in. But if you wish to remain slaves of the Bankers and pay for the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create deposits."
- Sir Josiah Stamp, President of the Bank of England in the 1920s, the second richest man in Britain
All Wars Are Bankers Wars
I know many people have a great deal of difficulty comprehending just how many wars are started for no other purpose than to force private central banks onto nations, so let me share a few examples, so that you understand why the US Government is mired in so many wars against so many foreign nations. There is ample precedent for this.
The United States fought the American Revolution primarily over King George III's Currency act, which forced the colonists to conduct their business only using printed bank notes borrowed from the Bank of England at interest.
Interest Bearing bank note from the Bank of England, 1764
"The bank hath benefit of interest on all moneys which it creates out of nothing."
- William Paterson, founder of the Bank of England in 1694
King George III
After the revolution, the new United States adopted a radically different economic system in which the government issued its own value-based money, so that private banks like the Bank of England were not siphoning off the wealth of the people through interest-bearing bank notes.
"The refusal of King George 3rd to allow the colonies to operate an honest money system, which freed the ordinary man from the clutches of the money manipulators, was probably the prime cause of the revolution."
- Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father
Following the revolution, the US Government actually took steps to keep the bankers out of the new government!
"Any person holding any office or any stock in any institution in the nature of a bank for issuing or discounting bills or notes payable to bearer or order, cannot be a member of the House whilst he holds such office or stock."
- Third Congress of the United States Senate, 23rd of December, 1793, signed by the President, George Washington
But bankers are nothing if not dedicated to their schemes to acquire your wealth, and know full well how easy it is to corrupt a nation's leaders.
Congress still refused to renew the charter for the First Bank of the United States, whereupon Nathan Mayer Rothschild railed,"Teach those impudent Americans a lesson! Bring them back to colonial status!"
The British Prime Minister at the time, Spencer Perceval was adamently opposed to war with the United States, primarily because the majority of England's military might was occupied with the ongoing Napoleonic wars.
Spencer Perceval was concerned that Britain might not prevail in a new American war, a concern shared by many in the British government.
The First Bank of the United States
Then, Spencer Perceval was assassinated (the only British Prime Minister to be assassinated in office) and replaced by Robert Banks Jenkinson, the 2nd Earl of Liverpool, who was fully supportive of a war to recapture the colonies.
Click for larger imageof the Geneva Gazette for July 1, 1812, reporting on the assassination of Spencer Perceval together with the declaration of the War of 1812
"If my sons did not want wars, there would be none."
- Gutle Schnaper, wife of Mayer Amschel Rothschild and mother of his five sons
Financed at virtually no interest by the Rothschild controlled Bank of England, Britain then provoked the war of 1812 to recolonize the United States and force them back into the slavery of the Bank of England, or to plunge the United States into so much debt they would be forced to accept a new private central bank.
Once again, private bankers were in control of the nation's money supply and cared not who made the laws or how many British and American soldiers had to die for it.
The Second Bank of the United States
Bank Note from the Second Bank of the United States
Once again the nation was plunged into debt, unemployment, and poverty by the predations of the private central bank, and in 1832 Andrew Jackson successfully campaigned for his second term as President under the slogan, "Jackson And No Bank!" True to his word, Jackson succeeds in blocking the renewal of the charter for the Second Bank of the United States.
"Gentlemen! I too have been a close observer of the doings of the Bank of the United States. I have had men watching you for a long time, and am convinced that you have used the funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country.
When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank. You tell me that if I take the deposits from the bank and annul its charter I shall ruin ten thousand families. That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin!
Should I let you go on, you will ruin fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin! You are a den of vipers and thieves. I have determined to rout you out, and by the Eternal, (bringing his fist down on the table) I will rout you out!"
- Andrew Jackson, shortly before ending the charter of the Second Bank of the United States.
From the original minutes of the Philadelphia committee of citizens sent to meet with President Jackson (February 1834), according to Andrew Jackson and the Bank of the United States (1928) by Stan V. Henkels
News report of Jackson shutting down the Second Bank of the United States, Geneva Gazette, October 2, 1833
President Zachary Taylor, ca 1850
President James Buchanon
President Abraham Lincoln
Shortly after President Jackson (the only American President to actually pay off the National Debt) ended the Second Bank of the United States, there was an attempted assassination which failed when both pistols used by the assassin, Richard Lawrence, failed to fire.
President Zachary Taylor opposed the creation of a new Private Central Bank, owing to the historical abuses of the First and Second Banks of the United States.
"The idea of a national bank is dead, and will not be revived in my time."
- Zachary Taylor
Taylor died on July 9, 1850 after eating a bowl of cherries and milk rumored to have been poisoned. The symptoms he displayed are consistent with acute arsenic poisoning.
President James Buchanan also opposed a private central bank. During the panic of 1857 he attempted to set limits on banks issuing more loans than they had actual funds, and to require all issued bank notes to be backed by Federal Government assets.
He was poisoned with arsenic and survived, although 38 other people at the dinner died.
The public school system is as subservient to the bankers' wishes to keep certain history from you, just as the corporate media is subservient to Monsanto's wishes to keep the dangers of GMOs from you, and the global warming cult's wishes to conceal from you that the Earth has actually been cooling for the last 16 years.
Thus is should come as little surprise that much of the real reasons for the events of the Civil War are not well known to the average American.
"The few who understand the system will either be so interested in its profits or be so dependent upon its favours that there will be no opposition from that class, while on the other hand, the great body of people, mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantage that capital derives from the system, will bear its burdens without complaint, and perhaps without even suspecting that the system is inimical to their interests."
- The Rothschild brothers of London writing to associates in New York, 1863
When the Confederacy seceded from the United States, the bankers once again saw the opportunity for a rich harvest of debt, and offered to fund Lincoln's efforts to bring the south back into the union, but at 30% interest.
Lincoln remarked that he would not free the black man by enslaving the white man to the bankers and using his authority as President, issued a new government currency, the greenback. This was a direct threat to the wealth and power of the central bankers, who quickly responded.
"Dear Sir: It is advisable to do all in your power to sustain such prominent daily and weekly newspapers... as will oppose the issuing of greenback paper money, and that you also withhold patronage or favors from all applicants who are not willing to oppose the Government issue of money. Let the Government issue the coin and the banks issue the paper money of the country...
[T]o restore to circulation the Government issue of money, will be to provide the people with money, and will therefore seriously affect your individual profit as bankers and lenders."
- Triumphant plutocracy; the story of American public life from 1870 to 1920, by Lynn Wheeler
"It will not do to allow the greenback, as it is called, to circulate as money any length of time, as we cannot control that." -- Triumphant plutocracy; the story of American public life from 1870 to 1920, by Lynn Wheeler
"Slavery is likely to be abolished by the war power, and chattel slavery destroyed.
This, I and my European friends are in favor of, for slavery is but the owning of labor and carries with it the care for the laborer, while the European plan, led on by England, is for capital to control labor by controlling the wages. THIS CAN BE DONE BY CONTROLLING THE MONEY."
- Triumphant plutocracy; the story of American public life from 1870 to 1920, by Lynn Wheeler
Following Lincoln's assassination, the Greenbacks were pulled from circulation and the American people forced to go back to an economy based on bank notes borrowed at interest from the private bankers.
Tsar Alexander II, who authorized Russian military assistance to Lincoln, was subsequently the victim of multiple attempts on his life in 1866, 1879, and 1880, until his assassination in 1881.
With the end of Lincoln's Greenbacks, the US could no longer create its own interest free money and was manipulated during the term of President Ruthford B. Hayes into borrowing from the Rothschilds banking system in 1878, restoring to the Rothschilds control of the US economy they had lost under Andrew Jackson.
Messrs. Rothschild & Sons to Mr. Sherman.
Hon. John Sherman,
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington D. C.:
Very pleased we have entered into relations again with American Government. Shall do our best to make the business successful.
James A. Garfield was elected President in 1880 on a platform of government control of the money supply.
"The chief duty of the National Government in connection with the currency of the country is to coin money and declare its value.
Grave doubts have been entertained whether Congress is authorized by the Constitution to make any form of paper money legal tender.
The present issue of United States notes has been sustained by the necessities of war; but such paper should depend for its value and currency upon its convenience in use and its prompt redemption in coin at the will of the holder, and not upon its compulsory circulation.
These notes are not money, but promises to pay money. If the holders demand it, the promise should be kept."
- James Garfield
"By the experience of commercial nations in all ages it has been found that gold and silver afford the only safe foundation for a monetary system.
Confusion has recently been created by variations in the relative value of the two metals, but I confidently believe that arrangements can be made between the leading commercial nations which will secure the general use of both metals.
Congress should provide that the compulsory coinage of silver now required by law may not disturb our monetary system by driving either metal out of circulation.
If possible, such an adjustment should be made that the purchasing power of every coined dollar will be exactly equal to its debt-paying power in all the markets of the world."
- James Garfield
"He who controls the money supply of a nation controls the nation."
- James Garfield
Garfield was shot on July 2, 1881 and died of his wounds several weeks later. Chester A. Arthur succeeded Garfield as President.
In 1896, William McKinley was elected President in the middle of a depression-driven debate over gold-backed government currency versus bank notes borrowed at interest from private banks.
McKinley favored gold-backed currencies and a balanced government budget which would free the public from accumulating debt.
"Our financial system needs some revision; our money is all good now, but its value must not further be threatened.
It should all be put upon an enduring basis, not subject to easy attack, nor its stability to doubt or dispute. Our currency should continue under the supervision of the Government.
The several forms of our paper money offer, in my judgment, a constant embarrassment to the Government and a safe balance in the Treasury." - William McKinley
McKinley was shot by an out-of-work anarchist on September 14, 1901, in Buffalo, NY, succumbing to his wounds a few days later. He was suceeded in office by Theodore Roosevelt.
Finally, in 1913, the Private Central Bankers of Europe, in particular the Rothschilds of Great Britain and the Warburgs of Germany, met with their American financial collaborators on Jekyll Island, Georgia to form a new banking cartelwith the express purpose of forming the Third Bank of the United States, with the aim of placing complete control of the United States money supply once again under the control of private bankers.
Owing to hostility over the previous banks, the name was changed to "The Federal Reserve" system in order to grant the new bank a quasi-governmental image, but in fact it is a privately owned bank, no more "Federal" than Federal Express.
The Federal Reserve; it is neither "Federal" nor does it have any actual "Reserves", creating as it does money out of thin air.
"When you or I write a check, there must be sufficient funds in our account to cover the check; but when the Federal Reserve writes a check, there is no bank deposit on which that check is drawn. When the Federal Reserve writes a check, it is creating money." -- From the Boston Federal Reserve Bank pamphlet, "Putting it Simply."
"Neither paper currency nor deposits have value as commodities. Intrinsically, a 'dollar' bill is just a piece of paper. Deposits are merely book entries."
- "Modern Money Mechanics Workbook" - Federal Reserve of Chicago, 1975
"I am afraid the ordinary citizen will not like to be told that the banks can and do create money. And they who control the credit of the nation direct the policy of Governments and hold in the hollow of their hand the destiny of the people."
- Reginald McKenna, as Chairman of the Midland Bank, addressing stockholders in 1924
"States, most especially the large hegemonic ones, such as the United States and Great Britain, are controlled by the international central banking system, working through secret agreements at the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), and operating through national central banks (such as the Bank of England and the Federal Reserve)...
The same international banking cartel that controls the United States today previously controlled Great Britain and held it up as the international hegemon.
When the British order faded, and was replaced by the United States, the US ran the global economy. However, the same interests are served.
States will be used and discarded at will by the international banking cartel; they are simply tools."
- Andrew Gavin Marshall
1913 proved to be a transformative year for the nation's economy, first with the passage of the 16th "income tax" Amendment and the false claim that it had been ratified.
"I think if you were to go back and and try to find and review the ratification of the 16th amendment, which was the internal revenue, the income tax, I think if you went back and examined that carefully, you would find that a sufficient number of states never ratified that amendment."
- U.S. District Court Judge James C. Fox, Sullivan Vs. United States, 2003.
Later that same year, and apparently unwilling to risk another questionable amendment, Congress passed the Federal Reserve Act over Christmas holiday 1913, while members of Congress opposed to the measure were at home.
This was a very underhanded deal, as the Constitution explicitly vests Congress with the authority to issue the public currency, does not authorize its delegation, and thus should have required a new Amendment to transfer that authority to a private bank.
But pass it Congress did, and President Woodrow Wilson signed it as he promised the bankers he would in exchange for generous campaign contributions.
News report of Wilson's signing the Federal Reserve Act. Under the Constitution, only a new Amendment could transfer the government's authority to create the currency to a private party.
President Woodrow Wilson
Woodrow Wilson later regretted that decision.
"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country.
A great industrial nation is now controlled by its system of credit.
We are no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men."
- Woodrow Wilson 1919
Thomas Edison, arguably the most brilliant man of the age, was also well aware of the fraud of private central banks.
"People who will not turn a shovel full of dirt on the project nor contribute a pound of material, will collect more money from the United States than will the People who supply all the material and do all the work.
This is the terrible thing about interest ...
But here is the point: If the Nation can issue a dollar bond it can issue a dollar bill.
The element that makes the bond good makes the bill good also.
The difference between the bond and the bill is that the bond lets the money broker collect twice the amount of the bond and an additional 20%.
Whereas the currency, the honest sort provided by the Constitution pays nobody but those who contribute in some useful way.
It is absurd to say our Country can issue bonds and cannot issue currency.
Both are promises to pay, but one fattens the usurer and the other helps the People.
If the currency issued by the People were no good, then the bonds would be no good, either.
It is a terrible situation when the Government, to insure the National Wealth, must go in debt and submit to ruinous interest charges at the hands of men who control the fictitious value of gold."
- Thomas A. Edison
The next year, World War One started, and it is important to remember that prior to the creation of the Federal Reserve, there was no such thing as a world war.
In 1913, the Rothschild KM was able to establish a beachhead by bribing crooked, treasonous members of Congress to pass the illegal, Unconstitutional Federal Reserve Act on Christmas Eve without a required quorum. The Act was then signed by a crooked, bought off President, who was a traitor to America, like the members of Congress who voted for it.
Archduke Franz Ferdinand, whose assassination triggered World War One
Hitler as TIME's man of the year
World War One started between Austria-Hungary and Serbia with the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand.
Although the war started between Austria-Hungary and Serbia, it quickly shifted to focus on Germany, whose industrial capacity was seen as an economic threat to Great Britain, who saw the decline of the British Pound as a result of too much emphasis on financial activity to the neglect of agriculture, industrial development, and infrastructure (not unlike the present day United States).
Although pre-war Germany had a private central bank, it was heavily restricted and inflation kept to reasonable levels.
Under government control, investment was guaranteed to internal economic development, and Germany was seen as a major power.
So, in the media of the day, Germany was portrayed as the prime opponent of World War One, and not just defeated, but its industrial base flattened.
Following the Treaty of Versailles, Germany was ordered to pay the war costs of all the participating nations, even though Germany had not actually started the war.
This amounted to three times the value of all of Germany itself.
Germany's private central bank, to whom Germany had gone deeply into debt to pay the costs of the war, broke free of government control, and massive inflation followed (mostly triggered by currency speculators), permanently trapping the German people in endless debt.
When the Weimar Republic collapsed economically, it opened the door for the National Socialists to take power.
Their first financial move was to issue their own state currency which was not borrowed from private central bankers.
Freed from having to pay interest on the money in circulation, Germany blossomed and quickly began to rebuild its industry.
The media called it "The German Miracle".
TIME magazine lionized Hitler for the amazing improvement in life for the German people and the explosion of German industry, and even named him TIME Magazine's Man Of The Year in 1938.
Once again, Germany's industrial output became a threat to Great Britain.
Germany's state-issued value based currency was also a direct threat to the wealth and power of the private central banks, and as early as 1933 they started to organize a global boycott against Germany to strangle this upstart ruler who thought he could break free of private central bankers!
"Should Germany merchandise (do business) again in the next 50 years we have led this war (WW1) in vain."
- Winston Churchill in The Times (1919)
"We will force this war upon Hitler, if he wants it or not."
- Winston Churchill (1936 broadcast)
"Germany becomes too powerful. We have to crush it."
- Winston Churchill (November 1936 speaking to US
- General Robert E. Wood)
"This war is an English war and its goal is the destruction of Germany."
- Winston Churchill (- Autumn 1939 broadcast)
Click on the image above to view a larger version in a new window
As had been the case in World War One, Great Britain and other nations threatened by Germany's economic power looked for an excuse to go to war, and as public anger in Germany grew over the boycott, Hitler foolishly gave them that excuse. Years later, in a spirit of candor, the real reasons for that war were made clear.
"The war wasn't only about abolishing fascism, but to conquer sales markets. We could have, if we had intended so, prevented this war from breaking out without doing one shot, but we didn't want to."
- Winston Churchill to Truman (Fultun, USA March 1946)
"Germany's unforgivable crime before WW2 was its attempt to loosen its economy out of the world trade system and to build up an independent exchange system from which the world-finance couldn't profit anymore. ...We butchered the wrong pig."
-Winston Churchill (The Second World War - Bern, 1960)
As a side note, we need to step back before WW2 and recall Marine Major General Smedley Butler. In 1933, Wall Street bankers and financiers had bankrolled the successful coups by both Hitler and Mussolini. Brown Brothers Harriman in New York was financing Hitler right up to the day war was declared with Germany.
Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler
And they decided that a fascist dictatorship in the United States based on the one on Italy would be far better for their business interests than Roosevelt's "New Deal" which threatened massive wealth re-distribution to recapitalize the working and middle class of America.
So the Wall Street tycoons recruited General Butler to lead the overthrow of the US Government and install a "Secretary of General Affairs" who would be answerable to Wall Street and not the people, would crush social unrest and shut down all labor unions.
General Butler pretended to go along with the scheme but then exposed the plot to Congress. Congress, then as now in the pocket of the Wall Street bankers, refused to act.
When Roosevelt learned of the planned coup he demanded the arrest of the plotters, but the plotters simply reminded Roosevelt that if any one of them were sent to prison, their friends on Wall Street would deliberately collapse the still-fragile economy and blame him for it.
Roosevelt was thus unable to act until the start of WW2, at which time he prosecuted many of the plotters under the Trading With The Enemy act.
The Congressional minutes into the coup were finally declassified in 1967, but rumors of the attempted coup became the inspiration for the movie, "Seven Days in May" but with the true financial villains erased from the script.
"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service as a member of our country's most agile military force - the Marine Corps.
I served in all commissioned ranks from second lieutenant to Major General. And during that period I spent more of my time being a high - class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the bankers.
In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. "I suspected I was just a part of a racket at the time.
Now I am sure of it.
Like all members of the military profession I never had an original thought until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of the higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.
Thus I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in.
I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long.
I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-12. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916.
In China in 1927 I helped see to it that the Standard Oil went its way unmolested. During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket.
I was rewarded with honors, medals and promotion. Looking back on it, I feel I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three city districts. I operated on three continents."
- General Smedley Butler, former US Marine Corps Commandant,1935
President John F. Kennedy
As President, John F. Kennedy understood the predatory nature of private central banking. He understood why Andrew fought so hard to end the Second Bank of the United States. So Kennedy wrote and signed Executive Order 11110 which ordered the US Treasury to issue a new public currency, the United States Note.
Presidents Kennedy and Soekarno
Kennedy was working with President Soekarno of Indonesia who was at that time the signatory for the Global Collateral Accounts which were intended to be used for humanitarian purposes but which were subverted at the time of the Bretton-Woods agreement at the end of WWII.
The intention of Kennedy and Soekarno was to end the reign of the globalist privately owned central banking system - which is the main reason that Kennedy was killed, and for his part Soekarno remained under house arrest for the rest of his life.
The efforts to regain control of the Global Collateral Accounts are now being led by Neil Keenan.
The West had been stealing from the Collateral Accounts
for nearly 100 years but this has now been stopped by Neil Keenan and his associates, who have gone to considerable expense and risk in their mission to ensure the Global Collateral Accounts are accessible - for the humanitarian purposes for which they were established.
Kennedy's United States Note - with the lack of reference to the FEDERAL RESERVE
Kennedy's United States Notes were not borrowed from the Federal Reserve but created by the US Government and backed by the silver stockpiles held by the US Government. It represented a return to the system of economics the United States had been founded on, and was perfectly legal for Kennedy to do.
All told, some four and one half billion dollars went into public circulation, eroding interest payments to the Federal Reserve and loosening their control over the nation. Five months later John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas Texas, and the United States Notes pulled from circulation and destroyed (except for samples held by collectors).
John J. McCloy
John J. McCloy, President of the Chase Manhattan Bank, and President of the World Bank, was named to the Warren Commission, presumably to make certain the banking dimensions behind the assassination were concealed from the public.
As we enter the eleventh year of what future history will most certainly describe as World War Three, we need to examine the financial dimensions behind the wars.
Towards the end of World War Two, when it became obvious that the allies were going to win and dictate the post war environment, the major world economic powers met at Bretton Woods, a luxury resort in New Hampshire in July of 1944, and hammered out the Bretton Woods agreement for international finance.
The British Pound lost its position as the global trade and reserve currency to the US dollar (part of the price demanded by Roosevelt in exchange for the US entry into the war). Absent the economic advantages of being the world's "go-to" currency, Britain was forced to nationalize the Bank of England in 1946.
The Bretton Woods agreement, ratified in 1945, in addition to making the dollar the global reserve and trade currency, obligated the signatory nations to tie their currencies to the dollar. The nations that ratified Bretton Woods did so on two conditions. The first was that the Federal Reserve would refrain from over-printing the dollar as a means to loot real products and produce from other nations in exchange for ink and paper; basically an imperial tax.
That assurance was backed up by the second requirement, which was that the US dollar would always be convertible to gold at $35 per ounce.
The Bretton Woods resort, New Hampshire
The Federal Reserve, being a private bank and not answerable to the US Government, did start overprinting paper dollars, and much of the perceived prosperity of the 1950s and 1960s was the result of foreign nations' obligations to accept the paper notes as being worth gold at the rate of $35 an ounce.
Then in 1970, France looked at the huge pile of paper notes sitting in their vaults, for which real French products like wine and cheese had been traded, and notified the United States government that they would exercise their option under Bretton Woods to return the paper notes for gold at the $35 per ounce exchange rate.
The United States had nowhere near the gold to redeem the paper notes, so on August 15th, 1971, Richard Nixon "temporarily" suspended the gold convertibility of the US Federal Reserve Notes.
Nixon announced the end of gold convertability
Later termed the "Nixon shock", this move effectively ended Bretton Woods and many global currencies started to delink from the US dollar.
The "Nixon Shock"
Worse, since the United States had collateralized their loans with the nation's gold reserves, it quickly became apparent that the US Government did not in fact have enough gold to cover the outstanding debts.
Foreign nations began to get very nervous about their loans to the US and understandably were reluctant to loan any additional money to the United States without some form of collateral.
So Richard Nixon started the environmental movement, with the EPA and its various programs such as "wilderness zones", Roadless areas", Heritage rivers", "Wetlands", all of which took vast areas of public lands and made them off limits to the American people who were technically the owners of those lands.
But Nixon had little concern for the environment and the real purpose of this land grab under the guise of the environment was to pledge those pristine lands and their vast mineral resources as collateral on the national debt. This was part of the forerunner to the UN Agernda 21 "Sustainability" farce.
The plethora of different programs was simply to conceal the true scale of how much American land was being pledged to foreign lenders as collateral on the government's debts; eventually almost 25% of the nation itself.
All of this is illegal as the Enclave Clause of the Constitution limits the Federal Government to owning the land under Federal Government buildings and military bases, and that Enclave Clause was written into the Constitution by the Founding Fathers to specifically to prevent the Federal Government simply seizing the land belonging to the people to sell off, pledge as collateral, or rent!
With open lands for collateral already in short supply, the US Government embarked on a new program to shore up sagging international demand for the dollar.
The United States approached the world's oil producing nations, mostly in the Middle East, and offered them a deal. In exchange for only selling their oil for dollars, the United States would guarantee the military safety of those oil-rich nations.
The oil rich nations would agree to spend and invest their US paper dollars inside the United States, in particular in US Treasury Bonds, redeemable through future generations of US taxpayers.
The concept was labeled the "petrodollar". In effect, the US, no longer able to back the dollar with gold, was now backing it with oil.
Other peoples' oil. And that necessity to keep control over those oil nations to prop up the dollar has shaped America's foreign policy in the region ever since.
But as America's manufacturing and agriculture has declined, the oil producing nations faced a dilemma. Those piles of US Federal Reserve notes were not able to purchase much from the United States because the United States had little (other than real estate) anyone wanted to buy.
Europe's cars and aircraft were superior and less costly, while experiments with GMO food crops led to nations refusing to buy US food exports.
Israel's constant belligerence against its neighbors caused them to wonder if the US could actually keep their end of the petrodollar arrangement. Oil producing nations started to talk of selling their oil for whatever currency the purchasers chose to use.
Iraq, already hostile to the United States following Desert Storm, demanded the right to sell their oil for Euros in 2000 and in 2002, the United Nations agreed to allow it under the "Oil for food" program instituted following Desert Storm.
One year later the United States re-invaded Iraq under the lie of Saddam's nuclear weapons, lynched Saddam Hussein, and placed Iraq's oil back on the world market only for US dollars.
The clear US policy shift following 9-11, away from being an impartial broker of peace in the Mideast to one of unquestioned support for Israel's aggressions only further eroded confidence in the Petrodollar deal and even more oil producing nations started openly talking of oil trade for other global currencies.
Over in Libya, Muammar Gaddafi had instituted a state-owned central bank and a value based trade currency, the Gold Dinar.
Gaddafi announced that Libya's oil was for sale, but only for the Gold Dinar. Other African nations, seeing the rise of the Gold Dinar and the Euro, even as the US dollar continued its inflation-driven decline, flocked to the new Libyan currency for trade.
This move had the potential to seriously undermine the global hegemony of the dollar. French President Nicolas Sarkozy reportedly went so far as to call Libya a “threat” to the financial security of the world.
So, the United States invaded Libya, brutally murdered Qaddafi (the object lesson of Saddam's lynching not being enough of a message, apparently), imposed a private central bank, and returned Libya's oil output to dollars only. The gold that was to have been made into the Gold Dinars is, as of last report, unaccounted for.
General Wesley Clark blew the whistle on US plans to conquer the oil-rich Middle East, to attack and take over 7 countries in 5 years.
According to General Wesley Clark, the master plan for the "dollarification" of the world's oil nations included seven targets, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran (Venezuela, which dared to sell their oil to China for the Yuan, is a late addition).
What is notable about the original seven nations originally targeted by the US is that none of them are members of the Bank for International Settlements, the private central bankers private central bank, located in Switzerland.
This meant that these nations were deciding for themselves how to run their nations' economies, rather than submit to the international private banks.
Now the bankers' gun sights are on Iran, which dares to have a government central bank and sell their oil for whatever currency they choose.
The war agenda is, as always, to force Iran's oil to be sold only for dollars and to force them to accept a privately owned central bank.
Malaysia, one of the few remaining nations without a Rothschild central bank, is now being invaded by a force claimed to be "Al Qaeda" and has suffered numerous suspicious losses of its commercial passenger jets.
With the death of President Hugo Chavez, plans to impose a US and banker friendly regime on Venezuela are clearly being implemented.
Germany's gold bullion. Where is it?
The German government recently asked for the return of some of their gold bullion from the Bank of France and the New York Federal Reserve. France has said it will take 5 years to return Germany's gold. The United States has said they will need 8 years to return Germany's gold.
This suggests strongly that the Bank of France and the NY Federal Reserve have used the deposited gold for other purposes, most likely to cover gold futures contracts used to artificially suppress the price of gold to keep investors in the equities markets, and the Central Banks are scrambling to find new gold to cover the shortfall and prevent a gold run.
So it is inevitable that suddenly France invades Mali, ostensibly to combat Al Qaeda, with the US joining in. Mali just happens to be one of the world's largest gold producers with gold accounting for 80% of Mali exports. War for the bankers does not get more obvious than that!
Mexico has demanded a physical audit of their gold bullion stored at the Bank of England, and along with Venezuela's vast oil reserves (larger than Saudi Arabia), Venezuela's gold mines are a prize lusted after by all the Central Banks that played fast and loose with other peoples' gold bullion.
So we can expect regime change if not outright invasion soon.
You have been raised by a public school system and media that constantly assures you that the reasons for all these wars and assassinations are many and varied.
The US claims to bring democracy to the conquered lands (they haven't; the usual result of a US overthrow is the imposition of a dictatorship, such as the 1953 CIA overthrow of Iran's democratically elected government of Mohammad Mosaddegh and the imposition of the Shah, or the 1973 CIA overthrow of Chile's democratically elected government of President Salvador Allende, and the imposition of Augusto Pinochet), or to save a people from a cruel oppressor, revenge for 9-11, or that tired worn-out catch all excuse for invasion, weapons of mass destruction. Assassinations are always passed off as "crazed lone nuts" to obscure the real agenda.
The real agenda is simple. It is enslavement of the people by creation of a false sense of obligation.
That obligation is false because the Private Central Banking system, by design, always creates more debt than money with which to pay that debt.
Private Central Banking is not science, it is a religion; a set of arbitrary rules created to benefit the priesthood, meaning the owners of the Private Central Bank.
The fraud persists, with often lethal results, because the people are tricked into believing that this is the way life is suppoed to be and no alternative exists or should be dreamt of.
The same was true of two earlier systems of enslavement, Rule by Divine Right and Slavery, both systems built to trick people into obedience, and both now recognized by modern civilizatyion as illegitimate.
Now we are entering a time in human history where we will recognize that rule by debt, or rule by Private Central Bankers issuing the public currency as a loan at interest, is equally illegitimate.
It only works as long as people allow themselves to believe that this is the way life is supposed to be.
But understand this above all; Private Central Banks do not exist to serve the people, the community, or the nation. Private Central Banks exist to serve their owners, to make them rich beyond the dreams of Midas and all for the cost of ink, paper, and the right bribe to the right official.
Behind all these wars, all these assassinations, the hundred million horrible deaths from all the wars lies a single policy of dictatorship. The private central bankers allow rulers to rule only on the condition that the people of a nation be enslaved to the private central banks.
Failing that, said ruler will be killed, and their nation invaded by those other nations enslaved to private central banks.
The so-called "clash of civilizations" we read about on the corporate media is really a war between banking systems, with the private central bankers forcing themselves onto the rest of the world, no matter how many millions must die for it.
Indeed the constant hatemongering against Muslims lies in a simple fact. Like the ancient Christians (prior to the Knights Templars private banking system) , Muslims forbid usury, or the lending of money at interest. And that is the reason our government and media insist they must be killed or converted. They refuse to submit to currencies issued at interest. They refuse to be debt slaves.
So off to war your children must go, to spill their blood for the money-junkies' gold. We barely survived the last two world wars. In the nuclear/bioweapon age, are the private central bankers willing to risk incinerating the whole planet just to feed their greed?
Apparently so. This brings us to the current situation in the Ukraine, Russia, and China.
The European Union had been courting the government of the Ukraine to merge with the EU, and more to the point, entangle their economy with the private-owned European Central Bank.
The government of the Ukraine was considering the move, but had made no commitments. Part of their concern lay with the conditions in other EU nations enslaved to the ECB, notably Cyprus, Greece, Spain, and Italy. So they were properly cautious.
Then Russia stepped in with a better deal and the Ukraine, exercising the basic choice all consumers have to choose the best product at the best price, dropped the EU and announced they were going to go with Russia's offer.
It was at that point that agents provocateurs flooded into the Ukraine, covertly funded by intelligence agency fronts like CANVAS and USAID, stirring up trouble, while the western media proclaimed this was a popular revolution. Snipers shot at people and this violence was blamed on then-President Yanukovich.
However a leaked recording of a phone call between the EU's Catherine Ashton and Estonia's Foreign Minister Urmas Paet confirmed the snipers were working for the overthrow plotters, not the Ukrainian government. Urmas Paet has confirmed the authenticity of that phone call.
This is a classic pattern of covert overthrow we have seen many times before.
Since the end of WW2, the US has covertly tried to overthrow the governments of 56 nations, succeeding 25 times.
Examples include the 1953 overthrow of Iran's elected government of Mohammed Mossadegh and the imposition of the Shah, the 1973 overthrow of Chile's elected government of Salvador Allende and the imposition of the Pinochet dictatorship, and of course, the current overthrow of Ukraine's elected government of Yanukovich and the imposition of the current unelected government, which is already gutting the Ukraine's wealth to hand to the western bankers.
Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa have formed a parallel financial system called BRICS, officially launched on January 1, 2015. As of this writing some 80 nations are ready to trade with BRICS in transactions that do not involve the US dollar.
Despite US economic warfare against both Russia and China, the Ruble and Yuan are seen as more attractive for international trade and banking than the US dollar, hence the US attempt to fan the Ukraine crisis into war with Russia, and attempts to provoke North Korea as a back door to war with China.
The US Corporate Government: "These are the enemies of everything we hold dear in America: Your children must kill them for us..."
Flag waving and propaganda aside, all modern wars are wars by and for the private bankers, fought and bled for by third parties unaware of the true reason they are expected to gracefully be killed and croppled for.
The process is quite simple. As soon as the Private Central Bank issues its currency as a loan at interest, the public is forced deeper and deeper into debt.
When the people are reluctant to borrow any more, that is when the Keynesian economists demand the government borrow more to keep the pyramid scheme working.
When both the people and government refuse to borrow any more, that is when wars are started, to plunge everyone even deeper into debt to pay for the war, then after the war to borrow more to rebuild.
When the war is over, the people have about the same as they did before the war, except the graveyards are far larger and everyone is in debt to the private bankers for the next century. This is why Brown Brothers Harriman in New York was funding the rise of Adolf Hitler.
As long as Private Central Banks are allowed to exist, inevitably as the night follows day there will be poverty, hopelessness, and millions of deaths in endless World Wars, until the Earth itself is sacrificed in flames to Mammon.
The path to true peace on Earth lies in the abolishment of all private central banking everywhere, and a return to the state-issued value-based currencies that allow nations and people to become prosperous.
"Banks do not have an obligation to promote the public good."
- Alexander Dielius, CEO, Germany, Austrian, Eastern Europe Goldman Sachs, 2010
"I am just a banker doing God's work."
- Lloyd Blankfein, CEO, Goldman Sachs, 2009
From the film "The International" which tells the story of the take-down of the corrupt Bank of Credit and Commerce International which was the 7th largest private bank in the world.
'The question the people of the world should be asking is not whether to raise debt ceilings, but rather why our governments, which are authorised to create and issue interest-free money, instead borrow that money at interest from a privately-owned central banking system, thereby plunging future generations into debt slavery to that bank?'
Three steps from Private Central Bank to World War:
Step 1: Enslave the nation to a private Central Bank issuing the public currency as a loan at interest to trap the people in unpayable debt
Step 2: When the people cannot borrow any more, have the government borrow on their behalf (and without their permissiono) to keep the pyramid scheme working
Step 3: When both the people and the government can no longer borrow, start a world war to conquer other nations wealth to "balance the books"
An Revealing Look at the Interests of the United Nations bodies of NATO and the WTO:
Click the image above to open a larger version in a new browser window
Is Psychiatry Bullshit? + Fourteen Lies That Our Psychiatry Professors Taught Us In Medical School April 24 2021 | From: Sott / GlobalResearch
Some Psychiatrists View The Chemical-Imbalance Theory As A Well-Meaning Lie.
In the current issue of the journal Ethical Human Psychology and Psychiatry, Australian dissident psychiatrist Niall McLaren titles his article, "Psychiatry as Bullshit" and makes a case for just that.
In 2011, Ronald Pies, editor-in-chief emeritus of the Psychiatric Times, stated;
“In truth, the 'chemical imbalance' notion was always a kind of urban legend - never a theory seriously propounded by well-informed psychiatrists."
And in 2013, Thomas Insel, then director of the National Institute of Mental Health, offered a harsh rebuke of the DSM, announcing that because the DSM diagnostic system lacks validity, the: "NIMH will be re-orienting its research away from DSM categories."
So, the great controversy today has now become just how psychiatry can be most fairly characterized given its record of being proven wrong about virtually all of its assertions, most notably its classifications of behaviors, theories of "mental illness" and treatment effectiveness/adverse effects.
Among critics, one of the gentlest characterizations of psychiatry is a "false narrative," the phrase used by investigative reporter Robert Whitaker (who won the 2010 Investigative Reporters and Editors Book Award for Anatomy of an Epidemic) to describe the story told by the psychiatrists' guild American Psychiatric Association.
In "Psychiatry as Bullshit," McLaren begins by considering several different categories of "nonscience with scientific pretensions," such as "pseudoscience" and "scientific fraud."
"Pseudoscience" is commonly defined as a collection of beliefs and practices promulgated as scientific but in reality mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method. The NIMH director ultimately rejected the DSM because of its lack of validity, which is crucial to the scientific method.
The criteria for DSM illness are not objective biological ones but non-scientific subjective ones (which is why homosexuality was a DSM mental illness until the early 1970s).
Besides lack of scientific validity, the DSM lacks scientific reliability, as clinicians routinely disagree on diagnoses because patients act differently in different circumstances and because of the subjective nature of the criteria.
"Fraud" is a misrepresentation, a deception intended for personal gain, and implies an intention to deceive others of the truth - or "lying." Drug companies, including those that manufacture psychiatric drugs, have been convicted of fraud, as have high-profile psychiatrists (as well as other doctors).
Human rights activist and attorney Jim Gottstein offers an argument as to why the APA is a "fraudulent enterprise"; however, the APA has not been legally convicted of fraud.
To best characterize psychiatry, McLaren considers the category of "bullshit," invoking philosopher Harry Frankfurt's 1986 journal article "On Bullshit" (which became a New York Times bestselling book in 2005).
What is the essence of bullshit? For Frankfurt, "This lack of connection to a concern with truth - this indifference to how things really are - that I regard as of the essence of bullshit."
Frankfurt devotes a good deal of On Bullshit to differentiating between a liar and a bullshitter. Both the liar and the bullshitter misrepresent themselves, representing themselves as attempting to be honest and truthful. But there is a difference between the liar and the bullshitter.
The liar knows the truth, and the liar's goal is to conceal it.
The goal of bullshitters is not necessarily to lie about the truth but to persuade their audience of a specific impression so as to advance their agenda. So, bullshitters are committed to neither truths nor untruths, uncommitted to neither facts nor fiction. It's actually not in bullshitters' interest to know what is true and what is false, as that knowledge can hinder their capacity to bullshit.
Frankfurt tells us that liar the hides that he or she is "attempting to lead us away from a correct apprehension of reality." In contrast, the bullshitter hides that "the truth-values of his statements are of no central interest to him."
“In truth, the 'chemical imbalance' notion was always a kind of urban legend - never a theory seriously propounded by well-informed psychiatrists."
What Pies omits is the reality that the vast majority of psychiatrists have been promulgating this theory. Were they liars or simply not well-informed? And if not well-informed, were they purposely not well-informed?
If one wants to bullshit oneself and the general public that psychiatry is a genuinely scientific medical specialty, there's a great incentive to be unconcerned with the truth or falseness of the chemical imbalance theory of depression.
Bullshitters immediately recognize how powerful this chemical imbalance notion is in gaining prestige for their profession and themselves as well as making their job both more lucrative and easier, increasing patient volume by turning virtually all patient visits into quick prescribing ones.
Prior to the chemical imbalance bullshit campaign, most Americans were reluctant to take antidepressants - or to give them to their children.
But the idea that depression is caused by a chemical imbalance that can be corrected with Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor antidepressants sounded like taking insulin for diabetes.
Correcting a chemical imbalance seemed like a reasonable thing to do, and so the use of SSRI antidepressants skyrocketed.
In 2012, National Public Radio correspondent Alix Spiegel began her piece about the disproven chemical imbalance theory with the following personal story about being prescribed Prozac when she was a depressed teenager:
“My parents took me to a psychiatrist at Johns Hopkins Hospital. She did an evaluation and then told me this story: "The problem with you," she explained, "is that you have a chemical imbalance. It's biological, just like diabetes, but it's in your brain.
This chemical in your brain called serotonin is too, too low. There's not enough of it, and that's what's causing the chemical imbalance. We need to give you medication to correct that." Then she handed my mother a prescription for Prozac. "
When Spiegel discovered that the chemical imbalance theory was untrue, she sought to discover why this truth had been covered up, and so she interviewed researchers who knew the truth.
Alan Frazer, professor of pharmacology and psychiatry and chairman of the pharmacology department at the University of Texas Health Sciences Center, told Spiegel that by framing depression as a deficiency - something that needed to be returned to normal - patients felt more comfortable taking antidepressants.
“If there was this biological reason for them being depressed, some deficiency that the drug was correcting, then taking a drug was OK."
For Frazer, the story that depressed people have a chemical imbalance enabled many people to come out of the closet about being depressed.
Frazer's rationale reminds us of Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky's book Manufacturing Consent, the title deriving from presidential adviser and journalist Walter Lippmann's phrase "the manufacture of consent" - a necessity for Lippmann, who believed that the general public is incompetent in discerning what's truly best for them, and so their opinion must be molded by a benevolent elite who does know what's best for them.
There are some psychiatrists who view the chemical imbalance theory as a well-meaning lie by a benevolent elite to ensure resistant patients do what is best for them, but my experience is that there are actually extremely few such "well-meaning liars." Most simply don't know the truth because they have put little effort in discerning it.
I believe McLaren is correct in concluding that the vast majority of psychiatrists are bullshitters, uncommitted to either facts or fiction. Most psychiatrists would certainly have been happy if the chemical-imbalance theory was true but obviously have not needed it to be true in order to promulgate it.
For truth seekers, the falseness of the chemical imbalance theory has been easily available, but most psychiatrists have not been truth seekers.
It is not in the bullshitters' interest to know what is true and what is false, as that knowledge of what is a fact and what is fiction hinders the capacity to use any and all powerful persuasion. Simply put, a commitment to the truth hinders the capacity to bullshit.
Fourteen Lies That Our Psychiatry Professors Taught Us In Medical School.
Myth # 1:
“The FDA (US Food and Drug Administration) tests all new psychiatric drugs”
False. Actually the FDA only reviews studies that were designed, administered, secretly performed and paid for by the multinational profit-driven drug companies.
The studies are frequently farmed out by the pharmaceutical companies by well-paid research firms, in whose interest it is to find positive results for their corporate employers. Unsurprisingly, such research policies virtually guarantee fraudulent results.
Myth # 2:
“FDA approval means that a psychotropic drug is effective long-term”
False. Actually, FDA approval doesn’t even mean that psychiatric drugs have been proven to be safe – either short-term or long-term! The notion that FDA approval means that a psych drug has been proven to be effective is also a false one, for most such drugs are never tested – prior to marketing – for longer than a few months (and most psych patients take their drugs for years).
The pharmaceutical industry pays many psychiatric “researchers” – often academic psychiatrists (with east access to compliant, chronic, already drugged-up patients) who have financial or professional conflicts of interest – some of them even sitting on FDA advisory committees who attempt to “fast track” psych drugs through the approval process.
For each new drug application, the FDA only receives 1 or 2 of the “best” studies (out of many) that purport to show short-term effectiveness. The negative studies are shelved and not revealed to the FDA. In the case of the SSRI drugs, animal lab studies typically lasted only hours, days or weeks and the human clinical studies only lasted, on average, 4- 6 weeks, far too short to draw any valid conclusions about long-term effectiveness or safety!
Hence the FDA, prescribing physicians and patient-victims should not have been “surprised” by the resulting epidemic of SSRI drug-induced adverse reactions that are silently plaguing the people.
Indeed, many SSRI trials have shown that those drugs are barely more effective than placebo (albeit statistically significant!) with unaffordable economic costs and serious health risks, some of which are life-threatening and known to be capable of causing brain damage.
Myth # 3:
“FDA approval means that a psychotropic drug is safe long-term”
False. Actually, the SSRIs and the “anti-psychotic” drugs are usually tested in human trials for only a couple of months before being granted marketing approval by the FDA. And the drug companies are only required to report 1 or 2 studies (even if many other studies on the same drug showed negative, even disastrous, results).
Drug companies obviously prefer that the black box and fine print warnings associated with their drugs are ignored by both consumers and prescribers. One only has to note how small the print is on the commercials.
In our fast-paced shop-until-you-drop consumer society, we super-busy prescribing physicians and physician assistants have never been fully aware of the multitude of dangerous, potentially fatal adverse psych drug effects that include addiction, mania, psychosis, suicidality, worsening depression, worsening anxiety, insomnia, akathisia, brain damage, dementia, homicidality, violence, etc, etc.
But when was the last time anybody heard the FDA or Big Pharma apologize for the damage they did in the past?
And when was the last time there were significant punishments (other than writs slaps and “chump change” multimillion dollar fines) or prison time for the CEOs of the guilty multibillion dollar drug companies?
Myth # 4:
“Mental ‘illnesses’ are caused by ‘brain chemistry imbalances’”
False. In actuality, brain chemical/neurotransmitter imbalances have never been proven to exist (except for cases of neurotransmitter depletions caused by psych drugs) despite vigorous examinations of lab animal or autopsied human brains and brain slices by neuroscientist s who were employed by well-funded drug companies.
Knowing that there are over 100 known neurotransmitter systems in the human brain, proposing a theoretical chemical ”imbalance” is laughable and flies in the face of science.
Not only that, but if there was an imbalance between any two of the 100 potential systems (impossible to prove), a drug – that has never been tested on more than a handful of them – could never be expected to re-balance it!
Such simplistic theories have been perpetrated by Big Pharma upon a gullible public and a gullible psychiatric industry because corporations that want to sell the public on their unnecessary products know that they have to resort to 20 second sound bite-type propaganda to convince patients and prescribing practitioners why they should be taking or prescribing synthetic, brain-altering drugs that haven’t been adequately tested.
Myth # 5:
“Antidepressant drugs work like insulin for diabetics”
False. This laughingly simplistic – and very anti-scientific – explanation for the use of dangerous and addictive synthetic drugs is patently absurd and physicians and patients who believe it should be ashamed of themselves for falling for it.
There is such a thing as an insulin deficiency (but only in type 1 diabetes) but there is no such thing as a Prozac deficiency.
SSRIs (so-called Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors – an intentional mis-representation because those drugs are NOT selective!) do not raise total brain serotonin.
Rather, SSRIs actually deplete serotonin long-term while only “goosing” serotonin release at the synapse level while at the same time interfere with the storage, reuse and re-cycling of serotonin (by its “serotonin reuptake inhibition” function).
(Parenthetically, the distorted “illogic” of the insulin/diabetes comparison above could legitimately be made in the case of the amino acid brain nutrient tryptophan, which is the precursor molecule of the important natural neurotransmitter serotonin.
If a serotonin deficiency or “imbalance” could be proven, the only logical treatment approach would be to supplement the diet with the serotonin precursor tryptophan rather than inflict upon the brain a brain-altering synthetic chemical that actually depletes serotonin long-term!
Myth # 6:
“SSRI ‘discontinuation syndromes’ are different than ‘withdrawal syndromes’”
False. The SSRI “antidepressant” drugs are indeed dependency-inducing/addictive and the neurological and psychological symptoms that occur when these drugs are stopped or tapered down are not “relapses” into a previous ”mental disorder” - as has been commonly asserted - but are actually new drug withdrawal symptoms that are different from those that prompted the original diagnosis
The term “discontinuation syndrome” is part of a cunningly-designed conspiracy that was plotted in secret by members of the psychopharmaceutical industryin order to deceive physicians into thinking that these drugs are not addictive.
The deception has been shamelessly promoted to distract attention from the proven fact that most psych drugs are dependency-inducing and are therefore likely to cause “discontinuation/withdrawal symptoms” when they are stopped.
The drug industry knows that most people do not want to swallow dependency-inducing drugs that are likely to cause painful, even lethal withdrawal symptoms when they cut down the dose of the drug.
Myth # 7:
“Ritalin is safe for children (or adults)”
False. In actuality, methylphenidate (= Ritalin, Concerta, Daytrana, Metadate and Methylin; aka “kiddie cocaine”), a dopamine reuptake inhibitor drug, works exactly like cocaine on dopamine synapses, except that orally-dosed methylphenidate reaches the brain more slowly than snortable or smoked cocaine does.
Therefore the oral form has less of an orgasmic “high” than cocaine.
Cocaine addicts actually prefer Ritalin if they can get it in a relatively pure powder form.
When snorted, the synthetic Ritalin (as opposed to the naturally-occurring, and therefore more easily metabolically-degraded cocaine) has the same onset of action but, predictably, has a longer lasting “high” and is thus preferred among addicted individuals.
The molecular structures of Ritalin and cocaine both have amphetamine base structures with ring-shaped side chains which, when examined side by side, are remarkably similar. The dopamine synaptic organelles in the brain (and heart, blood vessels, lungs and guts) are unlikely to sense any difference between the two drugs.
Myth # 8:
“Psychoactive drugs are totally safe for humans”
False. See Myth # 3 above. Actually all five classes of psychotropic drugs have, with long-term use, been found to be neurotoxic (ie, known to destroy or otherwise alter the physiology, chemistry, anatomy and viability of vital energy-producing mitochondria in every brain cell and nerve). They are therefore all capable of contributing to dementia when used long-term.
Any synthetic chemical that is capable of crossing the blood-brain barrier into the brain can alter and disable the brain. Synthetic chemical drugs are NOT capable of healing brain dysfunction, curing malnutrition or reversing brain damage.
Rather than curing anything, psychiatric drugs are only capable of masking symptoms while the abnormal emotional, neurological or malnutritional processes that mimic “mental illnesses” continue unabated.
Myth # 9:
“Mental ‘illnesses’ have no known cause”
False. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM, published by the American Psychiatric Association, is pejoratively called “the psychiatric bible and billing book” for psychiatrists.
Despite its name, it actually has no statistics in it, and, of the 374 psychiatric diagnoses in the DSM-IV (there is now a 5th edition) there seem to be only two that emphasize known root causes.
Those two diagnoses are Posttraumatic Stress Disorder and Acute Stress Disorder. The DSM-V has been roundly condemned as being just another book that laughingly pathologizes a few more normal human emotions and behaviors.
In my decade of work as an independent holistic mental health care practitioner, I was virtually always able to detect many of the multiple root causes and contributing factors that easily explained the signs, symptoms and behaviors that had resulted in a perplexing number of false diagnoses of “mental illness of unknown origin”.
Many of my patients had been made worse by being hastily diagnosed, hastily drugged, bullied, demeaned, malnourished, incarcerated, electroshocked (often against their wills and/or without fully informed consent).
My patients had been frequently rendered unemployable or even permanently disabled as a result – all because temporary, potentially reversible, and therefore emotional stressors had not been recognized at the onset.
Because of the reliance on drugs, many of my patients had been made incurable by not having been referred to compassionate practitioners who practiced high quality, non-drug-based, potentially curable psychotherapy.
The root causes of my patient’s understandable emotional distress were typically multiple, although sometimes a single trauma, such as a rape, violent assault or a psychological trauma in the military would cause an otherwise normally-developing individual to decompensate.
But the vast majority of my patients had experienced easily identifiable chronic sexual, physical, psychological, emotional and/or spiritual traumas as root causes – often accompanied by hopelessness, sleep deprivation, serious emotional or physical neglect and brain nutrient deficiencies as well.
The only way that I could obtain this critically important information was through the use of thorough, compassionate (and, unfortunately, time-consuming) investigation into the patient’s complete history, starting with prenatal, maternal, infant and childhood exposures to toxins (including vaccines) and continuing into the vitally important adolescent medical history (all periods when the patient’s brain was rapidly developing).
My clinical experience proved to me that if enough high quality time was spent with the patient and if enough hard work was exerted looking for root causes, the patient’s predicament could usually be clarified and the erroneous past labels (of “mental illnesses of unknown origin”) could be thrown out.
Such efforts were often tremendously therapeutic for my patients, who up to that time had been made to feel guilty, ashamed or hopeless by previous therapists.
In my experience, most mental ill health syndromes represented identifiable, albeit serious emotional de-compensation due to temporarily overwhelming crisis situations linked to traumatic, frightening, torturous, neglectful and soul-destroying life experiences.
My practice consisted mostly of patients who knew for certain that they were being sickened by months or years of swallowing one or more brain-altering, addictive prescription drugs that they couldn’t get off of by themselves.
I discovered that many of them could have been cured early on in their lives if they only had access – and could afford – compassionate psychoeducational psychotherapy, proper brain nutrition and help with addressing issues of deprivation, parental neglect/abuse, poverty and other destructive psychosocial situations.
I came to the sobering realization that many of my patients could have been cured years earlier if it hadn’t been for the disabling effects of psychiatric drug regimens, isolation, loneliness, punitive incarcerations, solitary confinement, discrimination, malnutrition, and/or electroshock.
The neurotoxic and brain-disabling drugs, vaccines and frankenfoods that most of my patients had been given early on had started them on the road to chronicity and disability.
Myth # 10:
“Psychotropic drugs have nothing to do with the huge increase in disabled and unemployable American psychiatric patients”
False. See Myths # 2 and # 3 above. In actuality recent studies have shown that the major cause of permanent disability in the “mentally ill” is the long-term, high dosage and/or use of multiple neurotoxic psych drugs – any combination of which, as noted above, has never been adequately tested for safety even in animal labs.
Many commonly-prescribed drugs are fully capable of causing brain-damage long-term, especially the anti-psychotics (aka, “major tranquilizers”) like Thorazine, Haldol, Prolixin, Clozapine, Abilify, Clozapine, Fanapt, Geodon, Invega, Risperdal, Saphris, Seroquel and Zyprexa, all of which can cause brain shrinkage that is commonly seen on the MRI scans of anti-psychotic drug-treated, so-called schizophrenics – commonly pointed out as “proof” that schizophrenia is an anatomic brain disorder that causes the brain to shrink! (Incidentally, patients who had been on antipsychotic drugs – for whatever reason – have been known to experience withdrawal hallucinations and acute psychotic symptoms even if they had never experienced such symptoms previously.)
Of course, highly addictive “minor” tranquilizers like the benzodiazepines (Valium, Ativan, Klonopin, Librium, Tranxene, Xanax) can cause the same withdrawal syndromes. They are all dangerous and very difficult to withdraw from (withdrawal results in difficult-to-treat rebound insomnia, panic attacks, and seriously increased anxiety), and, when used long-term, they can all cause memory loss/dementia, the loss of IQ points and the high likelihood of being mis-diagnosed as Alzheimer’s disease (of unknown etiology).
Myth # 11:
“So-called bipolar disorder can mysteriously ‘emerge’ in patients who have been taking stimulating antidepressants like the SSRIs”
False. In actuality, crazy-making behaviors like mania, agitation and aggression are commonly caused by the SSRIs. That list includes a syndrome called akathisia, a severe, sometimes suicide-inducing internal restlessness – like having restless legs syndrome over one’s entire body and brain.
Akathisia was once understood to only occur as a long-term adverse effect of antipsychotic drugs (See Myth # 10). So it was a shock to many psychiatrists (after Prozac came to market in 1987) to have to admit that SSRIs could also cause that deadly problem.
It has long been my considered opinion that SSRIs should more accurately be called “agitation-inducing” drugs rather than “anti-depressant” drugs.
The important point to make is that SSRI-induced psychosis, mania, agitation, aggression and akathisia is NOT bipolar disorder nor is it schizophrenia!
Myth # 12:
“Antidepressant drugs can prevent suicides”
False. In actuality, there is no psychiatric drug that is FDA-approved for the treatment of suicidality because these drugs, especially the so-called antidepressants, actually INCREASE the incidence of suicidal thinking, suicide attempts and completed suicides.
Drug companies have spent billions of dollars futilely trying to prove the effectiveness of various psychiatric drugs in suicide prevention.
Even the most corrupted drug company trials have failed! Indeed what has been discovered is that all the so-called “antidepressants” actually increase the incidence of suicidality.
The FDA has required black box warning labels about drug-induced suicidality on all SSRI marketing materials, but that was only accomplished after over-coming vigorous opposition from the drug-makers and marketers of the offending drugs, who feared that such truth-telling would hurt their profits (it hasn’t).
What can and does avert suicidality, of course, are not drugs, but rather interventions by caring, compassionate and thorough teams of care-givers that include family, faith communities and friends as well as psychologists, counselors, social workers, relatives (especially wise grandmas!), and, obviously, the limited involvement of drug prescribers.
Myth # 13:
“America’s school shooters and other mass shooters are ‘untreated’ schizophrenics who should have been taking psych drugs”
False. In actuality, 90% or more of the infamous homicidal – and usually suicidal – school shooters have already been under the “care” of psychiatrists (or other psych drug prescribers) and therefore have typically been taking (or withdrawing from) one or more psychiatric drugs.
SSRIs (such as Prozac) and psychostimulants (such as Ritalin) have been the most common classes of drugs involved. Antipsychotics are too sedating, although an angry teen who is withdrawing from antipsychotics could easily become a school shooter if given access to lethal weapons. (See www.ssristudies.net).
The 10% of school shooters whose drug history is not known, have typically had their medical files sealed by the authorities – probably to protect authorities such as the drug companies and/or the medical professionals who supplied the drugs from suffering liability or embarrassment.
Important Comment:It should be noted that in most cases such 'False Flag' shooter events, that Mind-Controlled assets are used in order to carry out events pushing Cabal-driven agenda's such as gun control.
In virtually EVERY case the 'perpetrators' are on multiple prescription drugs for mental health issues.
This is not a comfortable subject but it is one that you will need to confront sooner or later, as the truth will become common knowledge at some point.
Interspersed with the rest of this section are details of the reality which hides behind the prescription drugs and their side effects -
The powerful drug industry and psychiatry lobby, with the willing help of the media that profits from being their handmaidens, repeatedly show us the photos of the shooters that look like zombies.
They have successfully gotten the viewing public to buy the notion that these adolescent, white male school shooters were mentally ill rather than under the influence of their crazy-making, brain-altering drugs or going through withdrawal.
Contrary to the claims of a recent 60 Minutes program segment about “untreated schizophrenics” being responsible for half of the mass shootings in America, the four mentioned in the segment were, in fact, almost certainly being already under the treatment with psych drugs – prior to the massacres – by psychiatrists who obviously are being protected from public identification and/or interrogation by the authorities as accomplices to the crimes or witnesses.
Because of this secrecy, the public is being kept in the dark about exactly what crazy-making, homicidality-inducing psychotropic drugs could have been involved.
The names of the drugs and the multinational corporations that have falsely marketed them as safe drugs are also being actively protected from scrutiny, and thus the chance of prevention of future drug-related shootings or suicides is being squandered.
Such decisions by America’s ruling elites represent public health policy at its worst and is a disservice to past and future shooting victims and their loved ones.
The four most notorious mass shooters that were highlighted in the aforementioned 60 Minutes segment included the Virginia Tech shooter, the Tucson shooter, the Aurora shooter and the Sandy Hook shooter whose wild-eyed (“drugged-up”) photos have been carefully chosen for their dramatic “zombie-look” effect, so that most frightened, paranoid Americans are convinced that it was a crazy “schizophrenic”, rather than a victim of psychoactive, brain-altering, crazy-making drugs that may have made him do it.
Parenthetically, it needs to be mentioned that many media outlets profit handsomely from the drug and medical industries.
Therefore those media outlets have an incentive to protect the names of the drugs, the names of the drug companies, the names of the prescribing MDs and the names of the clinics and hospitals that could, in a truly just and democratic world, otherwise be linked to the crimes.
Certainly if a methamphetamine-intoxicated person shot someone, the person who supplied the intoxicating drug would be considered an accomplice to the crime, just like the bartender who supplied the liquor to someone who later committed a violent crime would be held accountable.
A double standard obviously exists when it comes to powerful, respected and highly profitable corporations.
A thorough study of the scores of American school shooters, starting with the University of Texas tower shooter in 1966 and (temporarily) stopping at Sandy Hook, reveals that the overwhelming majority of them (if not all of them) were taking brain-altering, mesmerizing, impulse-destroying, “don’t give a damn” drugs that had been prescribed to them by well-meaning but too-busy psychiatrists, family physicians or physician assistants who somehow were unaware of or were misinformed about the homicidal and suicidal risks to their equally unsuspecting patients (and therefore they had failed to warn the patient and/or the patient’s loved ones about the potentially dire consequences).
Most practitioners who wrote the prescriptions for the mass shooters or for a patient who later suicided while under the influence of the drug, will probably(and legitimately so) defend themselves against the charge of being an accomplice to mass murder or suicide by saying that they were ignorant about the dangers of these cavalierly prescribed psych drugs because they had been deceived by the cunning drug companies that had convinced them of the benign nature of the drugs.
Myth # 14:
“If your patient hears voices it means he’s a schizophrenic”
False. Auditory hallucinations are known to occur in up to 10% of normal people; and up to 75% of normal people have had the experience of someone that isn’t there calling their name. (www.hearing-voices.org/voices-visions).
Nighttime dreams, nightmares and flashbacks probably have similar origins to daytime visual, auditory and olfactory hallucinations, but even psychiatrists don’t think that they represent mental illnesses.
Indeed, hallucinations are listed in the pharmaceutical literature as a potential side effect or withdrawal symptom of many drugs, especially psychiatric drugs.
These syndromes are called substance-induced psychotic disorders which are, by definition, neither mental illnesses nor schizophrenia.
Rather, substance-induced or withdrawal-induced psychotic disorders are temporary and directly caused by the intoxicating effects of malnutrition or brain-altering drugs such as alcohol, medications, hallucinogenic drugs and other toxins.
Psychotic symptoms, including hallucinations and delusions, can be caused by substances such as alcohol, marijuana, hallucinogens, sedatives, hypnotics, and anxiolytics, inhalants, opioids, PCP, and the many of the amphetamine-like drugs (like Phen-Fen, [fenfluramine]), cocaine, methamphetamine, Ecstasy, and agitation-inducing, psycho-stimulating drugs like the SSRIs).
Psychotic symptoms can also result from sleep deprivation, sensory deprivation and the withdrawal from certain drugs like alcohol, sedatives, hypnotics, anxiolytics and especially the many dopamine-suppressing, dependency-inducing, sedating, and zombifying anti-psychotic drugs.
Examples of other medications that may induce hallucinations and delusions include anesthetics, analgesics, anticholinergic agents, anticonvulsants, antihistamines, antihypertensive and cardiovascular medications, some antimicrobial medications, anti-parkinsonian drugs, some chemotherapeutic agents, corticosteroids, some gastrointestinal medications, muscle relaxants, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medications, and Antabuse.
The very sobering information revealed above should cause any thinking person, patient, thought-leader or politician to wonder:
“How many otherwise normal or potentially curable people over the last half century of psych drug propaganda have actually been mis-labeled as mentally ill (and then mis-treated) and sent down the convoluted path of therapeutic misadventures – heading toward oblivion?”
In my mental health care practice, I personally treated hundreds of patients who had been given a multitude of confusing and contradictory mental illness labels, many of which had been one of the new “diseases of the month” for which there was a new psych “drug of the month” that was being heavily marketed on TV.
Many of my patients had simply been victims of unpredictable drug-drug interactions (far too often drug-drug-drug-drug interactions) or simply adverse reactions to psych drugs which had been erroneously diagnosed as a new mental illness.
Extrapolating my 1,200 patient experience (in my little isolated section of the nation) to what surely must be happening in America boggles my mind.
There has been a massive epidemic going on right under our noses that has affected millions of suffering victims who could have been cured if not for the drugs.
The time to act on this knowledge is long overdue.
It's Important To Understand What Drives The Prime Minister April 23 2021 | From: Stuff / Various
To understand the idealogical beliefs of Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern we can look back to her time as president of the International Union of Socialist Youth.
It is important to understand political ideologies because they provide a lens into the underpinning beliefs and values that guide political goals and decision-making.
We would be fools to believe political decisions are primarily evidence based.
Given we are facing what is likely to be many years of economic turmoil and hardship, the political ideology of our Government needs to be laid bare so we can gain insights into what a post-Covid-19 New Zealand economy might look like.
Arguably, the Government revolves around Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern – she calls the shots..
It’s a fair assumption to suggest that at the time of entering Parliament, an MP’s political views and beliefs are set and are the motivation to enter politics in the first place.
Accordingly, to understand Ardern’s political ideology it is important to revisit 2008, when she entered Parliament as a Labour list-MP.
Earlier in 2008 Ardern was elected president of the International Union of Socialist Youth. In early 2009, just two months after becoming an MP, Ardern presided over the union's World Council annual meeting in her capacity as president.
Official records of that meeting give us insights into Ardern’s political ideology. For example, the meeting documents state the aim of the union is to “defend and spread our core socialist principles”.
The 2009 union meeting is relevant not just because Ardern was president, but because the official resolutions outlined “progressive answers to the financial crisis” – aka the global financial crisis or GFC.
Given Ardern and her comrades had “progressive answers to the financial crisis”, those answers might now be used to guide us through the turmoil and hardship of post-Covid-19.
By the way, I have used "comrade" because it is how union members referred to themselves throughout the 2009 meeting.
The definition of "comrade" from An Encyclopedic Dictionary of Marxism, Socialism and Communism is as follows:
"Originally, one who shares the same chamber. The term has been adopted by socialists and communists for party members.”
I do not use "comrade" disparagingly here, as indeed Ardern herself used the term 15 times in just seven minutes at this public event.
Comrade Jacinda Ardern Like You've Never Seen Her Before
So, what “progressive answers to the financial crisis” did Ardern and her comrades come up with? Did they propose ideas that would stimulate the economy so businesses could thrive thereby creating job opportunities?
Not quite. Instead, Ardern and her comrades stated:
"Redistribution will lead to more financial stability and justice. As IUSY we struggle for redistribution between the north and the south and for redistribution between the poor and the rich, because we believe in equality and justice.”
On the same trajectory, Ardern and her comrades said:
"Human beings are born with unequal resources available. We as young socialists believe in a social democratic system which secures a redistribution of resources.”
Oh, I get it now. Ardern and her comrades think it’s best that everyone is equal and this is achieved through securing a “redistribution of resources”.
After resources – aka your income and wealth – has been "redistributed’" what happens when some people start accumulating more income and wealth than others?
Does that mean that the clock needs to be reset so everyone is equal again? And how often should the reset occur?
For example, if Ardern and her comrades take away your income and wealth and give it to me, but through either hard work, initiative, entrepreneurial spirit and luck you manage to have more income and wealth than I have in say a year from now, does that mean I get to have more of your income and wealth so we become equal again?
I suppose that is exactly what Ardern and her comrades mean because they further stated:
"Today’s dominating economical system of Western capitalism has contributed to the unequal distribution of wealth worldwide.”
I wonder then what is the exact point whereby "inequality" becomes acceptable?
For example, is a 20 per cent gap of "inequality" acceptable? Or does it need to be closer, like 10 per cent?
Or do we all need to have the exact same amount of income and wealth?
I don’t know. But what I do know is Ardern and her comrades provided the above answers in 2009 and now she is leading us into the economic recovery of post-Covid-19..
The Top Four Reasons Why Many People, Doctors And Scientists Refuse To Take The COVID Vaccine & A New Zealand Doctor Speaks Out Against COVID Policies April 22 2021 | From: GlobalResearch / CovidPlanB / Various
When you ask somebody why they are choosing to take the covid vaccine or why they are wearing a mask, they may respond, “because science.”
The next question to ask is, how many of these people have actually gone through the science of vaccines and whether or not masks may be an effective tool for limiting the spread of COVID?
From what I see, the majority of people receive their information from mainstream media organizations, which are organizations that have strong ties to pharmaceutical corporations and governments, and are known for presenting one perspective that favours a particular agenda while completely ridiculing the other.
They sometimes go as far as labelling another perspective as a “conspiracy theory” despite the fact that there is ample, credible evidence to support the claims of that perspective.
Do people simply believe things because they feel that everybody else believes it too? What are the social and cultural impications of not being in alignment with the majority?
Due to reliance on a single media source, many people are not shown information and perspectives that tell a different or more complete story, especially when it comes to “controversial” topics.
Often times, these topics are avoided using ridicule in place of addressing points brought up from other perspectives. We’ve seen a lot of this with COVID, an unprecedented amount of censorship of science has taken place with regards to all things COVID, and many academics have been speaking up about it for quite some time.
A quote I often like to use to demonstrate this, and one I’ve used many times before, comes from Dr. Kamran Abbasi, a recent executive editor of the prestigious British Medical Journal, editor of the Bulletin of the World Health Organization, and a consultant editor for PLOS Medicine.
He is editor of the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine and JRSM Open. He recently published a piece in the BMJ, titled “Covid-19: politicization, “corruption,” and suppression of science.”
"Science is being suppressed for political and financial gain. Covid-19 has unleashed state corruption on a grand scale, and it is harmful to public health.
Politicians and industry are responsible for this opportunistic embezzlement. So too are scientists and health experts.
The pandemic has revealed how the medical-political complex can be manipulated in an emergency - a time when it is even more important to safeguard science.
I also recently wrote an article about Vinay Prasad MD MPH, an associate professor at the University of California San Francisco.
He is one of many experts in the field during this pandemic who has been criticizing Facebook fact-checkers for their missteps in claiming content is false when it is not.
One of the best examples of suppression is “anti-lockdown” rhetoric.
Multiple dozens of studies have shown and concluded that lockdowns do not reduce COVID infection, will kill more people than COVID due to lack of access to health care, starvation and more, and cause a wide range of other health and economical issues.
Regardless, the experts who have been publishing and sharing this information have been heavily censored. And culturally, we’re pretending that there’s no science to oppose lockdowns.
I recently wrote an article about Dr. Sunetra Gupta, an Oxford professor who is regarded by many as the world’s pre-eminent infectious disease epidemiologist. She is one of many who explains that lockdowns have done nothing to protect people from COVID, and that they have caused a great deal of harm.
Why is it that such an alarming amount of respected experts who oppose the measures being taken to combat COVID, are being ridiculed, ignored, and unacknowledged, yet a political doctor, somebody like Anthony Fauci, can get all of the air time he pleases?
Why aren’t all perspectives, science and data shared equally? Why have effective “alternative” treatments been ignored and the vaccine made out to be the only option?
Below are the top four reasons why COVID vaccine hesitancy is at an all time high among people of all backgrounds.
1. A Lack of Trust In Government & Pharmaceutical Companies
First I’d like to draw your attention to a quote taken from a paper published in the International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy by professor Paddy Rawlinson, from Western Sydney University.
Critical criminology repeatedly has drawn attention to the state-corporate nexus as a site of corruption and other forms of criminality, a scenario exacerbated by the intensification of neoliberalism in areas such as health.
The state-pharmaceutical relationship, which increasingly influences health policy, is no exception. That is especially so when pharmaceutical products such as vaccines, a burgeoning sector of the industry, are mandated in direct violation of the principle of informed consent.
Such policies have provoked suspicion and dissent as critics question the integrity of the state-pharma alliance and its impact on vaccine safety.
However, rather than encouraging open debate, draconian modes of governance have been implemented to repress and silence any form of criticism, thereby protecting the activities of the state and pharmaceutical industry from independent scrutiny.
The article examines this relationship in the context of recent legislation in Australia to intensify its mandatory regime around vaccines.
It argues that attempts to undermine freedom of speech, and to systematically excoriate those who criticise or dissent from mandatory vaccine programs, function as a corrupting process and, by extension, serve to provoke the notion that corruption does indeed exist within the state-pharma alliance.
There are many examples that illustrate why so many people simply cannot trust these institutions when it comes to anything, let alone health. Another one comes from comes from a paper published in 2010 by Robert G. Evans, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Vancouver School of Economics, UBC.
The paper, titled “Tough on Crime? Pfizer and the CIHR” is accessible through the National Library of Medicine (PubMed), and it outlines how Pfizer has been a “habitual offender” constantly engaging in illegal and criminal activities.
This particular paper points out that from 2002 to 2010, Pfizer has been “assessed $3 billion in criminal convictions, civil penalties and jury awards” and has set records for both criminal fines and total penalties.
Keep in mind we are now in 2021, that number is likely much higher.
Vax Challenge Update Sue Grey & Joe Rifici Explaining Progress of the Legal Challenge
Vax Challenge Update Sue Grey lawyer & Joe Rifici a representative of the plaintiff speaking outside the Nelson Court after Joe swore his affidavit evidence. They explain the legal challenge and some of the concerns leading to it.
A fairly recent article published in the New England Journal of Medicine focuses on outlining why those injured by the COVID-19 vaccine won’t be eligible for compensation from the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) because COVID is still an “emergency.” It also brings up the topic of vaccine hesitancy.
It mentions that among African Americans, many are hesitant to get their COVID vaccine because of events like the Tuskegee syphilis study. The study used African Americans to see how syphilis progressed.
The people with syphilis were told they were receiving free treatment, but they were really receiving nothing. This also happened after the discovery of a cure, the people were still not given the cure or any other known treatment. They were lied to.
It wasn’t until a whistleblower, Peter Buxtun, leaked information about the study to the New York Times and the paper published it on the front page on November 16th, 1972, that the Tuskegee study finally ended.
By this time only 74 of the test subjects were still alive. 128 patients had died of syphilis or its complications, 40 of their wives had been infected, and 19 of their children had acquired congenital syphilis.
In a Kaiser Family Foundation poll conducted in August and September 2020, it was found that 49%of Black respondents would probably not or definitely not take a Covid-19 vaccine, as compared with 33% of White respondents.
Similarly, a Pew Research Center poll from November found that although 71% of Black respondents knew someone who had been hospitalized or died from Covid-19, only 42% intended to get a Covid-19 vaccine when it became available.
These findings indicate a need to provide strong safety nets and supports to encourage Covid-19 vaccine adoption in vulnerable communities, including adequate injury compensation.
And it’s hard to really know how many people won’t. CNN has made it seem as if Donald Trump supporters will not be taking the shot, if this is the case that could be more than 50 percent of Americans, or at least all those who voted for Trump, which is a big number.
There are countless examples, it’s not just within the black community. Multiple polls in Canada and the United States have shown that what seem to be quite a large minority will not be getting the vaccine.
This also includes medical professionals. For example 50 percent of healthcare workers and hospital staff in Riverside County are refusing to take the COVID-19 vaccine. Keep in mind that Riverside County, California has a population of approximately 2.4 million.
A survey conducted at Chicago’s Loretto Hospital shows that 40 percent of healthcare workers will not take the COVID-19 vaccine once it’s available to them.
Vaccine hesitancy among physicians and academics is nothing new. To illustrate this I often point to a conference held at the end of 2019 put on by the World Health Organization (WHO).
At the conference, Dr. Heidi Larson a Professor of Anthropology and the Risk and Decision Scientist Director at the Vaccine Confidence Project Emphasized this point, having stated;
The other thing that’s a trend, and an issue, is not just confidence in providers but confidence of health care providers.
We have a very wobbly health professional frontline that is starting to question vaccines and the safety of vaccines.
That’s a huge problem, because to this day any study I’ve seen…still, the most trusted person on any study I’ve seen globally is the health care provider.
2. The Virus Has A 99.95 Survival Rate
Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, MD, PhD, from the Stanford University School of Medicine recently shared that the survival rate for people under 70 years of age is about 99.95 percent.
He also said that COVID is less dangerous than the flu for children. This comes based on approximately 50 studies that have been published, and information showing that more children in the U.S. have died from the flu than COVID. This correlates with data from Sweden as well.
Jonas F Ludvigsson a paediatrician at Örebro University Hospital and professor of clinical epidemiology at the Karolinska Institute has published research showing that out of nearly 2 million school children, zero died from covid despite no lockdowns, school closings or mask mandates during the first wave of the pandemic.
There is a perception out there that COVID is no more dangerous that other severe respiratory illnesses, which are the second leading cause of death worldwide, and that covid is similar to already existing coronaviruses that have circled the global for decades affecting hundreds of millions of people a year and killing tens of millions.
This system (VAERS) has been known to only capture about 1 percent of vaccine injuries. A 2010 HHS pilot study by the Federal Agency for Health Care Research (AHCR) in the United States found that 1 in every 39 vaccines causes injury, a shocking comparison to the claims from the CDC of 1 in every million.
For example, From 1990 to 2007 there were about 80,000 US cases of Kawasaki disease; during the same period just 56 US cases were reported to VAERS–0.07%. (Hua et al, Pediatr Inf Dis J 2009: 28:943-947) The cause of KD is unknown; it is rare, it is very serious, and it is prevalent among young and frequently vaccinated children.
If any event deserves prompt reporting to VAERS it is Kawasaki disease, but this does not happen.
Keep in mind that approximately 100 million people in the U.S. have had at least one shot.
On top of this you have reports of deaths all over social media. There seem to be hundreds of examples but at the end of the day, there is not a proper system in place to properly track adverse reactions and deaths.
The mainstream is not at all interested in that conversation either.
3. Some People Don’t Know How Safe And Effective The Vaccine Is
Dr. Peter Doshi, an associate editor at the British Medical Journal published a piece in the journal issuing a word of caution about the supposed “95% Effective” COVID vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna. It outlines multiple reasons why the effectiveness claimed by the pharmaceutical companies is called into question.
You can also read a piece that dives deeper into this question that we recently published, here.
The vaccine is being heavily marketed as a saviour, which is the case with almost all vaccines despite many concerns being raised over the years. One great example is with regards to aluminum containing vaccines.
Scientists have discovered that injected aluminum is very different from ingested aluminum. Injected aluminum doesn’t exit the body, and can be detected within the brain years after injection. Is this “anti-vax”? No, it’s just science, these are legitimate concerns.
When it comes to the COVID vaccine, there are concerns, especially since the mRNA technology used in many of the vaccines is new.
A few other papers have raised concerns, for example. A study published in October of 2020 in the International Journal of Clinical Practice states:
COVID-19 vaccines designed to elicit neutralising antibodies may sensitise vaccine recipients to more severe disease than if they were not vaccinated.
Vaccines for SARS, MERS and RSV have never been approved, and the data generated in the development and testing of these vaccines suggest a serious mechanistic concern: that vaccines designed empirically using the traditional approach (consisting of the unmodified or minimally modified coronavirus viral spike to elicit neutralising antibodies), be they composed of protein, viral vector, DNA or RNA and irrespective of delivery method, may worsen COVID-19 disease via antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE).
This risk is sufficiently obscured in clinical trial protocols and consent forms for ongoing COVID-19 vaccine trials that adequate patient comprehension of this risk is unlikely to occur, obviating truly informed consent by subjects in these trials.
In a new research article published in Microbiology & Infectious Diseases, veteran immunologist J. Bart Classen expresses similar concerns and writes that “RNA-based COVID vaccines have the potential to cause more disease than the epidemic of COVID-19.”
For decades, Classen has published papers exploring how vaccination can give rise to chronic conditions such as Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes - not right away, but three or four years down the road.
In this latest paper, Classen warns that the RNA-based vaccine technology could create “new potential mechanisms” of vaccine adverse events that may take years to come to light.
Pentagon's "COVID Detecting Microchip" For Under Your Skin?
A few years ago, a team of Scandinavian scientists conducted a study and found that African children inoculated with the DTP (diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis) vaccine, during the early 1980s had a 5-10 times greater mortality than their unvaccinated peers.
It should be of concern that the effect of routine vaccinations on all-cause mortality was not tested in randomized trials.
All currently available evidence suggests that DTP vaccine may kill more children from other causes than it saves from diphtheria, tetanus or pertussis.
Though a vaccine protects children against the target disease it may simultaneously increase susceptibility to unrelated infections.
I’m placing this study here to show that some vaccines may have unknown long term health consequences, even if they do offer some protection to the targeted disease.
As with most viruses, the host gains immunity from infection. Take the measles virus. A child has a 0.01 chance of dying from the measles, yet if they survive the virus, they have lifetime protection against the virus, a strengthened and more evolved immune system, and may even have more possible protection from a select few cancers.
Furthermore, it’s very questionable whether the MMR vaccine is effective. There is a long history of measles outbreaks in highly vaccinated populations. Children are required to get one shot, then the antibodies run out so they are required to get a second. A third one seems to be in the works.
Martin Kulldorff, a medical professor at Harvard university and vaccine safety expert recently tweeted:
After having protecting themselves while working class were exposed to the virus, the vaccinated #Zoomers now want #VaccinePassports where immunity from prior infection does not count, despite stronger evidence for protection. One more assault on working people.
He also recently tweeted:
`Trust in #vaccines is declining, but don’t blame the tiny group of anti-vaxxers. It is those pushing #VaccinePassports, arguing that all must be vaccinated, and those censoring vaccine discussions that are undermining trust in vaccines.
There are multiple studies hinting at the point the professor makes, that those who have been infected with covid may have immunity for years, and possibly even decades.
For example, according to a new study authored by respected scientists at leading labs, individuals who recovered from the coronavirus developed “robust” levels of B cells and T cells (necessary for fighting off the virus) and “these cells may persist in the body for a very, very long time.”
This is just one of many examples. There are studies that suggest infection to prior coronaviruses, which prior to COVID-19 circled the globe infecting hundreds of millions of people every single year, can also provide protection from COVID-19.
At the end of the day, there are ample concerns about the COVID vaccine, its effectiveness, the safety of it in the short term and in the long term. Despite these concerns, the vaccine is heavily marketed as unquestionably safe and effective.
A fifth category could have been added to this article, and that’s the ridicule and acknowledgments of other, cheap effective treatments that have shown to have a tremendous amount of success.
It seems these treatments would have rendered the vaccine useless and unnecessary, but the vaccine is a multiple billion dollar product.
We have to consider these things in this day and age. Would the “powers that be” really prevent and ridicule treatments that could have saved many lives, and can save many lives and render it useless and dangerous, despite so much evidence that says otherwise, to make the vaccine perceived as the only solution.
Do we really want to live in a world where we give a small group of people the ability to mandate vaccines in order to have access to certain freedoms we enjoyed prior to COVID?
Is this right? Is this ethical? If we allow them to do this, what else will we allow them to do in the future?
From the philosophical perspective, I am deeply concerned about the adulteration of the scientific method. Am tired of hearing the media admonish us to trust the science and trust the experts.
I constantly need to remind those around me that science is a tool, a method which if correctly applied will answer questions in a meaningful way bringing us progressively closer to an approximation of truth.
It is primarily a process of observation and to make our observations meaningful these must be conducted in a carefully controlled manner.
By contrast, the force dominating our present world view is a deceitful yet carefully contrived facsimile of science. It uses all the vestiges, regalia and language of science without meeting the fundamental criteria.
The policies and interventions which are being foisted upon us in the name of this pandemic are based not upon controlled observation, but rather upon narratives, rhetoric and data derived from some rather dubious uses of modelling.
To make the distinction I will refer to this alternative paradigm of polemics and extrapolation as scientism. It is a sleight of hand, a wolf in sheep’s clothing, the proverbial cuckoo in the nest of the scientific method.
Examples of scientific fraud that have been perpetuated on our populous over the course of the present pandemic are sadly numerous.
But I wish to focus here on the novel reversible gene therapy which is being deployed to our New Zealand population under the auspices of the disarming banner of the term “vaccine”.
Vaccines are central to our medical approach to the prevention of severe human disease. However, the present technology has never been used for this application on prior occasions.
It is disingenuous to include this technology within the trusted envelope of the term “vaccine” without evidence that it is both safe and effective for use in this capacity.
The suggestion that an individual’s access to employment, ability to access services and ability to travel could depend upon their participation in this uncontrolled human experiment should be deeply alarming to anyone who places any value on human rights.
I have deep concerns about the speed at which these experimental “vaccines” are being presented as the only solution to the pandemic.
No one has been able to answer the question as to how we can be confident that the recurring problem of antibody dependent enhancement which plagued our prior attempts to produce vaccines to other coronavirus variants in animal studies has been overcome.
The main safety concern may not lie in the deployment of these “vaccines” but rather in the exuberance of the inflammatory response which follows the subsequent exposure of a patient to covid-19 or a future coronavirus variant.
Science aside, I am alarmed at the campaign of propaganda directed at the public through our mainstream media. The media’s phrasing of Covid-19 is hyperbole at best or worse – blatant fear mongering.
By prefixing reports with phrase selection “the deadly virus” it is little wonder that many of our fellow New Zealanders are living in the state of fear that paralyses rational decision making.
I am unaccustomed to living in an environment in which rational discussion has become verboten. Never have I seen anybody who dares to ask legitimate questions, shutdown so vehemently and labelled “controversial” or a “conspiracy theorist”.
The BBC broadcasted a shameful Panorama episode last week in an attempt to destroy the reputation of hundreds of independent health experts.
The program aired with the testimony of a main expert, Professor Liam Smeeth who openly and unbelievably told mistruths about the mRNA vaccines, the animal trials thereof and many other aspects.
There was no open debate, The experts under question were not invited onto the program to air their concerns, they were simply labelled as anti vaxer conspiracy theorists. Bonkers in other words. If you look at the credentials and previous achievements of many of the experts, this accusation is of course completely ridiculous.
It seems quite clear that we are only “allowed” to conform to the narrative being presented to us by our government and our trusted mainstream media.
We once lived in a free society, with free speech and open dialogue, this no longer seems to be the case. Should we be concerned? I am.
The author:I do not wish to disclose my identity, at least for the time-being. I have undertaken a protracted tertiary education which includes degrees in science (cellular and molecular biology and biochemistry) medicine and dentistry and a doctoral degree with research in molecular biology. I am lucky to be a member of the fortunate educated.
Now after covid vaccinations, we will see husband/wives being accused of murder and if that didn’t work, we can say they committed suicide. If all else fails, we can say (just like childhood vaccines) death was due to some kind of unknown health issues or due to defective genes ,i.e. the person was faulty to die from the vaccine. As you know vaccines are safe and effective and can’t cause deaths.
Now you also know that if your family member dies or gets injured after getting vaccination, it can’t be reported by the media.
Helen Clark, Don McKinnon Front NZ Chapter Of US Think-Tank: Aspen Institute
& The Mundane Reality Of Think Tanks April 21 2021 | From: Scoop / AustralianInstituteOfInternationalAffairs / Various
Former Prime Minister Helen Clark and former Secretary-General for the Commonwealth, Sir Don McKinnon, are throwing their political capital and global profile behind the establishment of the New Zealand chapter of a respected US-based think tank, the Aspen Institute.
Another globalist machination appears in New Zealand
"Based in Queenstown, Aspen Institute NZ is a non-partisan and non-ideological organisation focused on education and policy," said inaugural director, Christine Maiden Sharp.
Headquartered in Washington DC and chaired by the Clinton-era US Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, the institute claims 11 locations globally and operations in 14 countries, of which New Zealand is the latest. Each branch is self-funding but the identities of key donors are not disclosed.
A clue to the calibre of its backing, however, is the presence of NBR Rich Lister and Dunedin commercial big-foot Sir Eion Edgar on the nine-member Aspen Institute NZ board.
Maiden Sharp's LinkedIn profile also carries endorsements from Marc Holtzman, a politically connected, Hong Kong-based American banker who owns property in the Gibbston Valley.
The institute intends to run a programme of "forums to encourage constructive dialogue on critical issues that matter to New Zealanders and for all New Zealanders”, Maiden Sharp said in a statement.
It ran an inaugural seminar for key supporters in Queenstown this week on artificial intelligence. It was moderated by globally recognised AI and robotics expert, Neil Jacobstein, who is joining the board.
"Aspen Institute NZ’s top priority is encouraging young New Zealanders and individuals from diverse backgrounds to participate in and shape meaningful dialogue.
We plan to focus on climate change, technology, and inequality / intolerance in our first three years.
That will include people from all walks of life, as well as New Zealand and international topic experts.”
Clark, who recently started her own New Zealand-focused policy think tank, the Helen Clark Foundation, said Aspen's local chapter will:
"Help raise the standard of debate on issues that matter most to New Zealanders, provide access to an extraordinary global network and enable current and future leaders to contribute to new ideas on key issues on a world stage".
McKinnon said "there is no forum like it for long-term policy discussions".
"The international name Aspen is a draw card and New Zealand is a well-respected democratic society. This will be a step up for New Zealand’s international engagement."
In the statement, Albright welcomed the New Zealand chapter to the Aspen fold, saying the country had "inspired us all by showing resilience and a commitment to democratic values in the face of hate", in a clear reference to the March 15 terrorist attacks on mosques in Christchurch.
McKinnon will chair the nine-member board, of which his co-patron, Clark, is not a member.
Other board members include Sir Maarten Wevers, former head of the Office of the Prime Minister and Cabinet during the Clark and Key eras, Federated Farmers chair Katie Milne, Lisa Tumahai, kaiwhakahaere - chair- of the South Island's Ngai Tahu iwi, Sport NZ chair Bill Moran, and Jane Taylor, a barrister and professional director who chairs Christchurch electricity network Orion NZ, the Predator Free 2050 initiative, government science agency Manaaki Whenua Landcare Research, and is deputy chair of Radio New Zealand.
Think tanks are a source of fascination for scholars and the media. The reality of influencing policymaking is far more prosaic and think tanks have had to evolve with changing political landscapes and technology.
The term think tank often conjures images of groups of individuals who have secret meetings with governments, organisations that act as secret support or recruitment bases for political parties or those who receive funding from dubious sources to push a certain agenda.
The activities of right wing British think tanks such as the Adam Smith Institute and Institute of Economic Affairs have come under scrutiny in the past few years; they have been accused of colluding with the media and government to spread a neoliberal agenda.
There are elements of truth in these perceptions about think tanks and what they do but the reality is less cloak-and-dagger and far more transparent.
Comment: Read the links in this article about specific think tanks and quite a different picture emerges
Since the 1960s, think tanks have evolved to adapt to the changing political landscapes around them and to make use of new technology, first with the emergence of the 24-hour news cycle and more recently with the rise of social media.
Scholars have divided think tanks in the Anglophone world into two waves: the first being described by scholars as the old guard institutes or “Universities without Students” and the second wave as being advocacy think tanks or “New Partisans”.
The first wave of think tanks were a progression in a longer intellectual tradition that dated back to the 16th and 17th century France where academic groups would assist monarchs with creating and implementing new legislation and policies.
TheFabian Societyis considered to be one of the oldest think tanks in the English-speaking world. It began as an organisation in the United Kingdom that advocated for political change through more gradual reforms; its strategies to influence governments lay in publishing pamphlets and holding meetings with intellectuals and members of government.
The first American think tank to emerge was the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (CEIP) in 1907. Like the Fabian Society, the CEIP held events and published pamphlets to try to influence policymaking
The activities of the Fabian Society and the CEIP would pave the way for a number of other think tanks such as the Brookings Institute, the RAND Corporation and the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA).
These think tanks had broad policy agendas and tended to have structures that have been described as resembling universities without students because their staffers tended to have academic backgrounds and favoured longitudinal research published in journal articles or books.
They were elite focused: they produced work that was meant for academics, the civil service and governments. Often their work debated big ideas, such as economic theory, rather than providing specific and instructional policy suggestions.
The first wave of think tanks avoided expressing political biases or aligning themselves with particular political parties.
The creation of the IEA in 1955 signalled an evolution in the development of think tanks. While the IEA favoured academic-style publications that contributed to theoretical debates - and aimed this work at elites in government and academia - unlike its predecessors, the IEA had a very clear ideological bias towards economic liberalisation and free markets.
Its founder, Antony Seldon, set up the think tank to promote neoliberalism as an alternative to the then-dominant Keynesian economic discourse in the UK. The IEA was separate to the Conservative Party, but due to its views found itself closely aligned with the Conservatives.
The second wave of think tanks began to emerge in the 1960s, starting with the Heritage Foundation in the US.
These think tanks were aware of the obstacles faced by their predecessors; although engaging in academic debates may have had some benefits, the reality was that if these think tanks wanted to make greater impacts in policy debates, they needed to broaden their scope.
The emergence of the 24 hour news cycle also had a significant impact on the work of think tanks; think tanks now had to move away from producing longer, academic-style publications and had to start developing work that could be produced quickly, was accessible to a wide audience and could be broken down into soundbites.
Think tanks began to realise that in utilising the media they could save both time and money and also reach a much wider audience.
The second-wave think tank model accepted that direct influence over governments was not possible and, in doing so, created strategies that were designed to generate policy debates in public forums such as television, newspapers and events such as debates and lectures.
The success of the early second-wave think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation lead to a proliferation of think tanks across the Anglophone world, including left-wing think tanks such as Demos and the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) in Britain.
Think tanks play an important role in democracies; they provide the information and ideas that create and contribute to public policy debates. Removed from governments and the civil service, these organisations have the ability to propose ideas that are not hampered by party partisanship and can be radical.
With the rise of social media, think tanks now do not have to rely solely on the media to disseminate their work and ideas; they can do it themselves in a way that has the potential to reach a wider global audience.
While the term “think tank” may create misconceptions about their reach and influence over governments, the reality is that think tanks have had to change their strategies to create public and indirect policy debates with governments as the opportunities to directly influence them in private were limited or non-existent.
This is now especially true as think tanks have to compete with many others, both within their political systems and globally.
The Outside And The Inside April 20 2021 | From: WakingTimes
We’re all outsiders and insiders in various respects. Social circles, generally speaking, are just one aspect but they often affect us to drastic degrees.
Acceptance by others and needing a sense of “belonging” are strong driving forces in most people’s lives. Sometimes these coincide with our need for a sense of purpose, but often what ultimately drives our heart can alienate us from previous surroundings as we progress through life.
I know for myself my close acquaintances that I still resonate with have narrowed down drastically, but then again I’ve had several drastic shifts. But this has always been the case in my life, with each new paradigm dissolution or correction, as many have experienced.
Going through what appears to be loneliness in taking a new direction and leaving the old life behind is a precious opportunity.
In most cases we don’t see that as the case when we’re younger and learning about this earthly place and getting knocked around by this mechanistic matrix, but we get the hang of it as life progresses.
Social conditioning and group consciousness are weird things to integrate and fully grasp, and often even individual changes are part of a larger shift and new “collectives” form outside the old ones with new awarenesses arising.
These then gain their own group characteristics which in turn are broken out of in various ways, sometimes shifting the “group” think and status, and sometimes birthing another potential tectonic shift in awareness.
What’s evident in most collectives is the formation of new sets of stated or unstated control mechanisms, mores, and regulations for a host of reasons.
Religions are a great example, how a system with the stated intention to liberate and empower actually becomes a highly controlled diversion from real truth, giving the illusion of freedom.
How we allow these encrusted, paralytic structures to do what they do is a massive subject, but we essentially draw these upon ourselves as a personal extension of our own lack of awareness of ourselves.
We can be free, and are, at any and all given times, yet we succumb to external control for a wide variety of reasons.
These are fundamentally driven by fear – a literal fear of freedom, of what we consider to be the “unknown”, because it directly implies taking responsibility. This can be largely driven by fear of scarcity – being without our basic needs for food, shelter and community.
As long as that’s the driving force, humanity is a sitting duck for anyone seeking to manipulate the controls in any way possible.
The amazing and wondrous truth underlying any social system is that any and all control mechanisms can be easily thrown off in a heartbeat by not falling for the illusion of fear.
Fear is another huge subject as it permeates so many of our mental and emotional mechanisms and eludes recognition for what it is, being so deeply woven into the lower vibrational human fabric and our fascination for it which can lure us in without our realizing it.
Are You a True Outcast?
If so, treasure it. In fact cherish it. There’s freedom there.
You don’t want to be “accepted” or on the inside of any confinement system in this low dimension. In fact, just about everything we experience in this realm of limitation is a potential trap, no matter how innocuous anything may seem.
Anything that limits or even hints at conditions and restrictions, watch out. If it encloses, encircles, is conditional and draws unnecessary boundaries, it’s not your friend and it’s time to make tracks outta there.
It’s just another control system within the overarching control matrix, no matter how cleverly disguised. We draw these conditions upon our unawakened selves. Layers upon layers of them. But we’re getting there as we work our way out of the cocoon we were born into and our wings of truly awakened flight develop.
Once we bend to conformity we’ve lost our edge. Living truly consciously is an open agreement to be freewheeling together, which is a whole different “story”.
That’s when what’s essential connects us and remains the focus. Otherwise any and every new normalcy bias will take control, pick up on social as well as negative spiritual rules and “norms”, and quash true freedom of expression individually and collectively.
Just look how imagination is treated like a fanciful flight into fantasy, when it’s actually our highest expression of creativity.
Being your true individual heart-led self might seem to be “lonely” at first but just give it time. A whole new world will open up to you. The seeming loss of old, restricting and conditional acquaintances and surroundings is a small price to pay to explore the boundless nature of existence.
So why do such an “uncomfortable” thing as to be your true sovereign self? It depends on where your head and heart are at and what your priorities are. What’s more important to you? Truth, or comfort just surviving in someone else’s construct, group or otherwise?
We live in our own shadows or that of others when we could be basking in the light, if we’re willing to step out. Aren’t you tired of the same old stories, including your own? It’s not that hard, it just takes a little honesty with yourself and you’re off and running. But don’t stop. There’s always new enclosures seeking to trip you off into another new construct.
It’s fear that keeps us confined. Fear of many things, most of which are intensely reinforced by this group agreement called society. And fear is all based on lies, complete lies.
It’s more obvious by the day that the world doesn’t need to be the way it is, yet the personal implications of our own responsibility regarding this group projection continue to escape most.
The wonderfully empowering reality is that as we honestly pursue truth these energizing and liberating dynamics take hold no matter what.
Truth is not popular, especially when it touches on cherished beliefs or sensitive personal issues. It’s very painful at first, even though it liberates the true essence of who we truly are.
No worries, it only means constant change. And wow, the worlds that open up are beyond comprehension!
Stay on the outside. The infinite knows no boundaries.
“Being an outsider to some extent, someone who does not “fit in” with others or is rejected by them for whatever reason, makes life difficult, but it also places you at an advantage as far as enlightenment is concerned. It takes you out of unconsciousness almost by force.”
Mike Lindell: Free, Clean Speech Social Media Site Set To Launch Monday & ‘Fairness Is Overrated’: NBC’s Lester Holt Says No To Objective Journalism April 19 2021 | From: TheEpochTimes / CollectiveEvolution / Various
MyPillow’s Mike Lindell announced on April 15 that his new social media platform called “Frank,” with the mission of providing a place for free speech as laid out in the U.S. Constitution, will launch on April 19.
In a video statement, Lindell said he’s taken steps to make sure the site is most secure, with his own servers, and will not be subject to censorship on the whims of big tech companies such as Amazon and Google.
Many conservatives have been censored by social media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook or have had their posts labeled as inaccurate.
A Pew 2020 survey took a random national sample of almost 5,000 people and found that most Americans think social media sites censor users based on political viewpoints.
In addition, the survey found that conservatives trust social media companies much less than liberals do when it comes to them making a determination about which post should be labeled as inaccurate.
Ninety percent of conservatives have little to no confidence in the platform’s ability to label a post fairly, as compared to 52 percent of liberal users.
Congressional Republicans are trying to hold big companies accountable for what they call censoring of conservatives, by curtailing Section 230, which is part of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1996, which largely provides protection to big tech companies from being sued for content on their websites.
While many bills have been introduced in Congress by GOP lawmakers, none have become law.
On the state level, Republican leaders have begun adding laws to rein in Big Tech control over what is labeled false and who is deplatformed on their sites.
The Texas Senate recently passed a bill that forbids social media companies that have at least 100 million users per month from blocking, banning, demonetizing, or discriminating against any of their users because of their political views. Other states are following the example.
Lindell’s platform will try to counter such censorship and be a place to congregate for those who have been removed from sites such as YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter.
“They’re going to have a safe place. You won’t have to walk on eggshells anymore,”Lindell said during an appearance on NTD’s “Focus Talk.”
Projections indicate that Frank will draw tens of millions of users in the first week of operation, Lindell told The Epoch Times, pointing to how one of his recent documentaries was watched by 150 million people around the world.
Initially, there’s no intention to make money from Frank.
“I put in all my money. I’m not out to make money. Right now, I’m out to get the word out for free speech. I want people to go out there, all these influencers, and talk about election fraud claims", Lindell said.
Down the road, advertisements can be added to the platform to help fund it.
One twist the site will have: When people sign up, they’ll automatically follow every influencer. They’ll have the option to stop following influencers whose posts they don’t want to see anymore.
‘Fairness Is Overrated’: NBC’s Lester Holt Says No To Objective Journalism
NBC Host Lester Holt gave a speech after receiving an award for journalism stating that "I think it’s become clearer that fairness is overrated" when referring to objective journalism and giving platform to "misinformation."
What does it mean to be objective in journalism? How do we decide what misinformation is? When we consider how all ideas evolved in the past, don't we see that at the start people violently deny emerging truths?
Take an honest look around social media or news and you’ll notice a multitude of completely opposing, yet certain, perspectives on any given issue.
Further, you might find people will tell you that they are often confused about what is true these days. Can I trust what I read online?
Can I trust alternative news? Can I trust mainstream news? Are these platforms always wrong? Or maybe just sometimes? Do we really know that ‘fake news’ is fake? How can we tell?
The questions can feel dizzying, yet I feel we are seeing the result of several factors playing out, including that of a mainstream culture that has been choosing to shun important conversations for quite some time now.
Of course, those who might be into more ‘fringey’ topics have a role in this too, But let me explain so we’re clear and not offending each other.
First off, we’ll get it out of the way right off the top, yes, I do feel that ‘conspiratorial’ thinking, for lack of a better word, has increased in recent years. Sometimes, the reasons for this are good, evidence based and justified – conspiracies do exist in our world.
Other times however, many ideas are brought on with no evidence or poor logic, and this is a problem that some feel needs to be dealt with through force of censorship. I chronicled my specific thoughts on the damage of poor conspiratorial thinking in an essay I wrote last year called “Conspireality: Time for a Serious Conversation?”
The basic summary is that conspiracy does exist in our world today, we have evidence to back that up, but if we aren’t careful in sticking to actual evidence that exists, and instead just make wild claims, conversation will get shut down around these topics. This won’t allow mainstream and alternative ideas to converge in any way.
Second, I want to note that just because there are a few fake conspiracies out there that gained steam, it doesn’t mean all conspiracy sounding topics are false. Remember that just 6 years ago someone would have laughed at you for believing UFOs are real – yet the US Navy has recently confirmed that they are in fact real.
Following that admission comes further dialogue and exploration of evidence that we do have. This dialogue requires openness and mutual respect, something that didn’t exist prior to the mainstream telling some people it was OK for them to now believe in UFOs.
Were those ‘unhinged conspiracy theorists’ wrong in presenting the evidence they had that UFOs were real 6 years ago?
No, we just weren’t willing to listen and were relying on a heavily bias mainstream culture to tell us what’s true.
So let’s take a quick look at some recent comments from a widely known mainstream media personality Lester Holt, who’s the anchor of NBC’s Nightly News. On March 30th, during his acceptance speech after receiving the Edward R. Murrow Award for Lifetime Achievement in Journalism, Holt stated:
"I think it’s become clearer that fairness is overrated, […] Before you run off and tweet that headline, let me explain a bit. The idea that we should always give two sides equal weight and merit does not reflect the world we find ourselves in. That the sun sets in the west is a fact. Any contrary view does not deserve our time or attention.”
"Decisions to not give unsupported arguments equal time are not a dereliction of journalistic responsibility or some kind of agenda, in fact, it’s just the opposite.
Imagine, if you would, what the pandemic would look like without the media holding leaders to account for vaccines rollouts or countering harmful misinformation or why some communities are being left behind.”
The irony, a journalist receiving a lifetime achievement award in journalism for breaking the number one rule in journalism: objectivity – and perhaps holding government and big corporations accountable.
The interesting part here is Holt likely does not believe he is breaking these rules. More than likely he feels it’s absolutely the right thing to do to not give platform to misinformation. I don’t doubt his intentions.
This exercise of empathizing with someones perspective is something we have to continually practice before we go on attacking people for what WE think their beliefs and intentions are.
What I do doubt in Holt’s intentions is how he, and mainstream media in general, decides what is misinformation and what is not. This process has long seemed unclear to me.
Why should we not give platform to a doctor who feels COVID-19 tests may not be accurate, if they, in fact, may not be accurate?
Why should we not give platform to scientific studies that bring into question the effectiveness of lockdowns if those lockdowns are not only harming people’s lives greatly but may in fact not be useful? Are we really to pretend that ideas that descent from mainstream worldview are not fact based all of the time? Or are we just working to protect our fragile mainstream worldviews?
Six years ago, should we not have investigated and pressed government to release UFO information because it was a well known conspiracy that was commonly laughed off by journalists, academics and politicians?
We were told many times over the last 12 years that we shared ‘UFO misinformation’ when we wrote about the issue. But was that information really wrong?
It’s funny now to see how many mainstream and alternative news sources are suddenly investing heavily in covering the subject – as if now that it’s OK to talk about UFOs. Mainstream sites like the New York Times or newcomers like The Drive are now the authority.
The key here is, if you’ve been ridiculed in the past, when you’re shown to be right, it doesn’t matter, the damage has already been done.
What about vaccines? Steam is gaining around certain issues associated with vaccines, issues that could be widely admitted as common knowledge only 3 or 4 years from now, so should we ignore all doctors and scientists who raise scientifically validated concern about vaccines simply because mainstream media and its hosts believe its misinformation?
Who are they to say? Why do they trust some experts but not others? When this information is eventually widely known, are we then going to say The New York Times is now the authority on the issue even though they were wrong for decades?
You can very quickly see where the issue is here. We can very easily build a culture of doubt around any issue that we want to be false, and how we portray it in mainstream conversation feeds that culture. Then, without a doubt, we’ll see all others fall in line with this cultural narrative without truly looking at all the facts.
It’s here where I think Holt missteps. When I probe many journalists or even doctors about whether they have looked into vaccine research that suggests they may be causing unintended illness they often tell me it has been debunked but have never looked into it themselves.
When you do however, you begin to see that the vaccine issue is not one of just ‘science vs anti-science’, it’s a complex one, that we really should be openly talking about in the public eye to make sense of some glaring issues.
Instead, we’ve chosen to label those ‘other facts’ as misinformation, and give them no platform – just as mainstream award winning journalism intends.
Cornell Law School professor and media critic William A. Jacobson gave a statement to Fox News following Holt’s comments:
“In the real world, Holt’s advice simply justifies media political bias.”
Absolutely, and herein lies the hard truth: we’ve come to accept bad journalism as truth.
That is to say, we’ve come to accept political bias and unbalanced inquiry into various subjects as good honest journalism, when in reality it’s subjective opinion passed off as certain truth. And look at the mess this culture is creating.
Some people distrust mainstream media because conspiracy analysts told them to, but the majority who don’t trust mainstream media don’t because they see how bad its process is.
When will mainstream media take responsibility for this instead of just saying it’s unhinged conspiracy theorists that are ruining society?
Sure, some poor conspiratorial thinking is happening out there, and responsibility has to be taken there too, but what’s worse is when citizens and experts have serious questions to ask and they are not addressed in mainstream dialogue because its ‘too controversial’ or doesn’t align with the agendas of pharmaceutical companies the mainstream media relies on to pay their bills.
When these conversations are censored and pushed to the fringes, that is to say ‘not given a platform,’ the level of inquiry and quality of thinking applied to these issues can sometimes suffer as less experts have the courage to weigh in and converge on ideas.
The situation we are in is one that we’re all responsible for in some way, and various camps have to really take a step back and ask how they are contributing to a culture of confusion in an age of censorship.
True objectivity in mainstream journalism is somewhat rare, we can see that in the ease at which Holt made the comments he did.
His comments reveal the type of culture that exists in mainstream newsrooms, it may not be malicious as some might assume, but it’s a culture, a groupthink, and most are likely honestly doing their best.
But, as citizens not in journalism, we have an opportunity to apply objectivity whenever we like, and the world just might need this level of effort to end our current meaning crisis.
Where does it originate and what can we do to integrate or heal it?
Let’s begin by asking ‘why we have a shadow?’ Is it because we carry darkness at our core or does the shadow take shape over our lifetime as residue of fear, rage, shame and guilt, and their avoidance?
I’d say a little bit of both. On the human collective level, we carry trauma related to suffering and aggression of our ancestors.
But for the most part, our shadow develops during this lifetime in the form of a complex and sophisticated personality, that keeps us with a sense of control.
Deep Down We Feel Vulnerable But Try to Hide It
Our inner world is complex and for some, unbearable. We continuously face and fear exposure of our contradictory complexity, towards ourselves and others.
Instead of delving into the depth of our psyche and inviting more consciousness, we would rather guard ourselves. The more conscious we are, the more responsible we become for our actions.
One of the reasons we so meticulously hide our shadow is because we don’t want to carry the consequence of our actions. And so, our vulnerability and shadow are closely linked.
There are many effective ways not to feel vulnerable and retain a sense of innocence.
Abiding by a strict morality, adhering to ideologies, be they social, political or spiritual, or relying on religious dogma, all achieve exactly that protection.
The kind of protection in which we cradle ourselves in feelings of righteousness and innocence. This is not to imply we shouldn’t seek for our actions to be moral or avoid believing but to become aware when they are used in service of feeling superior over others. Interestingly enough, our wish to remain innocent is a big shadow in and of itself.
So, while we’re busy repressing and controlling, the shadow feeds and grows with every attempt to fight off rejection, humiliation or punishment, as well as situations that leave us feeling guilty and ashamed
Here are some examples of how our shadow hides our vulnerability. Let’s say we want to be recognized for something we’ve done. Instead of asking for acknowledgment, we hide it through false humility and become resentful for not getting the attention we feel we deserve.
Another example is our need to belong and be important to others. But again, instead of communicating this need, which makes us vulnerable to rejection, we make others feel important in the hope of being praised for our actions.
Over time we’ve developed innumerable sophisticated ways to sugarcoat our shadows and feel in control.
Shadow Integration Begins With an Honesty That Seeks Nothing in Return
We can see, that most shadow has to do with survival attempts of some kind. This happens when we try to control our environments by behaving as victims, gaining respect through false humility, moral superiority and other forms of manipulation.
When we talk about shadow integration, it’s crucial we are precise as to what the facets of our shadow are. We want to, for example, be able to say, while refraining from any judgment, that ‘I smile at others, in order not to be attacked’ or ‘I control my partner by making him or her feel guilty’.
Any judgment of what we discover in ourselves is a hidden attempt at victimizing ourselves and finding excuses.
The ‘why’ is of secondary importance here, because the list of reasons is endless and the absolute source is difficult to pinpoint, but the urge to limit our vulnerability is still there.
This may be a good moment to say, that shadow integration is not about redemption, but about understanding the inner workings of vulnerability and protection, which are closely linked to our sense of survival, both physical and emotional.
Furthermore, we want to face our shadows, not to feel better or lighter in the future, but in order to become more integrated within ourselves and lessen the sense of separation that the shadow produces.
We want to return integrity that comes with the responsibility of belonging to a history and culture that experiences a great deal of suffering and is greater than our individual selves.
Integrating our shadow implies allowing the darkness to be part of us, without the desire to surpass it.
We will feel the pain of lies, betrayal and hurt to others during this observation. And in the process of doing so, holding back judgment, positive or negative, is truly challenging.
How is it possible ‘not to comment’ on what we regard as a personal experience? We need to understand that any commentary also contains the attempt to change the experience, be it freeing or punishing to us.
Healing the Shadow is a Magical Process in Which We Are the Participant, Not the Director
The great challenge in shadow integration is to grow our capacity to be with or hold an experience without having the ability to change it. What has been done is in the past and can’t be undone; it can only be held and by holding it patiently, more facets can emerge and be seen.
Like when a child injures itself, we can only hold them to share the pain of waiting for healing to take place, but the magic of healing has its own mysterious timeline.
When we own our shadow, it puts us in a helpless and humbling place. It shows us our limitations and that is something we don’t want to feel. Maximizing our potential for our own feelings of greatness is just another shadow.
Acknowledging the limitation of our potential, without minimizing our strength or exercising false humility, allows us to share our light.
Life comes with a lot of limitations and the shadow tries to interfere with life itself. Facing our shadow is a spiritual act as we embrace and allow a little more of our human totality to be included.
Through this experience, we can get in touch with a humility and simplicity, that can often touch something at our core, which is mystically meaningful and expanding.
Integration comes from a place that is non-dramatic, because drama always takes sides, and it makes us miss the simplicity lying in the acknowledgment of human complexity.
Shadow integration is a lifelong and even a magical process. It happens when we are completely truthful, giving up all deals with God or fate, and surrendering to what we essentially are: vulnerable. We want to invite feeling the pain our shadow reveals to us without seeking redemption.
In a way, every time we say yes to a shadow part in us, we agree to re-enter continuous vulnerability of being human.
The 1% was not just satisfied in creating these wars and countless other conflicts to impose their will (not share their values) – they let YOU have the privilege of financing them, so that they could profit from the altered landscape.
Now they have begun to kill us via several series of vaccinations and we find ourselves fighting for our lives.
Create a virus, release other agents into the environment then weaponized remotely with 5G and satellites.
This will do more in one pass than all the engineered attempts and scripted events listed above.
Nevertheless, they cannot survive without control. To them it is easier to steal, cheat, exploit and murder than to create, foster and care.
They release bacteria into the air, to evoke yet another continuous wave of fear – to not only get our attention but to weaken us. Quarantines amongst other ways saps our strength and mental strength.
Kids cannot catch Coronavirus and now we are vaccinating them? Wearing masks has made people stupid. Go back exactly 20 years and remember the ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction’ and the idiot(s) Bush telling you that all you needed to do was create vapor barriers in your home with plastic and duct tape?
Here is a simple test. Make sure you are wearing your mask and fart. If you can smell it, the mask doesn’t work and you don’t have Kung Flu. Go back 60 years to duck and cover as the only way to survive a nuclear war…
Ask yourself what cretins are responsible for this and these things and compare it to the current roster to create the usual suspects:
Bill & Melinda Gates
CIA / MI6
Tama-lama Dingdong (in Canada)
Pharmaceutical Companies owned by Above mentioned
EVERY sitting US President (before and since Trump, and Kennedy)
Every royal family in Europe
NoGoOds like WHOre, IMF, World Bank, World Economic Forum, United Nations
They view the world as their country club or rather their exclusive domain. Well, Neil Keenan and his small team of very competent people have a different view.
Theirs does not include vaccines and other agents that change your DNA. Part of their plans. Turn humanity into trans-human AI dominated androids. Part of their plan. Sterilize humanity. Part of the plan.
Are you getting this yet?
Only one man and one group have literally fought this Cabal every step of the way.
The 1% say we do not belong on their planet. Mr. Keenan says lets take it back and remove them from an ability to harm it any more. Neil has a plan as well, and he knows how to make them stop.
The first steps are already working and have had a dramatic effect. The cabal have had the advantage of time, for over 100 years throughout the world. YOU have been paying / financing their activities and plans.
They’re trying to steal, rape and literally kill you – and YOU financed it. To whom does that make sense?
It doesn’t make sense to Neil and his team. The question before you is simple: Are you going to keep standing by and watching and financing, or are you going to do something about it?
Standing there means you already agree with the Cabal. You know those warm fuzzy humanitarians that will kill you and your family, steal everything from you and keep repeating this until they are the ONLY percent.
We are at the end and now we must move forward like good old Soldiers and return the favors to those that wish us dead. The cabal are right about only one thing – the world will change.
This theft known as Financial Tyranny was publicized worldwide while Neil Keenan kept his eyes on things by traveling throughout the world keeping a close eye on Dal Bosco and the World Economic Forum.
They became part of the very famous Odyssey all the while opening Pandora’s Box exposing to the world how the very same organizations and individuals were planning on destroying the world.
It is now 12.5 years later and after many millions of Dollars ($12.7 million), properties and other assets were either stolen or frozen. Neil finds himself exactly where he began in the belly of the beast.
Only difference is this time Neil’s guns are loaded and he knows where the filth subsides. Only Neil understands that he may need your help in this surmountable battle.
Please stand ready to be called upon in the very near future.
THIS IS IT.
America’s founders considered a person’s private property to consist of his home and land, his possessions, the work of his hands, the ideas of his brain, and his life.
In this context, the second five commandments establish property rights as the basis for security, justice, and individual freedom.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
The Ten Commandments are often referred to as the basis for our judicial system along with the related concept of Natural Law Rights.
Natural Law Rights are basic human rights, granted by God to each of us at birth and, as such, cannot be abolished by man or by a moral government.
These are the “inalienable rights” referred to in the Declaration of Independence and also guaranteed to each of us by The Bill of Rights.
Most importantly, they are human rights that belong to each individual person, and they are concepts that establish the foundation of our legal system.
Our entire legal system is based on the concept that a crime, by definition, requires a perpetrator and a victim. A crime occurs when a perpetrator takes in some manner property from another.
Our founders’ definition of private property and the prohibitions of The Ten Commandments are a generalized list of basic crimes.
One function of government is to codify specific acts as criminal, decide on levels of severity, and design a system of punishment that punishes perpetrators and compensates the victims.
As participants and stakeholders, we are protected from abuse by provisions in The Bill of Rights that guarantee our right to an attorney, habeas corpus, trial by jury, evidentiary integrity, and warrants for searches to name a few.
As long as the government sticks to this basic and legally required plan, the system generally functions satisfactorily.
Problems arise, however, when the government attempts to use the crime and punishment model to alter social behavior and establish morality.
Neither “government” nor “society” is a person and, therefore, neither can realistically have individual or Natural Law Rights or be designated a victim of a crime.
Government essentially creates the fiction of damage to a non-person for which there can be no actual compensation. The result is a “victimless crime” – that is, a fabricated criminal act for which no true victim exists.
Neal Boortz, a former syndicated and popular talk show host in Atlanta would use prostitution as an example. He would say:
Prostitution involves two actions: sex and the free market exchange of goods and services. Which one are you against?
Victimless crimes are expensive.
They cost taxpayers millions of dollars for law enforcement, legal services, judges, and jail. This is money that should be used to protect the public by pursuing the perpetrators of real crime and removing them from society.
When statues and laws create victimless crimes that violate our civil and constitutional liberties, it is a much more serious issue. Government can never be allowed to limit, diminish, or abolish our individual rights enumerated in The Bill of Rights.
The “Mandela Effect” concept emerged from one of those quirky ideas.
“Many of us - mostly total strangers - remember the exact same events with the exact same details. However, our memories are different from what’s in history books, newspaper archives, and so on.
This isn’t a conspiracy theory, and we’re not talking about “false memories.” Many of us speculate that parallel realities exist, and we’ve been “sliding” between them without realizing it. (Others favor the idea that we’re each enjoying holodeck experiences, possibly with some programming glitches. In my opinion, these aren’t mutually exclusive.)
At this website, we’re using discussions to research real, alternate history and possible explanations for this phenomenon.
I started this website for additional research. I thought it was an interesting fringe topic (and potential book topic) for my spare time.
It’s turned into something much bigger."
Examples of the Mandela Effect
Below is a list of some of the most well-known examples, but this is just a fraction of what has been reported. Visit the Mandela Effect website where you can see people's testimonies posted of their experiences with these topics and many more.
1. Berenstein or Berenstain Bears?
Many people who visit the Mandela Effect website have fond memories of the Berenstein Bears books.
They read them as children, or family members read them aloud. It’s a cherished childhood memory. However, the books in this timestream are Berenstain Bears. A, not E, in last syllable.
That’s not what most visitors seem to remember.
The following are among the many memories people have shared, sometimes as part of longer comments. The vast majority recall the books as Berenstein Bears.
In March 2014, JM said:
"I too clearly remember it as ‘Berenstein’ even though I never read the books. Why would anyone change that? Seems irrelevant."
Jennifer Shepherd said:
"I had overlooked the material here about people remembering the popular children’s books as being Berenstein Bears, not Berenstain Bears; I just saw that today and it blew my mind! I was a meticulous spelling nerd as a child and have ZERO doubt that the books the kids were reading were about the Berenstein Bears.
I tried to research Library of Congress and trademark info today, to see if maybe there had at some point been a changeover due to multiple parties using variations of the name. Nope, the official records state that the series was always Berenstain, after the very real last names of the authors (Berenstain.)"
2. 50 or 52 United States?
Many people recall the United States including 51 or 52 states, not 50.
The interesting point is that the memories are fairly consistent, and include Puerto Rico as a state. One teacher suggested this is a common misunderstanding. The daughter of a teacher said that she clearly recalls her mother teaching students that the 52 states included Puerto Rico.
So, is this simple confusion or a glimpse into alternate geography in another timestream?
One respondent listed the 52 states as he recalls them, including Puerto Rico and D.C.:
1. Alabama, 2. Alaska, 3. Arizona, 4. Arkansas 5. Colorado 6. California, 7. Connecticut, 8. Delaware, 9. Florida, 10. Georgia, 11. Hawaii, 12. Illinois, 13. Indiana, 14. Idaho, 15. Iowa, 16. Kentucky, 17. Kansas, 18. Louisiana, 19. Massachusetts, 20. Maryland, 21. Mississippi, 22. Maine, 23. Missouri, 24. Michigan 25. Minnesota, 26. Montana, 27. New Jersey, 28. New York, 29. North Carolina 30. New Hampshire, 31. Nevada, 32. Nebraska, 33. North Dakota 34. New Mexico, 35. Oklahoma, 36. Ohio, 37. Oregon, 38. Pennsylvania, 39. Puerto Rico. 40. Rhode Island 41. South Carolina, 42. South Dakota, 43. Tennessee, 44. Texas, 45. Utah, 46. Virginia, 47. Vermont, 48. Wisconsin, 49. West Virginia, 50. Washington, 51. Wyoming, 52. Washington DC
So, I think the question really is: In an alternate timeline, did Puerto Rico already become a state? Or, did the District of Columbia become one, separately or as well?
Or, is this simply confusion over districts, territories, and states?
3. Nelson Mandela – The Memories, So Far
The previous post, Nelson Mandela Died in Prison? triggered so many, varied responses, it’s difficult to find the Mandela memories in the 150+ comments that followed.
Here are some of them, as of February 2013. (If you leave a comment at this post, do me a favor: Keep it about Nelson Mandela memories. I’m in the process of separating the various memories into individual posts, for people interested in stories related to just one kind of memory.)
Perry Were noted:
"Both my wife and I remember Nelson Mandela dying in prison. Included in this memory are the funeral snippets on TV and a legal flap over book rights involving his Widow."
C. A. Low said:
"I have experienced this many times. Not only Mandela’s death, but also the death of Muammar Gaddafi several years ago…"
When I checked Google Insights, the following terms were listed in the current Rising Searches.
When the term is indicated as “Breakout,” it means it has at least a 5000% increase in searches, relative to the recent past.
Currently, most of those searches are coming from: Canada, USA, UK, Ireland, Australia, Portugal and Hungary, in that order.
Is there a logical explanation for this quirky surge? I’m looking for a logical explanation.
It might simply be the confusing headline from Fox -“Patrick Swayze’s widow Lisa Niemi blasts tabloids for coverage of husband’s cancer” - which didn’t make it clear that he was hospitalized over two years ago.
That seems the most likely explanation. However, I’m also wondering if this is Mandela Effect again. I’d like to think there’s a parallel world in which Patrick Swayze is alive and well, even if - in that reality - he’s briefly in the hospital, hopefully for something minor.
Patrick Swayze, the talented actor, dancer and singer, was born on August 18, 1952 and left this world on September 14, 2009.
His acting career was highlighted by many wonderful films in which he starred, including Ghost, Point Break and Dirty Dancing.
5. Tiananmen Square and “Tank Boy”
Recently, visitors have mentioned Tiananmen Square and “Tank Boy.”
The following are some of the many comments by people who recall “Tank Boy” being run over and perhaps killed.
In September 2011, Angel said:
"I remember “tank boy” getting run over by the tank at Tiananmen Square. My husband doesn’t. We googled it and apparently he didn’t get run over. I have a very vivid memory though. I remember seeing a video of it. I remember learning this in 7th grade history."
Joy, Marna Ehrich, and Sez agreed.
In August 2012, Bree said:
"I remember TANK BOY getting run over. My partner and myself were talking about Tiananmen Square and tank boy. I mentioned how horrible it was that he was killed, my partner had no memory of that and thought I was crazy. He had to go on YouTube to show me that he lived. As i watched i had no recollection of that event of him living."
"Same here I remember seeing blood on the street after the tank rolled over him and how the backlash nearly caused communism to fall apart in china and then they switched to the capitalistic command economy. This is so weird."
6. Curious George and Dual Memories
In real life, almost everyone I’ve surveyed remembers Curious George with a tail.
Most usually know he was a chimp (though some books said he’s a “little monkey”), so he shouldn’t have had a tail… but they have specific memories of him with a tail.
That’s an interesting alternate memory. I did a fairly thorough search of Google Images, and found nothing showing Curious George with a tail. (If I overlooked an actual Curious George image with a tail, let me know.)
But, that’s not the only interesting (I almost said “curious”) thing about this particular memory.
It’s also the first where I’ve seen people pause and say:
"Wait. I remember him with a tail, but I can also see him without one. How can that be…?”
People have reported many dual memories at this site. That’s when two conflicting memories - nearly identical in most (but not all) respects - seem to be competing with each other.
Sometimes, both memories seem equally “real.” More often, people report the other memory as something vague, distant, or less real. However, they’re adamant that they have both memories, and can’t explain why.
So, I’m interested in your memories of Curious George. I’m also interested in how widespread the dual memory phenomenon might be.
In my real-life surveys, the Curious George question created a dramatic spike in bewildered responses involving dual memories.
And, in one case, pausing to reflect on the Great Pumpkin issue, the person realized he had dual memories for that Halloween special, as well: One in which Linus fell asleep and missed the Great Pumpkin, and one in which Linus was alone when he saw the Great Pumpkin.
7. Forrest Gump
If you recall the famous line from the Forrest Gump movie, which of the following did Forrest say?
a. “Life was like a box of chocolates…”
b. “Life is like a box of chocolates…”
The answer in this reality is A: “Life was like a box of chocolates…”. In my original response to this issue, I said:
"Forrest Gump’s accent is fairly heavy, and he doesn’t always enunciate clearly, but - the the film clip - I hear “was” far more than “is.”"
Here’s that clip from the film:
Also refer to Wikipedia ("Life is like a box of chocolates":
Appeared in the 1994 film Forrest Gump, when the lead character Forrest Gump (played by Tom Hanks) says “Mama always said life was like a box of chocolates. You never know what you’re gonna get.” [Emphasis added.]
The book Norwegian Wood by Haruki Murakami, first published in Japanese in 1987, and in English in 1989, has the following: “Just remember, life is like a box of chocolates.” … “You know, they’ve got these chocolate assortments, and you like some but you don’t like others? And you eat all the ones you like, and the only ones left are the ones you don’t like as much? I always think about that when something painful comes up. “Now I just have to polish these off, and everything’ll be OK.’ Life is a box of chocolates.”
I’m not sure how much accent and enunciation, as well as pop culture references, have contributed to this apparent alternate memory. So, I can’t say this is a Mandela Effect issue.
However, one-for-one, everyone I’ve asked in real life about this quotation has been 100% certain the line was “Life is like a box of chocolates…”
8. Moving Countries: Does History Explain Alternate Geographical Memories?
A West Wing clip highlights some issues that make accurate geography challenging. While this was intended as a humorous scene, some people get lost in the political implications, and label this “liberal propaganda.”
In the context of alternate geography, political agendas (if there are any) aren’t the point. History - and how it might continue to influence our maps - is relevant.
Here’s the video:
So, I think we need to look at current maps for modern-day references, and then at old maps to see if our memories are based on them.
People have reported a variety of locations that have moved.
Maybe our “alternate” memories are based on older maps from childhood geography classes, and those maps have been corrected in recent years.
The next is a topological map. So, we know where the country is, and what it looks like, on today’s maps in this timestream.
Then, I’d look at old maps of Ceylon, an earlier name for Sri Lanka. I like to go back as far as I can, and then work forward to the 21st century.
The first map is dated around 1535, by Claudius Ptolemy. To determine the suggested location, a north-south orientation is needed. First, look at where the mountains are, compared with current maps. Then, Indian geographical references must be used.
Click on the image above to open a larger version in a new window
Based on the mountains, I’d guess that this showed Ceylon southwest of India. (Correct me if my reference points are wrong. I didn’t check the smaller islands indicated on that map, and they may suggest a different orientation.)
A map from around 1650 shows only the outline and geography of Ceylon, with no nearby land masses, except very small islands. So, this map isn’t especially relevant to our study of Ceylon’s location in relation to India.
What caught my interest was how different the shape was, in this map. I studied where the mountains are indicated, to get a sense of this map’s orientation. (This is one of several illustrations from Plantas das fortalezas, pagodes & ca. da ilha de Ceilão, a book by a cartographer and illustrator.)
Here’s another map from around 1700 – 1710, by Heinrich Scherer. Relative to India, this map suggests the southeast location indicated on maps in our current timestream. (This actual map came from the Maps Collection at the Library of Congress “American Memory” site.)
The really old maps are intriguing, but the earlier the map, the more questionable its accuracy.
It looks as if “alternate geography” memories of Sri Lanka’s location aren’t based on 20th century maps that were recently corrected. As far back as 1700 - and perhaps earlier - Sri Lanka (Ceylon) was represented at the southeast side of India.
More “Moving” Countries and Changing Geography
Many people remember islands, land masses, and countries in alternate locations. Some of those memories are startlingly similar.
I discussed this in two previous articles. The first was about Sri Lanka’s location, since that had attracted considerable comment.
The other article was about checking older maps, in case newer maps have been altered for political reasons. I showed the process I’d used to clarify Sri Lanka’s location, then and now.
However, specific countries and land masses seem to recur in our discussions. I’m moving those comments to this newer post, so they’re all in one location. (No pun intended.)
Many of the “altered” locations are around the Indian Ocean, but some are not. New Zealand and land masses around Korea have been the most surprising (and consistent), so far.
So far, the major location discrepancies seem to relate to:
And then there are odd media references, such as the globe in the movie, Dazed and Confused. Are they pranks, Easter eggs, or the kinds of references that document a dramatically changing global landscape?
Close-up below and the actual world as we know it below right.
Academic Warns: Young People’s Ignorance Of Socialism Risks “Absolute Catastrophe” & Goodbye Free Internet, Government Is Already Here April 14 2021 | From: SummitNews / StrategicCulture / Various “They were never taught about it.”
Canadian academic Jordan Peterson warns that socialism is so appealing to young people because they are “unbelievably ignorant” about the history of the 20th century.
During an event hosted by The Heritage Foundation this week, the clinical psychologist and best-selling author said that millennials are embracing far-left ideology because they weren’t taught about its disastrous outcomes at school.
“People are unbelievably ignorant of history,” said Peterson.
“What young people know about 20th-century history is nonexistent, especially about the history of the radical left. How would you know? They are never taught about it so why would they be concerned about it?”
He also explained that the simplistic socialist notion of caring for as many people as possible was very alluring for people who had an emotional view of humanity.
Young people are “emotionally drawn to the ideals of socialism, say, or the left, because it draws its fundamental motivational source from a kind of primary compassion, and that is always there in human beings,” said Peterson.
Peterson also blamed the “unholy marriage of the postmodern nihilism with this Marxist utopian notion” for the breakdown in social and family unity, a process which has produced an “absolute catastrophe”.
A major poll last year found that the majority of US millennials would prefer to live under socialism than capitalism.
Goodbye To The Internet: Interference By Governments Is Already Here
There is a saying attributed to the French banker Nathan Rothschild that "Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes its laws."
Conservative opinion in the United States has long suspected that Rothschild was right and there have been frequent calls to audit the Federal Reserve Bank based on the presumption that it has not always acted in support of the actual interests of the American people.
That such an assessment is almost certainly correct might be presumed based on the 2008 economic crash in which the government bailed out the banks, which had through their malfeasance caused the disaster, and left individuals who had lost everything to face the consequences.
Be that as it may, if there were a modern version of the Rothschild comment it might go something like this: “Give me control of the internet and no one will ever more know what is true.”
The internet, which was originally conceived of as a platform for the free interchange of information and opinions, is instead inexorably becoming a managed medium that is increasingly controlled by corporate and government interests.
Those interests are in no way answerable to the vast majority of the consumers who actually use the sites in a reasonable and non-threatening fashion to communicate and share different points of view.
The United States Congress started the regulation ball rolling when it summoned the chief executives of the leading social media sites in the wake of the 2016 election.
It sought explanations regarding why and how the Russians had allegedly been able to interfere in the election through the use of fraudulent accounts to spread information that might have influenced some voters.
In spite of the sound and fury, however, all Congress succeeded in doing was demonstrating that the case against Moscow was flimsy at best while at the same creating a rationale for an increased role in censoring the internet backed by the threat of government regulation.
Given that background, the recent shootings at a synagogue in Pittsburgh and at mosques in Christchurch New Zealand have inevitably produced strident demands that something must be done about the internet, with the presumption that the media both encouraged and enabled the attacks by the gunmen, demented individuals who were immediately labeled as “white supremacists.”
“Let’s be clear, social media is the lifeblood of the far-right. The fact that a terror attack was livestreamed should tell us that this is a unique form for violence made for the digital era.
The infrastructure of social media giants is not merely ancillary to the operations of terrorists - it is central to it [and] social media giants assume a huge responsibility to prevent and stop hate speech proliferating on the internet.
It’s clear the internet giants cannot manage this alone; we urgently need a renewed conversation on internet regulation… It is time for counter-terrorism specialists to move into the offices of social media giants.”
It's the wrong thing to do, in part because intelligence and police services already spend a great deal of time monitoring chat on the internet. And the premise that most terrorists who use the social media can be characterized as the enemy du jour “white supremacists” is also patently untrue.
Using the national security argument to place knuckle dragging “counter-terrorism specialists” in private sector offices would be the last thing that anyone would reasonably want to do.
If one were to turn the internet into a government regulated service it would mean that what comes out at the other end would be something like propaganda intended to make the public think in ways that do not challenge the authority of the bureaucrats and politicians.
In the US, it might amount to nothing less than exposure to commentary approved by Mike Pompeo and John Bolton if one wished to learn what is going on in the world.
Currently I and many other internet users appreciate and rely on the alternative media to provide viewpoints that are either suppressed by government or corporate interests or even contrary to prevailing fraudulent news accounts.
And the fact is that the internet is already subject to heavy handed censorship by the service providers, which one friend has described as “Soviet era” in its intensity, who are themselves implementing their increasingly disruptive actions to find false personas and to ban as “hate speech” anything that is objected to by influential constituencies.
Blocking information is also already implemented by various countries through a cooperative arrangement whereby governments can ask search engines to remove material.
Google actually documents the practice in an annual Transparency Report which reveals that government requests to remove information have increased from less than 1,000 per year in 2010 to nearly 30,000 per year currently.
Not surprisingly, Israel and the United States lead the pack when it comes to requests for deletions. Since 2009 the US has asked for 7,964 deletions totaling 109,936 items while Israel has sought 1,436 deletions totally 10,648 items. Roughly two thirds of Israeli and US requests were granted.
And there is more happening behind the scenes. Since 2016, Facebook representatives have also been regularly meeting with the Israeli government to delete Facebook accounts of Palestinians that the Israelis claim constitute “incitement.”
Israel had threatened Facebook that non-compliance with Israeli deletion orders would “result in the enactment of laws requiring Facebook to do so, upon pain of being severely fined or even blocked in the country.”
And censorship also operates as well at other levels unseen, to include deletion of millions of old postings and videos to change the historical record and rewrite the past.
To alter the current narrative, Microsoft, Google, YouTube, Twitter and Facebook all have been pressured to cooperate with pro-Israel private groups in the United States, to include the powerful Anti-Defamation League (ADL).
The ADL is working with social media“to engineer new solutions to stop cyberhate” by blocking “hate language,” which includes any criticism of Israel that might be construed as anti-Semitism by the new expanded definition that is being widely promoted by the US Congress and the Trump Administration.
Censorship of information also increasingly operates in the publishing world. With the demise of actual bookstores, most readers buy their books from media online giant Amazon, which had a policy of offering every book in print.
Government regulation combined with corporate social media self-censorship means that the user of the service will not know what he or she is missing because it will not be there.
And once the freedom to share information without restraint is gone it will never return.
On balance, free speech is intrinsically far more important than any satisfaction that might come from government intrusion to make the internet less an enabler of violence.
If history teaches us anything, it is that the diminishment of one basic right will rapidly lead to the loss of others and there is no freedom more fundamental than the ability to say or write whatever one chooses, wherever and whenever one seeks to do so.
World’s Elite Try To Wipe Out All Knowledge And Use Of Natural Cures, While They Privately Use Them For Their Own Longevity April 13 2021 | From: NaturalNews / Various
The dark side of Western medicine has been erased from U.S. history books and from Google search results, along with any trace of truth about the success of natural cures and homeopathic medicine.
Any doctors or scientists who attempt to “peer review” natural remedies are stripped of their medical license or research funding by the corrupt American Medical Association (AMA) and Big Pharma.
How did Rockefeller accomplish this? He funded bogus research by a man named Andrew Flexner, who then authored the infamous Flexner Report of 1910.
Flexner used the money to visit every U.S. medical school, and with the backing of the AMA, reduced the number of physicians while limiting “authorization” of any new medical school licenses to doctors who supported only chemical medicine.
The Rockefeller family waged war on natural cures and holistic healing, while privately using them for his own health.
Today’s mainstream medicine is nothing but sick care management, where chemical pills are dished out to quell symptoms of deep-rooted illnesses, and surgery, radiation and chemotherapy are used to only temporarily stave off organ failure, heart attacks, and cancer.
Most of the richest Americans know better than to eat GMOs, drink tap water, get flu shots, or ever even consider chemotherapy for cancer.
These elitists eat organic food daily, they take organic supplements, and they visit naturopathic physicians when they get sick. The only time they visit hospitals is for emergencies when they incur a deep cut or broken bones.
John Davison Rockefeller, Sr. was America’s first billionaire. He lived to be 97 years old, thanks to a strict food and medicine regime that did not involve eating the chemicals he found in his petroleum, coal, gasoline, and oil industries.
Rockefeller led a double life as the ultimate hypocrite. He was a business bully who cheated on his wife and tried to bury natural cures (while he used them himself), but ironically he suffered from anxiety and died of pneumonia.
Rockefeller Jr. became the Post WWII industrial “emperor” of chemical agriculture and chemical medicine.
After the U.S. helped Great Britain defeat the Nazis, U.S. politicians and business magnates built a chemical “empire” of their own in America. Hitler had used his own “Big Pharma” (I.G. Pharben) to create chemicals for warfare and the gas chambers.
Now, America would use many of those same chemists and chemicals to manufacture U.S. food and medicine, all part of a huge scheme (invented and funded by the Rockefellers) to make a fortune off the sickened masses, who would never believe their amazing country was turned so evil by monopolists.
Most people these days who get cancer think it’s hereditary. They think it’s genetic. That’s how bad the system has them fooled.
They believe every word that comes out of their doctor’s mouth – the same doctor who would never take chemo himself, and who graduated from a school sponsored, funded, and controlled by Big Pharma and the Rockefellers.
Today, nearly all conventional food is covered and smothered in chemical pesticides. Today, nearly all conventional food contains genetically engineered pesticides that continue spreading in the human gut, fueling immune disorders and cancer cell development.
Today, nearly all conventional medicine contains deadly chemicals that cause the body to remain acidic, breeding more disease and disorder. It’s a wicked formula that the elitists know and avoid at all costs.