The Violence-Inducing Effects Of Psychiatric Medication & The Psychiatric Agenda Destroys Creative Children June 3 2024 | From: KellyBroganMD / JonRappoport / Various
On May 17, 2017, we learned that Chris Cornell of Soundgarden had reportedly committed suicide by hanging.
His family reports knowing a different Chris than one who would make this fatal decision, and suspect his anti-anxiety prescription in the altered state he was witnessed to be in the night he died.
Perhaps an “addict turned psychiatric patient”, like so many, Chris Cornell seemed to have left the frying pan of substance abuse for the fire of psychiatric medication risks.
For reasons that remain mysterious, those under the influence of psychiatric medication often specifically choose to hang themselves in their moment of peak impulsivity.
Some, like Kim’s husband Woody who was never depressed a day in his life but prescribed Zoloft by his internist, even verbalize a felt experience of his head coming apart from his body in the days before he was found hanged in his garage.
Then there’s 14 year old Naika, a foster child in Florida who hanged herself on a FB livestream after being treated with 50mg of Vyvanse, a drug treatment for ADHD that leads to a domino effect of diagnoses and psychiatric meds including a 13 fold increase in likelihood of being prescribed an antipsychotic medication and 4 fold increase in antidepressant medications than controls.
Are these just rare anecdotes? Is this just the cost of treatment that is helpful for most? Are we blaming medication for what might have been severe mental illness that was undertreated and/or undiagnosed?
Informed Consent: the Premise of Ethical Medicine
I believe first and foremost in informed consent. If you are informed of the risks, benefits, and alternatives to a given treatment, you will be empowered to make the best decision for yourself based on your personal, family, philosophical, and religious life context.
But the truth is that prescribers are not in a position to share the known risks of medications because we learn only of their purported benefits with a short-tagline of dismissively rare risks that are thought to be invariably outweighed by the presenting clinical concern.
But what about serious risks – including impulsive suicide and homicide – surely we are informing patients of that possibility, right?
Wrong.
In fact, the FDA and the pharmaceutical industry have gone to great lengths to conceal multiple signals of harm so we certainly can’t expect your average prescriber to have done the investigative work required to get at the truth.
In fact, from 1999-2013, US psychiatric medication prescriptions have increased by a whopping 117% concurrent with a 240% increase in death rates from these medications.
So let’s review some of the evidence that suggests that it may not be in your best interest or the best interest of those around you for you to travel the path of medication-based psychiatry.
Because, after all, if we don’t screen for risk factors – if we don’t know who will become the next victim of psych-med-induced violence – then how can we justify a single prescription?
Are we at a point in the history of medicine where random acts of personal and public violence are defensible risks of treatment for stress, anxiety, depression, inattention, psychosocial distress, irritable bowel syndrome, chronic fatigue, and even stress incontinence?
Let the Science Speak
Suicide
Prescribed specifically to “prevent” suicide, antidepressants now come with a black box warning label of suicide risk since 2010.
Multi-billion dollar lawsuits like the settlement of Study 329 have been necessary to unlock the cabinet drawers of an industry that cares more about profit than human lives.
A reanalysis of study 329 which initially served as a landmark study in 2001 supporting the prescription of antidepressants to children, has now demonstrated that these medications are ineffective in this population and play a causal role in suicidal behavior.
Concealing and manipulating data that shows this signal of harm, including a doubling of risk of suicide with antidepressant treatment, has generated seeming confusion around this incomprehensibly unacceptable risk profile.
In fact, a reanalysis of an influential US National Institute of Mental Health 2007 study, revealed a four-fold increase in suicide despite the fact that the initial publication claimed no increased risk relative to placebo.
According to available data – 3 large meta-analyses – more psychiatric treatment means more suicide. Well, that might seem a hazard of the field, right? Where blaming medications for suicide would be like saying that umbrellas cause the rain.
That’s why studies in non-suicidal subjects and even healthy volunteers who went on to experience suicidality after taking antidepressants are so compelling.
Benzodiazepines (like what Cornell was taking) and hypnotics (sleep and anxiety medications) also have a documented potential to increase risk of completed and attempted suicide and have been implicated in impulsive self-harm including self-inflicted stab wounds during changes to dosage.
We also find the documented possibility that suicidality could emerge in patients who are treated with this class of medications even when they are not suicidal with recent research stating:
“Benzodiazepine receptor agonist hypnotics can cause parasomnias, which in rare cases may lead to suicidal ideation or suicidal behavior in persons who were not known to be suicidal”.
And, of course, these medications themselves provide the means and the method with a known lethal poisoning profile.
Homicide
Clearly murderers are mentally ill, right? What if I told you that the science supports the concern that we are medicating innocent civilians into states of murderous impulsivity?
When Andrew Thibault began to research the safety of a stimulant drug recommended to his son, he entered a rabbit hole he has yet to emerge from.
After literally teaching himself code to decrypt the data on the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System website, he was able to cull 2,000 pediatric fatalities from psychotropic medications, and 700 homicides.
A Freedom of Information Act and a lawsuit later, he continues to struggle with redacted and suppressed information around 24 homicides directly connected to the use of psychotropics including the homicide by a 10 year old treated with Vyvanse of an infant.
Another case, ultimately recovered, involved statements from a 35 year old perpetrator / patient, who murdered her own daughter, as directly implicating as:
“When I took nortriptyline, I immediately wanted to kill myself. I’d never had thoughts like that before”.
To begin to scientifically explore the risk of violence induced by psychotropic medication, a study sample needs to be representative, the reason for taking the drug needs to be taken into consideration, the effect needs to be controlled for, as do any other intoxicants.
Professor Jari Tiihonen’s research group analysed the use of prescription drugs of 959 persons convicted of a homicide in Finland and found that pre-crime prescription of benzodiazepines and opiates resulted in the highest risk (223% increase) of committing homicide.
Relatedly, eleven antidepressants, six sedative/hypnotics and three drugs for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder represented the bulk of 31 medications associated with violence reported to the FDA.
Now an international problem, a Swedish registry study identified a statistically significant increase in violence in males and females under 25 years old prescribed antidepressants.
Implicated in school shootings, stabbings, and even the Germanwings flight crash, prescribing of psychotropics prior to these incidences has been catalogued on ssristories.org leading me to suspect psychiatric prescribing as the most likely cause in any and all reports of unusually violent behavior in the public sphere.
Is Association Really Causation?
Beyond the cases where violence to self or others was induced in a non-violent, non-depressed, non-psychotic individual, what other evidence is there that speaks to how this could possibly be happening?
The most seminal paper in this regard, in my opinion, was published in 2011 by Lucire and Crotty. Ten cases of extreme violence were committed by patients who were prescribed antidepressants – not for major mental illness or even for depression – but for psychosocial distress (i.e. work stress, dog died, divorce).
What these authors identified was that these ten subjects had variants to liver enzymes responsible for drug metabolism exacerbated by co-administration of other drugs and substances including herbs. All returned to their baseline personalities when the antidepressant was discontinued.
Now referred to as akathisia-induced impulsivity, the genetic risk factors for this Russian Roulette of violence are not screened for prior to psychotropic prescribing.
Akathisia is a state of severe restlessness associated with thoughts of suicide and homicide.
Many patients describe it as a feeling-less state of apathy – and what I would describe as a disconnection from their own souls, their own experience of human connection, and any measure of self-reflection.
The genetic underpinnings of this kind of medication-induced vulnerability are just beginning to be explored with identification of precursor symptoms to violence including severe agitation.
In a randomized, placebo-controlled trial, healthy volunteers exhibited an almost 2 fold increased risk of symptoms that can lead to violence.
A 4-5 fold increased risk was noted in patients prescribed a generic version of the antidepressant Cymbalta, off-label, for stress urinary incontinence (a non-psychiatric indication).
There is Another Way
Perhaps it’s as if we are offering the blade edge of a knife to those falling off the cliff of struggle and suffering. Because the idea of managing a chemical imbalance with chemicals seems to make sense.
We live in a cultural context that makes no room for the relevance, meaning, and significance of symptoms – symptoms are simply bad and scary and they must be managed. We don’t make room for patients to ask why they are not ok.
In fact, every woman I have ever tapered off of psychiatric drugs into experiences of total vitality once believed that she would be a medicated psychiatric patient for life.
If you knew that radical self-healing potential lies within each and every one of us, if you only knew that was possible, you might start that journey today. It’s side effect free…
The Psychiatric Agenda Destroys Creative Children
“Take a child who wants to invent something out of thin air, and instead of saying no, tell him he has a problem with his brain, and then stand back and watch what happens. In particular, watch what happens when you give him a toxic drug to fix his brain. You have to be a certain kind of person to do that to a child. You have to be, for various reasons, crazy and a career criminal.” - The Underground, Jon Rappoport
First, here are a few facts that should give you pause:
According to NAMI (National Alliance on Mental Illness);
“More than 25 percent of [US] college students have been diagnosed or treated by a professional for a mental health condition within the past year.”
NAMI: “One in four young adults between the ages of 18 and 24 have [we claim] a diagnosable mental illness.”
According to healthline.com, 6.4 million American children between the ages of 4 and 17 have been diagnosed with ADHD. The average age for the child’s diagnosis is 7.
BMJ 2016;352:i1457: “The number of UK children and adolescents treated with antidepressants rose by over 50% from 2005 to 2012, a study of five Western countries published in European Neuropsychopharmacology has found.”
Children are being diagnosed and dosed with toxic drugs at a staggering rate. But, as I have shown in many past articles, NO so-called mental disorder is based on a lab test.
No blood, saliva, genetic, brain test. ALL 300 or so official mental disorders are defined by menus of behaviors concocted by committees of psychiatrists.
On that foundation, the diagnoses and the drugs are handed out.
Let’s look at just one of the drugs: Ritalin (or any similar ADHD medicine). After a creative child is seen fidgeting in class, looking bored, studying what he wants to study, ignoring classroom assignments, focusing on what interests him, he is diagnosed with ADHD. Then comes the drug.
In 1986, The International Journal of the Addictions published an important literature review by Richard Scarnati. It was called “An Outline of Hazardous Side Effects of Ritalin (Methylphenidate)” [v.21, pp. 837-841].
Scarnati listed a large number of adverse effects of Ritalin and cited published journal articles which reported each of these symptoms.
For every one of the following (selected and quoted verbatim) Ritalin effects, there is at least one confirming source in the medical literature:
Paranoid delusions
Paranoid psychosis
Hypomanic and manic symptoms, amphetamine-like psychosis
Activation of psychotic symptoms
Toxic psychosis
Visual hallucinations
Auditory hallucinations
Can surpass LSD in producing bizarre experiences
Effects pathological thought processes
Extreme withdrawal
Terrified affect
Started screaming
Aggressiveness
Insomnia
Since Ritalin is considered an amphetamine-type drug, expect amphetamine-like effects
Psychic dependence
High-abuse potential DEA Schedule II Drug
Decreased REM sleep
When used with antidepressants one may see dangerous reactions including hypertension, seizures and hypothermia
Convulsions
Brain damage may be seen with amphetamine abuse.
Under this chemical assault on the brain, what are the chances that a creative child will go on in life to become an innovator, rather than a victim of psychiatric drugging?
Make a list of your favorite innovators. Imagine them as bored distracted children sitting in classrooms… and then diagnosed, and then hammered with drugs prescribed by a doctor.
This is happening now. The institution of psychiatry is making it happen. What about the consequences of diagnosing clinical depression in larger numbers of young children? What about the antidepressant drugs?
Here is just a sprinkling of information about antidepressants, from a huge body of literature:
Psychiatrist Peter Breggin: February 1990 American Journal of Psychiatry (Teicher et al, v.147:207-210) reports on:
“Six depressed patients, previously free of recent suicidal ideation, who developed `intense, violent suicidal preoccupations after 2-7 weeks of fluoxetine [Prozac] treatment.'
The suicidal preoccupations lasted from three days to three months after termination of the treatment. The report estimates that 3.5 percent of Prozac users were at risk.
While denying the validity of the study, Dista Products, a division of Eli Lilly, put out a brochure for doctors dated August 31, 1990, stating that it was adding `suicidal ideation’ to the adverse events section of its Prozac product information.”
An earlier study, from the September 1989 Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, by Joseph Lipiniski, Jr., indicates that in five examined cases people on Prozac developed what is called akathesia.
Symptoms include intense anxiety, inability to sleep, the “jerking of extremities,” and “bicycling in bed or just turning around and around.”
"May also contribute to the drug’s tendency to cause self-destructive or violent tendencies … Akathesia can become the equivalent of biochemical torture and could possibly tip someone over the edge into self-destructive or violent behavior.
The June 1990 Health Newsletter, produced by the Public Citizen Research Group, reports, ‘Akathesia, or symptoms of restlessness, constant pacing, and purposeless movements of the feet and legs, may occur in 10-25 percent of patients on Prozac.’”
The well-known publication, California Lawyer, in a December 1998 article called “Protecting Prozac,” details some of the suspect maneuvers of Eli Lilly in its handling of suits against Prozac.
California Lawyer also mentions other highly qualified critics of the drug:
"David Healy, MD, an internationally renowned psychopharmacologist, has stated in sworn deposition that `contrary to Lilly’s view, there is a plausible cause-and-effect relationship between Prozac’ and suicidal-homicidal events.
An epidemiological study published in 1995 by the British Medical Journal also links Prozac to increased suicide risk.”
When pressed, proponents of these SSRI antidepressant drugs (Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, etc.) sometimes say, “Well, the benefits for the general population far outweigh the risk.”
But the issue of benefits will not go away on that basis.
A shocking review-study published in The Journal of Nervous and Mental Diseases (1996, v.184, no.2), written by Rhoda L. Fisher and Seymour Fisher, called “Antidepressants for Children,” concludes:
“Despite unanimous literature of double-blind studies indicating that antidepressants are no more effective than placebos in treating depression in children and adolescents, such medications continue to be in wide use.”
In wide use. This despite such contrary information and the negative, dangerous effects of these drugs.
There are other studies: “Emergence of self-destructive phenomena in children and adolescents during fluoxetine treatment,” published in the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (1991, vol.30), written by RA King, RA Riddle, et al.
It reports self-destructive phenomena in 14% (6/42) of children and adolescents (10-17 years old) who had treatment with fluoxetine (Prozac) for obsessive-compulsive disorder.
July, 1991. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. Hisako Koizumi, MD, describes a thirteen-year-old boy who was on Prozac: “full of energy,” “hyperactive,” “clown-like.”
All this devolved into sudden violent actions which were “totally unlike him.”
September, 1991. The Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. Author Laurence Jerome reports the case of a ten-year old who moves with his family to a new location. Becoming depressed, the boy is put on Prozac by a doctor.
The boy is then “hyperactive, agitated … irritable.” He makes a “somewhat grandiose assessment of his own abilities.”
Then he calls a stranger on the phone and says he is going to kill him. The Prozac is stopped, and the symptoms disappear.
For money, for profit, for status, for control, there exists a professional class called psychiatrists. They approach children - particularly creative children who refuse to fall into lock-step with a regimented program of learning - as outliers, as ill, as strange, as maladjusted, as threats to the system.
And this professional class takes action. Diagnose the children, drug them, bring them back into line, make them “normal,” reduce their curiosity and independence and drive and will power.
Instead of using overt physical force, they use relatively invisible chemical force.
Under the banner of caring, they perform, on the young, a scientific ritual of sacrifice, a rite of passage into the dead world where they, the elite rulers, exist.
The Monetary System Is Collapsing: The Most Insidious Form Of Theft June 2 2024 | From: FinalWakeupCall / Various
Lack of logical foundation: President Richard M. Nixon announced on August 15, 1971, that the U.S. would no longer officially exchange dollars for gold and many are still referring to that decision as one of the biggest mistakes ever.
Nixon, for one, thought gold-price stability was bogus. It has since become clear why he went off the gold standard.
A good controlling factor over the monetary system would be the price of gold. The implications; conduct monetary and fiscal policy such that the gold markets are content to sit tight, and marvel at the economic results. Do otherwise, and the ordeal of the 1970s will be repeated today.
Rarely in the history of political economy have choices been so stark, so obvious. One wonders whether it is being done on purpose. Which as we know is actually the truth.
The USD has no logical foundation behind it with regards to any sustainable value due to a lack of hard asset collateral. It’s just air! That means all people’s money, in their checking, savings, investment and retirement accounts is simply not real! And since 1971 never has been!
When the new gold backed USN is forced into play, money will obtain real value, and matters are going to change very fast. This dramatic event for change will start happening sooner than anyone realises, while the great illusion of western dominance will end.
Three quarters of a century of military dominance will be gone in the blink of an eye. No more grace periods to extend. No more meetings to renegotiate treaties and implement international bankruptcy rulings.
It is clear, that the new global financial system has evolved to a higher standard. It will prevent many forms of fraud and allow for unrestricted movement of funds from place to place as needed, instead of delays or freezes or holds due to compliance issues.
Unimpeded movement of funds is important to the wellbeing of society. The timely arrival of funds according to budgetary needs is critical to the survival of businesses.
Today’s end of the line situation is far grimmer than anyone is being told. Only the implementation of RV followed by GESARA will deliver the fiscal remedy for folks who must now live in this new reality. By the way, only Americans enjoyed the continuing endless supply of currency being forced upon them by the holders of all global debt, known as The Chinese Elders.
The Weakness of Paper Money:
Precisely this non-backing of currency is the inherent weakness of “paper money” – governments have the power to declare paper to be “legal tender” – but they do not have the power to give that money value. This is something that no one, especially not politicians will tell you.
All Central Banks should be abolished.
The average citizen doesn’t have a clue how dangerous and corrupt the Central Banking System and their governments really are. Please read here how we the people can help to abolish all Central Banks.
The world over, governments have embarked on an out-of-control experiment with debt money, that they could alternatively have issued as ‘debt-free-money’, without interest. –In today’s world, credit money is printed in absurd quantities out of thin air, and so much of it is borrowed that it can never ever be paid back in full to the creditors.
It took the USA “216 years to rack up $8.5 trillion in debt… and then just 8 more years to double that amount.” – Governments won’t be able to do a single thing about this crisis, as they themselves have knowingly created it!
When governments tap out their ability to increase their tax revenue and their debts become too mountainous to maintain; they have one last way they can take what they need, and it is the most insidious. They can print the currency they need to pay for whatever they want.
The Most Insidious Form of Theft
The Central Banks’ balance sheet – which represents the total amount of currency in circulation or in central bank’s reserves – has the USD blown up from $1.1 trillion in 2008 to nearly $4 trillion in 2017.
Not many people understand the misconception of these actions or their inevitable failure. The great advantage of paper money is purportedly its flexibility.
They can, in theory, print more of it when they need it to facilitate economic growth or forestall a crisis. But that doesn’t really work. Printing money doesn’t create wealth or stimulatethe economy. Instead, it simply makes each unit in circulation less valuable and leads to higher prices, a monetary phenomenon that is called inflation.
It is an insidious form of stealing. People feel wealthier as the numbers on their pay checks and bank balances rise. As nominal stock prices rise, people feel as though things are going well. But they don’t notice the value of each unit is eroding steadily.
Worse still, it provides incentives for going into debt. People who borrow today will repay those obligations in the future with units that are worth much less.
Inflation has been so prevalent for so long, most people don’t even know it’s not part of a normal economic system. Data on consumer prices from 1596-1971 in Great Britain prove that during gold-standard periods, commodity prices remain stable – even over hundreds of years – during periods of massive economic growth and soaring populations.
The most important test of paper money is whether it facilitates real, per-capita economic growth. And on that score, the evidence is overwhelmingly negative. When money is sound and reliable, it doesn’t lose value over time.
The Name of the Game is the ‘Race to Debase’ Purchasing Power
Today’s monetary system, however, isn’t sound or reliable. Politicians fool around with the money supply constantly. Sometimes, they increase the amount of money by huge amounts in response to demands from powerful groups, especially banks.
As a result, the products you need to live a regular life – like gasoline, milk, housing, and medical care – constantly increase in price. And these prices go up, year after year, even when wages don’t.
Paper money works great for the rich, who can hedge their exposure to the currency and whose access to fixed-rate credit allows huge asset purchases. But it is horrible for the middle class.
When the US-dollar as the reserve currency was taken off gold, it allowed the central banks to continuously debase their currency, while the wages paid in the same currency no longer kept pace with inflation.
Any reasonable study of paper-money systems versus gold-backed monetary systems demonstrates the superiority of gold straightaway. So, why does almost every modern government choose paper?
The answer is because paper money allows the wealthy and powerful vested interests in the economy to manipulate interest rates, prices, the money supply, and credit to their exclusive advantage.
Today’s monetary system dooms every average worker to poverty and almost guarantees that the rich and powerful will become richer. And it is this massive gap that is ultimately fuelling the problems the world faces today.
The Problem with Paper Assets
Wealth is either physical, by for example owning a big house or a Rembrandt painting, or it is paper wealth.
All paper assets are a claim against tangible goods and services. No more goods and services can be obtained than the economy can produce. Since the economy of 2008-13 produced only a fraction as much real wealth as the claims against it, those claims will have to be applied to future output.
The Debt
The IMF has just reported that total global debt is now at a staggering $164 trillion, which amounts to 225% of total global GDP. Every person on this planet could turn over everything they produce for the next two to three years and the world will still be in debt.
The number is so astronomically high that it is impossible to pay off, and so there really is no point in even trying. In fact, governments are not at all concerned with paying off the debt because they know the number has lost it’s meaning in the face of such cartoonish proportions.
Currency is created by private institutions who create as much money as banks and governments desire. This money is created out of thin air, literally by punching a few keys on a computer keyboard and sending tiny currents of electricity to a screen which displays whatever number the private corporation wants.
It is not backed by anything of value, yet these private institutions charge interest to governments and private sector borrowers.
For every unit created and loaned, the magical money-lenders demand that unit back with interest. Since the lender is demanding more than was created, it is mathematically impossible to ever pay off debt, because the currency units to pay for interest simply don’t exist.
The modern-day debt system maintains a tragic if not dramatic tension in the world, and on a planet with such abundant resources, you have to wonder with a global debt number so high, do people of the planet owe money to each other, or are they really in debt to some type of institution?
It definitely does not make sense for the human race to enslave itself with such an insane system. Theoretically the debt is owed to the central banks that created the units out of nothing. So actually there is no debt owed to anybody!
Corruption of Debt
The only way the government can give away something is by first taking it from someone else. This is critical. The governments are taking what they want, and this is exactly what has created today’s crisis.
Taxes are the most obvious way governments take for redistribution. But governments are now reaching the limits of what they can generate from new or higher taxes. When governments realise they can’t take any more from you through taxes, they use debt instruments to take from your children and grandchildren.
Governments have taken advantage of that option to a historic degree; the U.S. and EU government owe more than $20 trillion each. The number is so large, it’s meaningless. No one can comprehend how much money $20 trillion really is. A better way to think about it is to say; each taxpayer owes roughly $175,000. That’s like a whole additional mortgage for most people.
This massive amount of national debt cannot be financed at any real rate of interest. If governments have to pay even 6% interest on their debt, it would cost roughly $1.2 trillion a year. And that’s just to pay the interest on the debt. The entire government brings in about $3.3 trillion a year in taxes.
This debt addiction has filtered into four critical areas of the economy. Instead of learning from the mistakes that crippled the economy in 2008 when the mortgage bubble burst, they have created three new bubbles that could soon blow up.
1.
The largest threat is the corporate bond market, particularly junk bonds.
Over the past 10 years, students, most of whom have virtually no income, have racked up enormous debts. As of 2017, student debt totals more than $1.5 trillion, the second-largest source of household debt after home mortgages.
All the signs show that the debt piled on our youth will become another catastrophic bubble in the western economy.
Most people have no idea how pervasive subprime loans have become in auto lending. Over 90% of cars sold are financed by loans of leases.
4.
The housing bubble trouble
The housing bubble is going to repeat itself with even more unsold and unfinished houses. Spain in 2008 was stuck throughout the country with over 3,5 million unsold houses. That number is set to grow again as about half of the houses ‘sold’ were bought by speculators that cannot resell. So, expect more new and unfinished properties in this upcoming crash, than ten years ago.
How is this substantiated? It’s simple. Historically, “junk” bonds – aka high-yield bonds issued by less-creditworthy companies – have never yielded less than 5% annually. But they hit that low in mid-2014, and today, they’re not much higher than that.
Likewise, in 2014, the difference between the yields on junk bonds and the yields on investment-grade bonds had almost never been lower. That means credit was more available than almost ever before for small, less-than-investment-grade companies. The last time credit was that widely available – and at such low costs – was in 2007. And that ended badly.
Throughout 2015, the spread between low-quality corporate bonds and high-quality corporate bonds began rising. That indicated a growing fear in the market as people reduced the amount of risk in their portfolios and shifted to higher-quality and higher-rated assets.
During the first half of 2016, the high-yield spread began declining. It’s now close to the post-crisis lows of 2014, indicating complacency in the high-yield debt market. But it won’t last. It never does.
Most investors don’t know anything about the Central Banks quietly reversing course. They have started draining the system of reserves. In October 2017, they began to “run off” their balance sheet by about $13 billion a month.
That is, as the bonds they hold mature, these assets won’t “roll” into new securities. And so, for the last seven months, their balance sheets have shrunk by $10 billion a month in bond securities and $3 billion a month in mortgage securities.
It took the speculative bubble a long time to reach negative interest rates on junk bonds. It likewise will take a shorter time for this to fundamentally change the financial markets, hurting sentiment and securities prices. But make no mistake, the tide is going out. And the tide is going to get more powerful as it moves on.
The coming collapse in the bond market also will be far worse than it was last time. The Federal Reserve’s twin policies of keeping interest rates near zero and buying tens of billions of dollars in Treasury securities and mortgage-backed debt have driven the huge bull market in bonds and properties.
As the Central Banks buy bonds, they push bond rates down and force the other buyers of bonds to buy riskier debt that historically offers much higher yields.
The Real Panic in the Corporate Bond Market Could Arrive Soon
Expect the average price of non-investment debt – junk bonds – to fall by 50%. Investment-grade bonds will fall substantially too, by an estimated 25%. This is going to wipe out a huge amount of capital, which is almost 100% guaranteed to happen.
Junk-bond guru Martin Fridson has projected $1.6 trillion of bonds and loans will default. That means three times as many debt issuers will default than in the last recession.
This would have happened already, according to Fridson, but the government has kept interest rates artificially low, making it possible for many at-risk debt-issuers to refinance their debt at a lower interest rate. This delayed an inevitable wave of defaults in the junk-bond industry, but only temporarily. The government can’t keep interest rates low forever. The obvious question is:
Why on Earth did so many people borrow so much money they have no hope of ever repaying?
Because it is impossible to pay off the debts that have been accumulated. Society is fast approaching the point where the government cannot even afford to pay the interest on this debt and that leaves it with one last tool to extend its power over we, the people.
Consumer Society
We have been left with a heavily indebted economy that’s still being fuelled by consumption. The system rewards debtors and punishes savers. It makes long-term capital investments nearly impossible because of economic volatility and financial risks caused by inflation.
Worst of all, the system requires everyone to become a speculator because there’s no other way to safeguard savings.
What the gold standard would really do would be to ensure a level playing field for all economic actors – borrowers, lenders, and even governments.
That’s why bankers – who are always highly leveraged, media barons – who constantly borrow to buy more properties, and governments – which can never balance their budgets, all hate gold. To maintain their power, they all need paper money. The system and those who profit from it would not survive a transition back to the gold standard.
The little-known reality of a paper money system is that it robs the people of purchasing power.
That means the average person works harder and produces more, but cannot buy as much as he has been used to. Meanwhile, asset prices soar.
The wealthy become wealthier as the value of everything they own becomes inflated along with the currency.
This explains why the wealth gap has grown so much since 2000. And it explains why the wealth gap will continue to grow, so long as governments continue their corrupt policies of quantitative easing, corporate bailouts, overspending, and over-taxation.
Simply working harder – or working smarter – isn’t benefiting employees anymore. On the other hand, People who own assets and businesses have seen their wealth soar over the last 40 years.
This system dooms every average worker to poverty and almost guarantees that the rich and powerful will stay that way. And it is this massive gap that is ultimately fuelling today’s problems.
An Invisible Form Of Oppression: Our Food System June 1 2024 | From: Sott / Various
On April 4, 2018, the 50th anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.'s death, I was honored to be asked to speak at Riverside Church in Harlem, the church where 51 years ago to the day MLK Jr. spoke out about the injustice of the Vietnam War. From that same pulpit, I gave a talk about the role of our food system and the food industry in deliberately subverting public health and targeting the poor and minorities.
The day was focused on MLK Jr's fight for civil rights and social justice for the minorities and poor. The harm of the food system, however, affects all of us. This is the transcript of the speech I gave on that auspicious night.
As a doctor, I took an oath to do no harm. Today, I stand here because there is harm being done to millions and I must speak out. We know all too well the visible forms of racism in our society. We know the inequities in income and opportunity.
We know the brutal violence and discrimination of the police. We know the shooting of black children. We know the name of Tamir Rice. We know the name of unarmed black men shot in the back. We know the name of Stephon Clark.
But we don't know the names of millions of African Americans [or anyone for that matter] killed every year by an invisible form of racism, a silent and insidious injustice.
This is an often-internalized force of racism and oppression that disproportionately affects the poor and African American communities.
We do know that 1.3% of all deaths are caused by gun violence. And it is real and tragic and needs to end.
But we may not know that 70% of deaths are caused by chronic disease - mostly the result of our toxic food system.
More African Americans are killed by bad food than anything else.
The science is clear - our processed, sugary, starchy diet is the single biggest cause of disease and death-type 2 diabetes, obesity, heart disease, stroke, high blood pressure, cancer, and even dementia.
Our food system is the deadliest weapon used against the poor and minorities- keeping them poor, sick and fat, hijacking their brains and biology.
We are told that it is our personal choice, that being fat results from eating too much and not exercising enough. That blames the victim - the subliminal message is that it's your fault you are fat and sick.
We may think that what we eat is a personal choice that is rooted in our cultural heritage and family customs.
But we know that the food industry designs our food to be addictive, that they hire craving experts who work in taste institutes to design what they call the bliss point of food - all with the purpose of creating heavy users. These are their internal corporate terms.
What if I told you that the food industry specifically targets the poor and minorities? It is easy to get someone who is already drinking a 20-ounce soda to buy a 2 liter bottle of soda.
What if I told you that sugar and processed foods were more addictive than cocaine, that the food industry has hijacked our brain chemistry, our taste buds, our metabolism, our bodies and our minds?
When our foods are biologically addictive the notion of personal choice is a fiction. It blames the victims for their choices.
How can we take care of our communities, when 23 million Americans live in food deserts? Where the only food available is processed junk from convenience stores, fast food outlets, and the closest grocery store is more than a mile away. And where it's hard to find fresh fruits and vegetables or healthy food.
It is food swamps - communities filled with fast food chains and bodegas plying highly processed addictive foods. They sell gallon cups of soda, and other sugar-loaded beverages, and there are fast-food chains peddling burgers, fries, and fried chicken on almost every street corner.
We know that your zip code is more important than your genetic code in determining your risk of disease and death.
And what about our kids? Forty percent of them are overweight. We now see 3 year olds with type 2 diabetes - which we used to call adult onset diabetes.
We are told that kids' behavior problems results from bad parenting. The research shows that African Americans are far less likely to graduate from high school or go to college.
But if our children go to school with a breakfast of Coke or colored sugar water and Doritos or Flaming Hot chips how can we expect them to focus or pay attention?
These are not foods. They are food-like substances with no nutritional benefit.
This diet creates an "achievement gap" because kids are too sick to learn - and affects far more kids of color than any other group. These kids are less likely to go to college, earn good incomes, and more likely to get sick and die young.
One in 10 of our kids are on ADD medication. And the science shows the junk our kids eat is a big part of the cause.
The food industry spends $10 billion on marketing junk food to our kids every year. The average kid sees over 6,000 ads for junk food and soda on TV and even more through social media. And minorities and African American kids are targeted more aggressively. These companies are junk food pushers.
Do you really think it was a coincidence that Paula Abdul and all the judges on American Idol had a 24 -ounce container of Coke in front of them at every show?
Top sports stars receive tens of millions of dollars from soda and fast food giants to promote their products to our children who idolize them.
Charter schools in the poorest most disadvantaged communities of color who feed the kids two to three healthy meals a day find that the kids are more likely to go to college than go to jail.
And we incarcerate African Americans at five times the rate of white Americans. Much of that is the result of racial targeting by the police and judicial system.
But it could be that much violent crime is also the result of our diet that robs us of our minds, affects our thinking, judgement, and ability to make good choices.
You may think that's too far-fetched. But studies have shown feeding violent prisoners healthy diets in prisons can reduce crime by 56%. When adding a multivitamin - because they're all so nutritionally deficient - violent crime goes down by 80%. We know that the task of ending mass incarceration and the New Jim Crow is complex and urgent.
We know that the task of building a just food system is also complex and urgent. We have to build a new food system together. Part of this task is listening to the voices of those directly affected by our toxic food system.
I once received a letter from a prison, from a murderer who changed his diet in prison and realized that his whole life of eating junk had made him violent and eating real food transformed him into a different person.
The food industry employs nefarious tactics to prevent change. They buy friends, silence critics, and sweeten their profits.
I was part of a documentary called Fed Up - a movie about how our food system makes us sick and fat with addictive sugary, starchy products.
I met with Bernice King, Martin Luther King Jr.'s daughter, and she explained to me to that non-violence also includes non-violence to ourselves. She was excited about showing Fed Up at the King Center in Atlanta.
But a few days later I got a call that the we couldn't show the film. Why, I asked? The answer: Coca-Cola funds the King Center.
The Dean of Spelman College in Atlanta told me that 50% of the entering class of African American freshman women had a chronic disease - type 2 diabetes, hypertension, or obesity.
Is it any surprise the NAACP and Hispanic groups oppose a soda tax?
We cannot stand for this. Martin Luther King Jr. once said, "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter."
We can no longer be silent about this.
If you are African American you are 80% more likely to be diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, over 4 times as likely to have kidney failure, and 3.5 times as likely to suffer amputations as whites.
Yet we remain silent about the role of the food system killing millions of Americans. They tell us it is all personal choice.
Nonsense. Big food corrupts public health and advocacy groups. They fund hunger groups like the Food Research and Action Center and Feeding America.
These hunger groups strongly oppose limiting the use of food stamps or SNAP to buy soda, despite the fact the single biggest item of our food stamp bill (over $7 billion a year) is soda, or 20 billion servings a year to the poor.
Soda and sugar-sweetened beverages are the single biggest cause of obesity and type 2 diabetes.
Our bodies, our health, our children, our communities have been taken from us.
It is time we take them back.
It is time we say no to big food and institutionalized food injustice that is causing this slow-motion genocide.
It is time to free ourselves from corporate interests that privatize the profits and socialize the costs of their products.
Taking back our food and our food system is a revolutionary act.
There are things we can't change as individuals. But we all eat. We vote three times a day with our fork.
The single biggest political act and the single biggest act of self-love, of rebuilding our communities, is to choose real food.
So, what is real food? It's pretty simple. Next time you pick up something to eat, ask yourself this question: Did God make this or did man make this?
Did God make Doritos or a Coke? No. Did God make an egg or broccoli? Yes. We can teach our kids and teach ourselves how to choose and eat food that brings life not death.
Big Food would have you believe that it is expensive, that it is difficult, that it takes too much time. Don't believe them. It is not true.
We need to educate our kids, ourselves, and our communities. We have to do this together. In fact, we can only do this together. Black lives matter. Yes. And black health matters, too!
The harm done by the global food industry affects nearly all humans on the planet in some way.
This must stop. We can stop it with our fork, the most powerful weapon we have to change our health, our communities, our economy and the health the of the planet.
Poll Shows Americans Waking Up, Majority Now Suspects Unelected Shadow Government In Charge [2018] May 28 2024 | From: TheFreeThoughtProject
According to a Monmouth University Poll that was released this week, the majority of Americans believes that a group of unelected government and military officials secretly manipulate the United State government from behind the scenes.
According to the poll, both democrats and republicans feel that there is a “deep state” faction that works in secrecy and exists to shape policy as well as spy on American citizens.
“A majority of the American public believe that the U.S. government engages in widespread monitoring of its own citizens and worry that the U.S. government could be invading their own privacy. The Monmouth University Poll also finds a large bipartisan majority who feel that national policy is being manipulated or directed by a “Deep State” of unelected government officials.
Americans of color on the center and left and NRA members on the right are among those most worried about the reach of government prying into average citizens’ lives.”
Not only do the majority assert that there is indeed a deep state, but they also readily admit that they think the US government is actively engaged in surveillance against its own citizens. Again, illustrating the ominous nature of such a notion, party lines did not matter. The suspicion of the government violating the rights of its own citizens is bipartisan.
“Fully 8-in-10 believe that the U.S. government currently monitors or spies on the activities of American citizens, including a majority (53%) who say this activity is widespread and another 29% who say such monitoring happens but is not widespread. Just 14% say this monitoring does not happen at all. There are no substantial partisan differences in these results..”
“This is a worrisome finding. The strength of our government relies on public faith in protecting our freedoms, which is not particularly robust. And it’s not a Democratic or Republican issue. These concerns span the political spectrum,” said Patrick Murray, director of the independent Monmouth University Polling Institute.
What’s more, only a small fraction of the people who were polled believe that this widespread 1984-style police state is justified. According to the poll, only 18% of Americans are asleep enough to believe that Uncle Sam watching their every move is warranted - a heartening statistic indeed.
This brings us to the question of why so many Americans [Westerners] feel that they are being spied on and controlled by shadow government officials who operate in secret?
The answer is quite simple: because it’s true!
As the torrent of Podesta emails from WikiLeaks exposed the crimes of the Clinton dynasty in 2016, the FBI followed up by releasing their own documents that were just as damning.
Buried inside 100 pages of heavily redacted interview summaries from the FBI’s investigation into Clinton, Americans were exposed to a series of allegations that were nothing short of bombshell - documenting an ultra-secret, high-level group within the government, who were actually referred to as “The Shadow Government.”
This Shadow Government has long been kept in the dark realms of conspiracy theory. However, thanks to the efforts of WikiLeaks and the push by Americans for more transparency, the truth has now become stranger and even more corrupt than fiction.
With every action recorded, phone tapped, innocent family surveilled, right stripped, and citizen killed by their government, the term “Freedom” has become a mere symbolic representation of the brittle shell of America left behind after being gutted by unelected operatives in the deep state hell bent on total control and perpetual war.
Those who thought electing Donald Trump could somehow change this paradigm are slowly figuring out that no matter what puppet resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, those who lurk behind the scenes are the ones shaping US policy. [Coment: WRONG. If you are not aware of the Alliance working to take down the Cabal then you should catch up on David Wilcock's work.].
No matter how much you may disagree or even like Donald Trump, the idea of a secret and unelected government forcing change without the public’s consent behind the scenes should shock the conscience.
DASH cryptocurrency and The Free Thought Project have formed a partnership that will continue to spread the ideas of peace and freedom while simultaneously teaching people how to operate outside of the establishment systems of control like using cryptocurrency instead of dollars.
Winning this battle is as simple as choosing to abstain from the violent corrupt old system and participating in the new and peaceful system that hands the power back to the people. DASH is this system.
DASH digital cash takes the control the banking elite has over money and gives it back to the people. It is the ultimate weapon in the battle against the money changers and information controllers.
If you'd like to start your own DASH wallet and be a part of this change and battle for peace and freedom, you can start right here. DASH is already accepted by vendors all across the world so you can begin using it immediately.
Agenda 21: Awareness And Activism + UN 2030 Agenda Decoded: Blueprint For The Global Enslavement Of Humanity Under Corporate Masters May 27 2024 | From: AmericanPolicyCenter / NaturalNews / Various
Sustainable Development: The Transformation of the Western World
Some think that the planet is in danger of global warming and over consumption. They really believe that the only way to fix the problem is to control the flow of resources and wealth, which literally means changing human civilization and the way we live.
This is an immense subject and many more articles are available in the Agenda 21 section of this website. This article is from the US but the principles of Agenda 21 are global - it came from the UN.
The problem is, that requires a forced transformation of our entire society to comply, and that ultimately leads to a thirst for power and topdown control – that will eventually lead to tyranny.
In his book, Earth in the Balance, Al Gore warned that a “wrenching transformation” must take place to lead Western countries away from the “horrors of the Industrial Revolution.”
Click on the image above to open a larger version in a new window
The process to do that is called Sustainable Development and its’ roots can be traced back to a UN policy document called Agenda 21, adopted at the UN’s Earth Summit in 1992.
Sustainable Development calls for changing the very infrastructure of the nation, away from private ownership and control of property to nothing short of central planning of the entire economy – often referred to as top-down control.
Where and when did the term Sustainable Development originate?
The term “sustainable development” was born in the pages of “Our Common Future,” the official report of the 1987 United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development, authored by Gro Harlem Brundtland, Vice President
of the World Socialist Party.
For the first time the environment was tied to the tried and true Socialist goals of international redistribution of wealth. Said the report;
“Poverty is a major cause and effect of global environmental problems. It is therefore futile to attempt to deal with environmental problems without a broader perspective that encompasses the factors underlying world poverty and international inequality.”
The term appeared in full force in 1992, in a United Nations initiative called the U.N. Sustainable Development Agenda 21, or as it has become known around the world, simply Agenda 21. It was unveiled at the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), ballyhooed as the Earth Summit.
In fact, the Earth Summit was one of the provisions called for in the Brundtland report as a means of implementing Sustainable Development around the world. More than 178 nations adopted Agenda 21 as official policy. President George H.W. Bush was the signatory for the United States.
What is Sustainable Development?
The 1989 Webster’s Dictionary defines “Sustainable Yield” as a requirement that trees cut down in a forest area be replaced by new plantings to ensure future lumber supplies.” That’s what most people think Sustainable Development means.
Proponents of Sustainable Development argue that it is about preserving resources for future generations. What’s wrong with that? Nothing in theory.
That would be sustainable with a small “s.” Just common sense usage of natural resources. The problem is, major forces now promoting it intend for Sustainable Development to be spelled with a capital “S.” They intend for a Socio-economic political movement that probes, invades and changes every aspect of human civilization.
And that’s the problem.
Imagine a world in which a specific “ruling principle” is created to decide proper societal conduct for every citizen.
That principle would be used to consider regulations guiding everything you eat, the kind of home you are allowed to live in, the method of transportation you use to get to work, what kind of work you may have, the way you dispose of waste, perhaps even the number of children you may have, as well as the quality and amount of education your children may receive.
Sustainable development encompasses every aspect of our lives.
According to its authors, the objective of sustainable development is to integrate economic, social, and environmental policies in order to achieve reduced consumption, social equity, and the preservation and restoration of biodiversity.
Top Sustainability Fallacies:
Lie: Sustainability is about protecting the environment
Reality: It is a political movement to replace capitalism with governement control of everything
Lie: Free market capitalism is the principle cause of planetary degradation and is not sustainable
Reality: It is government control of the economy that is not sustainable
Lie: Private property is a source of social injustice, and too valuable to be subject to free markets
Reality: The right to own and use private property is a fundamental source of wealth creation
Lie: Green energy creates jobs
Reality: Green energy is unreliable, uncompetitive and renders industry unable to compete in world parkets
Lie: C02 is a pollutant
Reality: C02 is the gas that all plants and crops breathe. More C02 = better agricultural production
Lie: The sustainability movement isn't trying to take away anyone's property rights or freedoms
Reality: The sustainability movement is relentlessly attacking property rights and freedoms
Lie: Climate change is catastrophic and anthropogenic and must be addressed through C02 abatement schemes
Reality:Man made climate change is a hoax with numerous provable data points and thousands of scientists going on the record - which is ignored by the cabal-controlled mainstream media
Lie: Compact development reduces pollution
Reality:Reality: Dense development is always correlated with intense pollution levels
Lie: Subways and mass transit can replace cars
Reality: They cannot. If they could there would be no cars in Manhattan
Lie: Compact urban development is more affordable for government
Reality: Empirical evidence proves compace development requires higher tax rates. Urbanisation strains police, fire, educational and social services
Lie: Afforable housing for people of all income levels will ensure healthier better balanced neighbourhoods
Reality: Low income housing usually creates more problems than it solves thereby damaging communities
The Sustainablists insist that society be transformed into feudal-like governance by making Nature the central organizing principle for our economy and society, not human need or wants.
This idea essentially elevates nature above Humans [we are all on this planet, their premise is bullshit]. As such, every societal decision would first be questioned as to how it might effect the environment.
To achieve this, Sustainablist policy focuses on three components; land use, education, and population control and population reduction.
Here is a direct quote from the report of the 1976 UN’s Habitat I conference which said:
“Land... cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principle instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth, therefore, contributes to social injustice.”
Some officials claim that Sustainable Development is just a local effort to protect the environment and contain development -- just your local leaders putting together a local vision for the community.
Yet, the exact language and tactics for implementation of Sustainable Development are being used in nearly every city around the globe from Lewiston, Maine to Singapore.
Local indeed.
In short, Sustainable Development is the process by which the world is being reorganized around a central principle of state collectivism using the environment as bait.
One of the best ways to understand what Sustainable Development actually is can be found by discovering what is NOT sustainable.
According to the UN’s Biodiversity Assessment Report, items for our everyday lives that are NOT sustainable include:
Ski fields
Grazing of livestock
Plowing of soil
Building fences
Industry
Single family homes
Paved and tarred roads
Logging activities
Dams and reservoirs
Power line construction
Economic systems that fail to set proper value on the environment (capitalism, free markets).
Maurice Strong, Secretary General of the UN’s Rio Earth Summit in 1992 said;
“… Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work airconditioning, and suburban housing are not sustainable.”
This goal is exactly the policies that are written into such legislation as Cap and Trade, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act.
It is also the policy behind the many corporate commercials seen nightly on television which advocate “Going Green".
They are all part of the efforts to modify consumer behavior to accept less, deal with higher energy prices, restrict water use and place severe limitations on use of private property – all under the environmental excuse.
And one of the most destructive tools used to enforce Sustainable Development policy is something called the “precautionary principle.”
That means that any activities that might threaten human health or the environment should be stopped - even if no clear cause and effect relationship has been established - and even if the potential threat is largely theoretical.
That makes it easy for any activist group to issue concerns or warnings by news release or questionable report against and industry or private activity, and have those warnings quickly turned into public policy – just in case.
Many are now finding non-elected regional governments and governing councils enforcing policy and regulations.
As these policies are implemented, locallyelected officials are actually losing their own power and decision-making ability in their elected offices. More and more decisions are now being made behind the scenes in non-elected “sustainability councils” armed with truckloads of federal regulations, guidelines, and grant money.
According to its authors, the objective of Sustainable Development is to integrate economic, social, and environmental policies in order to achieve reduced consumption, social equity, and the preservation and restoration of biodiversity.
The Sustainable Development logo used in most literature on the subject contains three connecting circles labeled along the lines of Social Equity; Economic Prosperity; and Ecological Integrity (known commonly as the 3 E's).
Social Equity
Sustainable Development’s Social Equity plank is based on a demand for “social justice.” Social Justice is described as the right and opportunity of all people “to benefit equally from the resources afforded us by society and the environment.”
According to Sustainablist doctrine, it is a social injustice for some to have prosperity if others do not. It is a social injustice to keep our borders closed.
It is a social injustice for some to be bosses and others to be merely workers. Social justice is a major premise of Sustainable Development.
Another word for social justice is Socialism or Marxism. Karl Marx was the first to coin the phrase “social justice.”
Most recently the theory of social justice has been used to justify government takeover of health care. Today, the phrase is used throughout Sustainablist literature.
The Sustainablist system is based on the principle that individuals must give up selfish wants for the needs of the common good, or the “community.”
This is the same policy behind the push to eliminate our nation’s borders to allow the “migration” of those from other nations into the United States to share our individually-created wealth and our taxpayers-paid government social programs.
Say the Sustainablists, “Justice and efficiency go hand in hand.” “Borders,” they say, “are unjust.”
Under the Sustainablist system, private property is an evil that is used simply to create wealth for a few. So too, is business ownership. Instead, “every worker / person will be a direct capital owner.”
Property and businesses are to be kept in the name of the owner, keeping them responsible for taxes and other expenses, however control is in the hands of the “community” (government).
Under Sustainable Development individual human wants, needs, and desires are to be conformed to the views and dictates of social planners.
Harvey Ruvin, Vice Chair of the International Council on Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) said:
“Individual rights will have to take a back seat to the collective” in the process of implementing Sustainable Development.
Economic Prosperity
Sustainable Development’s economic policy is based on one overriding premise: That the wealth of the world was made at the expense of the poor.
It dictates that, if the conditions of the poor are to be improved, wealth must first be taken from the rich.
[But this mandate does not apply to not the "elite" of course].
Consequently, Sustainable Development’s economic policy is based, not on private enterprise, but on public / private partnerships.
In the free-market of the past, most businesses were started by individuals who saw a need for a product or service and they set out to fill it. Some businesses prospered to become huge corporations, some remained small “mom and pop” shops, others failed and dissolved.
Most business owners were happy to be left alone to take their chances to run their businesses on their own, not encumbered by a multiplicity of government regulations.
If they failed, most found a way to try again. In the beginning of the American Republic, government’s main involvement was to guarantee they had the opportunity to try.
In order to give themselves an advantage over competition, some businesses -- particularly large corporations – now find a great advantage in dealing directly with government, actively lobbying for legislation that will inundate smaller companies with regulations that they cannot possibly comply with or even keep up with.
This government / big corporation back-scratching has always been a dangerous practice because economic power should be a positive check on government power, and vise versa. If the two should ever become combined, control of such massive power can lead only to tyranny.
One of the best examples of this was the Italian model in the first half of the Twentieth Century under Mussolini’s Fascism.
Together, select business leaders who have agreed to help government impose Sustainablist green positions in their business policies, and officials at all levels of government are indeed merging the power of the economy with the force of
government in Public / Private Partnerships on the local, state and federal levels.
As a result, Sustainable Development policy is redefining free trade to mean centralized global trade “freely” crossing (or eliminating) national borders.
It definitely does not mean people and companies trading freely with each other. Its real effect is to redistribute manufacturing, wealth, and jobs out of our borders and to lock away natural resources.
After the regulations have been put in place, literally destroying whole industries, new “green” industries created with federal grants bring newfound wealth to the “partners.” This is what Sustainablists refer to as economic prosperity.
The Sustainable Development “partnerships” include some corporations both domestic and multination. They in turn are partnered with the politicians who use their legislative and administrative powers to raid the treasury to fund and enforce the scheme.
Of course, as the chosen corporations, which become a new elite, stamp out the need for competition through government power, the real loser is the consumers who no longer count in market decisions. Government grants are now being used by industry to create mandated green products like wind and solar power.
Products are put on the market at little risk to the industry, leaving consumers a more limited selection from which to choose. True free markets are eliminated in favor of controlled economies which dictate the availability and quality of products.
Ecological Integrity
“Nature has an integral set of different values (cultural, spiritual and material) where humans are one strand in nature’s web and all living creatures are considered equal.
Therefore the natural way is the right way and human activities should be molded along nature’s rhythms.” from the UN’s Biodiversity Treaty presented at the 1992 UN Earth Summit.
This quote lays down the ground rules for the entire Sustainable Development agenda.
It says humans are nothing special – just one strand in the nature of things or, put another way, humans are simply biological resources.
Funny that, the Cabal see us as "Human Resources" also. What a coincidence...
Sustainablist policy is to oversee any issue in which man interacts with nature – which, of course, is literally everything.
And because the environment always comes first, there must be great restrictions over private property ownership and control.
This is necessary, Sustainablists say, because humans only defile nature. Under Sustainable Development there can be no concern over individual rights.
Individual human wants, needs, and desires are conformed to the views and dictates of social planners.
The UN’s Commission on Global Governance said in its 1995 report:
“Human activity… combined with unprecedented increases in human numbers… are impinging on the planet’s basic life support system.
Action must be taken now to control the human activities that produce these risks.”
Under Sustainable Development, limited government, as advocated by our Founding Fathers, is impossible because, we are told, the real or perceived environmental crisis is too great.
Only government can be trusted to respond. Maurice Strong, Chairman of the 1992 UN Earth Summit said:
“A shift is necessary toward lifestyles less geared to environmentally-damaging consumption patterns. The shift will require a vast strengthening of the multilateral system, including the United Nations.”
The politically based environmental movement provides Sustainablists camouflage as they work to transform systems of government, justice, and economics.
It is a masterful mixture of socialism (with its top down control of the tools of the economy) and fascism (where property is owned in name only – with no individual owner control).
Sustainable Development is the worst of both the left and the right. It is not liberal, nor is it conservative.
It is a new kind of tyranny that, if not stopped, will surely lead us to a new Dark Ages of pain and misery yet unknown to mankind.
UN Report: Habitat I Conference:
"Land cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market.
Private land ownership is also a principle instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth, therefore, contributers to social injustice."
Six months after his inauguration, President Bill Clinton issued Executive Order #12852 which created the President’s Council On Sustainable Development (PCSD) on June 29 1993.
The Council’s Membership included:
Twelve Cabinet-level Federal Officials
Jonathan Lash, Pres. World Resources Institute
John Adams, Ex. Dir. National Resources Defense Council
Dianne Dillon-Ridgley, Pres. Zero Population
Michelle Perrault, International V.P., Sierra Club
John C. Sawhill, Pres. The Nature Conservancy
Jay D. Hair, Pres. World Conservation Union (IUCN)
Kenneth L. Lay, CEO, Enon Corporation
William D. Ruckelshaus, Chm., Browning-Ferris Industries & former EPA Administrator
Some of these members were representatives of the same groups which helped write Agenda 21 at the UN level, now openly serving on the President’s Council to create policy for the implementation of Sustainable Development at the federal level.
With great fanfare the Council issued a comprehensive report containing all the guidelines on how our government was to be reinvented under sustainable development.
Those guidelines were created to direct policy for every single federal agency, state government and local community government. Their purpose was to translate the recommendations set forth in Agenda 21 into public policy administered by the federal government.
They created the American version of Agenda 21 called “Sustainable America - A New Consensus”.
The Four Part Process Leading to Sustainable Development
So how is this “wrenching transformation” being put into place? There are four very specific routes being used. In the rural areas it’s called the “Wildlands Project.”
In the cities it’s called “Smart Growth.” In business it’s called “Public / Private Partnerships.” And in government it’s called “Stakeholder Councils.”
The Wildlands Project
"WE MUST MAKE THIS PLACE AN INSECURE AND INHOSPITABLE PLACEFOR CAPITALISTS AND THEIR PROJECTS... WE MUST RELCAIM THEROADS AND PLOWED LANDS, HALT DAM CONSTRUCTION, TEAR DOWNEXISTING DAMS, FREE SHACKLED RIVERS AND RETURN TO WILDERNESSMILLIONS OF TENS OF MILLIONS OF ACRES OF PRESENTLY SETTLEDLAND.”
- Dave Foremen, Earth First.
The Wildlands Project was the brainchild of Earth First’s Dave Foreman and it literally calls for the “re-wilding” of 50% of all the land in every state – back to the way it was before Christopher Columbus set foot on this land.
It is a diabolical plan to herd humans off the rural lands and into human settlements. Crazy you say! Yes. Impossible? Not so fast. From Foreman, the plan became the blueprint for the UN’s Biodiversity Treaty and quickly became international in scope.
But how do you remove people from the land? One step at a time. Let’s begin with a biosphere reserve. A national park will do. A huge place where there is no human activity.
For example, Yellowstone National Park, devoid of human habitation can serve as its center. Then a buffer zone is established around the reserve.
Inside the buffer only limited human activity is allowed. Slowly, through strict regulations, that area is squeezed until human activity becomes impossible.
Once that is accomplished, the biosphere is extended to the former buffer zone borders – and then a new buffer zone is created around the now-larger biosphere and the process starts again. In that way, the Biosphere Reserve acts like a cancer cell, ever expanding, until all human activity is stopped.
And there are many tools in place to stop human activity and grow the reserve.
Push back livestock’s access to river banks on ranches, many times as much as 300. When the cattle can’t reach the stream, the rancher can’t water them -- he goes out of business. Lock away natural resources by creating national parks.
It shuts down the mines -- and they go out of business. Invent a Spotted Owl shortage and pretend it can’t live in a forest where timber is cut. Shut off the forest.
Then, when no trees are cut, there’s nothing to feed the mills and then there are no jobs, and -- they go out of business.
Locking away land cuts the tax base. Eventually the town dies. Keep it up and there is nothing to keep the people on the land – so they head to the cities. The wilderness grows – just like Dave Foreman planned.
It comes in many names and many programs. Heritage areas, land management,wolf and bear reintroduction, rails to trails, conservation easements,open space, and many more.
Each of these programs is designed to make it just a little harder to live on the land – a little more expensive – a little more hopeless, literally herding people off their land and into designated human habitat areas – cities.
In the West, where vast areas of open space make it easy to impose such polices there are several programs underway to remove humans from the land. Today, there are at least 31 Wildlands projects underway, locking away more than 40
percent of the nation’s land.
The Alaska Wildlands Project seeks to lock away and control almost the entire state.
In Washington State, Oregon, Idaho, Montana parts of North and South Dakota, parts of California, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, Wyoming, Texas, Utah, and more, there are at least 22 Wildlands Projects underway.
For example, one project called Yukon to Yellowstone (Y2Y) – creates a 2000 mile no-man’s land corridor from the Arctic to Yellowstone.
East of the Mississippi, there are at least nine Wildlands projects, covering Maine, Pennsylvania, New York, West Virginia, Ohio, Virginia, Tennessee, North and South Carolina, Georgia and Florida. Watch for names of Wildlands Projects like Chesapeake Bay Watershed, Appalachian Restoration Project and Piedmont Wildlands Project.
How Did We Get Here? J. Gary Lawrence - Bill Clinton's Advisor for Sustainable Development:
"Participating in a UN advocated planning process would very likely bring out many... right wing conspiracy groups... who would actively work to defeat any elected official... undertaking Local Agenda 21.
So we call our process something else, such as "Comprehensive Planning", "Growth Management", or "Smart Growth.""
Smart Growth
The second path is called Smart Growth. The process essentially puts a line around a city, locking off any growth outside that line.
Such growth is disdainfully labeled “Urban Sprawl.” The plan then curtails the building of more roads to cut off access to the newly created rural area. Inside the circle, concerted efforts are made to discourage the use of cars in preference to public transportation, restricting mobility.
Because there is a restriction on space inside the controlled city limits, there is a created shortage of land and houses, so prices go up. That means populations will have to be controlled, because now there is no room to contain more people.
Cities are now passing “green” regulations, forcing homeowners to meet strict guidelines for making their homes environmentally compliant, using specific building materials, forcing roof replacements, demanding replacement of appliances, and more.
Those not in compliance will be fined and will not be able to sell their homes. There are now efforts underway to impose so-called “smart meters” which replace thermostats in homes.
Homeowners will not have control of such meters. Instead, the electric company will determine the necessary temperature inside each home.
Government agencies or local policy boards will be tasked with the responsibility to conduct an energy audit in each home to determine the steps necessary to bring the home into energy compliance. In Oakland, California, such restrictions will cost each homeowner an estimated $36,000.
The Cap N Trade bill contains a whole section on such restrictions for the nation, and most local communities are now busy creating development plans that encompass many of the same restrictions.
There is now a new push to control food production under the label of Sustainable Farming. Food sheds are now being advocated.
These are essentially government run farms located just outside the smart growth area circling the city.
Food is to be grown using strict guidelines which dictate what kinds of food is to be produced and the farming practices to be used.
These are essentially based on the blue print of Chinese Agrarian villages that cannot possibly grow enough food to feed the community unless populations are tightly controlled. True Sustainable farming programs discourage importing goods from outside the community.
A Red Agenda Marked With a Pretty Green Name: "Sustainability"
Agenda 21 spread like an INFECTION: UN Agenda 21 > ICLEI > NGO's > Central / Regional Planners
Planning associations provide sample ordinances based on ECLEI doctin that originated in UN Agenda 21
Municipal plans become manifestos
Stake Holder Councils
Inside the cities, government is increasingly controlled by an elite ruling class called stake holder councils. These are mostly Non-governmental organizations, or NGOs, which, like thieves in the night, converge on the community to stake their claim to enforce their own private agendas.
The function of legitimately – elected government within the system votes to create a system of boards, councils and even regional governments to handle every aspect of day-to-day operation of the community.
Once in place, the councils and boards basically replace the power of elected officials with non-elected, appointed rulers answerable to no one.
The councils are controlled by a small minority in the community, but they are all - powerful. They force citizens to seek permission (usually denied) for any changes to private property.
They use such excuses as historic preservation, water use restrictions, energy use, and open space restrictions. They will dictate that homeowners must use special “green” light bulbs and force stores to only use paper bags, for example.
They over-burden or even destroy business, creating stiff regulations on manufacturing and small business in the community. They may dictate the number of outlets a business may have in a community, not matter what the population
demands. For example, in San Francisco there can only be seven McDonalds.
They can dictate the kind of building materials owners can use in their private home – or whether one can build on their property at all.
Then, if they do grant a permit for building, they might not decide to let the property owner acquire water and electricity for the new home – and they may or may not give you a reason for being turned down.
As part of Sustainable health care, they may even dictate that you get the proper exercise – as determined by the government. Again, San Francisco has built a new federal building – the greenest ever built.
The elevators will only stop on every third floor so riders are forced to use stairs – for their own health, of course.
These councils fit almost perfectly the definition of a State Soviet: a system of councils that report to an apex council and then implement a predetermined outcome. Soviets are the operating mechanism of a government-controlled economy.
So Many Things Making So Little Sense: (US)
EPA drives industries overseas where the pollution increases
EPA embraces ethanol while blaming farming for pollution
Master plans across America overtly ignore property rights
Environmental nooses rob property rights and individual freedoms based on unsettled science, distorted statistics and exaggerated predictions
Focus on Social Equity eclipsing life-liberty property (Why?)
Municipal master plans have become manifestos
People in tears across America
Public / Private Partnerships
The fourth path to imposing Sustainable Development is Public/Private Partnerships (PPPs). Unfortunately, today, many Conservative / Libertarian organizations are presenting PPPs as free enterprise and a private answer for keeping taxes down by using business to make a better society.
There are certain areas where private business contracts to do jobs such as running school cafeterias through a competitive bid system. That type of arrangement certain does serve the tax payers and provides better services. That’s not how PPPs are used though Sustainable Development.
In truth, many PPPs are nothing more than government-sanctioned monopolies in which a few businesses are granted special favors like tax breaks, the power of eminent domain, non-compete clauses and specific guarantees for return on their investments.
That means they can fix prices, charge beyond what the market demands, and they can use the power of government to put competition out of business. That is not free enterprise. And it is these global corporations that are pushing the green agenda.
If you can stomach reading this horse shit, click on the image above
PPPs were the driving force behind the Trans Texas Corridor, using eminent domain to take more than 580,000 acres of private land - sanctioned by the partnership with the Texas government. And PPPs are taking over highways and local water treatment plants in communities across the nation.
PPPs in control of the water system can control water consumption – a major part of the Sustainable Development blueprint.
Fueled by federal grant programs through the EPA, the auto industry has produced and forced onto the market “green” cars that no one wants to buy, such as the Chevy Volt.
For its part of the partnership, government passed regulations that keep gas prices high to make them more inviting.
The federal government has entered into many partnerships with alternative energy companies in a move to force wind power and solar power on an uninterested public. Again, such industries only exist though the power and of government determined to enforce a certain political agenda. They would never survive in an honest free market.
Using government to ban its own product, General Electric is forcing the mercury- laden green light bulb, costing 5 times the price of incandescent bulbs. Such is the reality of green industry, which depends more on government subsidy and grants than on customers.
The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is the root of the “Free Trade” process and the fuel for PPPs between international corporations and government, thereby creating an “elite” class of “connected” businesses – or what Ayn Rand called “the power of pull.”
Success in the PPP world is not based on quality of product and service, but on who you know in high places.
To play ball in the PPP game means accepting the mantra of Sustainable Development and helping to implement it, even if it means going against your own product. That’s why Home Depot uses its commercials to oppose cutting down trees and British Petroleum advocates reducing the use of oil.
It is not free enterprise, but a Mussolini-type fascism of government and private industry organized in a near impenetrable force of power. And it’s all driven by the Agenda 21 blueprint of Sustainable Development.
ICLEI: Charter 1.7 - Principles
The Association shall promote, and ask its individual members to adopt, the following Earth Charter Principles to guide local action:
6. Prevent harm as the best method of environmental protection and, when knowledge is limited, apply a precautionary approach.
7. Adopt patterns of production, consumption, and reproduction that safeguard Earth’s regenerative capacities, human rights, and community well-being. (Communitarianism with forced sterilization?)
(9) Eradicate poverty as an ethical, social, and environmental imperative.
9. Eradicate poverty as an ethical, social, and environmental imperative.
10. Ensure that economic activities and institutions at all levels promote human development in an equitable and sustainable manner.
11. Affirm gender equality and equity as prerequisites to sustainable development and ensure universal access to education, health care, and economic opportunity.
14. Integrate into formal education and life-long learning the knowledge, values, and skills needed for a sustainable way of life.
What Kinds of Groups Promote this in the U.S.A.?
Many people ask how dangerous international policies can suddenly turn up in state and local government, all seemingly uniform to those in communities across the nation and around the globe.
The answer – meet ICLEI, a non-profit, private foundation, dedicated to helping locally elected representatives fully implement Agenda 21 in the community.
Originally known as the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI), today the group simply calls itself “ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability.”
In 1992, ICLEI was one of the groups instrumental in creating Agenda 21.
The group’s mission is to push local communities to transform the way governments operate, creating a “community plan,” creating a wide range of non-elected planning and councils which then impose severe regulations and oversight policies, affecting every homeowner, every business, every school; literally every aspect of the citizen’s lives.
And it’s having tremendous success.
Currently there are over 600 American cities in which ICLEI is being paid dues with tax dollars from city councils to implement and enforce Sustainable Development. ICLEI is there to assure that the mayors keep their promises and meet their goals. Climate change and the goal to cut the communities carbon footprint is, of course, the ICLEI mantra.
Here’s just some of the programs ICLEI provides cities and towns, in order to spread their own particular political agenda in the name of “community services” and environmental protection, they include:
Software programs to help set the goals for community development – which leads to controlling use of private property;
Access to a network of “Green” experts, newsletters, conferences and workshops – to assure all city employees are in the process;
Toolkits, online resources, case studies, fact sheets, policy and practice manuals, and blueprints used by other communities;
Training workshops for staff and elected officials on how to develop and implement the programs;
And, of course, there’s Notification of relevant grant opportunities – this is the important one – money – with severe strings attached.
ICLEI recommends that the community hire a full time “sustainability manager,” who, even in small towns, can devote 100% of his time to assure that every nook and corner of the government is on message and under control.
Using environmental protection as the excuse, these programs are about reinventing government with a specific political agenda. ICLEI and others are dedicated to transforming every community in the nation to the Agenda 21 blueprint.
In addition to ICLEI, groups like the Sierra Club, Nature Conservancy and Audubon Society, NGOs which also helped write Sustainable Development policy have chapters in nearly every city. They know that Congress has written legislation providing grants for cities that implement Sustainablist policy. They agitate to get the cities to accept the grants.
If a city rejects the plan, they then agitate to the public, telling them that their elected representatives have cost the city millions in “their” tax dollars. In the end, through such tactics, the NGOs usually get their way.
The NGOs are joined in their efforts by professional planning groups and associations such as the American Planning Association (APA), The Renaissance Planning Group, and the International City/County Management association (ICMA). IN fact there are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of non-profits, NGOs and planning groups living off the grant money, working to enforce Sustainable Development policy at every level of government.
The APA - Professional Planners [or Anti-Capitalist Political Advocacy?] APA embraces ICLEI Programmes(s)
1.1 "The built envoronment is a primary contributor to climate change" ...Business as usual will not suffice."
1.3 Social Equity and Climate CHange (&Environmental Justice)
2.4 #6: "Should reduce reliance on coal..."
2.4 #10: Growe food for local consumption(Starve the world?)
2.4 #14: Reduce VMT (Vehicle Miles Travelled)
2.4 #15: Cap & Trade for carbon ...needed.
Land Use #15: Create city-funded housing repair programs
Transportation #4: Increase CAFE standards
Here Are Just a Few to Watch For:
The American Planning Association (APA) is the nation’s leading enforcer of Sustainable policy. It came into being in 1978 and can be found in literally every community in the nation. It doesn’t have the same open ties to the UN as does
ICLEI, but is every bit as involved, if not more so.
The APA’s “Growing Smart Legislative Guide Book” is found in nearly every university, state and county in the country. It is the planning guide preferred by most urban and regional planners.
The American Planning Association is one of many members of the PCSD. They partner with ICLEI & ICMA in the implementation of sustainable development. ICMA, International City / County Management Association, is an organization
of professional local government leaders building sustainable communities worldwide.
Christchurch, New Zealand
ICMA provides technical and management assistance, training, and information resources in the areas of performance measurement, ethics education and training, community and economic development, environmental management, technology, and other topics to its members and the broader local government community.
They are aided in their efforts through such as the U.S. Conference of Mayors, National Governors Association, National League of Cities, the National Association of County Administrators and several more groups that are supposed to
represent elected officials.
The Renaissance Planning Group is an urban planning firm. They played a critical role in Florida’s “Forever Program”. The Forever Program is Florida’s premier conservation and recreation lands acquisition program. Florida Forever is the
largest public land acquisition program of its kind in the United States.
With approximately 9.8 million acres of conservation land in Florida, more than 2.4 million acres were purchased under the Florida Forever and P2000 programs.
Propaganda from idiots for idiots
In 2007, the Virginia state legislature passed HB 3202 mandating that counties with the prescribed growth rate establish high density urban development areas. As a result, to date, 67 counties in the Commonwealth of Virginia are required to establish “urban development areas”.
The process and proposed land use planning that is being implemented, follows the very same policies called for in Agenda 21’s biodiversity plan. This requirement by the state forces local governments to compromise your private property through zoning measures called for in the Smart Growth program for sustainable development.
The American Farmland Trust (AFT) formed in 1980, works to acquire and control farmer development rights and the purchase of Agriculture Easements which drastically reduce, if not eliminate private ownership of the land.
"We believe planning should be a tool for allocating resources... and eliminating the great inequalities of wealth and power in our society... because the free market has proven incapable of doing this."
The Danger is in the “Process”
Sustainable policies are being sold universally to the public as a means to protect the environment and control growth. That is simply the excuse for the policies being implemented in its name.
The real problem is the “PROCESS” through which Sustainable Development is being forced on unsuspecting citizens.
The comprehensive land use plans are being steered by planning groups through manipulation by facilitated stakeholder consensus councils.
Though their meetings are “open” to the public, they are void of any public input.
The predetermined outcome severely restricts land use and compromises private property ownership in an already distressed market.
They answer to no one and they are run by zealots with their own political agenda imposing international laws and regulations.
Local homeowners have no say in the process and in most cases are shut out. Sometimes they are literally thrown out of council meetings because they want to discuss how a regulation is going to affect their property or livelihood.
Communities have dealt with local problems for 200 years. Some use zoning, some don’t. But locally elected town councils and commissioners, which meet and discuss problems with the citizens, are how this nation was built and prospered.
Today, under Sustainable Development, NGOs like ICLEI and the APA move in to establish non-elected boards, councils and regional government bodies.
Despite the Senate’s refusal to ratify the Biodiversity Treaty in 1994, the Agenda 21 policies called for by the convention, are being implemented nationwide. No matter where you live, rest assured Agenda 21 policies are being implemented in your community.
Proponents of Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development attempt to ridicule those who oppose the programs as being paranoid radicals who are spreading conspiracy theories about what they call an “obscure 20 year old UN document.”
Yet, in 2012 the UN sponsored Rio+20, in which 50,000 delegates from around the world to celebrate Agenda 21 and find means to complete its implementation.
Sustainable Development is not about “saving the environment.” It is about a revolutionary coup. It is about establishing global governance and abandoning the principles of Natural Law on which America was founded.
The politically-based environmental movement provides Sustainablists camouflage as they work to transform global systems of government, justice, and economics.
It’s a masterful mixture of Socialism, (with its top-down control of the tools of the economy); fascism (where property is owned in name only – with no private control); and Corporatism, (where partnerships between government and private business create government sanctioned monopolies.)
Sustainable Development is the worst of both the left and the right. It is bad policy pushed by both liberal and conservatives.
It is a new kind of tyranny that, if not stopped, will surely lead all human kind to a new Dark Ages of pain and misery.
What has Sustainability Become? Unfortunately, the environmental movement has been hijacked as a convenient excuse to attack capitalism; blame America; transfer wealth; impinge on Constitutional rights; and install a government-run socio-economic system.
United Nations paradigm:Capitalism and private property rights are not sustainable, and pose the single greatest threat to the world's ecosystem and social equity.
How to Fight Back Against Sustainable Development
Be aware of the world in which your elected officials live.
See below: ICLEI doesn't come with flashing lights that say "ICLEI".
It comes wrapped in a plain green package labelled "Smart Growth" or "Sustainability":
You need to know who the players are and you need to understand the political world your officials are operating in.
This may help you to understand that perhaps they aren’t all evil globalists, but, perhaps, good people who are surrounded by powers that won’t let them see the reality of the policies they are helping to implement.
I’m certainly not making excuses for them, but before you rush in and start yelling about their enforcing UN policies on the community, here are some things you should consider.
In most communities, you mayor, city council members and county commissioners are automatically members of national organizations like the National Conference of Mayors, National League of Cities, and the national associations for city council members, and the same for commissioners.
Those in the state government also have the National Governors Association and state legislators have their national organization.
For the past twenty years or more, each and every one of these national organizations have been promoting Sustainable
Development and related policies. The National Mayors Conference and the National Governors Association have been leaders in this agenda, many times working directly with UN organizations to promote the policy.
That is the message your local elected leaders hear; from the podium; from fellow officials from other communities; from “experts” they’ve been told to respect; in committee meetings; from dinner speakers; from literature they are given at such meetings.
They are told of legislation that will be soon be implemented, and they are even provided sample legislation to introduce in their communities.
Back home, they are surrounded by a horde of “stakeholder” groups, each promoting a piece of the agenda, be it policies for water control, energy control, development control, specific building materials control, historic preservation and control of “downtown” development, conservation easements and development rights for control of rural property.
These groups like ICLEI, the American Planning Association, the Renaissance Planning Group, and many more, are heavily involved with state and federal plans. They arrive in your community with blue prints, state and federal plans, grants and lots of contacts in high places.
There are official programs for “going Green,” Comprehensive land use plans, and lots of programs for the kids in the classrooms.
There is also a second horde involved in the Sustainablist invasion – state and federal agency officials including EPA agents; air and water quality agents; Interior Department officials, HUD officials, energy officials, Commerce Department officials, and on and on – all targeting your locally elected officials with policy, money, regulations, reports, special planning boards, meetings, and conferences, all promoting the exact same agenda.
And don’t forget the news media, both locally and nationally, also promoting the Sustainablist agenda, attacking anyone not going along, ready to quickly use the “extremist” label against them.
The message is clear - Sustainable Development is reality – politically correct, necessary, unquestionable, and it has “consensus.”
Is your head spinning yet? Think of the affect all of this has on a poor local official who just thought he would run for office and serve his community. This is his reality. This is what he thinks government is supposed to be because, after all, everyone he is dealing with says so.
Now, as he is surrounded by all of these important, powerful folks, along comes a local citizen who tells him that some guy named Tom DeWeese says all of these programs are from the UN and are taking away our liberty.
Who? He said what? Come on, I’m not doing that. And I don’t have time to talk about it. I have another meeting to go to.
If we are going to successfully fight Agenda 21, it is vitally important that we all recognize this reality as we plan to deal with it and defeat it. With that in mind, I offer the following ideas.
How to Fight Back
First and foremost, don’t try to fight alone. If you try to attend local meetings by yourself you will be ignored. You will need others to plan and implement strategy.
You have family and friends. Start with them. Ask them to help look into some local policies. Even if they start off skeptical about your concerns, it won’t take them long to see the truth.
Check out of there is a local tea party or even a local Republican group. Churches are a target of such policies. Alert people at your church and ask them to help fight back.
Find people to help you!
Research: Don’t even begin to open up a fight until you know certain details. First, who are the players in your community. What privately funded “stakeholder” groups are there? What is their agenda?
What other communities have they operated in? What projects? What results? Who are their members in your community?
Are they residents or did they come from “out of town?” (That could prove to be valuable information later in the fight). Finding this information may be the hardest of your efforts. They like to operate out of the spotlight.
It’s not likely that the town will carry official documentation of who it is working with. It probably will require that you attend lots of meetings and hearings. Take note of who is there and their role. Do this quietly. Don’t announce to the community what you are doing. Don’t make yourselves a target. You may have to ask questions and that may raise some eyebrows. But stay out of the way as much as possible.
Second, get all the details on the plans your community is working on. Has there already been legislation passed? Most of this information can be found on the town website. Knowing this information will help you put together a plan of action.
Once you have it, you can begin to take your fight public.
With the information you have gathered, begin to examine the effect the policies will have on the community and its residents. Find who the victims of the legislation or regulation may be. This will be of great value as you confront city council. People understand victim stories – especially if it is them. It is the best way to undermine the process – and help get people to join your cause.
You will find that Conservation Easements have raised taxes as much of the county land is removed from the tax rolls – someone has to make up for the lost revenue and the payment of easements. Are “stakeholder” groups helping to get landowners to sign up for the easements – and if so – do they get any kind of kickbacks?
Who are getting the easements? You may find the rich land owners have found a great loophole to cut their own property taxes as the middle class makes up the short fall. This will help bring usually disinterested people to your cause.
Does the community plan call for reduction of energy use? If so, look for calls for energy audits and taxes on energy use. The audits mean that the government has set a goal to reduce energy use. It may follow that government agents are going to come into your home to inspect your energy use.
Then they are going to tell you what must be done in your home to cut usage. That will cost you money. Don’t fall for the line that it is all voluntary – to help you save money.
They haven’t gone to this much trouble to be ignored. Regulations are not voluntary.
These are just a couple of examples of what to look for as you do your research.
There are many more, including meters on wells to control water use, smart meters to take away your control of your thermostat; non elected boards and councils to control local development and implement smart growth, leading to
population growth; Public / Private Partnerships with local and large corporations to “go Green;” creation of open space; pushing back live stock from streams, enforcing sustainable farming methods that restrict energy and water use in farming practices; and much more.
It all leads to higher costs and shortages, in the name of environmental protection and conservation and controlling growth (anti-sprawl, they call it).
Your goal is to stop Sustainable Development in your community. That means a campaign to stop the creation of non-elected regional government councils that are difficult to hold accountable.
It means to stop local governments from taking grants that come with massive strings attached to enforce compliance.
And it means you must succeed in removing outsider organizations and Stakeholder groups that are pressuring your elected officials to do their bidding. Civic Action: Armed with as much information as you can gather (and armed with the ability to coherently discuss its details) you are ready to take your battle to the public.
First, it would be better for you to try to discuss it privately with some of your elected officials, especially if you know them. Tell them what you have found and explain why you are opposed.
First discuss the effects of the policies on the average citizen. Explain why they are bad. Only very slowly should you bring the conversation around to the origin of such polices - Agenda 21 and the UN.
Don’t start there. It is important that you build the case to show that these policies are not local, but part of a national and international agenda. If this conversation does not go well (and it probably won’t) then you have to take it to the next level – to the public.
Begin a two fold campaign. First, write a series of letters to the editor for the local newspaper. Make sure that you are not alone.
Coordinate your letters with others who will also write letters to back up and support what you have written. These will generate more letters from others, some for your position and other against you.
Be prepared to answer those against you as they are probably written by those “Stakeholders” who are implementing the policies in the first place. This may be a useful place for you to use what you’ve learned about these groups to discredit them.
Second, begin to attend Council meetings and ask questions. The response from the council members will determine your next move. If you are ignored and your questions met with silence or hostility, prepare a news release detailing your questions and the background you have as to why you asked those questions.
Pass the news release out to the people at the next meeting as well as the news media. Attend the next meeting and the next demanding answers. Be sure to organize people to come with you.
Don’t try this alone. If necessary, have demonstrators outside city hall carrying signs or handing out flyers with the name and picture of the officials who won’t answer your questions along with the question you asked – including the details you have about the policy.
The point in all of this is to make the issue public. Take away their ability to hide the details from the public. Expose the hoards of outsiders who are dictating policy in your community. Force the people you elected to deal with YOU – not the army of self-appointed “stakeholders” and government officials. Shine a very right spotlight on the roaches under the rock.
If the newspaper is with you, great, but you will probably find it working with the other side. It may be difficult to get a fair shake in the newspaper or on radio.
That’s why you deliver your news releases to both the media and the public. Get signs, and flyers in stores if necessary. And keep it up for as long as it takes. Don’t stop the public demonstration until you had acquired victory, or at least started a public debate.
The final step is to use the energy you have created to run candidates for office against those who have ignored and fought you. Ultimately, that is the office holders worst nightmare and may be the most effective way to get them to respond and serve their constituents.
New Tactic
As mentioned in the beginning, over the past couple of years, as we’ve educated people on Agenda 21 and its UN origins, the natural reaction by concerned citizens and activists has been to rush into city hall and accuse their elected representatives of implementing international policies on the town.
This has, of course, been met with skepticism and ridicule on the part of some of the elected officials (egged on by the NGO stakeholder groups and planning organizations).
Today, the promoters of Agenda 21, including ICLEI and the American Planning Association (APA) have worked overtime to paint our movement as crazed conspiracy theorists wearing tin foil hats and hearing voices.
So, it’s time to change tactics.
Here is an undeniable fact: Agenda 21 / Sustainable Development cannot be enforced without usurping or diminishing private property rights. So, we need to begin to challenge the plans that affect private property rights.
However, as we move in that direction, we must have a clear understanding of what property rights are. Many people today have little or varying ideas of property rights.
Forty years ago people understood things like “No Trespassing,” “My home is my castle,” and “step across that line and suffer the consequences.” Such ideas today seem quaint and antiquated to many, especially with government invading private property at will.
Sometimes, in order to purchase property or to get access to services, we sign documents that say government or utility agents are free to come on our property at will. The idea of “Keep Out” is almost unheard of.
However, to demand that your private property be honored and protected a definition must be established before you start the effort.
As you stand in front of the elected officials at their regular meeting, ask them simply;
“As you bring these planners into our community and begin to implement their programs, what guarantees do I have that you will protect my private property rights?”
At this point you haven’t mentioned Agenda 21, and you haven’t attacked planning. You are simply asking a non-combative question.
They will assure you that they are in full support of protecting private property.
And then you say;
“Well, I’m happy to hear that. But, I would really like to have that in writing.”
And you present the resolution to them. If you can read it aloud to the meeting, so much the better. They may say they need to take it under consideration and will get back to you. Fine.
Make sure you are back at the next meeting to ask about it. If they say “No.” You simply ask “Why?” and take it from there.
Do not attempt this alone. The key to this effort is persistence and organization.
If they have refused to sign it then you need 5 or 10 people to stand up and ask why. You need to escalate this at each meeting until it becomes a public issue -
“Why won’t your elected officials sign a simple document that says they will protect your private property rights? What are they hiding in the plans they are presenting to us?”
This can and will lead to protests, letters to the editor and other media available to you. Put the elected officials’ names on signs carried by protestors who are rallying outside the next council or planning meeting.
Make them the issue. What you are really doing is laying the ground work for a campaign to defeat them in the next election. It is also important to do research into what planning groups, non-governmental organizations (NGO’s) federal grants and agencies may be involved in the process. All of them have a background.
Find out who they are and what they have done in the past in other communities and present that info to your fellow citizens as a warning of what is to come. I recommend that you create a “rapid response team” to be prepared to immediately respond in the media to anything they do. Make them scared to act.
If ICLEI is in your city, the details about Agenda 21 and the UN connection is easier. Your community is paying them dues with your tax dollars. Here is how to handle them:
If your council derides your statements that their policies come from the UNs Agenda 21, simply print out the home page from ICLEI’s web site: www.iclei.org
This will have all of the UN connections you’ve been talking about, in ICLEI’s own words.
Pass out the web page copies to everyone in the chamber audience and say to your elected officials;
“Don’t call me a radical simply for reporting what ICLEI openly admits on its own web site. I’m just the one pointing it out – you are the ones who are paying our tax dollars to them.”
Then demand that those payment stop. You have proven your case.
Stopping Consensus Meetings
Most public meetings are now run by trained and highly paid facilitators whose jobs is to control the meeting and bring it to a preplanned conclusion. If he is good at his job, the facilitator can actually make the audience think the “consensus” they have reached on and issue or proposal is actually their idea.
This is how Sustainable Development is being implemented across the nation, especially in meetings or planning boards that are advertised as open to the public.
They really don’t want you there and the tactic is used to move forward in full view of the public without them knowing what is happening. There is nothing free or open about the consensus process.
It is designed to eliminate debate and close discussion.
To bust up the process you must never participate, even to answer a question.
To do so allows the facilitator to make you part of the process. Instead, you must control the discussion.
Here is a quick suggestion on how to foul up the works:
Never go alone to such a meeting. You will need at least three people – the more the better.
Do not sit together. Instead, fan out in the room in a triangle formation.
Know ahead of time the questions you want to ask: Who is the facilitator?
What is his association with the organizers? Is he being paid?
Where did these programs (being proposed) come from? How are they to be funded?
One question to ask over and over again, both at facilitated meetings and city council meetings, is this:
“With the implementation of this policy, tell me a single right or action I have on my property that doesn’t require your approval or involvement. What are my rights as a property owner?”
Make them name it.
You will quickly see that they too understand there are no property rights left. By asking these questions you are putting his legitimacy in question, building suspicion among the rest of the audience, destroying his authority.
They
will try to counter, either by patronizing and humoring you, at first, or, then becoming hostile, moving to have you removed as a disruptive force.
That’s where the rest of your group comes in. They need to back you up, demand answers to your questions. If you have enough people in the room you can cause a major disruption, making it impossible for the facilitator to move forward with his agenda.
Do not walk out and leave the room to him. Stay to the end and make him shut down the meeting.
In Conclusion
These suggestions on how to fight back are, admittedly, very basic and elementary. They are meant only to be a guideline. You will have to do your homework and adapt these tactics to your local situation.
These tactics are designed to create controversy and debate to force the Agenda 21 issue out of the secret meetings and into public debate where they belong.
Many of these same tactics can be used at all levels of government, right up and into national legislation.
Our plan is to demand answers from elected officials who want to ignore us.
They must be taught that such actions have consequences. As we learn new, successful tactics, I’ll share them with activists across the world.
The American Policy Center is now a partner in a new effort to create tactics and provide education to activists called Sustainable Freedom Lab - and hopefully it can serve as a resource for thw eorld, not just America. Here activists can share their findings, successful tactics and research with the rest of the movement.
The exciting news is that, finally, people are starting to understand that Agenda 21 is destroying our nations and they are beginning to fight back. The UN Agenda 21 house of cards is being exposed and it will fall with continued efforts and exposure by the people, and for the people - not just America - Worldwide.
The battle to stop the UN’s Agenda 21 is ragging on the local level across the world.
This document describes nothing less than a global government takeover of every nation across the planet.
The "goals" of this document are nothing more than code words for a corporate-government fascist agenda that will imprison humanity in a devastating cycle of poverty while enriching the world's most powerful globalist corporations like Monsanto and DuPont.
In the interests of helping wake up humanity, I've decided to translate the 17 points of this 2030 agenda so that readers everywhere can understand what this document is really calling for.
To perform this translation, you have to understand how globalists disguise their monopolistic agendas in "feel good" language.
Here's the point-by-point translation. Notice carefully that nowhere does this document state that "achieving human freedom" is one of its goals.
Nor does it explain HOW these goals are to be achieved. As you'll see here, every single point in this UN agenda is to be achieved through centralized government control and totalitarian mandates that resemble communism.
Translation of the UN's "2030 Agenda Blueprint for Globalist Government" (Controlled by Corporate Interests)
Goal 1. End poverty in all its forms everywhere
Translation: Put everyone on government welfare, food stamps, housing subsidies and handouts that make them obedient slaves to global government. Never allow people upward mobility to help themselves.
Instead, teach mass victimization and obedience to a government that provides monthly "allowance" money for basic essentials like food and medicine. Label it "ending poverty."
Goal 2. End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture
Translation: Invade the entire planet with GMOs and Monsanto's patented seeds while increasing the use of deadly herbicides under the false claim of "increased output" of food crops.
Engineer genetically modified plants to boost specific vitamin chemicals while having no idea of the long-term consequences of genetic pollution or cross-species genetic experiments carried out openly in a fragile ecosystem.
Goal 3. Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages
Translation: Mandate 100+ vaccines for all children and adults at gunpoint, threatening parents with arrest and imprisonment if they refuse to cooperate. Push heavy medication use on children and teens while rolling out "screening" programs. Call mass medication "prevention" programs and claim they improve the health of citizens.
Goal 4. Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all
Translation: Push a false history and a dumbed-down education under "Common Core" education standards that produce obedient workers rather than independent thinkers. Never let people learn real history, or else they might realize they don't want to repeat it.
Goal 5. Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls
Translation: Criminalize Christianity, marginalize heterosexuality, demonize males and promote the LGBT agenda everywhere. The real goal is never "equality" but rather the marginalization and shaming of anyone who expresses any male characteristics whatsoever.
The ultimate goal is to feminize society, creating widespread acceptance of "gentle obedience" along with the self-weakening ideas of communal property and "sharing" everything.
Because only male energy has the strength to rise up against oppression and fight for human rights, the suppression of male energy is key to keeping the population in a state of eternal acquiescence.
Goal 6. Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all
Translation: Allow powerful corporations to seize control of the world's water supplies and charge monopoly prices to "build new water delivery infrastructure" that "ensures availability."
Goal 7. Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all
Translation: Penalize coal, gas and oil while pushing doomed-to-fail "green" energy subsidies to brain-dead startups headed by friends of the White House who all go bankrupt in five years or less.
The green startups make for impressive speeches and media coverage, but because these companies are led by corrupt idiots rather than capable entrepreneurs, they always go broke. (And the media hopes you don't remember all the fanfare surrounding their original launch.)
Goal 8. Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all
Translation: Regulate small business out of existence with government-mandated minimum wages that bankrupt entire sectors of the economy. Force employers to meet hiring quotas of LGBT workers while mandating wage tiers under a centrally planned work economy dictated by the government. Destroy free market economics and deny permits and licenses to those companies that don't obey government dictates.
Goal 9.) Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster innovation
Translation: Put nations into extreme debt with the World Bank, spending debt money to hire corrupt American corporations to build large-scale infrastructure projects that trap developing nations in an endless spiral of debt.
See the book Confessions of an Economic Hit Man by John Perkins to understand the details of how this scheme has been repeated countless times over the last several decades.
Goal 10. Reduce inequality within and among countries
Translation: Punish the rich, the entrepreneurs and the innovators, confiscating nearly all gains by those who choose to work and excel. Redistribute the confiscated wealth to the masses of non-working human parasites that feed off a productive economy while contributing nothing to it... all while screaming about "equality!"
Goal 11. Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable
Translation: Ban all gun ownership by private citizens, concentrating guns into the hands of obedient government enforcers who rule over an unarmed, enslaved class of impoverished workers.
Criminalize living in most rural areas by instituting Hunger Games-style "protected areas" which the government will claim are owned by "the People" even though no people are allowed to live there. Force all humans into densely packed, tightly controlled cities where they are under 24/7 surveillance and subject to easy manipulation by government.
Goal 12. Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns
Translation: Begin levying punitive taxes on the consumption of fossil fuels and electricity, forcing people to live under conditions of worsening standards of living that increasingly resemble Third World conditions.
Use social influence campaigns in TV, movies and social media to shame people who use gasoline, water or electricity, establishing a social construct of ninnies and tattlers who rat out their neighbors in exchange for food credit rewards.
Goal 13. Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts
Translation: Set energy consumption quotas on each human being and start punishing or even criminalizing "lifestyle decisions" that exceed energy usage limits set by governments. Institute total surveillance of individuals in order to track and calculate their energy consumption.
Penalize private vehicle ownership and force the masses onto public transit, where TSA grunts and facial recognition cameras can monitor and record the movement of every person in society, like a scene ripped right out of Minority Report.
Goal 14. Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development
Translation: Ban most ocean fishing, plunging the food supply into an extreme shortage and causing runaway food price inflation that puts even more people into economic desperation.
Criminalize the operation of private fishing vessels and place all ocean fishing operations under the control of government central planning. Only allow favored corporations to conduct ocean fishing operations (and make this decision based entirely on which corporations give the most campaign contributions to corrupt lawmakers).
Goal 15. Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss
Translation: Roll out Agenda 21 and force humans off the land and into controlled cities. Criminalize private land ownership, including ranches and agricultural tracts. Tightly control all agriculture through a corporate-corrupted government bureaucracy whose policies are determined almost entirely by Monsanto while being rubber-stamped by the USDA.
Ban woodstoves, rainwater collection and home gardening in order to criminalize self-reliance and force total dependence on government.
Goal 16. Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels
Translation: Grant legal immunity to illegal aliens and "protected" minority groups, which will be free to engage in any illegal activity -- including openly calling for the mass murder of police officers -- because they are the new protected class in society. "Inclusive institutions" means granting favorable tax structures and government grants to corporations that hire LGBT workers or whatever groups are currently in favor with the central planners in government.
Use government agencies to selectively punish unfavorable groups with punitive audits and regulatory harassment, all while ignoring the criminal activities of favored corporations that are friends of the political elite.
Goal 17. Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development
Translation: Enact global trade mandates that override national laws while granting unrestricted imperialism powers to companies like Monsanto, Dow Chemical, RJ Reynolds, Coca-Cola and Merck.
Pass global trade pacts that bypass a nation's lawmakers and override intellectual property laws to make sure the world's most powerful corporations maintain total monopolies over drugs, seeds, chemicals and technology. Nullify national laws and demand total global obedience to trade agreements authored by powerful corporations and rubber-stamped by the UN.
Total enslavement of the planet by 2030 As the UN document says, "We commit ourselves to working tirelessly for the full implementation of this Agenda by 2030."
If you read the full document and can read beyond the fluffery and public relations phrases, you'll quickly realize that this UN agenda is going to be forced upon all the citizens of the world through the invocation of government coercion.
Nowhere does this document state that the rights of the individual will be protected.
Nor does it even acknowledge the existence of human rights granted to individuals by the Creator.
Even the so-called "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" utterly denies individuals the right to self defense, the right to medical choice and the right to parental control over their own children.
The UN is planning nothing less than a global government tyranny that enslaves all of humanity while calling the scheme "sustainable development" and "equality."
1984 has finally arrived. And of course it's all being rolled out under the fraudulent label of "progress."
However, it is not too late. Awareness is required before action may be taken.
Unless We Kick Our Addiction To Growth, We’re Heading Towards A Debt-Fuelled Dystopia May 26 2024 | From: HuffingtonPost / Various
We need to urgently reform money and banking.
We can’t sustain infinite economic growth on a finite planet, and it’s increasingly clear that governments’ attempts to do so are having devastating social and environmental consequences.
It’s been obvious for decades that our addiction to growth is unsustainable, so why aren’t governments getting the message?
GDP is a crude measure of economic activity. It represents the sum total of all the goods and services being produced in an economy. But it takes no account of those things’ true value, or of the cost of creating them.
As Robert Kennedy famously pointed out, it measures cigarette advertising and jails but not “the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages”.
Our determination to maximise growth has led to severe environmental degradation. It’s held us to extract the planet’s resources at an unsustainable rate, and induced a catastrophic increase in carbon emissions.
Nevertheless, it remains the most popular indicator of economic progress. A small uptick in growth is celebrated with fervent enthusiasm, even as more real-world indicators, such as real incomes - continue to stagnate, or household debt - continues to increase.
The growth narrative relies on the belief that “a rising tide lifts all boats” – that growth in the size of an economy increases the opportunities for all citizens.
Some writers have joked that a rising tide lifts only luxury yachts, while all the other vessels sink. As inequality and increasing levels of poverty become too big to hide, ‘inclusive growth’ is a term to ensure growth benefits all - but why do we have to stick to pursuing growth at all costs?
There are several reasons why governments think growth is beneficial and essential, and that if we didn’t focus on it so much there would be significant social and economic problems as a result. Some of the common ones are that growth is necessary to reduce poverty and raise living standards.
They’ve been widely debunked, and experts have shown that prioritising growth is an unnecessary - and even an unhelpful way to pursue these objectives.
But while there have been compelling reasons to reject many of these sources of “growth dependency”, one reason clearly is a cause for concern. Since households, businesses and governments are in debt to each other to such a significant extent, the only way to manage these debts is for the economy to grow.
A new report from Positive Money, published on Thursday, proposes two remedies for this last source of growth dependency, both of which involve reforms of the money and banking system upon which the rest of the economy rests.
The main source of money used by citizens is created by banks – over 97%. Though even most MPs aren’t aware of this, banks create new money when they make loans, and through this process, money is created as an IOU, or debt.
The vast majority - about 80% of these loans - go into property and financial markets. Wage decline has resulted in households having to take out more debt just to get by, meaning that in the UK, private debt stands at 219% of GDP.
Not only do such high levels of private debt pose serious financial stability risks, but they also fuel the government’s single-track focus on pursuing growth to make these debts manageable.
We could therefore make the power to create money a public good which works to serve society rather than burderning it with more and more debt. This could be done through Sovereign Money Creation, or “quantitative easing (essentially creating new money) for people”.
The Bank of England can create money without increasing public or private sector debt. So rather than using it to continue to create hundreds of billions of pounds to pour into financial markets, as it has done since 2009 through conventional QE, a smaller amount could be created and put straight into the real economy, via investment in green infrastructure or a citizens dividend to wipe out unsustainable debts.
But with some scientists forecasting that catastrophic climate change could be unleashed in a matter of years rather than decades, perhaps we need to be bold enough to also think about more systemic measures. [Comment: This article is from a mainstream website that has no clue about the man-made climate change scam.]
This is why another reform proposed is a Sovereign Money System, where private banks would lose their privileges to create money simply by lending.
This would pave the way for a new economy, no longer based primarily on endless debt and endless growth.
Such ideas may seem utopian, but as a debt-fuelled dystopia approaches, a world beyond growth dependency is not only necessary, but could be closer than we might think. It is worth remembering that economic growth itself was only introduced as a priority in the second half of the twentieth century. Just as ideas and the systems they produce have been changed before, we too have the power to change them again.
Trillions Spent On ‘Climate Change’ Based On Faulty Temperature Data, Climate Experts Say May 25 2024 | From: TheEpochTimes / Various
Meteorologist finds 96 percent of NOAA temperature stations located in ‘urban heat islands,’ including next to exhaust fans and on ‘blistering-hot rooftops.’
To preserve a “livable planet,” the Earth can’t warm more than 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, the United Nations warns.
Failure to maintain that level could lead to several catastrophes, including increased droughts and weather-related disasters, more heat-related illnesses and deaths, and less food and more poverty, according to NASA.
To avert the looming tribulations and limit global temperature increases, 194 member states and the European Union in 2016 signed the U.N. Paris Agreement, a legally binding international treaty with a goal to “substantially reduce global greenhouse gas emissions.”
After the agreement, global spending on climate-related projects increased exponentially.
In 2021 and 2022, the world’s taxpayers spent, on average, $1.3 trillion on such projects each year, according to the nonprofit advisory group Climate Policy Initiative.
That’s more than double the spending rate in 2019 and 2020, which came in at $653 billion per year, and it’s significantly up from the $364 billion per year in 2011 and 2012, the report found.
China emits more CO2 than the rest of the developed world combined, manufacturing EV batteries, solar panels and wind turbines (among other things) being rolled out in the West using energy from coal-fired power stations, so the West can pretend to be "green".
Despite the money pouring in, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reported that 2023 was the hottest year on record.
NOAA’s climate monitoring stations found that the Earth’s average land and ocean surface temperature in 2023 was 1.35 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial average.
“Not only was 2023 the warmest year in NOAA’s 174-year climate record - it was the warmest by far,” said Sarah Kapnick, NOAA’s chief scientist.
"A warming planet means we need to be prepared for the impacts of climate change that are happening here and now, like extreme weather events that become both more frequent and severe.”
But a growing chorus of climate scientists are saying the temperature readings are faulty and that the trillions of dollars pouring in are based on a problem that doesn’t exist.
More than 90 percent of NOAA’s temperature monitoring stations have a heat bias, according to Anthony Watts, a meteorologist, senior fellow for environment and climate at The Heartland Institute, author of climate website Watts Up With That, and director of a study that examined NOAA’s climate stations.
"And with that large of a number, over 90 percent, the methods that NOAA employs to try to reduce this don’t work because the bias is so overwhelming,” Mr. Watts told The Epoch Times.
“The few stations that are left that are not biased because they are, for example, outside of town in a field and are an agricultural research station that’s been around for 100 years ... their data gets completely swamped by the much larger set of biased data. There’s no way you can adjust that out.”
Meteorologist Roy Spencer agreed.
"The surface thermometer data still have spurious warming effects due to the urban heat island, which increases over time,” Mr. Spencer said.
He is the principal research scientist at the University of Alabama, the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer on NASA’s Aqua satellite, and the recipient of NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for his work with satellite-based temperature monitoring.
Mr. Spencer also said computerized climate models used to drive changes in energy policy are even more faulty.
Lt. Col. John Shewchuk, a certified consulting meteorologist, said the problems with temperature readings go beyond heat bias. The retired lieutenant colonel was an advanced weather officer in the Air Force.
"After seeing many reports about NOAA’s adjustments to the USHCN [U.S. Historical Climatology Network] temperature data, I decided to download and analyze the data myself,” Lt. Col. Shewchuk told The Epoch Times.
“I was able to confirm what others have found. It is obvious that, overall, the past temperatures were cooled while the present temperatures were warmed.”
He contends that NOAA and NASA have adjusted historical temperature data in such a way as to make the past appear colder and, by so doing, make the current warming trend more pronounced.
The urban heat island effect causes higher temperatures in areas where there are more buildings, roads, and other forms of infrastructure that absorb and then radiate the sun’s heat, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.
"We found stations located next to the exhaust fans of air conditioning units, surrounded by asphalt parking lots and roads, on blistering-hot rooftops, and near sidewalks and buildings that absorb and radiate heat,.” - Anthony Watts, senior fellow, Heartland Institute.
The agency estimates that “daytime temperatures in urban areas are 1 - 7 degrees Fahrenheit higher than temperatures in outlying areas, and nighttime temperatures are about 2–5 degrees Fahrenheit higher.”
Consequently, NOAA requires all its climate observation stations to be located at least 100 feet away from elements such as concrete, asphalt, and buildings.
However, in March 2009, Mr. Watts released a report that shows that 89 percent of NOAA’s stations had heat bias issues due to being located within 100 feet of those elements, and many were located by airport runways.
"We found 68 stations located at wastewater treatment plants, where the process of waste digestion causes temperatures to be higher than in surrounding areas."
The report concluded that the U.S. temperature record was unreliable, and because it was considered “the best in the world,” global temperature databases were also “compromised and unreliable.”
"Mr. Watts said the few thermometers located at climate stations not experiencing a heat bias show half the rate of warming currently being reported."
Following the report, the U.S. Office of Inspector General (OIG) and the Government Accountability Office confirmed Mr. Watt’s findings and stated that NOAA was taking steps to address the issues.
"NOAA acknowledges that there are problems with the USHCN data due to biases introduced by such means as undocumented site relocation, poor siting, or instrument changes,” the OIG report reads.
“All of the experts thought that an improved, modernized climate reporting system is necessary to eliminate the need for data adjustments.”
Despite the assurances, Mr. Watts had doubts about NOAA addressing the issues and in April 2022 and May 2022, he and his team revisited many of the same temperature stations they had observed in 2009.
He published his findings in a new study on July 27, 2022. It found that even more, approximately 96 percent, of NOAA’s temperature stations still failed to meet its own standards.
“There are two main biases in the surface temperature network for the United States, and most likely the world, that I have identified,” Mr. Watts said.
"The biggest bias is the urban heat island effect. What happens is that because heat is retained by the surfaces and released into the air at night, the night’s low temperature is not as low as it could be if the thermometer were outside of town and in a field.”
Global average surface temperatures have been variable, but show an increasing trend in recent decades. (Illustration by The Epoch Times) Click on the image above to view a larger version in a new window
Over the years, he said, more and more infrastructure has been built up around the thermometer locations, and at night, the asphalt and concrete release the absorbed heat and push up the temperature.
"You can look at any set of climate data, no matter who produces it, and you can see this effect.
The low temperatures are trending upward much faster, and the high temperatures are virtually unchanged.
But it’s the average temperature that’s being used to track climate change,” Mr. Watts said.
He said that even though both NOAA and NASA claim that they can adjust their data to account for the urban heat island effect, the bias is impossible to overcome because the problem impacts 96 percent of surface stations.
He said the few thermometers located at climate stations not experiencing a heat bias show half the rate of warming currently being reported.
The second primary bias that Mr. Watts identified is the transient temperature readings, which are short-term temperature changes that can give a false reading.
NOAA started switching out their mercury thermometers in the mid-to-late 1980s, according to Mr. Watts.
The majority of its network now consists of electronic thermometers that can measure temperature within seconds.
"But they’re only recording the high and the low temperature of the day, and these can be biased by simple effects of wind,” he said.
“For example, you can have one of these temperature sensors placed near a parking lot, which happens to be to the east of the thermometer. And the wind has been predominantly from the south all through the day.
But then, all of a sudden, you get a wind shift, and the wind shift could be caused by a number of different things. It could be caused by a change in the weather patterns. It could be caused by something blocking the wind from the south, like a semi-truck pulling up nearby.
“So you get wind shifting out of the east suddenly, coming across the parking lot, and picking up that radiant heat. And the thermometer will respond to that in the space of a second or two.
And it will report a high temperature from that wind gust that does not necessarily represent the weather that day. It’s an anomaly. And the same thing can happen at night."
Mr. Watts said transient temperature is such a well-known problem that the Met Office in the UK and the Australian Bureau of Meteorology have abandoned their high-tech network and are retooling to get more accurate readings.
"These are the problems that NOAA has not really fully addressed,” he said.
“The folks who do the climate data never leave the office, and they don’t administer these stations. They [the stations] are left to the National Weather Service field offices - and the National Weather Service field offices are understaffed."
“Some stations, like out here in the West, are hundreds of miles away or more from the National Weather Service office, so they can’t get out there and do maintenance regularly. And when the National Weather Service went to modernization in the early 1990s, they closed many Weather Service offices around the country."
“And so, the maintenance on these thermometers - and a lot of these monitors are run by the public, a lot are volunteers - has fallen off. I’ve had volunteers, when I go visit, ask me if I can get the Weather Service to come out and fix something. But they can’t, because the problem is, they don’t have the budget."
"The bottom line is that the Cooperative Observer Network, the COOP network - it’s literally a ragtag bunch of volunteers combined with some public agencies, such as police stations, fire stations, forest service, and so on."
“This is not a rigorously scientifically controlled network at the operational level."
NOAA itself stated on its website that its temperature readings aren’t precise and that the agency adds a margin of error to its temperatures.
Neither NOAA nor NASA responded by press time to The Epoch Times’ request for comment regarding transient temperature anomalies or Mr. Watts’s claim that adjusting for a heat bias is impossible.
NOAA has also been adjusting historical temperature data.
"Normally, when correcting data errors, you would expect a more random result in the data adjustments - both up and down - but the results instead show a systematic process of cooling the past and warming the present,” Lt. Col. Shewchuk said.
An example is Iceland’s Reykjavik station.
The February 1936 record for the Reykjavik station showed a mean temperature of minus 0.2 degrees Celsius for the month and an annual mean temperature of 5.78 degrees Celsius, according to the Goddard Institute for Space Studies Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP).
The original GISTEMP monthly data was known as v2, or version 2.
EPA data shows an increasing ratio of daily record high-to-low temperatures in order to indicate rising global temperatures (Illustration by The Epoch Times)
In 2019, NOAA released an updated version of its software, GISTEMP v4.
It shows Reykjavik station's mean temperature for February 1936 as minus 1.02 degrees Celsius, and the annual mean temperature as 5.01 degrees Celsius. That’s a downward adjustment of 0.82 degrees Celsius for the month and 0.77 degrees Celsius for the year after the software update.
When comparing the GISTEMP v2 monthly data against the v4 monthly data, an overall cooling of the past is observed.
“Incredibly, the range of data adjustments exceeds 2 degrees Fahrenheit, which is significant with respect to current temperature trends,” Lt. Col. Shewchuk said.
“NOAA also employs a very unusual follow-on data adjustment process, where they periodically go back and re-adjust the previously adjusted data. This makes it difficult to find ground truth, which seems more like shifting sands.”
In response to The Epoch Times’ request for comment about the adjustments to historical data, NOAA’s public affairs officer, John Bateman, said he reached out to one of NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) climate experts, who responded:
“NCEI applies corrections to account for historical changes in station location, temperature instrumentation, observing practice, and, to a lesser extent, siting conditions. Our approaches are documented in the peer-reviewed literature. At the national scale, the corrected data are in good agreement with the U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN), which has pristine siting conditions.”
NASA didn’t respond to The Epoch Times’ request for comment about adjustments to historical data.
This is a Tesla model Y Battery:
It takes up all of the space under the passenger compartment of the car. To manufacture it you need:
12 tons of rock for Lithium (can also be extracted from sea water)
5 tons of cobalt minerals (Most cobalt is made as a byproduct of processing copper and nickel ores. It is the most difficult and expensive material to obtain for a battery.)
3 tons nickel ore
12 tons of copper ore
You must move 250 tons of soil to obtain:
26.5 pounds of Lithium
30 pounds of nickel
48.5 pounds of manganese
15 pounds of cobalt
To manufacture the battery also requires:
441 pounds of aluminum, steel and/or plastic
112 pounds of graphite
The Caterpillar 994A is used to move the earth to obtain the minerals needed for this battery. The Caterpillar consumes 264 gallons of diesel in 12 hours.
The bulk of necessary minerals for manufacturing the batteries come from China or Africa. Much of the labor in Africa is done by children. When you buy an electric car, China profits most.
The 2021 Tesla Model Y OEM battery (the cheapest Tesla battery) is currently for sale on the Internet for $4,999 not including shipping or installation. The battery weighs 1,000 pounds (you can imagine the shipping cost).
The cost of Tesla batteries are: [USD]
Model 3 -- $14,000+ (Car MSRP $38,990)
Model Y -- $5,000–$5,500 (Car MSRP $47,740)
Model S -- $13,000–$20,000 (Car MSRP $74,990)
Model X -- $13,000+ (Car MSRP $79,990)
It takes 7 years for an electric car to reach net-zero CO2. The life expectancy of the battery is 10 years (average). Only in the last 3 years do you start to reduce your carbon footprint, but then the batteries must be replaced and you lose all gains made.
And finally, my new friend, Michael, made some excellent points: I forgot to mention the amount of energy required to process the raw materials and the amount of energy used to haul these batteries to the U.S. sometimes back and forth a couple of times.
But by all means, get an electric car. Just don't sell me on how awesome you are for the environment. Or for human rights.
To get a more accurate reading of the Earth’s fluctuating surface temperatures, Mr. Spencer and climatologist John Christy developed a global temperature data set from microwave data observed from satellites.
Mr. Christy is a professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and director of the Earth System Science Center, who, along with Mr. Spencer, received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for his work with satellite-based temperature monitoring.
They started their project in 1989 and analyzed data going back to 1979. According to satellite data, since 1979, the Earth’s temperature has been increasing at a steady rate of 0.14 degrees Celsius every 10 years.
And while 2023 was the hottest year on record due to linear warming trends, they say it’s not a cause for public panic.
“Yes, it appears 2023 was the warmest in the last 100 years or so. But numbers matter. The magnitude isn’t large enough for anyone to feel,” Mr. Spencer said.
“Besides, a single year is weather, not climate. What matters is the long-term trend, say many decades.
He said the 2023 data, added to the 45 years of data since 1979, doesn’t alter the overall trend of 0.14 degrees Celsius increase every 10 years
“I believe both satellites and thermometers show a warming trend, especially since the 1970s,” Mr. Spencer said.
“But the strength of that trend is considerably less than what climate models predict, and it is those models which are used to argue for changes in energy policy and CO2 emissions reduction.”
Lt. Col. Shewchuk agreed that satellite-based temperature data is more precise, and it shows a much smaller warming trend than NOAA’s surface-based warming trend.
"The satellite data are a better measure of global temperature change because [they] do not suffer from conventional surface temperature station location problems or the numerous forms of NOAA data editing activities,” he said.
Satellite readings are also “routinely calibrated to radiosonde (weather balloon) data, which are the gold standard for atmospheric data.”
Mr. Spencer published a report on Jan. 24 that addresses inaccuracies in climate modeling.
"Warming of the global climate system over the past half-century has averaged 43 percent less than that produced by computerized climate models used to promote changes in energy policy,” the report reads.
“Contrary to media reports and environmental organizations’ press releases, global warming offers no justification for carbon-based regulation.”
Mr. Spencer said the public has been led to believe that modeling is “fairly accurate,” but a number of additional variables have been added to the modeling that result in higher temperature estimates."
"Current claims of a climate crisis are invariably the result of reliance on the models producing the most warming, not on actual observations of the climate system which reveal unremarkable changes over the past century or more,” he wrote.
NASA Props Up Ground Readings
NASA claims on its website that ground thermometers are more accurate than satellite measurements.
"While satellites provide valuable information about Earth’s temperature, ground thermometers are considered more reliable because they directly measure the temperature where people reside,” NASA stated.
“Satellite data require complex processing and modeling to convert brightness measurements into temperature readings, making ground thermometers a more direct and accurate source of temperature information for us.”
Mr. Spencer quickly pointed out the flaws in NASA’s claim.
"Surface thermometers only cover a tiny fraction of the Earth, whereas the satellites provide nearly complete global coverage,” he said.
“NASA’s complaint that the 16 separate satellites must be pieced together ‘like a jigsaw puzzle’ is ironic since the surface temperature record is pieced together from hundreds (if not thousands) of stations, with almost none of them, anywhere, providing a continuous, uninterrupted record unaffected by increasing urban heat island effects.
Finally, the complaint is that satellites only measure the deep atmosphere, not the surface where people live. ...
Well, if that is so, why are deep ocean temperatures touted as being so valuable for climate research?
All of these measurements are important in their own right, and each system has its strengths and weaknesses.
Our satellite dataset is widely used by climate researchers around the world.”
As to NASA’s critique that satellites don’t directly measure temperature but instead the brightness of Earth’s atmosphere, making them inaccurate, Mr. Spencer said: “Strictly speaking, that is true. But surface thermometers are electronic, so (technically) they measure electrical resistance."
"The satellites are calibrated with the highest quality, laboratory-standard platinum resistance thermometers.
If NASA is going to fault remotely-sensed satellite data, they might as well shut down their myriad Earth satellite programs, which have the same (supposed) ‘defect.’”
Lt. Col. Shewchuk called NASA’s claim that satellite data is inferior to surface temperature readings “nonsense.”
“UAH satellite data is the only data source that is truly global in nature. It effectively measures the temperature of earth’s entire atmosphere, and especially the lower troposphere - where our weather is actually created,” he said.
"The only limitation is that the satellite data only begins in 1979.”
Mr. Watts said that when he looked at data from ground surface stations in grassy fields (absent an urban heat island effect), the temperature readings closely matched Mr. Spencer’s satellite data.
When asked why NOAA isn’t only using thermometers where there’s no possibility for an urban heat island effect, Mr. Spencer said:
"I think their goal is not to get the most accurate long-term temperature record but to use as much thermometer data as they can get their hands on. This is good to build a congressionally-funded program and keep people employed.”
The current amount of money, $1.3 trillion annually, being spent on climate initiatives is nowhere near enough, according to the Climate Policy Initiative.
“In the average scenario, the annual climate finance needed through 2030 increases steadily from $8.1 to $9 trillion. Then, estimated needs jump to over $10 trillion each year from 2031 to 2050,” the group stated.
"This means that climate finance must increase by at least five-fold annually, as quickly as possible, to avoid the worst impacts of climate change.”
The organization lists its funders on its website, including the Rockefeller Foundation, WWF, and Bloomberg Philanthropies.
Its partners include BlackRock, two U.N. climate groups, several large global banks, and government groups such as the Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy.
Primary Water: Why We Do Not Have A Water Shortage & Rare Diamond Confirms That Earth's Mantle Holds An Ocean's Worth Of Water May 24 2024 | From: PrimaryWater / PrimaryWaterInstitute / ScientificAmerican
Do not let the psyops media campaign frighten you about the scarcity of water.
The Earth is a water planet and continuously produces water from within; in fact water is a renewable resource.
A study [see article below] has documented the presence of vast quantities of water locked far beneath the earth’s surface. That study confirmed “that there is a very, very large amount of water that’s trapped in a really distinct layer in the deep Earth… approaching the sort of mass of water that’s present in all the world’s ocean” We have an abundance of water. Why would the corporate government agencies create the false science of water
scarcity and the fear we are running out of water?
The goal is control, money and creating compliance to water monitoring, required reduced water use and charging higher usage costs all based upon our ignorance of where water really comes from. Sadly, out of fear many
people will forfeit their ranches, farms and livelihoods believing they are out of water due to a drought.
Primary Water is in abundance and we MUST start looking down for water instead of up!
The evidence mad available via this article will provide you with the knowledge to combat the corporate media fear campaign. Spread this truth to everyone you know, and demand your cities access the Primary Water to recharge the ground water basins that have been over pumped.
We cannot continue to be tricked for the benefit of those that intend to privatize the water for profit and control.
Primary Water, The Original Source of Our Oceans, is Still Being Created by Geological Forces
That water, usually in a potable form, comes to the earth’s surface in thousands of places, some well known like Jericho and Bahrain where it has provided drinking water for thousands of people for thousands of years. It pours into deep mines all over the world.
Hundreds of houses on the rocky shores of Maine get their fresh water from wells drilled into the shoreline granite. Copenhagen gets all its water from a few wells. In Northern Europe, water that can be tapped by wells that do not depend on aquifers is called “ground water”.
The hallmark of new, or primary, water springs and wells is that they provide water at constant temperature and flow.
Click on the image above to view a larger version in a new window
But this world-wide source of “new water” has been ignored by geologists and laymen in most countries including the United States. They were taught that all potable water comes from the “hydrological cycle” which merely recycles water already on the surface of our earth.
Michael H. Salzman, an engineer and administrator, researched, wrote and published a book providing detailed information on “new water”. As published in 1960, it can be read and/or downloaded from this website. It is not readily available in libraries.
Mike handed us one of his last copies in 1970 and asked us to see if we could get some recognition for it. He told us some wealthy people wanting to get approval for funds to build an aqueduct to bring water from the Colorado River to southern California (they succeeded) had bought up and burned all the copies they could find.
They also tried (and failed) to have him fired as Director of the Los Angeles Housing Authority.
"It's actually the confirmation that there is a very, very large amount of water that's trapped in a really distinct layer in the deep Earth," said Graham Pearson, lead study author and a geochemist at the University of Alberta in Canada. The findings were published in the journal Nature.
The worthless-looking diamond encloses a tiny piece of an olivine mineral called ringwoodite, and it's the first time the mineral has been found on Earth's surface in anything other than meteorites or laboratories. Ringwoodite only forms under extreme pressure, such as the crushing load about 320 miles (515 kilometers) deep in the mantle.
What's in the Mantle?
Most of Earth's volume is mantle, the hot rock layer between the crust and the core. Too deep to drill, the mantle's composition is a mystery leavened by two clues: meteorites, and hunks of rock heaved up by volcanoes.
First, scientists think the composition of the Earth's mantle is similar to that of meteorites called chondrites, which are chiefly made of olivine. Second, lava belched by volcanoes sometimes taps the mantle, bringing up chunks of odd minerals that hint at the intense heat and pressure olivine endures in the bowels of the Earth.
In recent decades, researchers have also recreated mantle settings in laboratories, zapping olivine with lasers, shooting minerals with massive guns and squeezing rocks between diamond anvils to mimic the Earth's interior.
These laboratory studies suggest that olivine morphs into a variety of forms corresponding to the depth at which it is found. The new forms of crystal accommodate the increasing pressures.
Changes in the speed of earthquake waves also support this model. Seismic waves suddenly speed up or slow down at certain depths in the mantle.
Researcher think these speed zones arise from olivine's changing configurations. For example, 323 to 410 miles (520 to 660 km) deep, between two sharp speed breaks, olivine is thought to become ringwoodite. But until now, no one had direct evidence that olivine was actually ringwoodite at this depth. [What is Earth Made Of?]
"Most people (including me) never expected to see such a sample. Samples from the transition zone and lower mantle are exceedingly rare and are only found in a few, unusual diamonds," Hans Keppler, a geochemist at the University of Bayreuth in Germany, wrote in a commentary also published in Nature today.
Earth's Deepest Ocean
The diamond from Brazil confirms that the models are correct: Olivine is ringwoodite at this depth, a layer called the mantle transition zone. And it resolves a long-running debate about water in the mantle transition zone. The ringwoodite is 1.5 percent water, present not as a liquid but as hydroxide ions (oxygen and hydrogen molecules bound together).
The results suggest there could be a vast store of water in the mantle transition zone, which stretches from 254 to 410 miles (410 to 660 km) deep.
"It translates into a very, very large mass of water, approaching the sort of mass of water that's present in all the world's ocean," Pearson told Live Science's Our Amazing Planet.
Plate tectonics recycles Earth's crust by pushing and pulling slabs of oceanic crust into subduction zones, where it sinks into the mantle. This crust, soaked by the ocean, ferries water into the mantle. Many of these slabs end up stuck in the mantle transition zone.
"We think that a significant portion of the water in the mantle transition zone is from the emplacement of these slabs," Pearson said. "The transition zone seems to be a graveyard of subducted slabs."
Keppler noted that it's possible the volcanic eruption that brought the deep diamond to Earth's surface may have sampled an unusually water-rich part of the mantle, and that not all of the transition-zone layer may be as wet as indicated by the ringwoodite.
"If the source of the magma is an unusual mantle reservoir, there is the possibility that, at other places in the transition zone, ringwoodite contains less water than the sample found by Pearson and colleagues," Keppler wrote. "However, in light of this sample, models with anhydrous, or water-poor, transition zones seem rather unlikely."
Ride on a Rocket
A violent volcanic eruption called a kimberlite quickly carried this particular diamond from deep in the mantle. "The eruption of a kimberlite is analogous to dropping a Mentos mint into a bottle of soda," Pearson said. "It's a very energetic, gas-charged reaction that blasts its way to Earth's surface."
The tiny, green crystal, scarred from its 325-mile (525 km) trip to the surface, was bought from diamond miners in Juína, Brazil. The mine's ultradeep diamonds are misshapen and beaten up by their long journey.
"They literally look like they've been to hell and back," Pearson said.
The diamonds are usually discarded because they carry no commercial value, he said, but for geoscientists, the gems provide a rare peek into Earth's innards. [Shine On: Photos of Dazzling Mineral Specimens]
The ringwoodite discovery was accidental, as Pearson and his co-authors were actually searching for a means of dating the diamonds. The researchers think careful sample preparation is the key to finding more ringwoodite, because heating ultradeep diamonds, as happens when scientists polish crystals for analysis, causes the olivine to change shape.
"We think it's possible ringwoodite may have been found by other researchers before, but the way they prepared their samples caused it to change back to a lower-pressure form," Pearson said.
Willful Ignorance: Why We Stay Oblivious To Facts That Threaten Our Health And The Planet May 23 2024 | From: WakingTimes / Various
How many times have you read or heard that refined sugar and processed meats are bad for you? Or how many pictures have you seen that show plastic pollution pervading the oceans?
But yet, many of us remain willfully blind to these fundamental facts. We make very little changes in our lifestyle even though our habits may be destroying our bodies and planet. Why does this happen?
In her book Willful Blindness, Margaret Hefferman argues that it is our human nature to willingly ignore the facts, even if they are destructive.
“Failing to see – or admit to ourselves or our colleagues – the issues and problems in plain sight can ruin private lives and bring down corporations."
- Margaret Hefferman
Willful Ignorance is Just Easy
Each one of us has constructed our own specific set of beliefs. We base them on our past experiences, ideas and relationships with others.
Your beliefs are hard-wired into your brain. Thus, instead of taking the time to assess contradictions and form doubts, you willfully rationalize your beliefs.
Let’s be honest. It’s easy to block out uncomfortable realities (like prevalence of the herbicide glyphosate in food products marketed to children…or the fact that seven million tons of plastic end up in the oceans each year.)
These facts can be scary and difficult to digest. Truly accepting them would require thought and action, and who has time for that!
No one wants to be called dramatic, or Debbie-downer, or conspiracy theorist. Frankly, we just want to be accepted by our peers.
Conformity often trumps rationale. Take a moment and think: how often do you use your culture, social norms or identity to justify your point of view or action? I’m definitely guilty of it.
Cognitive psychologist, Albert Bandura, states:
“…people transform harmful practices into worthy ones, coming up with social justification, distancing themselves with euphemisms and numbers, ignoring the long-term consequences of their actions.”
I would guess we’re all guilty of rejecting contradictions to our beliefs about what lifestyle is acceptable, especially if they make us uncomfortable.
Basically, we have to make ourselves disbelieve our initial belief. That, my friends, takes effort. Many of us are not willing to put in that effort.
Hence, we’re back to willful ignorance.
Hefferman states:
“People are about twice as likely to seek information that supports their own point of view as they are to consider an opposing idea.”
The Influencers of our Beliefs
What’s concerning is that many of our beliefs are shaped by corporations and media.
We do not give this much thought, because very few people are willing to talk about subliminal programming. (This is a perfect example of willful ignorance!)
Yet, most generations living today grew up in front of the TV. Newscasters, Hollywood producers, and advertisers have been feeling ideas of what is rights, what is acceptable and what should be ridiculed.
The problem is surmounted with the influence of religions, educators and governments. Most of these have their own agendas, unbeknownst to us during our childhood and young adulthood.
It’s OK to Change Your Mind
What’s exciting is that we now live is a completely different world than even 20 years ago. We have access to massive amounts of information. It is all at our fingertips.
Social psychologists, activists, and thought leaders, such as Hefferman, are able to share their knowledge, experience and wisdom with the masses.
Where the challenge lies is in our willingness to give thought to contradictions. It’s ok to consider information that oppose the official story you were fed in school or the marketing pitch of massive corporations. It’s ok to change your mind.
Perhaps milk “Does not do A Body Good.” When you’re drinking a Coke, you don’t “Catch the Wave”…instead you pollute the wave.
Maybe, just maybe, it’s not weird but smart to homeschool, opt out of politics, and stop reading/watching the news.
Ms. Hefferman writes in the book:
“Whether individual or collective, willful blindness doesn’t have a single driver, but many. It is a human phenomenon to which we all succumb in matters little and large. We can’t notice and know everything: the cognitive limits of our brain simply won’t let us.
That means we have to filter or edit what we take in. So what we choose to let through and to leave out is crucial. We mostly admit the information that makes us feel great about ourselves, while conveniently filtering whatever unsettles our fragile egos and most vital beliefs..”
It may be beneficial to reflect on what you’re filtering out because it intimidates your ego.
Next time something contradicts one of your beliefs, it may be a noteworthy practice to give these new ideas some thought.
In recent years the defects in the peer review system have been the subject of a profusion of critical editorials and studies in the literature. It is high time that the world took heed of what the critics are saying, not least of all because of the medical and health ramifications.
The notion of peer review has long occupied special territory in the world of science. However, investigation of suppressed innovations, inventions, treatments, cures, and so on, rapidly reveals that the peer review system is arguably better at one thing above all others: censorship.
This can mean censorship of everything from contrarian viewpoints to innovations that render favored dogmas, products, or services obsolete (economic threats).
The problem is endemic, as many scientists have learned the hard way.
In truth, the systemic failure of peer review is one of science’s major, embarrassing open secrets.
As Dr David Kaplan tells us, “Peer review is known to engender bias, incompetence, excessive expense, ineffectiveness, and corruption. A surfeit of publications has documented the deficiencies of this system.”
Australian physicist Brian Martin elaborates in his excellent article Strategies for Dissenting Scientists:
"Certain sorts of innovation are welcome in science, when they fall within established frameworks and do not threaten vested interests. But aside from this sort of routine innovation, science has many similarities to systems of dogma. Dissenters are not welcome. They are ignored, rejected, and sometimes attacked."
Electric universe researcher and Big Bang critic Wal Thornhill (a REAL scientist) stated plainly in our GFM Media interview that the peer review system amounts to censorship. Fellow independent scientist Gary Novak agrees scathingly:
"Peer review is a form of censorship, which is tyranny over the mind. Censorship does not purify; it corrupts… There is a lot of junk science and trash that goes through the peer review process."
Brian Martin asks us rhetorically:
"What do [scientists] have to gain by spending time helping an outsider? Most likely, the alleged discovery will turn out to be pointless or wrong from the standard point of view.
If the outsider has made a genuine discovery, that means the outsider would win rewards at the expense of those already in the field who have invested years of effort in the conventional ideas."
Herein lies the problem in moving science forward and shifting paradigms. A paradigm is only as malleable (or mutable) as the minds and egos invested in it.
The Problem of “Experts”
The reality is (as any real scientist will tell you) that scientists are prone - just like lay people - to being cathected to their pet theories and opinions, especially if they have been visibly rewarded or publicly obtained accolades or financial remuneration as a result.
Scientists, like laypeople, have susceptible emotional bodies and often fairly hefty egos - partially due to their “expertise” and academic titles, qualifications, theories, etc.
Once those hefty egos - belonging to people generally known as “experts” - rise to positions of power and/or influence, they can calcify the flow of scientific progress as well as the understanding of new discoveries or theories - particularly if they end up acting as “peer reviewers” at high levels in prestigious publications.
In that capacity, too many become mere gatekeepers and seek not to facilitate innovation or vital new Copernican-scale revelations, but to maintain the status quo which got them there in the first place.
Dr Malcolm Kendrick comments in his excellent book Doctoring Data that, “by definition, anyone who is an ‘expert’ in an area of medicine will be a supporter of whatever dogma holds sway.” Close study of power dynamics in medicine bears this out.
The players with the deepest pockets have the funds to buy all of the “experts” they need to sell a bogus product or ideology to an unsuspecting public.
Consider the following words from The Lancet’s editor Richard Horton (pictured below):
"The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability - not the validity - of a new finding… We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller.
But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong."
Peer review, as a “quasi-sacred” process that somehow supposedly transcends the foibles and follies human nature has taken on sacred ritual status. Has the paper been blessed by the Peer Review Priest?
Peer review is held to be more than just pragmatically useful and functional (which clearly it is not, generally speaking) - it is held as a transcendent, almost magical, organizing force occurring in the heavenly ivory towers of Science, which somehow avoids falling prey to human weaknesses by virtue of those humans’ lofty qualifications as “scientists” or “experts.”
Scientists, of course, aren’t quite human - they are something more, something pure, something that the layman can never be. Students undergo a magical alchemical process as they proceed through educational institutions and emerge transformed from their chrysalis with their doctorates, masters, stethoscopes and equations.
They are the Chosen Ones, the purified, the holy, the redeemed, the righteous. They do not have to answer to the lowly non-scientific peasantry – let alone unbelieving heretics.
It is clear, however, that not only is the popular view of peer review misleading, but the most prestigious publications are some of the very worst offenders. Significant scientific publications - for example, the journal Nature - have a well documented history of prejudice against findings or hypotheses that run contrary to established scientific dogma.
Writing in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) in May 2000, Canadian-based researcher, David Sackett, said that he would “never again lecture, write, or referee anything to do with evidence based clinical practice,” over his concern that “experts” are stifling new ideas. He wants the retirement of experts to be made compulsory and I think it’s a brilliant proposition.
Sackett says that “…progress towards the truth is impaired in the presence of an expert.”
Trusting “experts” in oncology, for example, is generally a very good way to artificially speed one’s trip to the grave, particularly if one has metastatic cancer (allopathic medicine is notoriously ineffective in that realm). And yet “experts” are now on a rarified level that perhaps only popes and celebrities can understand - they are virtually demigods today.
In the main, “experts” are those people in the establishment who espouse the mainstream dogma and reify the politically correct belief structures. “Experts” are lionized because the world that made them experts promotes and validates them when they affirm the already established (and profitable) beliefs - and the media is complicit in this.
If you want to be horribly misled on any number of important issues, just head straight to just about any mainstream news media outlet and listen to the establishment’s “experts.”
Is it not time to get the crusty, rigidified, and corrupt Old Guard out of the way so we can let science move forward?
Harvard Medical School’s Dr. Marcia Angell is the former Editor-in-Chief at the New England Journal of Medicine, where she spent twenty years poring over scientific papers, saturated in the dubious practices that pervade the world of medical research. She states bluntly:
"It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine."
Most “experts” in medicine are, psychologically speaking, simply engaged in well-paid groupthink and confirmation bias exercises, vigorously affirming and defending their ego’s (lucrative) construction of the world. To paraphrase physicist Max Planck, medicine, like science, “advances one funeral at a time.”
Once the public has accepted the scientific establishment’s truths, narratives, and designated “experts” then researchers who yield findings deviating from the accepted norm can be immediately branded as crackpots, lunatics, fringe nuts, pseudo-scientists and so on, regardless of how meticulous their methods, and irrefutable their results.
The media is crucial in this control dynamic because it sells the establishment’s reality.
Thus is the politically correct status quo maintained.
Peer “Review” Lets Garbage Through - and Lots of it!
“Peer review” censorship exemplifies the neophobia in the world of science which serves to protect the status quo rather than improve knowledge by weeding out dubious epistemologies and results, as it is meant to.
This supposed mechanism of “quality control” has resulted not only in the dismissal of much important and credible research, but it has also let fraudulent research - and lots of it! - be published at the same time. Papers that appear to support fashionable ideas or entrenched dogmas are likely to fare well, even if they are badly flawed - or outright rubbish!
David Kaplan, a professor of pathology at the Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine in Cleveland, has stated that;
"Peer review is broken. It needs to be overhauled, not just tinkered with. The incentives should be changed so that: authors are more satisfied and more likely to produce better work, the reviewing is more transparent and honest, and journals do not have to manage an unwieldy and corrupt system that produces disaffection and misses out on innovation."
Is it any wonder that John Ionnidis reported in his famous 2005 paper that, “Most research findings are false for most research designs and for most fields”? Given the already outlined problems, is it really surprising that, in Ionnidis words, “Claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias”?
Dr. Marc Girard, a mathematician and physician who serves on the editorial board of Medicine Veritas (The Journal of Medical Truth), has written;
"The reason for this disaster is too clear: the power of money. In academic institutions, the current dynamics of research is more favourable to the ability of getting grants - collecting money and spending it - than to scientific imagination or creativity."
In general, peer reviewers - generally not time-rich - don’t try to replicate experiments and rarely even request the raw data supporting a paper’s conclusions. Who has the time for all that? Thus, peer review is, according to Richard Smith writing in Peer review in health sciences;
"Thought to be slow, expensive, profligate of academic time, highly subjective, prone to bias, easily abused, poor at detecting gross defects, and almost useless for detecting fraud."
What about fake peer review? This is where the corrupt and abysmal becomes the theatre of the absurd. For example, Berlin-based Springer Nature, who publishes the aforementioned Nature journal announced the retraction of 64 articles in 10 journals in an August 18th statement in 2015. This followed an internal investigation which found fabricated peer-review write-ups linked to the articles.
The purge followed similar discoveries of “fake peer review” by several other major publishers, including London-based BioMed Central, an arm of Springer, which began retracting 43 articles in March citing “reviews from fabricated reviewers”.
Yes, that means reviewers that don’t exist - recommended as “reviewers” by the people submitting their work for review.
Imagine writing a paper and being able to nominate a non-existent person to review your work, and the contact email supplied to the publisher for this purpose is actually one you made up, which routes the paper back to you (unbeknownst to the publisher), so that you can then secretly carry out a (favourable) review of your own work under a pseudonym!
It’s being done, folks, this is not a joke.
In response to fake peer review some publishers have actually ended the practice of author-suggested reviewers.
And now for the Conceptual Penis…
Recently two scientists performed a brilliant Sokal-style hoax on the journal Cogent Social Sciences. Under the pen names “Jamie Lindsay” and “Peter Boyle,” and writing for the fictitious “Southeast Independent Social Research Group,” Peter Boghossian and James Lindsay wrote a deliberately absurd paper loosely composed in the style of “post-structuralist discursive gender theory” - what exactly that is they made no attempt to find out.
The authors tell us:
"The paper was ridiculous by intention, essentially arguing that penises shouldn’t be thought of as male genital organs but as damaging social constructions…
We assumed that if we were merely clear in our moral implications that maleness is intrinsically bad and that the penis is somehow at the root of it, we could get the paper published in a respectable journal."
And they did. After completing the paper, and being unable to identify what it was actually about, it was deemed a success and ready for submission, which went ahead in April 2017.
It was published the next month after some editorial feedback and additional tweaking. To illustrate how deliberately absurd the paper is, a quote is in order:
"We conclude that penises are not best understood as the male sexual organ, or as a male reproductive organ, but instead as an enacted social construct that is both damaging and problematic for society and future generations… and is the conceptual driver behind much of climate change."
In plain English, they (seemingly) argued here that a penis is not a male sexual organ but a social construct; the “conceptual penis” is problematic for “gender (and reproductive) identity,” as well as being the “conceptual” driver of climate change. No, really. How this ever got published is something to ponder. The paper is filled with meaningless jargon, arrant nonsense, and references to fake papers and authors.
As part of the hoax, none of the sources that were cited were even read by the hoaxers. As Boghossian and Lindsay point out, it never should have been published. No one - not even Boghossian and Lindsay - knows what it is actually saying.
Almost a third of the sources cited in the original version of the paper point to fake sources, such as created by Postmodern Generator, making mock of how absurdly easy it is to execute this kind of hoax, especially, the authors add, in “‘academic’ fields corrupted by postmodernism.” (emphasis added)
The Spectacular Success of Hoax Papers and Non-existent Authors
In April 2010, Cyril Labbé of Joseph Fourier University in Grenoble, France, used a computer program called SCIgen to create 102 fake papers under the pseudonym of Ike Antkare. SCIgen was created in 2005 by researchers at MIT in Cambridge in order to demonstrate that conferences would accept such nonsense…as well as to amuse themselves.
Labbé added the bogus papers to the Google Scholar database, which boosted Ike Antkare’s h-index, a measure of published output, to 94 - at the time, making Antkare the world’s 21st most highly cited scientist. (emphasis added)
So a non-existent scientist has achieved the distinction of being one of the world’s most highly cited authors - while “authoring” papers consisting of utter gibberish. Congratulations are certainly in order. In February 2014 it was reported that Springer and the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE), were removing over 120 such bogus papers from their subscription services after Labbe identified them using his own software.
Going back at least as far as 1996 journalists and researchers have been getting spoof papers published in conferences or journals to deliberately expose weaknesses in academic quality controls.
“Physicist Alan Sokal (of the famous Sokal Affair) succeeded in the journal Social Text in 1996,” while Harvard science journalist John Bohannon revealed in a 2013 issue of Science that he had duped over 150 open-access journals into publishing “a deliberately flawed study.”
Bohannon organized submission of the flawed study (technically, many different but very similar variations of the study) to 304 open access journals worldwide over a period of 10 months. 255 went through the whole editing process to the point of either acceptance or rejection.
He wrote:
"Any reviewer with more than a high-school knowledge of chemistry and the ability to understand a basic data plot should have spotted the paper’s shortcomings immediately. Its experiments are so hopelessly flawed that the results are meaningless."
The hoax paper was accepted by a whopping 157 of the journals and rejected by only 98. Of the 106 journals that did conduct “peer review,” fully 70% accepted the paper.
If peer review was a transparent and accountable process, according to Gary Novak;
"There might be a small chance of correcting some of the corruptions through truth and criticism; but the process is cloaked in the darkness of anonymity…Due to the exploitive and corrupt process, nearly everything in science has official errors within it… A culture of protecting and exploiting the errors creates an official reality which cannot be opposed."
Returning specifically to the arena of (mainstream) medicine, a quote in PLoS Medicine, states:
"Journals have devolved into information laundering operations for the pharmaceutical industry”, wrote Richard Horton, editor of the Lancet, in March 2004.
In the same year, Marcia Angell, former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, lambasted the industry for becoming “primarily a marketing machine” and co-opting “every institution that might stand in its way”…
Jerry Kassirer, another former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, argues that the industry has deflected the moral compasses of many physicians, and the editors of PLoS Medicine have declared that they will not become “part of the cycle of dependency…between journals and the pharmaceutical industry”.
In the words of John Ionnidis, “Most scientific studies are wrong, and they are wrong because scientists are interested in funding and careers rather than truth.”
If most studies are wrong, and most scientists are more interested in their own careers and funding than getting at the truth - while journals daily allow bogus and flawed pharmaceutical research to be published and promoted - then why would anyone in their right mind believe the claims made by doctors about the efficacy of products based upon “peer review” or pharmaceutical “studies”?
What does a term like “safe and effective” even mean in this world of deception and subterfuge?
Clearly the problem of corruption and conflicts of interest have been increasingly on the radar of professional academics for some time now, so much so that it has been the subject of an increasing number of harshly critical articles and editorials. Conveying the depth and breadth of deception to the “uninitiated,” however, presents a unique challenge.
And it isn’t just conflict of interest and corruption to blame for the failure of peer review, there is human bias, shoddy review work, fake reviewers and fraud, and varying other human interests to factor in.
At the very least we need to cease indoctrinating students into the dogma that all good things have been peer reviewed, and the converse: anything that has not been peer reviewed is clearly blasphemous and crafted by the unholy hands of sinners.
In the meantime, the public needs to be warned: peer review is largely a sham and will not protect you or your family from medical pseudo-science or dangerous pharmaceutical products.
Your doctor’s word should not be blindly trusted, especially when we know that doctors rely absurdly heavily on information (read: propaganda) provided by the pharmaceutical industry itself (can you say “conflicted”?!) in developing their views and opinions.
I can’t help but cringe when I hear people ask if a study has been “peer-reviewed.” The response this question most often deserves is simply, “Who cares?”
"The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness."
- Richard Horton, Offline: What is medicine’s 5 sigma? The Lancet, 11 April 2015, thelancet.com (Horton is editor of The Lancet)
When Life Gets Too Complicated: Minimalist Living: How To Enjoy Life More With Less May 21 2024 | From: TheUnboundedSpirit / Various
If it feels like your life sucks, there are extreme chances that it's too complicated. On the other hand, if it feels like it doesn't suck, I bet your life is quite simple.
How do I know? Well, I've found my life sucking many times, and that was always when it became wildly complicated. Now that it doesn't suck anymore (or at least it feels like it doesn't), it's simpler than ever before
Of course, my life didn't just get simple on its own. I played my part in getting it the way it is. A BIG part, in fact.
How? By making a few small yet tremendously effective lifestyle changes. If you're entangled in the complexity of your own life, and would like to know what those changes were so that you can apply and benefit from them too, I have good news for you.
For most people, life has become a burden on their shoulders, and year by year its weight is growing heavier and heavier, until one day they can’t carry it anymore.
But does life have to be such a drudgery? No, it doesn’t. In fact, life can be stunningly great, if we allow it to be so.
How? Keep scrolling and I’ll show you.
Why is Life So Messed Up?
This is a question I get a lot from readers. I find it quite misleading, since life in itself isn’t messed up. Rather, we insist on making it look like it. Here’s how: By complicating it to such a degree that we can’t enjoy it anymore.
Let me give you a few examples: We do work we don’t enjoy, we buy stuff we don’t need, we say things we don’t mean, we eat food that doesn’t contribute to our health… you get what I mean.
Of course, no person is entirely to blame for that. From an early age, society has conditioned us to live this way. Just consider, for example, the advertising industry, which is constantly preying on our insecurities in order to make us want new products.
Or, contemplate on our school system, which is indoctrinating us with the belief that success is nothing but the result of getting good at things we don’t like just for the sake of an external reward. Or, lastly, think of our economic system, which is forcing us to work as wage slaves just so we can merely feed ourselves and sleep under a roof.
As you can understand, it’s not surprising that life seems messed up. But it’s in our hands to change this, if we want to, and make life worth-living again. There are various ways we can do so, and here I’m going to share with you some helpful ways you can create more space for peace, contentment, and health in your life.
Minimalism: A Turn Back to Simplicity
So how can we design a life that is less complicated and more meaningful? With minimalism.
If you haven’t heard of the term minimalism before, here’s it’s key idea: Getting rid of what isn’t adding value to your life in order make room for what does, such as removing clutter, distractions and unhealthy relationships, and allowing more space for things that are essential to our well-being, such as creativity, love, and play.
Therefore, minimalism or minimalist living is about intentionally focusing on what truly matters to you, and letting go of what doesn’t. Or, to put it differently, it’s about enjoying life more with less.
Now, this might sound like an easy thing to do, but it’s actually quite hard. Why? Because during the course of our lives most of us have lost touch with our true needs and wants.
This has resulted in a lack of inner fulfillment, out of which arises a desperate effort to fill our psychological void with physical, mental and emotional clutter, which, instead of making us feel better, actually makes us feel much worse.
The question is: How can one break free from this chaos we’re entangled in and which seems so out of hand?
If you’re trying to figure this out for yourself, I created the following guide to assist you in your journey to living a simpler yet fuller life. It consists of easy yet empowering tips and practices that you can apply in your everyday life in order to reap the incredible benefits of a minimalist lifestyle. Are you ready to dive into it?
A Guide to Minimalist Living: 10 Ways to Enjoy Life More with Less
1. Get Rid of Stuff that Doesn’t Serve Your Happiness
Most people’s living space is cluttered with myriads of things they never use and which don’t contribute to their well-being.
On the contrary, those objects are only standing in their way, distracting their attention and preventing them from finding calm, clarity and focus. Some of them even need regular maintenance, and hence require money, time and energy to be spent - or, to be more precise, wasted - on them.
Have a look at your possessions and ask yourself: Do I really need ALL of them? Separate the one’s you do need from the ones you don’t, and throw the latter right into the rubbish bin - or better, give them away to people who might actually benefit from them.
2. Resist Consuming Products You Don’t Need
Discarding things you don’t need is crucial to emptying your life from unnecessary stuff, but if you keep on acquiring new material possessions, it’s going to be filled up pretty soon again.
The solution? It’s simple: Stop buying things you don’t need.
The main reason why so many of us want to buy new products all the time is that we’ve been fooled by the advertising industry that shopping is all we need to be happy.
However, the reality is that once we have enough to satisfy our basic human needs, products can’t improve our well-being in any way. They can only provide us with momentary gratification that quite soon vanishes into thin air, leading us in an even worse psychological state than before.
3. Appreciate all the Amazing Things You Already Have
In the day and age of Instagram, so many people are having terrific self-esteem issues. That’s because they constantly compare themselves to others who, in their eyes, always seem happier, more beautiful and way more important than them.
As they are, they feel like crap, and they try their best to imitate those they are jealous of, in a desperate effort to feel better about themselves. Yet no matter how much they try, they always fail.
If you’d like to stop feeling crappy, you need to learn to appreciate what you already have, instead of always being focused on what you don’t. That means you need to stop comparing yourself to others and embrace yourself for who you are, with all your flaws and imperfections. Only then will you be able to make peace with yourself, focus on what’s truly important and feel grateful for the amazing gift of life.
Starting now, take a moment to appreciate that you’re pulsating with life and able to experience all the goodness existence has to offer:
Appreciate the beauty of nature.
Appreciate the joy of tasting food.
Appreciate the heart-to-heart bonding between you and your loved ones.
Appreciate the little things in life, and all of a sudden you’ll discover that you actually have way more than ever thought.
4. Minimize Your Internet Distractions
Was checking your email the first thing you did this morning? Or was it perhaps scrolling through your social media feed? Or maybe having a look at your favorite news sites for updates?
But you aren’t alone in that. In fact, nowadays most people are constantly fixated on an electronic screen, wasting hours upon hours everyday being carried away by a constant flood of information. They endlessly jump from one social media network to the other, from this article to that, from one picture to the next.
Don’t get me wrong, I adore the internet and spend much of my time online myself, but if we don’t learn how to use it mindfully, and instead let it use us, then it can play havoc with our mental health.
If you’d like to find more a peaceful state of mind, then you likely need to minimize your internet distractions.
To help you get started, here are some practical tips:
Close as many tabs you can.
Check your emails up to two times a day, filter and process them immediately, and clear out your inbox.
Spend as less time on social media as possible (I’d recommend not more than an hour per day).
Pick a handful of good sources and check them only once a day.
Set some hours offline each day.
After you’ve applied them for a month or so, shoot me an email at contact@theunboundedspirit.com and let me know about your progress and the impact this small minimalist lifestyle change has had on your well-being.
5. Build Intimate Relationships
What’s missing in the world more than anything else is human connection.
People feel disconnected from one another, and that’s for plenty of reasons, with the main being our economic system, which is compelling us to compete with and exploit each other in an endless effort to maximize our personal gain, and thus is constantly reinforcing the idea that others are inimical, or at best indifferent to us.
The result? Loneliness, insecurity, depression.
Every person - including you - is a social being with an emotional need to connect with other people. We all deep down want to be heard, understood, and embraced for who we are.
So whenever you find an opportunity for human connection, don’t shy away from it. Put your mobile phone aside for a while and take the time to look at someone in the eye, listen to their story, and open your heart to them.
One of the main reasons why our lives are so complicated is that we’re not quite honest with each other. We say things we don’t mean and we don’t say those things that we do mean, and this inevitably leads to plenty of misunderstandings and interpersonal conflict.
From now on, be sure to avoid uttering lies, and instead voice your sincere thoughts as well as express your feelings.
This way you’ll be able to form healthier and more genuine relationships, which will do wonders to simplify your day-to-day life.
7. Do One Thing at a Time
Minimalist living in essence means focused living, and focused living means making the most out of each and every moment.
The problem is that, because of the constant distractions we experience in the modern world, most of us haven’t learned to fully concentrate on one act at a time. Instead, we’re usually carrying out different tasks at the same time, and so whatever we are doing, our mind is partly wondering somewhere else.
Here are some examples:
We check our phones while we’re eating.
We are jumping between tasks in a browser.
We are lost in our thoughts when others are talking to us.
We are thinking of what thing to do next before finishing the current thing.
This way, not only aren’t we able to give our best to what we’re doing, but also we can’t enjoy the task at hand.
If you’re used to multi-tasking and would like to change that in order to be better at what you do as well as to get totally immersed in the things you like, make sure that you concentrate on a single thing or task at a time. For instance, when you’re eating, don’t check your phone at the same time and just focus on savoring every bite of your food.
Or when you’re talking to someone, don’t be preoccupied with what you’ll say next when your turn to talk comes - instead, give your full attention to your partner so that you can understand what he or she is saying.
8. Treat Your Body With Care
In order to be able to enjoy your life, you first and foremost need to be in good health. Hence, it’s vital that you treat your body with loving care.
Unfortunately, this isn’t how most people treat their bodies. They tend to consume toxic foods, they don’t exercise, they sleep less than needed, and do all sorts of other things that mess up with their health. Of course, they don’t do so on purpose.
Rather, they usually act like this either out of ignorance or because the stress of everyday life has led them to make poor lifestyle choices. But one thing is certain: They’ve stopped feeling connected to their bodies, and no longer understand how their actions are impacting their health.
As a result, they sooner or later end up experiencing all sorts of illnesses that could have been avoided if they payed more attention to their physical needs.
If you’d like to optimize your health, you need to turn your attention inwards, get in tune with your body, listen to its needs and act accordingly.
For example, if you feel like moving, move. If, on the other hand, you feel tired, stop moving your body to recharge your batteries. Or, to give you another example, if you feel hungry, eat to feed your body with fuel, but if you feel that your stomach is full, don’t eat any more and burden yourself with extra food.
The body has its own wisdom but we’ve lost touch with it. By starting to pay more attention to it, we can re-connect with it and allow it to lead us to a healthier and more fulfilling life.
9. Focus on Your Most Important Goals
People usually have a big number of goals they want to achieve, and often they are even opposing to each other. One day they want this thing, the next day another, and the next still another. No wonder they usually end up achieving nothing but complicating their lives.
A life that is simple has a clear purpose. To live such a life, you need to discover those few things that you’re most interested in and dedicate yourself to them.
Whatever they are, be sure to make them your top priority. By doing so, you’ll be able to live a life that is filled with meaning and purpose, without getting sidetracked by things that don’t matter to you.
Lastly yet perhaps most importantly, minimalist living requires a calm and undisturbed mind - that is, a mind that is free of conflicting thoughts and in tune with the present moment.
Unfortunately, in our busy, stressful lives, our minds are filled with worries - worries about what happened in the past or what is going to happen in the future, which don’t allow us to let go and enjoy the only moment that ever was, is and will be - the here and now.
To be able to regain a peaceful state of consciousness, you need to develop mindfulness. Mindfulness means fully attending what’s happening in the present, instead of dwelling in the past or the future.
It also means observing your thoughts and feelings without judging, resisting or feeding them. Lastly, it means consciously responding to situations instead of overreacting to them or being overwhelmed by them.
Every single person can develop mindfulness, and there are many ways one can do so. Perhaps the most common way is to sit for about 30 minutes somewhere comfortably with your upper back straight and pay full attention to your breath as it’s coming in and out through your nostrils, without allowing yourself to be distracted by your thoughts.
When, however, you feel that your mind has carried you away, make sure that you return your attention to your breath and continue your practice. By doing so, you’ll find that slowly slowly your thoughts become less and less, and as a result you’ll experience more clarity, focus and a sense of inner peace, which you can carry with you throughout your day.
Mindfulness is an ancient practice that is now backed up by science. By implementing it into your daily routine, you’ll be able to relieve yourself from the constant stream of thoughts that is flooding your mind and savor each and every moment of your life.
Do You Know What We Are Breathing In From Weather Geoengineering Efforts? May 20 2024 | From: ActivistPost/ Various
Air is one of the primary elements of life; without it for about three minutes, we cannot survive. If air is such an important biological and functional life component, why are weather geoengineers messing around with it?
Well, think again, since many independent and non-cabal-financially-sponsored “non-consensus scientists” are finding STUFF in the air we breathe that should not be there unless placed for nefarious reasons. What a mouthful! Is there any documentation to substantiate what I say? But of course! Would I say it, if there were none?
Well, I’m going to explain some things readers may find doubtful, interesting and even frightful, but cannot deny once you stop playing around with your iPhones, etc. and look up and study the sky, which no longer is the crystal clear gorgeous blue it used to be in my youth, since I was born during the Depression years.
“Nano particles and Smart Dust [is] being absorbed by all of us via inhalation of chemtrail fallout and from contaminated grocery store food (including organically grown food) where the crops pick up and absorb the same Nano particles and Smart Dust that we are breathing in.
In addition, food sources are intentionally being sprayed with Nano technology. I first became aware of “nanobots” as a component of chemtrails in 2005 when the topic of Morgellons first surfaced on the internet.
These nanobots were somehow integrating themselves with biological functions inside people’s bodies producing these colored fibers and wire-like threads that would ooze out of lesions on the skin.
I had no idea why some people produced the fibers and had the sensation of insects crawling under their skin, while other people had no symptoms at all.”
According to Tony Pantalleresco:
“[W]e’ve been breathing in Nano particles in the atmosphere since the 1960s and they’ve been adding Nano particles to food since the 1970s. The expresion [sic] “Nano particles” refers to the size of the particles.
A particle 1 micron wide is equivalent to one millionth of one meter, while 1 Nano is equivalent to one billionth of one meter. Our bodies can handle particles in the micron range, but Nano size particles in the 1-100 Nano range especially, cause a great deal of damage to the bodyl.”
Tony should know; he’s been making videos about them.
“He explains that many thousands of Nano particles are now residing in EACH human cell of all human beings (including you) and are integrating themselves with our biological functions to re-program our body (and our DNA) into an Android-like hybrid, that is part human biology and part Artificial Intelligence robotics.
These Nano particles inside our bodies are activated by (and programmable from a distance) using radio frequencies (microwaves) and ELF waves.
That means we are ALL being set up for a 21st Century version of enslavement employing electronic mind-control and body-control coercion harassment (which is what Targeted Individuals who call into the Ella Free podcasts are experiencing and talking about). l.”
1962: “He Who Controls The Weather, Will Control The World” (LBJ)
There’s an amazing, astounding and seemingly unbelievable indication of what Tony contends, as a result of his research, being found in human bodies, and he demonstrates that using his arm and a special Anti-Nano Concoction protocol he created.
“Towards the end of the video, he immerses his arm in the anti-Nano bucket (after first adding vinegar, distilled water, salt, DMSO and a capful of olive oil) and following a few minutes, you can see the Nano metal dust particles coming out of the skin and sticking to the floating oil globules.
Jump ahead to 1:22 to see the Nano particles coming out of his skin.”
The video referenced above, which I have watched in full and taken notes on, must be considered very seriously, as it deals with emerging protocols to counter Nano technology, which very few individuals know anything about, but all of us are exposed to and compromised by.
After watching more than an hour of his creating the electro-field bucket, Tony discusses the ‘recipe’ for the anti-Nano soaking mixture around 1 hour 12 minutes, more or less.
The mixture includes cheap white vinegar, distilled water, salt, DMSO and oil, either olive or almond. The exact measurements are given.
At 1 hour 24 minutes “results” (Nano-dust particulates) start showing up emerging from Tony’s arm soaking in the anti-Nano mixture. Tony recommends soaking your feet, but with certain precautions.
PRECAUTIONS
If you have any electrical device implanted in your body, DO NOT use this method; it is NOT FOR YOU!
If you have a heart condition or pacemaker, this is NOT FOR YOU!
Tattoos use Nano-inks, which get into the bloodstream. The younger generations, who have gone bonkers over tats, are playing right into the NWO artificial intelligence agenda. Can that be why tattoos are not government regulated? Tattoo inks are neither regulated nor tested by the federal government and are considered a health risk [2]. However, most states regulate “body art studios.”
“The American Red Cross requires someone who has had a tattoo to wait a year before donating blood if the tattoo was applied in Georgia, Idaho, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, Utah, Wyoming or the District - jurisdictions that do not regulate tattoo facilities.”
Nano-dust and particulates make all human bodies receivers and transmitters, a necessary component for control of humans because we can be controlled by microwaves transmitted to those frequency receivers residing within our bodies. Hard to believe, isn’t it?
Furthermore, it’s my understanding that special “matching” frequencies even can be “designed” for those who have given DNA and body tissues sample, e.g., blood tests, which have been collected by certain ‘vested interest’ agencies doing such AI/transhumanism technology work.
It’s part-and-parcel of global weather geoengineering or “chemtrails,” which literally rain down 43 known chemicals and metals, especially aluminum - the key “tagging” mineral/element, which also is a constituent in most, if not all, vaccines.
The Global Fascist State: Physical Control Of The Global Population Is Impossible May 19 2024 | From: FinalWakeUpCall / Various
Centralised, controlled Global fascist state:The momentum for the completion of the New World Order (NWO) through centralised control of global politics, business, banking, military and media is gaining pace by the day, and is clearly evident through the large scale spying upon us.
Whenever a hidden agenda is about to be implemented, something occurs to scare the people, justifying the action for implementation. Our world is more and more becoming a recurrence of fascist Nazi Germany, before WWII. This is, in accordance with the plans of the Deep State Brotherhood, the new world that awaits the global population.
The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), and multinational corporations already control most Governments;promoting the one world government through their control of the media, foundation grants, and education; with power exerted over all issues of the day; they already control almost all avenues; they have the financial power to promote the “New World Order”.
The key to their success is the control and manipulation bythe international bankers of the money systems of almost every nation, while making it appear as though they are controlled by the government.
If you wish to live in a world that is “urbane” enough to be run by a world government, managed by the Brotherhood of the élite and global bankers, then by all means, continue to follow the mainstream media to get all your information.
If, however, the idea of a select coterie of a global intellectual-financial elites running the world does not sound like the ideal society for humanity’s future, then it is time to come into action.
By battling the tide of misinformation and by helping to expose the dangers of the ‘New World Order.’
People have neither the slightest idea, nor the insight of the restrain that is going to be put on them. They would rather ignore the obvious and go into denial of the truth that has already become reality. Instead, people prefer assuring each other that they would never take people’s freedoms away and make us serfs of the elite.
Humanity has on a large scale given away its mind and its responsibility – it is advisable to consider the broader consequences of this behaviour for human existence.
When we give away our mind and responsibility, we give away our freedom and hence, our lives.
If enough people do it, we give the world away, and that is precisely what has been done throughout history. We’re now entering a fascist society, as was the case before WWII. The leaders of this era, such as Benito Mussolini in Italy and Adolf Hitler in Germany embodied the state and they claimed indisputable power, transforming countries into fascist states.
Now history is repeating itself and soon the world will become a fascist society all over again. The only difference is that this time, a few families, alias – the elite – are manipulating the entire planet, through the globalisation of business, banking and communications.
The primary goal of their control is to keep the people in ignorance, fear and at war. Divide, rule and conquer and keep the most important information secret.
Those who have applied these methods to control humanity for thousands of years are members of the same force, following a long-term Brotherhood Agenda, which now is reaching its point of completion.
So, the global fascist state is upon us. People must wake up now – and see this as their “final wake up call” – to mobilise and organise themselves to rebel against this injustice, as the real power is still with the many of us, and not with the few of the elites!
Infinite Power is Within Every Individual:
Infinite power is within each and every individual. The reason we are controlled is not because we don’t have the power to decide our own destiny, it is that we unknowingly give that power away when we don’t take responsibility for our destiny on all fronts.
When something happens that we don’t like, we look for someone else to blame. When there is a problem, people think first what are they, our so-called leaders going to do about it.
But remember it is they who have secretly created most problems, and they consequently respond to people’s demands by offering a ‘solution’ that always entails more centralisation of power and erosion of our freedom.
Man Sends Audition Tape To Globalists To Be Crisis Actor in Next False Flag Hilarious Satire Skit
If you want to give more power to the police, security agencies and military, that is exactly what they want the public to ask for, then they ensure there is more crime, more violence and more terrorism, and so they increasingly get exactly what they want, ever-increasing control and power.
Once people are in fear of being attacked by terrorists, they will demand to have their freedoms taken away, to protect them from what they have been manipulated to become – ‘fearful’.
As Benjamin Franklin once so typically stated:
“Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
The 9/11 Twin Tower destruction in New York in 2001 and the Global warming meme are both classic examples of ‘Problem - Reaction - Solution’ manipulations.
Physical Control of the Global Population is Impossible:
In short it is a technique of ‘problem - reaction - solution’. Create the problem; encourage the reaction that something has to be done about, and then offer the solution, their solution. In other words:
Create chaos and then offer a solution to restore order on people’s request, a solution which serves their agenda.
The masses are herded and directed by emotional and mental control. This is the only way their rules can be implemented. However, the few elites cannot control billions of people physically, unless a large number of people are involved.
So physical control of the global population is impossible. But when you can manipulate the way people feel and think to the point that they decide to do what they want us to do, by demanding to introduce regulations that they want to have implemented, then the door is set open for Centralised Global Control, by making people believe that it is their own idea.
Consequently, humanity becomes mind-controlled.
People are Mind Controlled:
The question is not how many people are mind-controlled, but how few are not. When you believe the news stories in the media, and allow these to affect your perception of events, your mind is controlled.
The answer to freedom of thought and perception is to take your mind back to conclude and decide for yourself.
The choice of interpretations is yours and not someone else’s. Remember they always want to have your mind, because once they have it, they have you. So keep your mind objective under all circumstances.
Think for yourself and don’t allow others to think for you, and if we All do this, their Agenda will not be able to be implemented and we will keep our freedoms, it’s as simple as that. Come into action now in the interest of our children, future generations, and in our own interest.
Remember; the secret Agenda is a conspiracy of minds, of people and events to ensure that the plans of the elite are employed. They conspire to put their people into positions of power, with hidden, stringent instructions to make the agenda happen, by conspiring to create events which will make the public demand the Agenda be implemented in complete ignorance of the devastating consequences.
It is frightening that we have entered the world George Orwell envisioned and wrote about in 1984 of mass surveillance, as portrayed in the movie ‘The Truman Show’.
Stick Your New World Order Up Your Arse!
Recently numerous scandals have revealed the surveillance state of the West and put it up for show. Whistleblowers have been warning about this for years!
But saying you were right won’t help you in the long run. Now we know that the government is listening, recording, and duplicating everything we do online or over the phone, it’s time to start taking action. It’s time to take back our right to privacy.
Although we may not fear Chinese tanks rolling through our streets, make no mistake; our most basic rights are under attack: reporters are being investigated and suspended by Government officials for exposing scandals, legislation is designed to water down our privacy rights and the NSA acts like it was nothing more than a necessity to crack down on terrorists, while presenting the matter as though they have the authority to do so.
Watch the powerful explanation of Snowden; it’s a lot easier, as was put forth by him, to change this intrusion on civilisation as has been laid out in the above writing: Be objective and make up your own mind; deciding for yourself.
New Zealand, Like The Rest Of The Western World, Is In The Grip Of Populism As Anti-Establishment Sentiment Rises & A Collective “Common Enemy” Now Stalks Mankind May 18 2024 | From: Centrist / DemocracyProject / GlobalResearch / Various
Serious populist discontent is bubbling up in New Zealand.
Two-thirds of the country think that “New Zealand’s economy is rigged to advantage the rich and powerful”.
They also believe that “New Zealand needs a strong leader to take the country back from the rich and powerful”.
These are just two of a handful of stunning new survey results released recently that indicates the high level of discontent and anti-establishment feeling that exists in the country at the moment.
The IPSOS research company carries out an annual survey about populism and discontent around the world, and this year they have included New Zealand for the first time, with the results for this country released this afternoon in the report: Populism global survey: New Zealand results
This landmark survey report provides valuable insights into just how angry the country currently is – especially with economic and political elites, or “the Establishment”.
The responses illustrate that New Zealand is far from immune from the global rising populist mood across the political spectrum. And it shows that some demographics – particularly lower socio-economic groups, and Māori – are particularly discontented in New Zealand.
The following are some of the key political beliefs uncovered by the survey:
“New Zealand needs a strong leader to take the country back from the rich and powerful” - 66% of New Zealanders agree with this statement (and 16% disagree). This compares to a global survey average of 63%. In New Zealand, the demographics who are more inclined to agree are Māori (82%), leftwing voters (79%), those on “low incomes” (77%), and those aged 65+ (72%).
“New Zealand’s economy is rigged to advantage the rich and powerful” - 65% agree with this statement (17% disagree). The global figure is 67%. Demographics more inclined to agree are leftwing voters (84%), Māori (79%), low incomes (73%), and those aged 18-34 (71%).
“The political and economic elite don't care about hard-working people” - 63% agree with this statement (19% disagree). The global figure is 67%. Demographics more inclined to agree are leftwing voters (76%), Māori (76%), those on “medium income” (70%), and “low income” (68%).
“New Zealand is in decline” - 60% agree with this statement (18% disagree). The global figure is 58%. The demographic more inclined to agree is Māori (66%). Left and right voters agree in similar proportions (61% and 59%).
“The main divide in our society is between ordinary citizens and the political and economic elite” - 60% agree with this statement (and 20% disagree). The global figure is 67%. Demographics more inclined to agree are Māori (78%), leftwing voters (74%), “low income” (69%), “medium income” (65%), and aged 16-34 (65%).
“New Zealand society is broken” - 58% agree with this statement (and 23% disagree). The global figure is 57%. Demographics more inclined to agree are Māori (67%), Low income (66%), and the unemployed (65%). Left and right voters agree in similar proportions (59% and 58%).
“Experts in this country don’t understand the lives of people like me” - 56% agree with this statement (and 20% disagree). The global figure is 62%. Demographics more inclined to agree are Māori (73%), “low income” (66%), and leftwing voters (63%).
“Traditional parties and politicians don’t care about people like me” - 55% agree with this statement (and 18% disagree). The global figure is 64%. Demographics more inclined to agree are: Māori (69%), Low income (63%), Aged 18-34 (60%), and leftwing voters (63%).
Anti-Establishment Feeling is Rising Across the Political Spectrum
The IPSOS survey results show the very clear existence of anti-establishment and anti-elite beliefs.
It seems that New Zealanders are very inclined towards being angry at the country’s economic and political leaders, blaming them for the state of the nation.
Political scientists refer to this with the term “populism”, which relates to both leftwing and rightwing opposition to elites.
Certainly, both left and right are similarly discontented on most questions about the state of the country in the survey.
Evidence of this in the survey can be found by looking at the voting histories of the respondents.
Those supporting the parties of the left (in Opposition in the current Parliament) and those supporting the parties of the right (in Government at the moment) are equally likely, according to the survey, to view New Zealand as being in decline and broken.
There are, however, some differences in their responses to the questions.
Leftwing respondents were more likely to agree with the statements that suggest the country is being run by the wealthy, and that working people are being disenfranchised and exploited.
Rightwing voters, by contrast, were more likely to agree with the need for a “strong leader willing to break the rules” (60% of the right agree, vs 50% of the left).
Interestingly, the other groups particularly favourable towards a rule-breaking strong leader are Māori (73%) and those on low incomes (66%).
Rising Kiwi Populist Revolt
This rise of populist discontent is related to declining trust and faith in political and public institutions.
Throughout the Western world, citizens have been losing faith in many of the key parts of democracy over recent decades.
This anger with elites then sped up following the global financial crisis of 2008, with special concerns about economic inequality and vested interests.
Discontent fuelled radical political movements and figures around the world – from Brexit in the UK to Donald Trump’s election in the US, as well as fostering a growth in radical critiques of society relating to movements like Black Lives Matter, MeToo, and heightened concerns about other issues relating to gender, ethnicity and sexuality.
Arguably, since the Covid pandemic, distrust in politicians, the media, and other elites has increased again.
In explaining this, some analysts point to the failure of governments to deliver what the public expects of them, together with the many “polycrises” plaguing countries like New Zealand ("climate change", cost-of-living crisis, infrastructure deficits, transport problems, etc).
Concerns about elites becoming preoccupied with culture wars and identity politics are also pinpointed as alienating the public.
Others point to causes like social media, misinformation, and conspiracy theories.
These are the favoured explanations of Newsroom’s Marc Daalder who writes about the IPSOS survey results today, saying “These are shocking numbers.” See:New Zealand broken and in decline, Kiwis say
Daalder quotes academic Paul Spoonley, who co-runs the anti-extremism research centre He Whenua Taurikura set up by the Labour Government, who says that Covid temporarily produced greater social cohesion in 2020, but then caused fractiousness: “That unravelled, quite spectacularly, in 2021 and 2022.
If we jump to the 2023 report, what we found is those high levels of social cohesion and I would suggest trust, particularly trust in government, had literally evaporated over the previous two years.
The key indicator of that was the protests that were occurring around New Zealand, most notably in Wellington.”
Daalder has published a second article today, saying that the populist survey results also “reflect a prevailing sense of disenfranchisement. The egalitarian, progressive, future-looking New Zealand is a thing of the past”. See:New Zealand’s crisis of confidence (paywalled)
He points also to survey research showing that the public doesn’t think very highly of the main two political leaders – both Christopher Luxon and Chris Hipkins have negative favourability ratings at the moment, and looking at the preferred prime minister polls it’s clear that “a majority of respondents would prefer someone other than Luxon or Hipkins to lead the country”.
In terms of the two leaders, Daalder says “People view them as out of touch, steeped in business-speak or Wellington bureaucracy and unable to relate to everyday people’s lives.”
New Zealand’s declining trust and positivity about public institutions and democracy is in line with rising populism and anti-establishment thinking everywhere in the world.
The magazine details the “startling” decline of American trust in several national institutions and connects it with the growing political polarisation in that country:
"Having some institutions that Democrats trust more (journalism, higher education, science) and others that Republicans trust more (religion, the armed forces and the police) is a matter of concern, particularly for the institutions themselves.
The problem is even starker when the workforces of such institutions become increasingly homogenous, something that has happened in predominantly progressive higher education as well as in the predominantly conservative military services..”
Similar research is required about the extent to which this is occurring here.
Political scientist Grant Duncan is also researching the impact of growing distrust in New Zealand.
Recently he published his argument for why declining trust could be healthy, pointing out that it’s good for the population to have scepticism about elites and leaders. See:Don’t trust politicians? That may not be such a bad thing
Duncan’s conclusion is a message to those who answer surveys about trust:
"If you distrust politicians, you’re not alone. Telling surveyors that you don’t trust politicians is a gentle and valid form of political resistance. Politicians should pay heed, reflect on their own behaviour, and then take practical steps to deliver better public services – in other words, do a better job.”
Politicians and governments are certainly going to have to get used to the public’s declining trust, as it will have an impact on many elements of what they do.
For example, recently week the Government Statistician Mark Sowden explained how last year’s census was partly blighted by the rising number of people who refused to participate due to their “anti-government” feelings.
The number of “hard refusals” rose in the census process from 6,000 in 2018 to 20,000 in 2023, with an escalating proportion of those refusing to participate citing mistrust and anti-government reasons – see Laura Walters’Lack of trust in Govt drives ‘hard refusals’ to census
New Zealanders Want a Stronger, More Activist Government
Today’s IPSOS survey report doesn’t just illustrate widespread discontent, but in a positive sense, it also points to what the public wants the government to do. In particular, they want more money spent by the state in many key areas.
Below are the proportions of people who want increased spending by government in particular areas:
Healthcare: 83% (and 4% want lower spending)
Public safety: 74% (4% lower)
Education: 71% (5% lower)
Infrastructure: 67% (8% lower)
Reducing poverty and social inequality: 65% (9% lower)
Creating jobs: 55% (7% lower)
Defense and national security: 28% (25% want it lower; 43% want it kept at its current level)
However, while many want more spending, they don’t seem to want higher taxes to pay for the cost of it.
Respondents were asked: “Do you agree or disagree that the government should increase taxes to pay for any additional public spending?”
The answers showed a strong preference against increased taxes:
Agree: 21%
Neither agree nor disagree: 16%
Disagree: 60%
Not sure: 4%
It’s also interesting, but not surprising, that the answers to this last question differed significantly for left and right voters. While 28% of leftwing voters agreed that the government should increase taxes, only 17% of rightwing voters favoured this.
One aspect of populism that is normally salient is immigration – which is certainly a significant debate in many other Western nations at the moment.
Yet here in New Zealand, the IPSOS survey suggests that anti-immigration sentiment is very low. When given the statement “New Zealand would be stronger if we stopped immigration”, only 23% agreed with this, which compares to the global average of 43% for the equivalent question.
Similarly, only 29% of New Zealanders agree with the statement “Immigrants take jobs away from real New Zealanders”, whereas globally the average is 42%.
Therefore, although serious discontent is bubbling away – especially on the left and amongst low-income and Māori – it’s not necessarily the same type of populism that is so heavily impacting much of the rest of the West.
Nonetheless, it would be wise for elites, policymakers, and citizens in general to be aware of the truly significant warning sign that well over half of New Zealanders feel the country is in decline and our society is broken.
- Dr Bryce Edwards: Political Analyst in Residence, Director of the Democracy Project, School of Government, Victoria University of Wellington. This article can be republished for free under a Creative Commons copyright-free license. Attributions should include a link to the Democracy Project (https://democracyproject.nz)
What's To Blame For The Public’s Plummeting Trust In The Media?
The media is in crisis, as New Zealand audiences flee from traditional sources of news and information.
The latest survey results on the public’s attitude to the media show plummeting trust.
And New Zealand now leads the world in terms of those who want to “avoid the news”. But who or what is to blame for this striking and alarming trend?
The Shocking Survey Results About Plummeting Public Trust in the Media
Recently the annual report onTrust in news in Aotearoa New Zealand 2024was released, containing statistics that the authors describe as “shocking”, and which others say should be a “massive wake-up call” for media.
The report has been produced by the Centre for Journalism Media and Democracy (JMAD) at Auckland University of Technology (AUT), in collaboration with the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.
The main finding is that public trust in the media continues to plummet: ‘In 2020, 53 per cent of New Zealanders said they trusted the news in general. In 2024, that figure was at 33 per cent. In five years, general trust in the news has fallen [20 percentage points].”
One of the study’s co-authors, Merja Myllylahti, says she was “shocked” by the results.
The survey also asked the public to rate the trustworthiness of the 16 main news media.
None of them managed to score more than an average of 5 out of 10. The percentage of people trusting individual broadcasters has fallen particularly heavily: RNZ fell 7.5 per cent, Newshub 7.8 per cent, TVNZ 9.4 per cent, and Whakaata Māori TV 14.6 per cent.
Perhaps even more alarming is the proportion of New Zealanders who say they now avoid the news.
Last year, the survey registered that 69 per cent say they actively avoid the news – making New Zealand the world leader in this trend. This year it’s got worse – now 75 per cent say they avoid the news.
The international average is only 40 per cent, and the next most media-avoidant country is Greece on 58 per cent.
New Zealand’s world-leading media avoidance is made worse by the fact that New Zealanders are actually still very interested in news and information – over 70 per cent said they were interested in news to some degree
All of these trends are reiterated by another survey on public perceptions of the media, carried out in March by polling firm Rangahau Aotearoa Research New Zealand. You can the report here: In news we trust
Here’s their summary of the research findings:
"Almost two-thirds of respondents (62%) stated they were personally concerned about ‘the falling trust in the news in general’.
More specifically, 78% said they were concerned about the ‘spread of fake news and information’, while 64% said they were concerned about the quality of the news (which we defined as ‘in-depth analysis and the news being dumbed down’).”
You can see more answers to the questions in the chart below, including that 55 per cent of respondents are concerned about “freedom of the press” – defined as concerns about “the news not being censored”.
Late last year, the Global IPSOS polling company also asked New Zealanders about the professions that they trust.
Unsurprisingly, the highest proportion of New Zealanders said they trusted doctors (65%) and teachers (61%), and only 21% said they trusted journalists.
Who or What is to Blame for New Zealand’s Distrust of the Media?
The main AUT report on media trust provides some details of what the public says is their problem with the New Zealand media:
"Those who say they don’t trust and/or avoid the news are most concerned about the negativity of news, including its impact on their mental health, and what they perceive as political bias and opinion masquerading as news.”
This is covered very well by RNZ’s Colin Peacock: “The report asked New Zealanders whether they believed that the news media ‘were independent of undue political or government influence most of the time’.
Twenty-seven percent agreed, but the proportion of those who ‘strongly or tend to disagree’ increased from 43 percent in 2023 to 47 percent. A quarter of respondents neither agreed nor disagreed.
Eighty-seven percent of those surveyed who did not trust news said it was ‘biased and unbalanced", while 82 percent said news reflected the political leaning of the newsroom and 76 percent regarded news as "too opinionated, lacking in actual information’.” See:People's trust in news has tumbled over the past year, survey shows
The criticisms of the Public Interest Journalism Fund are also obviously resonating with the public.
The $55m fund was established by the last government, and continues to fund a number of media projects.
But it has been contentious with critics because it aligned with the Labour Government’s Te Tiriti agenda of change – it required all applicants to show a “commitment to Te Tiriti o Waitangi and to Māori as a Te Tiriti partner” — alongside a commitment to te reo Māori.
Hence, some believed this compromised the media outlets, encouraging them to report more sympathetically on Treaty and co-governance issues.
And the AUT study shows that 59 per cent of the public appears to accept these sorts of critiques of the media, agreeing the statement that “government financial support for the media means you cannot trust journalists to hold the government to account”.
Although the number was slightly down from last year’s 61 per cent, arguably it reflects the impact of the Public Interest Journalism Fund controversy.
Is “Media Bias” to Blame?
The AUT survey suggests that the public blame the media for becoming less trustworthy.
According to the report, “Those who say they don’t trust and/or avoid the news are most concerned about the negativity of news, including its impact on their mental health, and what they perceive as political bias and opinion masquerading as news.”
Respondents who did not trust the media were asked what factors had reduced their trust:
87 per cent believed the news was “biased and unbalanced”
82 per cent believed news reflected the political leaning of the newsroom
76 per cent regarded news as “too opinionated, lacking in actual information”
In terms of bias, there’s some interesting evidence about the self-declared ideological leanings of journalists in Massey University’s Worlds of Journalism survey in 2022.
Some of this bias is also evident in a Curia Research survey carried out in December, which asked the question: “Do you think the New Zealand media overall are biased towards the right, biased towards the left or not biased?”See:NZ media bias (paywalled)
The overall results were interesting: 37 per cent said the media was “Biased towards left” and 12 per cent said the media was “Biased towards right”, with another 31 per cent saying there was no bias, and 12 per cent not sure.
Similarly, the same research company asked the public to identify where on the left-right political spectrum each of the main media outlets was in April last year.
The alleged bias of the media was discussed yesterday by Newstalk ZB broadcaster Heather du Plessis-Allan, who says:
"We are seeing [the bias] play out right now, with this new Government being given absolutely no honeymoon whatsoever because their conservative, liberal and centre-right ideas are an anathema to left-leaning journalists, who rail against it every single day.”
Media academic, and former editor of the NZ Herald, Gavin Ellis, has also written about yesterday’s media trust report, saying that the results “should shock the media sector”, and “Surely to God that sends a message to all mainstream, media that their approach to journalism has to change”. See:NZ media’s lab test results spell bad news
Ellis ponders whether, rather than bias, it’s the media’s overwhelming negativity that is the problem:
"I went back and reviewed the front page lead stories of our metropolitan papers published last year and found that, with only irregular glimmers of hope, they were unremittingly negative. A third of the New Zealand Herald’s lead stories in that period were crime related…
Unrelenting gloom is something we shy away from. And, if we see media painting an exaggerated picture that does not reflect our own reality, our trust in them is also likely to diminish.”
He also points to the fact that the Otago Daily Times has the highest trust rating in the survey, which Ellis says is significant because that newspaper “takes a more traditional or measured approach to selection and presentation” of news.
But will those in the media accept their faults, or just blame others?
Last year I talked to a head of one of the top media outlets in the country, during which I asked about the public’s perception of bias at the company, and whether they thought it was a problem that their media company was perceived in a certain way.
I was surprised to hear that this was news to them – they said that they had never received such feedback. They weren’t denying that this might be a problem, just that they had never been told this before.
Sometimes institutions and those in them suffer from “living in a bubble”, and can get out of sync with the public mood.
This is a major problem if it’s true, as playwright Arthur Miller once said, “A good newspaper, I suppose, is a nation talking to itself.” Instead it might be alleged that journalists are just talking to themselves and other elites, and when they talk to the nation, they are talking down to them.
Similarly, Heather du Plessis Allan says that she thinks that journalists and broadcasters will simply reject this latest landmark survey and the notion that the media has a trust problem:
"I genuinely think newsrooms up and down this country don’t believe this is true. That is my experience of talking to editors in various media. They don’t see it, or they do and they make excuses.”
Blaming Social Media, Politicians, and the Public
In reporting on the survey recently, BusinessDesk journalist Daniel Dunkley interviewed Merja Myllylahti about the AUT report, and she pointed to the impact of politicians like Winston Peters who critique media bias, saying that “political attacks against the media will also have contributed to the decline” in trust. See:Trust in NZ news declines sharply: AUT (paywalled)
Myllylahti also points to some other regular factors often blamed by the media: “The drop since 2020 has followed Covid, misinformation campaigns around vaccines, and the recent election.”
Elsewhere, Myllylahti has suggested the problem of declining trust arises from narratives that the media has become “corrupt” and “woke”.
She argues that the problem is that people have weaponised terms such as “mainstream media”, and therefore we need to find new words to use about journalism. See:To build trust in media, words matter
Following on from the AUT report, the newspaper warns that things might now get worse:
"With big world events like the US election just months away, we’re likely to see a flood of disinformation hitting social media and further eroding people’s trust in news media. Artificial intelligence (AI) tools, which, sure, can be used for good things, could also become a powerful weapon in spreading disinformation.”
Similarly, the Otago Daily Times editor Paul McIntyre has reflected on the AUT report, saying that social media and misinformation are a big problem:
"Do we really want a world where social media is the only place where people get their news? There is an increasing amount of misinformation on social media, in addition to information tailored to people’s searches, which then doesn’t allow for opposing opinions to be read or listened to. Democracy will be the loser if this continues to grow.”
The maxim that trust is hard-earned, easily lost, and difficult to re-establish applies strongly to the media and its audience in New Zealand. There are no easy answers to fixing what is a serious and difficult problem.
Newstalk’s Heather du Plessis Allan dealt with this issue in her column on public trust in the media, saying:
"Now the real question is, can the media turn this around? And I'm going to make a prediction – no.”
She’s probably correct to be pessimistic. But given the importance of media to democracy, there needs to be more effort given to the problem.
Much of the answer will depend on what people think the original problem is caused by.
For those who point the finger at the public themselves for being media illiterate, the answer will just be “more education”. Hence today’s Herald editorial on the matter says we need programmes in primary schools to teach media literacy.
Others will point to the relationship between media and their audiences having become strained. One of the AUT report authors, Greg Treadwell emphasises this, saying: “Trust in news and news outlets keeps declining and journalists and media companies need urgently to form relationships with their audiences and with communities to rebuild that trust.”
The best place to start for the media might be to realise that there is actually a problem, and that it’s not enough to just blame this on others – such as social media, disinformation, politicians, or the public’s lack of media literacy.
Real soul-searching should mean the media reflects on how it has allowed itself to be perceived as distant, elitist, and conformist.
Elsewhere, Harari elaborates on the reasons for his fellow elitists’ cold-hearted indifference to the fate of the vast majority of Earth’s inhabitants:
"If you go back to the middle of the 20th century … and you think about building the future, then your building materials are those millions of people who are working hard in the factories, in the farms, the soldiers. You need them. You don’t have any kind of future without them.”
“What he means is that you – referring to the dominant social and financial elites of that era – still “needed” the labour of millions in the various fields of economic endeavour in order to turn a profit.
Since then, how have things changed according to “futurologist” Harari?
"Now, fast forward to the early 21st century when we just don’t need the vast majority of the population, because the future is about developing more and more sophisticated technology, like artificial intelligence [and] bioengineering, most people don’t contribute anything to that, except perhaps for their data, and whatever people are still doing something useful, these technologies increasingly will make them redundant and will make it possible to replace those people.”
Elitist mouthpiece Harari deserves credit for blood-curdling honesty, if not for the morality of his and his masters’ “visions.”
He is plainly signalling the view that this writer, the editors of this portal, its readers and the rest of mankind are expendable and apart from whatever economic utility they still might possess are bereft of any inherent dignity or value.
Harari and his immediate superior in the elitist nomenklatura, Klaus Schwab, technically are private individuals.
Their organisational vehicle, the World Economic Forum, is a private NGO registered in Switzerland.
Formally, they neither represent nor do they speak for any government or official structure with a proper claim to legitimacy.
They have no licence to plan or arrange the future of humanity, beside the self-authorisation to do so which they and the oligarchical globalist power centres they commune and mingle with have arrogated to themselves.
No one elected or empowered them to plan anybody’s future, other than their own, and even that strictly in their private capacity.
Yet disposing of the future of mankind is precisely what they presume to do, in Davos in plenary session once a year and the rest of the time in conspiratorial confabulation amongst themselves.
The nature of the “planning” in which they engage should be of deep interest and grave concern to everyone.
Not just for the unbridled hubris it displays but more pointedly for the homicidal design that underlies it, on a vast and hitherto unimaginable scale which Raphael Lemkin was incapable of conceiving when he coined the term “genocide.”
Central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) have been a big discussion for several years now.
On one hand, governments and elitists feel the need for greater control and surveillance over the money supply.
On the other, many citizens don’t want the government to have more control than they already do.
People are concerned about privacy. Further, CBDCs do not solve the core issue with the money supply: central banks and their systems of perpetual debt.
It can feel unsettling to watch our world move toward greater amounts of authoritarian control, especially in areas where we have no control over what happens next.
That said, awareness can help organize movement toward non-support from the citizenry on these projects.
It is indisputable that Harari speaks not just in his own or Schwab’s name. He is publicly articulating the ideological vision of a depopulated Earth, cleansed of human presence and tinged with occultist misanthropy.
The real reason for expunging his remarks from the internet was the danger that they could raise an alarm amongst the targeted “flood victims,” provoking them to react with uncontrollable rage once they discovered what the elitist “visionaries” have in store for them.
These psychopathic serial killers (we should not mince words) using their vast financial, political and media (brainwashing) resources are inexorably putting into effect a homicidal global depopulation agenda.
Depopulation, as Harari has honestly admitted, means physically eliminating as many human beings as they deem superfluous or useless for their purposes. The concept of population control, again not to mince words, is their code for global genocide.
The Club of Rome, one of the institutional components of the depopulation network, in a programmatic document published in 1974 could not have put the main principle of their genocidal philosophy more starkly: “The Earth has cancer and the cancer is Man.” Is it necessary to clarify that cancers are not nurtured and cultivated? Cancers are to be extirpated.
Engdahl has shown that perverts like Schwab and Harari are but public faces of a malevolent trans-generational scheme.
Engdahl quotes from a report issued by the Club of Rome, “The First Global Revolution.” It is admitted there that the CO2 global warming claims, serving as the convenient rationale to forcefully impose upon humanity an endless array of destructive structural changes, are merely an invented ruse.
That is because:
"…the common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.
All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”
“The agenda,” Engdahl sombrely concludes, “is dark, dystopian and meant to eliminate billions of us ‘ordinary humans.’”
An important clarification needs to be made. Humanity is not the enemy, but is on the contrary the crown of God’s creation.
And it is humanity itself that now is facing an implacable enemy, in this case a collective incarnation of the defining characteristic Edward Gibbon attributed to the depraved emperors Commodus and Caracalla: “common enemy of mankind.”
This time round, however, humanity is no longer facing the perverse eccentricities of an individual deviant. Today, it must confront Commodus’ and Caracalla’s collective personification, in the form of a depraved global oligarchy, imbued with dangerous delusions of omnipotence and impunity.
Why have we chosen to dwell on this dark subject? In the first place, because the intended genocide victims world-wide are entitled to be informed and naturally they also have the right to self-defence, in order to preserve their own and their families’ lives, as well as to ensure the integrity of their societies, cultures, historical memory, and way of life.
But there is also another important reason, to expose the cynicism and utter amorality of the genocidal fanatics who still are directing the destiny of a considerable portion of mankind and exert their energies continuously to regain complete control over the remainder.
Acting through their proxies Germany and Rwanda, recently joined by France and a few other puppet governments, they had the impudence to submit in the General Assembly of the United Nations a resolution to condemn and memorialise the fabricated “genocide” in Srebrenica, censuring for genocide a nation that throughout the twentieth century has itself been the target for effective extinction.
That is the very crime that they themselves are brazenly plotting to commit, not in some remote Balkan municipality but upon humanity as a whole.
What Is Globalism And Where Is It Going? May 17 2024 | From: JonRappoport/ Various
“Above all, the Globalist elite considers the human being is nothing more than a biological machine - a machine that is badly programmed, desperately in need of a complete overhaul and restructuring at the level of mind.” - The Underground, Jon Rappoport
He brought back, for the public, the concept, which had receded from press coverage. You could say he let the cat out of the bag.
So here I thought I would publish, in a series, some of the important material I’ve written on the subject. People need to be aware of the elite movement called Globalism and its aims and strategies.
1. “Over the weekend, thousands of protesters across multiple countries condemned impending [Globalist] trade deals promoted by governments and their corporate partners.
Though the protests received little coverage from mainstream media, they stretched from Paris to Warsaw.” (Carey Wedler, Blacklisted News, 10/19/16)
Now that the election is over, it’s important to review a few facts about Globalism. It was a centerpiece of controversy during the run-up to the vote.
Globalism isn’t just an abstract word or idea. It gives survival to some, and tries to take it away from others. It lights on populations like a storm of locusts. It undermines jobs and work. It steals. It is designed to make chaos.
Globalism is based on the elite conviction that “the best people” should rule over everyone else for the greater good. “We’re not trying to do harm. We’re spreading the wealth.”
We can find the seeds of Globalism in Plato and his ancient dialogue called The Republic. Plato made his final philosophic stand on that work. Step by step, he establishes that The Good, which is highest concept in the universe, which exists in a realm of “pure ideas” apart from the daily round of existence, must be accessed and understood, if society is to meet up with its best destiny.
But, naturally, not all people are able to fathom The Good or translate it into action here in this human realm. Only the few can grasp it - and they must rise to the top and rule.
So, in the end, there is a fascist paradise. It rebuffs all attempts at dilution.
This is how Plato, the humane philosopher, the champion of the individual and freedom and independent thought, painted himself into a terrible corner. But never mind. Down through the centuries, “the wisest of men” have taken their cue from him and built nations and civilizations based on their (self-serving) version of The Good.
And in the process, they have used propagandists to convince populations that rule from above is only carried out as altruistic service…
When a system has been devised, planned, launched, and maintained by criminals to undermine a nation, they are naturally going to defend it by saying:
"It’s good for everyone AND THERE IS NO OTHER WAY TO MANAGE HUMAN AFFAIRS. BESIDES, WE CAN’T STOP IT NOW. THAT WOULD CAUSE WIDESPREAD CHAOS.”
In exactly the same way, a massive prison housing nothing but innocent people would superficially look like “chaos,” if the airtight security system were turned off.
The truth about the Globalist prison is simple. The underlying operation takes jobs away from America, in this instance, and sends them to Third World hell holes, where the same products are manufactured by the same companies, for pennies, using slave workers who labor in toxic environmental conditions that destroy their health.
Isn’t that easy to understand?
The American companies in those hell holes then sell the products back to Americans without paying taxes, tariffs, or penalties of any kind. The defenders of Globalism claim selling back the products cheaply is good for the American consumer. This is a lie, because many of those consumers no longer have jobs. Or they work at much lower wages than they used to, because the companies they worked for left America and went to the hell holes.
All in all, this arrangement is obviously designed to torpedo the national economy. It’s not an accident. It’s not an unintended consequence. The Globalists may be criminals, but they aren’t stupid criminals.
But what about the US companies who left America and set up shop overseas? Can’t they read the handwriting on the wall? Can’t they realize their base of consumers in the US is shrinking?
The companies are, in fact, stupid. They’re betting on short-term success vs. long-term collapse, and they’re going to lose. They plunge ahead with their eyes closed - because they can’t bring themselves to believe that the system they’re part of could have been fashioned with ultimate failure in mind.
The anti-Globalism movement is MUCH bigger than Trump, so no matter what you think of him, whether you believe in his honesty or not, the ideas he is bringing forward are having an immense impact on the populace - because the populace has figured out the Globalist game. They see and feel the destruction. They see and feel what is happening to jobs. Their jobs. They see the brutal reality, and they want no part of it.
They want America to endure. They want America to prosper. They want a free market. They don’t want their country reduced to Third World status.
All the politically correct humanitarian lingo in the universe is not going to change these basic realities. Globalism - the export of jobs, the rapid expansion of the Welfare State, the launching of senseless wars to pave the way for corporate plunder, the immigrant-flood through open borders - is a nation killer. It’s built to be a killer.
Decimating nations is an intentional precursor to ruling the planet from above by the Globalists-in-charge. “What we destroy we will resurrect on our own terms.”
No nation on Earth has a pure and clean history. But no nation deserves to be leveled and destroyed. The founding ideas of the original American Republic were and are the best ideas about government ever forwarded in human history. They imply:
Severely limited federal power. Free individuals. Independent individuals. Individuals who choose their own dreams and destinies. Individuals who work to achieve those dreams.
The so-called liberal press, and the academic institutions of America, have sold out completely. They are on board with what they can see of the Globalist agenda. The press will never challenge that agenda. They are grotesque cowards of the first order.
I have met some of them during my 30-plus years of working as a reporter. Behind their perfumed fronts, they give off a stench.
America is America. For the most part, its people are decent. Their leaders have betrayed them time and time again, without a second thought, without a shred of remorse.
The so-called populist movement which is growing by leaps and bounds, which got its legs under it with Ron Paul, must not come to a halt, no matter who sits in the White House, not matter what he does.
The future is now.
2.
Globalist corporations are blind in the face of doom.
People don’t fully appreciate the capacity of mega-corporations. The 300 largest companies account for roughly 25% of all international trade.
And, even more startling, these behemoths are operating their production lines at half-strength. Why? Because only 1.5 billion people in the world have enough money to rate as true consumers.
So these corporations, which are the leading lights of the Globalist agenda, are looking and hoping for many more customers.
Meanwhile, Rockefeller Globalists are hyping the pseudoscience of manmade warming, in order to convince nations to cut their energy production. That plan, of course, would further erode the ability of mega-corporations to find new consumers. Indeed, Globalists are all for wrecking economies and deepening poverty - aims which infect the lifeblood of corporations.
We are looking at a huge crack - a contradiction - in the very foundation of the Globalism.
And if you want to take this farther, the notion of radical depopulation across the planet would do even graver harm to corporate dreams and ambitions. Far fewer consumers.
There are wild and woolly solutions. For example, provide a basic income to every human on Earth; or make governments the sole payer to corporations for their products, which are then dispensed to the population in a mad universal welfare scheme. In either case, you would have a new currency system.
Governments would openly and blandly create money out of thin air, as needed, to fund these harebrained schemes. Governments already invent money, but this would be occurring on a far larger scale, and without any pretense of legitimacy.
Given the propensity of governments to run their programs according to dizzyingly incompetent guidelines, I see no way the mega-corporations would welcome these “innovations.”
In short, the corporations are buying a pie-in-the-sky con. They insist on believing the favors and concocted advantages the Globalists are offering them in the marketplace are wonderful; but in fact, the long-term situation is a no-win. It’s a narrowing road, and a crack-up is coming.
Globalists are shrinking the worldwide consumer base. They want a chaos-ridden dystopia, which they will control with an iron hand. In that scenario, the mega-corporations will also shrink to shadows of their former selves. Their usefulness will rapidly decay.
Memo to CEOs: why don’t you try waking up? Your whole elite movement is a walking contradiction, and you’re on the downside.
Why don’t these CEOs awaken? Because their short-term greed exceeds their long-term vision. For them, it’s an easier way to live. Take the money and run.
3. "Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure - one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.” David Rockefeller, Memoirs, 2003
The man who wrote those words represents a family that has dominated banking, oil, modern medicine, behind-the-scenes politics, and powerhouses of Globalism (e.g., the Council on Foreign Relations) for a century.
Globalism asserts that no nation can be independent from “the family” of other nations, as if it were a matter of fact beyond dispute. A nation claiming its sovereignty thus becomes a lunatic traitor to the natural order of things.
What really binds nations to one another is propaganda, and treaties which are based on the same propaganda, resulting in (temporary) engorged super-profits for mega-corporations.
Globalism is a secular piece of messianic hype. A Disneyesque altruism is the prow of the ship. Spend 10 minutes educating any street hustler on Globalist principles, and he would recognize it as a standard con.
Obama’s warning to the Brits, that their withdrawing from the Globalist European Union would put them at the back of the line in negotiating a separate trade treaty with the United States, was sheer fiction.
Britain, or any nation, that has goods to sell and a desire to buy will find trade partners. An agreement could be scratched out on a napkin over dinner.
Impending trade deals like the TPP and TTIP are thousands of pages and take so long to negotiate, because the heavy hitters at the table are looking for new ingenious ways to cut and paste the world into larger profits for themselves.
Globalism, hiding behind thousands of academic analyses, picks up jobs from one nation, where wages are reasonable and working conditions are tolerable, and dumps them in hell holes where wages are nearly invisible and conditions are poisonous. It’s that simple, and any moron could see how the industrial nations like the US would suffer…if by nations we meant people.
Instead of criminal corporations and criminal investors. But all this is layered over with “share and care” sop.
The United States government could repeal the NAFTA, CAFTA, and GATT trade treaties tomorrow, and throw current TPP and TTIP negotiating documents out the window…and all would be well. Better. Much better.
For instance, without NAFTA, US producers wouldn’t have been able to flood Mexico with cheap corn, throwing 1.5 million Mexican corn farmers into bankruptcy, leading many of them to cross the border and come to the US to find work.
No US President since Nixon has disturbed the march of Globalist “free trade.” All Presidents since then have been on board with the Rockefeller plan. And the US economy - which is to say, jobs - has thus faltered.
The 2008 financial crash was only one factor in the decline. The promise of cheap imports for sale in the US - the justification for free trade - doesn’t work when people here have no jobs and no purchasing power.
Major media, fronting for free-trade, have panicked over Donald Trump’s claim that he’ll reject Globalism.
They would have panicked over Bernie Sander’s similar promise, if they thought he had any chance of defeating Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination. The media have their orders from on high - the deck is stacked, the cards were dealt long ago.
Hillary Clinton’s pathetic promises about creating jobs reveal nothing of substance. Small tax breaks for small businesses that “share profits with employees,” the “removal of government red tape,” “funding breakthroughs in scientific and medical research,” “expanding job training opportunities”- the truth is, her basic method for stimulating the economy has always been: find a war, any war, and fight it.
4. From GlobalisationGuide.org: “What does globalization mean to Australia?”
“Australian corporations participate in the oppression of workers and peasants in poor countries in Asia. Australian mining and forestry companies are involved in extracting wealth from countries such as Papua New Guinea, Irian Jaya and Indonesia, sometimes relying on military support to suppress local opposition.”
“The Australian support for trade liberalisation, particularly in agriculture, has been used to open up markets in poor countries where Australia’s commodity exports put local subsistence farmers out of work.”
“Australia has opened its own markets to goods made in countries that allow child labour, or forbid the formation of free trade unions.”
“The Australian government has opposed efforts to include environmental and labour protection clauses in World Trade Organisation agreements.”
“Australia should support reform of the WTO to make it more equitable for poor nations of the world.”
“Australia places few restrictions on the operations of transnational organisations, which take wealth from…[our] country, and are not managed in the interests of Australia.”
5. This is a bombshell. It’s a crucial piece of history that has been ignored by mass media.
I’ve published this interview before. Here I want to make new comments.
First of all, David Rockefeller’s Trilateral Commission was born in 1973, in part because the Globalist plan to ensure “free trade” (no tariffs paid by predatory mega-corporations) had run into a glitch.
That glitch was President Richard Nixon. He began laying tariffs on certain goods imported into the US, in order to level the playing field and protect American companies. Nixon, a substantial crook in other respects, went off-script in this case and actually started a movement to reject the Globalist vision.
After Nixon’s ouster from the White House, Gerald Ford became president, and he chose David’s brother, Nelson Rockefeller as his vice-president. It was a sign Globalism and free trade were back on track.
But David Rockefeller and his sidekick, Brzezinski, wanted more. They wanted a man in the White House whom they’d created from scratch. That man was a peanut farmer no one had ever heard of: Jimmy Carter.
Through their media connections, David and Brzezinski vaulted Carter into the spotlight. He won the Democratic nomination (1976), spread a syrupy message of love and coming together after the Watergate debacle, and soon he was ensconced in the Oval Office.
Flash forward to 1978, the second year of Carter’s presidency. An interview took place.
It’s a close-up snap shot of a remarkable moment. It’s a through-the-looking-glass secret - in the form of a conversation between a reporter, Jeremiah Novak, and two Trilateral Commission members, Karl Kaiser and Richard Cooper.
The interview concerned the issue of who exactly, during President Carter’s administration, was formulating and controlling US economic and political policy.
The careless and off-hand attitude of Trilateralists Kaiser and Cooper is astonishing. It’s as if they’re saying, “What we’re revealing is already out in the open, it’s too late to do anything about it, why are you so worked up, we’ve already won…”
NOVAK (the reporter): Is it true that a private [Trilateral committee] led by Henry Owen of the US and made up of [Trilateral] representatives of the US, UK, West Germany, Japan, France and the EEC is coordinating the economic and political policies of the Trilateral countries [which would include the US]?
COOPER: Yes, they have met three times.
NOVAK: Yet, in your recent paper you state that this committee should remain informal because to formalize ‘this function might well prove offensive to some of the Trilateral and other countries which do not take part.’ Who are you afraid of?
KAISER: Many countries in Europe would resent the dominant role that West Germany plays at these [Trilateral] meetings.
COOPER: Many people still live in a world of separate nations [!], and they would resent such coordination [of policy].
NOVAK: But this [Trilateral] committee is essential to your whole policy. How can you keep it a secret or fail to try to get popular support [for its decisions on how Trilateral member nations will conduct their economic and political policies]?
COOPER: Well, I guess it’s the press’ job to publicize it.
NOVAK: Yes, but why doesn’t President Carter come out with it and tell the American people that [US] economic and political power is being coordinated by a [Trilateral] committee made up of Henry Owen and six others? After all, if [US] policy is being made on a multinational level, the people should know.
COOPER: President Carter and Secretary of State Vance have constantly alluded to this in their speeches.
KAISER: It just hasn’t become an issue.
SOURCE: “Trilateralism: The Trilateral Commission and Elite Planning for World Management,” ed. by Holly Sklar, 1980. South End Press, Boston. Pages 192-3.
Of course, although Kaiser and Cooper claimed everything being manipulated by the Trilateral Commission committee was already out in the open, it wasn’t.
Their interview slipped under the mainstream media radar, which is to say, it was ignored and buried. It didn’t become a scandal on the level of, say, Watergate, although its essence was far larger than Watergate.
US economic and political policy run by a Globalist committee of the Trilateral Commission - the Commission had been created in 1973 as an “informal discussion group” by David Rockefeller and his sidekick, Brzezinski, who would become Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor.
Shortly after Carter won the presidential election, his aide, Hamilton Jordan, said that if after the inauguration, Cy Vance and Brzezinski came on board as secretary of state and national security adviser, “We have lost. And I will quit.”
Lost - because both men were powerful members of the Trilateral Commission and their appointment to key positions would signal a surrender of White House control to the Commission.
Vance and Brzezinski were appointed secretary of state and national security adviser, as Jordan feared. But he didn’t quit. He became Carter’s chief of staff.
Flash forward again, to the Obama administration.
In the run-up to his inauguration after the 2008 presidential election, Obama was tutored by the Globalist co-founder of the Trilateral Commission, Zbigniew Brzezinski.
Four years before birthing the Commission with his boss of bosses, David Rockefeller, Brzezinski wrote:
“[The] nation state as a fundamental unit of man’s organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force. International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation state.”
Goodbye, separate nations. Hello, global government.
Any doubt on the question of Trialteral goals is answered by David Rockefeller himself, in his Memoirs (2003): “Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure - one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”
Patrick Wood, author of Trilaterals Over Washington and Technocracy Rising, points out there are only 87 members of the Trilateral Commission who live in America.
Obama appointed eleven of them to posts in his administration. For example:
Tim Geithner, Treasury Secretary;
James Jones, National Security Advisor;
Paul Volker, Chairman, Economic Recovery Committee;
Dennis Blair, Director of National Intelligence.
Here is the payoff. The US Trade Representative (appointed by Obama in 2013), who was responsible for negotiating the Globalist TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership) treaty with 11 other nations, was Michael Froman, a former member of the Trilateral Commission.
Don’t let the word “former” fool you. Commission members resign when they take positions in the Executive Branch of government. And when they serve in vital positions, such as US Trade Representative, they aren’t there by accident. They’re operatives with a specific agenda.
Flash forward one more time. Trump, who squashed the Globalist TPP treaty as soon as he was inaugurated, has been busy making staff appointments. Patrick Wood writes (2/6/17):
“According to a White House press release, the first member of the Trilateral Commission has entered the Trump administration as the Deputy Assistant to the President for International Economic Affairs, where he will sit on the National Security Council:
Kenneth I. Juster will serve as Deputy Assistant to the President for International Economic Affairs. He will coordinate the Administration’s international economic policy and integrate it with national security and foreign policy. He will also be the President’s representative and lead U.S. negotiator (“Sherpa”) for the annual G-7, G-20, and APEC Summits.”
Juster’s duties will take him into the heart of high-level negotiations with foreign governments on economic policy.
Keep your eye on Mr. Juster. Will he take actions in line with Trump’s avowed anti-Globalist stance? Or will Juster work as one more Globalist Trilateral operative in the center of American decision-making?
If the answer is “operative,” does Trump know this? Does he condone what Mr. Juster will do? Or is this a case of secret infiltration, on behalf of the most powerful Globalist group in the world, the Trilateral Commission?
6. Globalized media. It’s nice plan. Let’s examine it.
The new technocratic media is based on profiling users. There is no impactful news unless each member of the audience is surveilled and analyzed on the basis of what he already likes and wants.
Shocking? It’s to be expected. How else would technocrats parlay the untold hours they’ve spent sizing up their consumers/users? Several years ago, I wrote:
“Tech blather has already begun, since Jeff Bezos, CEO of Amazon, bought the Washington Post at a fire sale. Jeff Genius will invent new ways to transmit the news to ‘people on the go’ and make the Post a smashing success. Mobile devices. Multiple platforms. Digital taking over from print. Ads customized to fit readers’ interests (profiling). News stories customized to fit readers’ interests (more profiling).”
In other words, non-news. If you thought media were irrelevant and deceptive before, you haven’t seen anything. The “new news” will create millions of virtual bubbles in which profiled users can float contentedly, under the cozy cottage roofs of their favorite little separate paradigms.
The tech giant Apple has waded into this territory with an app that will deliver news to users.
Yahoo:
“Apple News, part of the upcoming iOS 9 operating system, aims to be the primary news source for users of the iPhone and iPad… Apple says its news app ‘follows over a million topics and pulls relevant stories based on your specific interests’…
Joshua Benton of the Nieman Journalism Lab said the app will be important because ‘through the awesome power of default, Apple distribution puts it in an entirely other league. This [news] app will be on hundreds of millions of devices within 24 hours of its debut’.”
Translation: Profiling their users down to their toenails, Apple will present them with virtual bubbles of news they want to see and read.
Not just one overall presentation for all; no, different “news outlets” for Apple’s audiences.
This introduces a whole new layer of mind control.
“You’re an Obama fan? Here are stories confirming your belief in the Prophet.”
“You want neo-con on the rocks with a conservative Republican twist? Here’s some war footage that’ll warm your heart.”
“Do you believe ‘government gridlock’ is our biggest concern? Congress can’t get anything done? We’ve got headlines for that from here to the moon.”
“Tuned into celeb gossip? Here’s your world in three minutes.”
The idea: convince users, one day at a time, that what they already believe is important IS the news of the day.
It’s Decentralized Centralization. One media giant carving its global audience up into little pieces and delivering them a whole host of different algorithmically appropriate lies and fluff and no-context psyops.
And for “fringe users?” “You’re doubtful about GMOs? Well, look at what Whole Foods is planning for their healthier produce section. Cheer up.”
Nothing about Maui voters declaring a temporary ban on devastatingly toxic Monsanto/Dow experiments or the dangers of Roundup. “You’re anti-vaccine? Sorry, you don’t count. You’re not a recognized demographic. But here’s a piece about a little unvaccinated boy who was involved in car crash on the I5.”
Does this sound like science fiction? It isn’t. It’s the mainstream look of the near-future (if they could get away with it). Search engines are already “personalizing” your inquiries. US ABC national news is climbing in the ratings because it’s giving viewers “lighter stories,” and spending less time on thorny issues like the Middle East.
The mainstream news business is desperately looking for audience; and treating every “user” as a profiled social-construct-bundle of superficial preferences is their answer.
“Mr. X, we’ve studied the little virtual bubble you live in, and now we can sell you your own special brand of truth.”
“Hello, audience. We’re going to pitch you on becoming full-fledged obsessed consumers, as if there is no other worthy goal in life - and then we’re going to profile you from top to bottom, to find out exactly what kind of obsessed consumer you are, so we can hit you and trigger you with information that uniquely stimulates your adrenal glands…”
The one-two punch.
Any actual event occurring in the world would be pre-digested by robot media editors and profilers, and then split up into variously programmed bits of information for different audiences.
Who cares what really happened? In the new world, there is no ‘what really happened’. That’s a gross misnomer. A faulty idea. A metaphysical error. No, there is only a multi-forked media tongue that simultaneously spits out a dozen or a hundred variations of the same event…because different viewers want and expect different realities.
In 1984, Orwell’s Big Brother was issuing a single voice into the homes of the population. That was old-school. That was primitive technology. That was achieving unity by hammering unity into people’s skulls. This, now, is the frontier of unity through diversity.
“We want to make all of you into androids, through basic PR and propaganda and a pathetic excuse for education. However, we recognize you’ll become different varieties of androids, and we’ll serve that outcome with technological sophistication. Trust us. We care about what you prefer.”
User A: “Wow, did you see the coverage of the border war in Chula Vista?”
User B: “War? They had a fantastic exhibit of drones down there. At least a hundred different types. And then I watched an old WW2 movie about aerial combat.”
User C: “Chula Vista? They had a great food show. This woman made a lemon pie. I could practically taste it.”
User D: “That wasn’t a border war. It was a drill. And then afterwards, these cops gave a demonstration of all their gear. Vests, shields, communication devices, flash-bangs, auto rifles with silencers, batons. I watch drills all over the country. Love them.”
User E: “Chula Vista? The only thing I saw on the news was ‘sunny and mild’ this week. I watch all the weather channels. I love them.”
BUT when a Big One comes along, like the 2016 national election in the US, the separate tunes come together and ring as one. Then the overriding need to extend Globalism’s goals (in the person of Hillary Clinton) blot out every other priority. Then the major media twist whatever they need to twist. Then it’s the same bubble for everyone.
One problem, though. Major media have been lanced thousands of times by alt news sites, and by Wikileaks and Project Veritas. This attack has exposed the truth and the Clinton crimes.
And alt news reflects the growing interest of the public in what’s actually happening on many fronts.
The technocratic plan for the news is failing. It was a nice plan, but…It’s turning out to be a dud.
Alt media are forcing public awareness of one giant scandal after another: Hillary/Obama support for ISIS; pro-vaccine liars; the collapse of Obamacare; the GMO hustle; pesticide damage…on and on and on.
The result? Major media are being backed into a corner, where they must defend lies and build the same monolithic lies for EVERYONE all the time. The idea of creating separate news for each profiled user is ALREADY collapsing.
Major media are playing defense against the rest of the world.
It’s quite a party. And it has no expiration date.
A final note: Trump, Wikileaks, Project Veritas, Drudge, and many alt news sites created a perfect storm in 2016, raining down on major media. It was and is unprecedented. The mainstream press has been exposed down to its roots, as never before.
The lying, the collusion, the arrogant sense of entitlement, the desperation, the corruption - it’s all there to see, for anyone who has eyes and a few working brain cells. Expect more to come, regardless of the outcome of the election. The train has really left the station…
7. Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote, four years before birthing the TC with his godfather, David Rockefeller:
“[The] nation state as a fundamental unit of man’s organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force. International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation state.”
Several other noteworthy Trilateral members: George HW Bush; Bill Clinton; Dick Cheney; Al Gore. The first three men helped sink the US further into debt by fomenting wars abroad; and Gore’s cap and trade blueprint would destroy industrial economies, while vastly increasing the numbers of people in Third World countries who have no access to modern sources of energy.
Does all this offer a clue as to why the US economy has failed to recover from the Wall Street debacle of 2008, why the federal bailout was a handout to super-rich criminals, and why Obama took actions which prevented a recovery?
A closer look at Tim Geithner’s circle of economic advisers reveals the chilling Trilateral effect: Paul Volker; Alan Greenspan; E. Gerald Corrigan (director, Goldman Sachs); and Peter G Peterson (former CEO, Lehman Brothers, former chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations). These men are all Trilateral members.
How many foxes in the hen house do we need, before we realize their Globalist Trilateral agenda is controlling the direction of our economy?
The TC has no interest in building up the American economy. They want to torpedo it, as part of the end-game of creating a new international currency, ushering in a de facto Globalist management system for the whole planet.
8. Now consider the vast propaganda efforts of the past 40 years, on so many levels, to install the idea that all nations and peoples of the world are a single Collective.
From a very high level of political and economic power, this propaganda op has had the objective of grooming the population for a planet that is one coagulated mass, run and managed by one force. A central engine of that force is the Trilateral Commission.
How does a shadowy group like the TC accomplish its goal? One basic strategy is: destabilize nations; ruin their economies; ratify trade treaties that effectively send millions and millions of manufacturing jobs off to places where virtual slave labor does the work; adding insult to injury, export the cheap products of those slave-factories back to the nations who lost the jobs and undercut their domestic manufacturers, forcing them to close their doors and fire still more employees.
And then solve that economic chaos by bringing order. What kind of order?
Eventually, one planet, with national borders erased, under one management system, with a planned global economy, “to restore stability,” “for the good of all, for lasting harmony.”
The top Trilateral players, in 2008, had their man in the White House, another formerly obscure individual like Jimmy Carter: Barack Obama. They had new trade treaties on the planning table.
Obama was tasked with doing whatever was necessary to bring those treaties, like the TPP, home. To get them passed. To get them ratified. No excuses.
That’s why, over a year ago, when anti-TPP criticism and rhetoric were reaching a crescendo, when Obama was seeking Congressional fast-track authority for the treaty, he was in a sweat and a panic. He and his cabinet were on the phones night and day, scrambling and scraping for votes in Congress. This was the Big One. This was why he was the President. To make this happen.
His Trilateral bosses were watching. These men run US policy, when and where it counts. They don’t like failure.
This is also why, after Obama was inaugurated for his first term, he shocked and astonished his own advisors, who expected him, as the first order of business, to address the unemployment issue in America. He shocked them by ignoring the number-one concern of Americans, and instead decided to opt for his disastrous national health insurance policy - Obamacare.
Obama never had any intention of trying to dig America out of the crash of 2008. That wasn’t why he was put in the Oval Office.
He could, and would, pretend to bring back the economy, with fudged numbers and distorted standards. But really and truly, create good-paying jobs for many, many Americans? Not on the TC agenda. Not in the cards.
It was counter-productive to the TC plan: torpedo the economy further.
Obama is on the move. He’s traveling to far-flung places, trying to shore up global consensus on the TPP treaty. His people are working around the clock to round up the necessary votes for TPP ratification in Congress. Obama plans to sneak through the treaty during Congress’ lame-duck session after the November election, before newly elected Congressional members take office.
Pushing through Globalist trade treaties: this is why he was put in the White House. This is his appointed task. This is his real job. His bosses are watching.
“I pledge allegiance to the Trilateral Commission, and to the domination for which it stands, one planet, indivisible, with tyranny and poverty and top-down order for all…”
[Update: the TPP was dead on arrival, after Trump was elected].
9. "Technocratic human beings are spiritually dead. They are capable of anything, no matter how heinous, because they do not reflect upon or question the ultimate goal.” - Chris Hedges
“River and ocean turbines for electricity; hydrogen power; urban farms; massive water desalination—these are just a few of the means for making an abundant non-technocratic future. By any rational standard, technocratic idiocy is already obsolete.”
- The Underground, Jon Rappoport
Again, thanks to Patrick Wood and his book, Technocracy Rising, for expanding my insight into these areas.
Consider the term “scientific humanism.” The Oxford Dictionary offers this definition:
“A form of humanist theory and practice that is based on the principles and methods of science; specifically the doctrine that human beings should employ scientific methods in studying human life and behaviour, in order to direct the welfare and future of mankind in a rational and beneficial manner…Origin mid-19th century.”
That definition gives you a good general meaning for “technocracy.”
Understanding the mindset of Globalist technocrats is necessary; they believe that since they can plan the shape of society, they should plan the shape of society.
Politicians are outmoded along this new evolutionary path. They will fade into extinction. Instead, engineers will take their place.
Human beings (all eight billion) will be accounted for. They will receive energy quotas. Because a master map exists for the amount of global energy available at any moment, every human will be permitted to consume just so much energy during a defined time period.
Wherever you see the Surveillance State, you see technocracy. The claim that surveillance is being utilized to prevent terror attacks is a cover story. In fact, there can be no all-embracing technocracy without real-time tracking of every citizen’s energy consumption.
But technocracy goes much farther than this. Humans are viewed as mis-programmed biological machines in need of basic corrections. Their tendency to engage in conflict needs to be curbed. Whatever they do, say, or think that runs counter to the tight organizing of “peaceful and harmonious” society from above is, a priori, irrational and must be eradicated at the level of Mind.
The necessary reprogramming would be achieved through genetic, electronic, and chemical means. Though never admitting it publicly, dyed in the wool technocrats see no reason to maintain the human population at its current level. Elimination of large numbers of “biological machines” would make their job easier.
Heraldic fairy tales about “transhuman” transformation are used to put a wondrous face on technocracy. For example, we’re told that soon it will be possible to connect a human brain with a super-computer and download “spiritual wisdom, knowledge, and talents” directly to the human.
Technocratic premise: society itself is a game board, and someone has to be in charge; who better than engineers with an overall plan?
So-called “advances” in human life will begin by stating the basic “rights” people are entitled to. For example, “an optimum state of social existence.” What this really means is “pegs in holes.” People will be fitted into slots that yield up the “largest amount of possible collective happiness.”
Click on the image above to open a larger versioon in a new window
It’s all about The Plan. Freedom? Freedom to choose? Never heard of it. Instead, what the individual is given from above is satisfactory to him because he has been engineered to believe it is. That’s the plan.
Smart-grid, sustainable development, green economy, land use, community planning, climate change, education in values, and other campaigns are signals and steps toward the far shore of technocracy. They all point to putting “pegs in holes.” They all ultimately involve quotas for energy consumption.
They all involve the assumption that, since there is only so much to go around, a higher authority must decide who gets what. Food, water, shelter, jobs, luxuries, energy…
Clue: scientists and engineers can arbitrarily say what science is, and therefore they can say The Plan is “scientific.”
If you say, “Well, look, there are genuine ways to vastly increase the amount of available water and energy and clean food,” you would be running against the technocratic blueprint.
Opting for abundance is not welcomed. Abundance cuts the chords of The Plan. Scarcity must rule and it must be promoted. The lack of all essentials must be cited as the reason for imposing technocratic answers. There is no way around it.
The irony is, when you talk to really hard-core environmentalists about the means for achieving abundance through alternative technologies, they balk and grow angry.
They don’t want technological solutions - and yet, the powers behind them, where the big money is, are, in fact, all about technology - technology of a certain kind, which is based on planning out a society in which permanent and growing scarcity is MAINTAINED AND PROMOTED as the immutable reality.
It’s quite mad, quite insane. But when has that ever stopped the men who are quite sure they should sit on thrones?
Vast abundance is more than a vision. It is a reachable possibility. The history of actual science and technology confirms that both essential materials and available human innovation were always downplayed as shortages - until some individual came along and demonstrated that a new way of doing things would break through the shortage.
Corporations, governments, think-thanks, and universities try to limit, curb, and bury inventions that open up the future to abundance. Technocrats are in a race to “plan society” before those inventions leak out into the public and make them, the technocrats, obsolete.
But they are obsolete. They just haven’t figured it out yet.
But we can figure it out.
10. Elites who invent reality need an unimpeachable operation, headed up by people who are relentlessly promoted as the sanest, most intelligent, competent, and caring representatives of the human race. Guess who that would be?” (The Magician Awakes, Jon Rappoport)
In 1976, the great critic of 20th-century society, Ivan Illich, wrote:
“Modern medicine is a negation of health. It isn’t organized to serve human health, but only itself, an institution. It makes more people sick than it heals.”
The medical cartel is the answer to the question: what do you with the population of Earth once they are living under a Globalist oligarchy?
It’s all about managing lives, from womb to grave, and no institution serves that management better than Medicine.
First of all, you have a system that dispenses toxic drugs in an endless stream, killing in the US alone, by conservative estimate, 100,000 people per year. On top of that, medical drugs cause anywhere from two to four millions severe adverse effects annually.
Beyond this straight-out destruction, there is the turmoil, suffering, grieving, and confusion that extends in ripples, from each one of the deaths and injuries, to families, friends, and co-workers. The overall effect? Demoralization and the inability to see and think past the emotional pain - which is exactly what you want if you are a psychopath running a planet.
The medical cartel (drug companies, public health agencies, medical schools, doctors) wants to assure cradle-to-grave treatment of every person.
This means 30 or 40 diagnoses of illnesses and mental disorders during a lifetime, and treatment with toxic drugs. It also means medical issues are at the forefront of every person’s mind as he/she wends through life, believing that Disease is the most important aspect of living.
People become proud, yes, proud of their diagnoses and treatment. They wear the diagnoses like badges of honor, and every social communication is an occasion for displaying badges and discussing treatments and comparing notes.
“You know, at first my doctor thought it was ADHD, but then he did one of those new brain scans, and realized it was Bipolar with a trace of genetically inherited Oppositional Defiance Disorder. Once he had the ODD under control with a major tranquilizer, he could go after the Bipolar. But then I developed tremors. So he implanted a chip…”
It’s not only a sick society, it’s a society about sickness.
Medical care is free, if by free one means: paid for by extraordinary levels of taxation.
The basic collectivist slogan, “We’re all in this together,” achieves its most fervent support from the axiom that Disease is our primary opportunity to help each other by accepting awesome tax burdens.
Of course, huge segments of the world population won’t be able to participate in modern, up-to-date, cutting-edge “care.” For them, there are several solutions.
The first is vaccines seeded with chemicals and genes that reduce fertility and potency. As birth rates gradually decline, cover stories are invented to explain the phenomenon: stress; rising employment rates; the social effects of urbanization; the dissolution of the nuclear family.
The second solution is epidemics that purportedly kill off large numbers of people. These epidemics are routine frauds, based on concocted science.
In the poverty-stricken Third World, announced epidemics are nothing more than cover stories; people aren’t dying because of germs; they’re dying because their water is contaminated, because of overcrowding, lack of basic sanitation, generation-to-generation starvation.
They’re dying because their fertile growing lands have been stolen. While medical experts crow about attacking the germ of the moment with (toxic) drugs and vaccines, these actual causes of death can be ignored and even enhanced.
Meanwhile, in industrialized technological sectors of the planet, psychiatry ascends to new heights of control over the educated classes. Although no so-called mental disorder has ever been diagnosed by a real laboratory test, the experts who dominate the field continue to invent new disorders at the drop of a hat.
Psychiatric patients believe they have brain conditions that must be treated with (highly toxic) drugs. The patients also believe their own aspirations are limited by their disorders, and so they acquiesce to a psychiatric model that circumscribes their lives.
At the top-end of society, new medical inventions are applied to the wealthy. Genetic enhancement is the most highly touted of these. Despite the fact that, as yet, there are no genetic treatments for any disease that work across the board, experiments will be done to extend life, to seed the unborn with special talents, to cure a wide variety of illnesses.
There will be efforts to substitute technological components for biological nature. Limbs, organs, whole body systems, brains.
The workability of high-tech pieces is not really the issue. The aim is simply to involve the rich in the entire grand experiment, thereby swallowing them up as well in a medical paradigm of existence.
At the front door of medical cartel operations, a person will be enrolled in the system while in utero, and a path will be laid out that extends all the way to the grave. Once he is on record with a medical ID package, he will be tracked and treated and tweaked without let-up.
Finally, the inevitable proposal and program will come into view. Why risk natural birth, which is already considered a medical event? Why not create birth in a laboratory?
And if, at any point in life, a person experiences doubts and regrets about his membership in the universal medical control apparatus, he can obtain a prescription for drugs that target “pleasure centers,” and then check out of his worries and anxieties.
Huxley’s Brave New World would move in like a wave on a beach.
At every way-stop toward that day, sophistication, elegance, assurance, and concern will be the watchwords of the practicing doctor, the secular priest in this drama of human dismantling.
And yet, for those who remember, who know what the Individual is, who know what freedom is, who know what imagination and creative power are, the rigging and distorting and flattening and collectivizing will look like nothing more than a horrible cartoon.
And these people who remember will lead a revolution like no revolution ever seen before.
Or we can defect from, and withdraw our consent to, this mad matrix now.
Fear Is Contagious And Used To Control You & The Fascist Scale Revisited May 16 2024 | From: GlobalResearch / UNZ / Various In a newly released book, members of the Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Behavior, a subcommittee that advises the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies in the U.K., admit government is using fear to control and manipulate the population
SPI-B, which advocated for the use of fear messaging, now says it was unethical, totalitarian and a regrettable mistake. [See article source link above for reference links]
Aside from the barrage of bad-news-only data - which was heavily manipulated in a variety of ways - fear and anxiety are also generated by keeping you confused
Giving out contradictory recommendations is being done on purpose, to keep you psychologically vulnerable. By layering confusion and uncertainty on top of fear, you can bring an individual to a state in which they can no longer think rationally.
Once driven into an illogical state, you are easily manipulated.
Government’s reliance on behavioral psychology didn’t just happen as a result of the pandemic. These tactics have been used for years, and are increasing.
Governments are using fear to control and manipulate their citizens. That has now been admitted by members of the Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Behavior (SPI-B), a subcommittee that advises the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) in the U.K. And they should know, because they advocated for it, and now say it was a regrettable mistake.
As reported by The Telegraph, May 14, 2021:
"Scientists on a committee that encouraged the use of fear to control people’s behavior during the COVID pandemic have admitted its work was ‘unethical’ and ‘totalitarian.’
Members of the Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Behavior (SPI-B) expressed regret about the tactics in a new book about the role of psychology in the Government’s COVID-19 response.
SPI-B warned in March last year that ministers needed to increase ‘the perceived level of personal threat’ from COVID-19 because ‘a substantial number of people still do not feel sufficiently personally threatened.’
Gavin Morgan, a psychologist on the team, said: ‘Clearly, using fear as a means of control is not ethical. Using fear smacks of totalitarianism. It’s not an ethical stance for any modern government. By nature I am an optimistic person, but all this has given me a more pessimistic view of people."
The Telegraph quotes several of the SPI-B members, all of whom are also quoted in the newly released book, “A State of Fear: How the UK Government Weaponised Fear During the Covid-19 Pandemic,” written by Laura Dodsworth:
"One SPI-B scientist told Ms Dodsworth: ‘In March [2020] the Government was very worried about compliance and they thought people wouldn’t want to be locked down. There were discussions about fear being needed to encourage compliance, and decisions were made about how to ramp up the fear. The way we have used fear is dystopian.
The use of fear has definitely been ethically questionable. It’s been like a weird experiment. Ultimately, it backfired because people became too scared’ …
One warned that ‘people use the pandemic to grab power and drive through things that wouldn’t happen otherwise… We have to be very careful about the authoritarianism that is creeping in’ …
Another member of SPI-B said they were ‘stunned by the weaponization of behavioral psychology’ during the pandemic, and that ‘psychologists didn’t seem to notice when it stopped being altruistic and became manipulative. They have too much power and it intoxicates them.’
Steve Baker, the deputy chairman of the COVID Recovery Group of Tory MPs, said: ‘If it is true that the state took the decision to terrify the public to get compliance with rules, that raises extremely serious questions about the type of society we want to become.
If we’re being really honest, do I fear that government policy today is playing into the roots of totalitarianism? Yes, of course it is.”
For nearly a year and a half, governments around the world, with few exceptions, have fed their citizens a steady diet of frightening news. For months on end, you couldn’t turn on the television without facing a tickertape detailing the number of hospitalizations and deaths.
Even when it became clear that people weren’t really dying in excessive numbers, the mainstream media fed us continuous updates on the growing number of “cases,” without ever putting such figures into context or explaining that the vast majority were false positives.
People don’t enjoy being hoodwinked and they don’t want to live in a state of fear. We maybe need to be a bit bolder about standing up more quickly when something is not right. ~ Laura Dodsworth
Information that would have balanced out the bad news - such as recovery rates and just how many so-called “cases” actually weren’t, because they never had a single symptom - were censored and suppressed.
They also refused to put any of the data into context, such as reviewing whether the death toll actually differed significantly from previous years. Instead, each new case was treated as an emergency and a sign of catastrophic doom.
Don't Be Confused - Contradiction is a Warfare Tactic
Aside from the barrage of bad-news-only data - which, by the way, was heavily manipulated in a variety of ways - fear and anxiety are also generated by keeping you confused. According to Dodsworth, giving out contradictory recommendations and vague instructions is being done intentionally, to keep you psychologically vulnerable.
"When you create a state of confusion, people become ever more reliant on the messaging. Instead of feeling confident about making decisions, they end up waiting for instructions from the Government,” she said in a May 20, 2021, interview on the Planet Normal podcast.
An example provided by Dodsworth are the pandemic measures implemented over Christmas 2020:
"Family Christmases were on, then off, then back on, then off again. You have got someone tightening the screw, then loosening the screw, then tightening it again. It’s like a torture scenario."
But that’s not all. As explained by psychiatrist Dr. Peter Breggin, by layering confusion and uncertainty on top of fear, you can bring an individual to a state in which they can no longer think rationally.
Once driven into an illogical state, they are easily manipulated. I have no doubt driving people into a state where logic and reason no longer registers is the whole point behind much of the conflicting information we’re given.
In her book, Dodsworth details a number of branches of the British government that are using psychological warfare methods in their interaction with the public. In addition to the SPI-B, there’s the:
Behavioral Insights team, the so-called “nudge unit,” a semi-independent government body that applies “behavioral insights to inform policy, improve public services and deliver positive results for people and communities.”This team also advises foreign nations.
Home Office’s Research, Information and Communications Unit (RICU), which is part of the U.K.’s Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism, advises front groups disguised as public “grassroots” organizations on how to “covertly engineer the thoughts of people.”
Rapid Response Unit, launched in 2018, operates across the British Cabinet Office and the Prime Minister’s office (colloquially known as “Number 10” as in the physical address, 10 Downing Street in London) to “counter misinformation and disinformation.” They also work with the National Security Communications Team during crises to ensure “official information” gets maximum visibility.
Counter Disinformation Cell, which is part of the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. Both monitor social media and combat “fake news” about science in general and COVID-19 in particular, with “fake news” being anything that contradicts the World Health Organization’s guidance.
Government Communications Headquarters (QCHQ), an intelligence and security organization that provides information to the U.K. government and the armed forces. According to Dodsworth, QCHQ personnel, and even members of the 77th Brigade, have been enlisted as so-called sockpuppets and trolls to combat anti-vaccine and anti-lockdown messaging on social media.
According to Dodsworth, there are many others. In her book, she claims at least 10 different government departments in the U.K. are working with “behavioral insights teams” to manipulate the public.
Importantly, government’s reliance on behavioral psychology didn’t just happen as a result of the pandemic. These tactics have been used for years, for myriad PR purposes, and while the pandemic may be winding down, Dodsworth warns that more and more behavioral scientists are being hired:
"It’s growing and growing. Right now, I feel we are in a maelstrom of nudge,” she says. “In the past, there have been calls to consult the public on the use of behavioral psychology, and those calls have come from the behavioral scientists themselves. And yet it hasn’t happened. We haven’t yet been consulted on the use of subconscious techniques which effectively strip away our choices …
I fervently hope this book [‘The State of Fear’] is actually going to inspire a much-needed conversation about the use of fear, not just in the epidemic, but the way we use behavioral psychology overall.
It’s not just a genie that has been let out the bottle. It’s like we’ve unleashed a Hydra and you can keep chopping its head off, but they keep employing more of these behavioral scientists throughout different government departments. It’s very much how the Government now does business. It’s the business of fear…
I think ultimately people don’t want to be manipulated. People don’t enjoy being hoodwinked and they don’t want to live in a state of fear. We maybe need to be a bit bolder about standing up more quickly when something is not right.”
Fear has long been the tool of tyrants. It’s profoundly effective, in part because it spreads from person to person, just like a virus.
The contagion of fear is the topic of the Nova “Gross Science” video above, originally aired in mid-February 2017. Among animals, emotional distress responses are telegraphed through pheromones emitted through various bodily secretions such as sweat and saliva.
As explained in the video, when encountering what is perceived as a serious threat, animals with strong social structures, such as bees and ants, will release alarm pheromone. The scent attracts other members of the hive or colony to collectively address the threat.
Humans appear to have a very similar capability. When scared or stressed, humans produce chemosignals, and while you may not consciously recognize the smell of fear or stress, it can have a subconscious impact, making you feel afraid or stressed too.
Humans also tend to mimic the feelings of those around us, and this is yet another way through which an emotion can spread like wildfire through a community or an entire nation - for better or worse.
Behavioral psychologists refer to this as “emotional contagion,” and it works both positive and negative emotions.
For example, if you’re greeted by a smile when meeting someone, you’re likely to smile back, mimicking their facial expression and behavior. If someone looks at you with an angry scowl, you’re likely to suddenly feel angry too, even if you weren’t before and have no subjective reason to - other than that someone looked at you the “wrong” way.
However, while both positive and negative emotions are contagious, certain emotions spread faster and easier than others. Research cited in the Nova report found that “high arousal” emotions such as awe (high-arousal positive emotion) and anger or anxiety (high-arousal negative emotion) are more “viral” than low-arousal emotions such as happiness or sadness.
The Nova report also points out that researchers have been mining Twitter and other social media data to better understand how emotions are spread, and the types of messages that spread the fastest.
However, they ignored the primary culprits, Google and Facebook both of which steal your private data and use it to manipulate your behavior.
At the time, in 2017, they said this information was being harvested and used to develop ways to avoid public messaging that might incite mass panic. But the COVID-19 pandemic suggests the complete opposite.
Clearly, behavioral experts have been busy developing ways to generate maximum fear, anxiety and panic.
How to Inoculate Yourself Against Negative Contagion
At the end of the report, Nova cites research detailing three effective ways to “immunize” yourself against negative emotional contagions.
1.
Distract yourself from the source of the negative contagion - In the case of pandemic fearporn, that might entail not reading or listening to mainstream media news that for the past year have proven themselves incapable of levelheadedness.
2.
Project your own positive emotions back at the source of the negative contagion - If talking to someone who is fearful, they might end up “catching” your optimism rather than the other way around.
3.
Speak up - If someone is unwittingly spreading “negative vibes,” telling them so might help them realize what they’re doing. (This won’t work if the source is knowingly and purposely spreading fear or anxiety though.)
Pandemic of Panic
In a recent Tweet, Ivor Cummins, a biochemical engineer who researches the root causes of chronic disease, shared a short video detailing the root cause of the panic pandemic.
Why has the whole world seemingly gone mad from fear?
As explained by Cummins, the outsized level of public fear is the result of a catastrophic feedback loop system where political and mainstream media drivers are pushing fear onto the public, and public fears are then feeding the media (fear sells) and pushing politicians to take action, which generates more fear messages.
However, at a certain point, this engine of fear starts losing steam. To keep the pandemic pandemonium going, academics bearing doomsday predictions were brought in to scare politicians and provide more fearporn fodder for the media.
All of the organizations Cummins mentions are part of a technocratic, unelected elite that are making decisions for the entire world. If we were to somehow shut down this secondary engine that feeds into the first, the global insanity would probably start to abate.
The question is, can that be done? Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has likened our current predicament to “an apocalyptical battle,” as we’re facing formidable undemocratic forces with seemingly unlimited financial resources, political influence and the ability to control the global landscape of communications.
We’re facing a globalist agenda that ultimately seeks to gain total control by stripping away human rights and the rights of countries, and they’re using “biosecurity” as justification for it all.
As explained by journalist James Corbett in his October 16, 2020, Corbett Report, the Great Reset is a new “social contract” that ties every person to it through an electronic ID linked to your bank account and health records, and a social credit ID that will end up dictating every facet of your life.
It’s about getting rid of capitalism and free enterprise, and replacing them with “sustainable development” and “stakeholder capitalism” - terms that belie their nefarious, antihumanity intents. As noted in the book, “Technocracy: The Hard Road to World Order”:
"… Sustainable Development is Technocracy … The Sustainable Development movement has taken careful steps to conceal its true identity, strategy and purpose, but once the veil is lifted, you will never see it any other way. Once its strategy is unmasked, everything else will start to make sense”
In her blog post “The Great Reset for Dummies,” journalist Tessa Lena summarizes the purpose behind the call for a global “reset”:
"The mathematical reason for the Great Reset is that thanks to technology, the planet has gotten small, and the infinite expansion economic model is bust - but obviously, the super wealthy want to continue staying super wealthy, and so they need a miracle, another bubble, plus a surgically precise system for managing what they perceive as ‘their limited resources.’
Thus, they desperately want a bubble providing new growth out of thin air - literally - while simultaneously they seek to tighten the peasants’ belts, an effort that starts with ‘behavioral modification,’ a.k.a. resetting the western peasants’ sense of entitlement to high life standards and liberties… The practical aim of the Great Reset is to fundamentally restructure the world’s economy and geopolitical relations based on two assumptions:
One, that every element of nature and every life form is a part of the global inventory (managed by the allegedly benevolent state, which, in turn, is owned by several suddenly benevolent wealthy people, via technology).
And two, that all inventory needs to be strictly accounted for: be registered in a central database, be readable by a scanner and easily ID’ed, and be managed by AI, using the latest ‘science.’
The goal is to count and then efficiently manage and control all resources, including people, on an unprecedented scale, with unprecedented digital… precision - all while the masters keep indulging, enjoying vast patches of conserved nature, free of unnecessary sovereign peasants and their unpredictability.”
These new global “assets” can also be turned into brand-new financial instruments that can then be traded. For example, Zero-Budget Natural Farming is now being introduced in India.
This is a brand-new concept of farming in which farmers must trade the carbon rate in their soil on the global market if they want to make a living. They’ll get no money at all for the crops they actually grow.
There’s not a single area of life that is left out of thisGreat Reset plan.
The planned reform will affect everything from government, energy and finance to food, medicine, real estate, policing and even how we interact with our fellow human beings in general.
It goes without saying that to radically transform every last part of society has its challenges. No person in their right mind would agree to it if aware of the details of the whole plan. So, to roll this out, they had to use psychological manipulation, and fear is the most effective tool for inducing compliance there is.
The following graphic illustrates the central role of fearmongering for the successful rollout of the Great Reset.
Technocracy is inherently a technological society run through social engineering. Fear is but one manipulation tool. The focus on “science” is another.
Anytime someone dissents, they’re simply accused of being “anti-science,” and any science that conflicts with the status quo is declared “debunked science.”
The only science that matters is whatever the technocrats deem to be true, no matter how much evidence there is against it. We’ve seen this first-hand during this pandemic, as Big Tech has censored and banned anything going against the opinions of the WHO, which is just another cog in the technocratic machine.
If we allow this censorship to continue, the end result will be nothing short of devastating. So, we simply must keep pushing for transparency, truth, medical freedom, personal liberty and the right to privacy.
Recognizing that the fear we feel has been carefully manufactured can help free us from its grip, and once we - en masse - no longer believe the lies being put before us, the engine driving the fear and panic will eventually run out of steam.
Revisiting Theodore W. Adorno’s work on the ‘authoritarian personality’ and the ‘F Scale’ reveals that in 2020, it is actually liberals, progressives and the so called ‘Left’ that manifest 8 out of the 9 most problematic, antidemocratic and authoritarian attitudes.
The theory of an authoritarian personality was introduced in the 1930s in an attempt to explain the mass appeal of fascism and right-wing ideologies. It came to life in the wake of a sharp rise in the popularity of fascist movements in many European societies in the inter-war period.
At the time, many European ideologists and intellectuals were deeply inspired by Marx and Freud. Marxism predicted that the great depression would translate into a vast shift in working class conciousness, materialising into a global socialist revolution. Of course, this didn’t happen. The economic crisis resulted instead in mass support for nationalist and fascist movements that were often deeply anti-Semitic.
The rational behind the above deviation from the Marxist prophecy borrowed some Freudian theoretical mechanisms. ‘People are authoritarians’ was the given ‘explanation’: under certain threatening conditions ‘authoritarian characters’ are emotionally and cognitively vulnerable to the appeal of fascist and nationalist ideologies.
During the 1930s a score of Jewish Germanic intellectuals mainly (but not at all) associated with the Frankfurt School (e.g., Wilhelm Reich) were committed to point at the psychological and socio-economic conditions responsible for the making of the Authoritarian personality.
In his 1933 work The Mass Psychology of Fascism, Wilhelm Reich attempted to explain the striking victory of ‘reactionary’ fascism over ‘progressive’ communism. Reich was desperate to rescue the relevance of revolutionary Marxism.
To do so, he formed a new ‘post-Marxist’ theoretical outlook to explain why the Germans of his time favoured ‘authoritarianism’ over a ‘preferable’ communist revolution.
Reich reckoned that the attraction of ‘reactionary’ and ‘conservative’ politics and the inclination towards fascism is driven by a long history of rigid, authoritarian patriarchy which affects family, parenting, primal education and eventually, society as a whole. In an attempt to save society from fascism, Reich synthesized Marx and Freud into a ‘sexual revolution.’
In 1950, the Frankfurt School’s prominent intellectual Theodor W. Adorno, along with others, published The Authoritarian Personality, a collection of studies that became a prime academic text in the domain of social science. In this volume Adorno and others delved into the theory of the authoritarian personality and reported the results of a decade-long research in testing the theory.
Bearing in mind the origins of many of its members and the prime intellectual objective of the Frankfurt School, it is far from surprising that the investigation had begun with an attempt to explain the psychological roots of anti-Semitism: the assumption was that authoritarian personalities manifest some ethnocentric patterns that come to life with xenophobic inclinations and a dislike of out-groups and minorities.
Adorno & co. reduced the authoritarian personality into a set of nine ‘implicitly antidemocratic,’ attitudes and beliefs.
Adorno believed that it was possible to identify authoritarian personalities by the degree to which people would agree with these nine attitudes.
The nine fascist attitudes; are briefly summarised here:
Conventionalism: Adherence to conventional values.
Authoritarian Submission: Towards ingroup authority figures.
Authoritarian Aggression: Against people who violate conventional values.
Anti-Intraception: Opposition to subjectivity and imagination.
Superstition and Stereotypy: Belief in individual fate; thinking in rigid categories.
Power and Toughness: Concerned with submission and domination; assertion of strength.
Destructiveness and Cynicism: hostility against human nature.
Projectivity: Perception of the world as dangerous; tendency to project unconscious impulses.
Sex: Overly concerned with modern sexual practices.
Reviewing the relevance of Adorno’s take on authoritarianism in the light of the current global pandemic hysteria or the battle over the integrity of the American presidential election may reveal that in accordance with the F Scale, it is actually progressives, liberals and the so called ‘Left’ who are manifesting the most problematic antidemocratic authoritarian patterns:
1. According to Adorno, Fascists ‘adhere to conventional values’
In 2020 ‘conventional values’ are practically dictated by so-called ‘liberal’ and ‘progressive’ ‘community standards’ as defined by Twitter, FB and Google.
These conventional values are often validated by ‘factcheckers,’ occasionally substantiated by conventions rather than anything that resembles factual research, academic or theoretical study.
2. Adorno insists that Authoritarians submit to ingroup authority figures
But in 2020 it is actually progressives and liberals who adhere to the ‘epidemiological ingroup authority’ of Bill Gates.
Similarly, Anthony Fauci is for progressives a supreme judge on public health matters. How many colossal blunders should we take from Imperial College London before this institution is dismantled?
Similarly, you may want to ask yourself who in America tends to believe its ‘ingroup’ pollsters despite the fact that they prove to be colossally wrong time after time?
3. Adorno tells us that fascists manifest authoritarian aggression against people who violate conventional values
As things stand ‘cancel culture’ is actually a progressive/liberal operational mode. People see their culture being cancelled for exploring critical views of conventional thoughts that are precious to progressives.
It is hardly a secret that there is a growing fear amongst the wider public of expressing criticism, let alone doubts on a number of progressive issues, as such conduct could lead to vile aggression.
4. Adorno insists that Fascists oppose to subjectivity and imagination
In reality it is progressive algorithms that are set by ‘liberals’ at Twitter and FB to trace and punish those who dare to explore subjective ideas about COVID-19, Trump, gender, Palestine or Soros. The progressive notion of political correctness is in itself a tyrannical call designed to suppress any form of subjectivity or imagination.
5. According to Adorno Fascists are superstitious and think in a stereotypical manner, they believe in individual fate and think in rigid categories.
Sadly, it is actually progressives and liberals who succumb to rigid categories such as ‘white,’ ‘privileged,’ ‘conspiracy theorists,’ ‘anti-Semites,’ ‘supremacists,’ ‘racists.’ ‘deplorables’ and so on. In the world in which we live, a significant number of American voters express doubts about the last election’s integrity but their voice is institutionally ignored because they are ‘white,’ ‘conspiratorial,’ and generally ‘deplorable.’
Similarly, many Westerners express scepticism about COVID-19 vaccines, yet the so called ‘liberal’ mainstream media wouldn’t let their voices be heard let alone explored. The COVID-sceptics are presented as ‘delusional’ and ‘conspiracy theorists.’ Whether this is indeed the case or not, it is rather evident that it is progressives and liberals who actually operate within a rigid intellectual realm made of strict categories.
6. Adorno insists that Fascists are obsessed with domination
In 2020 it is actually the liberal and progressive internet giants from Google to Amazon that celebrate their domineering powers eliminating those whom they do not agree with, deleting their pages, fiddling with their rankings and practically eliminate their thoughts. This is what book burning means in 2020.
You may also ask yourself who often exercises violence against statues, adhering to the foolish belief that defacing a statue equals ‘rewriting history.’
7.
Authoritarians can’t handle cynicism. They are hostile towards the human nature, Adorno says:
"I ask myself who is chasing comedians, artists, authors, scientists who dare to mock contemporary hegemonic discourses. How many books were burned by Amazon?
How many lectures and videos were removed by Google/YouTube? In the world in which we live, liberals and progressives censor elected politicians and mark their comments.”
8.
Adorno believed that Fascists perceive the world as a dangerous place and they tend to attribute their own unconscious impulses to others
In the upside-down world in which we live, it is actually the so-called right wing and nationalists who constantly refuse to be tormented by global threats: whether it is global warming or pandemics.
It is the ‘Left’, liberals and progressives who succumb to every possible global warning whether factual or imaginary. As we will read shortly, in the world in which we live it is not the right-wing or the nationalist who ‘projects’ his or her symptoms.
It is actually right-wing Americans who are otherized and suppressed to the point that they struggle to see their vision being heard let alone discussed by mainstream media.
9.
Adorno believed that fascists and authoritarians are overly concerned with modern sexual practices
This is the only criterion that genuinely relates to contemporary conservatives. It is fair to argue that conservatives are still succumbing to the idea that gender is a binary matter.
They also adhere to family and church values. However, this doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with ‘fascism ‘or ‘authoritarianism.’ People who believe that gender is a binary matter can often argue their case and also discuss any other topic in the frankest manner.
A current examination of Adorno’s F-Scale and the Authoritarian Personality reveals that it is actually progressives and liberals who manifest the quintessential fascist tendencies. While contemporary conservative and nationalist correlation with the F Scale may not grow beyond 0.12 (1 trait out of 9) liberal and progressive correlation with Adorno’s F scale can rise up to 0.88 (8 out of 9).
Was Adorno totally wrong then? Not necessarily. Adorno’s F Scale describes the authoritarian condition that is characteristic of hegemony, domination and a particularly exceptionalist world view. In the 1930s some European right-wing nationalist ideologists evolved into radical exceptionalism.
The F scale describes their attitude accurately. Nowadays, that sense of exceptionalism and chosenism is progressive territory, as progressives happen to be people who believe that others are reactionary. Progressives, as such, are people who believe themselves to be chosen.
The fight against anti-Semitism and the attempt to understand its roots was at the heart of Adorno and the Frankfurt School’s work. Bizarrely, Adorno’s F Scale is an adequate description of the Jewish condition.
Each of Adorno’s F scale authoritarian traits can be traced at the core of Judaic beliefs and thought; Judaism is a rigid authoritarian adherence to Mitzvoth (conventional values). It demands the total rule of Rabbis (Authoritarian Submission).
It doesn’t tolerate any form of deviation (Authoritarian Aggression). It is superstitious and lumps the ‘goyim’ in a stereotypical manner (Superstition and Stereotypy) and so on.
It is therefore plausible that those ‘attitudes’ which Adorno attributed to fascists by means of projection are those which Adorno actually found in himself.
Such an observation of Adorno’s project would validate the work of the great philosopher Otto Weininger, who proclaimed that that which we hate in others is that which we hate in ourselves.
Study Shows Kids Are Born Creative Geniuses But The Education System Destroys Imagination May 15 2024 | From: BlacklistedNews/ Various
Dr. George Land and Beth Jarman were commissioned by NASA to help the space agency identify and develop creative talent. The two were tasked to research school children in an attempt to identify creative individuals from which the agency could pick to help with their many products.
It seems American [read: Western] schoolchildren lose their ability to think creatively over time. As students enter their educational journey, they retain most of their abilities to think creatively. In other words, children are born with creative genius. Employing a longitudinal study model, Land and Jarman studied 1,600 children at ages 5, 10, and 15.
Surprisingly, Land said they discovered if given a problem with which they had to come up with an imaginative, and innovative solution, 98 percent of 5-year-olds tested at the “genius” level. Simply put, their answers to how the problem should be solved were brilliant.
Upon entry into the school system, those numbers started to drop dramatically. When the team returned to test those same subjects at age 10, the percentage of genius-level imaginative and innovative thinkers fell to an unthinkable 30 percent.
The indicators led the researchers to believe the current educational system is to blame. Not only did 68 percent of those students lose their ability to think with imagination and innovation, the thought that only 30 percent could still do is unfathomable.
The downward spiral continued to be demonstrated at age 15. When the researchers returned, the percentage of genius-level students had dropped to an abysmal 12 percent. Gasps could be heard all around the room as the audience attempted to process how such a brilliant group of students could sink so low in their imaginations and ability to solve problems with innovation.
Land blames the Industrial Revolution and its burgeoning factories for the demise of creativity. During that era, Land said the natural approach to teaching and learning led educators to develop“factories for human beings, too, called ‘schools’ so we could manufacture people that could work well in the factories.”
From a qualitative perspective, teachers point to governmental intrusion into the dumbing down of the nation’s school children. Starting with the development of the Department of Education, the federal government’s handprint is all over some of the worst decisions regarding public policy and education.
From the Clinton Administration’s mandated federal testing guidelines, to Bush’s No Child Left Behind Act, to the disastrous Obama Administration’s Common Core Curriculum, teachers everywhere have complained they’re not teaching any longer.
They’re simply instructing students to achieve the minimum educational requirements necessary for them to pass a standardized exam.
Predictably, during those administration’s attempts to force a model of education upon the nation, the homeschool movement has flourished. Parents were forced to come to the conclusion their local public school was failing to provide an education sufficient for their children to be able to attend college.
As a result, Land’s team was not surprised to find only 2 percent of adults (Age 31) still retain their ability to think imaginatively, with creativity and innovation. He said:
“Look, folks, if we’re going to enter the future with hope, that’s not going to do it. We have to do something about it..”
Land says people can actually get back to thinking creatively with imagination if they will get rid of stinking thinking. He urges listeners to get rid of three aspects of education: judgment, criticism, and censorship.
When students come up with a brilliant idea they’re met with constant criticism, therefore they become conditioned to think like the masses, instead of coming up with an accepted alternative solution.
“Find the 5-year-old,” in yourself, Land implores.
He says it has “never gone away” and can be accessed at any moment. Land said “So, The Great Designer said, ‘I’m gonna put that mechanism in so they exercise it every day in case they ever need an idea.’ You’ve got that capability, absolutely!”
But Land says we only exercise that genius part of our brains when we’re dreaming. So dream big! Dream often. And don’t let naysayers rain on your imagination.
Using brain scan imaging, Land demonstrated how the brain is practically useless when it’s afraid. In contrast, the human brain is exceedingly active when it’s imagining.
Without specifically criticizing the educational system, Land addressed the major problem with teaching students to get the “right answer.”
He says, instead, students should imagine many possibilities to achieve innovation and problem-solving.
According to Land, in order for industry to survive, it must be continually innovating, and adapting to change, expecting the landscapes to evolve, and evolve with it. Instead of becoming fixated on one right solution, come up with 30-40 imaginative ones to become innovative.
The Powerful Global Spy Alliance You Never Knew Existed May 14 2024 | From: TheIntercept
It is one of the world’s most powerful alliances. And yet most people have probably never heard of it, because its existence is a closely guarded government secret.
It has two divisions, each focusing on different parts of the world: SIGINT Seniors Europe and SIGINT Seniors Pacific. Both are led by the U.S. National Security Agency, and together they include representatives from at least 17 other countries. Members of the group are from spy agencies that eavesdrop on communications – a practice known as “signals intelligence,” or SIGINT.
Details about the meetings of the SIGINT Seniors are disclosed in a batch of classified documents from the NSA’s internal newsletter SIDToday, provided by whistleblower Edward Snowden and published today by The Intercept.
The documents shine light on the secret history of the coalition, the issues that the participating agencies have focused on in recent years, and the systems that allow allied countries to share sensitive surveillance data with each other.
The SIGINT Seniors Europe was formed in 1982, amid the Cold War. Back then, the alliance had nine members, whose primary focus was on uncovering information about the Soviet Union’s military. Following the attacks on the U.S. in September 2001, the group grew to 14 and began focusing its efforts on counterterrorism.
The core participants of the Seniors Europe are the surveillance agencies from the so-called Five Eyes: the NSA and its counterparts from the U.K., Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. As of April 2013, the other members were intelligence agencies from Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, and Sweden.
The alliance – which the NSA sometimes refers to as the “14 Eyes” – has collaborated to monitor communications during major European events, such as the Olympics in 2004 (hosted in Greece), the Winter Olympics in 2006 (hosted in Italy), and the soccer World Cup in summer 2006 (hosted in Germany).
Between 2006 and 2007, as part of a counterterrorism operation, the agencies began working on “exploitation of the Internet,” which was described by the NSA as a “huge step forward” for the group, because some members of the alliance had previously been “reluctant to acknowledge there was such a thing as the Internet.”
As of 2010, the agencies were focused on targeting suspected terrorists, sharing intelligence related to piracy in the Horn of Africa, and they were collaborating on the development of new surveillance tools and techniques.
According to the documents, the Seniors Europe had its own dedicated communication network called SIGDASYS, through which each agency can share copies of intercepted communications. The group also used a system called CENTER ICE to share intelligence about the war in Afghanistan.
The documents indicate that the Seniors Europe hold an annual conference, each time in a different location. In 2013, for instance, the group gathered in Sweden; in 2011, it met in the U.K; in 2010, in Germany; and in 2009, in Canada. In 2013, the NSA expressed an interest in creating a permanent facility that would host representatives from the Seniors Europe in a joint collaborative space.
The NSA discussed the idea with its U.K. counterpart, Government Communications Headquarters, or GCHQ. The British were “all in” on the proposal, according to the NSA. However, from some unnamed members of the SIGINT Seniors, there was “persistent pushback” on the plan.
The NSA thought the facility would be best hosted in the U.K., as this would “be optimal in terms of having the most flexibility in tuning the operation to benefit the Five Eyes.” The agency also suggested the idea of France potentially hosting the unit, but outlined its reservations about setting up the spy hub in continental Europe.
“Some European nations may be leery about hosting a facility in their nation,” the NSA noted, partly due to “associated concerns for European human rights laws.” (Both NSA and its British counterpart, GCHQ, declined to answer questions for this story. GCHQ issued a statement asserting that it adheres to “a strict legal and policy framework, which ensures that our activities are authorised, necessary and proportionate.”)
The Pacific division of the SIGINT Seniors is younger than the European branch. The NSA formed it in 2005, with the aim of “establishing a collaborative effort to fight terrorism in the Asia-Pacific region.” In March 2007, the NSA said that it was in the process of “raising ideas for expanding [SIGINT Seniors Pacific’s] intelligence focus beyond counterterrorism.”
“The NSA was passing the Indians selected top-secret material, and India began leaking some of the intelligence..”
The founder members of the Pacific alliance were the spy agencies from the Five Eyes, as well as South Korea, Singapore, and Thailand. By 2013, France and India had joined the Pacific group.
The NSA was particularly keen on having India on board as part of a broader U.S. government effort to improve relations with the country, and “felt strongly that India’s participation in multilateral intelligence sharing would help mature its Indian SIGINT agencies as well as provide regional [counterterrorism] expertise.”
In March 2008, then-NSA Director Gen. Keith Alexander led a delegation of officials – including representatives from Singapore and New Zealand – to New Delhi, where he asked India’s spy agencies if they would like to join forces. Three months later, the Indians accepted.
The Pacific group used a system called CRUSHED ICE to share information. According to an NSA document dated from November 2007, CRUSHED ICE is a secure network that enables sharing of secret intelligence, collected from intercepted communications, about counterterrorism.
“The system allows for collaboration by way of voice, binary-file/email exchanges, analysis and reporting, graphics and mapping, communities of interest, collection management, and other applications as needed,” the November 2007 document stated.
For the countries invited to participate in the SIGINT Seniors, there are obvious benefits. They can learn new surveillance techniques from the world’s most powerful spy agencies and at the same time, obtain information about their own countries or regions that they otherwise may have been unable to access.
But not all nations who have been invited to join the alliance have jumped on board. According to an NSA document from March 2007, Japan refused to sign up to the Pacific group, expressing concerns that “unintended disclosure of its participation would be too high a risk.”
A downside of SIGINT Seniors is the risk that a partner will mishandle sensitive information. This happened on at least one occasion with India. By the time terrorists had struck Mumbai in a series of attacks in November 2008, the country had been admitted to the Pacific group.
The NSA was passing the Indians selected top-secret material, such as interrogation reports and recordings of intercepted phone calls. In the weeks following the Mumbai incident, India began leaking some of the intelligence - “at times it seemed a daily occurrence,” the NSA’s country desk officer complained.
The NSA limited the provisioning of top-secret information to India after repeated warnings and meetings left it dissatisfied. Still, the NSA, which had deployed analysts to India, remained hopeful Indian intelligence agencies would “mature … into the partners NSA needs in South Asia.”
The SIGINT Seniors likely remains active today and has probably grown its capabilities in recent years.
According to the 2013 “black budget” – a portion of the U.S. federal budget dedicated to secret intelligence-gathering work – the NSA was that year working to bolster both the European and Pacific branches of the SIGINT Seniors, and planned to “expand the level of cooperation on [counterterrorism] and explore other potential areas of collaboration.”
“A Blatant Display Of Unscientific Propaganda:” Cornell Student Exposes GMO Propaganda In Scathing Letter May 13 2024 | From: AltHealthWorks / Various
My name is Robert, and I am a Cornell University undergraduate student. However, I’m not sure if I want to be one any more. Allow me to explain.
Cornell, as an institution, appears to be complicit in a shocking amount of ecologically destructive, academically unethical, and scientifically deceitful behavior. Perhaps the most potent example is Cornell’s deep ties to industrial GMO agriculture, and the affiliated corporations such as Monsanto.
Editor’s note: This article was originally written in 2016. In light of new information that Bill Gates is now the largest owner of farmland in the United States, we thought it was a good idea to republish this letter from former Cornell student and activist Robert Schooler in its entirety.
The following letter was penned by Schooler after he began to realize that Cornell University had been promoting the genetically engineered food and farming industry through millions of dollars in grants from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, instead of organic and regenerative agriculture that experts say has the ability to heal the soil and preserve the sanctity of the climate according to the United Nations.
I’d like to share how I became aware of this troubling state of affairs. Throughout my secondary education, I’ve always had a passion for science. In particular, physics and mathematics captured my fascination.
My sophomore AP physics teacher, Mr. Jones, became my main source of motivation to succeed. He convinced us students that our generation was crucial to repairing humanity’s relationship to science, and how we would play key roles in solving immense global issues.
I came to Cornell as freshman, deeply unaware of our current GMO agriculture paradigm, and my university’s connection to it. It just wasn’t on my radar quite yet. After two years of school, I was rather uninspired to continue traditional study. I never felt quite at ease, jumping through hoops, taking classes and tests that didn’t inspire me, in exchange for a piece of paper (degree) that somehow magically granted me a superior life.
I know many undergraduates fit right in with the university education model, and that’s fantastic. I certainly didn’t, and my mental and physical health began to suffer as a result. I was left with no choice but to take a leave of absence, and pursue another path.
Instead, I began to self-study nutrition in earnest, honestly, out of pure necessity. Luckily, I found Cornell Professor Emeritus T. Colin Campbell’s legendary epidemiological research on nutrition and human disease. His evidence was so clear that I quickly transitioned to a plant-based diet. This personal dietary shift had profound benefits, dispelled my depression, and led me to a deep fascination with the precursor to nutrition: agriculture.
I became particularly interested in agroecology. I was astonished to learn that there existed alternatives to chemical-intensive, corporate-controlled models of agriculture, and that they were far safer, more effective, and more sustainable. During my time away from Cornell, I participated in three unique seasons of agroecological crop production, with incredible results. I am immensely grateful for these experiences.
It’s impossible to study and practice agroecology without becoming deeply aware of the other end of the spectrum: the genetic modification of our food supply, ruled by giant agribusiness corporations.
Currently, the vast majority of U.S. commodity crops (corn, soy, alfalfa, sugar beet) are genetically engineered to either withstand Roundup herbicide or produce Bt toxin pesticide. These “technologies” are ecologically damaging and unsafe. The majority of these crops go to feed animals in factory farms.
The remainder generally gets converted into corn syrup, white sugar, vegetable oil, or biofuels - you know, good stuff! This combined approach of growing GMO commodity monoculture crops, and feeding them to factory-farmed livestock, is one of the most ecologically destructive forces our planet has ever seen. It’s also a leading contributor to climate change. In fact, some experts believe it to be the leading cause.
As Professor T. Colin Campbell will tell you, the foods that come from this system (animal products and processed foods) are responsible for causing the vast majority of chronic disease. That’s a story for another day.
Cornell’s GMO Propaganda Campaign
I came back to Cornell a changed person, with a drastically different perspective. I was in for quite a shock, however: I sat in on a course entitled “The GMO Debate.”
I was expecting members of an intellectual community coming together, with proponents and critics of GMO food each giving the best verified evidence they had to support their cause. Given all that I had learned about GMO agriculture, I was excited to participate for the “GMO skeptic” side.
The GMO Debate course, which ran in the fall of 2015, was a blatant display of unscientific propaganda in an academic setting. There were a total of 4 active professors in the course, and several guest speakers.
They took turns each session defending industrial agriculture and biotechnology with exactly zero critical examination of GMOs. In spite of the course’s name, there was a complete lack of actual “debate.”
Here are some of the more memorable claims I heard that fall semester:
GMO food is necessary to feed the world
There is no instance of harm from agricultural GMOs
Glyphosate, the main ingredient in Roundup, is safer than coffee and table salt
If you believe in science, you must believe in GMO technology
The science of genetic engineering is well understood
“What off-target effects?” … when asked about the proven biochemical risks of GE technology
Vitamin A rice is curing children of Vitamin A deficiency (even though the IRRI, the research institute responsible for rolling it out, says it won’t be ready for some years)
Current pesticides and herbicides don’t pose an ecological or human health risk
Bt is an organic pesticide, therefore Bt GMO crops are safe and pose no additional risk
Bt crops work just fine - but we are now engineering insects as a complementary technology - to make the Bt work better
“Are you scared of GMO insects? Because you shouldn’t be.”
GMO crops are the most rigorously tested crops in the history of food
“If [renowned environmentalist] Rachel Carson were alive today, she would be pro-GMO”.
It gets better. During the semester, emails were released following a Freedom of Information Act request, showing that all four of the professors in the class, as well as several guest speakers, the head of Cornell’s pro-GMO group “Alliance for Science,” and the Dean of the College of Arts and Life Sciences were all copied in on emails with Monsanto.
This was part of a much larger circle of academics promoting GMO crops on behalf of the biotech industry. Jonathan Latham PhD, virologist and editor of independentsciencenews.org, documented this in an article titled “The Puppetmasters of Academia.” I highly recommend giving it a read, for further context.
Perhaps saddest of all was the inclusion of several visiting African agriculture-academics in the course. They were brought here by the “Cornell Alliance for Science. ”
This organization was completely funded by a $5.6 million grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and appears to espouse only pro-GMO rhetoric. For those of you who are unaware, Bill Gates is a proponent of using agricultural biotechnology in Africa, India, and other developing regions.
So in essence, a group of African representatives got indoctrinated into the industrial and GMO agriculture framework, and were sent home to disseminate this information … after all, who could question the expertise of an Ivy League powerhouse such as Cornell?
I then learned of Cornell’s deep historic ties to the biotech industry, which explained what I witnessed in the “GMO Debate” course. Notable examples include the invention of both the controversial bovine growth hormone, and the particle bombardment (“gene gun”) method of creating GMO crops. Both of these cases are connected to Monsanto.
To say the least, I was completely stunned.
What I’m Going to Do About All of This
You didn’t think I was just going to complain about a pro-GMO, industry-sponsored Cornell all day, did you? Good, because I have come up with a plan to create actual, lasting change on campus: a student-led, expert-backed, evidence-based GMO course.
I have decided to host an independent course on the current GMO paradigm, in response to Cornell’s course. It will be held on campus, but will have zero influence from Cornell or any biotech organization. Every Wednesday evening, from September 7th to November 16, we will host a lecture.
This lecture series is completely free, open to the entire Cornell community and broader public, and will be published online (for free, forever) at my project, gmowtf.com.
There will be several experts and scientists coming in to lecture for this course.
Frances Moore Lappé, of ‘Diet for a Small Planet’ and ‘World Hunger: 10 Myths’ fame, will be introducing the course on September 7, via video presentation. She will be speaking on how GMO agriculture is unnecessary to end world hunger.
Steven Druker is a public interest attorney and author of the powerful book ‘Altered Genes, Twisted Truth: How the Venture to Genetically Engineer Our Food Has Subverted Science, Corrupted Government, and Systematically Deceived the Public,’ which Jane Goodall (in her foreword) hails as “one of the most important books in the last 50 years.”
He will be giving two lectures that elaborate on the themes in the book’s subtitle and demonstrate that the GMO venture has been chronically and crucially dependent on deception, and could not survive without it.
Jonathan Latham PhD will be giving two lectures, on the dangers of Roundup Ready and Bt crops, respectively. He will also be participating in our special October 5 debate, representing the anti-GMO panel, alongside Michael Hansen PhD, a senior scientist for the Consumers Union. Jonathan has direct experience genetically modifying organisms, so his expertise is guaranteed.
Allison Wilson PhD is a geneticist and editor/science director of the Bioscience Resource Project. She will be giving a lecture on how GMOs are actually created, to dispel any industry myths of precision, accuracy, or deep genetic understanding.
Belinda Martineau PhD is a geneticist with an interesting history - she was on the team of genetic engineers that created the first commercial GM food crop, the Flavr Savr Tomato. She authored a book on her experience, titled “First Fruit: The Creation of the Flavr Savr Tomato and the Birth of Biotech Foods.” Her lecture will be a historical and personal account of the science, regulation, and commercialization of genetically engineered foods, effectively giving context for today’s GMO paradigm.
Click on the image above to view a larger version in another window
My personal scientific hero, T. Colin Campbell, who started me on this whole journey years ago, will not be speaking on GMOs per se … but will address some critically important, related topics: academic freedom and scientific integrity. He began his Cornell career over half a century ago, and has “seen it all.” He has fascinating anecdotes that will illuminate these campus-wide issues beautifully.
Jane Goodall, if you’re reading this, you are personally invited to take time out of your busy schedule to come and give the final capstone lecture. I know how passionate you are about saving our species, our planet, and all of its beautiful inhabitants. Your wise presence in this project would take it to the next level. Alternatively, please consider a short video interview. This offer stands indefinitely. Same for Vandana Shiva!
All in all, our independent GMO lecture series will focus on real threats and real solutions to our current ecological crisis … and perhaps most importantly, will feature 100% less Monsanto influence than Cornell’s course! Sounds good to me.
Taking It Further
I’m on my second leave of absence from Cornell to work on this project, and due to my experiences, I have somewhat given up on a Cornell degree … not that I was ever intensely focused on attaining one. This GMO course is by far the most important thing I can do with my Cornell “career.” However, it is just the beginning of my plan.
Remember the $5.6 million Bill Gates gave Cornell through his foundation, to push the pro-GMO propaganda? Well, to coincide with our course, we’re launching an initiative to raise the same amount of money or more to sponsor more appropriate forms of agriculture, educational outreach, and activism.
Go to gmowtf.com for more information, but in essence, this would finance:
Continued grassroots educational activism at Cornell, and similar programs in other compromised universities (UC Davis and Berkeley, University of Florida, etc.) across the country.
A plant-based, NON-GMO independent dining hall for Cornell students. It would source as close to 100% organic and local food as possible. Ideally, it would be cheaper than Cornell’s plan (plant-based eaters won’t subsidize expensive meat and dairy for omnivorous eaters).
gmowtf.com as a permanent, free, independent, constantly updated resource for GMO science, policy, news, etc. … also the GMO course would remain online
My dream: a research farm focused on rigorous analysis of agroecological practices. There is an infinitum of fascinatingly effective agroecological techniques that are underrepresented in the scientific community (in favor of faddist, ineffective GMO “technology”).
Completely paying off student debt for a group of 10-15 undergraduates who are willing to help spread this message to the Cornell community.
Mr. Gates, if you truly care about feeding the world in a safe and sustainable manner, and if you are truly dedicated to science and to the kind of open, fact-based discourse on which it depends, I implore you to learn the important facts about which you have apparently been misinformed - and which are being systematically misrepresented by the Cornell organization you are funding.
You can easily gain illumination by reading “Altered Genes, Twisted Truth” by Steven Druker, one of our key contributors to our independent GMO course. You might find Chapter 11, on the ramifications and risks of altering complex information systems, of particular interest. You are, after all, the world’s most famous software developer!
As that chapter demonstrates, biotechnicians are significantly altering the most complex yet least understood group of information systems on earth - the ones that undergird the development and function of living organisms. Yet, they fail to implement the kind of safeguards that software engineers have learned are imperative when making even minor revisions to life-critical human-made systems. Can this be legitimately called science-based engineering?
Bill, feel free to reach out to any of the experts in our course, and don’t be hesitant to update your views on GMO agriculture in light of new understanding. A genuine scientist lives by this principle.
I invite you all to go to gmowtf.com and explore my proposals more. Please bear with the construction of the site in the coming weeks, in preparation for our amazing GMO course!
We live in somewhat of a scientific dark age. Our universities have become extensions of corporate power, at the cost of our health, livelihoods, and ecology. This has to stop, yesterday.
We cannot afford to spread lies to our undergraduate students. Cornell, please reconsider your ways. Until you do, I will be doing everything in my power to counter your industry GMO propaganda efforts with the facts.
Researcher Uncovers What May Be The Real Cause Of Depression May 12 2024 | From: WakingTimes / Various
Depression as a mental illness is actually quite controversial.
The psychiatric profession has agreed to attribute it on a chemical imbalance in the brain, although many question if this is the real cause of depression.
Clearly, Hari discovered enough interesting information about the real cause of depression to fill a whole book. What I wanted to highlight in this article is Hari’s perspective on the medical establishment’s choice to categorize depression as a chemical imbalance.
The Grief Exemption
The term major depressive disorder was introduced by a group of US clinicians in the mid-1970s. It established the diagnostic criteria for depression based on patterns of nine possible symptoms.
In 1980, depression was incorporated into the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM). In this book, American psychiatrists include all the symptoms of different mental illnesses, so they could identify and treat these diseases in the same way.
After some time, psychiatrists started to questions if people who are bereaved also need pharmacological treatment.
Hari writes:
"If you lose someone, it turns out that these symptoms will come to you automatically. So, the doctors wanted to know, are we supposed to start drugging all the bereaved people in America?
This is when the grief exemption was created. The DSM authors updated the manual to exclude people who have lost somebody in the preceding year from the depression diagnosis, even if they showed depression symptoms.
Hari states:
"The grief exception seemed to have blasted a hole in the claim that the causes of depression are sealed away in your skull."
The grief exception created too much debate in mainstream psychiatry. Doctors started asking if depressive symptoms where a logical and understandable response to other life circumstances, not just a death of a loved one.
Eventually, DSM authors eventually did away with the exemption. Doctors were once again told to say that depression is, in fact, caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain.
Dr. Joanne Cacciatore, associate professor at Arizona State University, is a leading expert on the grief exception. In his book, Hari reveals Cacciatore’s perspective:
"She told me this debate reveals a key problem with how we talk about depression, anxiety and other forms of suffering: we don’t, she said, “consider context”.
We act like human distress can be assessed solely on a checklist that can be separated out from our lives, and labelled as brain diseases.
If we started to take people’s actual lives into account when we treat depression and anxiety, Joanne explained, it would require “an entire system overhaul”.
She told me that when “you have a person with extreme human distress, [we need to] stop treating the symptoms. The symptoms are a messenger of a deeper problem. Let’s get to the deeper problem.”"
Most typical mainstream doctors address symptoms associated with depression with anti-depressant drugs, such as Prozac. Cacciatore raises a very valid concern, that we may be treating the symptoms, but that a potential untreated problem is the actual cause of depression.
As a patient taking anti-depressants for many years, Hari asked:
"Why were so many other people across the western world feeling like me? Around one in five US adults are taking at least one drug for a psychiatric problem.
In Britain, antidepressant prescriptions have doubled in a decade, to the point where now one in 11 of us drug ourselves to deal with these feelings.
What has been causing depression and its twin, anxiety, to spiral in this way? I began to ask myself: could it really be that in our separate heads, all of us had brain chemistries that were spontaneously malfunctioning at the same time?”"
To examine this question, Hari took at 40,000 mile journey around the world.
Here are some of the findings he uncovered during his investigation.
"They [drug companies] would fund huge numbers of studies, throw away all the ones that suggested the drugs had very limited effects, and then only release the ones that showed success.
To give one example: in one trial, the drug was given to 245 patients, but the drug company published the results for only 27 of them. Those 27 patients happened to be the ones the drug seemed to work for.
Professor Andrew Scull of Princeton, writing in the Lancet, explained that attributing depression to spontaneously low serotonin is “deeply misleading and unscientific”.
Dr David Healy told me: “There was never any basis for it, ever. It was just marketing copy.”
Were Psychiatrists Wrong About the Cause of Depression?
Finding out the story fed to depressed patients may be no more than a marketing pitch, Hari researched further. He sought out to uncover the true cause of depression.
He collected evidence that led him to believe that there are seven specific factors in the way we are living today that are causing depression to rise. In addition, two real biological factors (such as your genes) can combine with these forces to make things worse.
Here’s Hari’s thoughts:
"It turns out that, in the same way, all humans have certain basic psychological needs. We need to feel we belong.
We need to feel valued. We need to feel we’re good at something. We need to feel we have a secure future. And there is growing evidence that our culture isn’t meeting those psychological needs for many – perhaps most – people.
…the depression of many of my friends, even those in fancy jobs – who spend most of their waking hours feeling controlled and unappreciated – started to look not like a problem with their brains, but a problem with their environments."
Hari is not alone in claiming that our environment and power inequalities may be the real cause of depression.
"In its official statement for World Health Day in 2017, the United Nations reviewed the best evidence and concluded that “the dominant biomedical narrative of depression” is based on “biased and selective use of research outcomes” that “must be abandoned”.
We need to move from “focusing on ‘chemical imbalances’”, they said, to focusing more on “power imbalances”.
If you are struggling with depression and have found antidepressants an ineffective or undesirable treatment, it may be a worthwhile read.
"If you are depressed and anxious, you are not a machine with malfunctioning parts. You are a human being with unmet needs.
The only real way out of our epidemic of despair is for all of us, together, to begin to meet those human needs – for deep connection, to the things that really matter in life."
In The Western World Lies Have Displaced Truth May 11 2024 | From: PaulCraigRoberts / Various
Recently I was awarded Marquiss Who’s Who In America’s Lifetime Achievement Award.
This did not prevent a hidden organization, PropOrNot, from attempting to brand me and my website along with 200 others “Putin stooges or agents” for our refusal to lie for the corrupt, anti-American, anti-constitutional, anti-democratic, warmonger police state interests that rule the Western World.
The only honest, factual media that exists in the Western World today are the names on the PropOrNot list of “Putin agents.”
The purpose of ProOrNot is to convince Americans that freedom of speech must be halted by destroying fact-based Internet media, such as this website and 200 others that provide factual information at odds with Big Brother’s universal brainwashing as delivered by CNN, NPR, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the rest of the utterly corrupt presstitute media, a collection of scum devoid of all integrity and all respect for truth.
A conspiracy of US government agencies, tax-exempt think tanks funded by the ruling interests, and media acting in behalf of a war and police state agenda work to shape perceived reality as it is described in George Orwell’s book, 1984, and in the film, The Matrix.
Controlled perception-based reality is only a Facebook “like” away from killing one person or one million or elevating a liar or the warmonger responsible for the killing to hero status or to the control of the CIA or FBI or the US presidency.
Eliason’s article is long and documented. It demonstrates the organized conspiracy against truth that exists in the Western World.
Nothing stated in the Western presstitute media and no statement by any Western government or subservient vassal state can be trusted to comply with the facts.
Truth is the enemy of the state, and the state is eliminating the truth.
Peoples in the United States, Europe, Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the various vassal states, such as Japan, all live day in, day out, an orchestrated lie that serves interests directly opposed to the interests of the peoples.
Governments that do not rest on truth rest on tyranny.
is an important thing to know if you are interested in zooming in on the source of evil in this world. Centuries of leaked documents, former insider accounts and scholarly research has shown that Freemasonry has become the most pervasive, influential and powerful of all the Secret Societies on Earth. Many US Founding Fathers were masons.
Many leading figures of the French Revolution were masons. Many US presidents have been masons. Freemasonry inspired Mormonism and was a central theme behind the occult assassination of JFK.
People in high positions of power place their oath to Freemasonry above their oath to serve the people who elected them; some such policemen and judges make decisions not based on truth and justice but rather based on protecting the masonic network, the Lodge and their masonic brethren.
Many lower level masons are deliberately kept in the dark, not told what they are getting into, but what are the higher level initiates really worshipping? Who or what is the god of Freemasonry?
In trying to decipher the god of Freemasonry, there are many clues that point towards a dark force that is the engineer or creator of this world, especially the dystopian aspects of this world which some people have dubbed The Establishment, The System or The Matrix.
It is no coincidence that in The Matrix movie series themselves, Neo finally meets his maker, i.e. the being who created the entire system. He is called “the architect” and is represented by a bearded old man. Saturn, god of time, harvest, law and death, is also represented this way.
Masons typically refer to their god as the “Great Architect of the Universe” while Gnostics also used the same term in reference to the tyrant they claimed had created a fake, inferior copy of the original perfect world (they also called this force “Demiurge” and “Yaldabaoth”).
The primary masonic logo of the letter G is enclosed inside a square and compass, which are tools of an engineer, draftsman or architect who designs and draws with them to create things.
It’s easy to get lost in names here, but the point is to see the connections. There are many names but one underlying force beneath all the names. The Architect/Demiurge is the cruel god who is basically the same force as Satan or the Devil, and goes by many other names, as we shall see.
Speaking of the masonic G, what does it stand for? Official masonic lore claims that it stands both for “God” and “Geometry”. Is G a clue for the God of Freemasonry?:
“By letters four and science five, this “G” aright doth stand, in due Art and Proportion; you have your answer, friend.”
What are the “letters four”? It is believed that they stand for “YHWH”, the name of the Great Architect of the Universe (pronounced “Yahway”. (sometimes pronounced Jehovah) in the ancient Hebrew language, from which the Bible was translated: Which is the 5th science? Geometry. The Letter G stands for “Geometry”, which is the mathematical science upon which Architecture and Masonry were founded.”
However there are others who quote famous grand masons Eliphas Levi and Albert Pike to claim that the masonic G really stand for gnosis and generation.
Gnosis is the Greek word for knowledge, and this fits in precisely with the masonic ideology of worshiping the light (more on this below) to become enlightened or illuminated (think Illuminati). This is from the website GnosticWarrior.com:
"In the Mysteries of Magic by Eliphas Levi and interpreted by Arthur Edward Waite, it is written; “All these magical theorems, based on the unique dogma of Hermes, and on the analogical inductions of science, have been invariably confirmed by the visions of ecstatics and by the convulsions of cataleptics under the supposed possession of spirits.
The G which Freemasons place in the centre of the Burning Star signifies Gnosis and Generation, the two sacred words of the ancient Kabbalah. It also signifies Grand Architect, for the Pentagram, from whatever side it may be looked at, always represents an A. (Also See Eliphas Levi, Dogme et Rituel de la Haute Magie, vol. II, p. 97.)
Albert Pike had reconfirmed this fact by quoting Levi in his book, Liturgy of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry: IV to XIV; “In the centre of this Blazing Star Freemasons place the letter G. It signifies Gnosis and Generation, the two sacred words of the ancient Kabala; and also the Grand Architect; for the Pentagram, whichever way we view it, presents the letter A.”
Is the God of Freemasonry Jahbulon? Historian Jasper Ridley claims in his book The Freemasons that before joining a lodge all Masons must accept that the God of Freemasonry is Jahbulon and that they learn this once they get to the Royal Arch Degree.
Interestingly, Jahbulon is a composite word made up of 3 parts: Jah is the Hebrew name for God (Jahovah is very similar to Jehovah) and is also used by certain Rastafarian religions to mean God; Bul refers to the Babylonian deity Baal; and On refers to the Egyptian deity Osiris.
Baal is mentioned in the bible as a god who demanded and required human sacrifice. Baal is another name for the Babylonian god Nimrod. The ancient Mystery Schools which spawned the world’s current Secret Societies, of which Freemasonry became the dominant strain, trace their roots back to Egypt and Babylon.
Hence Nimrod may be yet another name for the God of Freemasonry. This article on MediaMonarchy.com states:
"Masonic writings … dwell heavily on a descendant of Ham as one of the founders of Masonry—Nimrod. In the Encyclopedia of Freemasonry (Mackey-McClenachan), under the heading “Nimrod,” we find:
“The legend of the Craft in the Old Constitutions refers to Nimrod as one of the founders of Masonry. Thus in the York MS., No. 1, we read: “At ye making of ye toure of Babell there was a Masonrie first much esteemed of, and the King of Babilon yt called Nimrod was a Mason himself and loved well Masons”.”
As Nimrod had so many things attributed to him, it was only reasonable for peoples, now in segregation, to adopt the portion of belief best interpreted by each group. Thus, diverse religious attributes and beliefs, yet peoples remaining reverent to their god. We find such names for this revered god (Nimrod) in scripture as Chemosh, Molock, Merodach, Remphan, Tamuz, and Baal, to mention only a few of the some thirty-eight Biblical titles plus numerous representatives of these “gods”.”
Did you catch that Molock (aka Moloch, Molech) was among the other names of the God of Freemasonry? The same Molech is featured at Bohemian Grove where Secret Society initiates perform black magic, mock (or otherwise) sacrifices and sexual rituals under a giant 40 foot owl.
Statue of George Washington, 1st US President and high-level Freemason, in a Baphomet pose
Baphomet, Mendes, Horny Goats, Pan, Capricorn and Saturn
Baphomet is another god associated with Freemasonry, even though some Freemasons officially deny it. You can see master mason George Washington doing his baphomet pose above.
Baphomet was a hermaphroditic god (having both male and female genitalia) which will begin to take on more significance in the future, as we head into a transhumanistic world where the NWO transgender agenda (part of the synthetic agenda) is to make all humans more robotic – non-binary, genderless and sexless.
Baphomet’s head is an inverted 5-pointed star/pentagram (more Satanic inversion), and being a goat he is linked to Mendes, Pan (god of the wild, often linked to horniness and sexual excess), Capricorn (the zodiac sign symbolized by goat horns) and of course Saturn (housed in Capricorn in the night sky).
Blatant: Manly Hall writes of the “seething energies of Lucifer”, the God of Freemasonry
Albert Pike and Manly Hall are former masons whose work is widely quoted by those seeking to understand what exactly Freemasonry is. Both of these men referred explicitly to Lucifer as the God of Freemasonry. Pike spoke of the pure doctrine of Lucifer while Hall wrote about the seething energies of Lucifer which can be awakened by master masons:
"Lucifer, the Light-bearer ! Strange and mysterious name to give to the Spirit of darkness! Lucifer, the Son of the Morning! It is he who bears the Light, and with its splendors intolerable, blinds feeble, sensual or selfish souls? Doubt it not!”
– Albert Pike (33º Freemason), Morals and Dogma of the ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry, pg. 321
“When the Mason learns that the key to the warrior on the block is the proper application of the dynamo of living power, he has learned the mystery of his craft. The seething energies of Lucifer are in his hands and before he may step onwards and upwards he must prove his ability to properly apply (this) energy.”
- Manly Hall (33º Freemason), Lost Keys of Freemasonry, pg. 48
Freemasonry, like other strands of Satanism, inverts everything and takes the opposite as the truth. Grand Commander and sovereign pontiff of universal freemasonry Albert Pike was quoted as giving instructions to the 23 supreme councils of the world:
"That which we must say to the crowd is, we worship a god, but it is the god one adores without superstition. To you sovereign grand inspector general, we say this and you may repeat it to the brethren of the 32nd, 31st and 30th degrees – the Masonic religion should be by all of us initiates of the high degrees, maintained in the purity of the luciferian doctrine.
If lucifer were not god, would Adonay (the God of the Christians) whose deeds prove cruelty, perfidy and hatred of man, barbarism and repulsion for science, would Adonay and His priests, calumniate Him?
Yes, lucifer is god, and unfortunately Adonay is also God, for the eternal law is that there is no light without shade, no beauty without ugliness, no white without black, for the absolute can only exist as two gods. darkness being necessary for light to serve as its foil, as the pedestal is necessary to the statue, and the brake to the locomotive.
Thus, the doctrine of Satanism is heresy, and the true and pure philosophical religion is the belief in lucifer, the equal of Adonay, but lucifer, god of light and god of good, is struggling for humanity against Adonay, the god of darkness and evil.”
– Recorded by A.C. De La Rive, La Femme et L’enfant dans La Franc-Maconnerie Universelle, pg. 588. Cited from ‘The question of freemasonry” (2nd edition 1986 by Edward Decker pp12-14)
This is the very same Albert Pike whom I have quoted elsewhere as predicting a World War 3 scenario, where the NWO controllers pit Zionism against Islam (same source as above):
"We shall unleash the nihilists and the atheists and we shall provoke a great social cataclysm which in all its horror will show clearly to all nations the effect of absolute atheism; the origins of savagery and of most bloody turmoil.
Then everywhere, the people will be forced to defend themselves against the world minority of the world revolutionaries and will exterminate those destroyers of civilization and the multitudes disillusioned with Christianity whose spirits will be from that moment without direction and leadership and anxious for an ideal, but without knowledge where to send its adoration, will receive the true light through the universal manifestation of the pure doctrine of Lucifer brought finally out into public view.
A manifestation which will result from a general reactionary movement which will follow the destruction of Christianity and Atheism; both conquered and exterminated at the same time.”
The God of Freemasonry: responsible for the fake light that initiated the Simulation/System/Matrix we inhabit
"Masonry, like all the Religions, all the Mysteries, Hermeticism and Alchemy, conceals its secrets from all except the Adepts and Sages, or the Elect, and uses false explanations and misinterpretations of its symbols to mislead those who deserve only to be misled; to conceal the Truth, which it calls Light from them and to draw them away from it.”
- Albert Pike, Morals and Dogma of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry, p.104-5
Which it calls “light” – indeed. The open admission by esteemed masons that the God of Freemasonry is Lucifer (and concomitantly that the ideology of Freemasonry is Luciferian, that the goal of Freemasonry is to become enlightened) is itself another inversion.
The light is not what you think it is. In this context, light is not synonymous with good, pure, moral or love. Remember, Freemasonry extolls the virtue of intellect and knowledge represented by the light.
They worship Prometheus, the mythological figure who stole fire from the gods and gave it to mankind (a statue of Prometheus can be found outside the Rockefeller building in New York). Not coincidentally, in another of his myths, Prometheus establishes a form of animal sacrifice that was practiced in ancient Greece.
The evidence that Freemasonry is a negative force is overwhelming. The Illuminati are a group of cold-hearted psychopaths, eager for power and control at any cost, and are the furthest thing from enlightened or illuminated in the normal and common sense of the world.
To be truly enlightened or illuminated would be to realize that we are all one, we are all connected, that whatever you do to another you do to yourself, and that therefore empathy for others is a natural extension of love for yourself. The attitude of high-level manipulative Secret Society initiates is just the opposite of this.
The light of Freemasonry is a fake light, which has given birth to a fake reality. The light is the start of the Matrix. “Let there be light …” can be interpreted as the story of creation of the inverted, dystopian world in which we live, designed and created by the same negative force with many names that I am exposing throughout this article. The light has been weaponized.
This is, of course, intimately connected to the widespread idea that we live on a prison planet, trapped through karma (ruled by Saturn, god of time), where (unless we elevate our consciousness) we may not be able to escape a soul net or reincarnation cycle – which works by introducing a fake light at the point of death to entice our souls to rinse and repeat ad infinitum. Read Soul-Catching Net: Are We “Recycled” at Death to Remain in the Matrix? for a deeper explanation.
And the God of Freemasonry Is...
What is most important is to see the deeper unity of reality, to connect the dots among seemingly disparate names, terms, ideas and cultures. Whether you call this dark force the Great Architect of the Universe, the Demiurge, Yaldabaoth, Satan, Devil, Yahweh, Jehovah, Saturn, Jahbulon, Baal, Nimrod or Lucifer, it’s the same basic force.
Rich and powerful people are worshipping something – and they’re not just doing it for fun. They’re getting something out of it. They are literally selling their souls – handing them over for possession – in exchange for (what they perceive as) power, but which in reality is a diminishment of their power.
With consciousness rising, more of this horrible truth will be brought to light – the true light, not the fake light that fuels the synthetic Matrix – and hopefully sooner rather than later.
How To Spot A Media Psy-Op May 9 2024 | From: YogaEsoteric / Various
I enjoy a good conspiracy theory as much as the next peddler of anti-establishment vitriol. If you can hold them loosely, conspiracy theories can keep you conceptually and ideologically fluid so you don’t settle into any single set of perceptual or cognitive habits with this political stuff, and as an added bonus they tend to consistently infuriate all the worst kinds of people at all the right times.
But this article is not about conspiracy theory. What I’ll be sharing with you here are verifiable matters of public record which I encourage you to independently investigate if anything you read here is new to you.
I emphasize this not because I want you to believe me, but because we need as many eyes on this stuff as possible.
The American [Western] political establishment appears to have settled into an aggressive disinformation campaign against its own citizens as a result of the way it lost control of the narrative in 2016, and that campaign is only escalating.
In 2005, President George W. Bush admitted in a televised press conference that the US government creates its own “news” videos to give to the press, who often air those stories with no disclaimers informing viewers that they are watching government-generated media. In 2013, the US government implemented the negation of a 1948 law which had made it illegal for it to conduct psychological operations (psy-ops) on its citizens.
The 2017 NDAA allots a portion of the defense budget to a new State Department-run “counter-propaganda” program to fight certain types of information Americans are getting from the internet.
So when I tell you that the American government is known to actively use the media to psychologically manipulate the American people, that isn’t some wacky conspiracy theory, it’s a fact. These people have been legalizing and legislating psy-ops campaigns because they want to use them.
A lot of my readers probably tuned out from mainstream media long ago, as did I, but as the manipulators of the political establishment become more desperate their movements are becoming a lot more obvious, and they’ve been giving us a lot of valuable information lately.
I encourage you to tune back in as much as you feel inclined to, because when they really overextend, these mouthpieces of the oligarchy actually tell us where they don’t want us to look. Here are a few things you can watch out for to spot their manipulations:
Whenever you hear all the talking heads on TV suddenly start using the same phrase at the same time, you are hearing a slogan, a marketing ploy cooked up by a political think tank in the same way corporate think tanks come up with slogans for their products like “I’m lovin’ it” or “Silly rabbit, Trix are for kids!” Only political slogans aren’t geared to manipulate you into buying a product, they’re geared to manipulate you into buying into an idea.
In 2003 while the corporate media was manufacturing consent for the Iraq invasion, everyone suddenly started using the phrase “Support our troops.” It was everywhere. “Support our troops, support our troops!” You couldn’t watch the news without hearing it frequently peppered into the conversation, which is bizarre because taken on its own the phrase is essentially meaningless.
The opposition to the Iraq war wasn’t rooted in a lack of “support” for the individuals in the armed forces, it was opposition to the invasion itself and the decision to do so made by politicians in DC.
But all at once corporate media began slamming the American psyche with the absurd subconscious notion that if you didn’t support the invasion you must therefore hate soldiers and marines.
Following Hillary Clinton’s loss due to counter-establishment ideas and information being circulated largely via alternative media outlets, we began seeing the phrase “fake news” being constantly bleated with very broad brush strokes in a transparent attempt to lump dissenting alternative media outlets in with Macedonian clickbait and Russian propaganda.
And it was fairly successful at first; for weeks every single one of my opinion articles was getting comments calling them “fake news” despite being neither fake nor news.
Alternative media was getting slammed with this deliberate government psy-op, and luckily there was a strong pushback against it wherein every time CNN or the Washington Post published an unsubstantiated and inflammatory claim there was widespread use of their own slogan against them.
WaPo recently announced that it’s “time to retire the term fake news” since it’s been co-opted by the political right, and it’s true; you now hear that term being used more often on right-leaning mainstream media than on the left. By hijacking the term, they broke the spell, causing it to become an ineffective psy-op.
Pay close attention to when establishment shills interject a phrase that doesn’t seem to really “fit” with the rest of their words. Whenever you see the CIA-funded Washington Post arbitrarily start babbling about Pizzagate in the middle of an article about something or someone who opposes the political establishment, even when the hard substance of the report has nothing whatsoever to do with Pizzagate, you are seeing this psy-op at work.
CNN’s Chris Cuomo is an absolute wizard with this trick. The son of a former Democratic New York Governor and brother of a current Democratic New York Governor, Cuomo is political establishment royalty, and he appears to have been groomed for his job.
Cuomo went to law school instead of studying journalism, but has been given a prominent spot on the media juggernaut Clinton News Network, where he routinely inserts ideas into his commentary that are designed to fly below the radar and bury themselves deep in America’s subconscious.
My readers might remember Cuomo as the guy who casually slipped the absurd notion that it’s illegal for Americans to read WikiLeaks into his report, which to me is less notable for how blatantly manipulative it is than for the way Americans finally caught him in the act.
It was a very brief insertion, just a few seconds long, but some alert viewers were able to isolate it and go “Hey! What did you just do there? You’re tricking us!”
Which is great, but this was the only time Cuomo has really been caught in a big way. Whenever you see a pundit word-salading, it’s probably because they’re slipping a toxic idea into what they’re serving you.
It looks weirder written down, since he works his magic with such confidence; here’s a transcript from CNN if you want to see it in writing.
You can see a more overt example here in his interview with Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, where he somehow manages to force the adamant assertion “Assad is a tyrant, that he is an oppressor of his people and he needs to be taken out in the name of democracy” into the form of a question to help inoculate viewers from Gabbard’s anti-establishment message involving Syria.
It’s a magic trick. I don’t know where he learned it or why he relentlessly uses it on the American public, but the technique he’s using is called neuro-linguistic programming and it’s well-known among magicians. Check out UK magician Derren Brown who uses it extensively in his act to manipulate people into doing what he wants so he can appear to be psychic.
During his show, he sprinkles subconscious messages throughout his patter so his “predictions” come true at the end. These words and phrases that are so odd and out of context that they should jump out at you, but the mind smooths it over and moves on to the next thing he says. These tiny weird little phrases don’t even need to be repeated that often for them to work.
And work, they do. He can get any three people from the audience to collaborate to select a word of his choosing out of a possible 1.6 million words, seemingly at random to the participants.
The only difference with Brown is that it’s a part of his reveal at the end, and he walks you through how he manipulated everyone. Watch here to see him walk an audience through how he got them to choose that one word from 1.6 million for him, complete with video clips of each insertion.
I guarantee you Chris Cuomo has made a study of neuro-linguistic programming or something similar as part of his establishment grooming. His quick, rhythmic delivery and seamless insertions are the hallmark of a genius-level NLP practitioner.
This psy-op is designed to forcefully marry two unrelated ideas in the minds of the audience for the benefit of the political establishment. Half a year after the Iraq invasion, a poll by USA Today found that 70 percent of Americans still believed that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11.
This wasn’t because reporters were directly saying this; they never could have gotten away with such blatant falsehoods.
What they could get away with was consistently making sure they mentioned Saddam Hussein in the same breath as the September 11th attacks over and over again, and I remember them doing this frequently.
They’d mention the “intelligence” which said Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, and then they’d say something about the possibility of another attack similar to 9/11.
They did this on purpose as part of corporate media’s well-documented participation in manufacturing consent for the invasion, and it worked.
A poll at the time found that 50 percent of Hillary Clinton voters believe that the Russian government tampered with vote tallies to help Donald Trump win the presidential election.
This is because media outlets, nearly all of which are owned by just five powerful companies in the US, have been deliberately using phrases like “election hacking” and “hacked the election” instead of phrases like “hacked the DNC emails” or “spearphishing John Podesta’s emails” which would have been an infinitely more accurate reflection of the actual substance of their reports.
People were tricked into marrying those two ideas, and now half the Democrats you meet will likely believe that Putin was involved in hacking actual election booths or vote tallies.
A few days ago we saw the same thing when Donald Trump lashed out at Rep. John Lewis for saying he didn’t consider him a legitimate President; the overwhelming majority of the headlines from liberal corporate media used words like “civil rights hero” and “civil rights icon” when referring to Lewis and “attack” and “smear” when referring to Trump’s response to him.
In reality Trump was just returning fire initiated by a Congressman in the opposing party, but I guarantee you there are millions of Americans who now think of Trump as someone who attacks civil rights leaders because he hates civil rights, for the same exact reason people think Russia hacked polling booths and thought Saddam was responsible for 9/11.
Just the whole entire Washington Post. The entire thing is one gigantic government psy-op. Its owner Jeff Bezos has collected many hundreds of millions of dollars directly from the CIA (a conflict of interest WaPo never mentions when reporting on US intelligence agencies), and his rag has consistently been the most unapologetic promulgator of the establishment narrative.
To list just a very few examples, WaPo ran sixteen negative articles about Bernie Sanders in the span of sixteen hours during the most hotly contested point in the presidential primaries, published a story which blacklisted hundreds of dissenting alternative media outlets as “Russian propaganda”, reported that Russians had hacked America’s electrical grid when nothing of the sort had happened and then covertly and unapologetically edited their article as their lies became exposed after millions of Americans had consumed their false narrative, and have been among the most aggressive peddlers of the aforementioned “Russia hacked the election” forced association psy-op.
WaPo is a great resource for all clear-eyed rebels, because it can be used as a daily memo of what the CIA and the political establishment it supports want the American public to believe.
Jeff Bezos is the second wealthiest person on the planet and prior to his purchase of WaPo he had already obstructed WikiLeaks via his company Amazon, so he’s unquestionably got a vested interest in propping up the oligarchy. Paying attention to his publication tells us where we aren’t meant to look.
One of the first things I noticed before any campaigning had even started in the recent Democratic primary was when Hillary Clinton got caught buying millions of fake “zombie” accounts to bolster her numbers on Twitter and Facebook.
They’re called zombie accounts because they’re not real people. You can buy followers pretty inexpensively it turns out, but they’re only shell accounts. They will never retweet you, they just make your numbers look better.
It was the beginning of the largest and most outrageous astroturfing of a campaign we’ve ever seen. Astroturf is so called because it seeks to mimic the growth of a natural grassroots campaign.
You buy followers, pay people to turn up to your rallies, offer incentives to wear your stickers and badges, pay people to go online and defend you, hand out signs at rallies that look home-made, pay celebrities to endorse you, pay your marketing campaign to make memes for you, stage “spontaneous” photo-ops with “fans" - in short, you use money to pay for the appearance of what burgeoned from the Bernie Sander’s campaign organically because there was genuine and growing enthusiasm for the candidate. Astroturfing seeks to mimic that kind of virality.
These strategies are usually used by advertising companies to generate interest for a product. Check out this Ted talk by Sharyl Attkisson for a little tour. It’s well-known in the trade that word-of-mouth is by far the best salesman, so those sneaky bastards have dreamed up ways of mimicking that.
What the Clinton campaign did went way beyond hiring a few shills to inject positive messages about their candidate and into the realm of mass psychological abuse, using real-life disrupters, social media shills, and the mainstream media to demonize Trump and his supporters to the point where the nation is still showing symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder.
Here’s the thing though - we can only prove that the Clinton campaign did that because of the email leaks and the fact that the FEC enforces some transparency on the activities and budgets of the campaign and its superPACS. If we didn’t have those two things, we wouldn’t have proof that it occurred.
Post-campaign, you can still hire a company to shill for you online, on whatever issue you please, and you don’t have to report it to anyone. It’s relatively inexpensive and it’s a very effective way of controlling the narrative and disrupting natural healthy collaboration between normal humans.
This is just a taster but according to this amazing article from Double G, I mean, Glenn Greenwald, the key tactics boil down to the four D’s - Deny, disrupt, degrade, deceive.
So just because the campaign bunting has been taken down, don’t think that there aren’t regular assaults occurring on the hearts and minds of average Westerners, but the good news is, they are getting easier and easier to spot.
The first casualty in this utopian process is freedom.
In fact, freedom is viewed as THE flaw. It opens Pandora’s Box, thus releasing all human ills, crimes, devastations, and inequities.
Globalism (elites ruling the planet as one nation); Socialism (international governments and mega-corporations owning the means of production and distribution); and Technocracy (engineering world society as if it were a machine); these are all names for the better system that replaces freedom with… what?
With control.
With control described as: fair and equitable benefits given to every human. “Guaranteed security.” “Guaranteed survival.”
The con can be dressed up in all sorts of ways. “Public-private partnerships.” “Distributing energy fairly in an energy-scarce world.” “Saving the environment.” “Reducing manmade warming.” “No child left behind.” “Open borders.” “Tolerating and celebrating diversity.” “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” “It takes a Village.” “A kinder gentler government will take care of you.”
The price of your ticket? Your freedom.
At the heart of the con is the effort to reprogram the “inherently flawed human biological machine.” In other words, erase “the basic delusion that freedom exists.”
Once that operation has been achieved, a better world will follow.
“The blueprint of your mind was ABC. We will change that to XYZ.”
This horrendous concept forms the link between Socialism, Globalism, and Technocracy. It is “science” deployed to bring overall methods of control “up to date.”
Edit the genes. Insert visual images directly into the brain. Use drugs to dampen and neutralize emotional responses. Sidetrack and take away impulses that are considered “anti-social.”
Consider this question contained in a 1952 CIA MKULTRA memo:
“Can we get control of an individual to the point where he will do our bidding against his will and even against fundamental laws of nature, such as self preservation?”
The worst part of all of this is the dejection it causes among many intelligent people. They give in to the idea that massive mind control of populations is inevitable, and nothing can be done to stop it. They jump to this conclusion because…
They have given up on the power of their own freedom. They have formed an inherently self-defeating world view.
They’ve decided that Technocracy is irresistible.
In effect, they’ve joined the tyranny.
Well, that’s exactly what the controllers are looking for. As Gary Allen points out in his brilliant book, None Dare Call It Conspiracy (1971), one of the cardinal propaganda ideas permeating worldwide Socialism was, and is: It’s inevitable.
That fallacious notion has been used to wear down the opposition. “Socialism is taking over the world, and nothing can be done about it.”
Nonsense. We did not arrive at this point in history to give up the ghost.
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama made several references to the people they considered “enemies of benevolent control and the new world order”: bitter clingers with religion and guns, and a basket of deplorables.
This was an effort to characterize “hold-outs” who insisted on freedom. Freedom, in elite eyes, is the resistance, plain and simple. It is archaic and dangerous. It is ignorant and senseless. It is primitive.
Sophisticated minds would, of course, understand that “togetherness” is the true answer to human problems. Meaning: dependence on centralized power. Centralized and globalized power.
To justify the expansion of Globalism, Socialism, and Technocracy, to put a humane face on this triple catastrophe, it is necessary to proliferate the number of victims with needs - and what better way to do that than by demanding Western nations take in and support unlimited waves of migrants?
Freedom, on the other hand, implies self-reliance, self-sufficiency, inviolable private property, and the protections expressed in the US Bill of Rights. O how deplorable!
The Founding Fathers of the American Republic were all deplorables, weren’t they? They saw a light at the end of the tunnel of history, and they moved toward it, armed with ideas that would shake the world.
The controllers strive to decimate that disturbance and return, behind their triple mask, to the era of entitled rule. They are the revisionists. They are the oligarchs. They are wolves in sheep’s clothing. They enlist “the downtrodden” to front for them.
They bark and howl about social justice, when justice is the last thing on their minds.
We Don’t Need Government, We Need Purpose May 7 2024 | From:PublicIntelligence / Various
What truly motivates a person? Years ago I would have answered, “well, money of course. Money helps to pay for our food, shelter, some entertainment and allows us to (sometimes) further our education.”
While that answer is true in ways, today I will take it further and say that a purpose is what motivates us.
It is not that money itself is motivating for us, but it is the security money can provide us by allowing to our basic needs like food, shelter and clothing to be met.
From our childhood, we have been conditioned to believe that it is necessary to have money and to need the institutions in our world that direct the flow of money to the greater populace. However, if we analyze this deep enough, we see that it is a fact that such a means of rationing resources (which money does) and the institutions that control the rationing, are not necessary, but are by choice.
Sure, in some ways government has served it’s purpose. It has allowed us to build an infrastructure on this planet where we can travel pretty much wherever we would like. It has also built schools, hospitals and allowed for the creation of all sorts of public services as well as public entertainment.
However, what is important to remember is that it wasn’t governments who build these things. It was people. People made the choice each and every morning to wake up and go to their job to help create their projects.
Though money was almost certainly an incentive for many of these people, I believe that we human beings have an innate desire to help serve a greater cause. Perhaps for many of these people, an additional incentive for doing their work was that they knew on a deeper level that this was in some way, big or small, helping our civilization to develop and grow in a positive direction.
In today’s world, with the internet, 3-D printing, blockchain technology and the ability to harness unlimited energy for the entire world in the forms of solar, wind, tidal and geothermal, not to mention the numerous patented “free energy” devices which are currently suppressed, the need for money and government has passed us.
We no longer need money as a way to ration resources when we have the technology to create unlimited abundance for everyone on the planet. With no longer needing money, we no longer need a system such as governance who acts as the hub of rationing these resources through the means of money.
While I do not think that immediately stopping the usage of money and governance simultaneously around the world would be a wise or even positive decision in the short-term, I do believe that we could easily begin the process of scaling these back tremendously with the intention of completely ridding them of our reality.
It is no secret that many people today do not like their jobs or the work they do. However, people realize that the money that is paid to them allows them to pay for a place to live and for food to eat, which in turn allows them to live. In a very real way, many people are working a job they couldn’t care less about, just in order to stay alive. Some say, “well, that’s life. Get used to it.” Or, “You have to work. Stop complaining.”
I say, “with the technology we have today that could easily provide abundance in all forms for every person on this planet, it is counter-productive to use our time doing things we do not enjoy doing.”
We can cleanly power the entire world, which will allow us to grow the food and resources needed to feed, house and clothe everyone. This in turn will allow the basic needs of everyone to be met. From there, we will stop doing the work we’ve been doing to earn the “money.” The insanity will stop and the spirit of life will be sparked once again throughout our world.
At that point, we will start doing things that are passionate about. We will move away from the need of a government and move into finding what is of purpose for us. We can move from competition to cooperation. We can begin to heal ourselves, our family and friends. We can begin to heal our pets, the animals, the water and the flora and fauna of the Earth. We can create a truly peaceful paradise.
For those arguing, “this sounds like communism,” I say, “this has nothing to do with politics or money and is several levels evolved past such barbaric methods of intentionally rationing resources.”
Remember, communism is a political system who also has been enslaved via the monetary system just as every other political system has been, including capitalism, feudalism, and fascism.
Powering, feeding, clothing and housing the entire world has nothing to do with politics. It does, however, have everything to do with the human spirit and the deservability that each person has naturally.
To put this things in perspective, we must remember that we are incredible human beings living on a planet that is flying through our solar system at improbable speeds, which receives it’s warmth from a massive ball of gas known as the Sun.
Our lives on this planet is itself a miracle. Why would we not deserve for all of our needs to be met? What other species pays “money” to live on this planet? We are each a miracle. This planet’s existence is a miracle. We needn’t do a thing but simply exist to deserve the abundance this Earth can and one day will easily provide to all of us.
With that, I ask you: What is it that you can do, whether as a “job” or as a hobby that allows you feel a sense of purpose? What do you get passionate about? Maybe you are already in your purpose.
I do believe strongly that with the advancements we have made and continue to make technologically, but most importantly emotionally and spiritually, we are beginning the transition away from a monetary world and into a world where abundance, peace and purpose are the norm.
NWO Control System Vs. The Awakening - Which Will Win? May 6 2024 | From: HumansAreFree
At this pivotal time in history, the era of our awakening through truth and transparency, it has never been more amazing to be alive.
A number of us know that the stakes are high in the fight for our freedom: On one side, we have an increasingly destructive parasitic control system; a well-oiled machine coldly designed by the ruling elite and associates to screw us all over with its false and limiting paradigms.
Then, on the other hand, we are undergoing a mass awakening with changes in consciousness having the potential to co-create a transformed planet.
So, which one will win, the ruling elite’s control system or our awakening? – A very open-ended question that could give many different responses, I realize, but here’s my response, coming from the heart perspective.
The Control System
All things are energy. Every aspect of the parasitic control system serves to destroy our heart energy. It serves to disconnect us from our powerful intuitive heart intelligence. Put simply, the ruling elite want us to be like them, heartless.
They have had us programmed and brainwashed into believing many falsehoods so that we can be left to our own accords to demonstrate our heartlessness to each other.
Take for example, the case of fighting their secretly manufactured wars for power, profit and political gains. In these never-ending wars, the only real enemy, the only ‘us’ versus ‘them’ is we-the-people against the ruling elite, everything else is merely an illusion.
-The same can be said about other secretly manufactured conflicts such as those involving civil unrest, race wars and the spoils of economic disruption...
From cradle to grave our intuitive heart energy takes a hammering by the narrow, deeply stifling education system curriculum and then the workplace: In both cases we’ve been programmed and brainwashed into the profit worshiping, self-serving corporate/banker greed-driven systems with the consumerist ‘he who dies with the most toys wins’ and the ‘survival of the fittest’ attitudes.
Then there’s the ruling elite’s owned and controlled mainstream media. Entertainment is entrainment: The mainstream media is designed to affect our behaviour after watching endless hours of TV/movies where people treat each other horribly, while we are made to become desensitised.
Not to forget the highly deceptive fear-inducing fake news; selling secret sponsored false terrorism with its outsider demons or false bogeymen…
Occultism
Another assault on the heart exists in the form of occultism. The ruling elite secretly meet up in rooms said to have the right geometry/symmetry conducive to holding their negative energy rituals.
Their negative energy rituals or occult symbolism as for example in corporate logos is designed to have counterproductive effects on humanity through affecting our psyche in the morphogenetic field.
Transhumanism
Our human qualities are seriously under threat by the transhumanism agenda. With the use of its technologies such as nano-technology, genetic engineering, drugs, robotics and bionics… to ‘enhance’ us, we are in grave danger of losing our heart connectivity and thus getting rendered powerless to do anything about the ruling elite’s control system. 7 Reasons Why Transhumanism is the Greatest Threat to the Human Species
Earth and our energetic disconnection
Our heart energies extend to an energetic connection with Earth. It’s no coincidence that EARTH is an anagram for HEART.
The ruling elite are destroying planet Heart’s energy by polluting the land, air, food and water through geo-engineering, fracking, chemical pollution, radiation, genetic modification… as we blindly partake.
The recent protests over the laying down of oil pipeline at Standing Rock, Dakota is a stand for the heart energy: Here we have a situation where on one side there are protesters honouring a piece of land as a God-given sacred living entity, providing fertile soil and fresh water…
On the other side, a number of heartless individuals; bribed politicians representing greed-driven corporations, an over-the-top, intimidating and known to be brutal militarized police force to deal with the peaceful protesters should they impede the land-spoiling pipeline construction…
Our Awakening
In this age of truth and transparency, in our awakening, having chosen the ‘service to others’ pathway, more than ever, we need to demonstrate gratitude, compassion, empathy, generosity, kindness and caring for each other as a way of staying in the heart.
Self-acceptance, finding peace with yourself allows staying in the heart, a place where the parasitic control system cannot find a way of attaching itself in order to use you.
Not only for survival and supporting each other, but also for our transformation, I’ve always believed that the answer lies in forming local communities.
Each community must have unity, self-sufficiency and discernment to survive and thrive. A community-based living that would focus on an even distribution of wealth rather than concentrating it to the hands of a select few…
We need to redefine the education system with theory and practice that goes beyond the current paradigm. Besides openness, we need to demonstrate more honesty and integrity in our approaches.
We, as a species, got ourselves into this mess essentially by blindly accepting the general consensus of the masses and the opinions of so-called experts, now it’s up to us to consciously co-create our way out of it. Consciousness is the key to world change.
It’s a lot simpler than some might imagine. We will make this turnaround through feeling, thinking and acting from the heart.
Although traumatizing to the collective consciousness we need to experience this current reality to transform. It will allow us to align our mass conscious intention to create a new paradigm experience, a world that makes a difference for everyone.
It will allow us to have the profound realization that I am YOU and YOU are me, so why lie, cheat and hurt yourself?
Our awakening will win:The shift in mass consciousness towards the heart energy will bring about the manifested reality necessary to defeat the control system.
The good news is that by being aware of these methods, you can avoid or at least reduce their effects to some degree.
Propaganda and Advertising
As media continues to consolidate, the lines are blurring between government and corporate structure. News, television, movies and print can work together to deliver a message that seems to be true simply because so many sources report the same thing.
With increasingly busy lives, people don’t have time to make the effort to delve further into what is true and what isn’t among all the information we are constantly bombarded with, and it can be easier to just accept what we’re told about topics like vaccines, the flu, and pesticides. Many times, these messages are even taken one step further and also sent subliminally.
Water, Air and Food
Another modern method of mental programming is the use of poisonous additives in our foods that change people’s brain chemistry to make them more docile.
For example, MSG and aspartame essentially kill off brain cells by overstimulating them, and they are so widely distributed that we’re seeing the population become increasingly unmotivated and distracted.
The fluoride that is regularly put in people’s drinking water, meanwhile, has been found to lower IQ.
Even those who are more conscious about avoiding processed foods are still vulnerable from the pesticides sprayed on produce.
Education
Many people grumble that today’s youth are far less intelligent in many regards than older generations, and this might not be an accident.
After all, dumbing down the people makes it a lot easier to impose your will on them. People who want to homeschool often face a lot of opposition – have you ever asked yourself why that is?
Drugs
Drugs are a convenient way to control people, and many times, it’s the people themselves who seek them out after being convinced that they somehow have something wrong with them.
Psychiatry is considered by some to be one of the biggest facilitators of modern mind control as it tries to define everyone based on their disorders rather than their positive attributes.
In fact, it is those who dare to question authority who often find themselves being labeled as having a mental problem and therefore in need of a mind-numbing medication. With more than a quarter of American children now taking psychiatric drugs, it’s becoming a normal way of life for the next generation.
Military Testing
It’s an unfortunate fact that service men and women have long been subjected to mind control and medical experiments. When you think about it, people in the military tend to be those who respond well to structure and obedience, and training entails following orders without putting up resistance.
There are plenty of other mind control methods we’re seeing put to good use these days everywhere from religion and politics to sports and computers and even the electromagnetic spectrum.
We are even seeing the development of artificial intelligence (AI) that can essentially read your mind by decoding your brain signals, and it’s scary to think of where this could all be headed. It’s time to wake up to what is really going on around you if you want to stand any chance of saving your free will.
Meditation For Beginners: A Guide To Inner Tranquility May 4 2024 | From:GlobalHealingCenter / Various
The best time to start meditating is now. Meditation can help quiet the mind, focus your thoughts, and promote general well-being.
Best of all, anyone with a few free minutes can start meditating today.
Even if you have never meditated before, don’t be intimidated. Follow the 10 easy steps below, and you will become a meditation expert in no time!
How to Meditate for Beginners
1.
Find your motivation to start.
2.
Pick a peaceful, quiet place.
3. Choose relaxing clothes and a comfortable pose.
4.
To start, set a timer for two minutes.
5.
Concentrate on your breathing.
6.
If your concentration is interrupted, refocus on your breathing.
7.
Do a body scan by focusing on different areas of your body.
8.
End your meditation with a positive ritual.
9.
Remember not to overthink it. Just enjoy the journey.
10.
Make it a habit.
The Step-by-Step Guide to Meditation
While there are countless meditation techniques and practices, the steps below offer a simple way to begin. Remember, while meditating, there is always room for improvement and a chance to learn something new. Try to enjoy the journey as you hone your meditation skills.
1. Choose to Start
Meditation starts with you. No matter your age or physical condition, meditation is always within reach. What is required on your part is the decision to begin. If you need some motivation, then try thinking about the reasons why you want to try it in the first place.
Meditation can relieve stress and anxiety, promote physical and mental well being, and even be a spiritual experience. Find a quiet moment to write down what you are hoping to get out of it and go back and read it anytime you need some motivation to meditate.
2. Pick Your Location Wisely
Your environment is critical to cultivating the right experience. Try to find a peaceful, quiet space that helps you feel relaxed. While a calm bedroom, tranquil garden, or dedicated meditation space is ideal, it’s not always possible.
When the optimal location is not available, remember, your car or even work desk can serve as your very own meditation retreat. The most important thing, especially when first starting out, is finding a location where you have the freedom to meditate for at least two minutes without interruption.
3. Get Comfortable With It
Before you can completely clear your mind, you will need to limit as many distractions as possible. Even small irritations will become distracting once you begin to meditate. Scan the area before you start and consider the type of pose you will be in, the clothes you are wearing, and your surroundings in general. Turn off your cell phone and anything else that might be disruptive.
Meditation works in nearly any position. Sitting, standing, and laying down are three basic poses that are great for first-time meditators. Select your starting posture based on comfort and whether or not you can hold it for a few minutes at a time. For most people, a good starting position is sitting cross-legged, hands resting on the legs, and eyes closed.
Clothes
Any clothing can work for meditation, but again, comfort is key. Many people enjoy light, loose-fitting clothes when they meditate, but you can wear anything you find relaxing. If you can’t decide what to wear, throw on your favorite pair of pajamas or comfortable workout clothes.
Chairs & Pillows
Meditation can involve long periods of sitting, especially as you progress. Seasoned meditators will typically have a dedicated cushion or mat in their home, but these are not necessary when you’re first starting out. Choose a comfy blanket or pillow or a sturdy, well cushioned chair to maximize comfort for extended meditation sessions.
Sounds & Smells
Many other factors such as sounds and smells can help set the stage for a positive meditation session. Some prefer adding aromas in the forms of incense, essential oils, or scented candles, while others like to avoid sensory distractions altogether.
Whatever you choose, just make sure the air you are breathing is fresh and clear of any toxins or pollutants. Natural sounds like wild animals or a babbling brook can also enhance or distract depending on the individual. Try a variety of settings to find out which works best for you.
4. Set a Timer
Meditation does not need to be a long process unless you want it to be. If you are just starting out, then begin with small increments of time. Setting a timer is very helpful for beginners because it can help keep your focus on breathing and not on the clock.
To start, set the timer for two minutes, and do your best to stay focused and in the moment. As your confidence builds, try extending the timer by 30 seconds every session until you are meditating for five minutes or longer.
One of the best ways to begin the practice of meditation is to focus on your breathing. Choose your pose and follow your breath as it flows from your nose into your lungs and out again as you exhale.
Some find it helpful to count breaths, but it isn’t necessary. Concentrating on your breathing will help your mind focus as it adjusts to the silence. Even seasoned meditators pay close attention to their breathing as a way to be more mindful.
6. Return When You Wander
Most meditation practices aim to clear the brain of all thoughts and be more mindful. However, it is natural and even inevitable that your mind will wander or fixate on rotating feelings and physical sensations. Getting lost in these distractions is entirely normal, but not the goal of meditation. When this happens to you, recognize that your mind has wandered and try to refocus on your breathing.
7. Scan Your Body
Towards the end of each meditation session, take the time to do a body scan. During this scan, focus on different areas of your body. Ask yourself how you feel, and pay close attention to any part that may need healing. Shift your focus from your breathing and gradually move your attention from your toes up through your feet and legs. Eventually, you will reach every area of your body. Similar to your breathing, return focus when your mind wanders.
8. End Your Session on a Positive Note
Carry your mindfulness through to the end of your session. Slowly get up and take note of how you feel. Breathe in deeply and gently adjust your body and mind. Creating a personal ritual to end each session may be helpful. Ending rituals could include reciting a personal mantra or finishing with a light exercise or walk.
Don’t spend your meditation time worrying whether or not you are doing it right. It may take a while for you to become proficient, and that is ok. Just keep at it, have fun, and enjoy the journey.
10. Repeat Often
Meditation can help support a healthy body and mind. It promotes healthy blood pressure, a happy mood, and strengthens coping skills. However, to start seeing the benefits you will need to meditate regularly and make it a habit. Try picking a time and place every day where you can dedicate two to five minutes to meditate.
Meditation Aids
As you continue with your meditation journey, you may benefit from additional help and advice along the way. As meditation has gone mainstream, meditation aids of all kinds are more available.
Guided Meditation
Guided meditation is an excellent option for many beginners. Many audio and video guides are inexpensive or even free online. Depending on where you live, local guided meditation classes may also be available.
During these guided meditation classes, instructors will walk you through what to do and how to do it. In-person classes can also provide additional support from like-minded meditators.
Thanks to modern technologies, there is a constant stream of new resources to help you meditate better. Many phone apps can help you start or perfect the practice of meditation. With new apps coming out daily, you will have many options to choose.
Look for an app that’s in a comfortable price range and focuses on a technique you want to improve. Apps are especially beneficial for first-time meditators looking to track their progress.
Your Meditation Journey
Have you tried meditation? Leave a comment below and let us know what helps you meditate and how it improves your physical and mental health.
Explosive: A Review Of Fake Medical Tests May 3 2024 | From:JonRappoport / Various
Over the years, during my investigations of deep fraud, I’ve uncovered very popular medical diagnostic tests that are wrong-headed, misleading, and fallacious.
Acceptance of this shocking truth would disrupt the “disease business” like a threshing machine moving through a wheat field.
Claims of diseases, based on tests, would be routinely turned back stamped UNPROVEN and FAKE.
One:Antibody test. This is given to detect the presence of a specific germ in a human. 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 arbitrarily claimed a positive test showed the person was ill or was going to become ill. No true science backed up this claim.
Bottom Line: The truth is, a positive antibody test says nothing about whether a person is ill, will get ill, or is healthy. The true indicator is the strength of the entire immune system, not just the antibodies - and the overall strength of the immune system is NOT measured by an antibody test. THERE IS NO MEDICAL TEST THAT MEASURES THE OVERALL CONDITION OF A PERSON’S IMMUNE SYSTEM.
Two: The PCR test. The Polymerase Chain Reaction tests for the presence of virus in a patient. The test 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.
Three: All tests resulting in a diagnosis of any of the 300 officially certified mental disorders. Why? Because there are no definitive tests. No blood or saliva or urine 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. It’s on the level of diagnosing cancer in a patient on the basis of an interview.
Four: All tests designed to assess the effectiveness of vaccines. The only marker is: does the vaccine produce antibodies in a human. But as I stated above, antibodies are only one aspect of the immune system. They aren’t the whole picture. A weak immune system’s antibodies are useless.
Five: Unsupported claims from public health officials. No tests at all, or hidden test results. 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 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.
This gigantic scandal doesn’t just apply to Swine Flu. It applies to any kind of flu.
Dr. Peter Doshi, writing in the online BMJ (British Medical Journal), reveals a monstrosity.
As Doshi states, every year, hundreds of thousands of respiratory samples are taken from flu patients in the US and tested in labs. Here is the kicker: only a small percentage of these samples show the presence of a flu virus.
This means: most of the people in America who are diagnosed by doctors with the flu have no flu virus in their bodies. So they don’t have the flu.
Therefore, even if you assume the flu vaccine is useful and safe, it couldn’t possibly prevent all those “flu cases” that aren’t flu cases.
The vaccine couldn’t possibly work. The vaccine isn’t designed to prevent fake flu, unless pigs can fly.
Here’s the exact quote from Peter Doshi’s BMJ review, “Influenza: marketing vaccines by marketing disease” (BMJ 2013; 346:f3037):
“…even the ideal influenza vaccine, matched perfectly to circulating strains of wild influenza and capable of stopping all influenza viruses, can only deal with a small part of the ‘flu’ problem because most ‘flu’ appears to have nothing to do with influenza.
Every year, hundreds of thousands of respiratory specimens are tested across the US. Of those tested, on average 16% are found to be influenza positive.”
“…It’s no wonder so many people feel that ‘flu shots’ don’t work: for most flus, they can’t.”
Because most diagnosed cases of the flu aren’t the flu.
So even if you’re a true believer in mainstream vaccine theory, you’re on the short end of the stick here. They’re conning your socks off.
The basic flu symptoms - cough, fever, chills, sore throat, muscle aches, weakness - can be caused by a variety of factors that have nothing to do with a flu virus.
But don’t worry, be happy. Keep your mouth shut and obey all doctors’ orders.
Israel Rules The UK As Well As The US: Israel Lobby Is Slowly Being Dragged Into The Light & The Balfour Declaration At 100: Seeds Of Discord [Historical But Relevant] May 2 2024 | From: CounterPunch / AlJazeera
The scandal surrounding Priti Patel, who was forced to resign as Britain’s international aid minister last week after secret meetings with Israeli officials during a “family holiday”, offers a small, opaque window on the UK’s powerful Israel lobby.
Patel’s off-the-books meetings with 12 Israelis, including prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, were organised by a British lobbyist in violation of government rules requiring careful documentation of official meetings.
That is to prevent conflicts of interest and illicit lobbying by foreign powers.
Government protocol was flouted again when Patel headed to the Golan Heights, occupied Syrian territory, escorted by the Israeli army. There she was shown an Israeli military field hospital that patches up Syrians, including Al Qaeda-affiliated fighters, wounded in Syria’s civil war.
Afterwards, Patel pressed for the Israeli army, one of the most powerful in the world, to receive a chunk of Britain’s overseas aid. Meanwhile, she has sought to cut aid to the Palestinians, including to vital projects in Gaza. A clue as to how she reached such absurd “humanitarian” priorities is provided in the figure of Stuart Polak, mentor on her Israel “holiday”.
The honorary president of Conservative Friends of Israel, Lord Polak has recruited four-fifths of Conservative MPs, and almost every government minister, to a group whose explicit goal is to advance Israeli interests in Britain.
The prime minister, Theresa May, is regarded as one of Israel’s most fervent supporters in Europe. That should be a cause for public indignation – no other foreign state enjoys such unabashed, high-level political support.
Another window on Israel’s meddling opened briefly last week. The BBC’s political editor, Laura Kuenssberg, took to Twitter to relay a damning comment from an unnamed “senior” member of Patel’s party. In a clear reference to Israel, the source observed:
“The entire apparatus has turned a blind eye to a corrupt relationship that allows a country to buy access”.
A short time later, presumably under pressure, Kuenssberg deleted the tweet. The BBC has not reported the comment elsewhere and the senior Conservative has not dared go public. Such, it seems, is the intimidating and corrupting influence of the lobby.
More than a decade ago, two leading American academics wrote a study of the Israel lobby’s role in the United States, Israel’s chief patron for half a century. It was a sign of the lobby’s influence that John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt could not find a publisher at home. They had to turn to a British journal instead.
The Israel lobby’s strength in western capitals has depended precisely on its ability to remain out of view. Simply to talk about the lobby risks being accused of perpetuating anti-Semitic tropes of Jewish cabals.
But Mearsheimer and Walt described a type of pressure group familiar in the US – and increasingly in European capitals. Everyone from Cuba to health insurers and arms manufacturers operate aggressive lobbyists in Washington to secure their interests.
What is special about the Israel lobby in the US – an amalgam of hawkish Jewish leadership organisations and messianic Christian evangelicals – is the fear it exploits to silence critics. No one wants to be labelled an anti-Semite.
Rarely identified or held to account, the lobby has entrenched its power.
That is what Britain’s heir to the throne, Prince Charles, was talking about three decades ago – even if he misidentified it as a “Jewish” rather Israel lobby – in a forgotten letter found in the public archives and publicised at the weekend.
“Surely some US president has to have the courage to stand up and take on the Jewish lobby in the US? I must be naive, I suppose!” he wrote to a family friend in 1986.
Today, as recent events illustrate, the lobby is struggling to stay in the shadows. Social media and Palestinians with camera phones have exposed a global audience to systematic abuses by the Israeli army the western media largely ignored. For the first time, Israel supporters sound evasive and dissembling.
Meanwhile, Netanyahu’s strident efforts in the US Congress through 2014 and 2015 to prevent a nuclear accord with Iran dragged the lobby even farther into the light.
The Israel lobby’s dirty tricks in the UK were exposed earlier this year too. An Al Jazeera TV documentary showed Conservative party officials colluding with the Israeli embassy to “take down” Alan Duncan, a foreign office minister who supports the Palestinian cause.
It is noteworthy that Ms Patel’s downfall came about because of social media. Israeli officials like police minister Gilad Erdan were so unused to scrutiny or accountability themselves that they happily tweeted photos with Patel. Erdan is a key player in the lobby, running a “smear unit” to target overseas critics of Israel.
We may never know why Patel so grossly flouted ministerial rules or what she quietly promised in those meetings in Israel. Colleagues have hinted that, in a pattern familiar from US politics, she hoped to win over the lobby and its wealthy donors for a future leadership bid.
There is no way to know, given the lobby’s penchant for secrecy, whether Patel simply proved less adept at treading a path marked out by former Conservative and Labour party leadership hopefuls. But it is also possible that the lobby is discovering changes to the political and cultural environment are making its work much harder.
There is growing hysteria about foreign interference in US and European politics. Is it not time for western states to show as much concern about the malign influence of Israel’s lobbyists as they do about Russian hackers?
A hundred years since Britain's infamous declaration, its repercussions are still felt across the Middle East today.
The Balfour Declaration was a public promise by the British government during World War One, announcing support for the establishment of "a national home for the Jewish people" in Palestine. Palestine was still a part of the Ottoman Empire at the time, with a minority Jewish population.
The 67-word document, in the form of a letter from British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour to the prominent British Jewish figure, Lord Rothschild, dated November 2, 1917, read:
His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.
Whatever its real intentions, the declaration has had a profound impact on the Middle East and its people; and its effects still resonate across the region today.
"Without Britain, the state of Israel wouldn't have been established. No question. Without the Zionists, it wouldn't have been established."
- Motti Golani, historian, Haifa University
The British War Cabinet began to consider the future of Palestine during World War One in which it fought the central powers of Germany, Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire.
According to historian and author Jonathan Schneer, the British somehow "felt that the Jews held the key to winning the war and so they had to figure out how to bribe the Jews to support them."
James Renton of Edge Hill University elaborates on British motives:
"We can boil it down to two elements of British self-interest at that time. Not an emotional interest in Zionism or a love of Jews and the Jewish plight and the desire for return of the Jews to the holy land, no... they wanted to mobilise the allies behind Britain and this idea of Jewish power in the world.
They were all of the different policy elites in the war - believers in the notion that Jews who have tremendous influence in the corridors of power around the globe.
If the British government appeared to support Zionism, they would win over World Jewry to their side, and all that entailed. The British were convinced that Zionism was really at the centre of the Jewish heart."
Whatever its basis, the relationship between the British Zionists and the government was established in late 1916 and continued to develop throughout 1917, leading to the Declaration in November.
It was the first expression of public support for Zionism by a major political power.
"As a term, 'a national home' didn't exist", says Palestinian historian Basheer Nafi. "At that time, international law was well developed. They could have used 'self-governance' or 'independent state'. There was no such a term in international law as 'a national homeland'. What did 'a national home for the Jews in Palestine' mean?"
The term "national home" was intentionally vague as to whether a Jewish state was contemplated. The intended boundaries of Palestine were not specified, and the British government later confirmed that the words "in Palestine" meant that the Jewish national home was not intended to cover all of Palestine.
The second half of the declaration was added to satisfy opponents of the policy, who had claimed that it would otherwise prejudice the position of the local population of Palestine and encourage anti-semitism against Jews worldwide.
While the declaration called for political rights in Palestine for Jews, rights for the Palestinian Arabs, who comprised the vast majority of the local population, were limited to civil and religious rights.
"The Jews were described as a people with the right to self-determination while the Arabs were considered non-Jewish communities," explains French historian Philippe Prevost. "They didn't even mention the name of the Arabs. They were called non-Jewish. They only could enjoy civil and religious rights. They had no political rights."
But the Balfour Declaration set in motion a series of events that, over two decades, began to signal its deep flaws.
The British proposed partitioning Palestine into separate Arab and Jewish states, but Arab dissent built up to the three-year Revolt between 1936 and 1939. It was a nationalist uprising against the British administration, demanding Arab independence and the end of Jewish immigration.
In May 1939, the British government had begun to reconsider its position and published a policy document, known in the UK as a White Paper. It proposed abandoning the partition of Palestine into two states - and called instead for an independent Palestine in which Arabs and Jews would share government.
It limited Jewish immigration to 75,000 for five years and said that the Arab majority should determine future immigration levels. It also said that Balfour had not meant to create a Jewish state at the expense of the Arabs - any more than the McMahon-Hussein correspondence 24 years before had promised an Arab state to Sharif Hussein of Mecca.
But the White Paper faced opposition on several fronts and was dropped by a British government suddenly preoccupied with the Second World War.
A hundred years on, the declaration's effects still resonate across the Middle East. It still represents to Palestinians the moment an imperial power promised their land away to another people. They hold Balfour responsible for their expulsion, displacement and occupation.
May 1st: The Day The Illuminati Slavery System Transferred From Monarchies To The Corporations May 1 2024 | From: Geopolitics / Various
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.
"Although several groups called themselves “Illuminati” in the past, the most influential and memorable of them was the Bavarian Illuminati. Founded on May 1, 1776, the organization created by Adam Weishaupt blurred the line between “spiritual” and “political” Secret Societies.
By mixing the occult sciences of Freemasonry and Rosicrucianism while conspiring to achieve precise political goals, the Illuminati became an actor on the world stage.
While most Secret Societies of the time catered to rich people and their fascination with occultism, the Bavarian Illuminati actively sought to profoundly change the world."
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 Vatican has its own Phallus at the center of the Ovum, and not only the ladies are dancing on its palm, but every living soul on this planet.
Even those who persevered just to get closer to the King and be allowed to enter the temple of the High Priest are mere slaves, too, in the larger scheme of world affairs.
Pope Francis shakes hands with United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon
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.
When The Rockefeller Trilateral Commission Exposed Its Own Secret April 30 2024 | From: JonRappoport / Various
Now and then, I republish an explosive interview with two Rockefeller Trilateral Commission members, highlighting how much political power can be controlled in a few hands.
People often misunderstand how the game works. In the area of US foreign policy, for example, they focus on the long-standing rats’ nest called the State Department.
Well, they should. But that bureaucracy implements policy. It doesn’t really formulate the basics. The basics come from higher on the food chain.
The Globalist movement - within which the Trilateral Commission is a leading force - dictates a “one-world” theme. Separate nations and their power should be melted down and folded into one planet-wide management system.
This system would ultimately determine worldwide production quotas for goods and services, and their distribution. Energy, in particular, is a prime target. How much will be created? Who will benefit? Who will suffer?
The US federal government and other governments around the world had been trying to bring us closer to that “utopian day.”
Who sits in the shadows pulling their strings?
Here is another question that has the same answer: who is in charge of undermining free markets and thus taking down economies? One group has been virtually forgotten. Its influence is enormous. It has existed since 1973.
Keep in mind that the original stated goal of the TC was to create “a new international economic order.”
In 1969, four years before birthing the TC with David Rockefeller, Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote: “[The] nation state as a fundamental unit of man’s organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force. International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation state.”
Goodbye, separate nations.
Any doubt on the question of TC goals is answered by David Rockefeller himself, the founder of the TC, in his Memoirs (2003):
“Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure - one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”
Patrick Wood, author of Trilaterals Over Washington, points out there are only 87 members of the Trilateral Commission who live in America. Obama appointed eleven of them to posts in his administration.
For Example:
Tim Geithner, Treasury Secretary
James Jones, National Security Advisor
Paul Volker, Chairman, Economic Recovery Committee
Dennis Blair, Director of National Intelligence
Here is a stunning piece of forgotten history, a 1978 conversation between a US reporter and two members of the Trilateral Commission. (Source: Trilateralism: The Trilateral Commission and Elite Planning for World Management; ed. by Holly Sklar, 1980, South End Press, Pages 192-3).
The conversation was public knowledge at the time.
Anyone who was anyone in Washington politics, in media, in think-tanks, had access to it. Understood its meaning. But no one shouted from the rooftops. No one used the conversation to force a scandal. No one protested loudly.
The conversation revealed that the entire basis of the US Constitution had been torpedoed, that the people who were running US national policy (which includes trade treaties) were agents of an elite shadow group. No question about it.
And yet: official silence. Media silence. The Dept. of Justice made no moves, Congress undertook no serious inquiries, and the President, Jimmy Carter, issued no statements.
Carter was himself an agent of the Trilateral Commission in the White House. He had been plucked from obscurity by David Rockefeller, and through elite TC press connections, vaulted into the spotlight as a pre-eminent choice for the Presidency.
The 1978 conversation featured reporter, Jeremiah Novak, and two Trilateral Commission members, Karl Kaiser and Richard Cooper. The interview took up the issue of who exactly, during President Carter’s administration, was formulating US economic and political policy.
The careless and off-hand attitude of Trilateralists Kaiser and Cooper is astonishing. It’s as if they’re saying, “What we’re revealing is already out in the open, it’s too late to do anything about it, why are you so worked up, we’ve already won…”
Novak: (the reporter): Is it true that a private [Trilateral committee] led by Henry Owen of the US and made up of [Trilateral] representatives of the US, UK, West Germany, Japan, France and the EEC is coordinating the economic and political policies of the Trilateral countries [which would include the US]?
Cooper: Yes, they have met three times.
Novak:Yet, in your recent paper you state that this committee should remain informal because to formalize ‘this function might well prove offensive to some of the Trilateral and other countries which do not take part.’ Who are you afraid of?
Kaiser: Many countries in Europe would resent the dominant role that West Germany plays at these [Trilateral] meetings.
Cooper: Many people still live in a world of separate nations, and they would resent such coordination [of policy].
Novak: But this [Trilateral] committee is essential to your whole policy. How can you keep it a secret or fail to try to get popular support [for its decisions on how Trilateral member nations will conduct their economic and political policies]?
Cooper: Well, I guess it’s the press’ job to publicize it.
Novak: Yes, but why doesn’t President Carter come out with it and tell the American people that [US] economic and political power is being coordinated by a [Trilateral] committee made up of Henry Owen and six others? After all, if [US] policy is being made on a multinational level, the people should know.
Cooper: President Carter and Secretary of State Vance have constantly alluded to this in their speeches. [a lie]
Kaiser: It just hasn’t become an issue.
This interview slipped under the mainstream media radar, which is to say, it was buried.
US economic and political policy - run by a committee of the Trilateral Commission.
When Jimmy Carter won the presidential election in 1976, his aide, Hamilton Jordan, said that if after the inauguration, Cy Vance and Brzezinski came on board as secretary of state and national security adviser, “We’ve lost. And I’ll quit.”
Lost - because both men were powerful members of the Trilateral Commission and their appointment to key positions would signal a surrender of White House control to the Commission.
Vance and Brzezinski were appointed secretary of state and national security adviser, as Jordan feared. But he didn’t quit. He became Carter’s chief of staff.
Now consider the vast propaganda efforts of the past 40 years, on so many levels, to install the idea that all nations and peoples of the world are a single Collective.
From a very high level of political and economic power, this propaganda op has had the objective of grooming the population for a planet that is one coagulated mass, run and managed by one force. A central engine of that force is the Trilateral Commission.
How does a shadowy group like the TC accomplish its goal? One basic strategy is: destabilize nations; ruin their economies; send millions and millions of manufacturing jobs off to places where virtual slave labor does the work; adding insult to injury, export the cheap products of those slave-factories back to the nations who lost the jobs and undercut their domestic competitors, forcing them to close their doors and fire still more employees.
And then solve that economic chaos by bringing order.
What kind of order?
Eventually, one planet, with national borders erased, under one management system, with a planned global economy, “to restore stability,” “for the good of all, for lasting harmony.”
“I pledge allegiance to the Trilateral Commission, and to the domination for which it stands, one planet, indivisible, with tyranny and poverty and top-down order for all…”
Fundamentals Of Fifth Generation Warfare & Four Years Ago, The March 11 2020 Covid Lockdown: There Never Was A “New Corona Virus”, There Never Was A Pandemic April 29 2024 | From: NZDSOS / Global Research / Various
One year on, we have again been approached by Newsguard, this time Staff Analyst, Andie Slomka, asking us to explain ourselves. This seems an opportune time to re-share our article on Fifth Generation Warfare, and the role that “fact checkers” such as Newsguard play.
Predictably, powerful conflicts of interest are revealed, including Newsguard’s largest corporate investor Publicis Groupe, a World Economic Forum partner representing most major drug companies and tech firms, and using NewsGuard to blacklist competitors.
"NewsGuard, a for-profit fact-checking organization backed by Big Pharma, Big Tech, the teachers union and the U.S. government, has set itself up as the self-appointed global arbiter of what information is “trustworthy.””
We highly recommend this interview with PragerU CEO Marissa Streit, in which she reveals the strategies used by Newsguard staff, who believe that “if it is not endorsed by the World Health Organization [WHO], it is not true“.
This is a curious disclosure given the frameworks WHO and their partners are attempting to build with a focus on becoming the global arbiters of truth.
28 February 2023 Most of us can feel something is not right, but what is it?
"If you go back and look at the historical precedent, whenever a Communist revolution happened, they always started with taking over health care. Whether it was Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, Mao. You name it, they started with health care”.
- Dr Ryan Cole
Fifth Generation Warfare
Censorship and information control have been written into mainstream media and health service policy in recent years. We have outlined the historical precedents to this in previous articles.
The creation and maintenance of these structures are an important feature of ‘fifth generation warfare’, which has been explained in recent times by such experts as Mike Adams, Dr Robert Malone and General Michael Flynn.
Across the globe many scientists and health professionals have had to learn how to navigate the unexpected and often shocking, yet subtle assaults which feature in this warfare.
Perhaps the most shocking of our international colleagues is the story of Canada’s Dr William Makis, who witnessed the unnecessary death of hundreds of patients due to a politicised takeover and subsequent transfer and monetisation of his cancer treatment program.
"… insane falsehoods are being pushed on the population. We are of course, part of a fifth generation, multi-layered war. This war involves disinformation from the very same controllers and globalists who claim that the truth is disinformation.
So if you say something that’s true, that’s called disinformation, while they push lies and falsehoods and claim that’s authoritative facts. That’s just part of fifth generation warfare…”
- Mike Adams
Fifth generation warfare is not fought with traditional weapons. It is fought for the minds of the people using covert techniques, controlling the flow of information.
In fifth generation warfare, while those who are alert and observant may detect that something is not right, or that something is going on, it is not clear what is going on or who the enemy is. Many don’t even know there is an enemy and some are inadvertently helping the enemy.
Citizen rights to hold an independent opinion are steadily eroded as those who dare to speak out face immediate smearing and censorship.
With the health system central to this assault on society, medical and other health professionals who dare to dissent face the most severe repercussions. This is described well by Kara Thomas of the Australian Medical Professionals Society (AMPS), in her recent article Censorship: a threat to public health and safety?
"The current enforced censorship has undermined confidence in public health and continues to pose a serious threat to public health and safety. Censorship kills confidence, destroys trust, costs lives and it must stop.”
Scientists, medical professionals and others speaking out against harmful globalist policy, in New Zealand and across democratic nations, regularly face the wrath of Trusted News Initiative (TNI) media outlets.
Other enforcers of information control exist alongside the TNI, such as Gates-funded journalism grants. Complex networks continue to flourish via these collusions in order to guarantee tight and timely information control.
Anything which challenges politicised authority, married as it now is to corporate and globalist agendas, has been renamed mis- and dis-information, regardless of factual basis.
There is no place for multi-lateral ideas, debate, nuance or dissent.
Only for obedience to those in power, many of whom seem to be obscured by the public face of organisations such as the World Economic Forum (Klaus Schwab), World Health Organisation (Tedros Ghebreyesus), Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and NIAID (Tony Fauci). Some of the more covert czars in this grotesquely fascist structure are referred to in our October 2022 article Israeli Vaccination Program Highlights Horror Holes in the Covid-19 Narrative.
International Wake-Up Call: WHO Plans Insidious Coup in 194 Countries
The harms that citizens across the world are now suffering en masse at the hands of this covert enemy continue to be denied as the information controllers feed relentless ‘safe and effective’ messages, even now for a product that was only tested on eight mice.
What more evidence do we need that those in control consider the majority of us to be dispensable “useless eaters“?
As we are seeing today, the Nazis tested different infringements on society, only advancing when they could see that the majority, personally unaffected as yet, remained submissive.
"[Today] they use euphemisms just as the Nazis did. When the Nazis took away children to murder them, they told the parents that they were going to get ‘special treatment to improve their health’.
The evil is in even the language. Because you say one thing but you mean the exact opposite. And this is happening now. We are told these vaccines are safe and effective.
They haven’t been tested for safe and effective. Nobody knows what’s in the vials and you’re not allowed to find out. How’s that? Everything is secret under Department of Defense.
Why the heck is public health under the Defense Department?!”
- Vera Sharav, Holocaust survivor
In a recent interview with Dr Paul Thomas, human rights activist, investigative filmmaker and author Mikki Willis discussed the tactics used in fifth generation warfare against innocent yet often simultaneously complicit civilians.
There is nothing new to any of this; history is awash with similarly contrived assaults on the people, by the people, manipulated by psychopathic entities who stand to benefit from the turmoil.
That this is a coordinated, militarised attack has become common knowledge thanks to the collaborative research of pharmaceutical executive Sasha Latypova and paralegal Katherine Watt.
"The whole game is division … The vast majority are not behind it, they’re just going along with it … When Hitler, all the dictators and totalitarian leaders, hypnotised the people into doing their dirty work.
The same as Big Pharma has done. Who fights for Big Pharma? The people! … You can’t say anything about these horrific drugs that are killing humanity in record numbers, because Big Pharma has done such a great job at pretending to be the saviour…”
- Mikki Willis
NZDSOS are an ever-expanding group of over 200 professionals from a variety of science and medical backgrounds, working on a largely voluntary basis within a growing global network of like-minded professionals, to resist the public-private partnerships overtaking independent and ethical health research and services.
We oppose the Covid-19 injections, and the demolition of ethical medicine by our medical council at the behest of overseas interests. This places us in the direct firing line of corporate media assigned specifically to seek out and shut down dissent.
It is not unusual for NZDSOS to be approached by paid smear campaigners who claim to be “fact checking” medical information. Instead of engaging in healthy information exchange, these staffers who rarely if ever have any health related background, merely write hit-pieces.
NZ Police Shown Clearly To Let Down People of New Zealand
Open Letter Sent to NZ Police.
On the 5th of March 2021 Senior Police Constable Dan Picknell, an experienced frontline officer with over 19 years service, raised serious concerns formally with Police Commissioner Andrew Coster about the New Zealand Government’s COVID-19 Health Response, highlighting potential criminality and harms to the New Zealand Public as a result.
Subsequently, senior Constable Dan Picknell had numerous interactions with senior police leaders up until his resignation from New Zealand Police in early June 2022 around the concerns raised, as well as the actions of Commissioner Coster and other Police staff.
During this time NZ Police were not willing to investigate or consider any of the issues identified, in particular harms caused by COVID-19 injections, despite over 66,000 New Zealanders having reported adverse reactions to CARM from minor health issues through to serious injury and death.
Any other medical product with this level of harm would have been removed in a very short time.
NZDSOS is very familiar with this pattern of obfuscation and denial from NZ Police, having reported many specific cases of sudden death shortly following COVID-19 injections to them, with a request for investigation. Read the full article here.
We wonder if they understand the human consequences of their role in today’s increasingly aggressive fifth generation warfare and its intent to establish a global fascist state?
One example is NewsGuard, an American based “news rating agency” occupied with identifying and alerting the public to “disinformation”.
According to their website, their named partners include the US Department of Defense, World Health Organisation and Microsoft.
Given what is known about the corrupted role of these players in the pandemic industry and broader fifth generation warfare involving other issues such as paediatric gender identity and climate change, this seems a very well funded and particularly unholy alliance?
NZDSOS were recently approached by a NewsGuard staffer with a Bachelor of Arts degree, warning us of an imminent strike.
We must be cutting close to the bone to have attracted the attention of such a well-connected American corporation?
Webb describes a colour-coding system used by NewsGuard to rate the reliability of online news sites which resembles the US terror threat-level warning system that was created after 9/11.
This was managed by then-secretary of Homeland Security, Tom Ridge, who now sits on the Advisory Board of NewsGuard.
Such colour coding is also reminiscent of New Zealand’s Covid-19 “traffic light system”. An interesting coincidence given the involvement of our intelligence services in attempting to impose a system of information control enforced by the people, against the people, in relation to Covid-19 “disinformation”.
"In the last three years you have been subjected to the most massive, harmonised, globally coordinated propaganda campaign in the history of the western world …
With this campaign the governments of many western nation states have turned …
military grade psychological operation strategies, tactics, technologies and capabilities, developed for modern military combat, against their own citizens…”
- Dr Robert Malone
Three years ago, many at NZDSOS believed that if we spoke out within our scope of professional knowledge and experience, the authorities would at least listen, perhaps even learn and then hopefully redirect their flawed pandemic response.
Instead, what followed was hard to fathom as those employed to protect citizens aggressively assaulted the population in lockstep with national governments across the ‘democratic’ world.
Click on the image above to view a larger version in a new window
As ethical medical professionals in the firing line we have become armed with far better geopolitical insight than the likes of John Gregory, as they undertake the dirty work of their distant puppet masters.
As time goes on, and with the international expertise and support of our alliances, the blurred focus of this fifth generation warfare becomes increasingly sharper.
Fifth Generation Warfare and Third Party Fact Checkers
Hattotuwa is allegedly an “information disorders” expert who holds no medical (or other science) qualifications. He describes a traumatic childhood in Sri Lanka where he honed his art on his own fellow citizens, before turning his sights on New Zealanders.
Hattotuwa has been the recipient of multiple private project grants throughout his career. As well as smaller endowments, he names three academic fellowships sponsored by highly networked entities.
Ashoka: whose multiple corporate partners include Google (heavily invested in vaccines); the world’s biggest consulting firm, McKinsey (heavily involved in guiding global governments through the pandemic response, and steeped in controversy); and the Schwab Foundation of World Economic Forum renown.
Going by Hattotuwa’s profile alone, the Disinformation Project appear to be third party fact checkers working for the globalist establishment whilst posing as “independent researchers”.
Do they network with NewsGuard and other “fact checkers” with larger audiences, to intimidate New Zealanders into silence and compliance?
New Zealand COVID whistleblower Barry Young joined The Alex Jones Show alongside guest Steve Kirsch in an interview following his arrest for releasing damning Covid vaccine data to the world.
Author and investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson provides intelligent analysis of the propaganda tactics employed by fifth generation warfare warriors such as Dr Hattotuwa, the Disinformation Project and NewsGuard.
"Third parties that have no information or knowledge that’s any more special than anybody else, stepping in with information they may know nothing about, but they have interests that are pushing them, or supporting them, or that they are acting on behalf of. Political and corporate interests …
… Every time you see a major campaign to controversialise … an outlet … a reporter … where there are attacks and accusations and a lot of attention is being paid to it, and efforts to pull the information off social media.
That should make us pay more attention to it. That’s a signal, a tell, saying that there are powerful interests trying to not let you make up your own mind about this information …
… The most important, single thing people can do, is to speak up and not be bullied by the people that want to keep the voices silent … don’t be cow-towed into not speaking out…”
Four Years Ago, The March 11 2020 Covid Lockdown: There Never Was A “New Corona Virus”, There Never Was A Pandemic
Fake science was supportive of this devastating agenda. The lies were sustained by a massive media disinformation campaign. 24/7, Incessant and Repetitive “Covid alerts”.
Four Years Ago the Covid-19 Lockdown was imposed in one fell swoop by national governments Worldwide.
The Lockdown implied: “Confining the Labour Force” and “Freezing the Work Place”.
Not a single economist has acknowledged this relationship.
From their standpoint, it was the virus which triggered economic and social collapse. What nonsense.
What does this imply.
The most serious economic and social crisis in World history. Four years later, this crisis is still ongoing, leading to economic chaos and mass poverty Worldwide.
- Michel Chossudovsky, March 11, 2024
Author’s Message to Readers
This article focussing on the alleged novel coronavirus is among the most important articles I have written.
There is an element of simplicity and common sense in the text. My objective is that this article will be extensively read and debated at the grassroots of society, not only by scientists and medical doctors. The complexity of this crisis is overwhelming. This is not solely a “Public Health Crisis”.
The implications are far-reaching because the article refutes and invalidates ‘everything” pertaining to the Covid pandemic. These include the policies related to The Lockdown and the Covid-19 “Vaccine”, not to mention the infamous Pandemic Treaty and The World Economic Forum’s “Great Reset”.
The official “corona narrative” is predicated on a “Big Lie” endorsed by corrupt politicians.
That “official consensus” is exceedingly fragile. Our intent is to precipitate its collapse “like a house of cards”.
Our objective is to save lives including those of newly born babies who are the victims of the Covid-19 “Vaccine”.
At this juncture in our history, the priority is to “Disable the Fear Campaign” and “Cancel the Vaccine” (including the repeal of the so-called “Pandemic Treaty”).
Hopefully this will set the stage for the development of a Worldwide movement of solidarity, which questions the legitimacy of the powerful “Big Money” financial elites which are behind this infamous project.
Dear Readers, please forward this article and the video far and wide.
“Get off that crazy train. I know, it is scary, it can hurt. Take back your physical and intellectual autonomy and protect your children.” - Dr. Pascal Sacré, Belgian author and Medical Doctor, November 2021.
“Hell is empty and the devils are all here.” - William Shakespeare, “The Tempest”, 1623
My response to Shakespeare: “Send the devils back to where they belong.”
“When the Lie Becomes the Truth, There Is No Moving Backwards.”
"One of the most painful signs of years of dumbed-down education is how many people are unable to make coherent argument.
They can vent their emotions, question other peoples motives, make bold assertions, and repeat slogans....... anything except reason.”
- Thomas Sowell
Introduction
Destabilizing the social, political and economic structure of 190 sovereign countries cannot constitute a “solution” to combating a novel coronavirus which mysteriously emerged in Wuhan, Hubei province (PRC) in late December 2019.
That was the imposed “solution” - implemented in several stages from the very outset–, leading to The March 11, 2020 Lockdown and the Rollout of a so-called Covid 19 “Vaccine” in December 2020, which since its inception has resulted in an upward trend in excess mortality.
It’s the destruction of people’s lives Worldwide. It is the destabilization of civil society.
Fake science was supportive of this devastating agenda. The lies were sustained by a massive media disinformation campaign. 24/7, Incessant and Repetitive “Covid alerts” in the course of more than three years.
The historic March 11, 2020 lockdown triggered economic and social chaos Worldwide. It was an act of “economic warfare”: a war against humanity.
The official story is that a dangerous NEW VIRUS was detected in Wuhan, Hubei Province, China in December 2019. It was entitled 2019-nCoVwhich stands for “2019 New (n) Corona (Co) Virus (V)”.
On January 1, 2020, “the Chinese health authorities closed the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market in Wuhan following Western media reports claiming that wild animals sold there may have been the source of the virus.
As of early January 2020, it was the object of extensive media coverage and an unfolding Worldwide fear campaign. Media disinformation went into high gear.
“The Chinese authorities (allegedly) “identified a new type of virus” on January 7, 2020, using the RT-PCR test. No specific details were provided regarding the process of isolation of the virus.
The alleged new virus was actively debated at the World Economic Forum (WEF), meeting in Davos Switzerland (January 22, 2020).
Proposed by the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) an entity financed by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, a 2019-nCoV vaccine program was put forth. Announced at Davos, Seattle-based Moderna (with the support of CEPI) was to manufacture an mRNA vaccine to build immunity against 2019-nCoV.
The evidence as well as the statements at Davos suggest that the 2019-nCoV vaccine project was already underway in early 2019. And CEPI had foreknowledge regarding the announcement of the 2019 nCoV. (Michel Chossudovsky, Chapter VIII).
Note: The development of a 2019 nCoV vaccine was announced at Davos, 2 weeks after the January 7, 2020 announcement, and barely a week prior to the official launching of the WHO’s Worldwide Public Health emergency on January 30. The WEF-Gates-CEPI Vaccine Announcement precedes the WHO Public Health Emergency (PHEIC)
All of this was unfolding at a time when the alleged new corona virus had not been isolated, it’s identity had not been confirmed and the number of reported cases in China was exceedingly low: “As of 3 January 2020, there were 44 cases reported, 11 are severely ill, while the remaining 33 patients are in stable condition (WHO Report).
And then on January 30th, 2020, the Director General of the WHO Dr. Tedros declared a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) with absolutely no evidence of a threatening epidemic.
On that same day there were 83 positive cases Worldwide out of China for a population of 6.4 billion people. See table below: 5 positive cases in the U.S, 3 in Canada, 4 in France and 4 in Germany.
And those cases were based on the RT-Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) Test which does not detect the identity of the virus. (See Appendix).
Screenshot from WHO, January 29, 2020. Number of confirmed positive cases in US, Canada, France and Germany
Three weeks later at a press conference on the 20th of February 2020 the WHO Director-General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesusintimated that the pandemic was imminent:
"[I am] concerned that the chance to contain the coronavirus outbreak was “closing”…
“I believe the window of opportunity is still there, but that the window is narrowing.”
What was the evidence put forth by Dr. Tedros in support of his bold statement?
On February 20, 2020, there were only 1076 confirmed cases outside China (including those of the Diamond Princess Cruise Ship stranded in Japan’s territorial waters).
March 11, 2020: The historic COVID-19 pandemic lockdown, “Closing Down” of approximately 190 National Economies
The WHO Director-General had already set the stage in his February 21st Press Conference.
“The world should do more to prepare for a possible coronavirus pandemic.”
The WHO officially declared a worldwide pandemic at a time when there were 44,279 (cumulative) positive Covid cases outside China for a population of 6.4 billion. (For details see Michel Chossudovsky, Chapter II)
The WHO initially adopted exactly the same acronym (to designate the novel coronavirus) to that of the Johns Hopkins simulated Pandemic Event 201 Exercise.
The name of the new coronavirus was (with the exception of the placement of 2019) identical to that of the Event 201 simulation.
Attended by prominent personalities, it was held on October 18, 2019, less than three months before the announcement in early January 2020 of a new coronavirus.
Among the participants, were representatives (aka. decision-makers) from the WHO, US Intelligence, the Gates Foundation, the Global Alliance on Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI) (financed by the Gates Foundation), the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), the World Economic Forum (WEF), the United Nations, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), China’s Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC, Director Dr. George Fu Gao), Big Pharma, the World Bank, among others.
These various organizations played a key role when the so-called pandemic went live in early 2020. Many features of the 201 “simulation exercise” did in fact correspond to what actually happened when the WHO Director-General launched a Global Public Health Emergency (PHEIC) on January 30, 2020.
Moreover, the sponsors of Event 201 - including the WEF and the Gates Foundation - as well the participants were actively involved from the very outset in coordinating (and financing) COVID-19-related policies including the RT-PCR test, the March 2020 lockdown as well as as the mRNA vaccine, launched in December 2020.
China’s CDC Director Dr. George Fu Gao –who participated in the 201 simulation - played a central role in overseeing the COVID-19 outbreak in Wuhan in early 2020, acting in close liaison with his mentor Dr. Anthony Fauci, as well as with the Gates Foundation, CEPI, et al.
Dr. Gao Fu is an Oxford graduate with links to Big Pharma. He was also for several years a fellow of the Wellcome Trust.
The Mysterious “Identity of the Virus”
The name of the virus was first identified:
October 2020: 201 Simulation Scenario October 2020: nCoV-2019
December 2019, Wuhan: 2019-nCoV
And then mysteriously another change in the name of the virus took place on February 11, 2020.
from 2019-nCoV to SARS-CoV-2, which stands for “Severe acute respiratory syndrome”: SARS – Corona (Co) Virus(V)-2.
There was no longer a “n” prefix (indicating that it was a NEW VIRUS). The “n” prefix was replaced by a “2” suffix.
What is the meaning of SARS-CoV-2. More specifically what is the meaning of the mysterious “2” suffix? It pertains to a 20 year old virus entitled:
2003 -SARS-CoV, which can by no means be categorized as a NEW VIRUS.
“the Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) is a viral respiratory disease caused by a SARS-associated coronavirus.
It was first identified at the end of February 2003 [more than 20 years ago] during an outbreak that emerged in China and spread to 4 other countries. …
A worldwide outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) has been associated with exposures originating from a single ill health care worker from Guangdong Province, China.
We conducted studies to identify the etiologic agent of this outbreak.
… a novel coronavirus was isolated from patients who met the case definition of SARS. …
Consensus coronavirus primers designed to amplify a fragment of the polymerase gene by reverse transcription - polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) were used to obtain a sequence that clearly identified the isolate as a unique coronavirus only distantly related to previously sequenced coronaviruses."
What is significant in this report is that the WHO confirmed that the novel 2003 coronavirus entitled 2003 SARS-CoV had been isolated from patients’ samples, identified and designated “severe acute respiratory syndrome” in March 2003.
The WHO also confirms that:
“The case fatality among persons with illness … for probable and suspected cases of SARS is around 3%” ( See Appendix)."
Absence of an Isolate of the “New 2019 Virus (2019-nCoV)”
While the 2003 SARS-CoV was duly isolated, the WHO acknowledged in January 2020 that it did not have an isolate and purified sample of the new 2019 coronavirus from an infected patient, which meant that they were unable to confirm the identity of the (“dangerous”) 2019 novel coronavirus entitled 2019-nCoV. That was the reason given. Sounds Absurd.
How was this matter resolved. Following advice from the Gates Foundation, the WHO was in liaison with the Berlin Virology Institute at Charité Hospital.
Under the scientific guidance of Dr. Christian Drosten, the Berlin Virology study was entitled:
“The genome sequences suggest presence of a virus closely related to the members of a viral species termed severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-related CoV, a species defined by the agent of the 2002/03 outbreak of SARS in humans [3,4].
We report on the the establishment and validation of a diagnostic workflow for 2019-nCoV screening and specific confirmation [using the RT-PCR test], designed in absence of available virus isolates or original patient specimens.
Design and validation were enabled by the close genetic relatedness to the 2003 SARS-CoV, and aided by the use of synthetic nucleic acid technology.”
What this ambiguous statement suggests is that the identity of 2019-nCoV was not required and that “COVID-19 confirmed cases” (aka infection resulting from the 2019 novel coronavirus) would be validated by “the close genetic relatedness to the 2003 SARS-CoV.”
How could the new virus be categorized as similar without having been identified, i.e. without an “isolate"?
Moreover, bear in mind that while the PCR test does not detect the virus, it detects genetic fragments (of numerous viruses).
What this means is that a coronavirus detected 20 years ago (at the time of writing) in Guangdong Province (2003 SARS-CoV) has been used to “validate” the identity of a so-called “novel coronavirus” first detected in China’s Hubei Province in late December 2019.
The recommendations of the Drosten study (financed with a grant of $249,000 from the Gates Foundation) were then transmitted to the WHO.
They were subsequently endorsed by the Director- General of the WHO, Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus.
The WHO did not have in its possession the “virus isolate” required to identify the new virus.
“Never mind”. It was decided that an isolate of the new coronavirus was not required.
It stands to reason that if the PCR test uses the 2003 SARS-CoV virus as a proxy or “point of reference”, there can be no “confirmed” cases pertaining to the novel coronavirus 2019-nCoV.
Amply documented, the RT-PCR test detects genetic fragments of numerous viruses without being able to identify the virus. See our review of the RT- PCR in the Appendix of this article.
The significance and ambiguity of the WHO decision - following the advice of the Berlin Virology Institute - namely the issue of the “isolate” of the novel coronavirus have been casually overlooked.
“No Questions Asked”
The British Media reported on February 6, 2020 the change in the name of the virus:
"[The] Deadly coronavirus will FINALLY get a name: Scientists plan to officially label the disease ‘within days’ – but it won’t be called after any places or animals. The International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses has submitted a name …""
Big Money, Big Pharma. Patent Rights
Let’s bear in mind: The Covid Crisis which is still ongoing is a Big Money Operation Worldwide, with numerous Big Pharma products, extending from the global misuse of the RT-PCR test, to the multibillion dollar Big Pharma vaccine project, largely dominated by Pfizer.
Was the change in the name of the virus to SARS-CoV-2 an issue of “royalties” and intellectual property rights? The U.S Patent Rights, pertaining to 2003 SARS-CoV was filed in April 2004 and assigned in May 2007 to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services:
Patent No.: US 7,220,852 B1 Date of Patent: May 22 2007. (This is a matter for further investigation.)
“The Big Lie” and the “Non-Existent New Virus”. What Are the Consequences?
As documented above (confirmed by the WHO) the new 2019 corona virus was never identified.
The use of a 20 year old virus entitled 2003 SARS-CoV as a proxy for the alleged new virus confirms that there was NO PANDEMIC resulting from a NEW CORONAVIRUS in January-March 2020.
THERE WAS NO “NEW VIRUS”.
What this signifies is that the both the Devastating Lockdown policies imposed on 190 countries (March 11, 2020) as well the Worldwide Rollout of the Covid-19 Vaccine (mid December 2020) are fraudulent.
They are based on a “Big Lie”, which has contributed in the course of almost four years to literally destroying people’s lives.
The unspoken truth is that the novel coronavirus has provided a pretext and a justification to powerful financial interests and corrupt politicians to precipitate the entire world into a spiral of mass unemployment, bankruptcy, extreme poverty and despair.
The lockdown was an act of economic and social warfare. The labor force was confined, the work place is frozen, leading to an engineered Worldwide economic collapse.
This crisis is by no means over. The entire World is currently strangled in the Most Serious Debt Crisis in World history. All categories of indebtedness (private and public).
In the words of the WEF billionaires to those who are loosing their homes or cannot pay their monthly rent: their motto is:
“Own Nothing Be Happy”.
The mRNA “Vaccine” Intended to Protect People against a “Non Existent New Virus”
Amply documented the mRNA “vaccine” which was intended to protect people against this non-existent new coronavirus renamed SARS-nCoV-2 has resulted in an upward trend in excess mortality.
Below is a summary of an incisive study pertaining to Cancer Related Excess Mortality in England and Wales resulting from the mRNA Vaccine conducted by the team of Edward Dowd.
Dowd’s method was to analyze the number of deaths attributed to cancer in England and Wales between 2010 and 2022 (based on the data of the U.K. Office for National Statistics).
The table below pertains to excess deaths related to malignant neoplasm (cancerous tumor) in England and Wales, recorded in three consecutive years: 2020, 2021, and 2022 vs. a 10 year trend (2010-2019).
The data for excess mortality in 2020 (the year prior to the vaccine) are negative with the exception of “malignant neoplasm without specification of site”.
The upward movement in excess mortality (%) commences in 2021. The increase in excess mortality related to malignant neoplasm is tabulated for the two first years of the vaccine.
We are being accused of “spreading disinformation” regarding the COVID-19 vaccine.
The Reuters and AP media “trackers” and “fact checkers” will be out to smear the testimonies of parents who have lost their children.
“Once the Lie becomes the Truth, there is no moving backwards. Insanity prevails. The world is turned upside down.”
Let us be under no illusions, the COVID Jab is not only “experimental,” it’s a Big Pharma “killer vaccine” which modifies the human genome. The evidence of mortality and morbidity resulting from vaccine inoculation both present (official data) and future (e.g. undetected microscopic blood clots) is overwhelming.
The official data (mortality and morbidity) as well as numerous scientific studies confirm the nature of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine which is being imposed on all humanity.
Peer reviewed reports confirm the causes of vaccine related deaths and “adverse events” (injuries) including among others blood clots, thrombosis, myocarditis, cardiac arrests.
The stated objective is to enforce the Worldwide vaccination of 8 billion people in more than 190 countries, to be followed by the imposition of a digitized “vaccine passport”. Needless to say this is a multi-billion dollar operation for Big Pharma. It’s a crime against humanity.
The global vaccine project entitled COVAX is coordinated Worldwide by the WHO, GAVI, CEPI, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation in liaison with the World Economic Forum (WEF), the Wellcome Trust, DARPA and Big Pharma which is increasingly dominated by the Pfizer-GSK partnership established barely four months before the onset of the Covid-19 crisis in early January 2020.
Below is a similar table pertaining to Excess Mortality in Germany, which points to the Deviation of Observed Mortality from Expected Mortality (by age group) in 2020, 2021, and 2022.
Notice the upward shift in excess mortality in 2021 and 2022 following the rollout of the Covid Vaccine in December 2020.
Excess Mortality in Red by age group, Total Excess Mortality in Grey
Media Disinformation, Boldface Lies
There are numerous studies on excess mortality resulting from the vaccine, which are ignored by the media.
Invariably the Press reports state with authority that it is the virus which is “dangerous”or “deadly”, when in fact it is the “Vaccine” which has triggered an upward trend in mortality.
The Daily Mail (February 6, 2020) refers to a “deadly coronavirus” intimating that it is spreading Worldwide.
The dangerous virus designation is a boldface LIE:
Confirmed by the WHO, the CDC and peer reviewed reports, the 2019 nCoV-19 is not dangerous.
Liberty Or Freedom April 28 2024 | From: Omnithought / Various
The phrase ‘Liberty or Freedom’ implies distinction, in particular, that liberty does not mean freedom. Today there tends to be a little difference between the two.
Freedom describes one’s ability to act according to his or her wish without any external pressure.
Liberty is the more commonly used word, which presumes to mean freedom, but seldom is recognised as contingent upon a legal framework.
Liberty
From the etymological source, ‘liberty’ denotes the legal status of a full member in a tribe or society. Membership may be an inherited status, alternatively one that is acquired through adoption or as an official favour.
The word liberty is from the Latin word ‘libertas,’ which means a ‘descendent,’ being one who enjoys the same social position enjoyed by their predecessors.
In todays political society, it typically is an attribute of citizenship, which is a construction of government. Liberty refers to permissions shared by people of a community or a state as they apply to its government.
In general, liberty is a fundamental attribute that provides one the ability to do what he or she wants. The real issue is, who exactly is to provide this attribute.
It surely is not a natural gift, a natural right to do as one wants. For any given government controlled society it is necessary to examine its legal codes to ascertain the extent of one’s liberty. Liberty in one society may be very different from that in another.
Thus statism enters the picture.
Statism
"Statism is the idea that the ruler should have not only the power to rule (as supreme commander in times of war, as diplomat, and as judge in some but not necessarily all disputes among his subjects) but also the power to govern.
A medieval ruler ruled his realm but did not govern anything within it except his own household or economy.
Government (as distinct from rule) was a matter of private housekeeping. Every household had its own government.
However, political or public government originated in the cities, when patrician families and, later, professional associations began to think of their city as a single household or economy under their management."
That quotation explains the origins of statism and the foundations of what we call liberty.
Freedom
In vibrant contrast to ‘liberty,’ ‘freedom’ does not connote a social position or status. Freedom is not a legal concept. Its origins belong to the field of natural law studies, specifically those concerning order and disorder in person-to-person or convivial relations.
The aforementioned differs widely from order and disorder in social structures or organisations where individuals are occupants of socially defined positions.
Freedom derives from its etymological roots in the word ‘free’, an old Indian word ‘priya,’ meaning friend. Its Latin forms included ‘privus’ meaning exceptional or standing apart. Altogether these meanings in proper context refer to someone or something having no burdens of any type; no external imposed obligations or interferences.
Freedom defines a state in which one is capable of doing according to his or her wishes without any external obligations.
"Freedom is freedom among likes. A free man is ‘his own man’; he belongs to himself and to no other natural or artificial person.
Hence, a natural person, being free by nature, is a free person everywhere, even where his freedom is not respected. One’s nature does not change merely because others fail to respect it, but one’s liberty is nothing else than what the rule makers in one’s society declare it to be."
Only now can freedom and liberty be equated. On the one hand, we have natural persons and their convivial order. Otherwise are artificial persons and legal orders.
This difference exposes the fundamental divide in the philosophy of the human world, namely whether ‘society’ should be a fit place for humans to live freely. Alternatively, human nature must bow and be moulded to a social correctness that prescribes liberty.
Apathetic Indifference
Much as the word ego is falsely ascribed all too often, as mentioned in my last post, so the words liberty and freedom are used ambiguously, notwithstanding that freedom is the highest form of liberty to exist.
"In a high-tech age that has seen the creation of artificial intelligence by computers, we are also seeing the creation of artificial stupidity by people who call themselves educators.
Educational institutions created to pass on to the next generation the knowledge, experience and culture of the generations that went before them have instead been turned into indoctrination centers to promote whatever notions, fashions or ideologies happen to be in vogue among today’s intelligentsia.’"
- Thomas Sowell
To be consciously aware these days is sufficient for many. Beliefs are held as knowledge, even understanding. Slowly but surely the populace is being intellectually dumbed down.
Critical thinking and inquiry are dying. We suffer from inattention, and lack of intention, lack of critical focus. So-called leaders, encourage indifference. AI fosters apathy and disconnection.
The less we think and the less we challenge the status quo, the easier it is to further poison thought, and deplete critical analysis.
What exactly do we want - freedom or apathetic endurance of permission to exist? At whose cost?
The Importance Of Having A Breakdown April 27 2024 | From: TheBookOfLife / Various
One of the great problems of human beings is that we’re far too good at keeping going. We’re experts at surrendering to the demands of the external world, living up to what is expected of us and getting on with the priorities as others around us define them.
We keep showing up and being an excellent boy or girl – and we can pull this magical feat off for up to decades at a time, without so much as an outward twitch or crack.
Until, suddenly, one day, much to everyone’s surprise, including our own, we break. The rupture can take many forms. We can no longer get out bed. We fall into a catatonic depression. We develop all-consuming social anxiety. We refuse to eat. We babble incoherently. We lose command over part of our body.
We are compelled to do something extremely scandalous and entirely contrary to our normal selves. We become wholly paranoid in a given area. We refuse to play by the usual rules in our relationship, we have an affair, ramp up the fighting – or otherwise poke a very large stick in the wheels of day-to-day life.
Breakdowns are hugely inconvenient for everyone and so, unsurprisingly, there is an immediate rush to medicalise the problem and attempt to excise it from the scene, so that business as usual can restart.
But this is to misunderstand what is going on when we break down. A breakdown is not merely a random piece of madness or malfunction, it is a very real – albeit very inarticulate – bid for health.
It is an attempt by one part of our minds to force the other into a process of growth, self-understanding and self - development which it has hitherto refused to undertake. If we can put it paradoxically, it is an attempt to jumpstart a process of getting well, properly well, through a stage of falling very ill.
The danger, therefore, if we merely medicalise a breakdown and attempt to shift it away at once is that we will miss the lesson embedded within our sickness.
A breakdown isn’t just a pain, though it is that too of course; it is an extraordinary opportunity to learn.
The reason we break down is that we have not, over years, flexed very much. There were things we needed to hear inside our minds that we deftly put to one side, there were messages we needed to heed, bits of emotional learning and communicating we didn’t do – and now, after being patient for so long, far too long, the emotional self is attempting to make itself heard in the only way it now knows how.
It has become entirely desperate – and we should understand and even sympathise with its mute rage.
What the breakdown is telling us above anything else is that it must no longer be business as usual – that things have to change or (and this can be properly frightening to witness) that death might be preferable.
Why can’t we simply listen to the emotional need calmly and in good time – and avoid the melodrama of a breakdown? Because the conscious mind is inherently lazy and squeamish and so reluctant to engage with what the breakdown eventually has to tell it with brutality.
For years, it refuses to listen to a particular sadness; or there is a dysfunction in a relationship it is in flight from or there are desires it sweeps very far under the proverbial carpet.
We can compare the process to a revolution.
For years, the people press the government to listen to their demands and adjust. For years, the government makes token gestures but shuts its ears – until one day, it is simply too much for the people, who storm the palace gates, destroy the fine furnishings and shoot randomly at the innocent and the guilty.
Mostly, in revolutions, there is no good outcome. The legitimate grievances and needs of the people are not addressed or even discovered. There is an ugly civil war – sometimes, literally, suicide. The same is true of breakdowns.
Yet a good mental physician tries hard to listen to rather than censor the illness. They detect within its oddities a plea for more time for ourselves, for a closer relationship, for a more honest, fulfilled way of being, for acceptance for who we really are sexually… That is why we started to drink, or to become reclusive or to grow entirely paranoid or manically seductive.
A crisis represents an appetite for growth that hasn’t found another way of expressing itself. Many people, after a horrific few months or years of breakdown, will say: ‘I don’t know how I’d ever have gotten well if I hadn’t fallen ill’.
In the midst of a breakdown, we often wonder whether we have gone mad. We have not. We’re behaving oddly no doubt, but beneath the surface agitation, we are on a hidden yet logical search for health.
We haven’t become ill; we were ill already.
Our crisis, if we can get through it, is an attempt to dislodge us from a toxic status quo and an insistent call to rebuild our lives on a more authentic and sincere basis.
The USA Was Never A Real Democracy, Nor Was It Ever Meant To Be April 26 2024 | From: TheMilleniumReport / Various
The British-controlled political parties, Vatican-based Jesuits and Zionist Neocons & Neoliberals ensured the complete takeover of the U.S. Federal Government and installation of a plutocratic oligarchy overseen by the Black Nobility.
i) The overtly treasonous U.S. Intelligence Community especially the C.I.A.,
ii) The criminal intent and naked negligence of the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
iii) The numerous traitors and foreign agents in the U.S. Congress,
iv) The thoroughly corrupt Obama Administration & Clinton Crime Family, and (v) the countless Deep State operatives who infest every organ of government, to name just a few examples of Black Nobility tyranny in America.
To apprehend the sheer enormity and profundity of this fundamentally global Khazarian conspiracy see: New World Order: Creation of The Venetian Black Nobility and Committee of 300. The Founding Fathers quite intentionally did not establish the United States of America as a Democracy. They knew from the get-go that putting such a meretricious political principle into governmental practice was nothing more than a disaster-in-the-making.
America’s leaders since World War II have made a big deal about nation-building by exporting their fraudulent version of democracy for specific reasons. They were all aware of the fact that such an inherently defective political economy was quite easy manipulated when democracy was the foundation.
Every one of those U.S. presidents knew that American democracy was a total fraud and would eventually morph into a dictatorship and/or national security state. As it has in 2017. Even the POTUS is now being held captive by the all-powerful Deep State.
Key Points: The very concept of democracy is highly misunderstood by the vast majority of people everywhere.
They fail to realize that all it takes is a little social engineering by the wealthy elites to deceive the citizenry.
This can be accomplished via mainstream media mind-control programming in tandem with legislating various financial incentives and economic benefits.
It is these “carrots”, along with various and sundry “sticks”, that are routinely used to manipulate a majority of the voters to the great detriment of the nation. Once these citizens are sufficiently corralled into a certain pen of unrighteous compliance, they’re no longer real patriots for fear of losing their “welfare”.
The real peril associated with this very common predicament emerges when unjust or immoral laws are put into effect.
This fatal flaw of the democratic system really rears its ugly head when the ignorant and mean-spirited mob effectively gives their consent to the arrogant and corrupt politicians. There’s nothing more dangerous than an unruly mob which has empowered a tyrannical government, and vice versa.
What the Founding Fathers intuitively knew - if they had formed a true democracy - is that citizens would eventually vote into office those fraudsters who promised them everything - FOR FREE .
Obama is a perfect example of this inherently communist ideology in democratic clothing. So was “empty promises” Bernie Sanders, a true communist if ever there was one in U.S. presidential election history.
The bottom line is that democracy, especially one where every vote is really counted, will always degenerate into mob rule. Again, Obama’s 2 terms demonstrated the utter lawlessness and pervasive anarchy that reigns when the mob (both literally and figuratively) takes over.
He promised his various constituencies their “Sodom and Gomorrah”, and they loved him for it. That’s why President Trump truly inherited an Obamanation.
The historical record clearly indicates that the elites will always use their power and wealth and influence to manipulate the electorate into voting against their own interest. By stealthily manufacturing consent in this manner - election cycle after election cycle - the power elite guarantees an inexorable dumbing down of the body politic.
This is why the Founding Fathers formed the United States as a Constitutional Republic. They knew that the many built-in checks and balances were the only ways to keep the newly constructed American ship of state from foundering or running aground. As it has today!
That’s because the U.S. Constitution has been unlawfully trashed as the American Republic has been taken over by political barbarians (also known as Bolsheviks).
The good news is that the Alt Media has completely exposed the globalists and their New World Order agenda. The Internet has leveled the playing field like never before. Hence, it’s only a matter of time as to when the Global Control Matrix dissolves into history.
N.B. With this understanding, the following commentary is somewhat on target, but without addressing the much bigger picture.
The U.S. Is Not A Democracy, It Never Was
One of the most steadfast beliefs regarding the United States is that it is a democracy. Whenever this conviction waivers slightly, it is almost always to point out detrimental exceptions to core American values or foundational principles.
For instance, aspiring critics frequently bemoan a “loss of democracy” due to the election of clownish autocrats, draconian measures on the part of the state, the revelation of extraordinary malfeasance or corruption, deadly foreign interventions, or other such activities that are considered undemocratic exceptions.
The same is true for those whose critical framework consists in always juxtaposing the actions of the U.S. government to its founding principles, highlighting the contradiction between the two and clearly placing hope in its potential resolution.
The problem, however, is that there is no contradiction or supposed loss of democracy because the United States simply never was one. This is a difficult reality for many people to confront, and they are likely more inclined to immediately dismiss such a claim as preposterous rather than take the time to scrutinize the material historical record in order to see for themselves.
Such a dismissive reaction is due in large part to what is perhaps the most successful public relations campaign in modern history.
What will be seen, however, if this record is soberly and methodically inspected, is that a country founded on elite, colonial rule based on the power of wealth - a plutocratic colonial oligarchy, in short - has succeeded not only in buying the label of “democracy” to market itself to the masses, but in having its citizenry, and many others, so socially and psychologically invested in its nationalist origin myth that they refuse to hear lucid and well-documented arguments to the contrary.
To begin to peel the scales from our eyes, let us outline in the restricted space of this article, five patent reasons why the United States has never been a democracy (a more sustained and developed argument is available in my book, Counter-History of the Present).
To begin with, British colonial expansion into the Americas did not occur in the name of the freedom and equality of the general population, or the conferral of power to the people. Those who settled on the shores of the “new world,” with few exceptions, did not respect the fact that it was a very old world indeed, and that a vast indigenous population had been living there for centuries.
As soon as Columbus set foot, Europeans began robbing, enslaving and killing the native inhabitants. The trans-Atlantic slave trade commenced almost immediately thereafter, adding a countless number of Africans to the ongoing genocidal assault against the indigenous population.
Moreover, it is estimated that over half of the colonists who came to North America from Europe during the colonial period were poor indentured servants, and women were generally trapped in roles of domestic servitude.
Rather than the land of the free and equal, then, European colonial expansion to the Americas imposed a land of the colonizer and the colonized, the master and the slave, the rich and the poor, the free and the un-free.
The former constituted, moreover, an infinitesimally small minority of the population, whereas the overwhelming majority, meaning “the people,” was subjected to death, slavery, servitude, and unremitting socio-economic oppression.
Second, when the elite colonial ruling class decided to sever ties from their homeland and establish an independent state for themselves, they did not found it as a democracy. On the contrary, they were fervently and explicitly opposed to democracy, like the vast majority of European Enlightenment thinkers.
They understood it to be a dangerous and chaotic form of uneducated mob rule. For the so-called “founding fathers,” the masses were not only incapable of ruling, but they were considered a threat to the hierarchical social structures purportedly necessary for good governance.
In the words of John Adams, to take but one telling example, if the majority were given real power, they would redistribute wealth and dissolve the “subordination” so necessary for politics.
When the eminent members of the landowning class met in 1787 to draw up a constitution, they regularly insisted in their debates on the need to establish a republic that kept at bay vile democracy, which was judged worse than “the filth of the common sewers” by the pro-Federalist editor William Cobbett.
The new constitution provided for popular elections only in the House of Representatives, but in most states the right to vote was based on being a property owner, and women, the indigenous and slaves - meaning the overwhelming majority of the population - were simply excluded from the franchise.
Senators were elected by state legislators, the President by electors chosen by the state legislators, and the Supreme Court was appointed by the President.
It is in this context that Patrick Henry flatly proclaimed the most lucid of judgments: “it is not a democracy.” George Mason further clarified the situation by describing the newly independent country as “a despotic aristocracy.”
When the American republic slowly came to be relabeled as a “democracy,” there were no significant institutional modifications to justify the change in name. In other words, and this is the third point, the use of the term “democracy” to refer to an oligarchic republic simply meant that a different word was being used to describe the same basic phenomenon.
This began around the time of “Indian killer” Andrew Jackson’s presidential campaign in the 1830s. Presenting himself as a ‘democrat,’ he put forth an image of himself as an average man of the people who was going to put a halt to the long reign of patricians from Virginia and Massachusetts.
Slowly but surely, the term “democracy” came to be used as a public relations term to re-brand a plutocratic oligarchy as an electoral regime that serves the interest of the people or demos. Meanwhile, the American holocaust continued unabated, along with chattel slavery, colonial expansion and top-down class warfare.
In spite of certain minor changes over time, the U.S. republic has doggedly preserved its oligarchic structure, and this is readily apparent in the two major selling points of its contemporary “democratic” publicity campaign.
The Establishment and its propagandists regularly insist that a structural aristocracy is a “democracy” because the latter is defined by the guarantee of certain fundamental rights (legal definition) and the holding of regular elections (procedural definition).
This is, of course, a purely formal, abstract and largely negative understanding of democracy, which says nothing whatsoever about people having real, sustained power over the governing of their lives.
However, even this hollow definition dissimulates the extent to which, to begin with, the supposed equality before the law in the United States presupposes an inequality before the law by excluding major sectors of the population: those judged not to have the right to rights, and those considered to have lost their right to rights (Native Americans, African-Americans and women for most of the country’s history, and still today in certain aspects, as well as immigrants, “criminals,” minors, the “clinically insane,” political dissidents, and so forth).
Regarding elections, they are run in the United States as long, multi-million dollar advertising campaigns in which the candidates and issues are pre-selected by the corporate and party elite.
The general population, the majority of whom do not have the right to vote or decide not to exercise it, are given the “choice” - overseen by an undemocratic electoral college and embedded in a non-proportional representation scheme - regarding which member of the aristocratic elite they would like to have rule over and oppress them for the next four years.
“Multivariate analysis indicates,” according to an important recent study by Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page, “that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.
The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination […], but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy.”
To take but a final example of the myriad ways in which the U.S. is not, and has never been, a democracy, it is worth highlighting its consistent assault on movements of people power.
Since WWII, it has endeavored to overthrow some 50 foreign governments, most of which were democratically elected. It has also, according the meticulous calculations by William Blum in America’s Deadliest Export: Democracy, grossly interfered in the elections of at least 30 countries, attempted to assassinate more than 50 foreign leaders, dropped bombs on more than 30 countries, and attempted to suppress populist movements in 20 countries.
The record on the home front is just as brutal. To take but one significant parallel example, there is ample evidence that the FBI has been invested in a covert war against democracy.
Beginning at least in the 1960s, and likely continuing up to the present, the Bureau “extended its earlier clandestine operations against the Communist party, committing its resources to undermining the Puerto Rico independence movement, the Socialist Workers party, the civil rights movement, Black nationalist movements, the Ku Klux Klan, segments of the peace movement, the student movement, and the ‘New Left’ in general” (Cointelpro: The FBI’s Secret War on Political Freedom, p. 22-23).
Consider, for instance, Judi Bari’s summary of its assault on the Socialist Workers Party:
“From 1943-63, the federal civil rights case Socialist Workers Party v. Attorney General documents decades of illegal FBI break-ins and 10 million pages of surveillance records. The FBI paid an estimated 1,600 informants $1,680,592 and used 20,000 days of wiretaps to undermine legitimate political organizing.”
In the case of the Black Panther Party and the American Indian Movement (AIM) - which were both important attempts to mobilize people power to dismantle the structural oppression of white supremacy and top-down class warfare - the FBI not only infiltrated them and launched hideous smear and destabilization campaigns against them, but they assassinated 27 Black Panthers and 69 members of AIM (and subjected countless others to the slow death of incarceration).
If it be abroad or on the home front, the American secret police has been extremely proactive in beating down the movements of people rising up, thereby protecting and preserving the main pillars of white supremacist, capitalist aristocracy.
Rather than blindly believing in a golden age of democracy in order to remain at all costs within the gilded cage of an ideology produced specifically for us by the well-paid spin-doctors of a plutocratic oligarchy, we should unlock the gates of history and meticulously scrutinize the founding and evolution of the American imperial republic.
This will not only allow us to take leave of its jingoist and self-congratulatory origin myths, but it will also provide us with the opportunity to resuscitate and reactivate so much of what they have sought to obliterate. In particular, there is a radical America just below the surface of these nationalist narratives, an America in which the population autonomously organizes itself in indigenous and ecological activism, black radical resistance, anti-capitalist mobilization, anti-patriarchal struggles, and so forth.
It is this America that the corporate republic has sought to eradicate, while simultaneously investing in an expansive public relations campaign to cover over its crimes with the fig leaf of “democracy” (which has sometimes required integrating a few token individuals, who appear to be from below, into the elite ruling class in order to perpetuate the all-powerful myth of meritocracy).
If we are astute and perspicacious enough to recognize that the U.S. is undemocratic today, let us not be so indolent or ill-informed that we let ourselves be lulled to sleep by lullabies praising its halcyon past. Indeed, if the United States is not a democracy today, it is in large part due to the fact that it never was one. Far from being a pessimistic conclusion, however, it is precisely by cracking open the hard shell of ideological encasement that we can tap into the radical forces that have been suppressed by it. These forces - not those that have been deployed to destroy them - should be the ultimate source of our pride in the power of the people.
For ANZAC Day: All Wars Are Bankers' Wars April 25 2024 | From: MichaelRivero / Various
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.
Landings at Normandy - 666: In 1944, on the 6th day of the 6th month at 6am, Allied troops set out on landing craft, arriving ashore at Normandy in occupied France in one of the most significant events of the Second World War. Was there more to the "sacrifice" made by those brave young men that day than they realised?
"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.
Founded in 1791, by the end of its twenty year charter the First Bank of the United States had almost ruined the nation's economy, while enriching the bankers.
Congress refused to renew the charter and signaled their intention to go back to a state issued value based currency on which the people paid no interest at all to any banker.
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.
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.
It will pay off debts and be without debt. It will have all the money necessary to carry on its commerce. It will become prosperous without precedent in the history of the world.
The brains, and wealth of all countries will go to North America. That country must be destroyed or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe."
- The London Times responding to Lincoln's decision to issue government Greenbacks to finance the Civil War, rather than agree to private banker's loans at 30% interest.
In 1872 New York bankers sent a letter to every bank in the United States, urging them to fund newspapers that opposed government-issued money (Lincoln's greenbacks).
"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
Goaded by the private bankers, much of Europe supported the Confederacy against the Union, with the expectation that victory over Lincoln would mean the end of the Greenback. France and Britain considered an outright attack on the United States to aid the confederacy, but were held at bay by Russia, which had just ended the serfdom system and had a state central bank similar to the system the United States had been founded on.
Tsar Alexander II of Russia, who prevented France and Britain from invading the US during the civil war.
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.
[Cable message.]
April 12,1878.
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.
ROTHSCHILDS.
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.
In 2012, the Federal Reserve attempted to rebuff a Freedom of Information Lawsuit by Bloomberg News on the grounds that as a private banking corporation and not actually a part of the government, the Freedom of Information Act did not apply to the "trade secret" operations of the Federal Reserve.
"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.
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.
Gaddafi
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
EPA Contradicts Its Own Research, Claims Roundup Poses No Risk To Humans & More April 24 2024 | From: Antimedia / Various
Recently, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issued a new report declaring that the weed killer glyphosate does not pose any meaningful risk to humans, but the report is not likely to end the debate over the safety of the world’s most widely used pesticide.
The new report from the EPA is the latest in a string of conflicting reports from various health agencies around the world. Reuters first reported on the assessment:
“The EPA, in a draft risk assessment report issued on Monday, also said it found ‘no other meaningful risks to human health’ when glyphosate, the world’s biggest-selling weed killer, is used according to its label instructions.”
The EPA’s decision conflicts with a March 2015 report from the International Agency for Research on Cancer that found that glyphosate “probably” contributes to non-Hodgkin lymphoma in humans and classified it as a ‘Group 2A’ carcinogen.
“There was sufficient evidence in animals, limited evidence in humans and strong supporting evidence showing DNA mutations and damaged chromosomes,” Aaron Blair, a scientist emeritus at the National Cancer Institute and lead author of the study, told Reuters at the time.
The IARC report was published in The Lancet Oncology and detailed evaluations of organophosphate pesticides and herbicides. The report concluded that there was “limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans for non-Hodgkin lymphoma.”
The evidence for this conclusion was pulled from studies of exposure to the chemical in the US, Canada, and Sweden published since 2001. The researchers found “convincing evidence that glyphosate can also cause cancer in laboratory animals.”
Shortly after the IARC review, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), an independent agency funded by the European Union, shot back with their own study, claiming glyphosate is “unlikely to pose a carcinogenic hazard to humans.” Earlier this month, the European Commission renewed the license to use glyphosate for another five years.
The Commission’s renewal came despite the efforts of the European Citizens’ Initiative, called “Ban glyphosate and protect people and the environment from toxic pesticides.” The effort collected more than 1 million signatures.
Those studies were followed by research from experts with the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). The FAO released a statement claiming glyphosate is “unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans” exposed to it through food. The WHO co-signed the statement with the FAO.
The organizations also found that glyphosate is not likely to be genotoxic - destructive to cell’s genetic material - in humans.
This means that as of December 2017, the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization, the World Health Organization, the European Food Safety Authority, and the United Nations say glyphosate does not pose a risk of cancer to humans. On the other end of the spectrum, the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer IARC states that it could be linked to cancer.
To add even more confusion to the matter, in October, Reuters reported that an analysis of the IARC’s assessment of glyphosate showed the agency ignored findings and deleted statements that contradicted their final conclusion. Reuters reported:
“The edits identified by Reuters occurred in the chapter of IARC’s review focusing on animal studies. This chapter was important in IARC’s assessment of glyphosate, since it was in animal studies that IARC decided there was ‘sufficient’ evidence of carcinogenicity.
One effect of the changes to the draft, reviewed by Reuters in a comparison with the published report, was the removal of multiple scientists’ conclusions that their studies had found no link between glyphosate and cancer in laboratory animals.”
All this confusion among agencies does not help the average consumer when it comes to safety and health. Who should we trust when our very lives are on the line? Government agencies that operate a revolving door with big pharma, big ag, and other industrial complexes?
Despite the EPA’s latest decision, Jennifer Sass, a senior scientist for the Natural Resources Defense Council advocacy group, told Reuters that “[t]here is data suggesting cancer.” What data is Sass referring to?
She is more than likely talking about an EPA study from the 1980s that found glyphosate does, indeed, increase the likelihood of developing cancer. The 2015 IARC report points out that the EPA had originally classified glyphosate as possibly carcinogenic to humans in 1985.
The IARC Working Group evaluated the original EPA findings and more recent reports before concluding “there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals.”
The investigation does a great job of outlining the history of regulation of glyphosate and how Monsanto - glyphosate is the key ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup - has been able to influence and subvert regulatory agencies in order to make glyphosate the most widely used pesticide in the world.
“Our two-year investigation found incontrovertible evidence that Monsanto has exerted deep influence over EPA decisions since glyphosate first came on the market - via Roundup - more than 40 years ago,” the report states.
The detailed investigation reveals that nearly every time a Monsanto chemical was receiving negative attention from scientists and researchers, the biotech company would hire its own researchers and firms or pressure government employees until they came to Monsanto’s preferred conclusion.
The testing and approval of glyphosate seem to fit the pattern.
“Throughout the 1970s, EPA staff repeatedly raised red flags about the inadequacy of testing data that Monsanto was submitting in support of glyphosate’s original registration,” the report states. In These Times also examined EPA memos they say “detail incomplete or otherwise unacceptable toxicology screening tests.”
The pressure to approve glyphosate can be traced back to 1983 when the EPA was examining toxicity data supplied by Monsanto. As part of the registration and approval process, Monsanto submitted a two-year mouse feeding study. In These Times writes:
“The mouse study was conducted for Monsanto by a commercial lab called Bio/Dynamics, but the results of the research were neither peer-reviewed nor made publicly available.
Staff toxicologists, pathologists and statisticians in the TB provided the first interpretation of these results. On March 4, 1985, an ad hoc committee of these scientists reported that based on this mouse study, glyphosate was carcinogenic, or a ‘Class C’ substance.
They did not question the 1983 study’s structure or reported data. EPA staff toxicologist William Dykstra, in an April 3, 1985, memo, stated unequivocally, ‘Glyphosate was oncogenic in male mice causing renal tubule adenomas, a rare tumor, in a dose-related manner.’”
In true Monsanto fashion, the company hired four pathologists to review the original tissue slides from the 1983 study. Monsanto’s pathologists claimed to have seen a tumor in one of the mice in the control group.
This finding cast doubt on the EPA’s original conclusion and the entire study. By March 1986, the EPA had reversed their designation of glyphosate as carcinogenic. Monsanto still relies on the claim that one of the control group mice also had a tumor so the cause could not have been glyphosate.
However, in another memo dated February 1985, Herbert Lacayo, a statistician with the EPA’s Toxicology Branch, stated that without glyphosate exposure, the odds of tumors appearing were about 156 to 1.
“Under such circumstances a prudent person would reject the Monsanto assumption that glyphosate dosing has no effect on kidney tumor production,” wrote Lacayo. “Our viewpoint is one of protecting the public health when we see suspicious data. It is not our job to protect registrants from false positives.”
Officially, the chemical glyphosate and products like Roundup do not cause cancer and are of no harm to the planet or animals. However, when one takes a deeper look at the history of the studies and the company behind the product, valid reasons to be skeptical can be found.
The Left’s Inescapable Hate Problem: Their Hate Doesn’t Count But Your Hate Should Get You Banned From Everything April 23 2024 | From: NaturalNews / Various
The Left has found a whole new weapon to silence conservative voices: “Hate.” The problem is, their hate doesn’t count. Only the hate they selectively designate to be “hate” is punished.[Archival But Relevant]
Here’s how the contortion works: Google, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and other internet gatekeepers are increasingly banning and censoring users and content by rolling out terms of service that give them justification to silence anyone peddling “hate.” But what is hate, exactly?
According to the Left, “hate” is any criticism of gays, lesbians, transgenders, black people, abortion clinics, Muslims and so on. No thoughtful criticism of such “protected” subjects is allowed, since it’s all deemed to be “hate.”
Yet at the same time, the Left openly encourages and practices its own hatred against a wide range of targets which are automatically deemed to be “okay to hate.”
These targets include:
White people (“white privilege”)
Men (“toxic masculinity”)
Christians
Soldiers and veterans
Police officers
President Trump, Sarah Palin, Ann Coulter and other conservatives
Heterosexuals
America’s founders
Thus, the Left isn’t actually opposed to hate. They fully support hate as long as it’s directed to specific political enemies. To further pull off this contortion, of course, they make sure their own hatred is never labeled “hate.”
Instead, the Left’s HATE is called “diversity.” And diversity, by definition of the Left, excludes people of white skin color. To further the delusion, this exclusion of Whites is labeled “inclusiveness,” while attacks on Christians are labeled “tolerance.”
Left-Wing Truthism: White People are “Dangerous” to Everyone
This targeted hatred of the Left is openly repeated across the left-wing news media, Hollywood movies, universities and other outlets.
This openly racist hatred from the Left is widely encouraged and reinforced by late-night comedy shows, Saturday Night Live, stand-up comedy and other sources of “humor” that are really little more than hatred disguised as comedy. Remember when Johnny Carson ran late-night variety TV?
A true classic, Carson was genuinely funny. But today, we get Jimmy Kimmel, a twisted, deranged Leftist who uses his late night TV platform to spew hatred and vitriol against his political enemies… all in the name of being “funny,” of course.
What’s so remarkable about all this is how the Left remains utterly blind to its own hatred. When UC Berkeley students penned articles in the student newspaper calling for conservative speakers to be murdered in order to halt their speech, this was widely accepted on the Left as a seemingly reasonable practice. It wasn’t deemed “hatred” at all. In fact, the Left tells itself that hating conservatives is a form of anti-hate (or “anti fascism” as the narrative goes).
According to the Left, then, if you are full of hatred for all the correct targets (Christians, solders, police, white men, etc.), that isn’t hate at all. It’s love.
This is the kind of twisted, deranged logic summarized by the Left’s mantra, “LOVE TRUMPS HATE,” which really means that if you express sufficient hatred toward Donald Trump, you will be loved by the Left, which is full of haters. Achieving acceptance and love, in other words, only requires that you hate all the same people they hate.
Yet the Left lives in denial about its own hate problem, refusing to acknowledge that the entire left-wing movement in America is now steeped in hatred and fantasies of murder against political enemies. Case in point? Kathy Griffin.
Why Isn’t Twitter Banning Users Who Express Hatred Toward White People, Christians or the President?
Although Twitter aggressively bans users who express anything resembling hatred toward gays or transgenders, Twitter almost never bans users for expressing the same degree of hatred toward Christians, whites or President Trump.
Ever wonder why? It’s because to the Left, hatred toward Christians, whites and President Trump isn’t recognized as hate. It’s actually a form of virtue signaling to other leftists, which is necessary to be accepted and loved by the Left. Hatred, you see, is the prerequisite to left-wing love.
This is why the liberal mob has become so dangerous to society. Far from promoting love and unity, the Left has actually transformed into a dangerous cult of totalitarian thought control and demanded obedience, all powered by intense emotional hatred coupled with a total abandonment of reason.
If you do not agree with the Left on a given topic - no matter how absurd the Left’s stance - you are immediately branded as being engaged in “hate.” Once branded, you can then be censored, insulted and blacklisted from society in the name of the Left “stopping hate.”
This is how Google, Facebook, YouTube and Twitter plan to make sure Democrats win the next presidential election in 2020: The Democrat candidate will be selected from one or more victim groups of the Left - transgenders, women, minorities, gays, etc. - and then any rational criticism of that candidate’s policies will be stifled via accusations of “hate speech.”
Even rational, science-based questioning of the Left’s deranged narratives earns any thinking person this same label of “hate.” For example, the Left now believes that biological sex is no longer determined by genetics. Instead, according to the Left, a person’s biological sex is now determined by a wish or a hope… and it can be changed at any moment by merely declaring such a change.
Remember, this is the same Left that has, for decades, insisted that gay people are born gay, reminding us that being gay “isn’t a choice.” A rational person might point out the glaring contradiction in these two beliefs - that gay people are “born gay” but biological sex is a “choice” - but that person would be immediately branded a purveyor of HATE for the simple reason that when it comes to left-wing narrative myths, no questions are allowed.
Raising intelligent questions, you see, is now considered an act of hate according to the Left. In fact, any challenge to the false narratives of the Left is branded HATE as a crude control mechanism to stifle speech and punish intelligent thinking.
The Owellian overtones in all this are, of course, too obscene to ignore: The Left has become the Ministry of Truth even when nearly everything the Left espouses is based on lies.
Remember, according to the Left, if you HATE all the correct people, you will be LOVED. In other words, “Hate = Love” to the deranged, lunatic Left.
Fake News, Fake Facts and Narrative Myths
Part of the Left’s descent into derangement and cultism is their reliance on false reality reinforcement via fake news, fake “facts,” fake science and narrative myths. The Left has historically relied on narrative myths to explain to themselves how things work, even when such myths stand in total contradiction to reality.
Quite literally, left-wing science figures are now engaged in revisionist history and selective editing of educational materials to alter the narrative in order to fit the modern-day lunacy of the Left (which has permanently departed from physical reality).
Similarly, in the world of media, the Left has constructed an elaborate narrative myth that claims President Trump colluded with “the Russians” to steal the election from the rightful President, Hillary Clinton. This narrative lacks even a shred of credible evidence in the real world, but through the construction of an elaborate media bubble, nearly all Leftists believe that myth, even when it has no basis in reality whatsoever.
Fake Hate Crimes, Fake “Documentaries” and Left-Wing Hoaxes
Fake “facts” are universally used throughout the twisted realm of Leftism to rile up hatred against intended targets. For example, a shockingly high percentage of so-called “hate crimes” supposedly carried out against blacks, Jews or Muslims eventually turn out to be perpetrated by those very same people against themselves.
The huge number of such examples makes them too numerous to list in this article, but here’s a list of just 15 “hate crime hoaxes” that were all reported as true by the left-wing media.
The left-wing media, of course, reports all hate crime hoaxes as true events. But once the perpetrator is discovered to have carried out a hoax, the left-wing media never informs its audience of the hoax.
Thus, readers of the NYT, Washington Post, CNN, etc., are left with the utterly false believe that hate crimes are happening everywhere, all the time, and that they’re all genuine hate crimes. In truth, many of them are false flag crimes.
The broadcast industry further underscores all this with staged, fake “documentary” TV shows that are all fabricated with the intention of catapulting the continued propaganda of hate crimes. A&E, for example, desperately tried to stage a KKK documentary, but they were so unsuccessful in finding actual KKK members that they had to script the whole thing and bring their own Nazi props, direct the actors to say “ni##er” on camera, and so on.
The entire thing was pure theater… not merely theater for entertainment’s sake, but theater to populate the minds of Leftists with more narrative myths that further the agenda of the Left.
The Left, in other words, has to engineer hatred in order to keep its myths alive. And when there’s not enough actual hatred to be found, they are happy to invoke total fictions to depict the necessary hatred anyway.
That’s why nearly all the so-called “white supremacists” you might see marching around in public rallies these days are actually Leftists pretending to be KKK members. After all, how hard is it, really, to don a white hood and march around with a Nazi poster in your hands, all for the CNN cameras that broadcast the staged video into the minds of Leftists everywhere?
There is Real Racism, Hatred, Intolerance and Marginalization in America… and it’s Mostly Coming From the Intolerant Left
There is real racism in America, however. There are no doubt still pockets of bygone culture where blacks or Jews are despised. But institutional racism against black people is ancient history (except in the realm of science and medicine, where there remains a specific agenda to exterminate blacks, as I’ve publicly exposed).
The real, institutionalized intolerance in America today is squarely aimed at Christians, white people and conservatives. That brand of intolerance is openly taught in the schools, encouraged at universities and reinforced through the hatred and intolerance of the left-wing media (Hollywood, late night TV, Netflix shows, etc.)
The assault against “whiteness” has become so intense across America’s universities that some indignant students have begun posting signs on campus that read, “It’s okay to be white.” This brilliant social experiment was pioneered at 4chan, eventually leading to the increasingly popular hashtag #IOTBW.
These signs, naturally, are widely condemned as being “racist.” “Those messages, instead of being ignored, have triggered university administrators and campus leftists into seeing the postings as outbursts of dangerous racism,” reports The Daily Caller. Indeed, the mere affirmation that it’s okay to be the skin color you were born with is now condemned by the deranged Left as a form of hatred all by itself.
“HLS [Harvard Law School] will not let that happen here. We live, work, teach, and learn together in a community that is stronger, better, and deeper because of our diversity and because we encourage open, respectful, and constructive discourse,” Harvard Law School dean Marcia L. Sells wrote in a letter to students, apparently oblivious to the obscene contradiction in her own words. To the Left, you see, “diversity” is contingent on the exclusion of whites.
Truly, to the Left, white people are incapable of being diverse, meaning the Left judges people solely by the color of their skin rather than the content of their character.
According to Leftists, White People Cannot be “Diverse” in Any Meaningful Way
As proof of this, Apple’s “vice president of diversity and inclusivity Denise Young Smith was recently forced to resign after daring to proclaim that white people can be diverse. “During a summit in Colombia, Young Smith, a black woman, claimed she likes to focus ‘on everyone’ and that ‘diversity goes beyond race, gender, and sexual orientation.'” reports Breitbart News.
For daring to suggest that diversity is more than skin deep, Smith was forced to profusely apologize to everyone. “I’m sorry,” she said. “More importantly, I want to assure you Apple’s view and our dedication to diversity has not change.” Weeks later, she was forced to resign.
This is precisely how the Left has earned the nickname “libtards.” To such libtards, diversity is exactly skin deep, and any person with white skin has no standing whatsoever. In other words, the Left has become a deranged cabal of intolerant, dangerous racist totalitarians.
Their self-deluded tyranny is so off the charts that they now declare people to be unworthy of participating in civil society based solely on the color of their skin - a physical trait that we’re born with, just like biological sex.
An Apple spokesperson underscored the lunacy of the Left’s spiraling intolerance by saying, “We deeply believe that diversity drives innovation,” proclaiming that people should be hired based on whether they are gay, or transgender, or black rather than based on the quality of their ideas and work.
This, again, is now a key tenant of the deranged Left: That the worth of a human being is no longer measured by their ideas or contributions. Rather, their entire worth as a human being is now graded solely on how gay they are, how transgender they are, how Muslim they are, or how much the pigment in their skin diverges from whiteness.
The Left has reached the depths of insanity and intolerance, and yet they keep on digging deeper. Having once condemned racist white people for judging blacks by the color of their skin, the lunatic Left has now institutionalized the “correctness” of judging people solely on the color of their skin or their commitment to LGBT values.
This, to any rational person, is absolute proof that the Left has become a racist totalitarian regime of insane lunatics and crybullies who are desperately seeking power and control over everyone else.
Action Item: Reject the Left’s Shallow Stupidity, Intolerance, Hatred and Racism
The takeaway from all this? It’s time for all rational people to reject the Left’s skin-deep stupidity, intolerance, hatred and racism. Amazingly, it’s time to call for the Left to stop being intolerant bullies and racists.
This means speaking out against left-wing insanity at every opportunity. Some other actions you can take to help restore sanity across our society include:
Stop using left-wing tech services like Google and Facebook
Review your own behavior and make sure you are judging people solely by their character, ideas and ethics
Vote against Democrats at every election, as they are now universally running on a platform of hatred and intolerance
Stop watching left-wing Hollywood movies, TV shows and hate-filled comedians such as Jimmy Kimmel
Speak out against schools and universities that teach false anti-science myths (transgenderism) to children
Stop purchasing products and brands from companies that donate money to left-wing groups that spew hatred and intolerance
Delusional Left-wing Definitions:
Finally, understand the real terminology of the Left so you can decode their linguistic nonsense.
“Inclusiveness” means advancing the LGBT agenda while insulting straight white men and Christians.
“Tolerance” means agreeing with the Left while calling for the murder of those who oppose your ideas.
“Diversity” means a room full of people with different skin color who all obediently agree on the exact same liberal ideas.
“Equality” means allowing biological male athletes who claim to be women to beat up actual biological women in Mixed Martial Arts competitions.
“Cooperation” means silencing those who refuse to cooperate with your agenda.
“Coexistence” means getting along nicely with those who obediently conform to your beliefs.
Or, better yet, as I previously mentioned in a Natural News post that describes the philosophy of the Left:
Tyranny And Free Speech April 22 2024 | From: BreakingViews / Various Do you support free speech? How about free speech for climate change skeptics? For homophobes? For racists? For sexists? For white males? For even Donald Trump?
Those who defend free speech, as did the American Founding Fathers, understand it is not about defending speech you agree with, but defending speech you disagree with. Without free speech, there is no liberty.
The State Department diversity officer, John Robinson, has just warned the staff that they may be penalized for engaging in “microaggressions,” which include jokes or other comments that someone who hears them may find offensive.
In a recent letter, he referred to a definition of microaggressions as:
"Everyday verbal, nonverbal and environmental slights, snubs or insults, whether intentional or unintentional, which communicate hostile, derogatory or negative messages to target persons.”
In other words, whatever you hear may be considered a microaggression if you choose to be offended.
Such vague and infinitely elastic laws and regulations are the bread and butter of all totalitarian regimes.
Lavrentiy Beria (Joseph Stalin’s head of the NKVD, a predecessor of the KGB) was quoted as saying to Stalin:
"You name the person and I will find the crime.”
Related:Ardern Intent On Smashing Free Speech
The “crime” of microaggression has already been used to stifle and prosecute speech by those who have contrary views in several left-leaning universities, and now it is coming to the federal government.
The climate change lobbyists have been increasingly aggressive in their attacks on free speech.
They seek to silence their critics, who have committed the “sin” of noting their many failed predictions.
George Mason University meteorologist Jagadish Shukla was the lead signatory of the letter sent to the president and attorney general asking them to use RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) laws to prosecute;
"Corporations and other organizations that have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change.”
Mr. Shukla “paid himself and his wife $1.5 million from government climate grants for part-time work.”
Other prominent global warming fear-mongers, who are on the government teat, have also called for “war crimes trials” and even the “execution” of some critics.
Even Attorney General Loretta Lynch once said she has looked at the possibility of pursuing civil actions against so-called “climate change deniers.”
The message: Don’t look to the Obama administration to protect free speech. Which do you find more offensive, a person advocating socialism or a person telling jokes about one-eyed people?
Socialism is an ideology that has resulted in governments killing more than 200 million of their own citizens in the last century. It is based on coercion rather than liberty. It demands involuntary servitude. Socialist Bernie Sanders promises “free” stuff to his supporters to be paid for by the involuntary servitude of others - to which there will be no end.
Having spent considerable time in socialist countries and seen the human wreckage that results, I am offended by the ignorance or venality of those who engage in the microaggression of advocating socialism. Several decades ago, I lost an eye, and in the years since I have been told hundreds of “one-eyed” jokes, even by people who do not know me.
Rather than being offended, I have chosen to enjoy them. Offensive speech is totally subjective, and making it a crime is incompatible with a free society.
The Guardian, a left-wing British newspaper, published an article last year by a woman author titled;
"Why do women lie more than men?”
It reported on a new poll that “suggests that women are twice as likely to lie as men.”
The article goes on to say: “It may be irritating to be told, yet again, that women are more morally slippery than men (just as in Genesis).”
The article goes on to cite several reasons why this may be true - including differences “between masculine and feminine brains.”
All of this may or may not be nonsense, but in cases of women complaining about men engaging in “offensive” speech, it is most often assumed, without evidence, that the woman is telling the truth and the man is lying. In fact, men are frequently not allowed to know who their accuser is or what she claimed was said.
One of the most basic protections of liberty is the right of the accuser to know the specific charges against him or her and by whom.
As a result, many innocent men are not given a fair hearing by the human resource departments in organizations and even sometimes by the courts.
The late well-regarded feminist, Joan Kennedy Taylor, argued in her book “What to Do When You Don’t Want to Call the Cops: Or a Non-Adversarial Approach to Sexual Harassment” (Cato Institute) that it is important to understand that men and women perceive things quite differently, and that non-legal strategies which she describes can be far more effective and less damaging than legal remedies.
Law professor Catherine Ross has just written an important book, “Lessons in Censorship” (to be discussed at a Cato book forum on March 16), in which she argues that “the failure of schools to respect civil liberties betrays their educational function and threatens democracy.”
The popularity of the verbally crude Donald Trump might, in part, be a reaction to the political correctness of the political class and timid leaders of organizations who have failed to defend freedom of speech.
Smart Versus Clever Versus Intelligent Versus Wise April 21 2024 | From: MyEnglishTeacher / Various
All these words have a similar or almost the same meaning.
They all describe a person (in some cases also an animal) who is smart in one way or another. The big difference between them is the occasions and situations when you should use them.
Smart means that a person, or animal, is able to solve a problem. You use the word smart to describe someone who can think logically and make a good choice in the situation.
Smart also means that the person, or animal, understands what you’re telling them and can act based on that information.
For example:
I always believed my child was very smart.
That’s a really smart dog. It learned all the tricks in one month.
Smart is used when we want to describe the basic level of intelligence. This requires understanding, reasoning, and then doing an action.
Opposite of Smart
The opposite of smart is stupid.
So, smart describes someone intelligent or someone who is very knowledgeable. It’s the first step to describing intellect.
Intelligent is a step above smart. Intelligent is used to describe people, and some rare animals, that can think on their own, and act on their instincts.
When someone is smart they act based on the information they get. When someone is intelligent they find their own information, come to understand it by themselves, and then make up their mind about what they want to do.
In a way, being intelligent means that a person, or animal, is more independent than when they are smart. This is why an IQ (Intelligence Quotient) test measures intelligence.
Let’s go over some examples:
Most of her students are smart, but she says some of them are so intelligent that they outshine the rest.
When he moved to New York and managed to get a job in one week I was sure he was super intelligent.
Dolphins are some of the most intelligent animals on the planet.
Intelligent describes this higher level of intellect, and it’s just above smart. Being intelligent means being able to do things on your own, and making choices based on what you know and not what people tell you.
Intelligence
Noun
1. The ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills. "an eminent man of great intelligence"
Similar: intellectual / mental capacity
2. The collection of information of military or political value. "the chief of military intelligence"
Now let’s move on to clever. Unlike smart or intelligent, clever is defined by the situation more than the intellect of a person. When someone, or something, is clever it means they can act quickly in that type of situation.
For example:
Comedians are clever.
My cat is very clever since he’s learned to open the door when we’re not home.
I made a joke yesterday and then Ann was clever enough to add to it. We laughed for hours.
Please stop your clever remarks in class.
Here we can see that clever is mostly defined by the situation. It can also mean that someone is funny. Clever is not used in the same way as smart or intelligent. It does not describe someone’s intellect.
What is the Difference Between Being Smart, Clever, and Intelligent?
John and Jack had a prestigious exam on 24th July.
Jack had been keeping busy and had been a bit lazy so he didn’t study anything till 20th August. But he took very less time in grasping the concepts and got 80% marks in the exam unlike everybody else who started late and performed poorly. Jack is intelligent.
John made a time table for himself one month in advance of the exam. He had other work too but he managed to dedicate at least one hour everyday. He could grasp the concepts as quickly as John but he didn’t stop there. He practised a lot and even solved mock papers. John finally scored 95% marks and topped. John is not just intelligent, John is brilliant.
They both had another exam on 23rd August. Jack now scored 85% and John scored 98%. They are both smarter now as they learnt from the mistakes they made in the paper last time and improved their scores.
Intelligence is something with which you’re born. On the other hand, smart is an earned status, and so is brilliant. When we study and learn, we become smarter in the subject matter. When someone is exceptionally good at something he does, he’s brilliant.
And finally – wise. Wise describes a person who knows many things because of their age. Wise can also describe someone who knows a lot of philosophy.
The most common way to use wise is to describe older people who know a lot of information.
For example:
My grandpa is so wise. He always gives good advice, and he knows a lot of history.
He’s wise for his age. He knows things like an old man would.
This is how we use wise. We describe someone who thinks a lot about a lot of things. We usually expect these people to know a lot of information, but wise doesn’t require them to understand it. Smart and intelligent describe intellect and understanding.
Wise only means that a person remembers a lot of info and that they are probably old.
The Fall And Rise Of Truth, Trust And Society’s Capacity For Wisdom April 20 2024 | From: TomatLee / Various
What does it mean to live in a “post-truth era? Is there a broader history and context feeding that phenomenon than just Trump and the Russians? How do we address it at a deep level to serve our collective capacity to generate wisdom for our public affairs?
“Truth” shares the same Indo-European root as “trust” and “tree”.* It’s like trust and truth are grounded in the solidity and dependability that we associate with great oaks, redwoods, cedars and baobobs.
We might also reflect that trees – and, metaphorically, trust and truth – are living things that can thrive and grow – or be damaged and die.
We are in a period that is sometimes called the “post-truth era”, with a disturbing subtext that it might also be post-trust. Where do we turn for people, information, institutions that we can fully trust, that are dependably truthful – especially for ALL of us diverse people who find ourselves sharing public spaces and challenges with others we don’t understand and may even detest or fear as driven by evil designs and deranged narratives?
Dimensions of Our Predicament
Logic, reason, facts, compassion – all these seem distorted or missing in action. And lately even “reality” has become challenged.
From post-modern relativism, “false memory” research and the surreality of quantum physics to our growing technological capacity to engineer convincing apparancies (e.g., Photoshop, computer-generated imagery, virtual reality, dubbed-in voices in real time, etc.) and the generation and spread of “fake news” and “alternative facts”, it is becoming increasingly hard to know what is real and what is not – and sometimes even to be confident that reality is buried somewhere behind all the illusions!
All this is shaking up the worlds of social media and journalism. It turns out that even efforts to fact-check and identify fake news may ultimately backfire. But even traditionally reliable news media are often distorted by confirmation bias (favoring facts that justify what we already believe), advertising dollars, herd mentality, self-censorship to gain access, and undue focus on conflict, controversy and scandal – all of which undermine journalism’s ideal democratic role and stature.
And while it is true that some media are more biased and deceitful than others, reporting that is consistently and truly fair, honest and useful is increasingly hard to find.
Even science – once the undisputed arbiter of testable truth – is being undermined both by attacks from anti-science ideologues and exposés showing its foundational methods and trustability are more subject to hidden distortions than we realized.
Human fallibility, ego, greed, groupthink, systemic biases and outright manipulation can play outsized roles in published results**, adding to the frustrating tendency for asserted scientific “facts” to be replaced by new studies with totally different conclusions.
This last dynamic – which would be an unadulterated strength of ever-evolving scientific knowledge, were it not for the other factors mentioned – unfortunately doesn’t help the public turn to science for solid truths to depend on.
In addition to all that, more people are becoming aware that expertise is often used to assert social control by delegitimating people’s experience and undermining their judgment and capacity to form bonds of common interest based on common experience.
We’re being told we cannot trust ourselves but should follow (and pay for) experts in every aspect of our lives – diet, politics, child care, education, whatever. This strengthens elite power and versions of meritocracy that make it hard for us ordinary people to gain control of our lives, individually and collectively. (See, for example, Listen, Liberal or Whatever Happened to the Party of the People? by Thomas Frank)
In the face of all this, is it any wonder that so many people retreat into the comfort and tribal muscle of sectarian narratives and pundits, reinforced by social conformity, physical and informational migration into polarized like-minded silos, and the cognitive comfort of confirmation bias?
The implications for democracy and the generation of collective wisdom are profound. How do we make collective decisions when we can’t trust our information sources, ourselves, or each other – or when we place our trust in incompatible sources and ways of thinking whose primary goals are to invalidate and defeat each other.
A). Diverse views are, in fact, facets of a more complex reality, the whole of which we need to better comprehend if we wish to make wise decisions that will actually work in the real world.
This applies even to views that are demonstrably false, because belief in them arises from that more complex reality and plays a role in how it unfolds. So those factors are deeply relevant and vital to take into account if we want to make real progress.
B). Diverse people bring diverse gifts to understanding the whole situation and bringing about wholesome outcomes in our shared lives. They bring different values, different perspectives, different experiences, different cognitive styles and ways of solving problems, different aptitudes and skills, different connections and resources – all of which we can use – if we are discerning, welcoming and creative enough – to help make life better for all of us.
The trick is to help people engage creatively with their diversity – and with any disturbances that come along with it – in ways that enhance our collective comprehension and capacity.
Fortunately, there are thousands of resources to help us do that. Hundreds of them are explored in the wise democracy pattern language.
The current spirit of partisanship and the renewed effort to empower a political “center” are all fine, as part of the complex reality in which we find ourselves.
But ultimately we need to see all these stances and perspectives as resources for something far more inclusive and wise, and to build among us the capacity to access that more embracive collective wisdom to sustain our collective well-being.
Cash is simply a currency, a medium of exchange that is used to purchase something that has value, namely an asset or service. The word currency is derived from the word current – electricity – a current must move or else it will die. A currency does not store value in itself. Rather, it is a medium to transfer value from one asset to another.
Money has, unlike currency, value within itself. Money is always a currency in that it can be used to purchase other items that have value, however currency is not always money as explained above; it doesn’t have intrinsic value. The basic definition of money is; income-energy received for energy given.
The following statement illustrates this definition. The rectangle of paper representing a one-hundred-euro bill is not worth one hundred euros!
The piece of paper [debt note] represents the value of one hundred euros that is stored somewhere else, waiting to be purchased; the fact that a rectangle of paper, or currency, represents value in and of itself, was true only in the past, when the world was on a gold standard.
Today every bill is backed by nothing other than air or what commonly is called ‘good faith’ and the credit worthiness of the ‘issuer’ the Central Bank. In other words, authorities have the ability to create money at will without anything to back it up, in plain language money-printing or counterfeiting, but governments call it fiscal policy, and this together is called ‘fiat currency’, which is not money.
So, money is not what people think it is. Nowadays money is ‘currency’ invented and created by Governments or for that matter, the Central Banks, to steal from the people, by taxation without approval of parliament, by means of inflating the currency and consequently reducing people’s purchasing power by lowering the nominated ‘intrinsic’ value.
Money Has Value of its Own, Currency Doesn’t:
The abstract viewpoint is; Currency is a metaphysical technology that facilitates the development of trust, which in essence is what money is.
Trust that exists between two or more individuals is the true source of all wealth, allowing everyone to create on his/her own and naturally transpiring through the environment.
In other words; Wealth, in all its forms, is something of value created by people in unison with nature.
Currency, in this sense, is a social lubricant that enables two or more people to work together on some project, objective, or agenda. The objective might not be intrinsically valuable to the people involved - they might not be willing to cooperate merely to accomplish the purpose alone - but the motivation arises by offering them money, which gives them a valuable stake in the business.
Generally speaking, people tend to participate in things they find valuable, which is money, as an effective motivator.
Thus, even with respect to debt-based money, which is money “printed out of thin air” it is people’s faith and trust that gives any monetary system power. If people don’t derive some kind of value from the use of money, they won’t use it.
But what makes a society benevolent is that the people within it have a genuine interest in placing their trust solely in honourable projects. On the flipside of the coin, when morality, ethics, and justice are lost, people can be bribed into malevolence through the promise of money.
And this is essentially where the world is today. The powers that be, the elite, use us like cogs in a wheel to keep the systems of control alive, which we willingly participate in, mainly through the use of their created money.
Wealth is by Nature Valuable:
Personal wealth is by nature valuable for an individual and potentially for others. For example, a musician plays a piece of music that is inherently valuable to the musician but also valuable to others who listen to it, because in some way it is beautiful, inspiring, or expressive.
In nature, wealth needs to be tamed or refined, often through the collective works of individuals. When a group of people mutually agree that they value something, like farming food for their community, they can work together to bring that value into existence. The formal process for creating a mutually agreed model of value is called trust.
Money is a symbol of trust; people in a nation trust in the money the nation employs, enabling them to exchange these symbols amongst themselves.
Because money is a symbol of value that can be traded for other things, people can be encouraged into group projects by offering them money. If someone doesn’t see the value of doing something innately, simply for the act of doing so, they can nevertheless be motivated to participate and “rewarded” for their efforts with money. Value is measured by what people really want and freely choose, it will not make the world poorer.
5,000 years ago gold was introduced as a money. It is money people could trust. Not a promise by someone, as it is today. This “gold money” was something very different. It was something people could count on.
It made it easy to settle a transaction right on the spot. No need to remember who owed what to whom. No need to speak the same language or worship the same religion. This “gold money” was worth something in itself; intrinsically.
Gold is True Global Money:
Gold, as opposed to paper currency, is a proven form of sound money. People have bought and sold goods and services with it for thousands of years.
It has survived every kind of financial crisis. And it has survived countless paper currencies. Gold’s value and by the same token silver’s value are stable.
They are not going to plunge 25% or more over the course of a few days. There also isn’t a central authority in the world that controls PHYSICAL GOLD’S price or its supply. It’s a truly global currency. That’s why gold is still the best way to protect yourself from reckless governments and central banksters.
What is Real Wealth?
Money, right? Currency, gold, silver, you name it. Money is only real wealth because you can use it to buy whatever you want. Money in any form is in actual fact only the means to acquire real wealth. It is the instrument for opportunity and time to pursue your goal.
The conventional view that wealth is money and leisure is upside down. Let’s imagine the owner of a vault has conventional treasures: jewels, gold coins, etc. If the “wealth” stays in the vault, what’s the point of owning this “wealth”? The secret satisfaction of being “wealthy”?
If “wealth” is only an internal state, then let’s measure friendship and being needed/wanted with the metrics of “wealth.” Do you see the point; if “wealth” is merely an internal state of satisfaction, then a vault full of “money” is a poor metric.
What money buys is what real wealth truly is, which is freedom and the control over one’s life. This control over one’s life is called action. Action is defined as “the capacity of an actor to act in a given environment.” This may not seem like a profound concept, but another way to describe action is that action is the opposite of helplessness.
Forms of Wealth:
People with activity or drive define themselves and their identity. They shape the world they inhabit, rather than passively awaiting whatever circumstances may be delivered.
In the real world, people with drive are driven. They move on when things no longer work for them in a particular situation.
Action is not just the opposite of of helplessness; it’s also the opposite of victimhood, i.e. the state of being in which others are held responsible for all of one’s trials and tribulations.
Action and auto responsibility are two sides of the same coin: each manifests the other.
Opportunity is a form of wealth - and so is the ability to take opportunities that arise. Though there is a random element to opportunity – i.e. getting lucky. However, the ability to take the opportunity is not a matter of luck. It requires a specific appetite for risk, perseverance, the ability to discern how best to use the opportunity, and access to the capital required to exploit the opportunity.
Capital is a type of wealth that isn’t limited to “money”: Character traits are capital, social networks are capital, experience is capital, knowledge is capital. All of these forms of capital are often more important than “money” capital.
As for “money” buying leisure; Leisure in abundance is a disaster for the vast majority of people. Humans are designed to be needed by others, to be part of something greater than themselves, and to gain dignity and pride by doing useful work – whether they are paid “money” for this work or not.
This is why so many of those with the “money” to have endless leisure are miserable. Their lives are an endless treadmill of frivolous consumerism, neurotic pettiness, hypochondria, expressing their infinite heartaches to counsellors, and saddest of all, medications in abundance to relieve the ennui and the deadweight of their purposeless existence.
“Money” is only useful if it is a means to acquire real wealth, which is the activity, opportunity and time to pursue your ideals.
There are many people who can spend $600,000 a year on various things, i.e. their “lifestyle”, who don’t feel “wealthy” – and if they don’t have activity and time for work which is meaningful to them, they aren’t wealthy: They’re as impoverished as the person earning a fraction of their income.
Real Wealth Doesn’t Need Much Money:
Real wealth doesn’t actually require a vast horde of “money.” It requires some money, but how much depends on the cost of activity, opportunity and time.
For those with few needs and the right priorities, the cost is minimal.
As for acquiring capital – the most important types of capital don’t require much money; determination, self-discipline, organisation, a voracious appetite for knowledge and work, an insatiable curiosity, a generous heart, a knack for friendship, the purposeful pursuit of goals – these are the tools to acquiring real wealth.
Money Can’t Solve the Core Problems of Humanity:
People, through no direct fault of their own, accept the mistrust of the government as an unchangeable fact; “This is just the way things work!” It is assumed that governments can be nothing but corrupt, and as such, people don’t realise they can be forces of change to address this problem of trust.
As each one takes on the burden of self-education in law and trust, they become a single unit of honesty that can one day unite with others to form a truly honest and fair society.
In short, just because human history has been plagued by tyrannies and corrupt governments this doesn’t in the least prevent us from forming truly benevolent governments.
Such a benevolent body, should be built from the ground up, it should be anarchically founded on a population of educated and vigilant people, who know how to form trusting relationships as individuals and as a collective.
Our world is plagued by dishonesty, unfairness, and wholesale rejection of the truth; the founding principle of life.
In our world today Might is right, it’s the order of the day; lawlessness; where the law of the jungle and survival of the “fittest” are the primary criteria for oppression and success. And yet, despite the poverty stricken status of the human realms of trust, there is nothing stopping us from turning the ship of civilisation around and righting our course toward prosperity and abundance.
All the money in the world can’t solve the core problem humanity faces; the destruction of social trust and the capacity for individuals to restore the greater human family.
Restore the Trust:
The Cabal, for all their power through technology, their abundance of monetary wealth, and their seemingly limitless capacity to pollute and distort the minds of humans are practically powerless without the trust of their subordinates.
Even they, in their ivory towers of splendour and opulence, need a population of trusting serfs – puppets – to act as pawns for their games of domination and control.
The powers that should not be know that trust is the blood that flows through the veins of the entire social enterprise and as a result, they have worked tirelessly to ensure that we, the people never restore trust amongst ourselves.
Since we cannot trust each other, we end up placing our trust in the corrupt power structure, growing increasingly dependent on the very people who have destroyed our trust.
This is why history has been marked by the endless divisive movements, religions, creeds, sexuality and wars, all designed to destroy the human family and social trust.
The most dangerous thing to these morally void fools who have managed to climb the pillars of egocentric personal power, is an awakened individual and their potential to restore honour, relationship, and trust with others of like mind.
One of the best weapons against tyranny is the love of truth, and the willingness to work in trust with others.
Trust, honour, and respect are what make all relationships work. In this sense, good faith is what money really is. If trust is broken with someone, they likely won’t want to work with them in the future.
Humanity, on the whole, betrays trust, acts dishonourably and is pathologically disrespectful, making cooperation very difficult.
To solve this problem, a false form of trust is needed, a kind of forced cooperation, otherwise known as debt. That is why all money today is debt-based.
Restore trust, honour, and respect, and credit-based ‘money’ can return; otherwise known as the love of faith in one’s fellowman.
The Consequences of Scarcity Are All Around Us
We are deprived of physical affection from birth, leading to lifelong personality pathology and longing for emotional acceptance.
We are materially deprived of healthy food and clean products.
We are intellectually deprived of the truth and the self-empowerment that comes therefrom. And,
We are spiritually deprived of the healing power of fellowship, the restorative bestowment of genuine human interaction, and the transcendent joy of exploring cosmic meanings and values as a unified people.
Each Human Being Has Been Effectively Reduced to a Starving Rat
We spend our modern technologically enhanced lives in overcrowded towns and cities, connected to thousands of people through social media, all the while feeling more alone, disconnected and destitute than ever before.
We chase dreams of perfect romantic love; as portrayed in movies, TV shows, and books, to compensate for the profound state of loneliness, deprivation of intimacy and chronic feelings of
We yearn for true meaning in life and personal attainment, indulging in entertainment laden with cosmological archetypes and spiritual overtones, all the while denying the spiritual nature of existence.
We fulminate against anyone labelled as the enemy by social engineers in the mainstream media, feeling a sense of righteous empowerment as a result.
The result of these seemingly endless cycles of lack and dependence is the effectiveness of the elite’s divide and conquer - the destruction of the human family.
The elephant in the room isn’t that the Cabal or the globalists exist. It’s not that extra-terrestrials or spiritual forces are here and are likely trying to help us. It’s not even that fraud, deception, and lies are the backbone of our broken civilisation.
It’s that we, the people continue to allow their programs of division and self-disempowerment to run our lives. We continue to act without trust, honour and righteousness, even within the awakening community.
The Real Source of Wealth:
But this seems to be coming to an end, as more and more people rediscover the source of true wealth: love, trust, righteousness, good health and fellowship.
The desire for material wealth in most people reflects the fact that our basic human needs aren’t being met. But if we can, as a people, come together to solve this problem and build trust in the process, we’ll become immune to the rat-in-the-trap social program. We will transcend the Rat Race!
A Biologist Believes That Trees Speak A Language We Can Learn April 18 2024 | From: QZ / Various I’m in a redwood forest in Santa Cruz, California, taking dictation for the trees outside my cabin. They speak constantly, even if quietly, communicating above - and underground using sound, scents, signals, and vibes.
Biologists, ecologists, foresters, and naturalists increasingly argue that trees speak, and that humans can learn to hear this language.
Many people struggle with this concept because they can’t perceive that trees are interconnected, argues biologist George David Haskell in his 2017 book The Songs of Trees. Connection in a network, Haskell says, necessitates communication and breeds languages; understanding that nature is a network is the first step in hearing trees talk.
For the average global citizen, living far from the forest, that probably seems abstract to the point of absurdity. Haskell points readers to the Amazon rainforest in Ecuador for practical guidance.
To the Waorani people living there, nature’s networked character and the idea of communication among all living things seems obvious. In fact, the relationships between trees and other lifeforms are reflected in Waorani language.
In Waorani, things are described not only by their general type, but also by the other beings surrounding them. So, for example, any one ceibo tree isn’t a “ceibo tree” but is “the ivy-wrapped ceibo,” and another is “the mossy ceibo with black mushrooms.”
In fact, anthropologists trying to classify and translate Waorani words into English struggle because, Haskell writes, “when pressed by interviewers, Waorani ‘could not bring themselves’ to give individual names for what Westerners call ‘tree species’ without describing ecological context such as the composition of the surrounding vegetation.”
Because they relate to the trees as live beings with intimate ties to surrounding people and other creatures, the Waorani aren’t alarmed by the notion that a tree might scream when cut, or surprised that harming a tree should cause trouble for humans.
The lesson city-dwellers should take from the Waorani, Haskell says, is that “dogmas of separation fragment the community of life; they wall humans in a lonely room. We must ask the question: ‘can we find an ethic of full earthly belonging?’”
There’s room at the Redwood Inn
Haskell points out that throughout literary and musical history there are references to the songs of trees, and the way they speak: whispering pines, falling branches, crackling leaves, the steady hum buzzing through the forest. Human artists have always known on a fundamental level that trees talk, even if they don’t quite say they have a “language.”
Redefining Communication
Tree language is a totally obvious concept to ecologist Suzanne Simard, who has spent 30 years studying forests. In June 2016, she gave a Ted Talk (which now has nearly 2.5 million views), called “How Trees Talk to Each Other.”
Simard grew up in the forests of British Columbia in Canada, studied forestry, and worked in the logging industry. She felt conflicted about cutting down trees, and decided to return to school to study the science of tree communication.
Now, Simard teaches ecology at the University of British Columbia-Vancouver and researches “below-ground fungal networks that connect trees and facilitate underground inter-tree communication and interaction,” she says. As she explained to her Ted Talk audience:
"I want to change the way you think about forests. You see, underground there is this other world, a world of infinite biological pathways that connect trees and allow them to communicate and allow the forest to behave as though it’s a single organism. It might remind you of a sort of intelligence.”
Trees exchange chemicals with fungus, and send seeds - essentially information packets - with wind, birds, bats, and other visitors for delivery around the world. Simard specializes in the underground relationships of trees. Her research shows that below the earth are vast networks of roots working with fungi to move water, carbon, and nutrients among trees of all species.
These complex, symbiotic networks mimic human neural and social networks. They even have mother trees at various centers, managing information flow, and the interconnectedness helps a slew of live things fight disease and survive together.
Simard argues that this exchange is communication, albeit in a language alien to us. And there’s a lesson to be learned from how forests relate, she says. There’s a lot of cooperation, rather than just competition among and between species as was previously believed.
Peter Wohlleben came to a similar realization while working his job managing an ancient birch forest in Germany. He told the Guardian he started noticing trees had complex social lives after stumbling upon an old stump still living after about 500 years, with no leaves.
“Every living being needs nutrition,” Wohlleben said. “The only explanation was that it was supported by the neighbor trees via the roots with a sugar solution. As a forester, I learned that trees are competitors that struggle against each other, for light, for space, and there I saw that it’s just [the opposite].
Trees are very interested in keeping every member of this community alive.” He believes that they, like humans, have family lives in addition to relationships with other species. The discovery led him to write a book, The Hidden Life of Trees.
By being aware of all living things’ inter-reliance, Simard argues, humans can be wiser about maintaining mother trees who pass on wisdom from one tree generation to the next.
She believes it could lead to a more sustainable commercial-wood industry: in a forest, a mother tree is connected to hundreds of other trees, sending excess carbon through delicate networks to seeds below ground, ensuring much greater seedling survival rates.
Seedling survival is important to human beings because we need trees. “The contributions of forests to the well-being of humankind are extraordinarily vast and far-reaching,” according to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization 2016 report on world forests (pdf).
David Wilcock explains the science researc h behind plant communication in his book "Source Field Investigations"
Forests are key to combating rural poverty, ensuring food security, providing livelihoods, supplying clean air and water, maintaining biodiversity, and mitigating climate change, the FAO says. The agency reports that progress is being made toward better worldwide forest conservation but more must be done, given the importance of forests to human survival.
Most scientists - and trees - would no doubt agree that conservation is key.
Haskell believes that ecologically friendly policies would naturally become a priority for people if we’d recognize that trees are masters of connection and communication, managing complex networks that include us.
He calls trees “biology’s philosophers,” dialoguing over the ages, and offering up a quiet wisdom. We should listen, the biologist says, because they know what they’re talking about.
Haskell writes, “Because they are not mobile, to thrive they must know their particular locus on the Earth far better than any wandering animal.”
How Consumerism Is Ruining Our Lives And The World April 17 2024 | From: TheUnboundedSpirit Our economic system is based on consumption: The more stuff we buy, the more money moves in the economy, and hence the more the economy grows.
If we stopped consuming, the economy would collapse and result in unemployment, poverty and violence.
Not surprisingly, we believe that consumerism is good for us, and there’s even an entire industry - the advertising industry - dedicated to making us want to consume without end.
Yet, as I explain in the video below, consumerism is actually ruining our lives and the world, and unless we change our way of living, we’re soon going to face the tremendously negative impacts of our consumer behavior.
Brave New World And Individual Power & How The Elite Dominate The World: They Buy Politicians, And Incumbents Almost Always Win April 16 2024 | From: JonRappoport / PrisonPlanet / Various Rule by technocracy - that is the subject of this article. In such a future, there would be no politicians. They would have been made extinct…
Huxley’s 1932 novel about a World State and its version of Utopia is still one of the most important and relevant novels of our time.
It is the companion piece to Orwell’s 1984. The overt brutal force has been removed from the equation in Brave New World.
Instead: all births are synthetic, hatched in artificial womb factories, with accompanying genetic manipulation; no more nuclear families; no more monogamy; education is achieved through hypnotic sleep-learning; a caste system is engineered so the lower, less intelligent classes are happy with their lot, and the upper-level “alphas” occupy the top positions; the castes have little interest in associating with each other.
Technocracy has triumphed. The theme of life, the basic theme, is Pleasure. Pleasures of the senses. Not of the mind, not of constructive action, certainly not of imagination.
Pleasure keeps the citizens of the World State occupied…and if that fails, the ultimate backup is a drug called Soma, which relieves anxiety and depression and stimulates “happiness.”
There are many people living among us today who would opt for that life in a heartbeat. They would see no downside.
“Well, of course. Sign me up. I’ve been trying to find that pleasure all along. I’ll take it.”
The 1932 technocrats of Brave New World found a key. Why should they waste time trying to inflict pain on the population as a control mechanism? Why should they risk rebellion and revolution? Go “positive.” Give people pleasure. Absolutely.
All older forms of government fade away. They were just crude experiments in the foothills of the one and only revolution: technology deployed to pacify the world.
By the way, in Brave New World, no one reads books. They’re unnecessary. They make no sense. The “better life” is already a living fact. What possible benefit could a book deliver?
Every time I read Brave New World I see complacent animals grazing in pastures. That’s the picture. Human animals at peace in the fields. Nothing to care about. Nothing to think about. Just bend and chew. Don’t worry, be happy.
As Patrick Wood mentions in his fine and highly recommended book, Technocracy Rising, Huxley began writing Brave New World as a parody of other utopian novels of his time, but he became fascinated with his own ideas along the way, and set his mind to the task of fleshing out a technological end-game civilization.
Brave New World reveals a landscape in which people would be unable to turn around and throw off what has been done to them. They would not consider it. They would have no basis for comparison. They would have no cultural memory.
They are living in a universal super-welfare state. Their needs are satisfied - especially the central need: pleasure. It isn’t gained or worked for. It’s given. It’s a fact as basic as rain and sun. It’s there. It’s the shortest distance between the present moment and the next moment.
Isn’t this the fairy tale told about rich and famous celebrities? They can wake up in the morning thinking about pleasure that is immediately there for the taking. They have the means. They have the time. They have the opportunity. In Brave New World, everyone is that kind of creature. By necessity. There is no real choice. Their most base desires are their only desires. Their horizon is shortened.
Here are several choice quotes from Huxley’s masterwork:
"Hot tunnels alternated with cool tunnels. Coolness was wedded to discomfort in the form of hard X-rays. By the time they were decanted the embryos had a horror of cold. They were predestined to emigrate to the tropics, to be miner and acetate silk spinners and steel workers.
Later on their minds would be made to endorse the judgment of their bodies. ‘We condition them to thrive on heat,’ concluded Mr. Foster. ‘Our colleagues upstairs will teach them to love it’.”
“Feeling lurks in that interval of time between desire and its consummation. Shorten that interval, break down all those old unnecessary barriers.”
“No pains have been spared to make your lives emotionally easy – to preserve you, so far as that is possible, from having emotions at all.”
“A gramme [of the pleasure drug Soma] is better than a damn.”
The foundation of Brave New World conditioning: With enough basic pleasure, there is no need to think, to contemplate, to assess, to investigate; there is no need to imagine new realities because the current one is more than sufficient; there is no need to rebel because when a person is attuned to pleasure as the highest value - and he has pleasure - what is there to object to?
Lee Silver, a molecular biologist at Princeton, has written a book, Remaking Eden (1998), about the future of gene science in society. This is how he sees things playing out:
"The GenRich - who account for ten percent of the American population - all carry synthetic genes. All aspects of the economy, the media, the entertainment industry, and the knowledge industry are controlled by members of the GenRich class….
Naturals work as low-paid service providers or as laborers. [Eventually] the GenRich class and the Natural class will become entirely separate species with no ability to crossbreed, and with as much romantic interest in each other as a current human would have for a chimpanzee.
Many think that it is inherently unfair for some people to have access to technologies that can provide advantages while others, less well-off, are forced to depend on chance alone, [but] American society adheres to the principle that personal liberty and personal fortune are the primary determinants of what individuals are allowed and able to do.
Indeed, in a society that values individual freedom above all else, it is hard to find any legitimate basis for restricting the use of repro-genetics. I will argue [that] the use of reprogenetic technologies is inevitable. [W]hether we like it or not, the global marketplace will reign supreme.”
Of course, in the future Huxley describes in Brave New World, there is no marketplace. The powers-that-be have built a World State. It is run by a scientific elite. They have left behind all traditional forms of governing.
That is all. That is enough.
This vision of technocracy clarifies the agenda. The New World Order eventually travels light years beyond political tyranny. What need is there for laws or courts or traditional office holders or even the inside game of bribery and special favors?
They were old; this is new.
Make a list of people, down through history, you would consider the most important heroes and geniuses. In the Brave New World, such people would be inessential. They would not exist. They would be programmed out of the equation. Gone. Erased.
Technocracy becomes the ultimate form of governance. The ultimate form of Globalism. The solution to conflict.
What has really been “solved?” THE INDIVIDUAL. He is the thorny outlier, the person who says NO. The person who has his own ideas and his own vision.
He becomes “nice.” He becomes agreeable. He becomes polite. He becomes a member of the group. He gives up the ghost.
HE DOESN’T EVEN KNOW HE’S SURRENDERING, PIECE BY PIECE.
He doesn’t realize he’s forsaking himself for a world of shallow pleasure.
The struggle of centuries, to liberate the individual from the group and from the king and the priest class, is gradually reversed. The “new wisdom” says: go back, go back into the group.
Here is another gem, from Gregory Stock, former director of the program in Medicine, Technology, and Society at the UCLA School of Medicine:
"Even if half the world’s species were lost [during genetic experiments], enormous diversity would still remain.
When those in the distant future look back on this period of history, they will likely see it not as the era when the natural environment was impoverished, but as the age when a plethora of new forms - some biological, some technological, some a combination of the two - burst onto the scene.
We best serve ourselves, as well as future generations, by focusing on the short-term consequences of our actions rather than our vague notions about the needs of the distant future.”
The primary assumption here is that species are replaceable. If one species dies out, another can be created. As for the individual, he doesn’t count at all. He’s not even on the radar.
So who will put him on the radar? Our leaders? Brain researchers and molecular biologists?
That task falls to individuals themselves. In order to gain a glimpse of hope, the individual needs to discover he has power. He is not a tiny creature in a sea of collective reality.
The collective is the illusion.
In our time, the individual discovering his own power and its true scope is the work of a lifetime. This is why I write.
This is the actual Brave New World.
Individual power. The power to invent new Reality.
How The Elite Dominate The World: They Buy Politicians, And Incumbents Almost Always Win
Once we wake up to how the game is being played, then we will have a real shot at changing things.
For decades, the elite have been pulling the strings behind the scenes in both major political parties. That is why nothing has ever seemed to change very much no matter which party has been in power. [Archival article]
The agenda of the elite has always seemed to march forward, and ordinary people like us have always been frustrated that we can’t seem to make a difference. But now a shift seems to be taking place.
Donald Trump took on the establishment in both major parties, and he miraculously won the presidency. Down in Alabama, the elite spent more than 30 million dollars to defeat Roy Moore, and he still defeated Luther Strange. A political awakening is taking place, and I can’t wait to see what happens during the mid-term elections in 2018.
In Part I and Part II of this series, I talked about how the elite use debt as a tool of enslavement. In Part III, I went over how the elite use the colossal media corporations they own to control what we think. Today, I want to talk about their influence in the realm of politics.
In Washington D.C., it is well understood that the game of politics is all about the money. If I win my election, and online polling suggests that there is a ton of enthusiasm for my campaign, I will be expected to spend most of my time on the phone raising money.
As a freshman member of Congress, at orientation it will be explained to me that I am supposed to spend approximately four hours a day doing fundraising, and that is why the House and Senate floors are so empty most of the time.
By law, members of Congress cannot make fundraising calls from their offices, and so both parties have huge call centers just across from the Capitol. Especially around lunch and dinner times (because those are some of the best times to reach people), those call centers are packed as members of the House and Senate run through lists of potential donors.
And it isn’t just about raising money for their own campaigns. As a freshman member of Congress I would be expected to raise at least $200,000 for the NRCC (the National Republican Congressional Committee). If I don’t pay my dues, I would get into big trouble with party leadership.
But you know what? I have already pledged that I am not going to participate in this very corrupt system. If I am sent to Congress, I am going to spend my time doing the job that the people of Idaho sent me there to do.
So will Paul Ryan and the others in leadership get very upset with me for not “paying my dues”? Of course.
But it is time for some of us to take a stand and do what is right. Congress has become a cesspool of filth and corruption, and it is time to flush the toilet.
Because if we don’t fight this corrupt system, the influence of money in politics will just get worse and worse. Today, the elite pour millions upon millions of dollars even into small campaigns, and in 2016 it took an average of more than 10 million dollars to win a U.S. Senate seat…
"While the White House may not have gone to the biggest spender, an awful lot of House and Senate seats did - as usual. And it was pricier than ever to win them.
This election cycle, an average winning Senate candidate had spent $10.4 million through Oct. 19 (reflecting the latest reports filed with the Federal Election Commission).
That’s a $1.8 million increase over the same period in the 2014 cycle. By the end of last cycle, the number rose to $10.6 million, and a similar uptick is expected this time once post-election and year-end reports are filed."
Once you win, the pressure to raise money for your next campaign never ends.
The elite know this, and they use this pressure to influence votes. Prior to a big vote, lobbyists will make it abundantly clear how they want certain members of Congress to vote, and if they vote the “right way” those members of Congress will be rewarded.
Just across from the U.S. Capitol there are clubs where fancy receptions are regularly held. If you vote the “right way” on a particular bill, you may be invited to one of these receptions, and there will be big, fat donation checks waiting there for you.
Of course most members of Congress have learned how to play the game, and this is why it is nearly impossible to defeat incumbents. Over the past six decades, the re-election rate for members of the House of Representatives has consistently been well over 80 percent, and according to the UVA Center for Politics incumbents actually did far better than that in 2016…
"This election cycle, 393 of 435 House representatives, 29 of 34 senators, and five of 12 governors sought reelection (several of the governors were prohibited from seeking another term).
Of those, 380 of 393 House members (97%), 27 of 29 senators (93%), and four of five governors (80%) won another term. These members of Congress and governors not only won renomination, but also won in November."
Since World War II, the overall success rate for Senate incumbents has been 84 percent, and the overall success rate for House incumbents has been 94 percent.
Incumbents are almost always armed with huge war chests and most of them have tremendous name recognition, and so toppling them is not easy.
Fortunately, there is no incumbent in my race because Raul Labrador is running for governor. So the race is completely wide open, and right now my campaign has the most enthusiasm by far. If you would like to help me flush the toilet in Washington, I would encourage you to visit MichaelSnyderForCongress.com.
If we don’t fight back, we will never break the stranglehold that the elite have on our political system.
Every generation of [not just] Americans has had to stand up and fight for liberty and freedom, and now it is our turn. This particular battle will not be fought with guns and bullets, but rather with ideas, values and principles.
We are part of a movement that is sweeping the nation. Good men and women are rising up to run in federal, state and local races all across the country, and it is absolutely imperative that we all get behind them and support them.
Seven Charts That Show How The Rich Hide Their Cash April 15 2024 | From: Geopolitics / Various Who avoids the most tax and what does that mean for inequality?
The research was based on a variety of data, including ICIJ’s Swiss Leaks and Panama Papers investigations, and prove for interesting reading. Here are seven highlights from the reports.
1. The Ultra-Rich Avoid the Most Tax
The ultra-rich, people whose net worth is more than $45 million, are ten times more likely to evade taxes than the average citizen, according to the research.
That means the ultra-rich have worked out how to avoid paying about 30 percent of their personal income and wealth taxes.
And it probably doesn’t stop there, with the authors suggesting that “evasion among the wealthy may be even higher” because their research was based on Scandinavian countries where social trust is high, corruption low and respect for the rule of law strong.
The research also found that offshore wealth increases the “top 0.1 percent wealth share from 8 percent to 10 percent” when looking at Norway specifically. And for top 0.01 percent “taking tax evasion into account increases their wealth by a third.”
2.
The Ultra-Rich are More Likely to Use Offshore Accounts
The likelihood of Scandinavians in the bottom 99 per cent of wealth share hiding their assets in HSBC accounts was “negligible,” according to research based on ICIJ’s Swiss Leaks.
But the probability rises to 1 percent among the richest 0.01 percent.
This chart shows the probability of owning an unreported HSBC account by wealth groups. (The first group [P90-P95] represents households worth less than $900,000 and the last the top 0.01 percent who are worth $44.5 million.)
“The gradient is notable too: top 0.01 percent households are 13 times more likely to hide assets at HSBC than households in the bottom half of the top 1 percent,” they wrote.
3. Hardly Anyone Except the Ultra-Rich Use Offshore Accounts
The use of offshore accounts “steeply rises with wealth,” according to research based on ICIJ’s Panama Papers.
This charts shows the probability of owning a Mossack Fonseca offshore shell company significantly increased for the top 0.01 percent of Norway and Sweden’s population.
“The use of tax havens appears more concentrated in the Panama Papers than in the HSBC leak,” the authors wrote.
The researchers also suggested one reason very few households outside the 0.01 percent in the Panama Papers used shell companies to conceal wealth is because it is a “more sophisticated” strategy than owning offshore bank accounts.
“Both techniques are often combined, but the wealthiest tax evaders might be more likely to combine offshore accounts with shell companies, when less wealthy tax evaders may be relatively more likely to own offshore accounts directly in their own names.”
4. Tax Havens Hold 10 Percent of Global GDP
In the second study, the authors analyzed the global amount of wealth in tax havens.
“We find that while about 10 percent of world GDP is held in tax havens globally, this average masks a great deal of heterogeneity.”
For example, Russia (60 percent), Europe (15 percent) and other nations hold a significant chunk of their GDP offshore, whereas Scandinavian countries own just a few percent of GDP.
5.
Offshore Wealth is Shifting from Switzerland to Asia
The research found the size of this wealth was “not easily explained by tax or institutional factors” but instead correlated more closely with a country’s proximity to Switzerland, the presence of natural resources and political/economic instability.
However, the times might be changing, with the research also discovering wealth was growing in tax havens based in Asia – and mainly in Hong Kong – with offshore accounts held in Switzerland declining since the 2008 financial crisis.
The authors predicted offshore assets in Hong Kong have grown six-fold between 2007 and 2015 with the country now ranked second behind Switzerland for tax havens.
6.
Countries with More Offshore Wealth Also Use MoreTax Havens
The next chart shows the number of unique owners of shell companies created by Mossack Fonseca in each country before 2006 and active in 2007, using Panama Papers data.
“There are strong similarities between the amount of offshore wealth we estimate and the use of tax havens as revealed by the Panama Papers,” the authors said.
Russia is one such country with a total of 2071 unique shells. The authors also highlighted that China is over-represented in the data given estimates of how much Chinese wealth is offshore.
They suggest this could be because estimates of China’s offshore wealth are low, or that Chinese use shell companies for purposes other than concealing wealth.
7.
Offshore Wealth Can Substantially Increase Inequality
So what does that all mean for equality?
Including offshore assets generally increased the 0.01 percent’s wealth share substantially (even in the law abiding Scandinavian countries).
The effect in some countries is much worse than others. In the United Kingdom, Spain and France offshores assets accounted for between 30 to 40 percent of the 0.01 percent’s wealth. In Scandinavia, however, their share of wealth only increases by about 1 percent.
Ley Lines - The Key To Understanding The Matrix April 14 2024 | From: MaggiesHolisticsNY / Various Yet again we come across another mysterious force of nature known as the electro magnetic fields of the earth, Schumann Resonance or better known as ley lines.
The rediscovery of ley lines in this century is unveiling (apocalypse; greek for unveiling) the secrets of Nature.
All ley lines lead to the planetary Grid, the primary light and energy matrix, creating, enveloping, and maintaining planet Earth, our Gaia. What Are Ley-Lines? A ley-line is a straight fault line in the earth’s tectonic plates; this is a scientific fact.
Through these cracks in the earth’s tectonic plates the magnetic energies released are very powerful indeed. Many people have claimed to have felt the energy surge up their body, and some have claimed that they have blacked out, as the surge was that powerful.
How Long Have Human Beings Known About Ley Lines? Our ancestors have known about these lines for thousands of years. Every race and culture on the planet has known about these lines yet everyone had different names for these lines.
All we need to do is to look at the ancient cultures of the earth.
Take the native Indians of the United States; they used to call ley lines spirit lines and their Shaman’s used to use the electromagnetic energy in these lines to help them contact the spirits. They even designed their medicine wheel on the spirit lines, as they knew that these lines followed a straight round line.
How did they know about these lines and the energies that they give off? The answer’s simple: the sky Gods told them. In Europe we are lead to believe that the druids called them mystical lines, in Wales they used the same name as eastern countries; they called them dragon lines.
We know that Eastern countries called them dragon lines as the sky Gods flew in dragons along these lines. The aboriginal people of Australia called these lines “dream lines”, once again they claim that knowledge was passed on to them from the sky Gods.
Ten Things You’re Not Supposed To Know April 13 2024 | From: AnonymousNews / Various “The general population doesn’t know what’s happening, and it doesn’t even know that it doesn’t know.” - Noam Chomsky.
1. It is Nearly Impossible to Pay Off the National Debt
"Nothing is so well calculated to produce a death-like torpor in the country as an extended system of taxation and a great national debt.”
- William Cobbett
This is because money is created out of debt in a one-to-one increase in public debt. The national debt is $20 Trillion. [Archival] That means the (roughly) 234 million US Americans would have to pay approximately $62,000 each to pay it off.
This includes babies, children, poor people, and homeless people. There are even those who claim that it’s mathematically impossible to pay off the debt. And almost every country is in debt to every other country. It’s the height of insanity.
As former Governor of the Federal Reserve Marriner Eccles said, “If there were no debts in our money system, there wouldn’t be any money.”
“Federal Reserve notes are not redeemable in gold, silver or any other commodity, and receive no backing by anything. The notes have no value for themselves.”
- The Treasury
All money is fiat money. A dollar bill is a dollar bill because everyone agrees it’s a dollar bill. The dollar bill is not lawful money, but rather “legal tender.”
Money used to be backed by a “gold standard” – which meant the government had $100 worth of gold in a vault from which they made a $100 bill that went out into the market (though even gold only has value because we’ve all agreed since time immemorial that it’s valuable).
However, they moved away from gold years ago, so now we must take the government’s word for it that the note is worth $100.
The bill itself is just an IOU note, made from thin air, based on debt, and laundered by the government.
Even the debt issue discussed in the first bullet is based on nothing, and is nothing more than a financial concept financiers agree on. The debt isn’t actually there.
But since we all just go along with it, it affects us through inflation, and devaluation, and the sky-is-falling knee-jerk reactions to money meaning something only because we give it meaning. Money is little more than a cartoon in the brain that we’re addicted to watching.
3. How to Live Off the Grid
“Live simply so that others may simply live.”
- Gandhi
You’re not “supposed” to know how to live off the grid, because then you can’t be controlled by the government. The more self-sufficient you are, the less money the corporations can make off you.
The more rain water you catch, the less you’ll need to pay the water companies.
The more windmills you build and solar panels you erect, the less you’ll need to pay the electric companies. The more composting toilets you install, the less you’ll have to pay plumbing companies. The more gardening you do, the less you’ll have to pay someone else for your food.
In short: the more independent you become, the less codependent you will be on the state. And the state doesn’t like that, because they like your money way more than they like your freedom.
4. Planned Obsolescence
“Armaments, universal debt and planned obsolescence – those are the three pillars of Western prosperity.”
- Aldous Huxley
Speaking of making money off you, planned obsolescence is a way for companies to keep making money off you by capitalizing on your consumerist tendencies.
Let’s face it, we’re a world of consumers with Big Macs for brains and iPhones for hearts. We need our fix and we need it fast, and we are willing to fill all the landfills in the world, and then some, to get it.
Planned obsolescence is designed into a product to encourage the consumer to buy the next upgrade.
Everything from toasters to automobiles, microwaves to cell phones are prone to planned obsolescence by greedy companies that know you will come back for more no matter how many times your things-things-things fall apart.
5. Civil Asset Forfeiture
“The State is nothing more nor less than a bandit gang writ large.”
- Ludwig Von Mises
As if police brutality, extortion, and overreach of power weren’t enough, unscrupulous police officials have been manipulating the deeply flawed federal and state civil asset forfeiture laws that give them permission to seize, keep, or sell any property allegedly involved in a crime.
The key word is “allegedly.” Because most of the time property is taken without even being charged with a crime. That’s crazy!
Originally meant to be used on large-scale criminal organizations, it is now used almost entirely on individuals, ruining people’s lives over petty “crimes.”
More and more police departments are using forfeiture to benefit their bottom lines. It’s less about fighting crime and more about profit. John Oliver did an excellent piece on the matter that gets right at the heart of the issue.
6. The US Imprisons More of its Population Than Any Other Country (And Profits Off it)
"Some may say that jailing people over their debts makes poverty into a crime. Well if that’s true, maybe we should just cut out the middle man and put all poor people in jail. Of course, this will require new prison facilities, which we can build using people who can’t pay their prison fees. Not as workers, as the bricks.”
-
Stephen Colbert.
Living in what is widely considered the “land of the free,” this one should come as a body blow to anybody who truly believes in freedom. The total prison population has grown by 500 percent over the last 30 years. 500!
The icing on this shit-cake is the deplorable fact that big corporations are making a killing off the prison system. Equal parts extortion and slavery, for-profit prisons do nothing in the way of rehabilitation and therapy, and everything in the way of profit and criminal relapse.
7. Forced Taxation is Theft
“Since few men are wise enough to rule themselves, even fewer are wise enough to rule others.”
- Edward Abbey
When taxation is forced, one cannot say they live in a free country. When taxation is not optional, the country forcing the tax is not free. Bottom line. If one does not pay their taxes, in such a country, they are threatened with violence or prison if they don’t pay.
That is point-blank extortion. And since it is being done by an authoritarian government, it is naked tyranny.
If one feels like paying taxes, then they should feel free to pay. That’s fair, because that’s voluntary. But if the state is using its monopoly on violence to get money out of you, that is not fair, that is extortion. It really is that simple.
If freedom is primary then voluntarism is paramount. The use of state services built off taxes is an entirely different matter with entirely different solutions, and is an irrelevant red herring to the issue at hand.
8. You’re Not “Allowed” to be Stateless, But You Can Be
“A man without a government is like a fish without a bicycle.”
- Alvaro Koplovich
Statelessness is an alien concept in our world, even though it can be extended to all living beings “in principle” and “in theory,” at its irreducible bedrock truth, it is exceptionally difficult to be sovereign and stateless.
This is because the entire world is plagued with the disease of statism.
It is so second-nature to our existence that we never question it. We might as well be fish questioning water. But we are not fish. We are human beings with the ability for deep logic, higher reasoning, and basic common sense.
That is, unless we are being oppressed into blind servitude and myopic subordination and we are unwilling to question things… And here we are.
Similar to living off the grid, you’re not supposed to know this one because then the corrupt nation states of the world would have less control over you. And, don’t be fooled, it’s all about control, as Mike Gogulski found out firsthand.
Unfortunately, the cons outweigh the pros on becoming a stateless person (Though these two gents seem to be enjoying it).
Especially because we are social creatures and most of the other social creatures in our world are conditioned statists.
As Nietzsche famously said, “State is the name of the coldest of all cold monsters. Coldly it lies; and this lie slips from its mouth: ‘I, the state, am the people.’”
9. The Police Are Not legally Obligated to Protect You
“There’s no weakness as great as false strength.”
-
Stefan Molyneux
Most people falsely and ignorantly assume that it is the sworn duty of the police to protect and to serve. But it is actually the exception, not the rule.
A cop protecting and serving is doing so in a humane capacity and not because he/she is obligated to do so. They just happen to be acting humanely while wearing a badge.
The reality is that power tends to corrupt. This applies especially to police. And especially-especially to police that are trained to be offense-minded, oppressive, extorting, overreaching, and violent enforcers of a statist agenda.
The solution is not more ill-trained offense-minded police with too much power, but more well-trained defense-minded police with just enough power (a power with built-in checks and balances in place to prevent power from corrupting).
In short: a complete eradication of the Thin Blue Line.
If we lived within a horizontal democracy, we would have a better chance at being free.
No masters, no rulers, and hence, no chance for power to become concentrated in the hands of a few. Easier said than done, sure, but nothing worth doing was ever easy.
As it stands, it is impossible to live freely within an oligarchic plutocracy.
The plutocrats will simply continue buying up power by creating oppressive laws and “legal” extortion rackets that keep the people without wealth and power in a permanent state of poverty and powerlessness.
Add to that the use of lobbyists and a fiat currency based on debt, and you have a world of hoodwinked debt slaves under the delusion that they live in a free democratic republic.
How To Succeed In Western Media Without Really Trying
& Britain Moves To Criminalize Reading Extremist Material On The Internet April 12 2024 | From: StephenLendman / InformationClearingHouse Most important is loyalty to monied interests, war-profiteers, and the imperial state – serving as their press agents, abandoning fundamental journalistic principles, learning how to lie well, along with leaving honesty and integrity at home when heading for work.
Julian Assange offered his own recommended strategy for success. It’s simple, he said. Blame Russia for everything.
1. Pick random globally newsworthy event. Russian press will also be reporting it by definition.
2. Write story: Russian state secretly behind globally newsworthy event as proved by their press reporting it.
3. Profit!
Bashing Russia works, the bandwagon effect when everybody does it, following the same script.
Saying it makes it so. Repeating it ad nauseam works best. Lying is simpler than truth-telling – no evidence needed, no sources required.
Citing the usual unnamed ones works fine. Who’ll check? Lying pays well in America and other Western countries, truth-tellers shunted, contradicting the official narrative not tolerated.
Western major media are deplorable, truth-telling a lost art in their publications and broadcasts. The fourth estate, dominated by corporate giants, feature disinformation, fake news and advocacy instead of what legitimate journalism is supposed to be.
It’s shocking how low major media reporting has sunk. It’s biased, sensationalist, irresponsible rubbish, what Project Censored calls “junk food news.”
Major media are in cahoots with other powerful interests, government and private. Free and open societies are threatened when propagandists pose as journalists, letting fiction substitute for facts, stifling the free flow of content, shutting out dissent, working as paid liars, what famed journalist George Seldes called “prostitutes of the press.”
Imperial wars are called liberating ones, humanitarian intervention and responsibility to protect. Civil liberties are suppressed for our own good.
Beneficial social justice is considered heresy. The marketplace works best, we’re told, so let it. Patriotism means going along with what harms our welfare.
Independent journalism is the only legitimate kind, notably digital democracy, threatened by administration efforts to control Internet content.
Facebook, Twitter and other social media are willing accomplices. So are Google and other search engines, censoring and suppressing content, flagrantly violating the most vital of all constitutional rights – media and speech freedom.
During pre-television days, noted journalist and author AJ Liebling once said “People everywhere confuse what they read in newspapers with news.”
HL Mencken called US journalism “predominantly paltry and worthless. Its pretensions are enormous, but its achievements are insignificant.”
He explained why major media sanitize news, filtering out unwanted content, saying:
“The most dangerous (person) to any government is (anyone) able to think things out for himself (or herself), without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos.”
“Almost inevitably (they come) to the conclusion that the government…is dishonest, insane, and intolerable…”
The state of Western media today is too deplorable to fix. Independent sources provide the only reliable news, information and analysis, no others.
Britain Moves To Criminalize Reading Extremist Material On The Internet
For years, civil libertarians have warned that Great Britain has been in a free fall from the criminalization of speech to the expansion of the surveillance state.
Now the government is pursuing a law that would make the repeated viewing of extremist Internet sites a crime punishable to up to 15 years in prison.
It appears that the government is not satiated by their ever-expanding criminalization of speech. They now want to criminalize even viewing sites on the Internet. As always, officials are basically telling the public to “trust us, we’re the government.”
UK home secretary Amber Rudd is pushing the criminalization of reading as part of her anti-radicalization campaign . . . which turns out to be an anti-civil liberties campaign.
Rudd told a Conservative Party conference that she wants to crackdown on people “who view despicable terrorist content online, including jihadi websites, far-right propaganda and bomb-making instructions.”
So sites deemed “far-right propaganda” (but not far-left propaganda) could lead to your arrest - leaving the government with a sweeping and ambiguous mandate.
The law would move from criminalizing the downloading of information to simply reading it. The move confirms the long criticism of civil libertarians that the earlier criminalization would just be the start of an ever-expanding government regulation of sites and speech. Rudd admits that she wants to arrest those who just read material but do not actually download the material.
In the past, the government assumed near total discretion in determining who had a “reasonable excuse” for downloading information.
Britain has long relied on the presumed benevolence of the government in giving its sweeping authority in the surveillance and regulation of speech, including the media.
This move however is a quantum shift in government controls over speech and information. Indeed, this comes the closest to criminalization not just speech but thought. It is a dangerous concept and should be viewed as disqualifying for anyone who want to hold (or retain) high office.
What is particularly striking is that this new law seeks to create a new normal in a society already desensitized to government controls and speech crimes. Thee is no pretense left in this campaign - just a smiling face rallying people to the cause of thought control.
Sound familiar?
“We are different from all the oligarchies of the past, in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites.
The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just round the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal.
We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship.
The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power."
The Great Transformation: A World Awakening April 11 2024 | From: WakeUpWorld / Various We are currently living in the most profoundly transformative time in the history of our Planet.
Never mind the Industrial Revolution or even the advent of our current techno wonder-world: this is a time of Awakening Consciousness on a planetary level, and not one single being or location on the earth will remain untouched.
Of course, you may not be remotely aware of this, as we each experience life depending upon where we put our attention - and right now there is a reality show of international proportions grabbing the spotlight from nightly news to social media.
However, those of us looking in another direction are perceiving an expansion in Consciousness of a cosmic magnitude.
It was a work based on my own awakening and recognition that “whatsoever we do to or for another, we are doing to or for our own selves - for good or ill.” It spoke of a way of cultivating Self-Awareness and expanding Consciousness, and was published in the midst of the Great Recession - a crisis that demanded a rethinking of priorities and a recreating of systems.
Unfortunately, rather than accept that uncomfortable truth and the accompanying challenge, the powers-that-be scrambled to recreate the status quo with all haste.
Nine years later we are experiencing the consequences of those decisions with a vengeance - a nationwide dissatisfaction of such profound depth it has led to an unprecedented rejection of establishment thinking and the elevation of an antihero into a position of power.
Meanwhile, the energetics of Transformation - not to be trifled with by out-of-control egos of any stature - are barreling on and showing up globally: from the astonishing upstart in the Vatican speaking a Christ-like rhetoric of caring for the poor, to alternative energy becoming a new norm, and governments around the world granting rights to animals, water and the Earth herself.
In all this we are witnessing what I call the Great Transformation: a period of societal upheaval and political antics indicating the death throes and approaching dissolution of the Old Paradigm on the one hand, and a greater acceptance of our interdependence arising in the multitudes, leading us toward a new way of being in harmony with all life, on the other.
“The Evolution Revolution is our only solution ‘fore we kill ourselves with our insanity. The nuclear madness, environmental sadness, all the actions that deny our Unity - the evolution Revolution’s what we need…”
- Sahara Devi, The Evolution Revolution Rap
So where does that leave us as individuals, the ‘little people’ who may feel powerless to have an impact in the face of such great turbulence? Where does the average Joe, a decent, hardworking, live-and-let-live kind of guy, who abhors how things are but doesn’t have a clue what to do about it, find the power to make a difference if he is not a protester, activist, billionaire, ‘celebrity’ or CEO?
If we are not simply reactive organisms, responding to stimuli like Pavlov’s dogs, we have the profoundly influential power (and empowerment) of intentional, conscious choice.
We can choose where to put our attention, we can choose what to feed with our energy, we can choose what to support with our money, we can choose how to respond to what we perceive, and we can choose the words and tone of voice in our speaking. We can choose the attitude and intention we bring into our world, and more specifically, our community.
“May I live this day compassion of heart, clear in word, gracious in awareness, courageous in thought, and generous in love.”
- John O’Donohue
It’s actually quite simple: the key to the power of the individual (those who en masse make up the overwhelming majority) is in relationship - because the basis of a harmonious life in any society depends upon our inter-relatedness and how we choose to treat each other on a daily basis.
We needn’t wait for a natural disaster to evoke a sense of ‘all in this together’ because we really ARE all in this - Life - together.
We needn’t wait for a catastrophe to inspire kindness, cooperation, consideration, generosity or compassion - we can choose to embody those qualities and express them in every encounter, every day - and race, religion, nationality, gender or even political affiliation need never come into play.
Start where you are. The simplest way to say it is: Be friendly. We can choose to be friendly and pleasant when engaged in transactions with the cashier or waitress who serves us, we can choose to be considerate of others when we’re driving down the street, we can choose to be kind, supportive or complimentary in every human transaction.
In a world that has sped up exponentially, just being willing to spend the moment it takes to be still and listen to what another wants to express is a kindness.
“Kindness is a language that the deaf can hear and the blind can see.”
-
Mark Twain
All around us are folks working at jobs we’ve done, or jobs we would never want to do. These people are not nameless ciphers, they are our neighbors - someone’s mother, father, sister, child or loved one - and they are serving us in the positions they occupy.
What if we expressed appreciation for their service and made their encounter with us a moment of warmth and connection?
What if our default intention as we go about our daily life was making people feel good about themselves? What if our speaking elicited the response: “You made my day.”
The change we want to see in our world is not something that can be legislated or imposed from without; it is not something we can achieve through protest. It is something that can only come from within each one of us choosing to bring a little more kindness into our way of being as we go about the business of living our lives.
Quantum physics tells us how the observer affects that which it observes - this is the way as individuals we affect our collective reality.
What if we started to observe through the eyes of Love? In the same way that the reward of patience is patience, the reward of kindness is finding oneself living in a kind world. Verily: whatsoever we embody and express creates the world in which we live.
It’s a question of critical mass. Small numbers have the power to affect collective consciousness and do, as when TM meditators demonstrably reduced crime in cities by their focus.
When we recognize we are part of a whole and continuously contributing the quality of our energy to that whole, we can begin to choose to embody and express more kindness, raising the vibratory rate of the collective and contributing to a transformed society.
The Individual Versus The Fake Collective April 10 2024 | From: NoMoreFakeNews / Various Trumpets blare. In the night sky, spotlights roam. A great confusion of smoke and dust and fog, and emerging banners, carrying the single message: WE. The great meltdown of all consciousness into a glob of utopian simplicity…
There are denizens among us. They present themselves as the Normals. Beyond all political objectives, there is a simple fact: those group-mind addicts who have given up their souls will rage against the faintest appearance of one who tries to keep his.
And in this rage, the soulless ones will try to pull the other down to where they live. And somehow, it all looks normal and proper and rational.
In the 1950s, before television had numbed minds and turned them into jelly, there was a growing sense of: the Individual versus the Corporate State.
Something needed to be done. People were fitting into slots. They were surrendering their lives in increasing numbers. They were carving away their own idiosyncrasies and their independent ideas.
But television, under the control of psyops experts, became, as the 1950s droned on, the facile barrel of a weapon:
“What’s important is the group. Conform. Give in. Bathe in the great belonging…”
Recognize that every message television imparts is a proxy, a fabrication, a simulacrum, an imitation of life one step removed. When this medium also broadcasts words and images of belonging and the need to belong, it’s engaged in revolutionary social engineering.
Whether it’s the happy-happy suburban-lawn family in an ad for the wonders of a toxic pesticide, or the mob family going to the mattresses to fend off a rival, it’s fantasy time in the land of mind control.
Television has carried its mission forward. The consciousness of the Individual versus the State has turned into: love the State. Love the State as family. In the only study I have been able to find, Wictionary partially surveys the scripts of all television shows from the year 2006, to analyze the words most frequently broadcast to viewers in America.
Out of 29,713,800 words, including the massively used “a,” “an,” “the,” “you,” “me,” and the like, the word “home” ranks 179 from the top. “Mom” is 218. “Together” is 222. “Family” is 250.
This usage reflects an unending psyop. Are you with the family or not? Are you with the group, the collective, or not? Those are the blunt parameters.
“When you get right down to it, all you have is family.” “Our team is really a family.” “You’re deserting the family.” “You fight for the guy next to you.” “Our department is like a family.” “Here at Corporation X, we’re a family.”
The committee, the group, the company, the sector, the planet. The goal? Submerge the individual.
Individual achievement, imagination, creative power? Not on the agenda. Something for the dustbin of history.
Aldous Huxley, Brave New World: “‘Ninety-six identical twins working ninety-six identical machines’! The voice was almost tremulous with enthusiasm. ‘You really know where you are. For the first time in history.’”
“The two aims of the Party are to conquer the whole surface of the earth and to extinguish once and for all the possibility of independent thought.”
The soap opera is the apotheosis of television. The long-running characters in Anytown are irreversibly enmeshed in one another’s lives. There’s no escape. There is only mind-numbing meddling.
“I’m just trying to help you realize we all love you (in chains).”
“Your father, rest his soul, would never have wanted you to do this to yourself…”
“How dare you set yourself apart from us. Who do you think you are?”
For some people, the collective “WE” has a fragrant scent - until they get down in the trenches with it. There they discover odd odors and postures and mutations. There they discover self-distorted creatures scurrying around celebrating their twistedness.
The night becomes long. The ideals melt. The level of intelligence required to inhabit this cave-like realm is lower than expected, much lower. Hypnotic perceptions, which are the glue that holds the territory together, begin to crack and fall apart, and all that is left is a grim determination to see things through.
As the night moves into its latter stages, some participants come to know that all their activity is taking place in a chimerical universe.
It is as if reality has been constructed to yield up gibberish. Whose idea was it to become deaf, dumb, and blind in the first place?
And then perhaps one person in the cave suddenly says: I EXIST. That starts a cacophony of howling.
In the aftermath of the 1963 assassination of JFK and the 1995 bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City, the covert theme was the same: a lone individual did this.
A lone individual, detached from the group, did this. “Lone individuals are people who left the fold. They wandered from the communal hearth. Therefore, they inevitably became killers.”
In 1995, after the Oklahoma City Bombing, President Bill Clinton made a speech to the nation. He rescued his presidency by essentially saying, “Come home to the government. We will protect you and save you.”
He framed the crime in those terms. The individual versus the collective.
The history of human struggle on this planet is about the individual emerging FROM the group, from the tribe, from the clan. The history of struggle is not about the individual surrendering and going back INTO group identity.
As the trumpets blare in the night sky, as the fog-ridden spotlights roam, as the banners emerge carrying the single message, WE, as people below are magnetically drawn to this show, a unpredicted thing happens:
Someone shouts: WHAT IS WE? Other pick up the shout. And the banners begin to catch fire and melt. They drip steel and wax and the false grinding of hypnotic dreams breaks its rhythm.
The whole sky-scene stutters like a great weapon losing its capacity to contain heat. The sky itself drips and caves inward and collapses, and the trumpets tail off and there is a new fresh silence.
The delusion, in pieces, is drifting away… The cover: gone. Behind it is The Individual. What will he do now?
Will he seek to find his inherent power, the power he cast aside in his eagerness to join the collective?
Will he? Or will he search for another staged melodrama designed to absorb him in an all-embracing WE?
Puppet Masters Of Media Propaganda April 9 2024 | From: HuffPost / Various In this day and age of vast amounts of news and media that bombard and compete for public attention fewer and fewer are able to discriminate fact from fiction.
Shocking tabloid headlines, once reserved for amusement at grocery store line checkout, are now used by the mainstream press to bait the hook to get the consumer to bite and read/watch more.
Journalists and reporters, if you can now call them such, are woefully compromised in the bias they take in propagandizing issues that ultimately serve the agenda of the media giants and hidden elite (owners of these media conglomerates) for whom they work and shape the perceptional lens of the masses.
Is there a intentional agenda behind all this and if so, whose masterminding it and for what purpose? The answer, I believe, is YES.
One of the greatest known masterminds of media propaganda and tactical distraction was Dr. Edward L. Bernays. He is considered the founding Father of Public Relations and was also the nephew of famed psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud.
Some twenty-five years ago I spent an afternoon with Dr. Bernays picking his brain on the subject of PR strategies to promote humanitarian concerts I envisioned could promote world peace.
In his late 90’s at the time, he was kind and considerate with me as he served coffee and crumb cakes and showed photos of himself with Henry Ford, Thomas Edison and numerous US Presidents of this era that he had worked with.
Over the course of the next 25 years I would experience great pushback from various power structures in achieving my goals towards peace.
I went to great lengths to educate myself about why this could be occurring and ultimately learned of the real power and philosophies that drove the manipulative skills use of Bernay’s.
Edward’s agenda of herding society in specific directions, on behalf of those who envisioned a new world order, is apparent in his quote:
“We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of... If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, it is now possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without them knowing it...
...The conscious and intellectual manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.”
Towards bringing a spotlight to the elite few who orchestrate the monstrous intent of mind-controlling society, consider this excerpt from a speech from John F. Kennedy before the American Newspaper Publishers Association on April 27, 1961 (some two years before his assassination) :
“We are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence - on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of election, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day.
It is a system that has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations...
Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, nor rumor printed, no secret revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war -time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match...
...That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment -the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution - not primarily to AMUZE and ENTERTAIN not to emphasize the Trivial and the sentimental, not to simply “give the public what it wants” -but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometime even anger public opinion.”
In order to place the agenda and motive of mind-controlling society through the modern media machine lets consider a few historic quotes that point to people behind such actions.
“All Wars are fought for money.”
- Socrates (469 BC)
“When one with honeyed words but evil mind persuades the mob, great woes befall the state.” - Euripides (406 BC) from his play “Orestes”
The means of defense against foreign danger have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.”
- James Madison
“Experience has shown, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.”
- Thomas Jefferson
“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty or safety.”
- Benjamin Franklin
“In every age it has been the tyrant, the oppressor and the exploiter who has wrapped himself in the cloak of patriotism, or religion, or both to deceive and overawe the People.” - Eugene Victor Debs, Voices of a People’s History of the United States
“For PEOPLE to rule themselves in a REPUBLIC, they must have virtue; for a TYRANT to rule in a TYRANNY, he must use FEAR.”
- William J. Federer
“Those who are capable of tyranny are capable of perjury to sustain it.”
- Lysander Spooner
“A democracy which makes or even effectively prepares for modern, scientific war must necessarily cease to be democratic. No country can be really well prepared for modern war unless it is governed by a tyrant, at the head of a highly trained and perfectly obedient bureaucracy.”
-
Aldous Huxley, Oxford graduate, English writer, novelist and philosopher.
One of the greatest truisms of the human existence and wisdom, when describing the various monstrous realities that have occurred on our earth, is “Follow the money.” In part II of this series of articles we’ll next explore the subject of “Banking and War Profiteering.”
As a pretext to subject, I encourage you to consider the nature of greed, money and power as described by Mayer Amschel Rothschild, considered the ‘Founding Father of International Banking’: “Let me issue and control a Nation’s money and I care not whom makes the laws.”
Are Elite Controllers A Fantasy? Read This April 8 2024 | From: JonRappoport / Various
We rarely get a chance to see a smoking gun that proves elite controllers are running the show from behind the curtain. That’s why there is a curtain.
So I’m republishing a conversation between two members of the Rockefeller Trilateral Commission (TC) and a US reporter.
In 1969, four years before birthing the TC with David Rockefeller, Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote:
“[The] nation state as a fundamental unit of man’s organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force.
International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation state.”
Goodbye, separate nations.
Any doubt on the question of TC goals is answered by David Rockefeller himself, the founder of the TC, in his Memoirs (2003):
“Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure—one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”
The conversation was public knowledge at the time. Anyone who was anyone in Washington politics, in media, in think-tanks, had access to it. Understood its meaning.
But no one shouted from the rooftops. No one used the conversation to force a scandal. No one protested loudly.
The conversation revealed that the entire basis of the US Constitution had been torpedoed, that the people who were running US national policy (which includes trade treaties) were agents of an elite shadow group. No question about it.
And yet: official silence. Media silence. The Dept. of Justice made no moves, Congress undertook no serious inquiries, and the President, Jimmy Carter, issued no statements.
Carter was himself an agent of the Trilateral Commission in the White House.
He had been plucked from obscurity by David Rockefeller, and through elite TC press connections, vaulted into the spotlight as a pre-eminent choice for the Presidency.
The 1978 conversation featured reporter, Jeremiah Novak, and two Trilateral Commission members, Karl Kaiser and Richard Cooper. The interview took up the issue of who exactly, during President Carter’s administration, was formulating US economic and political policy.
The careless and off-hand attitude of Trilateralists Kaiser and Cooper is astonishing. It’s as if they’re saying, “What we’re revealing is already out in the open, it’s too late to do anything about it, why are you so worked up, we’ve already won…”
Here we go:
Novak (the reporter): Is it true that a private [Trilateral committee] led by Henry Owen of the US and made up of [Trilateral] representatives of the US, UK, West Germany, Japan, France and the EEC is coordinating the economic and political policies of the Trilateral countries [which would include the US]?
Cooper:Yes, they have met three times.
Novak: Yet, in your recent paper you state that this committee should remain informal because to formalize ‘this function might well prove offensive to some of the Trilateral and other countries which do not take part.’ Who are you afraid of?
Kaiser: Many countries in Europe would resent the dominant role that West Germany plays at these [Trilateral] meetings.
Cooper:Many people still live in a world of separate nations, and they would resent such coordination [of policy].
Novak: But this [Trilateral] committee is essential to your whole policy. How can you keep it a secret or fail to try to get popular support [for its decisions on how Trilateral member nations will conduct their economic and political policies]?
Cooper:Well, I guess it’s the press’ job to publicize it.
Novak: Yes, but why doesn’t President Carter come out with it and tell the American people that [US] economic and political power is being coordinated by a [Trilateral] committee made up of Henry Owen and six others? After all, if [US] policy is being made on a multinational level, the people should know.
Cooper:President Carter and Secretary of State Vance have constantly alluded to this in their speeches. [a lie]
Kaiser: It just hasn’t become an issue.
This interview slipped under the mainstream media radar, which is to say, it was buried.
US economic and political policy run by a committee of the Trilateral Commission - the Commission had been created in 1973 by David Rockefeller and his sidekick, Zbigniew Brzezinski.
When Carter won the presidential election, his aide, Hamilton Jordan, said that if after the inauguration, Cy Vance and Brzezinski came on board as secretary of state and national security adviser, “We’ve lost. And I’ll quit.” Lost - because both men were powerful members of the Trilateral Commission and their appointment to key positions would signal a surrender of White House control to the Commission.
Vance and Brzezinski were appointed secretary of state and national security adviser, as Jordan feared. But he didn’t quit. He became Carter’s chief of staff.
Now consider the vast propaganda efforts of the past 40 years, on so many levels, to install the idea that all nations and peoples of the world are a single Collective.
From a very high level of political and economic power, this propaganda op has had the objective of grooming the population for a planet that is one coagulated mass, run and managed by one force. A central engine of that force is the Trilateral Commission.
How does a shadowy group like the TC accomplish its goal?
One basic strategy is: destabilize nations; ruin their economies; ratify trade treaties that effectively send millions and millions of manufacturing jobs off to places where virtual slave labor does the work; adding insult to injury, export the cheap products of those slave-factories back to the nations who lost the jobs and undercut their domestic manufacturers, forcing them to close their doors and fire still more employees.
Related: More Confessions Of An Economic Hit Man: "This Time, They’re Coming For Your Democracy"
And then solve that economic chaos by bringing order.
What kind of order?
Eventually, one planet, with national borders erased, under one management system, with a planned global economy, “to restore stability,” “for the good of all, for lasting harmony.”
If you were a young ambitious reporter for The New York Times, if you read this astonishing Trilateral interview, wouldn’t you go to your editor and demand to be put on the story?
Wouldn’t you want to dig deep and find out more details and names? Wouldn’t you want to blow the whole, yes, conspiracy, wide open? Wouldn’t you want readers to know the truth about who is running their country from behind the scenes?
Well, yes, you might. But if you did, and if you wouldn’t back down after your editor told you to forget about it, you would end up with no job, and eventually you would be covering picnics for some small-town newspaper.
With the rise of independent media, however, reporters don’t need to worry about Sunday picnics.
The truth suffices.
With the rise of independent media, reporters know some of their stories will be linked and forwarded all over the world, and people with curiosity and intelligence and alert minds will discover the truth that major media have been hiding from them.
Academic Warns: Young People’s Ignorance Of Socialism Risks “Absolute Catastrophe” & Goodbye Free Internet, Government Is Already Here
The Problem of “Experts”
Are We Treating the Problem or the Symptoms?
Having Depression And Anxiety Means Having A Brain Constantly At War With Itself
And the God of Freemasonry Is...
Freemasonry: Mankind’s Death Wish
Author’s Message to Readers
How Pfizer Hid Nearly 80% of COVID Vaccine Trial Deaths From Regulators 
October 2020: 201 Simulation Scenario October 2020: nCoV-2019 
Smart
CURRENT AFFAIRS
1.
The largest threat is the corporate bond market, particularly junk bonds.
Our bodies, our health, our children, our communities have been taken from us. 
Why is Life So Messed Up?
Behavioral Insights team, the so-called “nudge unit,” a semi-independent government body that applies “behavioral insights to inform policy, improve public services and deliver positive results for people and communities.”This team also advises foreign nations.
I always believed my child was very smart.
Are You Awake? Or Just Informed
