Below is a snapshot of the Web page as it appeared on 4/18/2024 (the last time our crawler visited it). This is the version of the page that was used for ranking your search results. The page may have changed since we last cached it. To see what might have changed (without the highlights), go to the current page.
Bing is not responsible for the content of this page.
Wake Up New Zealand | What Does The Globalist Agenda / New WorldOrder Plan Mean For New Zealanders? [and the rest of the world] |Current Events and Breaking News
The US Federal Government Replaces Twitter As Ministry Of Truth & Reality vs. Illusion: People Have Been Robbed Of Their Ability To “Decipher Between Fact And Fiction” May 16 2022 | From: TheEpochTimes / GlobalResearch / Various
In true Orwellian fashion, the Department of Homeland Security concerns itself with decreasing the security of civil rights.
The announcement that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) will be overseeing the creation of a “Disinformation Governance Board” couldn’t come at a better time for America’s legacy mainstream media outlets and the individuals who staff them.
Still shaking from Elon Musk’s recent purchase of Twitter, the notion that U.S. corporate news may be further losing its grasp over complete narrative control has been enough to create an atmosphere of hysteria.
Twitter was a vital part of how these outlets attempted to control the release of information. The social media platform’s moderators largely served as a check on the acceptable viewpoints being discussed in the public square.
Anything counter to the story presented by government-approved “official” news sources could be flagged by fact-checkers or outright banned by moderators for being at least partially false.
Their proof? Well, the information wasn’t substantiated - by those same sources. The circuitous reasoning facilitated an idea laundering operation that made sure only those stories with a stamp of biased approval made it out uninhibited.
Musk’s move has therefore resulted in a predictable upheaval. Some have wondered whether “too much freedom” of speech would drive users away.
Others postulated that in reality, his actions are probably just because the Tesla CEO misses apartheid in South Africa.
The general sentiment of despair was matched on Twitter as thousands took to their keyboards in an effort to denounce the dangers of unmitigated freedom of speech - and, often, speech in general.
As if by Providence, a mere two days later came the pronouncement that a federal government-controlled board of “experts” would be convening to identify potentially harmful or inappropriate information in the run-up to November’s midterm elections.
No longer would America’s newsmakers have to worry about their flock of citizens being led astray by information not directly curated and delivered by them.
To see if this comparison is warranted, it is worth remembering what the main functions of that fictional body actually were, as described in the novel.
In Orwell’s dystopian masterpiece, the Ministry of Truth was responsible for falsifying and changing the record of events to fit the ruling regime’s political priorities at any given time.
DHS Launches Unlawful Disinformation Board
It is extremely concerning as the Department of Homeland Security is creating a dis-information board and it is entirely unlawful as the very first amendment to our constitution explicitly states that government cannot restrict your speech.
There is no caveat for dis-information. We will also show you the ridiculous people in charge of this boar.
Importantly, the ministry was also responsible for the creation and promotion of “Newspeak,” a simplified language meant to replace English that would facilitate the government’s control over its citizens’ very thought processes.
Freedom of thought would subsequently be preempted, as it became linguistically impossible to articulate complex concepts or abstractions. The only thing that citizens would - or could - think was exactly what the government needed them to think.
It may be a bit of a stretch to claim that the U.S. government is directly seeking to end freedom of thought by its creation of the new disinformation board; however, its timing with Musk’s purchase of Twitter and the subsequent debate swirling around the move does have important implications.
At the crux of the argument over online censorship is the question of who exactly gets to decide what is true, and even more, whether disagreement over what is presented as “truth” is permitted in the public square.
In this regard, the “1984” metaphor is very appropriate.
One of the primary Twitter bannings that served as an impetus for Musk’s move is believed to be the platform’s suspension of the satire news site The Babylon Bee.
After news that Pennsylvania’s former Secretary of Health Dr. Rachel Levine was being nominated as one of USA Today’s “Women Of The Year,” the Bee decided to also nominate Levine - only this time, as its “Man of The Year.”
Levine is a man who identifies as a woman, so Twitter suspended the account based on a violation of the platform’s policy on “hateful conduct.”
This, of course, raises the question about what exactly a man or a woman is. It is not the first time that Twitter has cracked down on someone it deems to be violating its postmodernist definition of gender as a fluid construct that can change at any given time.
In other words, understanding the concept of gender as inherently tied to biological sex was declared outside the bounds of respectable discourse.
Remember that even the newest member of the U.S. Supreme Court, the highest legal body in the land, could not provide an adequate definition for “woman” during her confirmation hearing.
Similar to how Newspeak was utilized in “1984” to halt “Wrongthink”(thought contradictory to the regime’s narrative), Twitter enforces linguistic codes derived from a narrow ideological conception of reality to control speech on its platform. Orwellian, indeed.
There are many more examples of Twitter punishing Wrongthink, as well.
An article at The Federalist lists 100 opinions - and, in some cases, just objective facts that are verboten due to their inconvenience for leftist narratives - that may have previously been flagged for misinformation.
Political correctness serves as our own version of Newspeak. It ensures that each individual self-censors and curates their opinion, so that it adheres to the linguistic strictures of those who seek to define the bounds of acceptable discourse.
If one decides to willfully break those codes, his or her ability to participate in the public conversation is revoked.
Allowing genuine freedom of speech in line with the first amendment of the U.S. Bill Of Rights would clearly upset this dynamic.
What about the Ministry of Truth’s outright falsification of news stories, or changing the record to fit the current political objectives of the ruling class?
In “1984,” previously recorded information that no longer adhered to the regime’s narrative was sent down a garbage chute known as a “memory hole.” Yesterday’s “facts” were quietly incinerated, and subsequently erased from history - and living memory.
Twitter moderators have also rigorously patrolled user accounts for any deviation from “the science TM,” especially around the COVID-19.
Many have been suspended, flagged, or outright booted for questioning vaccineeffectiveness, alternative treatments, and the efficacy of masking.
But “the science TM” has consistently changed throughout the pandemic, and what was true one day could get you banned the next (or vice versa).
Perhaps the best example of this is former New York Times reporter Alex Berenson being thrown off the platform for arguing that mRNA COVID vaccines don’t stop infection or transmission.
At the time, this was deemed disinformation. Since then, the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has subsequently confirmed that statement, although most Westerners at this point either have, or know someone who has, been infected with the virus despite receiving the vaccine.
COVID isn’t the only issue around which speech is curtailed due to established “fact.” Twitter recently announced on April 22 that it would no longer be allowing any advertisements on the platform that “contradict scientific consensus on climate change.”
Then there is perhaps the best example of media malfeasance: the Hunter Biden laptop story. Nearly every mainstream outlet denounced the latter as a false smear campaign when the New York Post initially broke it.
It was even referred to as Russian disinformation. Then-presidential candidate Joe Biden made that argument verbatim on the 2020 presidential debate stage.
Suppression of the Post’s story likely had a significant impact on the outcome of that election. Twitter initially banned it, and even went so far as to suspend the Post’s account when it originally posted the article.
At this point, it should be evident that government officials, corporate newsrooms, and loyal social media disseminators in our own society are clearly not worried about the spread of mis- or disinformation.
They are worried about the prospect of losing control over their ability to shape the public conversation.
The motivation has always been political. There is rarely an apology for falsified reporting in the past; instead, the old story is slipped down the memory hole as the new information is subtly presented as the correct, unquestionable truth.
This is exactly what happened with the reporting on Hunter Biden’s laptop. In a rare occurrence, some will even proudly boast their previous falsifications as a necessary means to secure the proper political end for the “public good” - as defined by them.
The thought of a social media platform freed from the oversight of left-wing regime-friendly moderators threatens this monopoly on narrative control.
Since its founding, Twitter has dropped all pretenses of being an arena for the free exchange of ideas. Instead, it has fashioned itself into an echo chamber for promoting regime-approved narratives.
In effect, it has become its own unofficial Ministry Of Truth for the online public square.
Musk’s purchase of the platform threatens this, and the Disinformation Governance Board will help mitigate the fallout from lost narrative control.
In the landscape of “1984,” words have come to mean their opposites. “War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength,” went the official party line.
“Censorship is free speech” seems to fit the paradigm, as well.
Reality vs. Illusion: People Have Been Robbed Of Their Ability To “Decipher Between Fact And Fiction”
CIA Director, William Casey is reputed to have said to Ronald Reagan ‘We’ll know our disinformation is complete when everything the American public believes is false.’
Fast forward thirty years, and there’s no piece of fiction the masses will not swallow.
From Woke to COVID to the war in Ukraine, people no longer make their own ideological pilgrimages to the truth – the truth is served oven-ready by their political betters.
Nowadays, there’s little distinction between the two hemispheres: reality and illusion. It’s not so much that people have been robbed of their ability to decipher between these two, it’s that facts have been reoriented into fiction and fiction into facts.
It’s a degradation of epistemology so momentous, that people don’t even know that they don’t know that they don’t know what’s happening, to quote one former anarchist.
In the grand scheme of things, humanity has perjured themselves and life as we know it has morphed into a sort of science-fiction, soap-opera with few common ancestors to reality.
Even right-thinking folks require the equivalent of a cerebral chainsaw to hollow out the slew of implausible narratives into something remotely resembling reality. It goes beyond fiction to predictive programming.
Before the ink dried on the newsprint proclaiming the crisis in-waiting, the falsifications of COVID were buried under the falsehoods of war, Zelensky’s standing ovation at Westminster knocked Pfizer’s data release off the rostrum and those formerly joined at the hip to COVID got hitched to their Ukrainian brides.
A preponderance of fabrications, falsehoods and false prophets governs the spiritual milieu. People worship the prosaic and glorify artifice. Our moral choices are guided by platitude and not virtue, anecdote and not evidence.
There’s a war raging, alright, but you will find its theatre of operations inside the human psyche. It is a war on consciousness, an atrophy of culture and its stark consequences is the spiritual malaise of humanity.
Then as now, it’s not enough for these people to hold a monopoly over knowledge, they must deprive everyone else of its illumination, or go one further and spread ignorance.
It goes beyond censoring counterarguments to fomenting falsehoods, It’s not so much societal breakdown but self-immolation.
People are being misinformed and stupefied and sent out as agents of disinformation to further deconstruct what’s left of an already deconstructed reality.
To make matters worse, precisely zero lessons have been learned these past two years. People flounder from one crisis to the next.
Walk aimlessly from quarantine camp to air-raid shelter into whichever direction their political higher-ups point them, to deride whoever is nominated as the scourge of society, de jour.
The great national pastime is to gather at the pillories and hurl cabbages at anti-vaxxers, Russians, (insert your antihero here).
The Infowar
If all this sounds remarkably like an info-war, then it probably is.
The battle for hearts and minds has moved online. Our divine spark of life is being overhauled to data. Something of divine proportions compels us to the internet, to data – our daily bread (and circuses), our digital avatars living richer, more meaningful lives than their truant owners.
What ceases to be worth the candle is the epistemology of our data.
It doesn’t matter which side of the fence you’re on – a card carrying member of the great awakening or useful idiot on the lockdown left, you’re still part of the same problem.
You have been taken hostage by a series of narratives laid on with a shovel by the predator class and designed for the sole purpose of keeping you rapt and not informed, sedentary and not spirited.
In the world of algorithms everyone is created equal, and data is just data, there’s no morality to it.
These events play out as a nail-biting whodunnit, but the reality is, they’re not supposed to be solved. There’s no answers nor restitution, it’s your attention and not your belief systems which is being harvested.
What these hellhounds want is for you to pick your side, choose your battle, but make sure your battlelines are social media, and that you’re not throwing Molotov Cocktails at the Tower of Babel.
If a person’s psyche is under siege and they don’t designate an enemy to scapegoat, they might get wise to who’s really attacking them, and that simply wouldn’t do.
In this theatre of the absurd people acclimatise to fiction because it’s easier than confronting uncomfortable truths. But under these fertile conditions any version of reality, no matter how precarious, will wash.
Once you desecrate a person’s moralistic and cultural maps of the world, their place in it becomes increasingly untenable. People lose touch with reality and what it means to be human.
But there are even stranger things brewing. Predictive Programming is the theory of a hidden hand operating the levers of reality.
A sort of reality adjustment bureau obfuscating real world events through film, literature and media manipulation.
The fundamental principle here is psychological conditioning that reduces people’s resistance to the acceptance of planned future events and encourages them to swap concrete reality structures for static constructs, until eventually, our inherited world view is replaced by mythos and archetypes.
That we are living through the objectification of the predator class is no moot point. That’s their messiah complex imprinted onto the collective consciousness and projected back onto the real world.
By their own volition, the masses are breathing life into these grotesqueries and blotting the social fabric.
Revelation of the Method
But it runs even deeper than predictive programming.
Lockdown Apologists across the corporate media are now almost unanimous that lockdowns do more harm than good. This is no arbitrary volte-face, but rather a carefully planned sequence of disclosures when the time is ripe.
Michael Hoffman suggests that the ruling elite are giving notice of their supremacy. Declaring themselves virtuoso criminal masterminds, who are above the law and beyond reproach.
But most of all, they are telling you, in no uncertain terms, that you are without recourse, these events are beyond your control, as is your own destiny for that matter.
Eventually a sense of apathy and abulia engulfs humanity, demoralising us to the point of conceding defeat to a system we are powerless to change.
Buried deep within their rule of law, is a hidden constitution that states: nothing happens without your consent. In this version of contract law, once the truth is hidden in plain sight, you have agreed to it.
There exists someplace an unsigned contract with your unsworn oath on it.
In the end, we’re all victims of the same masterstroke, whether keyboard evangelist or state-apologist, everyone is being royally screwed, and it’s not so much that they’re laughing at you, it’s that you’re laughing at yourself.
The Truth Is Possibly Out There May 15 2022 | From: NewZealandHerald / Various
The following article appeared in the 'New Zealand Herald on Sunday', on Sunday 31 August 2016. In the lead up to David Icke's visit to New Zealand the writer approached a number of New Zealand based people within the 'conspiracy' or 'truthseeker' community. The following is the online version of that article whch was published in print as an illustrated two page spread.
Does an ancient race of reptilian psychos run the world? Paul Little goes inside the world of conspiracy theorists. Confused? Feel like everything's falling part? Wondering why all this weird stuff keeps happening?
Comment: The print version of this article was a two-page spread. PDF scans of the can be downloaded here: Page 1 | Page 2
Some links and images have been added which were not part of the original article.
David Icke, the eminent conspiracy theorist - or truth seeker, as many who share his interests prefer to be called - is ready to help you make sense of it all, as part of his Worldwide Wakeup Tour, which plays at the Logan Campbell Centre in Auckland next Saturday.
He'll explain that despite the way things appear, our planet is run, as the New Statesman neatly summarised it, by the Archons.
“An ancient race of reptilian psychopaths who have ... blinded humans to the real world".
They are "creating a dystopian society" and an "inverted reality is being broadcast from Saturn via the Moon, which is hollow".
Which possibly raises more questions than it answers.
A conspiracy theory always requires, it should hardly need saying, some organisation. If, for instance, you believe in chemtrails, that's not a conspiracy theory. If you believe they are lines of chemicals laid in the sky for enigmatically evil reasons and there is an organised cover-up of the existence of chemtrails, that is a conspiracy theory.
Their impact can range from the relatively harmless - wondering if you'll bump into not-really-dead Elvis at the Ohope dairy - to downright dangerous [clearly has not read up on that] , such as not vaccinating children because you believe it causes autism.
The problem with conspiracy theories is so few have proved to be conspiracy facts. But enough have to make the concept plausible. Nicky Hager wrote a bestselling book about some.
There was a Watergate cover-up. US authorities did leave 399 African-Americans with syphilis untreated without their knowledge to see what would happen.
But why should we pay good money to listen to Icke and his foreign conspiracy theories when we have perfectly good ones of our own (see below). We're not short of local truth seekers.
Wakeupkiwi.com, contains details of numerous conspiracies, local and imported. Richard became interested in the area as a boy with an imagination fired by reading about dinosaurs and aliens. He started his now labyrinthine site as a repository for documentaries and links he thought like-minded thinkers might be interested in.
“But because of the sheer volume of things that are transpiring it's turned into something it was never meant to be," he says. "I get lost in it myself sometimes."
But he's no conspiracy theorist. That term, he says, was coined by the CIA to describe people who believed there was more to the Kennedy assassination than met the eye and "to make people sound like they were kooks before they opened their mouths".
Associate Professor Marc Wilson of Victoria University's School of Psychology notes that truth-seeking sounds active. Conspiracy theorist "could describe sitting in your mother's basement reading through dodgy websites for something nebulous like a conspiracy".
Wilson surveyed 6000 New Zealanders in 2008 and found people mentally put "conspiracy theorist" alongside "mental patient". "This is due in no small part to the centrality of paranoia as part of the stereotype of the conspiracy theorist," says Wilson.
There's no such thing as a typical truth seeker, says Wakeupkiwi:
“The only common denominator is that they are people who go, 'Why should we just believe everything we are told?'."
But, adds Wilson, people are also more likely to endorse conspiracy theories if they feel anomie, hostility, paranoia, have less formal education, lower income, poorer health, distrust of authority and less happiness.
Radio host Vinny Eastwood is happy to be called a conspiracy theorist.
“Everything is the opposite of what you think it is to a large degree," says Eastwood. "If you think it's a conspiracy theory it's a fact. If you think it's a fact it's made-up nonsense."
Since 2010, Eastwood, who sounds delighted to have been born in conspiracy-significant 1984, has been the Auckland-based host of an eponymous radio show that live-streams here and in the US on American Freedom Radio for two hours twice a week.
Topics in the archive include: "Elites in Fear of White Dragon Society & Gold Standard" and "Psychopaths Infest Every Major Institution! Can We Get Them Out?"
He got into the area in 2004, when introduced to "the comedy of Bill Hicks. And the usage of cannabis. And to conspiracy theories - the first thing I watched was Fahrenheit 9/11", Michael Moore's Bush presidency documentary.
But it was a 300-hour community service sentence for a minor cannabis charge that destroyed his faith in government and authorities and set him on a new course. Eastwood doesn't think issues here are very different from those elsewhere, which is why his show goes down well in the US, where similar challenges are being faced.
"For example, right now there's a big fluoride thing going on where local district councils will have the ability to decide whether we have fluoride put in our water taken out of their hands and put in the hands of the DHBs, which are more or less in the pocket of the Ministry of Health, which are more or less in the pocket of the big pharmaceutical industry, which is more or less in the pocket of the phosphate fertiliser industry which makes the fluoride."
A scarily small number of younger people think the Rainbow Warrior was bombed by agents of a foreign power.
Wakeupkiwi however, believes we are special because our size makes us an ideal testing ground, for example, with Eftpos. "That's why we had it 20 years before it was rolled out in the States."
Jonathan Eisen, editor of Uncensored, which proclaims itself "the best-selling English-language 'alternative' news magazine in the Southern Hemisphere", says New Zealand is like most other countries because we are built the same.
"I discovered a few years ago that New Zealand was a corporation much the same as the US is," says Eisen.
"If you go on the Securities and Exchange Commission website you can find the corporation is owned by another entity - Her Majesty the Queen in right of New Zealand."
The mainstream media, says Eisen, do their bit by self-censoring. When he worked with a flagship TV current affairs series and presented it with research showing the Aids virus was man-made, the journalist he was working with told him: "We can't touch that."
Eisen is 73 and has been seeking the truth from an early age.
"When I was a boy my father was the first one to connect smoking and heart disease and was censored essentially by the Journal of the American Medical Association. And he found out after he published in the Canadian Medical Journal that the AMA journal was financed in large part by the American Tobacco Institute."
Wilson thinks we have a fairly boring conspiracy landscape. Forty per cent have endorsed the All Black poisoning [at the 1995 World Cup], 45 per cent say New Zealand is manipulated by Big Business, and a scarily small number - about 60 per cent - of younger people think the Rainbow Warrior was bombed by agents of a foreign power.
He found rightwingers think there is a political conspiracy to advantage Maori and left wingers think there is one to disadvantage them. As for Icke, the likes of Montgomerie and Eisen are circumspect when it comes to endorsing his claims the Queen is a reptilian shape-shifter, among other things.
But, says Eisen
“Rather than disparage him I celebrate that he can open up new avenues for discussion that are sometimes way outside the dominant paradigm and our comfort zone, my own included, but that doesn't mean I don't take him seriously.
So much of his work, especially with regard to the power of the so-called elites, has borne fruit."
Writing in The Guardian, New York-based psychologist and science writer Rob Bretherton says Icke's view of things:
“As wild as it sounds, is kind of a hopeful message in that it is saying: 'Yes, there is a lot of stuff wrong with the world but we can put our finger on who's responsible and what's responsible for it and then we can do something about it'."
Frank (not his real name), a 33-year-old IT worker, whose conspiracy consciousness was raised by the documentary 9/11: In Plane Sight, worries that's not good enough:
“There's a subset of people within the truth-seeking community that will grab hold of anything with both hands," says Frank.
"They play into the hands of the elite. When those wacky theories get momentum it makes it easy to discredit the rest."
Nevertheless, says Montgomerie;
“The cat's out of the bag. A lot of people have put their lives on the line to expose the bigger picture. There is a big push for disclosure of everything. It's going to be messy for a while, but it's inevitable."
As well as the idea conspiracy theories offer hope things will be remedied, they also provide comfort by absolving us from feeling we should be in control. How can we be if we don't know what forces are secretly controlling that world?
But for some it's all too hard. Frank has stopped thinking about it so much.
“If you follow the money far enough you'll come to the people pulling the strings. And if you think about that too much and the decisions those people make and the world they've created. I got to a point where I was starting to get depressed thinking about this."
"Perhaps ignorance is bliss."
Made in New Zealand
An area of Northland's Waipoua forest has been sealed off by DoC because it contains megalithic structures that prove the existence of a pre-Maori civilisation, according to US-born archeo-astronomist Martin Doutre, who made the claims in his book Ancient Celtic New Zealand.
Prime Minister Norman Kirk was assassinated by the Trilateralist [sic] Commission - a shadow world Government. Part of a much bigger global conspiracy you can read about in The Opal File on wakeupkiwi.com.
The Rothschild cartel, a global banking organisation, attacked Christchurch with earthquake weaponry causing the Canterbury catastrophes, according to extensive exposition at thecontrail.com
Mind control through TV broadcasts was trialled through a transmitter in Hawkes Bay, according to Wakeupkiwi.
Rapper Tupac Shakur was not killed in 1996 but escaped to New Zealand where he lives undercover. This was a hoax a hacker group managed to get on to the website of US broadcaster PBS.
John Key wanted a new flag without the Union Jack because that would have concentrated more power in his hands by diminishing the authority of the Queen. See Due Authority: A Very Silent Coup at postmanproductions.org.
The Truth About MMS (Chlorine Dioxide) That They Don’t Want You To Know May 14 2022 | From: JordanSather / Various
For the past several weeks the fake news media has been in an all out rampage against a chemical compound called chlorine dioxide (ClO2) and against me because I discuss the truth about it.
Promoters of this narrative inaccurately refer to ClO2 as an “industrial bleach” and label me as a YouTube conspiracy theorist who “promotes drinking bleach to cure everything.”
Nope. Not. At. All.
That’s why we call them the fake news after all, right? And if you think the news is fake, imagine how fake their science is! Media attacks against this chemical compound and those who talk about it are nothing new.
This article will discuss what chlorine dioxide actually is, some of my personal experiences with it, and the misrepresentation that our media and Pharma owned medical “authorities” give us on the subject.
So, What is This Stuff? Is it Actually Bleach?
Let's start with basic semantics. By designating something that has the ability to decolorize and sanitize as a 'bleach' is confusing a process with a product.
A verb instead of a noun. For example, lemons can bleach, the sun bleaches, but we don’t necessary label those as 'bleach'.
And just like lemons and the sun, ClO2 can also decolorize and sanitize, and is used industrially to do so, but this doesn't make it harmful for humans in every capacity.
“Clorox bleach itself is sodium hypochlorite, which of course, is not chlorine dioxide, and has far different mechanisms of action.”
Whenever a media or science talking head states that ClO2 is “essentially bleach,” either they didn’t pass high school chemistry or they’re knowingly misguiding you - trying to confuse people into thinking it’s the same as the commercial Clorox tucked away in our laundry cabinets.
Clorox bleach itself is sodium hypochlorite, which of course, is not chlorine dioxide, and has far different mechanisms of action. And what's funny is that Chlorine dioxide is a gas, so when the media says "drink bleach" they're just further revealing their ignorance.
So as you can see, there's a total misrepresentation of what ClO2 actually is - a gaseous compound that works to disinfect pathogens very effectively through oxidation.
Clorox bleach itself is sodium hypochlorite, which of course, is not chlorine dioxide, and has far different mechanisms of action.
Chlorine Dioxide Kills Harmful Bacteria?
Yes. ClO2 kills bacteria, viruses, cancer cells - it will selectively target anaerobic pathogens and kill them through oxidation, an electrical reaction where one chemical steals the electrons of another.
Some in the health community may be familiar with the oxidative capacity of food grade hydrogen peroxide and ozone therapy, chlorine dioxide oxidizes similarly. When a ClO2 molecule comes into contact with a virus or bacteria cell, it rips electrons from the cell and destroys it.
Because of its sterilization ability and relative cheapness, this compound is commonly used in a variety of industries such as hospitals and restaurants. The Environmental Protection Agency has it registered for these purposes.
However, ClO2 isn't just used as an industrial cleaner, a stabilized version is commonly used by hikers and campers to kill waterborne pathogens for clean drinking water.
These potable water drops and tablets have chlorine dioxide listed as the main ingredient and can be easily purchased at any camping supply store such as REI or online shopping websites like Amazon.
So, if chlorine dioxide is not a "toxic bleach," why are people like myself being ridiculed by mainstream media for discussing it? And why is there no mention of suppliers like REI and Amazon?
Two reasons - one is simply shoddy and the other is downright shameful. Shoddy journalism is to blame when only the biased FDA is used as a resource.
For example, the FDA puts out warning letters about ClO2, calling it a deadly bleach without explanation, citing zero science or research about the compound.
Yet, the military and the EPA use ClO2 at high dosages to tackle extreme contaminants like Anthrax and Ebola, and the USDA and even the FDA itself have chlorine dioxide registered to decontaminate with.
And it goes to note that while high dosages of most decontaminates are not safe to be around, low doses (like what hikers use for potable water and those drinking it internally to kill pathogens) can be very safe.
Anything can harm or help depending on how you use it. Conscious usage is key. And the shameful part of this issue? The medical establishment is trying to suppress the sharing of any potential health benefits of ClO2 because it is inexpensive and effective.
What Does All This Have to do With MMS?
Some folks who have used and taught about chlorine dioxide for health supporting purposes call it the “master mineral solution" and “miracle mineral supplement” or MMS for short.
I prefer to call it what it is - chlorine dioxide, because it removes any preconceived notions. It’s not magically “miraculous,” it’s just reality! The most notable proponents of MMS are Daniel Smith of Project Green Life and Jim Humble, who has been heavily denigrated by Big Pharma.
In 2015, Smith was sentenced to 51 months in federal prison for (basically) teaching too many people about MMS. You can find/support him at standbydaniel.com.
And Humble is attacked routinely by the press even though, as his name suggests, he's a very humble man. His resources are incredibly helpful in understanding chlorine dioxide protocols and can found on his website JimHumble.co. A helpful resource for information on ClO2 is an “MMSWiki” page that highlights Humble’s research in a Wikipedia style format. And on a side note, Wikileaks released an email regarding MMS/chlorine dioxide in their 2012 Global Intelligence Files data dump.
It consisted of public disclosure for a number of internal emails between the employees and clients of Stratfor, a geopolitical intelligence company. For some reason, a private company that works with the intelligence community on information analysis, Stratfor, had collected an email on MMS.
I find that intriguing. You can read that email here. And before YouTube censors any of them, check out these interviews with European professional Andreas Kalcker. They are top notch!
How is MMS Information Being Suppressed?
Due to the viral nature of social media and with so many people waking up, information about MMS has become widespread. The FDA has attempted to counter with two press releases.
The first in 2010 was then rereleased in 2019, entitled: “FDA warns consumers about the dangerous and potentially life threatening side effects of Miracle Mineral Solution."
This from the FDA - a financially motivated agency that racks up millions in user fees per year (as part of their Prescription Drug User Fee Act), has approved deadly drugs like opioid painkillers, and only approved 'medical marijuana' after a man-made pharmaceutical version was created.
In April of 2017, I released a short 4 minute video about MMS on my Destroying the Illusion YouTube channel and in just over a year it had amassed 250,000 views.
It was ranked #1 on YouTube’s search results for "MMS." Consequently, YouTube started censoring my video from searches and in May of 2019, they completely removed it and added a strike to my channel.
This was followed by a targeted media blitz against MMS led by Business Insider and other media outlets during the summer of 2019, culminating in the FDA warning letter.
See how they operate? Censor the truth beforehand, then publish smears and lies afterward so no one can search for any real information.
Then, once they print that it’s a dangerous-deadly bleach and claim people were harmed, the FDA is “forced” to take action. Information warfare.
So How Does Someone Find and Use It?
I personally don't sell it, but there are still some active vendors as well as a few different ways to make your own ClO2 gas. An easy way to make it is by combining sodium chlorite and citric acid solution in a small 1:1 ratio of drops in a clean glass and allow 30-60 seconds to activate.
That’s pretty much it. When mixing the drops, it’s commonly referred to as 1 “drop of MMS/chlorine dioxide” when 1 drop of sodium chlorite is added to 1 drop of citric acid. 1+1=1 drop MMS.
Easily dispensable bottles of sodium chlorite and citric acid can be purchased online at kvlab.com. Now, let’s discuss when to take these drops and how many.
One of the more well known (but intensive) regimens is Humble’s Protocol 1000, whereby one would take 3 drops of MMS (3+3) every hour for 8-12 hours a day.
With a protocol like this where a small amount of ClO2 is getting into the blood for a prolonged period of time, it allows the compound to do more work on the pathogens in the body.
If it were only taken twice a day, even in higher amounts, it still wouldn’t be in the body as long. I have never done this protocol myself and I rarely use MMS in general these days, but I have the bottles and the knowledge on hand, just in case.
What I have done in the past are “maintenance doses” of 5-10 drops of MMS once or twice a day. I’ve also used chlorine dioxide gas to help clear and cleanse my sinuses and respiratory tract by gently inhaling, holding, and exhaling for a few repetitions.
An important warning about using ClO2 is the “Herxheimer Effect”, named after the doctor who first studied it. Essentially, if the body detoxifies too fast, it can cause nausea, stomach distress, or diarrhea. As such, it's important to start slow when detoxing the body.
How Did I Discover all This?
In 2011, I became acquainted with an individual who had medical experience but was fed up with the establishment medical system. He decided to continue helping people through natural modalities.
After he taught myself and some of my colleagues about MMS, we spent a few years experimenting with it—both cleaning and using it internally.
One of my favorite experiences with MMS was when I met a woman with stage 4 ovarian cancer. She refused chemotherapy and successfully healed herself with a modified regimen of MMS and the Gerson Therapy.
Conclusion
Be aware that many organizations have special interests and will cite their own sources to promote a particular narrative.
You can believe what the fake news and fake science would have you believe, or you can research for yourself and put their narratives to the test. I’ve always found there to be no better teacher than personal experience.
No source can surpass the knowledge you’ve gained from witnessing something first hand. The more knowledge you have from your research and experiences, the more you will know the truth of what’s really going on in the world, and how to manage any circumstances that may arise.
I don't refer to anything as a "cure," for truly there are no cure-alls. I don’t believe in banking on one compound or pill to be our savior, which is why I don’t refer to chlorine dioxide as “magic.”
Instead, I believe that we should be looking holistically at ourselves to figure out how we can practice prevention or to keep a situation from progressing.
There are many powerful substances that are cheap, safe, natural, and readily available that can be used as part of this holistic regimen. It is only through our own ignorance that we don't know how to use them, let alone realize they exist.
We must undo the mass programming. Knowledge is power.
Comment: If you are interested in ordering MMS in New Zealand, pleaseemail usand further details will be provided.
The Reasons Why The Globalists Are Destined To Lose May 13 2022 | From: ActivistPost / Various
Under the surface of almost every sociopolitical and economic event in the world there burns an ever-raging, but often unseen, war. This war, for now, is fought with fiction and with truth, with journalistic combat and with quiet individual deeds. It is defined by two sides which could not be more philosophically or spiritually separate.
On one side is a pervasive network of corporate moguls and elites, banking entities, international financial consortiums, think tanks and political puppets.
They work tirelessly to reshape public psychology and society as a whole into something they sometimes call the “New World Order;” a completely and scientifically centralized planet in which they control every aspect of government, trade, life and even moral compass. I often refer to them simply as the “Globalists,” which is how they at times refer to themselves.
On the other side is a movement that has developed organically and instinctively, growing without direct top-down “leadership,” but still guided through example by various teachers and activists, driven by a concrete set of principles based in natural law. It is composed of the religious, the agnostic and even some atheists.
It is soldiered by people of all ethnic and financial backgrounds. These groups are tied together by a singular and resounding belief in the one vital thing they can all agree upon - the inherent and inborn rights of freedom. I call them the “Liberty Movement.”
There are those who think they do not have a dog in this fight, those who ignore it and those who are completely oblivious to it. However, EVERYONE can and will be affected by it, no exceptions. This war is for the future of the human race.
Its consequences will determine if the next generation will choose the conditions of their environment and maintain the ability to reach their true potential as individuals or if every aspect of their lives will be micromanaged for them by a faceless, soulless bureaucracy that does not have their best interests at heart.
As you can probably tell, I am not unbiased in my examination of these two sides. While some of the more “academically minded” cynics out there do attempt to marginalize the entire conflict by accusing both sides of simply trying to impose “their ideology” on the rest of humanity, I would say that such people are generally ignorant of what is at stake.
There is in fact an elemental force behind this war. I would even call it a conflagration between good and evil. For a more in-depth analysis on the evil behind globalism, read my article “Are Globalists Evil Or Just Misunderstood?”
Some people don’t adhere to such absolutes or they think good and evil are fantasies created by religion to keep society in check. I have no intention of trying to convince them otherwise. All I can say is, I have seen and experienced these absolutes first hand and, therefore, I have no choice but to remain a believer.
I would also point out that the general experience of most men and women is that the act of organized and legitimate oppression is inherently evil and such actions in the name of satisfying delusional elitist narcissism are even more evil.
While these experiences are subjective, they are also universal, regardless of the culture, place or time in history. Most of us feel the same horror and the same defiance when presented with rising tyranny. We can’t necessarily explain why, but we all know.
While I am firmly on the side of liberty and am willing to fight and trade my life to stop the “New World Order” the globalists are so obsessed with, I will not turn this examination of their tactics into a blind or one-sided farce. I will point out where the elites are effective just as I will point out where they are ineffective.
It would do more harm than good to portray the globalists as “stupid” or bumbling in their efforts. They are not stupid. They are actually astonishingly clever and should not be underestimated.
They are indeed conniving and industrious, but they are not wise. For if they were wise, they would be able to see the ultimate futility of their goal and the world would be saved decades of tragedy and loss. Their cultism has dulled their senses to reality and they have abandoned truth in the name of control.
Here are some of the primary strategies that the globalists are using to gain power and work towards total centralization and why their own mindset has doomed them to failure.
The globalists have used the method of false dichotomies for centuries to divide nations and peoples against each other in order to derive opportunity from chaos.
That said, the above dichotomy is about as close to real as they have ever promoted.
As I explained in my article "Globalists Are Now Openly Demanding New World Order Centralization" the recent passage of the Brexit referendum in the U.K. has triggered a surge of new propaganda from establishment media outlets. The thrust of this propaganda is the notion that “populists” are behind the fight against globalization and these populists are going to foster the ruin of nations and the global economy.
That is to say - globalism good, populism bad. There is a real fight between globalists and those who desire a free, decentralized and voluntary society. They have just changed some of the labels and the language. We have yet to see how effective this strategy will be for the elites, but it is very useful for them in certain respects.
The wielding of the term “populist” is about as sterilized and distant from “freedom and liberty” as you can get. It denotes not just “nationalism,” but selfish nationalism. And the association people are supposed to make in their minds is that selfish nationalism leads to destructive fascism (i.e. Nazis). Therefore, when you hear the term “populist,” the globalists hope you will think “Nazi.”
Also, keep in mind that the narrative of the rise of populism coincides with grave warnings from the elites that such movements will cause global economic collapse if they continue to grow. Of course, the elites have been fomenting an economic collapse for years.
We have been experiencing many of the effects of it for some time. In a brilliant maneuver, the elites have attempted to re-label the liberty movement as “populist” (Nazis), and use liberty activists as a scapegoat for the fiscal time bomb THEY created.
Will the masses buy it? I don’t know. I think that depends on how effectively we expose the strategy before the breakdown becomes too entrenched. The economic collapse itself has been handled masterfully by the elites, though. There is simply no solution that can prevent it from continuing.
Even if every criminal globalist was hanging from a lamp post tomorrow and honest leadership was restored to government, the math cannot be changed and decades of struggle will be required before national economies can be made prosperous again.
This is a classic ploy by the globalists to divide a culture against itself and initiate a calamity that can be used as leverage for greater centralization down the road. If you have any doubts about fascism and communism being engineered, I highly suggest you look into the very well-documented analysis of Antony Sutton. I do not have the space here to do his investigations justice.
Today, we see elites like George Soros funding and aiding the latest incarnation of the communist hordes - namely social justice groups like Black Lives Matter.
The collectivist psychosis and Orwellian behavior exhibited by race junkies like BLM and third-wave feminists is thoroughly pissing off conservatives who are tired of being told what to think and how to act every second of every day. And this is the point…
If you want to get a picture of America in 2022, look back at Europe during the 1930s.
Communist provocateurs, some real and some fabricated by the establishment itself, ran rampant in Europe creating labor disintegration and fiscal turmoil. The elites then funded and elevated fascism as the “solution” to communism.
Normally even-handed conservatives were so enraged by the communist spitting and ankle biting that they became something just as evil in response. The U.S. may be on the same path if we are not careful.
I do see, though, a rather large weakness in the plan to ignite a communist vs. fascist meltdown in the U.S., and that weakness is the existence of the Liberty Movement itself. The movement has grown rather sophisticated in its media presence and prevalent in influence.
The only option the elites have is to find a way to co-opt us. If they can manipulate the Liberty Movement into supporting a fascist system, then they would be very close to winning the entire fight. This would be highly unlikely given the stubbornness of liberty proponents when adhering to their principles.
The 'elites' might be able to get a large part of the public to take sides in their false paradigm, but if they can’t con the millions that make up the Liberty Movement into the fold, then their job becomes much harder.
Moral Compass vs. Moral Relativism
Moral relativism is perhaps the pinnacle goal of the globalists. Why? Because if you can convince an entire society that their inherent conscience should be ignored and that their inborn feelings of morality are “open to interpretation,” then eventually ANY evil action can be rationalized.
When evil becomes “good,” and good becomes evil, evil men will reign supreme.
The problem is, conscience is an inborn psychological product, a result of inherent archetypal dualities universal to almost all people. It is ingrained in our DNA, or our very souls if you believe in such a thing. It cannot be erased easily.
Moral relativism requires a person to treat every scenario as a “gray area.” This is not practical. Conscience dictates that we treat every situation as potentially unique and act according to what we feel in our hearts is right given the circumstances. This does not mean, though, that there is no black and white; or that there are no concrete rules.
There is almost always a black and white side to any situation dealing with right and wrong. Moral “dilemmas” are exceedingly rare. In fact, I don’t think I have ever encountered a real moral dilemma in history or in personal experience. The only time I ever see moral dilemmas is in movies and television.
Only in television fantasy is moral relativism ever the “only way” to solve a problem. And despite the preponderance of moral relativism in our popular culture, the ideology is still having trouble taking hold. If it was so easy to undermine conscience, then the NWO would have already achieved complete pacification. We are still far from pacification. Whoever hardwired our conscience should be applauded.
Collectivism vs. Individualism
The very core of globalism and the NWO is the position that sovereignty and individualism must be sacrificed for the “good of the group;” in other words, they promote collectivism. Of course, groups by their very nature are abstractions; they only exist as long as the individuals within them recognize them as viable.
Unfortunately, collectivists do not accept this fact because it would mean that the group, no matter how utopian, is not the pinnacle of human existence – rather, the individual is and always will be the pinnacle of human existence.
The elites MUST convince people that individualism is dangerous and that collectivism is the only way to prevent the tragedies wrought by those who wish to be separate.
Of course, most of the tragedies we experience on a national or global scale are actually engineered by the elites, not by wild individuals or sovereign nations looking for trouble. They then blame the very concept of sovereignty as a barbaric ritual from the past that must be abolished for the sake of all.
In order for the globalists to reinforce the need for collectivism, though, they must engage people on an individual psychological level.
Most human beings have an inherent desire to interact with their fellow man, but they also have an inherent identity and drive to pursue their own development without interference. We like to be a part of a group as long as our participation is healthy and voluntary and our associations are a matter of choice.
Human beings are instinctively tribal, but we have psychological and biological limits to the size of the tribe we prefer to be a part of. Robin Dunbar, a professor of evolutionary psychology prevalent in the 1990s, found that there is a cognitive limit to the number of individuals any one person can maintain stable relationships with.
Dunbar found this number to be between 100 – 200 people. A limitation also extends to the size of effective groups versus ineffective groups. He found that effective tribes and communities tend to remain between 500 - 2,500 people.
The human mind does not adapt well to vast tribal groups, and recoils from the idea of a “global tribe.” The truth is, human beings function far better in smaller groups and they do not like to be forced into participating in any group, let alone larger groups.
This may account for the feeling of isolation that is common among people who live in metropolitan areas. They are surrounded by millions of neighbors and perhaps hundreds of associates yet they still feel alone because they do not have a functioning tribe of acceptable size.
Vast numbers of people can be tied together by an ideal that resonates with them, which is the only purpose for nations to form (to protect that ideal), but that is as far as the voluntary association goes.
Globalist collectivism is simply unnatural. People know it unconsciously, they know it is an act of force and oppression, and will invariably move to sabotage its false tribalism as they begin to see its true colors.
Total Control vs. Reality
This is where the globalist philosophy really begins to break down. The elitist pursuit of total information awareness and total social control is truly perverse and insane, and insanity breeds delusion and weakness.
The fact is, they will NEVER complete the goal of complete micro-control. It is mathematically and psychologically impossible.
First, in any system, and in complex systems most of all, there are always elements that cannot be quantified or predicted.
To understand this issue, I recommend studying the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. To summarize, the uncertainty principle dictates that anyone observing a system in action, even from a distance, can still affect the behavior of that system indirectly or unconsciously in ways they could never predict.
They are also limited by their ability to objectively perceive all available elements of what they observe. Unknown quantities result, predictability goes out the window and total control of that system becomes unattainable.
This principle also applies to human psychology, as numerous psychoanalysts have discovered when treating patients. The doctor, or the observer, is never able to observe their patient without indirectly affecting the behavior of their patient in unpredictable ways. Therefore, a completely objective analysis of that patient can never be obtained.
What the elites seek is a system by which they can observe and influence all of us in minute detail without triggering a reaction that they wouldn’t expect. The laws of physics and psychology derail this level of control. There will always be unknown quantities, free radicals, wild cards, etc. Even a seemingly perfect utopia can be brought down by a single unknown.
To break this down even further to the level of pure mathematics, I recommend study into Kurt Godel and his Incompleteness Proof. This, I believe is the ultimate example of the elites struggling against the fact of unknown quantities and failing.
Godel’s work revolved around either proving or disproving the idea that mathematicians could define “infinity” in mathematical terms. For, if infinity can be defined, then it can be understood in base mathematical axioms, and if infinity can be understood, then the universe in its entirety can be understood.
Godel discovered the opposite - his Incompleteness Proof established once and for all that infinity is a self-inclusive paradox that CANNOT be defined through mathematics. Keep in mind that a proof is a set of mathematical laws that can never be broken. Two plus two will always equal four; it will never equal anything else.
Well-known globalist Bertrand Russell worked tirelessly to show that the entirety of the universe could be broken down into numbers, writing a three-volume monstrosity called the Principia Mathematica. Russell’s efforts were fruitless and Godel’s proof later crushed his theory. Russell railed against Godel’s proof, but to no avail.
Now, why was an elitist like Russell who openly championed scientific dictatorship so concerned by Godel? Well, because Godel, in mathematical terms, destroyed the very core of the globalist ideology.
He proved that the globalist aspirations of godhood would never be realized. There are limits to the knowledge of man, and limits to what he can control. This is not something globalists can ever accept, for if they did, every effort they have made for decades if not centuries would be pointless.
As mentioned earlier, the issue is one of unknown quantities. Can human society ever be fully dominated? Or, is the act of rebellion against stagnating and oppressive systems a part of nature? Is it possible that the more the elites wrap the world in a cage, the more they inspire unpredictable reactions that could undermine their authority?
This might explain the establishment’s constant attention to the idea of the “lone wolf” and the damage one person acting outside the dictates of the system can do. This is what the elites fear most: the possibility that despite all their efforts of surveillance and manipulation, individuals and groups may one day be struck by an unpredictable urge to pick up a rifle and put the globalists out of everyone’s misery. No chatter, no electronic trail, no warning.
This is why they are destined to lose. They can never know all the unknowns. They can never control all the free radicals. There will always be rebellion.
There will always be a Liberty Movement. The entirety of their utopian schematic revolves around the need to remove unknowns.
They refuse to acknowledge that control at these levels is so frail it becomes useless and mortally dangerous. In their arrogance, they have ignored the warnings of the very sciences they worship and have set their eventual end in stone. While they may leave a considerable path of destruction in their wake, it is already written; they will not win.
Hydrogen Peroxide Or Soap And Water To Clean Your Wound? + Why You Should Think Twice Before Using Antibacterial Soap May 12 2022 | From: Mercola / Attn / Various Getting cuts and scrapes are common, both inside and outside your home. These openings in your skin create an opportunity for bacterial growth and infections.
Initial cleaning of your wound will help to flush out unwanted bacteria and create an environment to help the open area heal.
Most people either reach for the soap and water or hydrogen peroxide to clean the area before bandaging it. You'll want to use the most effective cleaner without disturbing the tissue to encourage restoration of the area. One of these materials is definitely better to use than the other.
Why Hydrogen Peroxide is an Excellent Option
Hydrogen peroxide has been used since the 1920s as an antiseptic because it is effective at killing bacteria. An antiseptic is a substance that prevents the growth of disease-causing microorganisms, such as bacteria.
When you had a cut or scrape as a child, your mother probably reached for the brown bottle of hydrogen peroxide.
When she dabbed it on your cut, you may remember it hurt. That pain or discomfort was a result of the peroxide activating pain receptors in your cut or scrape as it killed the bacteria in the area. It is far safer and more effective than rubbing (isopropyl) alcohol than is commonly used and less staining than iodine.
Your Wound Needs Oxygen to Heal
Wound healing is a normal process your body initiates whether the wound is a paper cut or a large incision following surgery. In all cases your cuts, scrapes and wounds will heal faster, better and with less scarring when there is plenty of oxygen available.
The chemical composition of hydrogen peroxide is H2O2, containing one more oxygen molecule than water whose composition is H2O. When hydrogen peroxide is put on a cut or scrape, you'll notice bubbling from the area as the hydrogen peroxide releases one oxygen molecule and becomes water.
How Hydrogen Peroxide Kills Bacteria
Hydrogen peroxide works against bacteria, breaking the cell membranes open by attracting electrons. Inside the bacteria is an enzyme called catalase, causing the fizzing you see when the hydrogen peroxide reacts with the enzyme and releases one oxygen molecule.
Hydrogen peroxide is a very good antiseptic but it isn't able to distinguish between your healthy cells and those of the bacteria in your wound. The peroxide will attract electrons from your healthy cell membranes, killing them, and react with the catalase in your cells, producing the same fizzing.
Low concentrations of hydrogen peroxide are actually produced by your body after metabolizing sugar or carbohydrates, promoting wound healing.
Your cells have catalase to inactivate the hydrogen peroxide produced inside the cells, but are powerless against the hydrogen peroxide you add to your cut from the outside.
Excessive oxidative damage to your cells from external hydrogen peroxide will slow wound healing and increase your risk of scar formation. Your cells use catalase to inactivate hydrogen peroxide produced by your body to oxygen and water after insulin metabolizes sugar inside the cells.
This link between insulin, metabolized sugar, oxygenation and hydrogen peroxide produced by your body may be one reason why individuals who have insulin-resistant diabetes heal more slowly.
Most clinicians today do not recommend using antiseptic solutions of any kind to clean a cut or wound for the same reason hydrogen peroxide is not recommended. The antiseptic will often destroy your healthy cells, slow healing and increase your risk of scar tissue formation.
However if you do need a powerful and effective antiseptic peroxide is my first choice as it is far safer than rubbing (isopropyl) alcohol. I always travel with a spray bottle of peroxide as it is also useful for cleaning stains from clothes, especially when used in conjunction with soap.
The Truth About Antibacterial Soap
Although the first patent for antibacterial soap was filed in 1984 by David Poshi and Peter Divone, it was Dial bar soap that first made the claim in the 1940s. Dial didn't put "antibacterial" in their advertising, but advertised their soap as a way to get your body "super clean" by killing bacteria and germs.
Dial used a chemical, hexachlorophene, an antibacterial agent now proven to cause brain damage in infants. In 1970, the company was ordered to remove the chemical from their soap.
Once Poshi and Divone tested their chemical, triclosan, against bacteria and received the patent, Dial was the first to add it to their products claiming it "killed germs on contact."
Today, antibacterial soaps contain the chemical triclosan, despite the mountains of research demonstrating negative health concerns it triggers.
Antibacterial soap companies have mounted huge advertising campaigns, claiming the soaps would make your environment safer and provide an extra layer of protection against illness.
In December 2013, after 40 years of study, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced they would revisit the safety of triclosan, citing studies suggesting it can interfere with hormone levels in laboratory animals and increase the growth of drug-resistant bacteria.
The concern voiced by the FDA that antibacterial soap would increase drug resistance in bacteria was made on December 16, 2013. Another statement, published just three days earlier by Colleen Rogers, Ph.D., lead microbiologist at the FDA, indicated antibacterial soaps were not effective against bacteria:
"In fact, there currently is no evidence that over-the-counter (OTC) antibacterial soap products are any more effective at preventing illness than washing with plain soap and water."
Hazards of Triclosan
Triclosan is an antiseptic substance, and not recommended for cleaning cuts and scrapes because it prolongs wound healing and increases your risk of scar formation. However, there are other reasons you don't want to use antibacterial soaps in your home as well.
In June 2015, the agency responsible for oversight of chemical use in the European Union announced that triclosan would be phased out of hygiene products because the risks of using the product outweighed any perceived benefits. Research has linked the chemical substances used to make antibacterial soap with:
Endocrine hormone disruption
Increased cancer risk
Inhibition of aquatic bacteria and algae necessary for balanced ecosystem
Antibiotic resistance
Increased allergies to peanuts and hay fever
Interference with muscle contraction and activity
Biomagnification of the fat-soluble product; it appears at greater levels in tissue higher up the food chain
Disrupted thyroid function
Disrupts thyroid hormone gene expression
Increased liver tumors in mice
How to Properly Wash Wounds
The best way to cleanse a cut, scrape or wound is with a safe, mild soap and plenty of water. Choose a soap without triclosan, triclocarban or fragrance. Before washing your cut, wash your hands. This helps reduce the potential for transferring bacteria from your hand to your wound.
Mild to moderate bleeding can occur while you're cleaning the wound. After cleaning, use direct pressure to stop the bleeding and elevate the area above the level of your heart if you're able. This helps to reduce the amount of blood to the area to help stop the bleeding.
Rinse your wound with water for five to 10 minutes. This helps to remove dirt and debris from the area. Cool water may feel better to you than warm water, but either is acceptable to use. If you have a sprayer on your kitchen sink, you can try using it to help clean the wound out.
After rinsing thoroughly for five to 10 minutes to remove dirt and debris, use a mild soap with a clean washcloth or piece of gauze to wash the area. Use mild pressure. Hard scrubbing can disrupt the area and prolong healing time without any added benefit to cleansing the area. Cover the area to keep it moist and clean. Wounds that are kept moist and don't scab will heal better and are less likely to scar.
Why Silver Should be in Your Medicine Cabinet
The antimicrobial properties of silver have been known since 400 B.C., and silver was commonly used as an antimicrobial agent in wound management until the early 20th century. Modern science has since confirmed silver's antimicrobial effects, It's even been shown to be effective against antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
Tests reveal that silver destabilizes the structure of the bacterial cell membrane, making it more porous, which allows the silver to enter the bacteria and kill it from the inside.
Silver-containing hydrofiber dressing has been shown to offer effective protection against proliferation of a broad range of aerobic, anaerobic and antibiotic-resistant microorganisms in wounds. Silver nanoparticles incorporated into a thermosensitive gel has also been tested and found to be effective against Staphylococcus aureus.
A 2010 study also found colloidal silver effectively killed drug-resistant staph, E.coli, Salmonella, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa, the latter of which typically occurs in hospitals and in people with weakened immune systems.
Considering the risk of contracting a drug-resistant infection from a cut or scrape, it seems reasonable to conclude that keeping a bottle of high quality silver in your medicine cabinet would be a prudent strategy, and to use it any time you get a cut, scrape or other topical wound.
Tips to Speed Healing
Once cleaned, there are several things you can do to improve the speed of wound healing and reduce the potential for scarring.
1. Honey
Honey was used to fight infection up until the early 20th century. However, the grade-A processed honey you find at the grocery store is typically nothing more than high-fructose syrup and may actually increase your risk of infection. Instead, use raw Manuka honey. This honey is produced by bees foraging on Manuka flowers and may be more effective than antibiotics against some forms of bacteria.
2. Coconut Oil
Virgin coconut oil has dual benefits of keeping your skin moist and improving your fibroblast proliferation and wound healing. Use only virgin coconut oil on the area twice daily.
DuoDERM is a brand of hydrocolloid dressings covering the wound, protecting it from bacteria and keeping it moist to improve healing time. They also reduce pain in the area while providing a protective covering.
4. Avoid smoking
Avoid smoking. Wound healing requires good blood supply and smoking reduces blood supply to your skin through vasoconstriction, and smoking reduces your absorption of vitamin A, necessary for skin health and healing.
5. Nutrition
There are several choices you can make each day that will reduce your healing time and improve your overall health.
6. Beta-Carotene or Vitamin A
Foods high in vitamin A or beta-carotene are often orange-colored, such as sweet potatoes, carrots and winter squash. Do not take a vitamin A supplement if you are pregnant, nursing or trying to get pregnant.
7. Vitamin C
Your body uses it to make collagen and form new tissue. It is water-soluble. You can take up to 3,000 milligrams (mg) per day. Reduce the amount if you develop diarrhea.
Vitamin C interacts with some medications including chemotherapy, estrogen, warfarin and others. Check with your pharmacist for known interactions if you are taking medication. Foods rich in vitamin C include citrus fruits, dark leafy greens, broccoli and berries.
8. Zinc
Stimulates wound healing and can be used as an oral supplement in zinc lozenges or applied directly to the wound in a cream form. Do NOT apply to open wounds and do not take a supplement long-term. Foods high in zinc include pumpkin seeds, oysters, veal, beef, cashews and mushrooms.
9. B-Complex vitamins
May speed wound healing and improve skin health. Foods high in many of the B vitamins include spinach, broccoli, calf's liver, lentils, parsley and bell peppers.
10. Bromelain
An enzyme found in pineapple may reduce swelling, bruising and improve healing time.
11. L-arginine
Has been used post-surgically to improve healing. Foods high in arginine include chocolate, peanuts, chicken, beef, lamb, milk and cheese.
When to See Your Doctor
You may need to see a physician for treatment of a cut or wound, either immediately after injury or sometime later for an infection. The following signs and symptoms typically require medical attention.
Your cut won't stop bleeding
Your injury is very large and/or very deep
Dirt or debris embedded you can't remove
Injury to an artery or deep near a bone
Wound caused by an animal or human bite
Wound appears to be infected: green or yellow pus, red area around the wound is expanding, the skin around the wound looks "crinkled," the area around the wound is much warmer than the surrounding skin, and red lines appear to be coming from the area.
Why You Should Think Twice Before Using Antibacterial Soap
If you're like millions of Westerners, you use antibacterial soaps or other products on a regular basis. So do hospitals, doctor's offices, and many health care venues.
It's notable then that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced that they may begin requiring extra safety data on antibacterial hand soaps and sanitizers that are used in healthcare settings. Otherwise, the FDA suggested that it may pull some products from the market.
Under the newly proposed rule, the agency would evaluate whether existing over-the-counter antibacterial soaps and gels designed for clinical providers are "safe and effective" - specifically, ensuring that products don't cause birth defects or lead to antibiotic resistant super germs. The move comes after some in the scientific and medical communities have expressed concern about the risks of such items, especially for those who must use the products regularly.
"Today healthcare professionals use antiseptic products much more frequently than they used to, in some cases up to 100 times per day," said Dr. Theresa Michele, FDA Director of the Division of Nonprescription Drug Products, in the official release.
The agency said that it is "particularly interested in [...] the long-term safety of daily, repeated exposure to [common] ingredients."
Sound familiar? That's because the FDA initiated a similar investigation into the general consumer versions of these products in 2013. That study will conclude later this year.
Since the average person doesn't [probably did not once upon a time] use antibacterial soaps or gels nearly as often as their doctor, should we be concerned about the most recent FDA review?
Although I don't have a need to use antibacterial preparations as often as those working in clinical environments, I do want the occasional satisfaction of a spritz of hand sanitizer.
I even feel good about it when I'm working in my other capacity in the special events industry, like I'm limiting my 'take home' contact with the hundreds of individuals I interacted with during a given party. (And hopefully also limited my guests' chances of catching a cold from their vicarious contact with everyone else through me.)
But is it good for our health? Or, in the FDA's parlance: Is my lower-than-clinical exposure level safe for in the long run?
According to Dr. Allison Aiello, the answer is clear: absolutely not.
"The potential risks definitely outweigh the benefits, which are none,"said Aiello without equivocation to TIME when asked recently about antiseptic soap use.
An epidemiologist at the Gillings School of Public Health at the University of North Carolina, Aiello has long crusaded against these products, especially those containing the chemical triclosan.
About half of liquid hand soaps in the US, along with a whole slew of other products, contain antibacterial chemicals like triclosan or triclocarban.
In fact, it's hard to buy a household items like dish racks, toothpaste, hand soap, and even some clothing (under than name Microban) without running into these antimicrobial and antibacterial pesticides.
This should be mildly alarming, considering the results of a 2007 study for which Aiello was a lead author. Her team concludes:
"Several laboratory studies demonstrated evidence of triclosan-adapted cross-resistance to antibiotics among different species of bacteria. [...]
The lack of an additional health benefit associated with the use of triclosan-containing consumer soaps over regular soap, coupled with laboratory data demonstrating a potential risk of selecting for drug resistance, warrants further evaluation by governmental regulator regarding antibacterial product claims and advertising."
In other words, after systematically reviewing 27 studies of antiseptic soaps containing the active ingredient triclosan, Aiello and her partners believe that some antibacterial soaps may be making antibiotic resistance super bugs.
(They also suggest that manufacturers like Dial and Softsoap may be fleecing consumers with inflated claims on their products effectiveness in the process. But we'll come back to that later.)
This should give us pause in our household germ-killing spree. Globally, bacteria have become more resistant to antimicrobials, according to the World Health Organization. So much so that the WHO said the problem "threatens the achievements of modern medicine."To emphasis the point, in mid-May, the Centers for Disease Control warned of a strain of typhoid that has become resistant to multiple antibiotics.
Given the impact that resistance can have on the success of medical treatments, perhaps we should lay off the hand sanitizer. But that's not the only reason.
Some Antiseptic Soaps May Also Promote Tumors
A different study, released in Nov. 2014, found that triclosan promoted tumor growth.
Researchers in San Diego exposed mice to the pesticide and reported that mice grew "more tumors, bigger tumors and more frequent tumors" than those rodents with no triclosan contact. They also pointed to liver scarring.
Study author Robert Tukey, professor of chemistry, biochemistry, and pharmacology at University of California, San Diego, described the results as "on the extreme end of a tumor promoter and [triclosan] does so very rapidly." Similar to Aiello, Tukey also notes that he would not personally use antibacterial products with triclosan.
Other reports imply that triclosan causes decreased thyroid hormone levels, as well as changing our ability to respond to estrogen and testosterone.
But I Only Use Hand Sanitizer Occasionally, So My Exposure Level is TooLow to Worry About this, Right?
Wrong.
Criticism of these animal studies often comes from those that claim that the rodents have been introduced to very high concentrations of the chemical that don't adequately mimic hand washing. But what about tooth brushing, hair washing, putting on exercise clothing, and handling your kitchen cutting board?
All of these products may contain triclosan or close variations of the antimicrobial pesticide, potentially leading to higher exposure than anticipated. In fact, triclosan is the most ubiquitous consumer antibacterial.
It's been found in 97 percent of breast milk samples in the US as well as the urine of 75 percent of Americans over age six.
It also shows up commonly in the environment; it's one of the seven most frequently found compounds in US streams.
You Don't Have to Believe These Studies Though; You Can Read the FDA's Own Recommendations on Antibacterial Soaps.
Surprisingly, the FDA isn't very supportive of antibacterial soaps either. An agency consumer update issued in Dec. 2013 identifies hormone disruption, antibiotic resistance, and other concerns for antiseptic products:
"[A]ntibacterial soap products contain chemical ingredients, such as triclosan and triclocarban, which may carry unnecessary risks given that their benefits are unproven. [...]
A large number of liquid soaps labeled 'antibacterial' contain triclosan, an ingredient of concern to many environmental and industry groups. [...]
Moreover, recent data suggest that exposure to these active ingredients is higher than previously thought, raising concerns about the potential risks associated with their use regularly and over time."
If this makes you wonder why any of these products are approved for sale at all, you're not alone. The European Union banned triclosan from materials that come into contact with food in 2010. Minnesota banned the chemical completely last year.
But one only has to read the saga of Colgate's successful five year, multi-attempt process to get the FDA's blessing for triclosan-containing Colgate Total to begin to see the problems with our regulatory system.
As ATTN: has discussed before, our regulators allow manufacturers to use untested chemicals on the public as a matter of course. As a country, we "have created a system where we are testing these chemicals out on the human population,"says University of Massachusetts Amherst professor Thomas Zoeller.
"I love the idea they are all safe," Zoeller commented to the Chicago Tribune. "But when we have studies on animals that suggest otherwise, I think we're taking a huge risk."
Given the Uncertainty, are Antibacterial Soaps Even Necessary?
You probably saw this coming. According to the FDA, antibacterial soaps are not any more effective than regular soap and water.
The main difference between antimicrobial products and regular soap is that antimicrobials kill the bacteria outright via additives, like pesticides or alcohol.
Meanwhile, plain soap works by helping to loosen the grip of bacteria on your hands as you scrub when following good hand washing technique. Surprisingly, that's why washing with water alone - as long as you scrub - is also an effective way of cleaning your hands.
That means that companies are fleecing us with more expensive, antimicrobial versions of regular products as well as selling us products that we don't necessarily need: like alcohol-based hand sanitizers.
I like my CleanWell for times that I can't wash my hands. And since it doesn't have triclosan or other pesticides in it, that's likely not a problem.
But I'd be better to focus on washing my hands properly - going for a full 30 seconds of scrubbing action - or on making sure my bar soap at home isn't sitting in a puddle of water that's causing it to get contaminated by germs.
Making sure our soap is actually clean, and reminding ourselves that a little bacteria is fundamental to the formation of our immune system, will go a lot further toward protecting our health than using antibacterial cleaners.
It was also apparently protect us more than the FDA, who has known for years that triclosan-containing products might be dangerous.
Animal Communication + Study On Human-Pet Bonding Says You May Be Under A Spell May 11 2022 | From: ZenGardner / GreenMedInfo
Moments before I was told to sit down and watch ‘How Diablo Became Spirit’ I was outside looking over a stable door at a polo pony called Punk. He and I had never met before but I knew he was ‘in’ because he was injured.
In my thoughts I said “Hi Punk, how you feeling?”. He looked up from his hay and I heard him say back to me in my thoughts “Much better thank you”, I was gob-smacked.
I moved to the next stable door where my old friend a chestnut mare called Penny was stabled and again in my head said “Hi Penny, how are you?”. “Hungry as always” she replied.
I walked back to my thatched cottage opposite the stables thinking to myself, I’m not going to tell anyone that just happened. When I walked into the cottage, my partner at that time said to me “Baby, sit down, I want you to watch something. I think I’ve found your calling.” – it was Anna Breytenbach (www.animalspirit.org) communicating telepathically with the magnificent Black Leopard called Diablo.
I wept all the way through the video and told Matt what had just happened with the two horses. I then went online to find the next Animal Communication workshop I could get on. Six weeks later I attending my first workshop.
I have always preferred the company of animals to humans, it’s just the way I am. Of course I now understand that humans are animals too, though my animal friends are way less complicated and much more easily pleased.
“To realize that which cannot be lost, it is necessary to understand what really has been lost.”.
-
Riane Eisler ‘Sacred Pleasure’.
On an Animal Communication workshop it is explained that everyone can communicate with animals, we have all just forgotten how. They teach you that interspecies communication is done via energy so language is never a barrier. Sometimes they will communicate through words, or sensation, or through images displayed in your mind.
Try not to want it too much because that can block you and do not discount any answer you get, practice trust in the first answer you receive, and you must ‘think out of the box’ because there isn’t one – except the one you or society puts you in.
You are taught the teacher’s ‘method’ which in this case was firstly close your eyes and ground yourself, move your consciousness into your heart area and think about how much you love animals, feeling the space in your heart centre expanding with love.
Then, imagine that from your heart you are beaming over love to the animal’s heart and introduce yourself. Tell them how much you love them and ask them if would they like to communicate with you. And remember to say please and thank you, animals apprectiate good manners.
So, the only way to learn this skill is from a ‘guest teacher’. My animal guest teacher was a Staffordshire Bullterrier called Oscar. He came into a calm room of thirty seated students, all eager to be able to communicate with this beautiful creature.
Being a ‘Staffy’ Oscar entered the room with typical Staffy exuberance, we had all been instructed not to speak to or touch him. His guardian (not owner, we are merely guardians to our pets) sat on a seat next to the teacher, whilst Oscar went around the room sniffing everybody, tail wagging.
He then went and settled on the rug in the middle of the room. The teacher had already written down the questions on a flip chart we were to ask Oscar telepathically, so she went through each question saying “Ask Oscar who his best friend is” and then we were to write on our notepads the first answer we received.
“Ask Oscar to show you where he went for a walk this morning, and who did he meet?”. Then, “Ask Oscar where he slept last night and why?”. Finally, “Is there anything you need Oscar that will make your life better?”
I got two out of the four questions asked correct according to the answers the teacher received. She went through all the answers everybody got and then shared the answers that she had received. When we asked what did Oscar need to make his life better I heard him say “Bones, I need bones!”
The teacher and I got the same answer but his guardian protested “I can’t give him bones, he’s a Staffy and he may get splinters”.
I found myself protesting this statement aloud, dogs produce 20% stronger hydrocholic acid in their guts to digest bone, sinew, fur, fat and meat whilst on the move, it is imperative they have raw bones. Oscar got up from his rug and came over to me wagging his tail and put his head in my lap, saying “thank you”.
Later that day I was partnered up for another exercise with a young woman who also lived with Oscar, who had been accompanied by him in bed the night previous. When we asked the question “Where did you sleep last night and why?”
I heard something completely different to everyone else including the teacher, essentially getting the answer incorrect.
I asked her, when you went to bed last night with Oscar, how were you feeling? She responded exactly how Oscar had told me “She was feeling really sad and lonely”. From that moment on I knew that animal communication is subjective.
The afternoon consisted of a cat guest teacher called Marmalade who headed straight for a woman who was terrified of cats and sat on her for the rest of his session, attempting to cure her of her fear. Sadly, his efforts were lost. We did the same routine, asking Marmalade questions that his guardian could verify.
Afterwards, we worked with photographs of our beloved pets. How does that even work? Surely that is not possible but I found myself communicating perfectly accurately with Shoshy the cat via her photograph, using language that was completely alien to my usual syntax. It was a bizarre experience!
After my workshop I’d already got a few animals ‘booked in’ for communication sessions. My first was a Hunter horse named Nick who was having problems with repetitive lameness. I told the guardian not to tell me which leg was affected as asking a question that can be confirmed by them is evidence to you and them that you are indeed in interspecies communication.
I approached the huge beast in silence, telepathically announcing my name and that I’d just learned to communicate with animals and I would like to communicate with him. I heard nothing. Then after a moment, he drew my attention to his back left foot. I asked him did it hurt and suddenly I had a stabbing pain in my left foot on the underneath.
He then said “The injections don’t help, I need glucosomine”! When I spoke to his guardian her mouth dropped open and confirmed it was that foot that was problematic and she had been advised by the vet to have costly and painful steroid injections, of which he’d had four. I am happy to report Nick is now on glucosomine supplements and his problem is now relieved.
The next communication was with a dressage horse called Zodie. Her guardian is a gentle, beautiful young woman who teaches children to ride and does dressage competitions for fun. I like this person a lot and she is very fond of her animals. The evening before I had read from cover to cover, the book my teacher had written on animal communication.
She wrote about an experience she had with horses where one horse had remembered how kind a human once was to him that had given him some confectionary called ‘Maltesers’, and that he’d never forgotten her kindness or the sweets. I went armed with some Maltesers, just in case I could bribe the horse into communicating with me.
Her guardian told me when she and Zodie praticed dressage the horse was infallible but whenever they were in competetive situations the horse had awful meltdowns. Off I went to communicate with Zodie who was in an enclosure with two other horses where she was able to roam free and the others were stabled.
I entered their enclosure and introduced myself telepathically to Zodie, asking if she would like to communicate with me. She took one look at me and promptly walked off and hid in a stable! That was a definite ‘no’ then. Oh well, I may as well dish out the Maltesers whilst I’m here, so I pulled out the packet from my pocket and opened it in readiness to give to the other horses.
Zodie popped her head out the stable inquisitively, and decided to come over and investigate the rustle of the sweet wrapper. It turned out that she didn’t like the Maltesers but that was enough effort on my part for her to give me another chance and decided she would like to communicate with me after all.
I asked Zodie if she hurt anywhere and she showed me in my body a sensation of tightness on her right side flank and down the leg. I then asked her what was going wrong in her competions? I was immediately overwhelmed by the sensation of fear and nervousness, I was trembling all over and not able to catch my breath.
She told me “I just don’t want to let her down, she’s an angel and I don’t feel I am good enough”! I explained that Vicks just wanted to do the competitions for fun, it did not matter whether they won or not, they are just there to enjoy themselves. When I told Vicks she wept, as did I. Ever since then, Zodie has been winning every competition she has entered and Vick’s younger sister is now successfully showjumping her too.
Animals are our greatest teachers in every way, when I have found it impossible to communicate they patiently show me how. I have predominantly had dogs and horses in my life. Dogs are my greatest love and proved the most difficult for me to access telepathically. But they always patiently teach me what I need to learn.
For me at least, it works better most times if I communicate with dogs through images. For example, Terry the Terrier was my best animal friend when I learned this amazing skill, but I could not communicate in the ways I found so easy with cats, horses, even insects! Eventually, this recalcitrant lump of clay finally grasped the concept of visualisation communication thanks to Terry’s guidance.
I was feeling very sorry for myself with my female cycle one day, and I knew that animals are able to heal us. So I was lying on my bed in agony with Terry looking at me curiously. I said telepathically “Terry come and lie on my belly it really hurts”. Nothing. Then I closed my eyes and imagined (or I- magiced) Terry lying on my belly facing me, and imagined what that would look like from his perspective.
He jumped up on the bed and lay down on my body facing me. Within minutes my pain had subsided and I had learned my biggest lesson so far. On another similar painful occasion I was cat-sitting and up in the middle of the night. I explained to one of the cats I was in pain and she promptly jumped on my lap and starting pawing at my belly arduously. The pain was cured in a matter of minutes.
One day I was told about a position at an Aristocrat’s country estate which was a ‘live in’ job and my role would be to take care of their five dogs, my dream job! I went to the 4,000 acre estate for an interview and met the Countess and her daughter and the five dogs.
The dogs were really hectic with very few manners but all completely adorable. I was asked to sit down at the kitchen table and have coffee with my prospective new boss. I suddenly was drawn to looking behind me and saw the tiny Jack Russell Terrier who was sat staring at me next to the warm aga oven.
Telepathically I said to her “Hello, I might be coming to live here to look after you, and I can talk to you”.
Her eyes grew wide and her jaw slackened with shock. I invited her to come and sit on my lap which she did – her guardians could not believe what was happening because ‘Lunch’ the Terrier never sat on just any old person’s lap, so I got the job. The pack consisted of one Golden Retriever called Wussie who was a healer, two highly strung Hungarian Vizlas, a mother and daughter Mabel & Maudie.
Lunch, and a rescued Dog de Bordeaux named Winnifred – a motley crew, all ruled magnanimously by Lunch of course, her being the smallest of the pack, it’s always the smallest one in charge.
On many occasions I would walk another three dogs with the pack, just me and eight dogs spending whole days outside connecting with each other, and all in connection with the Planetary Animal Mother, Gaia Sophia.
I have even communicated with plants. I got badly stung by some stinging nettles and know the best antidote is to eat the very top of the nettle. I stood before a large group of nettles and asked them which nettle top I could take to cure my rash.
After a brief wait, and with no breeze whatsoever, one of the plants bowed down where the others stayed perfectly still.
I make hedgerow medicines and if I cannot find the plant that I need I will ask to be taken to it. When I collect the plants and harvest them I talk to them in gratitude and explain to them who the medicine is for and what ailments they will be addressing. It is a wonderful feeling to heal somebody, and even more sublime to be in such deep connection with nature.
Often one finds that some animals are more open to telepathy with human animals than others. No wonder when animals are so used to us thinking they are just dumb beasts, often treating them badly either through ignorance or patent cruelty. One such animal was a beautiful bay horse named Campbell.
He was unfortunate enough to have a groom who was very ignorant and cruel, be his guardian. She was the live-in groom where I lived and supposedly ‘looked after’ twelve horses. Dear, sweet Campbell, was always fielded alone which is a dire way for herd animals to exist. He had no grass, no shade, no friends and I often found he had no water.
I’ve always been able to feel how animals feel which intensified ten fold when I learned to communicate with them.
I would go and see Campbell every day and his loneliness was palpable. I would try my best to be nice and gently convince the groom he needed more in his life but was always met with a brick wall of obtuse indifference.
The weather became unusually hot for English summertime that year and Campbell consistently had no water. One afternoon I found him in a different paddock next to two mares who were both in season, again with no shade and no water.
He was covered in horseflies and horsefly bites and reacting manically to them and the mares’ hormones. I entered the paddock, and with nostrils flaring and making a strange and unfamiliar equine noise, he rushed towards me and literally buried his face in my torso for solace, remaining there for the next 10 minutes. I was covered in his blood from his bites. Utterly heartbreaking.
I text the groom telling her what had happened and she replied in her usual disparraging manner, she knew what she was doing and she was sick of me interfering but the worst part was she said “I can’t give him anymore water because he will get colic”.
Not having access to fresh water is what gives horses colic. I printed some information about colic prevention from the Blue Cross website and handed it to her. For one week Campbell had water every day and was wearing a fly protection rug and mask.
The following week however, back in his lonely field on a day when the temperatures were soaring, I found Campbell once again without any water.
He had two empty buckets that I had filled the day before, changing one of the buckets to a different colour so that the groom would know I had done it, and I’d be able to verify whether she had refilled or not. It was 9 30pm, almost 24 hours since and he’d had any water.
I was very tired having worked all day and his field was half a mile away from my cottage. “Campbell, do you need me to fetch you some water?” I asked telepathically. I will never forget his response – he put his head in one empty bucket and looked at me, then he did the same with the other bucket and looked at me.
Actions do indeed speak louder than words. I ferried 15 litres of water over to his field in a wheelbarrow of which he drank 5 litres straight away.
As I left him now hydrated I heard him say “Thank you, I love you.” Sadly I wasn’t able to continue living amongst all those wonderful creatures because I could not endure the abject neglect and cruelty any longer. I hope Campbell and all the others have gone on to a better home or at least ended up with more competant caretakers.
This is the only downside to communicating with animals.
I have helped a dog who was so terrified of fireworks he’d try to claw his way through walls. A horse who was scared of going to an Elite English School where spolied children can keep their horses at school. A cat that was peeing in the house…
I attended another two day workshop with the same teacher, day two was focussing on Gestalt Therapy and Remote Viewing which is basically learning to communicate and heal from long distance. Day two was Remote Viewing, so to learn we were partnered up with someone new to us that weekend and told to swap our pet photographs.
The object of the exercise was, with permission of the other person, to access their house by communicating with their pet through the photograph. I was handed a photograph of a really pissed off looking Persian Blue cat called Basil, his expression was hilarious so I burst out laughing and looked at Basil’s guardian who simply said “I know”.
Not quite believing I or anyone could do such a thing, I nevertheless introduced myself to Basil and asked him to show me around his house. We were encouraged to draw any images we saw or write down any words we received.
Suddenly I can see a kitchen, with a catflap in a pvc back door.
Then I find myself travelling through the catflap into the garden where I can see a beige coloured paving slab path separating two lawns, and a wooden shed to the left with a tall wooden fence surrounding the modest garden.
Basil told me “I don’t like to go further than the fence”.
Then we go back through the catflap and into the kitchen where he shows me not only the food he eats but the two different brands of food he gets fed, and his silver bowl. His favourite place to sleep in the kitchen is a beige chair, and then he takes me upstairs to the windowsill where he likes to sit and watch the world go by. Before I left the house he told me something about his guardians with a request attached.
I find myself showing a complete stranger the sketch I had drawn of her own house and garden. To our mutual amazement I was 100% accurate! She told me Basil had been rescued with another cat and they were both house cats until the other cat had died. Since that day, Basil had been wandering out into the garden but never further than the fence.
She confirmed his food, the brands, his favourite place to sleep and his spot on the windowsill. We were both utterly flabbergasted. Then, feeling rather awkward I asked her what Basil had told me to say “Do you listen to BBC Radio 4?”. “Oh yes, we listen to it all the time” she replied.
“Well Basil says he hates it and has asked me to ask you to please turn it off”!
I will add here, the animal communicators all explain that the reason we are able to use photographs to communicate is a Quantam Physics factor. I believe Quantam Physics is yet another scientific fraud we have been force fed, so I have no idea how communication through that medium works, just that it does.
On the same workshop I was partnered with a woman who gave me a photograph of her dead dog. I was able to ask and answer her four confirmation questions accurately, and then put her mind at rest that she had done the right thing in putting her beloved pet to sleep at the time that she did.
They also say delightful things like our departed loved ones come with us on walks and watch over us. Now I am aware of that idea I can feel their presence.
I was asked to communicate with a new horse at a livery stable, she had got into the habit of throwing the boss off every time he rode her. They had renamed her Gigi so my first question to her was “Do you like your new name?”. “No, I want to be called Butercup! And I want a purple rug.”
Then I asked if she was in pain and she showed me in my own body points that hurt her, which I sketched on a piece of paper. She also told me her saddle was very uncomfortable. When I left her stable one of the grooms who I had not met before, came over and asked me if I had been able to communicate.
She then started to tell me where she thought the horse was in pain and my sketch matched exactly with her assertions. I told Tom my findings and he was really unhappy with her name choice, but admitted the saddle they used was not one that had been specifically made for her. And he would change her rug to a purple one.
Buttercup has now had the physical therapy she needed to help her ailments and has a new saddle especially fitted for her back, and has managed to keep Tom off the floor.
Anyone can learn to communicate with animals. Just think why does your dog know you are thinking about taking them for a walk almost before you have even formulated the thought?
But animal communication is right-hemisphere brain activity, understanding that the education system is a deliberate attempt to make you entirely left-hemisphered, will assist you enormously.
Attending one of the many workshops on offer will be the start of your intraspecies communication and a new way of looking at all life and nature, even the planet we live on.
According to the ancient Pagan Mysteries, and the biography of the earth recovered from the Nag Hammadhi Codices by modern day Gnostic John Lamb Lash, Gaia Sophia is a living conscious being, our Planetary Animal Mother, who can communicate with you too.
“The human animal is wired to Gaia, literally and spiritually.”
Study On Human - Pet Bonding Says You May Be Under A Spell
Do you melt when you look into your dog’s eyes? Does your cat have you wrapped around her little fuzzy paws? You’re not alone! New science unlocks the mysteries of human-animal bonding and how our animal companions manipulate us into loving them - for our good and theirs.
People have a long history of living and bonding with domesticated animals. A recent genome study concluded that dogs may have been domesticated as far back as 34,000 years ago.
Today, our animal companions are as beloved as ever with the American pet population expanding from about 40 million cats and dogs in 1967 to more than 114 million in 2012. Roughly two-thirds of US households now include at least one pet.
Not only are pets on the rise, but the significance of our human-animal relationships seems to be deepening. A growing number of young adults are trading in their human partners for the four-legged kind. Many report experiencing greater distress from the loss of a pet than from a breakup. In a recent poll, a surprising 38 percent of dog owners reported loving their pets more than their partners!
Our animal companions obviously bring lightness and joy to our lives, but science now reveals they may be bringing much more.
The Magical Healing Powers of Animals
In addition to offering companionship, animals benefit people in a number of different ways. For example, animals have developed special defenses over the millennia to ensure survival in the wild, and some of these have benefits for humankind.
Dog’ saliva has been found to heal wounds due to a protein called Nerve Growth Factor. Human wounds treated with NGF heal twice as quickly as untreated wounds.
The purring of a cat can help mend broken bones and soft tissue injuries because they purr at 20 to 50 Hertz, a frequency range found to promote tissue healing. And a protein from the venom of the Malayan pit viper is being used in Europe to treat strokes and blood clots.
Even if you don’t own anything as exotic as a Malayan pit viper, your dog or cat may be bringing you an abundance of gifts.
Science shows that pet owners are reaping an amazing number of health benefits, including the following:
Reduced risk for heart attack, stroke, and cardiovascular disease, and better odds of surviving and recovering from a heart attack, regardless of the severity
Better physical fitness and higher levels of activity, overall
Improved stress management and coping, reduced risk for depression and anxiety; lower levels of cortisol, and higher levels of “feel good” neurotransmitters, including dopamine and serotonin
Fewer allergies, better immune function, and improved health and longevity
Higher attractiveness and trustworthiness to others, more social support and reduced isolation
Early warnings for seizures, cancer, low blood sugar and even death, as animals have sensory abilities reaching far beyond those of humans, making them excellent service companions
Pets Reduce Allergies and Help Build Children’s EQ
For children, family pets offer unique benefits, both physically and emotionally. Dogs can forestall the development of allergies in children raised with them. A study in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology found exposure to dogs in infancy, especially around the time of birth, can lower a child’s risk for allergies.
This effect is so strong that even an expectant mother can reduce the likelihood of her child’s developing allergies by living with a dog.
The emotional benefits are even more profound. Kids who grow up with dogs and cats tend to show greater compassion and empathy, which is referred to as “emotional intelligence” or EQ.
According to kindergarten teachers, EQ is the strongest predictor of a child’s success in school, even more so than reading or writing skills. Caring for a pet teaches children compassion, self-esteem, and responsibility for the care of another, as well as improving cognitive skills, mitigating stress, and numerous other benefits.
Children with autism are sometimes better able to interact with animals, and this may actually improve their ability to interact with people. Science shows cats are especially helpful to autistic children, increasing their social interactivity and improving communication skills, tactile and eye contact, smiling and laughter.
Oxytocin Creates Friends with Benefits
Why do cats and dogs hold this almost-magical power over humans? Recent discoveries are beginning to provide an answer: hormones.
A recent groundbreaking study was the first to identify a hormonal bonding effect between humans and other species, which may help to explain how dogs became domesticated thousands of years ago.
According to the study, when your dog looks into your eyes, he activates the same hormonal response as an infant. The mutual gazing between dogs and their owners triggers the release of oxytocin, the “love hormone,” in the same positive feedback loop as in a mother and newborn.
Of the duos who spent the greatest amount of time gazing into each other’s eyes, male as well as female dogs experienced a 130 percent rise in oxytocin levels, and both male and female owners showed a 300 percent increase.
Produced by the hypothalamus, oxytocin is the hormone responsible for mother-infant bonding, flooding each with feelings of happiness, trust and well being. In addition to its role in bonding and relationships, oxytocin confers physical health benefits as well, including reduced pain and inflammation, which could explain some of the health benefits of pet ownership outlined above.
But oxytocin may explain only part of our connection with dogs. A prior study found dogs to be sensitive to human social cues, such as the intention to interact with them when making eye contact. According to Medical Daily:
"Dogs tend to speak through body language and facial expression, which makes them better equipped to figure out our moods and what makes us happy, among other things.
Dogs are not the only species casting oxytocin spells on humans - cats are taking full advantage as well."
Crazy Cat Ladies May Not Be So Crazy After All
A recent study found that cats attach to humans as social partners, not just for the sake of obtaining food. This research is the first to show in detail that cat-human relationships are essentially identical to human-human ones, at least biochemically, with cats frequently stepping into roles of surrogate children in nurturing homes.
This of course will not be new information to cat lovers.
Petting a cat is found to produce an immediate oxytocin release in both cat and human - but if that human is a woman, the effects may be far more pronounced. This study and others confirm that, while cats have plenty of male admirers, women initiate contact with their kitties much more often than men, and vice versa.
Female owners also have more intense relationships with their cats, and cats especially adore - and manipulate - their ladies. Cats are cashing in on human maternal instinct!
Rather than an amusing eccentricity, “crazy cat ladies” may actually be unwitting victims of chemically modulated feline manipulation. I’ll leave proof of that hypothesis to the scientists - but ladies, consider yourself warned.
Regardless of whether or not we humans are being manipulated by our animal friends, the benefits of sharing our homes with them cannot be denied.
Science has proven that if you want to live a longer, healthier, happier life - and raise your children in an environment that cultivates compassion and responsibility - then adopting a pet may be just the prescription.
Tribal Parenting - How To Heal Our Children + What Are The Consequences Of A Childhood Removed From Nature? May 10 2022 | From: LawenHealth / PlayAgain
Do you wear your baby? Nurse your toddler? Sleep in a family bed? If you do, chances are you’ve been influenced by an obscure little book penned almost four decades ago.
Its author, the late Jean Liedloff, spent two and a half years living with a Stone Age South American tribe, observing them and recording their way of life.
The Yekuana Indians were unlike any people Liedloff had ever encountered. They seemed universally happy and fulfilled. Their children, especially, were remarkably calm and independent. In the entire time she stayed with them, she witnessed no sibling rivalry, no whining, and almost no crying, fussing or tantrums among their infants and small children.
She was amazed to see older children and teens confidently performing difficult tasks and making mature decisions, without the defiance or recalcitrance so common in Western adolescents. In her own words:
“Amazingly, the children never fought. They played together all day unsupervised, all ages, from crawling, to walking to adolescence. Not only did they not fight, they never even argued. This is not at all what we have been taught human nature is….”
Liedloff observed that in this culture, as in many other indigenous societies around the globe, children were treated very differently than in Western cultures. She began to develop a theory of human social development based on her observations.
According to her, every human being is born with an inborn expectation to undergo certain natural social experiences. These begin with being held immediately after birth, and an extended in-arms phase in early infancy.
Liedloff called her theory the Continuum Concept, because she maintained that these experiences should come sequentially (in a continuum), and are necessary for the sustainable continuation of our species.
Missing one or more of them, according to Liedloff, can cause an individual to have trouble integrating properly into society.
And by extension, one would assume that a society that does not routinely provide these experiences to its members is likely to, eventually, break down.
You may be familiar with many of these Continuum practices as the basic principles of the Attachment Parenting (AP) movement, which Liedloff’s ideas influenced greatly.
Several, like babywearing, extended nursing, and co-sleeping are, if not wholly embraced by Western society, at least becoming better known and more accepted.
However, most Western parents who follow these practices agree that their families are still far from experiencing the ideal of human contentedness that Liedloff describes in her book.
Assuming that Liedloff’s observations are accurate, how can we continue to improve upon our parenting practices? In other words, once the honeymoon of infancy is over, what then?
Beyond Infancy
In examining The Continuum Concept (and related materials included on the book’s website) for hints on parenting children ages toddler and beyond, three main principles spring forth as very different from the way most of us were raised, and continue to raise our children:
The first principle is a profound trust in the child.
Caregivers in continuum societies understand that the child is an inherently “good citizen,” with an innate desire to please and an inborn sense of self-preservation.
“Nobody’s born rotten,” writes Liedloff. “You just don’t have bad kids. There is no such thing. But we can make them bad. Ironically, the reason it’s possible… is because we are so social.
Our social nature is such that we tend to meet the expectations of our elders. Whenever this reversal took place and our elders stopped expecting us to be social and expected us to be anti-social, or greedy or selfish or dirty or destructive or self-destructive… that’s when the real fall took place. And we’re paying for it dearly.”
Instead of warning the child to behave and laying out consequences for bad behavior, Liedloff advocates simply modeling the “good” behavior, and expecting the child to follow suit. If the child errs, he should be gently instructed to change his behavior, but he should never be judged negatively as a person because of his mistakes.
The second Continuum concept to keep in mind is that the child should not be the center of attention.
Neither, however, should he be excluded from adult society. In Yekuana society, Liedloff observed that adults were available to the child as needed, but focused primarily on their own activities, not on their role as parents. This approach lets the child learn by direct observation and to begin participating in adult activities as he is ready, without the pressure of being in the spotlight.
Of course, this does not mean that one should never pay attention to or play with one’s child. It simply, in Liedloff’s words, “reflects an understanding of the child’s role as a learner in society.”
The child needs a mother who is confident and calm… a mother who knows what to do, and doesn’t ask permission from her child. If you’re pleading with her (or asking her to lead), then she’s got the power, and it makes her nervous because it means you’re not sure of yourself, and you’re begging her for acceptance (or direction).
Any grown-up lady that pleads with a 4-year-old is not to be relied on.
Rather than following the child’s lead, Liedloff suggests telling her nicely but matter-of-factly what you expect her to do, without asking her permission or regaling her with choices or reasons. In other words, instead of saying, “Let’s go have some lunch now, OK? What would you like to eat?” tell your child “OK, now it’s time for lunch. Can you find the spoons? We’re going to have soup.”
Keep in mind, though, that taking the lead is not the same thing as taking control over your child. The parents Liedloff observed never forced a child to do chores. They simply modeled the behavior, and made sure the tools - like a child-size grater - were available to the child.
When a child showed an interest, she was allowed to participate as long as she wanted to. It was simply expected that she would naturally want to learn how to do the tasks she observed the adults doing.
By the time they are old enough to be truly helpful, Liedloff noted that continuum-raised children will simply and quietly obey requests for help from adults, reciprocating the respect they had been shown when they were little.
The question for modern parents becomes, “Past infancy, how do we continue to give our children the continuum experiences they need in the context of our own society?”
This leads us to the third principle: that a healthy human experience must include interaction between people of many different ages.
It is easy for Stone Age parents to be available to their children without making them the center of attention. After all, they live where they work, and their children spend most of their time freely playing with other children, both younger and older than they are.
In fact, every person in their culture is able to model older individuals, and mentor younger individuals in turn. This allows for smooth passage from one stage of life to the next, and reduces or eliminates friction between generations.
In a society which divides its tribes into isolated nuclear families, where adults must often work outside the home, where children are not typically welcomed into the workplace, and where, from preschool to nursing home, our age segregation practices border on the extreme, is it even possible to offer our children - and ourselves - the experiences we apparently need to become truly fulfilled human beings?
Perhaps not to the extent that the Yekuana could. But just as many Western parents have resurrected the practices of babywearing and co-sleeping, why not reclaim the tribal experience as well?
Whether through conscious decisions or instinct, many parents are attempting to do just that - resurrect something of the primal, tribal human experience. In their own ways, they are seeking opportunities to connect with other families in ways that are more natural, organically developing and holistic.
Extended Family
For some families, tribe-building is as simple as staying in place or moving back to live close to extended family. A recent PEW study revealed that 43 percent of young people ages 18 - 31 are now living with their parents or other kin. This includes a growing number of families with young children, according to Carmen Wong-Ulrich of Baby Center Financial.
Granted, this is happening primarily as a result of economic pressure, rather than the desire for a more natural social structure. However, many of these families are discovering benefits to this arrangement beyond financial relief.
“It was nice to rediscover a relationship with my parents as a parent.
I don’t think our vision was ever, oh let’s go live with our parents again when we are older, but you know, it worked out,” commented one young mother who spent a year living with her parents while she and her husband saved up for a home of their own.
Other parents report increased feelings of security, carpooling and other shared duties made easier, built-in babysitters, and family bonding as benefits of living with or near family members.
But for the majority of us, living near family is just not an option. What then?
Creating Your Own Tribe
Teresa Pitman’s classic article “Finding Your Tribe” offers one solution. First published in 2000, it has been republished many times since, inspiring parents all over the world to create modern “tribal” relationships with friends and neighbors.
It the article, Pitman describes her relationship with her friend Vicki.
Starting when their first babies were infants, the two would get together and help each other with household chores or prepare meals for both families to enjoy, while their kids had the benefit of unstructured play time with adults who remained in close proximity, but engaged in their own adult activities.
It wasn’t until she read Liedloff’s book that Pitman realized she and Vicki had unconsciously created their own little tribal community.
Pitman points out that tribe-building involves much more than just scheduling regular playdates. You have to spend a lot of time together, and it’s important that it not just be all “visiting time.” Work together. Clean house, work on your car, do projects together, garden, prepare meals, or start a business together.
Take care of the children’s needs as they need you; otherwise, let them alone to observe how you’re going about your tasks - or not, as they please.
She also cautions not to be too picky about whom you form your tribe with. Just like family, the people you find available may have some qualities that differ from your ideals. That’s OK; as long as you can respect each other’s choices and beliefs there’s no reason you can’t form a deep and lasting relationship.
Homeschooling
It’s very common for parents of young children to get together frequently, and often these relationships result in lasting bonds between families. However, once the children reach school age, time spent together in this way often diminishes. Homeschooling families have a unique advantage in this regard.
They are also better able to respond to children’s natural developmental patterns, and more likely to have the opportunity to interact with children of a larger age range than their schooled counterparts - an important aspect of Continuum ideals.
In situations where homeschooling occurs between and around running a home-based business, children also get to observe and learn firsthand how the adult world operates in a way that was once a normal part of growing up, but is now no longer available to the vast majority of modern children.
That said, many homeschoolers still find their lives increasingly dominated by schedules and goals, especially as children grow older. If a tribal experience is truly your ideal, you might find yourself drawn to at least partial unschooling.
The School Conundrum
If homeschooling is not an option for your family’s situation, what then? If you are brave and resourceful, you might consider organizing your own school or other institution.
This is what Natalie Cronin did. She started her home daycare, Under the Tinker Tree, out of a desire to provide her own children with an experience more closely resembling her ideals than would otherwise be possible. Luckily, her vision resonated with others in her community.
“I share my home with a dozen families a day, and we have a saying that ‘We’re all in it together.’ It was an interesting process…
I was very upfront about [all my beliefs about childrearing], and people would come, and they were looking for people like me and I was looking for people like them…. [I’d tell them] we aren’t caring for just the child, we’re here for the whole family, and that’s really what it’s become.
Our community has become so close. The parents contact each other after daycare, and we all live within a few blocks of each other - I have six families who live in the same apartment building as I do. So we really do have our own little community and we’re very supportive of each other.”
Pioneering a “tribal” style school for older children is more of a challenge than starting a daycare, but is certainly within the realm of possibility if enough parents in a given community are willing to devote time and resources to making it happen.
Institutional Tribalism?
If starting a school is not an option, you still may be able to integrate some semblances of a tribal existence into the fabric of your family’s life by carefully choosing amongst the schools, churches and other organizations in your area, and/or by advocating for more Continuum-friendly practices within the organizations you already belong to.
Keep in mind that it is extremely difficult to change already existing conventions.
“If you can’t homeschool, the first thing is to seek out alternative schools that have age mixing and aren’t so set on separating and segregating people,” advises parenting coach Scott Noelle, who corresponded extensively with Liedloff while she was alive, and now operates the Liedloff Continuum Network website.
“You can also look for a school that doesn’t grade children; that’s another way to separate people, by ‘good kids’ and ‘bad kids’ and A students and B students and so forth.”
Noelle adds that there are things you can do to protect your child from the less Continuum-friendly aspects of school life.
“I encourage parents to let (their children) know that the school culture is like a game that they play, and there are parts of the game that are good to play, like learning and meeting new friends, but that we’ll have to tolerate other parts of the game that are not as aligned with our true nature, like grading for example.
You can assure your children that the grading is just a game and we don’t have to take it too seriously. They do take it seriously - they forget that it’s just a game. So tell them, ‘I’m not too worried about [the game]. If what you’re ready for doesn’t align perfectly with their game then you may get low marks in their game, but I know you’ll blossom in your own time.’”
You may find yourself in the position of wanting to introduce elements of modern tribalism into an existing organization. This is challenging, but not impossible. If you want to do this, it’s usually a good idea to become an active, participating member of the group first, before attempting change.
Then, frame your suggestions in a way that helps them meet existing wants and needs. For instance, you might volunteer to set up a program to help your organization’s single-parent families network with and support each other.
Intentional Communities
To some, the ultimate in modern tribe building may well be to start an intentional community based on Continuum and other natural living concepts. However, a quick search reveals very few existing intentional communities that openly base their values on Continuum ideals. (Heart-Culture Farm near Eugene, Oregon, is one.)
Why is this? Surely, there are enough families interested in following an attachment parenting lifestyle to warrant a larger number of communities specifically designed to support it?
Could it be that the very concept of an “intentional” community (at least, as most of us are likely to think of it) is alien to a Continuum worldview? After all, Liedloff herself noted that the Yekuana people were highly reluctant to sway anyone else’s opinion or influence their behavior. Yet most intentional communities are very specific as to what is and is not acceptable behavior.
Noelle recounts a personal intentional community experience which may shed some light on this question:
“The Internet was making people more aware, and some people began discussing the idea of having a community of people… where the values were aligned with the Continuum Concept, which all of us were very passionate about.
So I wrote up a long and passionate post to this online community - right around the year 2000 - “let’s go for it!” Somehow a lot of people got impassioned about it and we did start organizing. It led to a fairly sizable group of people from all over the world getting together for an organizational meeting.
We accidentally experienced tribe for about two days. We had this gathering in my hometown, Portland, Oregon. People had different travel schedules, and a number of people got there a few days before the big meeting.
They camped out in our yard and we kind of had this village we created in our yard, and we were all just waiting and very optimistic.
So we actually had this tribal experience, and I can only say it was glorious.
It was just wonderful, the feeling of this expanded social circle where everyone is just sort of flowing together. The children had all these choices [of playmates].
They could play with one and when they were done they could play with another and if a child’s mom needed a break there was someone there to attend to the child. And we were living that way for a couple of days while we were waiting for this meeting.”
Then the meeting happened and everyone brought their agendas with them, and their particular attachments that things had to be a certain way, and we started to lose some of that being in the moment with each other. Now it had to be right vs wrong…
We might have weathered that, but I think ultimately a lot of us were recovering our humanity. The thing about community movements, is that people are attracted to communities because they’re failing in some way. I don’t mean that as a criticism.
If people are succeeding at the whole separation game in society, they’re succeeding within the rules of that game, and they’re not motivated to change. It’s the ones who are failing who are like, “This doesn’t work for me, so I’m open to trying something new.” And they come across this idea of communitarianism, and they’re willing to try.
But then you have a whole bunch of wounded people who are trying to lift each other up. And I could see that in this particular project, including myself and my wife—we definitely lacked the skill set to do that."
Noelle suspects that being well funded could help such a project overcome this issue by allowing participants the security to work out their differences. “When you’re just in survival mode you get defensive, feeling like someone else’s needs may encroach on your own.”
Given this experience and others, it seems that this elusive tribal experience is not something to be sought as a goal, but something experienced naturally when people come together without goals or expectations, simply in the enjoyment of being together.
What about the Internet?
Many people these days are spending increasing amounts of time and energy on the Internet in hopes of connecting to like-minded souls. Without denigrating the very real value many find in their online relationships (this author included), it’s important to note that virtual reality is in many ways antithetical to a Continuum experience.
The Continuum concept is about more than the sequence of human development. It’s about the continuum of humanity across many lifespans, and the play of matter and consciousness amongst and between humans, other species, Mother Earth and the universe itself.
Children, especially, need to experience the world holistically through their senses - the real world with all their senses, not just a pared-down, wired-up virtual semblance with no taste or touch or smell. And believe it or not, we adults need this too.
There is no virtual substitute for the connection one feels when one’s eyes meet another’s, or the sensation of a warm slice of homemade bread passing from one hand to another, or the volumes spoken in minute variations in a loved one’s smile.
Seeking Your Own Tribe
Cronin, Noelle and Pitman all offer excellent suggestions for developing the kind of comfort with ourselves and others that appears to be a prerequisite for a Continuum lifestyle.
Be honest about your feelings and needs, both to yourself and to others - if your children just aren’t up to participating in a play date on a particular day, it’s better to stay home than to force the issue.
Remember to breathe - you won’t connect well with others until you are comfortable and relaxed in your own space.
Reconnect with the natural world - even if you live in a city, just going for a walk and passing a tree is connecting and centering.
Spend a lot of time together.
Choose options that lead to partnership rather than separation and control.
Be open to relationships with people who are in different stages of parenthood or life, or whose habits or beliefs differ from yours.
Focus more strongly on how you’re connected with people than on how you’re different.
Unplug.
Above all, be open about the outcome. Allow your tribe to grow organically, from the inside out. Forget about your goals and focus instead on just the experience of being, right here and right now, with those you happen to be with at the moment.
The destination is the journey itself.
Play Again: What Are The Consequences Of A Childhood Removed From Nature?
One generation from now most Westerners will have spent more time in the virtual world than in nature. New media technologies have improved our lives in countless ways. Information now appears with a click. Overseas friends are part of our daily lives. And even grandma loves Wii.
But what are we missing when we are behind screens? And how will this impact our children, our society, and eventually, our planet? At a time when children play more behind screens than outside, PLAY AGAIN explores the changing balance between the virtual and natural worlds. Is our connection to nature disappearing down the digital rabbit hole?
This moving and humorous documentary follows six teenagers who, like the “average American child,” spend five to fifteen hours a day behind screens. PLAY AGAIN unplugs these teens and takes them on their first wilderness adventure – no electricity, no cell phone coverage, no virtual reality.
Through the voices of children and leading experts including journalist Richard Louv, sociologist Juliet Schor, environmental writer Bill McKibben, educators Diane Levin and Nancy Carlsson-Paige, neuroscientist Gary Small, parks advocate Charles Jordan, and geneticist David Suzuki, PLAY AGAIN investigates the consequences of a childhood removed from nature and encourages action for a sustainable future.
Where We are Coming From
Seventy years ago, the first televisions became commercially available. The first desktop computers went on sale 30 years ago, and the first cell phones a mere 15 years ago. During their relatively short tenure these three technologies have changed the way we live. Some of these changes are good.
Television can now rapidly disseminate vital information. Computers turned that flow of information into a two-way street. Cell phones enable unprecedented connectivity with our fellow human beings. And the merging of cell phones and the internet has even allowed protest movements around the world to organize and thrive.
But there’s also a down side. For many people, especially children, screens have become the de facto medium by which the greater world is experienced. A virtual world of digitally transmitted pictures, voices, and scenarios has become more real to this generation than the world of sun, water, air, and living organisms, including fellow humans.
The average Western child now spends over eight hours in front of a screen each day. She emails, texts, and updates her status incessantly. He can name hundreds of corporate logos, but less than ten native plants. She aspires to have hundreds of online friends, most she may never meet in person.
He masters complicated situations presented in game after game, but often avoids simple person-to-person conversation. They are almost entirely out of contact with the world that, over millions of years of evolution, shaped human beings - the natural world.
The long-term consequences of this experiment on human development remain to be seen, but the stakes couldn’t be higher. By most accounts, this generation will face multiple crises - environmental, economic and social. Will this screen world - and its bevy of virtual experiences - have adequately prepared these “digital natives” to address the problems they’ll face, problems on whose resolution their own survival may depend?
As we stand at a turning point in our relationship with earth, we find ourselves immersed in the gray area between the natural and virtual worlds. From a global perspective of wonder and hope, PLAY AGAIN examines this unique point in history.
Crisis In Science Research: Over 70% Of Researchers Fail To Reproduce Another Scientist's Experiments May 9 2022 | From: Sott/ Various More than 70% of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiments, and more than half have failed to reproduce their own experiments.
Those are some of the telling figures that emerged from Nature's survey of 1,576 researchers who took a brief online questionnaire on reproducibility in research.
The data reveal sometimes-contradictory attitudes towards reproducibility. Although 52% of those surveyed agree that there is a significant 'crisis' of reproducibility, less than 31% think that failure to reproduce published results means that the result is probably wrong, and most say that they still trust the published literature.
Data on how much of the scientific literature is reproducible are rare and generally bleak. The best-known analyses, from psychology 1and cancer biology 2, found rates of around 40%and 10%, respectively.
Our survey respondents were more optimistic: 73% said that they think that at least half of the papers in their field can be trusted, with physicists and chemists generally showing the most confidence.
The results capture a confusing snapshot of attitudes around these issues, says Arturo Casadevall, a microbiologist at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, Maryland.
“At the current time there is no consensus on what reproducibility is or should be." But just recognizing that is a step forward, he says. "The next step may be identifying what is the problem and to get a consensus."
Failing to reproduce results is a rite of passage, says Marcus Munafo, a biological psychologist at the University of Bristol, UK, who has a long-standing interest in scientific reproducibility. When he was a student, he says;
"I tried to replicate what looked simple from the literature, and wasn't able to. Then I had a crisis of confidence, and then I learned that my experience wasn't uncommon."
The challenge is not to eliminate problems with reproducibility in published work. Being at the cutting edge of science means that sometimes results will not be robust, says Munafo. "We want to be discovering new things but not generating too many false leads."
The Scale of Reproducibility
But sorting discoveries from false leads can be discomfiting. Although the vast majority of researchers in our survey had failed to reproduce an experiment, less than 20% of respondents said that they had ever been contacted by another researcher unable to reproduce their work.
Our results are strikingly similar to another online survey of nearly 900 members of the American Society for Cell Biology (see go.nature.com). That may be because such conversations are difficult.
If experimenters reach out to the original researchers for help, they risk appearing incompetent or accusatory, or revealing too much about their own projects.
A minority of respondents reported ever having tried to publish a replication study. When work does not reproduce, researchers often assume there is a perfectly valid (and probably boring) reason.
What's more, incentives to publish positive replications are low and journals can be reluctant to publish negative findings. In fact, several respondents who had published a failed replication said that editors and reviewers demanded that they play down comparisons with the original study.
Nevertheless, 24% said that they had been able to publish a successful replication and 13% had published a failed replication. Acceptance was more common than persistent rejection: only 12% reported being unable to publish successful attempts to reproduce others' work; 10% reported being unable to publish unsuccessful attempts.
Survey respondent Abraham Al-Ahmad at the Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center in Amarillo expected a "cold and dry rejection" when he submitted a manuscript explaining why a stem-cell technique had stopped working in his hands. He was pleasantly surprised when the paper was accepted 3. The reason, he thinks, is because it offered a workaround for the problem.
Others place the ability to publish replication attempts down to a combination of luck, persistence and editors' inclinations. Survey respondent Michael Adams, a drug-development consultant, says that work showing severe flaws in an animal model of diabetes has been rejected six times, in part because it does not reveal a new drug target.
By contrast, he says, work refuting the efficacy of a compound to treat Chagas disease was quickly accepted 4.
The Corrective Measures
One-third of respondents said that their labs had taken concrete steps to improve reproducibility within the past five years. Rates ranged from a high of 41% in medicine to a low of 24% in physics and engineering.
Free-text responses suggested that redoing the work or asking someone else within a lab to repeat the work is the most common practice. Also common are efforts to beef up the documentation and standardization of experimental methods.
Any of these can be a major undertaking. A biochemistry graduate student in the United Kingdom, who asked not to be named, says that efforts to reproduce work for her lab's projects doubles the time and materials used - in addition to the time taken to troubleshoot when some things invariably don't work.
Although replication does boost confidence in results, she says, the costs mean that she performs checks only for innovative projects or unexpected results.
Consolidating methods is a project unto itself, says Laura Shankman, a postdoc studying smooth muscle cells at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville. After several postdocs and graduate students left her lab within a short time, remaining members had trouble getting consistent results in their experiments.
The lab decided to take some time off from new questions to repeat published work, and this revealed that lab protocols had gradually diverged. She thinks that the lab saved money overall by getting synchronized instead of troubleshooting failed experiments piecemeal, but that it was a long-term investment.
Irakli Loladze, a mathematical biologist at Bryan College of Health Sciences in Lincoln, Nebraska, estimates that efforts to ensure reproducibility can increase the time spent on a project by 30%, even for his theoretical work.
He checks that all steps from raw data to the final figure can be retraced. But those tasks quickly become just part of the job.
"Reproducibility is like brushing your teeth," he says. "It is good for you, but it takes time and effort. Once you learn it, it becomes a habit."
One of the best-publicized approaches to boosting reproducibility is pre-registration, where scientists submit hypotheses and plans for data analysis to a third party before performing experiments, to prevent cherry-picking statistically significant results later.
Fewer than a dozen people mentioned this strategy. One who did was Hanne Watkins, a graduate student studying moral decision-making at the University of Melbourne in Australia. Going back to her original questions after collecting data, she says, kept her from going down a rabbit hole.
And the process, although time consuming, was no more arduous than getting ethical approval or formatting survey questions.
"If it's built in right from the start," she says, "it's just part of the routine of doing a study."
The survey asked scientists what led to problems in reproducibility. More than 60% of respondents said that each of two factors - pressure to publish and selective reporting - always or often contributed.
More than half pointed to insufficient replication in the lab, poor oversight or low statistical power. A smaller proportion pointed to obstacles such as variability in reagents or the use of specialized techniques that are difficult to repeat.
But all these factors are exacerbated by common forces, says Judith Kimble, a developmental biologist at the University of Wisconsin - Madison: competition for grants and positions, and a growing burden of bureaucracy that takes away from time spent doing and designing research.
“Everyone is stretched thinner these days," she says. "And the cost extends beyond any particular research project.
If graduate students train in labs where senior members have little time for their juniors, they may go on to establish their own labs without having a model of how training and mentoring should work".
"They will go off and make it worse," Kimble says.
What can be done? Respondents were asked to rate 11 different approaches to improving reproducibility in science, and all got ringing endorsements. Nearly 90% - more than 1,000 people - ticked "More robust experimental design" "better statistics" and "better mentorship".
Those ranked higher than the option of providing incentives (such as funding or credit towards tenure) for reproducibility-enhancing practices. But even the lowest-ranked item - journal checklists - won a whopping 69% endorsement.
The survey - which was e-mailed to Nature readers and advertised on affiliated websites and social-media outlets as being 'about reproducibility' - probably selected for respondents who are more receptive to and aware of concerns about reproducibility.
Nevertheless, the results suggest that journals, funders and research institutions that advance policies to address the issue would probably find cooperation, says John Ioannidis, who studies scientific robustness at Stanford University in California.
"People would probably welcome such initiatives."
About 80% of respondents thought that funders and publishers should do more to improve reproducibility.
“It's healthy that people are aware of the issues and open to a range of straightforward ways to improve them," says Munafo.
And given that these ideas are being widely discussed, even in mainstream media, tackling the initiative now may be crucial.
"If we don't act on this, then the moment will pass, and people will get tired of being told that they need to do something."
Downlaod the full questionnaire used in the survey and the raw data in a spreadsheet (the data are also available as a tab-delimited file at Figshare).
Comment: What is Conspicuously Absent from the Ddiscussion is Scientific Misconduct:
Richard Horton, editor-in-chief of The Lancet, has written bleakly:
“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."
Dr. Marcia Angell, a physician and longtime Editor in Chief of the New England Medical Journal (NEMJ), which is considered one of the most prestigious peer-reviewed medical journals in the world, makes her view of the subject quite plain:
"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."
How Baking Soda Became A Cancer Treatment + Oncologists Don’t Like Baking Soda Cancer Treatment Because It’s Too Effective And Too Cheap May 8 2022 | From: NaturalNews / iHealthTube / BBN / Various
Even the most aggressive cancers which have metastasized have been reversed with baking soda cancer treatments. Although chemotherapy is toxic to all cells, it represents the only measure that oncologists employ in their practice to almost all cancer patients. In fact, 9 out of 10 cancer patients agree to chemotherapy first without investigating other less invasive options.
Doctors and pharmaceutical companies make money from it. That’s the only reason chemotherapy is still used. Not because it’s effective, decreases morbidity, mortality or diminishes any specific cancer rates.
A few years ago, University of Arizona Cancer Center member Dr. Mark Pagel received a $2 million grant from the National Institutes of Health to study the effectiveness of personalized baking soda cancer treatment for breast cancer.
Obviously there are people in the know who have understood that sodium bicarbonate, that same stuff that can save a person’s life in the emergency room in a heartbeat, is a primary cancer treatment option of the safest and most effective kind.
Studies have shown that dietary measures to boost bicarbonate levels can increase the pH of acidic tumors without upsetting the pH of the blood and healthy tissues.
Animal models of human breast cancer show that oral sodium bicarbonate does indeed make tumors more alkaline and inhibit metastasis.
Based on these studies, plus the fact that baking soda is safe and well tolerated, world renowned doctors such as Dr. Julian Whitaker have adopted successful cancer treatment protocols as part of an overall nutritional and immune support program for patients who are dealing with the disease.
The Whitaker protocol uses 12 g (2 rounded teaspoons) of baking soda mixed in 2 cups water, along with a low-cal sweetener of your choice. (It’s quite salty tasting.) Sip this mixture over the course of an hour or two and repeat for a total of three times a day.
One man claims he has found a cure for cancer using baking soda and molasses and actually successfully treated his own disease by using baking soda.
When taken orally with water, especially water with high magnesium content, and when used transdermally in medicinal baths, sodium bicarbonate becomes a first-line medicinal for the treatment of cancer, and also kidney disease, diabetes, influenza and even the common cold.
It is also a powerful buffer against radiation exposure, so everyone should be up to speed on its use. Everybody’s physiology is under heavy nuclear attack from strong radioactive winds that are circling the northern hemisphere.
Dr. Robert J. Gillies and his colleagues have already demonstrated that pre-treatment of mice with baking soda results in the alkalinization of the area around tumors. The same researchers reported that bicarbonate increases tumor pH and also inhibits spontaneous metastases in mice with breast cancer.
What is Baking Soda?
Baking soda is a white crystalline solid that appears as fine powder. It is also called cooking soda, bread soda and bicarbonate of soda. Its chemical name is sodium bicarbonate or sodium hydrogen carbonate.
Baking soda is different from washing soda (sodium carbonate) although they share the same slightly salty and alkaline taste.
This widely used soda is commonly dissolved in mineral water and used as a leavening agent in baking. It works as a leavening agent by neutralizing the acidic components of batter. The neutralization releases carbon dioxide and leads to the “raising” or expansion of baked foods.
Baking soda has also been used to soften vegetable and to tenderize meat.
As a household chemical, baking soda is used as a cleaning agent. It is included in toothpastes for similar reasons where it serves as an antiseptic, acid-neutralizer, whitening agent and plaque-removing agent as well as a cleaning agent.
Other common personal hygiene products in which baking soda can be found include deodorants and shampoos.
Baking Soda and pH Medicine
The pH of our tissues and body fluids is crucial and central because it affects and mirrors the state of our health or our inner cleanliness. The closer the pH is to 7.35-7.45, the higher our level of health and wellbeing.
Staying within this range dramatically increases our ability to resist acute illnesses like colds and flues as well as the onset of cancer and other diseases. Keeping our pH within a healthy range also involves necessary lifestyle and dietary changes that will protect us over the long term while the use of sodium bicarbonate gives us a jump-start toward increased alkalinity.
The pH scale is like a thermometer showing increases and decreases in the acid and alkaline content of fluids.
Deviations above or below a 7.35-7.45 pH range in the tightly controlled blood can signal potentially serious and dangerous symptoms or states of disease.
When the body can no longer effectively neutralize and eliminate the acids, it relocates them within the body’s extra-cellular fluids and connective tissue cells directly compromising cellular integrity. Conversely when the body becomes too alkaline from too much bicarbonate in the blood, metabolic alkalosis occurs, which can lead to severe consequences if not corrected quickly.
Jon Barron presents a way of looking at pH that opens up one of the major benefits of alkaline water:
“Hydrogen ions tie up oxygen. That means that the more acid a liquid is, the less available the oxygen in it. Every cell in our body requires oxygen for life and to maintain optimum health. Combine that with what we know about hydrogen ions and we see that the more acid the blood (the lower its pH), the less oxygen is available for use by the cells.
Without going into a discussion of the chemistry involved, just understand that it’s the same mechanism involved when acid rain “kills” a lake.
The fish literally suffocate to death because the acid in the lake “binds up” all of the available oxygen. It’s not that the oxygen has gone anywhere; it’s just no longer available. Conversely, if you raise the pH of the lake (make it more alkaline), oxygen is now available and the lake comes back to life.
Incidentally, it’s worth noting that cancer is related to an acid environment (lack of oxygen)–the higher the pH (the more oxygen present in the cells of the body), the harder it is for cancer to thrive."
Understanding this is important for two reasons: (1) it reveals one of the primary benefits of alkaline water–more “available” oxygen in the system and (2) it explains why alkaline water helps fight cancer.
How Baking Soda Can Help “Cure” Cancer
Basically, malignant tumors represent masses of rapidly growing cells. The rapid rate of growth experienced by these cells means that cellular metabolism also proceeds at very high rates.
Therefore, cancer cells are using a lot more carbohydrates and sugars to generate energy in the form of ATP (adenosine triphosphate).
However, some of the compounds formed from the energy production include lactic acid and pyruvic acid. Under normal circumstances, these compounds are cleared and utilized as soon as they are produced. But cancer cells are experiencing metabolism at a much faster rate. Therefore, these organic acid accumulate in the immediate environment of the tumor.
The high level of extracellular acidity around the tumor is one of the chief driving force behind the metastasis of cancer tumors.
Basically, cancer cells need an acidic environment to grow and spread rapidly.
Some cancer experts, therefore, believe that by buffering the tumor microenvironment with an alkalizing compound, the pH of tumors can be raised enough to starve them and stop their growth and spread.
Curiously, this rather simple solution to cancer has been proven right.
What is even more remarkable is that there is no need to cook up some fancy synthetic drug to lower the acidity in the immediate environment of the tumor. A simple, commonly obtained compound like sodium bicarbonate will do.
Obviously, it is desirable to deliver the sodium bicarbonate as close to the tumor as possible since its pH-raising effect is needed in the microenvironment of the tumor. Therefore, directly injecting sodium bicarbonate in the tumor site is considered a better solution than oral administration. However, oral sodium bicarbonate is just safer and can be readily used at home.
A 2009 study published in the journal, Cancer Research, is among the first to confirm that the alkalinizing effect of sodium bicarbonate can indeed stop cancer.
By injecting sodium bicarbonate into a group of mice, the authors of the study were able to determine how the growth and spread of cancer tumors were effected by raising the pH of the organ affected by the cancer.
The study results showed that baking soda indeed raised the pH and reduced spontaneous metastases in mice induced with breast cancer.
The researchers also determined that sodium bicarbonate works by raising the pH outside cells and not within cells. This is an important finding because it suggests that sodium bicarbonate does not interfere with cellular metabolism even as it makes the microenvironment unconducive for tumor growth.
Other findings from this study show that baking soda:
Reduced the involvement of the lymph node on the transport of cancer cells
Does not lower the levels of circulating tumor cells
Reduced the involvement of the liver and, therefore, the spread of tumor cells to other organs
Inhibit the colonization of other organs by circulating tumor cells
The Baking Soda Formula for Cancer
To make the baking soda natural cancer remedy at home, you need maple syrup, molasses or honey to go along with the baking soda.
In Dr. Sircus’ book, he documented how one patient used baking soda and blackstrap molasses to fight the prostate cancer that had metastasized to his bones.
On the first day, the patient mixed 1 teaspoon of baking soda with 1 teaspoon of molasses in a cup of water.
He took this for another 3 days after which his saliva pH read 7.0 and his urine pH read 7.5.
Encouraged by these results, the patient took the solution 2 times on day 5 instead of once daily. And from day 6 – 10, he took 2 teaspoons each of baking soda and molasses twice daily.
By the 10th day, the patient’s pH had risen to 8.5 and the only side effects experienced were headaches and night sweat (similar to cesium therapy). The next day, the patient had a bone scan and too other medical tests.
His results showed that his PSA (prostate-specific antigen, the protein used to determine the severity of prostate enlargement and prostate cancer) level was down from 22.3 at the point of diagnosis to 0.1.
Another baking soda formula recommends mixing 90 teaspoons of maple syrup with 30 teaspoons of baking soda.
To do this, the maple syrup must be heated to become less viscous. Then the baking syrup is added and stirred for 5 minutes until it is fully dissolved.
This preparation should provide about 10-day worth of the baking soda remedy. 5 – 7 teaspoons per day is the recommended dose for cancer patients.
Care should be taken when using the baking soda remedy to treat cancer. This is because sustaining a high pH level can itself cause metabolic alkalosis and electrolyte imbalance. These can result in edema and also affect the heart and blood pressure.
One does not have to be a doctor to practice pH medicine. Every practitioner of the healing arts and every mother and father needs to understand how to use sodium bicarbonate. Bicarbonate deficiency is a real problem that deepens with age so it really does pay to understand and appreciate what baking soda is all about.
Dr. Tullio Simoncini discusses how he discovered sodium bicarbonate, or baking soda, could be a successful treatment for cancers. He discusses how a treatment for psoriasis led to him trying something different for cancer patients. He also gives an example of how well and quickly it worked in one of his patients!
Discover the Baking Soda and Lemon Juice Combination that Eradicates Cancer Cells Better than Prescription Doxil and Adriamycin
If you are looking for a daily tonic to improve your overall health and lower your risk of cancer, look no further than a simple combination of lemon juice and baking soda. Lemon is a potent superfood filled with cancer-fighting compounds.
In addition, alkaline diet theory classifies both lemon and baking soda as pH-raising foods.
The idea is that certain foods either make your body more acidic (lower pH) or more alkaline (higher pH), with an alkaline environment ideal for preventing cancer and other chronic diseases (and a more acidic environment promoting disease).
Lemon Extract Outperforms Chemo Drugs
Even without any pH benefits, lemon is a potent healing food. More than 20 studies dating as far back as 1970 have showed that lemon and lemon extracts are able to destroy at least 12 different varieties of cancer cells, and also prevent cancer from metastasizing.
The full reasons for lemon's cancer-fighting effects are not known, but they have been partially attributed to the fruit's high levels of the antioxidant and cancer-fighter, vitamin C, and also the the presence of the phytochemicals known, appropriately enough, as limonoides.
Like many plant-based cancer treatments, lemon seems more likely to leave healthy cells unharmed than chemotherapy drugs.
In addition to these benefits, lemon is an antibacterial and anti-fungal, and can also be used to treat intestinal worms and other parasites.
It has been shown to relieve heartburn, bloating, constipation and nausea, to prevent kidney stones, to help regulate blood pressure, and to relieve stress and depression.
Practitioners of alkaline diet-based medicine also say that in spite of its acidic nature, lemon helps make the body more alkaline.
The alkaline diet has been prominently promoted by researcher Robert O. Young, author of the 2002 book The pH miracle.
"The focus for preventing and reversing cancer must be on maintaining the alkaline pH of the body fluids, and a recognition that cancer is a systemic acidic condition," Young has written.
To prepare a pH-boosting drink, mix a teaspoon of baking soda with about 7 ounces (just under a cup) of lemon juice. The beverage can be diluted with distilled water, as long as you drink the whole thing. For best benefit, it should be taken on an empty stomach, first thing in the morning.
Why and How to Raise Your Body's pH
Promoters of the alkaline diet say that raising your body's pH can provide a wide range of health benefits, including reducing your risk of obesity, cysts, allergies, and chronic inflammatory conditions such as gout, arthritis and fibromyalgia.
Seasonal and food allergies are also attributed to an overly acidic body environment, as are general fatigue, weakness and lack of energy.
If you are concerned that your body is overly acidic, the best way to improve the condition is to shift your eating patterns. According to Young, an optimal diet consists of 80 percent alkaline foods and only 20 percent acidic foods.
Acidic foods are meat, dairy, sugar, refined grains, alcohol and caffeine. Alkaline foods include nearly all fruits, vegetables, nuts and seeds.
Some of the top alkaline superfoods are alfalfa sprouts, avocado, broccoli, brussels sprouts, buckwheat, cabbage, cauliflower, celery, chives, cucumber, flax seeds and oil, garlic, grapefruit, green beans, green peas, leeks, lemons and limes, lettuce, melon, millet, olive oil, onions, parsley, pears, pumpkin, radishes, sesame seeds and paste (tahini), soy (beans, sprouts and products), spinach, tomatoes, watermelon, wild rice and zucchini.
Young also recommends consuming slightly alkaline (ionized) water, in order to flush out wastes that have built up from years of eating unhealthy foods.
A lemon-baking soda drink may be a more natural, less expensive way to achieve the same effect, however.
Not Just Surveillance: Three Current Phenomena Exposing 1984 As An Instruction Manual For The State May 7 2022 | From: TheFreeThoughtProject/ Various
Assessing current conditions in the United States [the West], it would be next to impossible not to grasp innumerable parallels to George Orwell’s dystopic portent, 1984.
Related: It's Official: This Is Straight Out Of Orwell's 1984...
Though other fictional dystopias could similarly elicit comparisons to the dark turn taken by American empire, aspects of 1984’s creepy authoritarian nightmare ring all-too-true.
And Big Brother-like surveillance - though undoubtedly relevant - imparts only the most obvious, and therefore least pertinent, connection on the list.
War Is Peace
“Oceania was at war with Eastasia: Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia,” Orwell wrote of two of the three remaining nation-states on the planet. Though it analogizes Russia’s mercurial relationship with Nazi Germany, the same volatility aptly fits U.S. involvement in the Middle East - where, though propaganda would purport a decisive enemy, the truth remains far murkier.
A constant state of undeclared but active war rules foreign policy - driven almost exclusively by the war machine’s profiteering from plundering of foreign lands’ natural resources.
Big Oil, Big Pharma, and the multi-faceted defense industry have experienced exponential profits since perpetual war became the de facto basis of foreign policy - and Big Banks share in the reward. But all of this war requires the U.S. government maintain support from the public - and what better way to win them over than appeal to fear of the Other?
When John Brady Kiesling, a career diplomat, tendered his letter of resignation to Secretary of State Colin Powell, he piercingly criticized the warped factors driving both American domestic and foreign policy surrounding the needless war in Iraq - with barbs unfortunately equally applicable today:
“We spread disproportionate terror and confusion in the public mind, arbitrarily linking the unrelated problems of terrorism and Iraq. The result, and perhaps the motive, is to justify a vast misallocation of shrinking public wealth to the military and to weaken the safeguards that protect American citizens from the heavy hand of government. September 11 did not do as much damage to the fabric of American society as we seem determined to [do] to ourselves […]
“Has ‘oderint dum metuant’ [Let them hate so long as they fear] really become our motto?”
After the attacks of September 11, 2001, it became immediately evident American government had its jackpot ticket for war in perpetuity - the only necessary condition being wool sufficiently ambiguous to cover the public’s eyes in fear.
Since that time, under the guise of national security, Big Brother-like domestic surveillance has become so thoroughly entrenched in our lives as to be virtually ignored by the general populace.
As a necessary and insidious outgrowth of massive spying, the government attempts to cultivate fearful citizen-spies, by employing the not-at-all ominous If You See Something, Say Something catchphrase-titled program. Of course, the government arm responsible for this and other programs - the overarching Department of Homeland Security - seems ripped directly from the pages of 1984.
"Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind,”Orwell noted in his 1946 essay, “Politics and the English Language.”
This observation aptly summarizes U.S. war propaganda in its entirety - with a constant government-backed corporate media blitz surrounding the war on terror shaping public perception of what constitutes terrorism, and who, a terrorist.
Betting on Americans’ cognitive dissonance, historical amnesia, and tacit acceptance of spoon-fed, baseless patriotism, the government doesn’t often find barriers to inculcating a blanket support for obtuse military missions.
And nevermind the detail that ground support of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates in Yemen would be allocated for fighting al-Qaeda - a different faction of the same group the U.S. currently employs as somehow less dangerous terrorists to assist deposing Syrian president Bashar al-Assad.
Moderate rebels is thus the Newspeak term for terrorists the American empire finds usable - making terrorist and terrorism utterly conditional terms.
Of course, the government failed to explain how a war on the concept of terrorism should play out if that terrorism depends on circumstance - or, more accurately, whim - but once instituted, paranoia surrounding the word opened the floodgates for battling terrorism inside the United States.
Exactly as Orwell cautioned in 1984 - and precisely as Kiesling’s foreboding resignation letter predicted it would.
Freedom Is Slavery
How does a government persuade its citizens their enslavement would be desirable and beneficial? Frame it as necessary protection against any threat to their fundamental security - and implement more contentious aspects of said servitude in palatable microsteps.
Fear of terrorism - or, more directly, xenophobia - constitutes sufficient reason for many to cast off basic human rights through increasingly invasive laws and governance.
Legislation, however, isn’t by far the sole vehicle available to the government.
In a culture so utterly imbued in paranoia, neighbors aren’t only willing to spy on neighbors - or complete strangers, to that end - they’re willing to alert law enforcement should they observe … Something.
One perfect example of the absurdity of the If You See Something, Say Something citizen spy program occurred this week when a woman, suspicious of cryptic notes penned by the person seated next to her on an American Airlines flight, decided to Say Something.
The flight was delayed for over two hours, the FBI was called, and an egregious commentary on paranoia and xenophobic profiling in the U.S. became one of an unfortunate many for the history books.
This unbelievably unaware woman told on acclaimed University of Pennsylvania economics professor, Guido Menzio - who had been scribbling a complex math formula in a notebook.
Menzio posted his experience on Facebook, describing his encounter with the FBI after being briefly pulled from the plane, writing:
“They ask me about my neighbor. I tell them I noticed nothing strange. They tell me she thought I was a terrorist because I was writing strange things on a piece of paper. I laugh. I bring them back to the plane. I show them my math.”
Menzio, to the unnamed woman, was guilty of terrorism because his Italian ancestry gifted him with darker complexion and hair, and because her lack of education and state conditioning caused her to see dark terrorist plots in mathematical formulae - possibly, and disturbingly, because she mistook it for Arabic.
Restrictions on travel aren’t limited to fearful passengers, either, as the notoriously invasive Transportation Security Administration has made air travel an almost unbearably onerous task. A report predicts grueling airport delays due to the combination of a 10 percent reduction in TSA staff and a 15 percent increase in the number of expected travelers.
Though a PreCheck program is offered by the TSA, people simply aren’t signing on - likely because they’re forced to submit to an even more invasive background check. And it isn’t as if the TSA has a stunning success rate in thwarting terror attacks, either - though it does have a successful track record for restricting freedom of travel.
While the government would like you to believe TSA safety measures protect the country from terrorism, evidence lies with a far more laughable reality - like the time a CNN journalist once had her container of pimento cheese confiscated by agents. Another report indicated the underpaid and understaffed TSA is largely incompetent. Congressman Stephen Lynch explained;
“We had folks - this was a testing exercise, so we had folks going in there with guns on their ankles, and other weapons on their persons, and there was a 95 percent failure rate.”
Essentially, terrorist paranoia is working exactly per the Dept. of Homeland Security’s design - otherwise ordinary Americans are now guilty, simply by being present. Guilty of being non-white. Guilty of speaking a language other than English. Guilty of math. Guilty of possession of cheese spread.
But most of all, guilty under the system that would rather pit neighbor against neighbor - lest those neighbors realize they have more in common with one another than with the powers claiming to have their security in mind - because that realization might bring anger, dissent, and potentially action to topple those powers-that-be.
And entirely different dystopic restrictions on travel - harkening almost exactly to the 1930s Nazi Germany that so influenced Orwell - can be found in police checkpoints.
Of dubious legality, law enforcement checkpoints for everything from drunk driving to heroin - to seatbelts - have become commonplace.
In the name of safety, police bottleneck traffic, test sobriety, search cars, write revenue-generating tickets, and even arrest those found ‘guilty’ or who try to avoid the trap.
And this lack of the ability to travel freely- the basic right to mobility without restriction - is only one highly specific example of coercion as the new norm.
Entire books could be justifiably penned to discuss the ridiculousness of licensing requirements - summarized briefly as the state taking a right away from you in order to give it back to you at an often red-tape-heavy price.
In the dystopic new millennium, the State requires children to seek permitting for such traditional activities as shoveling snow or setting up their own lemonade stands - and alarmingly have been shut down for failing to do so.
You don’t even have to be accused, much less charged, with a crime to have your own property and cash seized - or more accurately, stolen - by the State, which it then may use for whatever shady purpose it chooses.
This unchecked policing-for-profit scheme has created a freakishly telling figure, as described by The Free Thought Project, “law enforcement in America has stolen $600,000,000 more from Americans than actual criminal burglars.”
Freedom to simply live one’s life, without harming another, has been co-opted by a State hell bent on maintaining slavish control of its people.
Ignorance Is Strength
Considering at least one of the aforementioned examples would be sufficiently blood-boiling to even those who consider themselves ‘law-abiding’ or ‘patriotic,’ the State also has in place multiple strategies to thwart the dissemination of accurate, truthful information - thus preemptively quashing dissent.
State indoctrination begins early with compulsory schooling beating the victor’s history into impressionable, young minds. William Blum, journalist, author, and CIA and U.S. foreign policy critic, describes in his book, America’s Deadliest Export: Democracy - The Truth About US Foreign Policy and Everything Else, how indoctrination has so insidiously usurped education as to be imperceptible to the unaware [emphasis added]:
"American leaders have convinced a majority of the American people of the benevolence of their government’s foreign policy.
To have persuaded Americans of this, as well as a multitude of other people throughout the world - in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary … - must surely rank as one of the most outstanding feats of propaganda and indoctrination in all of history […]
“It is not at all uncommon to grow to adulthood in the United States, even graduate from university, and not be seriously exposed to opinions significantly contrary to these prevailing myths, and know remarkably little about the exceptionally harmful foreign policy of the government.
It’s one thing for historical myths to rise in the absence of a written history of a particular period, such as our beliefs concerning the Neanderthals; but much odder is the rise of such myths in the face of a plethora of historical documents, testimony, films and books.”
Indoctrination stands as perhaps the most powerful tool a State could wield without imposing actual, physical violence.
Patriotism often acts as a means of self-policing - whereby a populace relentlessly criticizes any segment not wholly on board with devotion to that State.
Orwell also keenly understood this, as is clear in 1984’s protagonist, Winston Smith’s description of the youngest citizens of Ingsoc (an abbreviation for English Socialism - the governmental ideology firmly entrenched in that ‘fictional’ time period).
“Nearly all children nowadays were horrible. What was worst of all was that by means of such organizations as the Spies they were systematically turned into ungovernable little savages, and yet this produced in them no tendency whatever to rebel against the discipline of the Party.
On the contrary, they adored the Party and everything connected with it. The songs, the processions, the banners, the hiking, the drilling with dummy rifles, the yelling of slogans, the worship of Big Brother - it was all a sort of glorious game to them.”
When the State manages to hoodwink millions of people, facilitating an imperialist empire isn’t a cumbersome task.
Blum analogizes the American people to “the children of a Mafia boss who do not know what their father does for a living, and don’t want to know, but then wonder why someone just threw a firebomb through the living room window.”
Endlessly frustrating those who have taken advantage of self-education in the age of information, arguments proffered by government propaganda - such as waging wars to bring about peace, or that the U.S. aggressively and violently invades other countries for democracy and freedom - take root with no basis in reality.
Belief other nations will steal our (already nonexistent) Democracy if we don’t invade them first insidiously infiltrates even learned segments of the population.
Though such inexplicable reasoning readily evidences justifications necessary for popular support when the U.S. spontaneously violates international law concerning war, the people still believe the lie - in great part, thanks to corporate media’s incessant confirmation of American exceptionalism.
Ignorance of the breadth of American imperialism - the reality of its plundering resources around the planet, its actions as an enforcement arm of the plutocratic corporatocracy, and the violence it employs on innocent civilians wherever it chooses - remain unknown to the majority in the US.
With essentially all information available a click away, this ignorance amounts to little more than a flat denial of reality. Saying ‘my government would never do that’ might be one thing, but refusing to investigate whether or not the statement holds weight is essentially admitting the government takes precedence over truth.
“Do you begin to see, then, what kind of world we are creating?" Orwell wrote in the dystopic classic.
“It is the exact opposite of the stupid hedonistic Utopias that the old reformers imagined.
A world of fear and treachery and torment, a world of trampling and of being trampled upon, a world which will grow not less but more merciless as it refines itself.
Progress in our world will be progress toward more pain."
But the American indoctrination of ignorance most chillingly corresponds with a particular passage from 1984 - one marking the self-imposed homogeneity of a people scrambling over one another to exemplify patriotism.
“The ideal set up by the Party was something huge, terrible, and glittering - a world of steel and concrete, of monstrous machines and terrifying weapons - a nation of warriors and fanatics, marching forward in perfect unity, all thinking the same thoughts and shouting the same slogans, perpetually working, fighting, triumphing, persecuting - three hundred million people all with the same face.”
Much of what Orwell proffered as dystopic fiction has since manifested - perhaps not so much, as is popularly believed, because the government took the novel as an instruction manual.
But because 1984’s dire warning seems so inconceivable, perhaps most people have yet to realize its darker portents have already come to pass.
Protagonist Winston Smith ultimately succumbs to the lure of Big Brother and the State - but it remains up for debate whether the authoritarian nightmare will take as firm a chokehold on the United States.
To resist such a reality is the work of a true protagonist - not through violence or destruction, but through seeking a lesser ignorance.
The lynchpin to Orwell’s dystopia, and to the current one, is the perception of ignorance as strength. War is most certainly not Peace to a well-informed populace, nor is Freedom Slavery.
It is up to us to plant the seeds of knowledge which will inevitably grow into that well-informed populace who will then see the reality of the horrid path we’ve since embarked. Tis the nature of humanity to err, but we’ve managed to be resilient nonetheless - sometimes the hardest path is the only way there.
In 2012, Barack Obama warned that the United States would fall into a depression if Ron Paul’s plan to cut $1 trillion from the federal budget were enacted.
Wait, I beg your pardon. It wasn’t Obama who warned that budget cuts would lead to a depression.
It was Mitt Romney. Romney went on to become the nominee of the self-described free-market party.
An ideological rout is complete when both sides of respectable opinion take its basic ideas for granted. That’s how complete the Keynesian victory has been.
In fact, Keynesianism had swept the boards a decade before Romney was even born.
The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, the seminal treatise by John Maynard Keynes, appeared during the Great Depression, a time when a great many people were beginning to doubt the merits and resilience of capitalism.
It was a work of economic theory, but its boosters insisted that it also offered practical answers to urgent, contemporary questions like: how had the Depression occurred, and why was it lasting so long?
The answer to both questions, according to Keynes and his followers, was the same: not enough government intervention.
Now as Murray N. Rothbard showed in his 1963 book America’s Great Depression, and as Lionel Robbins and others had written at the time, the Depression had certainly not been caused by too little government intervention. It was caused by the world’s government-privileged central banks, and it was prolonged by the various quack remedies that governments kept trotting out.
But that wasn’t a thesis governments were eager to hear. Government officials were rather more attracted to the message Keynes was sending them:
The free market can lead to depressions, and prosperity requires more government spending and intervention.
Let’s say a brief word about the book that launched this ideological revolution. If I may put it kindly, the General Theory was not the kind of text one might expect to sweep the boards.
Paul Samuelson, who went on to become one of the most notable American popularizers of Keynesianism, admitted in a candid moment that when he first read the book, he “did not at all understand what it was about.” “I think I am giving away no secrets,” he went on, “when I solemnly aver - upon the basis of vivid personal recollection - that no one else in Cambridge, Massachusetts, really knew what it was all about for some twelve to eighteen months after publication.”
The General Theory, he said;
"Is a badly written book, poorly organized; any layman who, beguiled by the author’s previous reputation bought the book, was cheated of his five shillings. It is not well suited for classroom use.
It is arrogant, bad-tempered, polemical, and not overly generous in its acknowledgments. It abounds in mares’ nests and confusions. … In short, it is a work of genius."
Murray N. Rothbard, who after the death of Ludwig von Mises was considered the dean of the Austrian school of economics, wrote several major economic critiques of Keynes, along with a lengthy and revealing biographical essay about the man.
The first of these critiques came in the form of an essay written when Murray was just 21 years old: “Spotlight on Keynesian Economics.” The second appeared in his 1962 treatise Man, Economy and State,and the third as a chapter in his book For a New Liberty.
Murray minced no words, referring to Keynesianism as:
"The most successful and pernicious hoax in the history of economic thought.”
“All of the Keynesian thinking,”he added,“is a tissue of distortions, fallacies, and drastically unrealistic assumptions.”
Beyond the problems with the Keynesian system were the unfortunate traits of Keynes himself. I will let Murray describe them to you:
"The first was his overweening egotism, which assured him that he could handle all intellectual problems quickly and accurately and led him to scorn any general principles that might curb his unbridled ego. The second was his strong sense that he was born into, and destined to be a leader of, Great Britain’s ruling elite...
The third element was his deep hatred and contempt for the values and virtues of the bourgeoisie, for conventional morality, for savings and thrift, and for the basic institutions of family life."
While a student at Cambridge University, Keynes belonged to an exclusive and secretive group called the Apostles. This membership fed his egotism and his contempt for others. He wrote in a private letter:
"Is it monomania - this colossal moral superiority that we feel? I get the feeling that most of the rest [of the world outside the Apostles] never see anything at all - too stupid or too wicked.”
As a young man, Keynes and his friends became what he himself described as “immoralists.” In a 1938 paper called “My Early Beliefs,” he wrote:
"We entirely repudiated a personal liability on us to obey general rules. We claimed the right to judge every individual case on its merits, and the wisdom to do so successfully.
This was a very important part of our faith, violently and aggressively held, and for the outer world it was our most obvious and dangerous characteristic. We repudiated entirely customary morals, conventions and traditional wisdom. We were, that is to say, in the strict sense of the term, immoralists."
Keynes was 55 years old when he delivered that paper.
And even at that advanced stage of his life he could affirm that immoralism is:
"Still my religion under the surface… I remain and always will remain an immoralist.”
In economics, Keynes exhibited the same kind of approach he had taken toward philosophy and life in general. “I am afraid of ‘principle,’” he told a parliamentary committee in 1930.
That, of course, is the attitude of anyone who craves influence and the exercise of power; principle would only get in the way of these things.
Thus, Keynes supported free trade, then turned on a dime in 1931 and became a protectionist, then during World War II favored free trade again. As Murray puts it, “Never did any soul-searching or even hesitation hobble his lightning-fast changes.”
The General Theory broke down the world’s population into several groups, each with its own characteristics. Here Keynes was able to vent his lifelong hatreds.
First, there was the great mass of consumers, dumb and robotic, whose consumption decisions were fixed and determined by outside forces, such that Keynes could reduce them to a “consumption function.”
Then there was a subset of consumers, the bourgeois savers, whom Keynes especially despised. In the past, such people had been praised for their thrift, which made possible the investment that raised living standards.
But the Keynesian system severed the link between savings and investment, claiming that the two had nothing to do with each other. Savings were, in fact, a drag on the system, Keynes said, and could generate recessions and depressions.
Thus, did Keynes dethrone the bourgeoisie and their traditional claim to moral respectability. Thrift was foolishness, not wisdom.
The third group was the investors. Here Keynes was somewhat more favorable. The activities of these people could not be reduced to a mathematical function.
They were dynamic and free. Unfortunately, they were also given to wild, irrational swings in behavior and outlook. These irrational swings set the economy on a roller coaster.
And now we arrive at a fourth and final group. This group is supremely rational, economically knowledgeable, and indispensable to economic stability.
This group can override the foolish decisions of the others and keep the economy from falling into depressions or inflationary excess.
You probably won’t be shocked to learn that the far-seeing wizards who comprise Keynes’s fourth group are government officials.
To understand exactly what Keynes expected government officials to do, let’s say a brief word about the economic system Keynes developed in the General Theory.
His primary claim is that the market economy is given to a chronic state of underemployment of resources.
If it is not to descend into and remain mired in depression, it requires the wise supervision and interventions of the political class.
Again, we may safely reject the possibility that the political classes of the Western world embraced Keynesianism because politicians had made a profound study of the works of Keynes. To the contrary, Keynesianism appealed to two overriding motivations of government officials: their need to appear indispensable, and their urge to wield power.
Keynesianism dangled these ideas before the political class, who in turn responded like salivating dogs. There wasn’t anything more romantic or dignified to it than that, I am sorry to report.
By the early 1970s, however, Keynesian economics had suffered a devastating blow. Or, to adopt Murray’s more colorful phrase, it had become “dead from the neck up.”
Keynesianism could not account for the stagflation, or inflationary recession, that the US experienced in the ’70s.
It was supposed to be the role of the Keynesian planners to steer the economy in such a way as to avoid the twin threats of an overheating, inflationary economy and an underperforming, depressed economy.
During a boom, Keynesian planners were to “sop up excess purchasing power” by raising taxes and taking spending out of the economy.
During a depression, Keynesians were to lower taxes and increase government spending in order to inject spending into the economy.
But in an inflationary recession, this entire approach had to be thrown out.
The inflationary part meant spending had to be reduced, but the recession part meant spending had to be increased.
How, Murray asked, could the Keynesian planners do both at once?
They couldn’t, of course, which is why Keynesianism began to wane in the 1970s, though it has made an unwelcome comeback since the 2008 financial crisis.
Murray had dismantled the Keynesian system on a more fundamental level in Man, Economy, and State.
He showed that the relationships between large economic aggregates that Keynesians posited, and which were essential to their system, did not hold after all. And he exploded the major concepts employed in the Keynesian analysis: the consumption function, the multiplier, and the accelerator, for starters.
Now, why does any of this matter today?
The errors of Keynes have empowered sociopathic political classes all over the world and deprived the world of the economic progress we would otherwise have enjoyed.
Japan is a great example of Keynesian devastation: the Nikkei 225, which hit 38,500 in 1990, has never managed to reach even half that level since. A quarter century ago the index of industrial production in Japan was at 96.8; after 25 years of aggressive Keynesian policy that gave Japan the highest debt-to-GDP ratio in the world, the index of industrial production is … still 96.8.
The United States, meanwhile, has had sixteen years of fiscal stimulus or preposterously low-interest rates, all of which Keynesians have cheered. The result? Two million fewer breadwinner jobs than when Bill Clinton left office.
No amount of stimulus ever seems to be quite enough. And when the stimulus fails, the blinkered Keynesian establishment can only think to double down, never to question the policy itself.
"Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone.”
But there is an alternative, and it’s the one Murray N. Rothbard and Ludwig von Mises championed: the Austrian school of economics and its analysis of the pure market economy.
Against the entire edifice of establishment opinion, the Mises Institute stands as a rebuke. To the dissidents, to the intellectually curious, to those inclined to be skeptical of so-called experts who have brought us nothing but ruin, the Mises Institute has been a beacon.
We have trained an entire generation of Austrian scholars, journalists, and financial professionals. We put in the hard work so that when a catastrophe like the 2008 crisis occurred, an Austrian response was ready.
But with your help, we can do so much more. The Keynesians are pretending they have everything under control, but we know that’s a fantasy.
An even greater opportunity than 2008 awaits us, and we want to help guide public opinion and train a cadre of bright young scholars for that day. With your help, we can, at last, awaken from the Keynesian nightmare.
As the Korean translator of an Austrian text put it;
Twenty Five Rules Of Disinformation, Propaganda, “PSYOPS”, Debunking Techniques May 5 2022 | From: ActivistPost / Various
Operation Mockingbird historically is a secret Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) campaign to influence media to promote false propaganda or print misleading stories.
However, the program has evolved into a new brand of media control using the Internet to spread any propaganda seeming beneficial to the current political climate.
Agents create fake user accounts on social media platforms, such a as Facebook, Twitter and others, to argue any ideology they are instructed to.
According to RT news, agents have up to “10 fake shill accounts” used to troll and create the illusion of having a genuine network of friends.
"They will defend current administration decisions with relentless irrational stubbornness that one can only be paid to do.”
25 Rules of Disinformation – Possible Rules of Operation Mockingbird
1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evi: Regardless of what you know, don’t discuss it - especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it’s not reported, it didn’t happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.
2. Become incredulous and indignant:. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the “How dare you!” gambit.
3. Create rumor mongers: Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such “arguable rumors.”
If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a “wild rumor” which can have no basis in fact.
4. Use a straw man: Find or create a seeming element of your opponent’s argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad.
Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent / opponent arguments / situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.
5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule: This is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as “kooks”, “right-wing”, “liberal”, “left-wing”, “terrorists”, “conspiracy buffs”, “radicals”, “militia”, “racists”, “religious fanatics”, “sexual deviants”, and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.
6. Hit and Run:. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer.
This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain critical reasoning - simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent’s viewpoint.
7. Question motive:. Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.
8. Invoke authority: Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough “jargon” and “minutiae” to illustrate you are “one who knows,” and simply say it isn’t so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.
9. Play Dumb: No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues with denial they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion.
10. Associate opponent charges with old news: A derivative of the straw man usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with.
Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually then be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues - so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.
11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions: Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the “high road” and “confess” with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made - but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminality which, “just isn’t so.”
Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later. Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for “coming clean” and “owning up” to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.
12. Enigmas that have no solution: Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to lose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.
13. Alice in Wonderland Logic: Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards with an apparent deductive logic in a way that forbears any actual material fact.
14. Demand complete solutions: Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best for items qualifying for rule 10.
15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions: This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.
16. Vanishing evidence and witnesses: If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won’t have to address the issue.
17. Change the subject: Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic.
This works especially well with companions who can “argue” with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.
18. Emotionalize, antagonize, and goad opponents: If you can’t do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how “sensitive they are to criticism.”
19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs: This is perhaps a variant of the “play dumb” rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon).
In order to completely avoid discussing issues may require you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.
20. False evidence: Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.
21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body: Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled.
For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can ensure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed an unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict (usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim) is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed.
22. Manufacture a new truth: Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.
23. Create bigger distractions: If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.
24. Silence critics: If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely.
This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of their character by release of blackmail information, or merely by proper intimidation with blackmail or other threats.
25. Vanish: If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen.
"The CIA currently maintains a network of several hundred foreign individuals around the world who provide intelligence for the CIA and at times attempt to influence opinion through the use of covert propaganda.
These individuals provide the CIA with direct access to a large number of newspapers and periodicals, scores of press services and news agencies, radio and television stations, commercial book publishers, and other foreign media outlets.”
By the year 1953 Operation Mockingbird dictated information in over 25 newspapers and wire agencies. These organizations were run by people with well-known right-wing views such as William Paley (CBS), Henry Luce (Time and Life Magazine), Arthur Hays Sulzberger (New York Times), Alfred Friendly (managing editor of the Washington Post), Jerry O’Leary (Washington Star), Hal Hendrix (Miami News), Barry Bingham, Sr., (Louisville Courier-Journal), James Copley (Copley News Services) and Joseph Harrison (Christian Science Monitor).
Even Rolling Stone claimed that journalist Joseph Alsop was under the control of Operation Mockingbird in 1977.
His articles appeared in over 300 different newspapers. Other journalists alleged by Rolling Stone Magazine to have been willing to promote the views of the CIA included Stewart Alsop (New York Herald Tribune), Ben Bradlee (Newsweek), James Reston (New York Times), Charles Douglas Jackson (Time Magazine), Walter Pincus (Washington Post), William C. Baggs (The Miami News), Herb Gold (The Miami News) and Charles Bartlett (Chattanooga Times).
According to Nina Burleigh (A Very Private Woman), these journalists sometimes wrote articles that were commissioned by Frank Wisner, creator of the program. The CIA also provided them with classified information to help them with their work.
Censored, Surveilled, Watch Listed And Jailed: The Absurdity Of Being A Citizen In A Police State
May 4 2022 | From: InformationClearingHouse / Various
In the police state, the price to be paid for speaking truth to power (also increasingly viewed as an act of treason) is surveillance, censorship, jail and ultimately death.
However, where many go wrong is in assuming that you have to be doing something illegal or challenging the government’s authority in order to be flagged as a suspicious character, labeled an enemy of the state and locked up like a dangerous criminal.
In fact, as I point out in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, all you really need to do is use certain trigger words, surf the internet, communicate using a cell phone, drive a car, stay at a hotel, purchase materials at a hardware store, take flying or boating lessons, appear suspicious, question government authority, or generally live in the United States [or any Western country].
With the help of automated eyes and ears, a growing arsenal of high-tech software, hardware and techniques, government propaganda urging Americans to turn into spies and snitches, as well as social media and behavior sensing software, government agents are spinning a sticky spider-web of threat assessments, flagged “words,” and “suspicious” activity reports aimed at snaring potential enemies of the state.
It’s the American police state’s take on the dystopian terrors foreshadowed by George Orwell, Aldous Huxley and Phillip K. Dick all rolled up into one oppressive pre-crime and pre-thought crime package.
What’s more, the technocrats who run the surveillance state don’t even have to break a sweat while monitoring what you say, what you read, what you write, where you go, how much you spend, whom you support, and with whom you communicate.
Computers now do the tedious work of trolling social media, the internet, text messages and phone calls for potentially anti-government remarks - all of which is carefully recorded, documented, and stored to be used against you someday at a time and place of the government’s choosing.
While this may sound like a riff on a bad joke, it’s a bad joke with “we the people” as the punchline.
The following activities are guaranteed to get you censored, surveilled, eventually placed on a government watch list, possibly detained and potentially killed.
Laugh at your own peril.
Use harmless trigger words like cloud, pork and pirates:
Simply by using a cell phone, you make yourself an easy target for government agents - working closely with corporations - who can listen in on your phone calls, read your text messages and emails, and track your movements based on the data transferred from, received by, and stored in your cell phone.
Mention any of the so-called “trigger” words in a conversation or text message, and you’ll get flagged for sure.
Drive a car:
Unless you’ve got an old junkyard heap without any of the gadgets and gizmos that are so attractive to today’s car buyers (GPS, satellite radio, electrical everything, smart systems, etc.), driving a car today is like wearing a homing device: you’ll be tracked from the moment you open that car door thanks to black box recorders and vehicle-to-vehicle communications systems that can monitor your speed, direction, location, the number of miles traveled, and even your seatbelt use.
Once you add satellites, GPS devices, license plate readers, and real-time traffic cameras to the mix, there’s nowhere you can go on our nation’s highways and byways that you can’t be followed.
Attend a political rally:
Enacted in the wake of 9/11, the Patriot Act redefined terrorism so broadly that many non-terrorist political activities such as protest marches, demonstrations and civil disobedience were considered potential terrorist acts, thereby rendering anyone desiring to engage in protected First Amendment expressive activities as suspects of the surveillance state.
Express yourself on social media:
The FBI, CIA, NSA and other government agencies are investing in and relying on corporate surveillance technologies that can mine constitutionally protected speech on social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter and Instagram in order to identify potential extremists and predict who might engage in future acts of anti-government behavior.
Operation Vigilant Eagle, the brainchild of the Dept. of Homeland Security, calls for surveillance of military veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, characterizing them as extremists and potential domestic terrorist threats because they may be “disgruntled, disillusioned or suffering from the psychological effects of war.”
Disagree with a law enforcement official:
A growing number of government programs are aimed at identifying, monitoring and locking up anyone considered potentially “dangerous” or mentally ill (according to government standards, of course). For instance, a homeless man in New York City who reportedly had a history of violence but no signs of mental illness was forcibly detained in a psych ward for a week after arguing with shelter police.
As a result of a nationwide push to certify a broad spectrum of government officials in mental health first-aid training (a 12-hour course comprised of PowerPoint presentations, videos, discussions, role playing and other interactive activities), more Americans are going to run the risk of being reported for having mental health issues by non-medical personnel.
For instance, one 37-year-old disabled man was arrested, diagnosed by police and an unlicensed mental health screener as having “mental health issues,” apparently because of his slurred speech and unsteady gait.
Appear confused or nervous, fidget, whistle or smell bad:
According to the Transportation Security Administration’s 92-point secret behavior watch list for spotting terrorists, these are among some of the telling signs of suspicious behavior: fidgeting, whistling, bad body odor, yawning, clearing your throat, having a pale face from recently shaving your beard, covering your mouth with your hand when speaking and blinking your eyes fast.
Allow yourself to be seen in public waving a toy gun or anything remotely resembling a gun, such as a water nozzle or a remote control or a walking cane, for instance:
No longer is it unusual to hear about incidents in which police shoot unarmed individuals first and ask questions later.
John Crawford was shot by police in an Ohio Wal-Mart for holding an air rifle sold in the store that he may have intended to buy. Thirteen-year-old Andy Lopez Cruz was shot 7 times in 10 seconds by a California police officer who mistook the boy’s toy gun for an assault rifle.
Christopher Roupe, 17, was shot and killed after opening the door to a police officer. The officer, mistaking the Wii remote control in Roupe’s hand for a gun, shot him in the chest. Another police officer repeatedly shot 70-year-old Bobby Canipe during a traffic stop. The cop saw the man reaching for his cane and, believing the cane to be a rifle, opened fire.
Appear to be pro-gun, pro-freedom or anti-government:
You might be a domestic terrorist in the eyes of the FBI (and its network of snitches) if you: express libertarian philosophies; exhibit Second Amendment-oriented views; read survivalist literature, including apocalyptic fictional books; show signs of self-sufficiency (stockpiling food, ammo, hand tools, medical supplies); fear an economic collapse; buy gold and barter items; voice fears about Big Brother or big government; or expound about constitutional rights and civil liberties.
Attend a public school:
Microcosms of the police state, public schools contain almost every aspect of the militarized, intolerant, senseless, overcriminalized, legalistic, surveillance-riddled, totalitarian landscape that plagues those of us on the “outside.”
Additionally, as part of the government’s so-called ongoing war on terror, the FBI - the nation’s de facto secret police force - is now recruiting students and teachers to spy on each other and report anyone who appears to have the potential to be “anti-government” or “extremist” as part of its “Don’t Be a Puppet” campaign.
Speak truth to power:
Long before Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden were being castigated for blowing the whistle on the government’s war crimes and the National Security Agency’s abuse of its surveillance powers, it was activists such as Martin Luther King Jr. and John Lennon who were being singled out for daring to speak truth to power.
These men and others like them had their phone calls monitored and data files collected on their activities and associations. For a little while, at least, they became enemy number one in the eyes of the US government.
There’s always a price to pay for standing up to the powers-that-be.
Yet as this list shows, you don’t even have to be a dissident to get flagged by the government for surveillance, censorship and detention.
All you really need to be is a citizen of the police state.
The Myth Of Mental Illness: Psychiatry Is A Fraud And It Is All About Control + “Opposition Defiant Disorder” - Non-Conformity And Anti-Authoritarianism Now Considered An Illness
May 3 2022 | From: Sott / WakeUpWorld / Various
Perhaps most radically, Thomas Szasz deemed mental illness a mythic and monstrous beast, and proclaimed that 'mental illness' was a fiction. Insanity, he has continued ever since to claim, is not a real disease, whose nature has been progressively scientifically unveiled; mental illness is rather a myth, forged by psychiatrists for their own greater glory.
Over the centuries, medical men and their supporters have been involved, argues Szasz, in a self-serving 'manufacture of madness.' In this, he indicts both the pretensions of organic psychiatry and the psychodynamic followers of Freud, whose notion of the 'unconscious' in effect breathed new life into the obsolete metaphysical Cartesian dualism.
For Szasz, any expectation of finding the etiology of mental illness in body or mind - above all in some mental underworld - must be a lost cause, a dead-end, a linguistic error, and even an exercise in bad faith.
'Mental illness' or the 'unconscious' are not realities but at best metaphors. In promoting such ideas, psychiatrists have either been involved in improper cognitive imperialism or have rather naively pictorialized the psyche - reifying the fictive substance behind the substantive.
Properly speaking, contends Szasz, insanity is not a disease with origins to be excavated, but a behavior with meanings to be decoded. Social existence is a rule-governed game-playing ritual in which the mad person bends the rules and exploits the loopholes.
Since the mad person is engaged in social performances that obey certain expectations so as to defy others, the pertinent questions are not about the origins, but about the conventions, of insanity. In this light, Szasz dismisses traditional approaches to the history of madness, as questions mal post and aims to reformulate them.
[From: Porter, R., Introduction, in Porter, R. and Wright, D., eds.,The Confinement of the Insane: International Perspectives, 1800-1965(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003)]
“Opposition Defiant Disorder” - Non-Conformity And Anti-Authoritarianism Now Considered An Illness
The Brave New World of “Mental Health Disorders.”
If Albert Einstein was a youth today, there’s a good chance he would be saddled with an Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) diagnosis, possibly even Opposition Defiant Disorder (ODD) as well.
He ignored his teachers, failed college entrance examinations several times and was hard-pressed in holding down a job.
In ‘Einstein: The Life and Times‘, biographer Ronald Clark argues that Einstein’s problem wasn’t attention deficits at all, but rather a hatred of authoritarian, Prussian influences in school.
“The teachers in the elementary school appeared to me like sergeants and in the gymnasium the teachers were like lieutenants,” Einstein once remarked.
The fact that he read Kant’s difficult Critique of Pure Reason for pleasure is quite revealing. He also refused to prepare for college admissions out of rebellion to his father’s “unbearable” path of “practical profession.”
When he did gain entrance to college, one of his professors chided Einstein, “You have one fault; one can’t tell you anything.” The very characteristics that troubled authorities, were exactly the ones which helped him to excel.
Considering Einstein’s life history, it makes one wonder about the rampant use of ADHD and ODD diagnosis that are plaguing our children and teenagers today. According to the statistical research by Russell Barkley, Ph.D., on average for every 30 children, 1-3 have ADHD.
Of these children, 65% have issues with defiance, non-compliance and problems with authority figures, which can manifest as verbal hostility and temper tantrums. It’s estimated that between 1-16% of all American children have ODD.
The real question, however, is not how many diagnosis there have been, but rather should we be looking at ADHD and ODD as a mental illness in the first place?
The Age of Excessive Diagnosis, Conformity and Over-Medication
For these children, sitting still in a classroom - under fluorescent lighting and being bombarded with EMFs from cell phones and wi-fi - completely removed from the natural world and pumped full of preservatives, artificial additives, GMOs, pesticides and sugar, is simply impossible.
Their sensitive bodies and minds cannot take the onslaught. Instead of extending outdoor time and cleaning up the diet, recess has been slashed and poor quality food remains the norm.
A 2009 Psychiatric Times article titled “ADHD & ODD: Confronting the Challenges of Disruptive Behavior” reports that “disruptive disorders,” which include attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and opposition defiant disorder (ODD), are the most common mental health problem of children and teenagers.
ADHD is defined by poor attention and distractibility, poor self-control and impulsivity, and hyperactivity.
ODD is defined as a “a pattern of negativistic, hostile, and defiant behavior without the more serious violations of the basic rights of others that are seen in conduct disorder”; and ODD symptoms include “often actively defies or refuses to comply with adult requests or rules” and “often argues with adults.”
One of the leading mainstream mental health’s authorities on ADHD, psychologist Russell Barkley believes that those afflicted with ADHD are deficient in what he classifies as “rule-governed behavior,” since they are less open to established authorities and not as responsive to positive or negative consequences.
Those with ODD also have these so-called deficits. Because of this, it’s exceptionally common for young people to be diagnosed with both ADHD and ODD.
But as Levine rightly observes, “Do we really want to diagnose and medicate everyone with “deficits in rule-governed behavior”?
Some of our greatest freethinkers throughout history were non-conformists and challenged authority. At what point do we simply become a nation of zombies, drugged out on pharmaceuticals, unable to think for ourselves?
People have become increasingly socialized to associate inattention, anger, anxiety and paralyzing despair with a medical condition, and subsequently rely on medical intervention instead of political remedies.
“What better way to maintain the status quo than to view inattention, anger, anxiety, and depression as biochemical problems of those who are mentally ill rather than normal reactions to an increasingly authoritarian society,” said Levine.
He believes we desperately need anti-authoritarians to question, test and oppose illegitimate authorities and regain trust in their own common sense.
And yet, we’re moving into deeper authoritarian waters by the day. A good example is the newest addition of the DSM-IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders). ODD is actually a new label in the manual, defined as “ongoing pattern of disobedient, hostile and defiant behavior,” where symptoms include negativity, questioning authority, argumentativeness and irritability.
ODD joins the ranks of other, newly created mental illnesses - ‘disorders’ like arrogance, narcissism, exceptional creativity, cynicism and antisocial tendencies.
Keep in mind that over the last 50 years, the manual has been prolific in creating new afflictions, with the total number of ‘mental illness’ classifications rising from 130 to 357.
"Another danger is that childhood eccentricities, sometimes inextricable from creativity, might be labeled “disorders” to be “cured.” If 7-year-old Mozart tried composing his concertos today, he might be diagnosed with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and medicated into barren normality."
In the face of such bizarre and chilling authoritarian mental illness classifications, the famous quote by Jiddu Krishnamurti comes to mind:
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society."
About the Author:
Carolanne Wright enthusiastically believes if we want to see change in the world, we need to be the change. As a nutritionist, natural foods chef and wellness coach, Carolanne has encouraged others to embrace a healthy lifestyle of organic living, gratefulness and joyful orientation for over 13 years.
Through her website Thrive-Living.net, she looks forward to connecting with other like-minded people from around the world who share a similar vision.
Our Electromagnetic Fields Connect To All Living Systems In An Extraordinary Way + Finding Inner Peace In Calamitous Times May 2 2022 | From: ThePulse / TheEpochTimes / Various
Scientists and researchers at the HeartMath Institute have discovered that our electromagnetic fields may affect other people and the environment.
The emotions we feel may alter the information coded into our electromagnetic fields and have different impacts on the surrounding environment.
If all human beings, and the systems we've created, operated from a place of love, empathy, understanding, emotional coherence and cooperation, what would the human experience look like? What would we create?
Did you know that your body emits an electromagnetic field? This fact plays a very important role far beyond what is commonly known when it comes to understanding our biology and the interconnectedness we share with all life.
The heart even sends signals to the brain through a system of neurons that have both short-term and long-term memory, and these signals can affect our emotional experiences.
The heart actually sends more signals to the brain than the brain does to the heart. The emotional information that’s modulated and coded into these fields changes their nature, and these fields can impact those around us.
Rollin McCraty, Ph.D, and director of research at The HeartMath Institute tells us, “we are fundamentally and deeply connected with each other and the planet itself.”
"Research findings have shown that as we practice heart coherence and radiate love and compassion, our heart generates a coherent electromagnetic wave into the local field environment that facilitates social coherence, whether in the home, workplace, classroom or sitting around a table.
As more individuals radiate heart coherence, it builds an energetic field that makes it easier for others to connect with their heart.
So, theoretically it is possible that enough people building individual and social coherence could actually contribute to an unfolding global coherence."
-
Dr. Deborah Rozman. Heart Intelligence: Connecting with the Intuitive Guidance of the Heart
So, what exactly is heart coherence? It implies order, structure, and as Dr. Rozman puts it, “an alignment within and amongst systems - whether quantum particle, organisms, human beings, social groups, planets or galaxies.”
This harmonious order signifies a coherent system whose optimal functioning is directly related to the ease and flow in its processes. In other words, feelings of love, gratitude, appreciation and other ‘positive’ emotions not only have an effect on our nervous system, but they have an affect on those around us, far beyond what we might have previously thought.
They potentially change the information encoded into our magnetic field, or “aura” which directly impacts the people and environment around us.
It’s similar to the studies that have been conducted regarding mass meditation and prayer. As far as their effects on physical systems and global human consciousness, numerous publications have yielded statistically significant results.
One study (as outlined in Heart Intelligence: Connecting with the Intuitive Guidance of the Heart) conducted during the Israel-Lebanon war in the 1980’s, featured organized groups of experienced meditators in Jerusalem, Yugoslavia, and the United states with the specific purpose of focusing attention on the area of conflict at various intervals over a 27-month period.
During the course of the study, the levels of violence in Lebanon decreased between 40 and 80 percent each time a meditating group was in place. The average number of people killed during the war each day dropped from 12 to 3, and war-related injuries fell by 70 percent.
Another great example is a study that was conducted in 1993 in Washington, D.C., which showed a 25 percent drop in crime rates when more than 4,000 meditators meditated during specific periods of time with that intention.
The authors of the study collaborated with the local police department, the FBI, and 24 leading, independent criminologists and social scientists from major institutions, including the University of Maryland, the University of Texas, and Temple University.
Everyone ended up agreeing on the language, the analysis, and the results, and those results were quite astonishing.They predicted a 20 percent drop in crime, and we achieved a 25 percent drop.
Just before the study, the Washington, DC chief of police went on television and said something like,“It’s gonna take a foot of snow in June to reduce crime by 20 percent.”
"Every individual’s energy affects the collective field environment. This means each person’s emotions and intentions generate an energy that affects the field.
A first step in diffusing societal stress in the global field is for each of us to take personal responsibility for our own energies.
We can do this by increasing our personal coherence and raising our vibratory rate, which helps us become more conscious of the thoughts, feelings, and attitudes that we are feeding the field each day.
We have a choice in every moment to take to heart the significance of intentionally managing our energies.
This is the free will or local freedom that can create global cohesion."
-
Dr. Rozman. Heart Intelligence: Connecting with the Intuitive Guidance of the Heart
It’s all very fascinating to think about, especially when you dive into the connection human consciousness has to our “physical” and “material” reality at the quantum scale.
The GCI is an international cooperative effort to help activate the heart of humanity and facilitate a shift in global consciousness.
Its primary focuses are to invite people to participate by actively adding more heart-coherent love, care, and compassion into the planetary field.
The second is scientific research on how we are all energetically connected with each other and the planet, and how we can utilize this interconnectivity, which is very real, to raise our personal vibration to assist in creating a better world.
The hypotheses of the researchers and scientists behind this process are as follows:
The Earth’s magnetic fields are a carrier of biologically relevant information that connects all living systems.
Every person affects this global information field. Large numbers of people creating heart-coherent states of love, appreciation, care, and compassion can generate a more coherent field environment that benefits others and helps off-set the current planetary discord and incoherence.
There is a feedback loop between human beings and Earth’s energetic/magnetic systems.
Earth has several sources of magnetic fields that affect us all. Two of them are the geomagnetic field that emanates from the core of the Earth, and the fields that exist between Earth and the ionosphere. These fields surround the entire planet and act as protective shields blocking out the harmful effects of solar radiation, cosmic rays, sand, and other forms of space weather. Without these fields, ice as we know it could not exist on Earth. They are part of the dynamic ecosystem of our planet.
Think about the current state of our planet. We are definitely not in coherence; with all of the violence, war, hate, and greed that still plague our planet, we have a lot of work to do.
We do not yet know how these thoughts, emotions, and feelings are affecting the entire planet, and what type of information these experiences are encoding into once electromagnetic fields, and how it is interacting with that of the Earth’s.
With so much separation and conflict in all areas, it doesn’t help that this is what we observe on a daily basis between political parties who are supposed to be representative of leadership.
Scientific literature also firmly establishes that several physiological rhythms and global collective behaviours are not only synchronized with solar and geomagnetic activity, but that disruptions in these fields can create adverse effects on human health and behaviour. It’s interesting to think about because,
"When the Earth’s magnetic field environment is distributed it can cause sleep problems, mental confusion, usual lack of energy or a feeling of being on edge or overwhelmed for no apparent reason.
At other times, when the Earth’s fields are stable and certain measures of solar activity are increased, people report increased positive feelings and more creativity and inspiration.
This is likely due to a coupling between the human brain, cardiovascular and nervous system with resonating geomagnetic frequencies."
-
Heart Intelligence: Connecting with the Intuitive Guidance of the Heart.
The Earth and ionosphere generate frequencies that range from 0.01 hertz to 300 hertz, some of which are in the exact same frequency range as the one happening in our brain, cardiovascular system, and autonomic nervous system.
Changes in the Earth’s fields from extreme solar activity have also been linked to some of humanity’s greatest creations of art, as well as some of its most tragic events.
We know how these fields affect us, but what about how we affect these fields? That’s the real question here.
GCI scientists believe that because brain wave and heart rhythm frequencies overlap the Earth’s field resonance, we are not just receivers of biologically relevant information, but also feed information into the global field, thus creating a feedback loop with the Earth’s magnetic fields.
"Research is indicating that human emotions and consciousness encode information into the geomagnetic field and this encoded information is distributed globally.
The Earth’s magnetic fields act as carrier waves for this information which influences all living systems and the collective consciousness."
-
Heart Intelligence: Connecting with the Intuitive Guidance of the Heart
This research, which is still in its infancy, has great ramifications. It will further push along the fact that our attitudes, emotions, and intentions actually matter, a lot, and that these factors within the realm of non-material science can affect all life on Earth.
Coherent, cooperative intention could impact global events and improve the quality of life on Earth. Practicing love, gratitude, appreciation, and bettering ourselves as individuals is one out of many action steps towards changing our planet for the better.
If all of this is true, love really is the key to change.
Managing our emotions and learning to let them guide us through conflict-resolution is key. Material factors need to be cast aside, and if we are to move forward we need a leadership that acts from a place of ethics, morality, cooperation and service to others.
Not from a place of greed, ego, fear, competition and the desire for material gain.
There’s a strange parallel in recently returning to a book from the past, Barbara Tuchman’s “A Distant Mirror: The Calamitous 14th Century,” and watching the media cover the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
The fear of violence and the chaos of uncertainty in that faraway century are just as present in our culture as they were some 700 years ago.
Tuchman’s book, published in 1978, illustrates a picture of the 14th century that reads perilously similar to some aspects of life today. But a question that arises: How can we find peace or solitude in our current calamitous era?
After allowing the thought of the impact of war to overpower me with uncertainty, I left my house in search of a haven. The closest place was an outdoor pavilion, set aside in our neighborhood for small family or social gatherings.
Seven tables defined the rectangle structure and fortunately no one else was there. A breeze wafted through its pillars, and the occasional squirrel ran along the ledges.
My initial response to the heartbreaking news of war was to pray. But was there something else I could do to relieve my inner anxiety? The first step was to go outside.
Finding a place where one can hear the calls of a bird or the tumble of water in a fountain or stream opens our senses to calmness. Hearing the happy chatter of children playing in the distance or nearby can inspire hope and a peaceful release.
As I sat in the shelter and watched folks strolling by with their dogs or walking leisurely in the afternoon warmth, I was reminded to be grateful for my family, friends, food, clothing, and shelter.
Years ago, my husband and I were distressed by the cries of our newborn. My husband took the baby outside and walked up and down the sidewalk for a few moments.
Ultimately we put the baby into his car seat, drove a few blocks, returned home, and put him to bed. The calming effect of a change of scenery helped our little one and also allowed us to breathe more easily as our anxiety evaporated. I’m sure this experience isn’t uniquely ours.
The point is that by going outside, we can clear our minds and redirect our focus. It allows us to unfurrow our brows, relax our shoulders, and exhale. We’re often so far removed from nature that we have to remind ourselves as though it’s a brilliant idea: “Oh, I’m going for a walk.”
We stay glued to the television, bingeing on series, news, and sports, wondering why we feel nothing but a dullness of thought and creativity.
We’ve all seen this magic of being outside work on cranky children. Initiating a move to get the children outside for a short while to play hopscotch or do chalk drawings alleviates not only the children’s stress, but our own as well. Playing hide and seek or having a treasure hunt creates excitement on even the most mundane afternoon.
As I returned home from the pavilion, I saw the neighborhood flock of geese wending their way across the road. While they may have had some order to their movement, it was difficult to decipher.
They didn’t hurry, and they collectively forced a car to inch along the road to avoid smashing any of them. If only we could incorporate some of that calm instead of moving through our lives at breakneck speed.
There are some folks in our neighborhood who believe the geese have no right to coexist with us. They insist the geese intentionally use the sidewalks for their droppings and that this is a health hazard.
I find the presence of the geese comforting in a neighborhood nearly devoid of creatures who can fend for themselves in spite of condominiums and closely linked driveways.
Never once have I seen harm perpetrated by these creatures - a statement that surely can’t be made about humankind.
I tried to focus on observing the geese while tuning out the nearby interstate noise that has come to resemble a NASCAR race. With the increase in population and traffic, it’s more difficult than ever to find places where there’s no sound of engines.
It can be described as white noise, but it isn’t comforting. Now, I’m certainly not disparaging the joy and excitement many feel with cars zooming around a track, but there’s also the time for the sounds and the very air of nature to heal the human spirit.
Who better to describe the necessity of being outdoors than Henry David Thoreau? Yet in Walden, he wrote, “I left the woods for as good a reason as I went there. Perhaps it seemed to me that I had several more lives to live, and could not spare any more time for that one.” Yes, we can’t stay outside; we can’t stay in solitude.
Our time of solitude is unlikely to match that of Thoreau’s, but we can enable our loved ones to steady themselves by initiating a step outside, even if for only half an hour.
We can then return to our calamitous world a bit more peaceful, with an inner calmness to cope with all that would tear us apart.
May 1st: The Day The Illuminati Slavery System Transferred From Monarchies To The Corporations May 1 2022 | 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.
Apocalypse Now - Falling Idols And Spiritual Adversaries April 30 2022 | From: WakingTimes / Various We’re living in very challenging times. Our metal is being tested to new and extreme degrees that increase by the day. It’s clearly a time for expanded wisdom, digression and discernment to fully understand what is happening around and within us. As well as determination.
In a time of revelation, which is what the apocalypse is referring to, things come to light that can rock our world.
The word "apocalypse" actually means, "a disclosure of knowledge, i.e., a lifting of the veil or revelation."
Somehow, it has becomne re-translated as being something that spells doom. Go figure.
False idols fall, concepts are cracked, and new understandings and awakenings abound, whether we like them or not.
These are each up to the individual to find out and experience for themselves, but they can be very disconcerting when it comes to the shattering of old paradigms of thinking and our current personal outlook on the world, no matter how seemingly progressive we think we are.
The Fall of False Images and Mass Projections
There are many symptoms of radical change that we can expect. Idolatry, or putting unquestioned faith and misguided “belief” in some human or system, or even supernatural solution-bringer, is completely off course.
As long as humanity looks for a leader they will be sorely disappointed. History attests to this in spades. Projecting our problems, questions and needs for exterior solutions is destined to fail.
Worse yet as it affirms this mass hysteria. Anyone or anything that pretends to fill this vacuum you can be assured are deceived to whatever degree, unfortunately with the strong reinforcement of a sycophantic populace programmed to look for such.
Start by not putting people in that position of temptation. It’s ultimately up to us, similar to not participating in the matrix.
The more perceptive understanding of this has to do with those who accept this predominant role of “solution bringer”.
Once someone agrees to play this part of the projected play being broadcast you have problems, and it usually comes up because of not just the throngs projecting the wrong intent, but that those agreeing to fulfill such a role have grown an inflated ego, together with a plethora of attachments, capable of collecting this group intention, consciously or otherwise.
“A leader is best when people barely know he exists, when his work is done, his aim fulfilled, they will say: we did it ourselves.”
Again, history attests to this. People look for a leader, a panacea, a catch all solution, someone else to do the real work and have all the conviction they’re lacking, and when it appears to be embodied in a particularly charismatic figure who is then emboldened and willing to play this role, we have serious problems.
Every time. Truth by its very nature is a continually acting catalytic iconoclast.
Truthful ideas lead us to more truth and empowerment. Granted, some people can encapsulate and articulate these ideas better than others, but it’s nonetheless the ideas, not the people. When the intention and attention is hypnotically focused on the usually dynamic individual, those accepting such a role are immediately programmed to self destruct.
As truth has it, when something gets in the way of white hot truth it burns up. It may take time but it won’t stand the test.
It’s never clear in the time of transition but always clarifies over time. It’s up to us to be circumspect and wise in our observations and resultant behaviors.
Plato said something very profound in this regard:
“When the tyrant has disposed of foreign enemies by conquest or treaty and there is nothing to fear from them, then he is always stirring up some war or other, in order that the people may require a leader.”
Inside and Outside Attacks
A big part of this revelation we’re in the midst of has to do with knowing not just the truth but the enemies of truth.
These contrarian “signal jammers” can be clearly belligerent external foes of freedom, creativity and the like which are relatively easy to spot individuals or socially engineered trends, but there are also inside or internal spiritual attacks on ourselves or others in our midst that can be difficult to identify as well as deal with.
This awareness of spiritual attacks must become an important aspect of our awareness. Whether people call these influences transdimensionals, demons, archons, wetiko or whatever, they are real, and very active and present in this human conflict.
People will be, and already are, seeing personality changes in others around them who are not moving or working with the truth vibrations, if you will. If you haven’t yet experienced this element you soon will, but it usually takes some grounded awareness and spotting ability to see them for what they are, and that awareness can only manifest when there is the ability to see what you are.
Some coming into our midst are people who are clearly outside plants and shills, but I would venture to say that the most present danger is the spiritual element which invariably uses the weakest link available as their doorway in any situation.
These negative, parasitic forces go where there is an opening. A particularly weak individual, someone with a grudge or contrary agenda for whatever reason, or simply a misguided soul laden with pride who is easily influenced and in some cases taken over.
These influences are not just demonically persuasive and extremely intelligent and can win almost any argument on their level if you engage them, but very aggressive.
This is where the fuller overarching paradigm of how to effect change is most blatantly manifest – learning to circumnavigate and ultimately rise above this level of interchange is a proverbial stitch in time and will avoid untold confusion and wasted energy.
This might sound a bit woo woo and out there for some geopolitical pragmatists, but if you’re reading this I’m sure you’ll identify some of these symptoms. Obviously psychopaths are fully charged with these elements, but it’s when it reaches you personally that we can be taken aback and inadvertently steered into futile encounters or courses of action.
The spiritual cannot be ignored. In fact, it is first and foremost amongst factors that need to be under consideration at any and every given time during this transitional process.
Take If from There
This may seem a bit vague to some but you will come to see it manifest in many ways. Much more needs to be explained about these inside and outside attacks but I wanted to touch on the concepts to get the ball rolling.
Idols will fall. Despite any temporary confusion good folks will survive and thrive as they empower. Paradigms will continue to crumble and morph. It’s a spectacular convergence and a time to learn.
Go with the flow but be aware, very aware, of the influences we are being bombarded with. This is a very serious transition we’re in the midst of and we need to remain vigilant and detached in our perspective.
There is no in between when it comes to joining the forces for truth.
An Honest Assessment Of Putin + Kremlin Publishes Full Megan Kelly Putin Interview - NBC Cut The Best Parts April 29 2022 | From: PaulCraigRoberts / RussiaInsider / Various
Here is an assessment of Putin by Sharon Tennison who for 20 years ran a NGO in Russia funded by USAID and the US Department of State.
From the questions Tennison asks at the end about the US projecting its own bad behavior onto Putin, it is obvious that Tennison is unaware that Russia is targeted for two main reasons. One is that the military/security complex needs an enemy to justify its enormous budget and power. The other is that the neoconservatives who control US foreign policy believe in US hegemony over the world, and Russia is able to block US unilateralism.
Related:Megan Kelly, as silly as she is, has ended up being a conveyer of Russian truth to Americans
Nevertheless, Tennison’s assessment of Putin is honest. It demonstrates clearly the lies we are told by “our” government and “our” media.
An Honest Assessment Of Putin
As the Ukraine situation has worsened, unconscionable misinformation and hype is being poured on Russia and Vladimir Putin. Journalists and pundits must scour the Internet and thesauruses to come up with fiendish new epithets to describe both.
Wherever I make presentations across America, the first question ominously asked during Q&A is always, “What about Putin?” It’s time to share my thoughts which follow:
Putin obviously has his faults and makes mistakes. Based on my earlier experience with him, and the experiences of trusted people, including U.S. officials who have worked closely with him over a period of years, Putin most likely is a straight, reliable and exceptionally inventive man.
He is obviously a long-term thinker and planner and has proven to be an excellent analyst and strategist. He is a leader who can quietly work toward his goals under mounds of accusations and myths that have been steadily leveled at him since he became Russia’s second president.
I’ve stood by silently watching the demonization of Putin grow since it began in the early 2000's - I pondered on computer my thoughts and concerns, hoping eventually to include them in a book (which was published in 2011). The book explains my observations more thoroughly than this article.
Like others who have had direct experience with this little known man, I’ve tried to no avail to avoid being labeled a “Putin apologist”. If one is even neutral about him, they are considered “soft on Putin” by pundits, news hounds and average citizens who get their news from CNN, Fox and MSNBC.
I don’t pretend to be an expert, just a program developer in the USSR and Russia for the past 30 years. But during this time, I’ve have had far more direct, on-ground contact with Russians of all stripes across 11 time zones than any of the Western reporters or for that matter any of Washington’s officials.
I’ve been in country long enough to ponder on Russian history and culture deeply, to study their psychology and conditioning, and to understand the marked differences between American and Russian mentalities which so complicate our political relations with their leaders.
As with personalities in a family or a civic club or in a city hall, it takes understanding and compromise to be able to create workable relationships when basic conditionings are different. Washington has been notoriously disinterested in understanding these differences and attempting to meet Russia halfway.
In addition to my personal experience with Putin, I’ve had discussions with numerous American officials and U.S. businessmen who have had years of experience working with him - I believe it is safe to say that none would describe him as “brutal” or “thuggish”, or the other slanderous adjectives and nouns that are repeatedly used in western media.
I met Putin years before he ever dreamed of being president of Russia, as did many of us working in St.Petersburg during the 1990s. Since all of the slander started, I’ve become nearly obsessed with understanding his character. I think I’ve read every major speech he has given (including the full texts of his annual hours-long telephone “talk-ins” with Russian citizens).
I’ve been trying to ascertain whether he has changed for the worse since being elevated to the presidency, or whether he is a straight character cast into a role he never anticipated - and is using sheer wits to try to do the best he can to deal with Washington under extremely difficult circumstances.
If the latter is the case, and I think it is, he should get high marks for his performance over the past 14 years. It’s not by accident that Forbes declared him the most Powerful Leader of 2013, replacing Obama who was given the title for 2012. The following is my one personal experience with Putin.
The Year Was 1992
Putin with Anatoly Sobchak, Mayor of St. Petersburg, early 1990s. Putin was one of Sobchak’s deputies from 1992-96
It was two years after the implosion of communism; the place was St.Petersburg.
For years I had been creating programs to open up relations between the two countries and hopefully to help Soviet people to get beyond their entrenched top-down mentalities. A new program possibility emerged in my head. Since I expected it might require a signature from the Marienskii City Hall, an appointment was made.
My friend Volodya Shestakov and I showed up at a side door entrance to the Marienskii building. We found ourselves in a small, dull brown office, facing a rather trim nondescript man in a brown suit.
He inquired about my reason for coming in. After scanning the proposal I provided he began asking intelligent questions. After each of my answers, he asked the next relevant question.
I became aware that this interviewer was different from other Soviet bureaucrats who always seemed to fall into chummy conversations with foreigners with hopes of obtaining bribes in exchange for the Americans’ requests. CCI stood on the principle that we would never, never give bribes.
This bureaucrat was open, inquiring, and impersonal in demeanor. After more than an hour of careful questions and answers, he quietly explained that he had tried hard to determine if the proposal was legal, then said that unfortunately at the time it was not. A few good words about the proposal were uttered. That was all. He simply and kindly showed us to the door.
Out on the sidewalk, I said to my colleague, “Volodya, this is the first time we have ever dealt with a Soviet bureaucrat who didn’t ask us for a trip to the US or something valuable!”
I remember looking at his business card in the sunlight - it read Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin.
U.S. Consul General Jack Gosnell put in an SOS call to me in St.Petersburg. He had 14 Congress members and the new American Ambassador to Russia, Thomas Pickering, coming to St.Petersburg in the next three days. He needed immediate help.
I scurried over to the Consulate and learned that Jack intended me to brief this auspicious delegation and the incoming ambassador.
I was stunned but he insisted. They were coming from Moscow and were furious about how U.S. funding was being wasted there. Jack wanted them to hear the”good news” about CCI’s programs that were showing fine results.
In the next 24 hours Jack and I also set up “home” meetings in a dozen Russian entrepreneurs’ small apartments for the arriving dignitaries (St.Petersburg State Department people were aghast, since it had never been done before - but Jack overruled).
Only later in 2000, did I learn of Jack’s former three-year experience with Vladimir Putin in the 1990s while the latter was running the city for Mayor Sobchak. More on this further down.
December 31, 1999
Boris Nikolayevich Yeltsin leaves the Kremlin on the day of his resignation, December 31 1999. Prime Minister Putin (second left) became acting president
With no warning, at the turn of the year, President Boris Yeltsin made the announcement to the world that from the next day forward he was vacating his office and leaving Russia in the hands of an unknown Vladimir Putin.
On hearing the news, I thought surely not the Putin I remembered -he could never lead Russia. The next day a NYT article included a photo.
Yes, it was the same Putin I’d met years ago! I was shocked and dismayed, telling friends, “This is a disaster for Russia, I’ve spent time with this guy, he is too introverted and too intelligent - he will never be able to relate to Russia’s masses.”
Further, I lamented:
“For Russia to get up off of its knees, two things must happen: 1) The arrogant young oligarchs have to be removed by force from the Kremlin, and 2) A way must be found to remove the regional bosses (governors) from their fiefdoms across Russia’s 89 regions”.
It was clear to me that the man in the brown suit would never have the instincts or guts to tackle Russia’s overriding twin challenges.
Almost immediately Putin began putting Russia’s oligarchs on edge. In February a question about the oligarchs came up; he clarified with a question and his answer:
“What should be the relationship with the so-called oligarchs? The same as anyone else. The same as the owner of a small bakery or a shoe repair shop.”
This was the first signal that the tycoons would no longer be able to flaunt government regulations or count on special access in the Kremlin. It also made the West’s capitalists nervous.
After all, these oligarchs were wealthy untouchable businessmen - good capitalists, never mind that they got their enterprises illegally and were putting their profits in offshore banks.
Four months later Putin called a meeting with the oligarchs and gave them his deal:
They could keep their illegally-gained wealth-producing Soviet enterprises and they would not be nationalized …. IF taxes were paid on their revenues and if they personally stayed out of politics.
This was the first of Putin’s “elegant solutions” to the near impossible challenges facing the new Russia. But the deal also put Putin in crosshairs with US media and officials who then began to champion the oligarchs, particularly Mikhail Khodorkovsky.
The latter became highly political, didn’t pay taxes, and prior to being apprehended and jailed was in the process of selling a major portion of Russia’s largest private oil company, Yukos Oil, to Exxon Mobil. Unfortunately, to U.S. media and governing structures, Khodorkovsky became a martyr (and remains so up to today).
March 2000
I arrived in St.Petersburg. A Russian friend (a psychologist) since 1983 came for our usual visit. My first question was, “Lena what do you think about your new president?” She laughed and retorted, “Volodya! I went to school with him!”
She began to describe Putin as a quiet youngster, poor, fond of martial arts, who stood up for kids being bullied on the playgrounds. She remembered him as a patriotic youth who applied for the KGB prematurely after graduating secondary school (they sent him away and told him to get an education).
He went to law school, later reapplied and was accepted. I must have grimaced at this, because Lena said:
“Sharon in those days we all admired the KGB and believed that those who worked there were patriots and were keeping the country safe. We thought it was natural for Volodya to choose this career.”
My next question was:
“What do you think he will do with Yeltsin’s criminals in the Kremlin?”
Putting on her psychologist hat, she pondered and replied:
“If left to his normal behaviors, he will watch them for a while to be sure what is going on, then he will throw up some flares to let them know that he is watching. If they don’t respond, he will address them personally, then if the behaviors don’t change - some will be in prison in a couple of years.”
I congratulated her via email when her predictions began to show up in real time.
Throughout the 2000's
St.Petersburg’s many CCI alumni were being interviewed to determine how the PEP business training program was working and how we could make the U.S. experience more valuable for their new small businesses. Most believed that the program had been enormously important, even life changing. Last, each was asked:
“So what do you think of your new president?”
None responded negatively, even though at that time entrepreneurs hated Russia’s bureaucrats. Most answered similarly, “Putin registered my business a few years ago”.
To a person they replied, “Putin didn’t charge anything”. One said:
“We went to Putin’s desk because the others providing registrations at the Marienskii were getting ‘rich on their seats.’”
Late 2000
Into Putin’s first year as Russia’s president, US officials seemed to me to be suspect that he would be antithetical to America’s interests - his every move was called into question in American media.
I couldn’t understand why and was chronicling these happenings in my computer and newsletters.
Year 2001
Jack Gosnell (former USCG mentioned earlier) explained his relationship with Putin when the latter was deputy mayor of St.Petersburg. The two of them worked closely to create joint ventures and other ways to promote relations between the two countries. Jack related that Putin was always straight up, courteous and helpful.
When Putin’s wife, Ludmila, was in a severe auto accident, Jack took the liberty (before informing Putin) to arrange hospitalization and airline travel for her to get medical care in Finland. When Jack told Putin, he reported that the latter was overcome by the generous offer, but ended saying that he couldn’t accept this favor, that Ludmila would have to recover in a Russian hospital.
She did - although medical care in Russia was abominably bad in the 1990s.
A senior CSIS officer I was friends with in the 2000s worked closely with Putin on a number of joint ventures during the 1990s. He reported that he had no dealings with Putin that were questionable, that he respected him and believed he was getting an undeserved dour reputation from U.S. media.
Matter of fact, he closed the door at CSIS when we started talking about Putin. I guessed his comments wouldn’t be acceptable if others were listening.
Another former U.S. official who will go unidentified, also reported working closely with Putin, saying there was never any hint of bribery, pressuring, nothing but respectable behaviors and helpfulness.
I had two encounters in 2013 with State Department officials regarding Putin:
At the first one, I felt free to ask the question I had previously yearned to get answered:
“When did Putin become unacceptable to Washington officials and why??
Without hesitating the answer came back:
"The knives were drawn’ when it was announced that Putin would be the next president.”
I questioned WHY? The answer:
“I could never find out why - maybe because he was KGB.”
I offered that Bush # I, was head of the CIA. The reply was:
“That would have made no difference, he was our guy."
The second was a former State Department official with whom I recently shared a radio interview on Russia. Afterward when we were chatting, I remarked, “You might be interested to know that I’ve collected experiences of Putin from numerous people, some over a period of years, and they all say they had no negative experiences with Putin and there was no evidence of taking bribes”. He firmly replied:
“No one has ever been able to come up with a bribery charge against Putin.”
From 2001 up to today, I’ve watched the negative U.S. media mounting against Putin - even accusations of assassinations, poisonings, and comparing him to Hitler.
No one yet has come up with any concrete evidence for these allegations. During this time, I’ve traveled throughout Russia several times every year, and have watched the country slowly change under Putin’s watch. Taxes were lowered, inflation lessened, and laws slowly put in place.
Schools and hospitals began improving. Small businesses were growing, agriculture was showing improvement, and stores were becoming stocked with food.
Alcohol challenges were less obvious, smoking was banned from buildings, and life expectancy began increasing. Highways were being laid across the country, new rails and modern trains appeared even in far out places, and the banking industry was becoming dependable.
Russia was beginning to look like a decent country - certainly not where Russians hoped it to be long term, but improving incrementally for the first time in their memories.
In addition to St.Petersburg and Moscow, in September I traveled out to the Ural Mountains, spent time in Ekaterinburg, Chelyabinsk and Perm. We traveled between cities via autos and rail - the fields and forests look healthy, small towns sport new paint and construction. Today’s Russians look like Americans (we get the same clothing from China).
Old concrete Khrushchev block houses are giving way to new multi-story private residential complexes which are lovely. High-rise business centers, fine hotels and great restaurants are now common place - and ordinary Russians frequent these places. Two and three story private homes rim these Russian cities far from Moscow.
We visited new museums, municipal buildings and huge super markets. Streets are in good repair, highways are new and well marked now, service stations look like those dotting American highways. In January I went to Novosibirsk out in Siberia where similar new architecture was noted.
Streets were kept navigable with constant snowplowing, modern lighting kept the city bright all night, lots of new traffic lights (with seconds counting down to light change) have appeared.
It is astounding to me how much progress Russia has made in the past 14 years since an unknown man with no experience walked into Russia’s presidency and took over a country that was flat on its belly.
So why do our leaders and media demean and demonize Putin and Russia???
Like Lady MacBeth, do they protest too much?
Psychologists tell us that people (and countries?) project off on others what they don’t want to face in themselves. Others carry our “shadow” when we refuse to own it. We confer on others the very traits that we are horrified to acknowledge in ourselves.
Could this be why we constantly find fault with Putin and Russia?
Could it be that we project on to Putin the sins of ourselves and our leaders?
Could it be that we condemn Russia’s corruption, acting like the corruption within our corporate world doesn’t exist?
Could it be that we condemn their human rights and LGBT issues, not facing the fact that we haven’t solved our own?
Could it be that we accuse Russia of “reconstituting the USSR” - because of what we do to remain the world’s “hegemon”?
Could it be that we project nationalist behaviors on Russia, because that is what we have become and we don’t want to face it?
Could it be that we project warmongering off on Russia, because of what we have done over the past several administrations?
Some of you were around Putin in the earlier years. Please share your opinions, pro and con …. confidentiality will be assured. It’s important to develop a composite picture of this demonized leader and get the record straight.
I’m quite sure that 99% of those who excoriate him in mainstream media have had no personal contact with him at all. They write articles on hearsay, rumors and fabrication, or they read scripts others have written on their tele-prompters. This is how our nation [the West] gets its “news”, such as it is.
There is a well known code of ethics among us: Is it the Truth, Is it Fair, Does it build Friendship and Goodwill, and Will it be Beneficial for All Concerned?
It seems to me that if Western leaders would commit to using these four principles in international relations, the world would operate in a completely different manner, and human beings across this planet would live in better conditions than they do today.
Megyn Kelly: So, thank you very much for doing this, Mr President. I thought that we’d start with some of the news you made today at your State of the Nation Address, then we will move into some facts about you in preparation for our long piece that we are putting together, and then tomorrow when we will have a longer time together, we will talk about more substantive issues together, if that is ok with you.
Vladimir Putin: Fine.
Megyn Kelly: You announced today that Russia has developed new nuclear-capable weapons systems, including an intercontinental ballistic missile that you say renders defence systems useless. Several analysts in the West have said this is a declaration of a new Cold War. Are we in a new arms race right now?
Vladimir Putin: In my opinion, the people you have mentioned are not analysts. What they do is propaganda. Why? Because everything I spoke about today was done not on our initiative, it is a response to the US ballistic missile defence programme and Washington’s unilateral withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002.
If we speak of the arms race, it began at that very moment, when the United States pulled out of the ABM Treaty. We wanted to prevent this. We called on our American partners to work together on these programmes.
Firstly, we asked them not to withdraw from the treaty, not to destroy it. But the US pulled out. It was not us who did this but the US.
Yet we again suggested we work together even after this. I told my colleague then, “Imagine what would happen if Russia and the US joined forces in the crucial area of strategic security. The world would change for a long period to come, and the level of global security would rise to an all-time high.” The reply was, “This is very interesting.” But they ultimately rejected all our proposals.
Then I said, “You understand that we will have to improve our offensive arms systems to maintain a balance and to have the ability to overcome your BMD systems.” They replied that they were not developing the BMD systems to counter us, that we were free to do as we pleased, and that they would not view our actions as spearheaded against the US.
Megyn Kelly: That happened right after 9/11, three months after 9/11.
Vladimir Putin: No, it was after the US withdrew from the ABM Treaty in 2002, and the conversations I mentioned were in 2003–2004.
Megyn Kelly: At the time that happened, I believe you were quoted as saying that you thought it was a mistake on the part of the United States, but not a threat. Do you perceive the United States as a threat today?
Vladimir Putin: We have always said that developing the missile defence system creates a threat to us. We have always said that. Our American partners would not publicly admit it, claiming that the system was spearheaded mainly against Iran. But eventually, in conversations and during talks they admitted that, of course, the system will destroy our nuclear deterrence potential.
Imagine the situation. What was the point of signing the treaty back in 1972? The United States and the Soviet Union had only two regions that they defended from missile attacks: one in the United States and one in the Soviet Union. That created a threat for a potential aggressor who would be struck in response. In 2002, the United States said, “We do not need this anymore. We will create anything we want, globally, all over the world.”
Megyn Kelly: Again, it was in the wake of 9/11, just to make it clear. 9/11 happened on September 11, 2001, and the United States was reassessing its security posture in the world for good reason, wouldn’t you admit?
Vladimir Putin: No, not for good reason.This is complete nonsense. Because the missile defence system protects from the kind of ballistic missiles that no terrorists have in their arsenal. This is an explanation for the housewives watching your programme. But if these housewives can hear what I am saying, if you show it to them and they hear me, they will understand that 9/11 and the missile defence system are completely unrelated. To defend themselves from terrorist attacks, the major powers must join their efforts against the terrorists rather than create threats for each other.
Megyn Kelly: About the weapon that you announced today, the ICBM, have you actually tested it and it works? Because some analysts are suggesting that you have tested it, and it failed. And that is why you only showed animations of it today, and have not yet produced any actual videos.
Vladimir Putin: I spoke about several systems today. Which one are you referring to, the heavy-duty intercontinental ballistic missile?
Megyn Kelly: Yes, the one that you claimed renders defence systems useless.
Vladimir Putin: All the systems I mentioned today easily overcome missile defence. Each one of them. This is the point of all these developments.
Megyn Kelly: But you have tested it?
Vladimir Putin: Yes, of course.
Megyn Kelly: And it worked?
Vladimir Putin: It did, very well.
Some of these systems require additional work. Some of them are already deployed. Some are in serial production.
Getting back to the beginning of our conversation, there is a missile defence system deployed in Alaska. The distance between Russia’s Chukotka and Alaska is only 60 kilometres.
Two systems are being deployed in Eastern Europe. One is already in place in Romania. Construction of another one is almost finished in Poland. There is also the navy. US ships are based very close to Russian shores both in the south and the north.
Imagine if we placed our missile systems along the US-Mexico or the US-Canada border in their territories on both sides and brought our ships in from both sides. What would you say? Would you take action? Meanwhile we would respond that you are escalating the arms race? Ridiculous, isn’t it? This is exactly what is happening.
Megyn Kelly: Just to come back. Are you saying that we are in a new arms race?
Vladimir Putin: I want to say that the United States, when it withdrew from the ABM Treaty in 2002, forced us to begin developing new weapon systems. We told our partners about it, and they said, “Do whatever you like.” Fine, that is what we did – so enjoy.
Megyn Kelly: You disclosed that Russia was developing an intercontinental ballistic missile that was powered by nukes that could render defence systems useless?
Vladimir Putin: Of course not. I did not know at the time how we could respond, to be honest. So it seems that our partners believed we would have nothing to respond with. Our economy was is dire straits, as well as the defence sector and the army. Therefore, I do not think anobody could have thought that in such a short period of time we would be able to make such a gigantic leap in the development of strategic weapons. I think the CIA must have told the US President that we would not do anything in response. While the Pentagon said something like, “And we will develop a powerful cutting-edge global anti-missile system.” So they did.
But I will answer your question directly. I can tell you what we told our American partners, what I said personally at the time.
Megyn Kelly: Just to clarify, do you mean George W. Bush?
Vladimir Putin: Who was President in 2002, 2003 and 2004?
Megyn Kelly: But did this happen continuously or just during that timeframe?
Vladimir Putin: Actually, we kept going on about it for 15 years. I said, almost literally, that we would not develop a system of anti-missile defence the way you are doing. Firstly, because it is too expensive, and we do not have the resources. And secondly, we do not know yet how it would work: you do not know, and we certainly do not either.
But, to preserve the strategic balance so that you would not be able to zero out our nuclear deterrence forces, we will develop strike systems that will be able to break your anti-missile systems.
We said this plainly and openly, without any aggression, I just told stated we would do. Nothing personal.
And the response was, “We are not doing this against you, but you do whatever you want and we will presume that it is not directed against us, not against the United States.”
Megyn Kelly: Let us talk about present day and going forward, because what you said today was that you would use these weapons if Russia or her allies come under attack. And the question is whether you meant any attack or only a nuclear attack on Russia or its allies?
Vladimir Putin: I heard you.
I would also like to say that in 2004 – I mentioned this today –I said at a news conference that we will be developing weapons and even mentioned a concrete missile system, Avangard as we call it.
It is called Avangard now, but then I simply spoke of how it would work. I openly said how it would work. We hoped that this would be heard and the US would discuss it with us and discuss cooperation. But no, it was as if they had not heard us. Strategic offensive arms reduction and an antimissile defence system are different things.
Megyn Kelly: So, you didn’t feel like you needed to disclose.
Vladimir Putin: We will be reducing the number of delivery vehicles and warheads under the New START Treaty. This means that the numbers will be reduced on both sides, but at the same time, one party, the United States, will be developing antimissile systems.
This will ultimately lead to a situation where all our nuclear missiles, Russia’s entire missile potential will be reduced to zero. This is why we have always linked this. This is how it was in the Soviet-American times; these are natural things, everyone understands this.
Megyn Kelly: But is it your contention that the 4,000 nukes that Russia now has cannot penetrate the existing military defence system?
Vladimir Putin: They can. Today they can. But you are developing your antimissile systems. Antimissiles’ range is increasing, and so is their accuracy. These weapons are being upgraded. This is why we need to respond to this appropriately, so that we are able to penetrate the system not only today but also tomorrow, when you acquire new weapons.
Megyn Kelly: That is why it would be a big deal if you really did have a nuclear-powered ICBM, which people are questioning, whether you have a usable one right now. When you said earlier that you have some that had tested positively and were excellent, you said others had not. So, for the record, right now, do you have a workable ICBM that is powered by nukes that you have tested successfully?
Vladimir Putin: Look, I did not say that the testing of some of these systems had been unsuccessful. All the tests were successful. It is just that each of these weapon systems is at a different stage of readiness. One is already on alert duty in line units. Another is in the same status. The work is proceeding on schedule with regard to some systems. We have no doubt that they will be in service, just as we had no doubt in 2004 that we would make a missile with the so-called cruise glide re-entry vehicle.
You have been referring all the time to intercontinental ballistic missiles, new missiles…
Megyn Kelly: You keep mentioning ICBMs.
Vladimir Putin: No. I am saying that we are developing just one brand of new heavy missile, which will replace a missile that we call Voyevoda, and you have dubbed it Satan. We will replace it with a new and more powerful missile. Here it is: a ballistic missile. All the other missiles are not ballistic.
Therein lies the entire meaning of this, because any antimissile defence system operates against ballistic missiles. But we have created a set of new strategic weapons that do not follow ballistic trajectories and the antimissile defence systems are powerless against them. This means that the US taxpayers’ money has been wasted.
Megyn Kelly: But again, you say that you are going to use these weapons, these nuclear-powered weapons if Russia or its allies come under attack. Any attack or only a nuclear one?
Vladimir Putin: There are two reasons why we would respond with our nuclear deterrence forces: a nuclear attack on the Russian Federation or a conventional attack on the Russian Federation, given that it jeopardises the state’s existence.
Megyn Kelly: That is consistent with the existing Russian doctrine on the use of nuclear weapons.
Vladimir Putin: Exactly, there are two possible reasons for a nuclear retaliation.
Megyn Kelly: Are you interested in new talks to extend the new strategic arms control treaty?
Vladimir Putin: The START-3 Treaty will expire soon. We are ready to continue this dialogue. What do we consider important? We agree to a reduction or to retaining current terms, to a reduction in delivery vehicles and warheads. However, today, when we are acquiring weapons that can easily breach all anti-ballistic missile systems, we no longer consider the reduction of ballistic missiles and warheads to be highly critical.
Megyn Kelly: So will these weapons be part of those discussions?
Vladimir Putin: In the context that the number of delivery vehicles and the number of warheads they can or will carry should, of course, be included in the grand total. And we will show you from a distance what this will look like.
Our military experts know how to conduct these inspections. In this sense, there are fine-tuned mechanisms and a sufficiently high level of trust. Generally, military experts are working together professionally. Politicians talk a lot, but military experts know what they are doing.
Megyn Kelly: You are a politician
Vladimir Putin: I am also an officer, and I am the Commander-in-Chief. I also served as a military intelligence officer for 17 years.
Megyn Kelly: Are you proud of that fact? Do you like the fact that you were in the KGB? Do you like people to know that?
Vladimir Putin: I do not see it from an emotional perspective. This gave me a lot of experience in the most diverse fields. I found it useful when I moved on to the civilian sector. Of course, this positive experience helped me in this sense.
Megyn Kelly: How so? How did it help?
Vladimir Putin: You know, after I left the intelligence service, I worked as Assistant Rector at St Petersburg University. I worked with people, established contacts, motivated people to act and brought them together. This is very important in the academic environment. Later, I was Deputy Mayor of St Petersburg. I assumed even greater and broader responsibility. I dealt with St Petersburg’s international ties, and that is a metropolis with a population of five million people. While working in this capacity in St Petersburg, I first met Henry Kissinger. Of course, all this helped me in my work at that time, and my additional experience later helped me in my work in Moscow.
Megyn Kelly: Do you think it gives you an advantage over your adversaries and your allies?
Vladimir Putin: It is hard for me to say. I have no other experience. The only thing I know is that my partners, including heads of state and government, are exceptional and outstanding people. They have gone through stringent selection and elimination procedures. There are no chance people at this level. And each of them has his or her own advantages.
Megyn Kelly: What about that? You have been in power for a long time here in Russia, poised to go into another term as president. You have had four American presidents come and go during that time. I am wondering if you had a favourite, if there was one you liked more than the others?
Vladimir Putin: I am sorry, but this is not a very tactful question. Each of my partners is good in their own right. In all, we had good relations with practically all of them. With Bill Clinton, though he was leaving office, we were able to work together for several months. Then with presidents Bush, Obama, and with the current President too, but to a lesser extent, of course. All of them have something to respect them for. At the same time, we can argue and disagree with each other, and it happens often, we have diverging views on many issues, even on key ones, but we nevertheless managed to maintain normal, human relations. If it were not for that, it would have been not only harder, but much worse for everyone.
Megyn Kelly: How important do you think it is to project strength as a President?
Vladimir Putin: It is important not to project strength, but to show it. It is also important how we understand power. It does not mean banging the table with a fist or yelling. I think power has several dimensions.
Firstly, one should be confident that he is doing the right thing. Secondly, he must be ready to go all the way to achieve the goals.
Megyn Kelly: I wonder this because one of the images that we see of you in the United States is without the shirt on a horse. What is that about?
Vladimir Putin: Well, I have breaks. There are your Russian colleagues, there is the internet. But we do not do this on purpose. They take the photos they like. I have lots of photos of me in the office, working with documents, but nobody is interested in them.
Megyn Kelly:(Laughs.) You are saying they like the shirtless photos?
Vladimir Putin: You know, I have seen “photos” of me riding a bear. I have not ridden a bear yet, but there are such photos already.
Megyn Kelly: Now what about you personally? Your elections are coming up in two weeks. You are 65 years old now. Most people would be slowing down a little in their lives. Do you see that for yourself at all in the future?
Vladimir Putin: First, there are many politicians around the world who are older than I am and who are still working active.
Megyn Kelly: Including in my country.
Vladimir Putin: Not only in the United States, in other countries, too. There are many such people, in Europe and everywhere in the world. But if a person assumes the highest offices, he must work as if he is doing it for the first and last day of his life.
There is the Constitution. I have never violated it and have never changed it. Of course, if voters give me the opportunity to serve another term, I will do it to the best of my ability
Megyn Kelly: Last question for tonight, it is late. Forgive me; this may be a long one. What do you see as your greatest accomplishment as president and what do you see as your biggest mistake? And what did you learn from it?
Vladimir Putin: You know, these would be very close.
Our biggest achievement is that our economy has changed radically. It has almost doubled in scale. The number of people living below the poverty line has decreased by half.
At the same time, the number of people living below the poverty line remains large, and we must work on that. We must remove the gap between people with very high and very low incomes. In this context, we have many achievements and many unresolved issues.
Back in the early 2000s, our population shrank by nearly a million people a year. Can you imagine the scale of the disaster? Almost 900,000 people. We have reversed this trend. We have even achieved a natural population increase. We have very low infant mortality, and we have reduced maternal mortality to almost zero. We have prepared and are implementing a large-scale programme of supporting mothers and children. Our life expectancy is growing at a high rate.
Much has changed in our economy. But we have not achieved our main economic goal: we have not yet changed the economic structure as we need to. We have not yet reached the required growth of labour efficiency. But we know how to do it, and I am confident that we will do it. The thing is that we had no opportunity to do this before, because until recently we did not have the macroeconomic conditions for taking specific measures in these areas.
At the beginning of our path, inflation was about 30 percent, but now it is 2.2 percent. Our gold and currency reserves are growing, and we have achieved macroeconomic stability. This offers us an opportunity to take the next step towards enhancing labour efficiency, attracting investment, including private funds, and changing the structure of our economy.
I am talking in large blocks. There are also more specific areas, such as modern technology and artificial intelligence, digitalisation, biology, medicine, genome research, and so on.
Megyn Kelly: Much more on the economy and how Russia is doing – tomorrow, and on your re-election. Thank you so much for your time. You have had a long day. I look forward to meeting up with you in Kaliningrad.
Vladimir Putin: Thank you.
* * *
Part 2, Kaliningrad, March 2, 2018
Megyn Kelly: Mr President, good to see you again.
Vladimir Putin: Good afternoon.
Megyn Kelly: So, we are here in Kaliningrad. Why is that? This is a port that, I am told, could not be more threatening to NATO, to Europe. It is a Russian military base. It is a Russian military port. It is home to some of your nukes. Are you trying to send a message?
President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Why Kaliningrad? Because I regularly visit Russian regions. This is one of these regions. This time, I came here to attend a conference of the regional media, which they decided to hold here. It was not my decision but theirs, your colleagues from the Russian regional media. I have an agreement with them that I attend such meetings once a year and meet with them, and that is why I am here today. It does not have anything to do with any external signals; it is our domestic affair.
Megyn Kelly: Understood. So, the last time we met in June, I asked you about the conclusion of our American intelligence agencies that Russia interfered in our presidential election. You told me that there was nothing specific in these reports, that if there is anything specific, you said, then there will be something to discuss. You told me, as they used to say in the KGB: addresses, houses, names. Since then, 13 Russians and three Russian-owned companies have been indicted by a special prosecutor named Robert Mueller in the United States for interfering in our election. The IRA agency, Yevgeny Prigozhin and others running a cyber warfare operation out of an office at 55 Savushkina Street, St Petersburg, Russia. Addresses, houses, names. So, can we have that discussion now?
Vladimir Putin: Of course. We not only can but I think we must discuss this issue if it keeps bothering you. But if you think that the question has been asked, I am ready to answer it.
Megyn Kelly: Why would you allow an attack like this on the United States?
Vladimir Putin: What makes you think that the Russian authorities and I gave our permission to anyone to do anything? You just named some people; I have heard about some of them, some of them I do not know, but they are just individuals, they do not represent the Russian government. Even if we suppose, though I am not 100 percent certain, that they did something during the US presidential election campaign (I simply do not know anything about it), it has nothing to do with the position of the Russian government. Nothing has changed since we spoke last time in St Petersburg. There are some names, so what? It could just as well be some Americans who while living here, interfered in your own political processes. It has not changed anything.
Megyn Kelly: But it was not Americans. It was Russians. And it was hundreds of people, a monthly budget of 2.5 billion dollars, all designed to attack the United States in a cyber warfare campaign. You are up for re-election right now. Should the Russians be concerned that you had no idea this was going on in your own home country, in your own hometown?
Vladimir Putin: You know, the world is very large and diverse. We have rather complicated relations between the United States and the Russian Federation. And some of our people have their own opinion on these relations and react accordingly at the level of the Russian Government and at the level of the Russian President. There has never been any interference in the internal political processes in the United States.
You have named some individuals and said that they are Russian. So what? Maybe, although they are Russian, they work for some American company. Maybe one of them worked for one of the candidates. I have no idea about this, these are not my problems. Do you know that, for example, after the presidential election in the US, some Ukrainian officials sent messages congratulating Hillary Clinton, even though Trump had won? Listen, what do we have to do with this?
Now, in my opinion, Mr Manafort, that is his name, he was initially accused of having something to do with Russia’s interference in the presidential election in the United States. It turned out that just the opposite was true: in fact, he had connections to Ukraine. And he had some issues with Ukraine. What do we have to do with this?
You know, we have no desire to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries. But if you are interested in talking about this, I would like to widen the scope of our discussion.
Megyn Kelly: I want to go through it. I do want to go through it. If we can do it step by step that would be more clear for the viewers who are following us. Let me ask you this: you say the Russian Federation did not order it. Do you condone these activities?
Vladimir Putin: We do not condone or order. But I say that there are internal political processes in the United States itself and there are people who wanted to achieve some result. They could have used some tools in other countries: such technologies exist. They could have sent relevant information from France, from Germany, from Asia, from Russia. What do we have to do with this?
Megyn Kelly:But it was not the Russians.
Vladimir Putin: Well, all right, Russians, but they were not state officials. Well, Russians, and so what? The are 146 million Russian people, so what?
Megyn Kelly: What have you done to satisfy yourself with that fact?
Vladimir Putin: What fact?
Megyn Kelly: What have you done to satisfy yourself that it was not Russians? You suggest maybe it was Americans, maybe it was the French. What have you done to satisfy yourself that the 13 Russian nationals who have just been indicted, those three Russian companies, including, as you pointed out, some of your close friends, were not behind this? This has caused an international incident.
Vladimir Putin: I know that they do not represent the Russian state or the Russian government. And I have no idea what they did and what they were guided by. Even if they did something, then our American colleagues should not just say something in interviews with the media but give us specific data, with proof. We are ready to consider it and talk about it. But you know what I would like to say…
Megyn Kelly: That would be great. Will you extradite them to the United States?
Vladimir Putin: Never. Just like the United States, Russia does not extradite its citizens anywhere. Have you ever extradited any of your citizens? This is my first point.
Second, I do not believe anything illegal was committed.
And, third, we have repeatedly suggested that the United States and Russia establish relations in this area and sign a corresponding interstate treaty on extraditing criminals. The United States has evaded this proposal and does not want to sign it with Russia. What are you hoping for? That we will extradite people to you whereas you will not? This is not a proper way to go about international affairs.
There is more to it. Please listen to me and take to your viewers and listeners what I am about to say. We are holding discussions with our American friends and partners, people who represent the government by the way, and when they claim that some Russians interfered in the US elections, we tell them (we did so fairly recently at a very high level): ”But you are constantly interfering in our political life.“ Would you believe it, they are not even denying it.
Do you know what they told us last time? They said, ”Yes, we do interfere, but we are entitled to do so, because we are spreading democracy, and you are not, and so you cannot do it.“ Do you think this is a civilised and modern approach to international affairs?
Yesterday, you and I talked about nuclear weapons, and that once the United States and the Soviet Union realised that they were moving towards possible mutual destruction, they agreed on rules of conduct in the security sphere given the availability of weapons of mass destruction. Let us now agree on how to behave in cyberspace, which never used to have such a big role and scope.
Megyn Kelly: Okay, so let me ask you: you have stated explicitly you believe that America interfered in Russian elections, right?
Vladimir Putin: We made a proposal to the United States, our partners back during President Obama’s watch: let us agree on how we build our relations, develop common rules acceptable for all, and adhere to them in cyberspace.
The first reaction of the Obama Administration was negative, but then, at the very end of his presidential term, they told us: ”Yes, it is interesting, let us talk about it.“ But again, everything disappeared and vanished in some swamp. Well, let us agree on this, we are all for it.
Megyn Kelly: Okay, so let me ask you: you have stated explicitly you believe that America interfered in Russian elections, right?
Vladimir Putin: The US does this all the time.
Megyn Kelly: But Russia did not interfere in America’s election?
Vladimir Putin: No, and there are no plans in Russia to do so. It is impossible. It is impossible for us.
Megyn Kelly: Why not? Why wouldn’t you?
Vladimir Putin: First, we have principles whereby we do not allow others to interfere in our domestic affairs and do not poke our noses into other people’s business. This is a principle we have. This is the first point I wanted to make.
My second point is that we do not have a comparable number of tools.
Megyn Kelly: Come on. Come on.
Vladimir Putin: No, we simply cannot do that.
Megyn Kelly: You told me just yesterday, because we were amping our missile defence systems, we have to respond in kind with increased nuclear technology. Now you want me to believe that we attacked your Russian elections and you say, we are going to take that road.
Vladimir Putin: This is not a matter of missiles. This is a completely different area.
In addition, we lack the necessary instruments.
Megyn Kelly: Cyber warfare.
Vladimir Putin: This is a completely different area of activity. It has nothing to do with cyber warfare. Russia does not have the kind of tools the US has. We do not have global media outlets comparable to CNN. You think we do? We have Russia Today, and nothing else. This is the only Russian media outlet, and even then, it was designated…
Megyn Kelly: Is that cyber tools?
Vladimir Putin: You keep interrupting me, this is impolite.
Megyn Kelly: Forgive me, sir.
Vladimir Putin: We have one media outlet, Russia Today, and even it was designated as a foreign agent so that it is unable to do its work properly. It is the only media outlet of this kind, while the US has a whole range of outlets, and immense possibilities online. The internet is yours. The United States control all the internet governance tools, all located on US territory. Do you think that a comparison can be made in any way? This is simply impossible. Let us come together and agree on the rules of conduct in cyber space. But it is the US who refuses to do so.
Megyn Kelly: David and Goliath. The Mueller indictment is very specific about what the Russians were doing. There is a specific email, a damning email that is cited therein by a female Russian who appears to have been caught red-handed. She says as follows, “We had a slight crisis here at work. The FBI busted our activity. Not a joke. So I got preoccupied with covering tracks together with the colleagues. I created all these pictures and posts and the Americans believe that it was written by their people.” And now you want to sit here and say you do not have the tools to do it? That we have the market cyber interference? This is just not true.
Vladimir Putin: I do not even understand what you are talking about. You see, this is just nonsense. The US Congress analysed the information from Russian sources that appeared online. The information coming from media outlets like Russia Today was also analysed and turned out to be one hundredth of a percent of the overall information flow in the United States, just one hundredth of a percent. Do you think that this fraction had any impact on the election? This is just nonsense, don’t you see? This is the same old business when the people who lost refuse to admit it. You see, I have commented on this on a number of occasions. It has yet to be seen what the US policy toward Russia will be like under the current administration. Many things remain unclear, since we have not yet been able to start working or to establish normal contacts.
However, it is absolutely clear that the current US President adopted a specific stance in terms of domestic policy, and decided to reach out to the people who were ready to support his campaign promises. This is what led to his victory, not any kind of outside interference. To claim otherwise makes no sense. Will anyone believe that Russia, a country located thousands of kilometres away, could use two or three Russians, as you have said, and whom I do not know, to meddle in the elections and influence their outcome? Don’t you think that it sounds ridiculous?
Megyn Kelly: Now you are talking about causation. But I am still on whether you did it. And it is not true that you do not know the individuals who were accused of conducting this. One of your good friends is actually accused of helping conduct this. His name is Yevgeny Prigozhin. Do you know him?
Vladimir Putin: I know this man, but he is not a friend of mine. This is just twisting the facts. There is such a businessman; he works in the restaurant business or something. But he is not a state official; we have nothing to do with him.
Megyn Kelly: After you heard about him being indicted, did you pick up the phone and call him?
Vladimir Putin: Certainly not.I have plenty of other things to worry about.
Megyn Kelly: He is your friend. He has been indicted.
Vladimir Putin: Did you hear what I just said? He is not my friend. I know him, but he is not a friend of mine. Was I not clear? There are many people like that. There are 146 million people in Russia. That is less than in the US, but it is still a lot.
Megyn Kelly: He is a prominent businessman.
Vladimir Putin: A prominent businessman? So what? There are many prominent people in Russia. He is not a state official, he does not work for the government; he is an individual, a businessman.
Megyn Kelly: Some people say his real job is to do your dirty work.
Vladimir Putin: Who are those people? And what dirty work? I do not do any dirty work. Everything I do is in plain view. This is your prerogative; some people in your country enjoy doing dirty work. You think we do the same. That is not true.
Megyn Kelly: It is a) the fact that you know him, you admit that. He is a prominent Russian businessman. And he is specifically accused of running this operation; b) this is the same man who has been accused of sending Russian mercenaries into Syria and they attacked a compound held by American back militia. This guy gets around.
Vladimir Putin: You know, this man could have a wide range of interests, including, for example, an interest in the Syrian fuel and energy complex. But we do not support him in any way. We do not get in his way but we do not support him either. It is his own personal initiative.
Megyn Kelly: You did not know about it?
Vladimir Putin: Well, I know that there are several companies, several Russian companies there, maybe his among others, but this has nothing to do with our policy in Syria. If he does anything there, he does not coordinate it with us; he probably coordinates it with the Syrian authorities or the Syrian businesses he works with. We do not interfere in this. Does your government interfere in every step your businesses take, especially small businesses? It is essentially a medium-sized business. So, does your president interfere in the affairs of every medium-sized US business? That is just nonsense, isn’t it?
Megyn Kelly: If the 13 Russian nationals plus three Russian companies did in fact interfere in our elections, is that okay with you?
Vladimir Putin: I do not care. I do not care at all because they do not represent the government.
Megyn Kelly: You do not care?
Vladimir Putin: Not at all. They do not represent state interests. If you are worried about anything, state it officially, send us documents proving it and explain what exactly those people are accused of. We will see if they have violated Russian laws…
Megyn Kelly: I did that.
Vladimir Putin: No, this is not true. If they violated Russian law, we will prosecute them. If they did not, there is nothing to prosecute them for in Russia. But after all, you must understand that people in Russia do not live under US law but under Russian law. This is how it is. If you want to reach an agreement with us, let us negotiate, choose the subject, make an agreement and sign it. But you refuse to do this. I am telling you for the third time: we have proposed working together on cyberspace issues. But the US refuses to work like this and instead throws 13 Russians to the media. Maybe they are not even Russians, but Ukrainians, Tatars or Jews, but with Russian citizenship, which should also be checked: maybe they have dual citizenship or a Green Card; maybe, the US paid them for this. How can you know that? I do not know either.
Megyn Kelly: I will give you one piece of evidence. Andrei Krutskikh is an advisor to the Kremlin when it comes to cyber issues. In his speech to an information security forum in February 2016, he reportedly said, quote, “I am warning you. We are on the verge of having something in the information arena which will allow us to talk to the Americans as equals.” What do you think he meant? Because it certainly sounds like a threat right before an election hack.
Vladimir Putin: Sometimes I think you are joking.
Megyn Kelly: No, I am deadly serious.
Vladimir Putin: A man says something about how he sees our contacts and our work with our foreign partners, the US in this case, in a certain area. I have no idea what he said. Ask him what he meant. Do you think I control everything?
Megyn Kelly: He is an advisor to the Kremlin on cyber.
Vladimir Putin: So what? There are 2,000 people working in the administration; do you think I control everyone? Peskov is sitting in front of me, he is my press secretary and he sometimes says things that I see on television and think, what is he talking about? Who told him to say this?
I have no idea what he said. Ask him. Do you really think I can comment on everything administration or government personnel say? I have my own work to do.
Megyn Kelly: I think when it comes to our two countries you know exactly what is going on. And this is Russia’s problem now. It is. The heads of the US intelligence agencies just testified to Congress that Russia, Russia poses the greatest threat in the world to the American security, greater than ISIS. You cannot get the sanctions lifted. The relationship between our two countries is nearly non-existent right now. Did not this interference, whether you knew or you did not know about it, backfire against Russia?
Vladimir Putin: Listen, you are exaggerating. I do not know about someone saying something and I am not going to comment on it, and neither do I follow what is going on at your Congress.
I am more interested in what is going on at the State Duma, if they have approved a bill on a healthcare or utilities issue; if they delay certain discussions or not. Is a special interest lobbying against a nature conservation, or forestry, or environmental law? This is what I am interested in. You should follow what they are discussing in Congress; I have enough on my plate without that.
Megyn Kelly: You know that the sanctions have not been lifted. You know that the relationship between our two countries is at not an all-time low but is getting there. And this is in part the reason. And so, Russian interference in the American elections is important.
Vladimir Putin: Listen, sanctions have nothing to do with the myth of some Russian interference in the US election. Sanctions are about something else entirely: the desire to halt Russia’s progress, to contain Russia. This policy of containing Russia has been pursued for decades, on and off. Now it is back. It is a misguided policy, which not only affects Russian-US relations but also US businesses because it frees up space for their competitors on our market.
You and I were at the St Petersburg Economic Forum. The largest business delegation was from the US. People want to work with us, but they are not allowed to; they are contained in order to contain Russia. They have been contained and contained so that our defence industry cannot develop, among other things. We discussed this yesterday. Did they manage to achieve anything? No, they did not: they have never managed to contain Russia and never will. It is simply, you know, an attempt with tools that…
Megyn Kelly: Can we contain Russia in cyber warfare?
Vladimir Putin: I think it is impossible to contain Russia anywhere. You need to understand this. Listen, you cannot even contain North Korea. What are you talking about? Why would you do that? Why do we have to contain, attack or cast suspicion on each other? We are offering cooperation.
Megyn Kelly: That is my question to you. That is my question to you. Why, why would you interfere in our election time and time again? And why would not you, for that matter? Let me put it to you that way. You have spent a day, every time I have seen you, in St Petersburg, in Moscow and now here in Kaliningrad, telling me that America has interfered in Russia’s electoral process and that Russia has a robust cyber warfare arsenal. And yet you want us to believe that you did not deploy it. Do you understand how implausible that seems, sir?
Vladimir Putin: That does not seem implausible to me at all, because we do not have such a goal, to interfere. We do not see what we have to gain by interfering. There is no such goal. Let us suppose this was our goal. Why, just for the sake of it? What is the goal?
Megyn Kelly: Creating chaos. That is the goal.
Vladimir Putin: Listen to me. Not long ago President Trump said something absolutely correct. He said that if Russia’s goal was to sow chaos, it has succeeded. But it is not the result of Russian interference, but your political system, the internal struggle, the disorder and division. Russia has nothing to do with it whatsoever. Get your own affairs in order first. And the way the question is framed, as I mentioned – that you can interfere anywhere because you bring democracy, but we cannot – is what causes conflicts. You have to show your partners respect, and they will respect you.
Megyn Kelly: You once said, Mr President, that you believed the interference in our election was done by some patriotic Russians. An answer like that, you understand, will lead people to ask, are you the patriotic Russian?
Vladimir Putin: I am the President of the Russian Federation. It is my constitutional duty to address a host of issues concerning the protection of Russia’s interests. When I spoke of patriotic people, I meant that you can imagine that, in the face of a deteriorating Russian-US relationship, people – and people use cyberspace – will express their points of view, their opinions, including on this global network. Of course, they are free to do so. How can we really prohibit it? But we cannot control it and, most importantly, we are not directing it. Please note that this is not the position of the Russian state.
Megyn Kelly: You cannot? The Russian intelligence services cannot find out who is doing this, bring it to your attention? You are unable to stop it?
Vladimir Putin: Perhaps if we looked into it carefully we would find those people, if they exist. But we have no such goal. We propose holding official talks and you refuse. So what do you want? For us to open investigations just because Congress said so? Let us sit down, sign an agreement on working in cyberspace and comply with it. How do you want to do it? There is no other way of conducting international affairs.
Megyn Kelly: So you have no goal to stop it. So what does that mean for our elections in 2018 and 2020? We can expect more of the same?
Vladimir Putin: I did not say that stopping it is not a goal. I said we had…
Megyn Kelly: You just said that.
Vladimir Putin: No, I did not. I said we do not interfere in our people’ private lives and cannot stop them from expressing their opinion, including on the internet. But I also said that Russia’s official position is that we do not interfere in the political processes of other countries as a state. That is the most important part. I want it to be recorded in our conversation today, for people in the US to understand this.
Megyn Kelly: And forgive me, but I am trying to get to one level below that, whether you have the goal of stopping your own citizens from behaving in this manner, which has undermined relationships between our two countries?
Vladimir Putin: I want to say that we will stand in the way of everything that violates Russian law or our international agreements. For the third or fourth time, I will say that we are ready to sign a corresponding agreement with the United States. You still refuse. Let us sit down at the negotiating table, identify what we consider important, sign the document and comply with it with proper verification.
Megyn Kelly: You are the President, sir. Respectfully, I still did not hear an answer about whether you want to crack down on the Russians who committed those crimes. It sounds like the answer is no. If I am wrong, please correct me. I understand you want a negotiation with the United States directly. But internally, you could put a stop to this if you had the desire.
Vladimir Putin: I want you to listen to me. We will counter anything that violates current Russian law. If the actions of our citizens – no matter what they are and whom they target – violate current Russian laws, we will respond. If they do not violate Russian law, we cannot respond.
Megyn Kelly With this?
Vladimir Putin: With anything. If no Russian law has been broken, no one can be held accountable.
Megyn Kelly:Will this violate Russian law?
Vladimir Putin: I must look at what they have done. Give us the materials. Nobody has given us anything.
Megyn Kelly: You know this. Hacking into the Democratic National Committee, hacking into John Podesta’s email, creating interference in our election by creating bots that spread false information on Twitter, on Facebook. Spreading this information when it comes to Black Lives Matter, when it comes to the shooting we just had in Parkland, Florida, when it comes to our presidential election. Spreading fake news in order to alter the course of the presidential race. That is what I am talking about.
Vladimir Putin: With all due respect for you personally and for the body of the people’s representatives, the US Congress – and we treat all these people with respect – I want you to really understand this. Do you have people with training in law? Of course, you do. One hundred percent. Highly educated people. We cannot even launch an investigation without cause. Our conversation today or an inquiry in the US Congress is not sufficient cause. Give us at least an official inquiry with a statement of facts, send us an official paper. After all, a conversation on air cannot be grounds for an investigation.
Megyn Kelly: The intelligence agencies in the United States, now a special prosecutor with a criminal indictment – that is not enough for you to look into it?
Vladimir Putin: Absolutely not. If you do not have legal training, I can assure you that an inquiry is required for this.
Megyn Kelly I do.
Vladimir Putin: Then you should understand that a corresponding official inquiry should be sent to the Prosecutor-General’s Office of the Russian Federation. That said, we do not even have a treaty on how to proceed. But send us something in writing at least.
Megyn KellyVladimir Putin could not order an investigation into whether this was done in a way that undermines its relations with a major partner, the United States of America?
Vladimir Putin: Give us something in writing, an official inquiry. We will look at it.
Megyn Kelly: You said that the last time and now I am back with an indictment.
Vladimir Putin: There is nothing in writing. Send an inquiry to the Prosecutor-General’s Office. It is necessary to go through official channels rather than with the help of the media and harsh words in the US Congress, levelling accusations against us that are totally unsubstantiated. Give us something in writing.
Megyn Kelly: Let me ask you this: you were President back in 2001 when the FBI arrested one of its own, Robert Hanssen, for spying for the Russian Federation. In retaliation, President George W. Bush kicked 50 illegit Russian spies out of the United States, and the Kremlin did the same, throwing 50 Americans out of the US Embassy in Moscow immediately. This is a tradition that goes back for decades. December 2016: after our intelligence agencies agreed that Russians interfered in our election President Obama expelled dozens of Russians and seized two Russian-owned properties. And yet, you did nothing, you did nothing in response. Why not?
Vladimir Putin: We believed andI still believe that there were no grounds for this whatsoever. This is the first point.
Secondly, this was done in clear violation of international law and the Vienna Convention on DiplomaticRelations. The totally groundless seizure of our property constitutes a flagrant violation of international law. We were strongly hoping for a response from the new Administration. But since none is forthcoming – and I have already said this and the Foreign Minister repeated this – we will turn to the appropriate courts of the United States to protect our interests.
Megyn Kelly: Let me ask you about President Trump. Any time he says anything about you it is supremely deferential. Never a harsh word for you. Although if you look at the ways he speaks about members of his own party, even members of his own staff, never mind of the other political leaders, he frequently personally insults them. Why do you think he is so nice to you?
Vladimir Putin: This is not about being nice to me personally, in my view. I think he is an experienced person, a businessman with very extensive experience and he understands that if you need to partner with someone, you must treat your future or current partner with respect, otherwise nothing will come of it. I think this is a purely pragmatic approach. This is my first point.
Second, even though this is his first term as President, he is a quick study, and he understands perfectly well that trading accusations or insults at our level is a road to nowhere. It would just mean depriving our countries of their last chance for dialogue, simply the last chance. This would be extremely unfortunate.
You may have noticed that I, for my part, show respect to him and all my other colleagues, not only in the United States, but also Europe and Asia.
Megyn Kelly: You may, but the truth is our President has referred to the leader of North Korea as “little rocket man.” So he is not quite as diplomatic depending on who he is talking about. I am sure you saw that, yes?
Vladimir Putin: Yes, I did. You are aware of our position on that account. We urge everyone to show restraint.
Megyn Kelly: So what do you think of President Trump?
Vladimir Putin: The question is not entirely appropriate, because President Trump’s work should be assessed by his constituents, the American people. There is one thing I would like to say: like it or not – we may dislike certain things as well – he does his best to keep the election promises that he made to the American people. So, he is consistent in this sense. I think that, in fact, this is the only proper way to show respect for the people who voted for him.
Megyn Kelly: He has praised your leadership. Is he an effective leader?
Vladimir Putin: Well, again, this is up to the American people to decide. He has strong leadership qualities, of course, because he takes responsibility when he makes decisions. To reiterate, whether some people like his decisions or not, he still goes ahead and does it. This, of course, is a sign of leadership qualities.
Megyn Kelly: Do you ever read his tweets?
Vladimir Putin: No, I do not.
Megyn Kelly: Do you ever tweet?
Vladimir Putin: No.
Megyn Kelly: Why not?
Vladimir Putin: I have other means of expressing my point of view or making decisions. Well, Donald is a more modern person.
Megyn Kelly: Would you say he is more colourful than you are?
Vladimir Putin: Maybe.
Megyn Kelly: Let me ask you one question going back to the election interference issue. There are two theories on you at least. One is that when Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State you felt that she interfered with the elections here in 2011 and 2012, inciting protests here, including against you and it made you angry. Two is when the Panama Papers were leaked showing a massive money trail that led to you and some of your associates that that was the last drop for you. Do either of those things make you angry?
Vladimir Putin: This is complete nonsense. Speaking about Hillary, I know her personally, and we generally always maintained a good dialogue every time we met. I cannot understand why at some stage… Her advisers probably suggested that she focus part of her election campaign on criticising developments in Russia. Well, it was their choice. I never took it personally. It was just their policy.
As for all those files, this is complete nonsense. They mention some of my friends. So what? As you know, this has had no effect whatsoever. This is nothing but nonsense and media chatter. I have forgotten all about it. I do not remember what it was all about. Actually, nothing of this kind can make me angry. I am guided by pragmatic considerations, not emotions.
Megyn Kelly: Since you mention it, a friend of yours was mentioned in those Panama Papers. Let me ask you about him. Sergei Roldugin. Legend has it that this guy introduced you to your ex-wife, that he is the godfather to one of your daughters. He is a cellist by trade, right?
Vladimir Putin: Yes, I know him very well. He is a friend and a wonderful musician. He has devoted his life to art and music. By the way, many artists here are also involved in business one way or another. Apart from me, Sergey also has other ties in the country, including business people who have involved him in this work. He has made his money legally. He has not made hundreds of billions [of dollars]. Everything he earned he has spent on the purchase of musical instruments abroad, which he has brought to Russia. He uses some of these instruments personally, for example the cello. He plays the cello.
Megyn Kelly: A $12 million Stradivarius.
Vladimir Putin: Yes, something like that. But it is a unique instrument.
Megyn Kelly: That is a lot of money.
Vladimir Putin: Yes, it is. He must be eccentric, but then, all artists are eccentric. To spend all this money on musical instruments. I think he bought two cellos and two violins. He plays one himself and has given the others to other musicians, who are playing them. He has brought all these instruments to Russia.
Megyn Kelly: According to the Panama Papers, this mass of series of leaked documents about offshore bank accounts, he has got assets, this cellist, of at least a $100 million, including a one-eighth stake in Russia’s biggest TV ad agency, a $6 million yacht, a stake in a truck manufacturer, a 3-percent interest in a Russian bank. He must be one heck of a musician.
Vladimir Putin: Well, I know nothing about his business, but I do know that he has only enough money to buy these musical instruments. All the rest is on paper. He does not have anything else apart from what he has bought. Maybe he does have something else, but you should ask him about it. I do not control his life.
Megyn Kelly: But the question is how a cellist makes that much money? People ask it because many people believe that is really your money.
Vladimir Putin: Listen, just look at many Russian art figures, and probably there are people like this in your country as well. After all, there are art personalities in the US, including Hollywood celebrities who either run restaurants or own some stock. Aren’t there many people like this in the US entertainment industry and art world? I am sure that there are many people of this kind, and more than in Russia. In Russia, there are also quite a few art figures who do business apart from their creative work. In fact, there are many such people, and he is just one of them. So what? The question is not whether he runs a business or not or whether he made a profit or not. The question is whether there were any violations. As far as I know, he did not commit any violations.
Megyn Kelly: That is right. There is no issue with making money. I am an American, we are capitalists. The question is whether that is really your money.
Vladimir Putin: This is not my money, that is for sure. I do not even know how much Mr Roldugin has, as I have already said. As far as I know, he has not committed any violations in his business and creative undertakings, he did not violate any Russian law or norm.
Megyn Kelly: Speaking of money, back in the 1980s and 1990s, in the wake of multiple bankruptcies, the Trump Organisation found it hard to secure loans in the United States and looked elsewhere. Mr Trump’s son, Donald Trump Jr., said that ten years ago and I quote, “Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets. We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia.” Were you aware of the degree of Russian money flowing into properties?
Vladimir Putin: This is all nonsense. There were no investments in Trump properties in Russia, as far as I know. I do not even know if there were any serious plans for making these investments.
Megyn Kelly: Come on.
Vladimir Putin: Look, you keep thinking that the whole world revolves around you. That is not the way it is.
Megyn Kelly: It is not about me. It is about what Donald Trump Jr. says.
Vladimir Putin: Do you think we know everything what Donald Trump’s son has said? You see, this is not the way things are. Donald came here to Russia when he was not even nominated. I did not even know that he had been to Russia. I learned about it only afterwards, when I was told that as it turned out he had been to Russia. By the same token, I ignore what his son said on this occasion. Did Donald Trump’s son infringe on any rules or laws? If so, charge him. If he did not, why do you keep picking on every word?
Megyn Kelly: Years ago, before Donald Trump ran for president, he said he knew you and he spoke with you a lot. Is that true?
Vladimir Putin: No, I had never met him. You mean before he became President and before he decided to run for President, right?
Megyn Kelly: Before he ran.
Vladimir Putin: No, we had not met. We never talked to each other, neither by phone or otherwise.
Megyn Kelly: You are poised to be re-elected for your fourth term as president here in Russia, right?
Vladimir Putin: We will see what the Russian voters decide.
Megyn Kelly: How does somebody like Vladimir Putin, who is as popular as you are here in Russia, feel any threat from Navalny? I realise he has got in legal trouble, but could you pardon this guy and let him mount a meaningful challenge to you?
Vladimir Putin: As for the question about whom I could work together with and whom I would not want to work together with, I can tell you in all honesty that I would like to and am ready to work with people who want Russia to become a stronger, more effective, competitive and self-reliant country. But to achieve that, the people we are talking about should have a clear plan of action designed to promote national development in today’s environment. There are people like that, including …
Megyn Kelly: But Navalny is such as man and has a fair amount of popularity here in Russia.
Vladimir Putin: Any person can be pardoned if he deserves it.
Megyn Kelly: Why don’t you?
Vladimir Putin: If he deserves it. There are no exceptions for anyone. No exceptions. But we are not talking about pardon now; we are talking about certain political forces. They do not have a development programme for the country. What do they have that is positive and what I like? That they expose problems, and this is actually good, this is the right thing to do, and it needs to be done. But this is not enough for the country’s progressive development, simply not enough. Because focusing on problems is not enough; moreover, it is even dangerous, because it can lead to destruction, while we need creation.
Megyn Kelly: Our political analysts tell me you are exactly right about your chances in the upcoming election, that you have no meaningful opponents so you will likely win. What is next after that? The Chinese President just abolished term limits. Is that something you would ever do?
Vladimir Putin: I do not think that I should talk about my political plans with you now at this meeting, in this conversation, in this interview for American television. But I think I told you yesterday, I never changed the Constitution or adjusted it to my needs, and I do not have any such plans today.
As for China, before criticising decisions in a country like China, you need to think and recall that there are 1.5 billion people living there and, after thinking about it, you need to come to the conclusion that we all are interested in China being a stable and prosperous state. How it should be done best, it is probably up to the Chinese people and the Chinese leadership.
Megyn Kelly: Can you leave power? Because some of the experts that we have spoken to have said it would be near impossible for you because someone in your position would likely either be thrown in jail by your adversaries or worse. They say it is actually sad that you will have to stay in power in order to stay well.
Vladimir Putin: What your so-called experts say is their wishful thinking. I have heard a lot of nonsense like this. Why do you think that I will necessarily be succeeded by people ready to destroy everything I have done in recent years? Maybe, on the contrary, a government will come to power determined to strengthen Russia, to create a future for it, to build a platform for development for the new generations. Why have you suddenly decided that some destroyers would arrive and wipe out whatever they can? Maybe there are people who would like this, including in the United States. But I do not think they are right, because the United States, I think, should be more interested in the other option – in Russia being a stable, prosperous and developing country, I mean if you really can look at least 25–50 years ahead.
Megyn Kelly: Have you groomed a successor? Is there anyone in mind?
Vladimir Putin: I have been thinking about this since 2000. Thinking is not a crime, but in the end, the choice will still be up to the Russian people. Whether I like or hate someone, other candidates will run for president and eventually the citizens of the Russian Federation will make the final decision.
Megyn Kelly: Let me ask you a bit about Syria. Do you believe the chemical weapon attacks in Syria are fake news?
Vladimir Putin: Of course.
Firstly, the Syrian Government destroyed its chemical weapons long ago.
Secondly, we know about the militants’ plans to simulate chemical attacks by the Syrian army.
And thirdly, all the attempts that have been made repeatedly in the recent past, and all the accusations were used to consolidate the efforts against Assad. We are aware of these goings-on, and they are not interesting. One wants to say, “Boring.”
Megyn Kelly: The bodies of dead children thanks to sarin gas attacks? That is boring?
Vladimir Putin: Are you sure that these deaths are the result of chemical attacks by the Syrian Government? I, on the contrary, blame this on the criminals and radicals, on the terrorists who are staging these crimes in order to lay the blame on President Assad.
Megyn Kelly: That is not what the United Nations has concluded. They autopsied the bodies of the dead children. Your Foreign Minister suggested it was all made up. Do you believe that?
Vladimir Putin: Of course. I am absolutely sure that it was. Because there was no serious investigation.
Megyn Kelly: There were no dead bodies?
Vladimir Putin: Maybe there were dead bodies, which is to be expected in a war. Look how they liberated Mosul: it was razed to the ground. Look how they liberated Raqqa: the dead have not yet been removed from the ruins or buried. Do you want to talk about this?
Megyn Kelly: That is what we call whataboutism. That is you pointing to somebody else’s bad behaviour to justify your wrong or that of your ally. We are talking about Assad and dead children thanks to sarin gas. Sarin gas. And you are telling an international audience it never happened?
Vladimir Putin: Look here, to be sure that this was indeed how it happened, a thorough investigation must be conducted and evidence must be gathered at the site. Nothing of this has been done. Let us do this.
Megyn Kelly: Let us do it. They wanted to investigate the helicopters and the UN wanted to go and check the helicopters that were on site. And Russia said no. Russia said no. Why?
Vladimir Putin: There was nothing of the kind. Russia did not say “No.” Russia is for a full-scale investigation. If you do not know this, I am telling you this now. It is not true that we are against an objective investigation. That is a lie. It is a lie just as the vial with the white substance that allegedly proved that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, which the CIA gave to the US Secretary of State. He later apologised, but the damage had been done, the country had been ruined. This is yet another piece of fake news, which has no substance behind it. An investigation should be conducted to gather the substance. We are in favour of such an investigation.
Megyn Kelly: Since the beginning of the year, there have been at least four chlorine-based chemical weapons attacks in Syria. Our Secretary of State Tillerson just said that Russia bears the responsibility for this given your earlier promises to reign in chemical weapons attacks in Syria. Your response?
Vladimir Putin: I will tell you that a) we have nothing to do with this, and that we demand a full-scale investigation.
As for crimes, go back to Raqqa and at least bury the dead bodies, which are still lying amid the ruins after the air strikes at residential neighbourhoods there. And investigate these attacks. This will give you something to do.
Megyn Kelly: One of the questions that our audiences have is how do we walk this back? How do we get to the place where these two great nations are less adversaries and something closer to allies, which we clearly are not right now. Do you agree we are not?
Vladimir Putin: Unfortunately, we are not. But we were not the ones who made the US our adversary. It was the US, the US Congress, who called Russia its adversary. Why did you do that? Did Russia impose sanctions on the United States? No, it was the US that imposed sanctions on us.
Megyn Kelly: You know why.
Vladimir Putin: No, I do not. Can I ask you a different question? Why did you encourage the government coup in Ukraine? Why did you do that? The US directly acknowledged spending billions of dollars to this end. This was openly acknowledged by US officials. Why do they support government coups and armed fighting in other countries? Why has the US deployed missile systems along our borders?
Listen, Russia and the US should sit down and talk it over in order to get things straight. I have the impression that this is what the current President wants, but he is prevented from doing it by some forces. But we are ready to discuss any matter, be it missile-related issues, cyberspace or counterterrorism efforts. We are ready to do it any moment. But the US should also be ready. The time will come when the political elite in the US will be pushed by public opinion to move in this direction. We will be ready the instant our partners are ready.
Megyn Kelly: Before I leave you, what do you hope your legacy will be?
Vladimir Putin: I strongly believe that my legacy would be to create a powerful development momentum for Russia, and make the country a resilient and balanced democracy that is able to benefit from the latest advances of the technology revolution. We will keep up our efforts to improve our political system and the judiciary. And I am certain that all this, taken together, would strengthen the unity of the Russian Federation and the unity of our people, and enable us to move forward with confidence for years to come.
Megyn Kelly: Mr President, thank you very much for having us here.
Five Amazing Properties Of Sunlight You've Never Heard About April 28 2022 | From: GreenMedInfo / Various Sunlight is well-known to provide us vitamin D, but did you know that it kills pain, keeps us alert at night, burns fat and more...
Our biological connection and dependence to the sun is so profound, that the very variation in human skin color from African, melanin-saturated dark skin, to the relatively melanin de-pigmented, Caucasian lighter-skin, is a byproduct of the offspring of our last common ancestor from Africa (as determined by mitochondrial DNA) migrating towards sunlight-impoverished higher latitudes, which began approximately 60,000 years ago.
In order to compensate for the lower availability of sunlight, the body rapidly adjusted, essentially requiring the removal of the natural "sunscreen" melanin from the skin, which interferes with vitamin D production; vitamin D, of course, is involved in the regulation of over 2,000 genes, and therefore is more like a hormone, without which our entire genetic infrastructure becomes destabilized.
While the health benefits of vitamin D are well-documented (GreenMedInfo.com has identified over 200 health conditions that may benefit from optimizing vitamin D levels: Vitamin D Health Benefits page, and Henry Lahore's Vitamin D Wiki has far more), the therapeutic properties of sunlight are only now being explored in greater depth by the research community.
Below are detailed five noteworthy properties of sunlight exposure:
1. Sunlight Has Pain-Killing (Analgesic) Properties:
The patients exposed to an increased intensity of sunlight experienced less perceived stress, marginally less, took 22% less analgesic medication per hour, and had 21% less pain medication costs.
2. Sunlight Burns Fat:
A 2011 study published in The Journal of Investigative Dermatology revealed a remarkable fact of metabolism: The exposure of human skin to UV light results in increased subcutaneous fat metabolism. While subcutaneous fat, unlike visceral fat, is not considered a risk factor for cardiovascular disease, it is known that a deficiency of one of sunlight's best known beneficial byproducts, vitamin D, is associated with greater visceral fat.
Also, there is a solid body of research showing that vitamin D deficiency is linked to obesity, with 9 such studies on our obesity research page.
One of them, titled "Association of plasma vitamin D levels with adiposity in Hispanic and African Americans," and which was published in the journal Anticancer Research in 2005, found that vitamin D levels were inversely associated with adiposity in Hispanics and African-Americans, including abdominal obesity.
The point? Exposure to UVB radiation, which is most abundant two hours on either side of solar noon and responsible for producing vitamin D, may be an essential strategy in burning fat, the natural way.
3. Sunlight via Solar Cycles May Directly Regulate Human Lifespan:
"In the current study we report that those persons conceived and likely born during the peaks (MAX approximately 3 years) of approximately 11-year solar cycles lived an average 1.7 years less than those conceived and likely born during non-peaks (MIN approximately 8 years).
Increased energy at solar MAX, albeit relatively a small 0.1% increase from MIN, apparently modifies the human genome/epigenome and engenders changes that predispose to various diseases, thereby shortening lifespan. It is likely that same energy increases beneficial variety in the genome which may enhance adaptability in a changing environment."
Sunlight exposure, therefore, may directly affect the length of our life, and may even accelerate genetic changes that may confer a survival advantage.
If a novel hypothesis published in 2008 in the Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine is correct, a longstanding assumption that animals are incapable of utilizing light energy directly is now called into question.
In other words, our skin may contain the equivalent of melanin "solar-panels," and it may be possible to "ingest" energy, as plants do, directly from the Sun.
Melanin has a diverse set of roles in various organisms. From the ink of the octopus, to the melanin-based protective colorings of bacteria and fungi, melanin offers protection against a variety of threats: from predators and similar biochemical threats (host defenses against invading organisms), UV light, and other chemical stresses (i.e. heavy metals and oxidizing agents). Commonly overlooked, however, is melanin's ability to convert gamma and ultraviolet radiation into metabolic energy within living systems.
Single-celled fungi, for instance, have been observed thriving within the collapsed nuclear reactor at Chernobyl, Ukraine, using gamma radiation as a source of energy. Albino fungi, without melanin, were studied to be incapable of using gamma radiation in this way, proving that gamma rays initiate a yet-unknown process of energy production within exposed melanin.
Vertebrate animals may also convert light directly into metabolic energy through the help of melanin. In a review titled, "Melanin directly converts light for vertebrate metabolic use: heuristic thoughts on birds, Icarus and dark human skin," Geoffrey Goodman and Dani Bercovich offer a thought-provoking reflection on the topic, the abstract of which is well worth reading in its entirety:
"Pigments serve many visually obvious animal functions (e.g. hair, skin, eyes, feathers, scales). One is 'melanin', unusual in an absorption across the UV-visual spectrum which is controversial. Any polymer or macro-structure of melanin monomers is 'melanin'. Its roles derive from complex structural and physical-chemical properties e.g. semiconductor, stable radical, conductor, free radical scavenger, charge-transfer.
Clinicians and researchers are well acquainted with melanin in skin and ocular pathologies and now increasingly are with internal, melanized, pathology-associated sites not obviously subject to light radiation (e.g. brain, cochlea).
At both types of sites some findings puzzle: positive and negative neuromelanin effects in Parkinsons; unexpected melanocyte action in the cochlea, in deafness; melanin reduces DNA damage, but can promote melanoma; in melanotic cells, mitochondrial number was 83% less, respiration down 30%, but development similar to normal amelanotic cells.
A little known, avian anatomical conundrum may help resolve melanin paradoxes. One of many unique adaptations to flight, the pecten, strange intra-ocular organ with unresolved function(s), is much enlarged and heavily melanized in birds fighting gravity, hypoxia, thirst and hunger during long-distance, frequently sub-zero, non-stop migration.
The pecten may help cope with energy and nutrient needs under extreme conditions, by a marginal but critical, melanin-initiated conversion of light to metabolic energy, coupled to local metabolite recycling.
Similarly in Central Africa, reduction in body hair and melanin increase may also have lead to 'photomelanometabolism' which, though small scale/ unit body area, in total may have enabled a sharply increased development of the energy-hungry cortex and enhanced human survival generally.
Animal inability to utilize light energy directly has been traditionally assumed. Melanin and the pecten may have unexpected lessons also for human physiology and medicine."
Beware Modern-Day Doublespeak April 27 2022 | From: ActivistPost / Various Top 20 Modern Doublespeak Terms To Be Aware Of.
Doublespeak is a language that is alive and well in our world today. Doublespeak can refer to terms that are euphemisms (mild expressions designed to hide harsher or more direct ones), deliberately ambiguous (expressions designed to hide the truth) or actual inversions (outright lies which state the opposite of the truth).
Although he never used the term doublespeak in his book 1984, many associate doublespeak with George Orwell. After all, it was Orwell who famously wrote that the motto of the totalitarian ruling party in 1984 was “War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength” – an example of an inversion.
Orwell did however use the term newspeak to refer to a new kind of language which drastically reduced the scope of available words and terms, so as to concurrently reduce the scope of possible free thought among the ruled population.
Many doublespeak terms in the following list are oxymorons, meaning that the term itself is contradictory. Many hide the truth because it is too raw, unpalatable, uncomfortable or outright horrifying. It is vitally important we watch our language, because it plays a great part in how we shape our world and in how we create our reality.
In many ways, by unconsciously using these terms instead of more accurate or truthful ones, we are quietly lying to ourselves, or at a minimum acquiescing to the process of being lied to and programmed. Political correctness is a great example of how language control, thought control and doublespeak can be introduced to an entire population without people realizing they are being deceived and manipulated.
Below is list of the top 20 modern Orwellian doublespeak terms, with the first half focusing on military and geopolitical terms.
Orwellian Doublespeak Terms #1: War on Terror, Terrorism, Terrorist, Enemy Combatant
The war on terror is an utterly fake and fraudulent construct. It has largely been invented and hyped to provide an excuse for the NWO (New World Order) manipulators to override things like human rights, natural law and the Constitution domestically, as well as to invade, infiltrate and overthrow other nations abroad.
The US has struggled to define the term “terror” ever since it declared the war on terror. Funnily enough, the US can’t even reach a consensus on what terrorism exactly is; so we have another nebulous war on a concept that is different to everyone. Here is the core of the FBI’s definition of terrorism, whether it be domestic or international:
"Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping;"
By its own definition, the US is the biggest terrorist in the world, since it frequently acts dangerously to human life (bombs, missiles, drones, war), kills civilians, influences foreign governments (when it is not outright overthrowing them – Iraq, Libya, Ukraine) and has been assassinating foreign governmental officials since at least 1953 via the CIA.
Politicians use the term terrorist or enemy combatant to essentially describe a foreign militia member or soldier that has been designated as the enemy and whom they want to destroy or kill. Islamic terrorism is just the latest flavor, although a better term may be Zio-Islamic terrorism, since Zionist Israel is behind the creation, funding and operation of radical Islam (or as I call it radical Zio-Islam) as well as many of the so-called “Islamic” false flag attacks like 9/11 and Paris.
The would-be word controllers have gone one step further than terrorism by adopting the term extremism. Extremism is the new terrorism, because it’s more broad and can be used to marginalize or criminalize dissidents. After all, ANYONE could be accused of being extreme in some way, right? Who is exactly in the middle of the spectrum on every single issue?
As the DHS manual in the image above states, an extremist could be a patriot, veteran, alternative media journalist, border control advocate, animal rights advocate, gun control advocate and a host of other people – just about anyone who questions the “official” version of reality. Are you an extremist?
On the other side of the coin, of course, are those mercenaries, soldiers, military men and other guns for hire who are branded as our “allies” and not our enemy. In essence, someone we are paying to do our dirty work. Those guys are not terrorists; they are freedom fighters or moderate rebels! As George Carlin said:
"Israeli terrorists are called commandos; Arab commandos are called terrorists. Contra killers are called freedom fighters; if crime fighters fight crime, and fire fighters fight fire, what do freedom fighters fight?"
Orwellian Doublespeak Term #4: Ethnic Cleansing
Ethnic cleansing is another horrific example of doublespeak. The word genocide is too direct and confrontational, so the controllers have felt the need to tone it down with the horrible choice of the word “cleansing.” Since when did mass murder have anything to do cleaning or cleansing? This is a total inversion of reality.
Orwellian Doublespeak Term #5: Enhanced Interrogation
Enhanced interrogation is a fancy way of saying something far more brutal and honest: torture. It’s another lie. In normal English, to interrogate is to ask, not to push someone face’s down in water with the intent of scaring them almost to the point of death, nor to shove food up their rectum.
Yet we know from US government documents that waterboarding, rectal feeding and a host of other atrocities were in fact performed at places like Guantanamo Bay.
Orwellian Doublespeak Term #6: Extrajudicial Killing
Just like the above 2 terms, extrajudicial killing is another attempt at adding more words and syllables to a term in the hope of hiding the raw, brutal truth behind it. We all know it means assassination. It’s another deceptive euphemism to conceal and downplay the truth. In a free, fair and open world, no one would have the right to take another’s life, let alone outside of some kind of justice process.
Orwellian Doublespeak Terms #7: Humanitarian Intervention, Responsibility to Protect (R2P)
The Rockefeller-created United Nations is the intended vehicle to usher in the One World Government of the NWO.
It is no surprise, then, that they would foster the use of doublespeak terms and policies such as humanitarian intervention (a blatant oxymoron) and the responsibility to protect (R2P).
An intervention is an invasion or pre-emptive attack, and is obviously illegal and unjust – period. There’s nothing “humanitarian” about militarily invading another sovereign nation.
The US, UK and other powers have gotten away with this kind of mass murder by controlling the narrative through the mainstream media and drumming up pretexts, such as the fake story of WMDs (Weapons of Mass Destruction) and the fake story of rescuing a nation’s people from a supposedly dangerous leader.
The latter trick seems to work almost every time.
Orwellian Doublespeak Term #8: Collateral Damage, Useless Eaters
A hallmark of these kind of military doublespeak terms is dehumanization – turning other people and other lives into something sub-human or non-human.
How often have we heard that people killed in a raid, strike, incursion, invasion or battle are just collateral damage? It sounds like a financial asset or a lowly piece of possession. Perhaps the only way hardened military men with a deadened conscience and ability to feel or empathize can function is to make their victims into things.
War criminal and big-time NWO insider Henry Kissinger is reported to have called Africans “useless eaters,” which makes sense given the fact he scripted the NSSM 200 during his time in the Nixon Administration – the official US policy of depopulation towards the 3rd world.
Orwellian Doublespeak Term #9: Eliminate, Neutralize, Depopulate
Speaking of depopulation, there are a lot of euphemistic and doublespeak terms for killing and murder. As well as to depopulate, we also hear to eliminate, to neutralize, to bump off and to take out. More dehumanization and the further attempt to sugar coat killing and make murder more palatable.
Orwellian Doublespeak Term #10: Department of Defense, Department of Homeland Security, Intelligence
Government is the seat of control, so of course we can expect its name to reflect doublespeak deception.
Isn’t it funny how nations like the US and UK (and others) have some version of the Ministry or Department of Defense, when they are usually the aggressors and invaders?
I suppose Department of Attack is not PR-friendly enough. The DHS (Department of Homeland Security) is a joke; it does nothing to make the average person more secure, but only the 1% of 1% of the controllers whom it serves. Intelligence is information about a potential enemy gained through spying, but is it really smart or wise to go around making enemies, first in your mind and then in the world?
Military intelligence is another oxymoron. Is spying real intelligence? What about emotional intelligence? The heart is bigger and more powerful than the brain …
Orwellian Doublespeak Term #11: WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction)
Why talk about WMDs (Weapons of Mass Destruction) instead of just saying, in a more straightforward manner, chemical weapons or nuclear weapons? The US has more WMDs than anyone.
The UK has a lot, too, and Israel its sitting on what some think is a 300-400 strong undeclared nuclear arsenal in the volatile Middle East. Why don’t enough people talk about the WMDs these nations hold, and either use as threats or in reality to achieve their imperialistic and terroristic goals?
Orwellian Doublespeak Term #12: Anti-Semitism
Sooner or later, all researchers exposing the worldwide conspiracy have to face the fact that Israel is a rogue nation (owned by the Rothschilds) that exerts an inordinate and disproportionate influence on the world, while committing daily genocide (sorry, “ethnic cleansing”) against the Palestinians.
We need to rise above the stigma of anti-semitism, which is clearly a term thrown around to divert attention and criticism away from Israel. It’s a cunning trick to try to equate the recipient with intolerance and to falsely paint the recipient as racist. Here’s what an Israeli official (former Israeli Minister Shulamit Aloni) said about it:
Well, it’s a trick. We always use it. When from Europe someone criticizes Israel, then we bring out the Holocaust. When in this country (USA) when they criticize Israel, they are anti-semitic … it’s very easy to blame people who criticize certain acts of the Israeli Government … that justifies everything we do to the Palestinians.
Orwellian Doublespeak Term #13: Conspiracy Theorist
"[Conspiracy theory and conspiracy theorist] are weaponized terms which represent a cunning method to discredit truthseekers, truthtellers and investigators. This diversionary scheme has worked well – people often shut down once they hear this phrase and stop thinking critically. These terms have become falsely associated, in popular culture, with madness, craziness and deluded thinking.
Of course, the corollary to the idea of so-called deluded conspiracy theories is that things just happen by chance. Thus, those who deride conspiracy theories, often with little or no investigation, can be labeled coincidence theorists. They adhere to coincidence theory which blindly believes there is no New World Order agenda; events just occur randomly."
Labeling a truthseeker or truthteller as a conspiracy theorist has been a great way to hide the truth, but is usefulness is running out.
Orwellian Doublespeak Term #14: Quantitative Easing
Ben Bernanke, former chairman of the Illuminati-owned Federal Reserve, earned the name Helicopter Ben with his suggestion that the Government throw paper currency out of a helicopter to the people below.
Quantitative easing was another intellectual and deceitful doublespeak term to hide devaluation and inflation. The basic laws of economics dictate that the mass printing of paper money (with no real growth in wealth to back it) will inevitably lead to inflation and a devaluation of the existing money in circulation.
Orwellian Doublespeak Term #15: Bulk Collection
Remember when Obama and the US Government tried to take the heat off the whole NSA surveillance scandal? They deliberately changed the widely-used term mass surveillance to bulk collection.
This was more subtle PR doublespeak, but those who closely watch the government know it was another attempt at obfuscation and denial.
Orwellian Doublespeak Term #16: Negative Cash Flow, Negative Patient Care Outcome
These 2 doublespeak terms come from George Carlin. Again, we have to ask ourselves, why are we so afraid of being honest and direct? Why can’t we call a spade a spade?
Why do we have to turn everything into a military or economic term? Are we aware that our society has militarized, weaponized and commercialized just about everything?
Orwellian Doublespeak Term #17: Reasonable Suspicion
Remember when then-NSA chief Michael Hayden tried to convince reporters and the world that there was a new benchmark in the privacy and surveillance debate. It was no longer the benchmark of probable cause as spelled out in the 4th Amendment. It was now reasonable suspicion. This is called making-it-up-as-you-go-along, and represents a clear sign that the previous benchmarks, rights and limitations upon centralized power (that our ancestors fought so hard for) are being eroded.
Orwellian Doublespeak Term #18: Climate Change Denier
Manmade global warming or AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) is another giant scam designed to bring in a world carbon tax, world currency and world government. If you aren’t with the program, you’ll be labeled a climate change denier.
The word “denier” carries inherent negative connotations with it, which is why it has been chosen to try to corral the unbelievers into the fold. Unfortunately for the NWO manipulators, there are many scientists refuting AGW and many who have seen through the propaganda and realized that the environmental movement has been hijacked.
Orwellian Doublespeak Term #19: Sustainable Development
There are so many examples of doublespeak in the hijacked environmental movement that it would be a full-time job just to list them all.
However, they can all be summarized by the dangerously deceptive term sustainable development, a catch cry of the UN and ICLEI-controlled green movement, which promises the world and cloaks its agenda of control under a green veneer. For more on this, take a close look at Agenda 21 and its newly updated cousin, Agenda 2030.
Orwellian Doublespeak Term #20: Globalism
Finally, the term globalism itself is another umbrella term of modern doublespeak. Those challenging the globe earth model assert that globalism is an attempt to trick people into unconsciously assuming the Earth is a globe.
Regardless of whether that turns out to be true or not, we can say for sure that globalism has become a cover for the growing centralization of power in the push towards a NWO World Government.
To the NWO manipulators, their doublespeak PR term globalism means free trade deals like the TTP, unfettered access to 3rd world nations to exploit new markets with no protections, and a one world army, currency and government all under their control.
Conclusion: Beware of Doublespeak
We live in a world of doublespeak. As George Carlin exposed during his performance, the Pentagon really did measure radiation in “sunshine units”! It’s important to be aware of modern doublespeak, and in most cases, consciously use alternative terms and phrasings so as to avoid the perpetuation of these lie-enabling terms.
In many ways, we create our world with language. Let us also remember the wise words of George Orwell:
"Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind."
A NZDSOS Commentary and Statement on the WHO’s Plans for a Global Pandemic Treaty.
While many are celebrating (and rightly so) in response to the easing of mandates and the relinquishing of the vaccine pass, we remain cautiously vigilant.
Don’t get me wrong, it’s important to take the time to celebrate the small concessions and enjoy the partial restoration of some liberties.
But after taking pause for few moments respite, it’s eyes to the horizon, with a view to what may come next.
While our illustrious prime minister has been singing songs of freedom from the podium of truth at the local level, there have been moves towards a greater centralisation and consolidation of authority, proceeding quietly on the global level.
For those who have been paying attention, the twin levers of pandemic management and climate change have been at the core of calls for the ceding of national sovereignty to allow for a more centrally controlled and globally coordinated response to the management of these so called “existential” threats.
The cabal are taking the piss out of the remaining sleeping masses - and their slumber will be their terminal downfall should they not wake up. Reality bites but time is now up.
Anyone who still buys their 'official narrative' is either uninformed or a duped idiot.
The latest development to emerge in the series of power-grabs, has come in the form of a call from the WHO for member states to implement a new pandemic preparedness treaty.
The progressive centralisation of authority to supra-national entities like the World Health Organization (WHO) operating through international treaties and agreements has been a consistent slow-marching phenomenon.
The global population are blissfully unaware of documents such as International Health Response (2005) which have already begun the process undermining sovereign independence in the management of health emergencies within their nation states by bringing signatories under the centralised authority of the WHO.
The WHO A Co-opted Organisation?
While it may seem entirely reasonable to wish to coordinate global efforts in pandemic management, it is important to understand the character of the organisation which has been busily establishing its authority and consolidating its power.
Unfortunately, the integrity of the WHO has been undermined over time, as industrial donors asserted their influence through of the corporate funding mechanism.
The WHO has two primary funding sources and a third that would be considered minor:
1.
Assessed contributions: These are fixed payments from member states that are scaled to the income and population of the state. These currently account for only 17% of the funding pool.
2.
Voluntary contributions: These are payments which may be made by members states, private organizations and individuals and now account for 80% of the funding pool. Voluntary funding contributions come with strings attached as they are often earmarked by their donors for “specified” purposes.
3.
The third and less significant stream of funding is simply labelled other and accounts for only 3% of the funding pool.
At beginning of the Covid-19 vaccine roll out our living rooms were animated with the surreal and tone-deaf theatrics of an arm waving purple sweatered Bill Gates.
I sure most of us were unaware that of the sway that he holds over the WHO by virtue of his donations to the organisation. His biennial donation of $4.84 billion dollars through the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation exceeds that of any member state.
In addition to this it is known that Bill Gates makes further donations through parallel organisations such as the SAGE (Strategic advisory group of experts), UNICEF, Rotary international and the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation (GAVI).
It should be no surprise that GAVI is funded by the Gates foundation in partnership with the world bank and various vaccine manufacturers.
This unprecedented platform for influence has not gone unnoticed and in a 2017 Politico was prompted to say of Bill Gates:
“He is treated liked a head of state, not only at the WHO, but also at the G20,”
In the same [DOCTOR?]article, the author went on to state:
"His sway has NGOs and academics worried. Some health advocates fear that because the Gates Foundation’s money comes from investments in big business, it could serve as a Trojan horse for corporate interests to undermine WHO’s role in setting standards and shaping health policies."
In addition to the obvious concerns about how the WHO is funded and controlled, there have been numerous direct allegations of corruption.
The WHO has been directly involved in the implementation of policies and measures which have served to protect the interests of industry while concealing and precipitating injury to human health.
Some recent examples of the failures of the World Health Organisation include:
1.
The WHO was instrumental in downplaying and suppressing the catastrophic health consequences that followed the Chernobyl disaster.
2.
In 2009 the WHO were embroiled in controversy when they assigned the H1N1 “Swine Flu” outbreak, pandemic status. This coincided with the roll-out of new vaccine manufacturing processes by big pharma. Their global marketing plans would only be viable in the event of a pandemic.
3.
The WHO’s collaboration with Purdue expanded opioid use and global addiction.
4.
The failure of the WHO to take action in the Ebola outbreak of 2013 led to the unnecessary death and suffering of thousands of people in Guinea, Liberia, Sierra Leone.
Despite the high esteem which has been afforded to the WHO by its industry and media acolytes, it has become just another corrupt privately funded organisation which is quietly accumulating the power to undermine democracy and the sovereignty of the nation state.
This is even more concerning when time is taken to understand the latitude that the WHO grants itself within its own constitution.
During the recent COVID 19 pandemic the WHO presided over delayed responses which perpetuated the spread of SARS-Cov-2 before it had been fully characterised.
It then proceeded to encourage the widespread use of lockdowns, the suppression of effective preventative and early treatments and the promotion of a range of experimental vaccines that have been proven to be neither safe nor effective.
The WHO has once again supported actions which have caused harm and violated our fundamental human rights.
To add further insult, the WHO’s own bungled response to the Covid-19 pandemic is now being used as the pre-text for further consolidation of its power through the proposed implementation of a new pandemic preparedness treaty.
The WHO is an unnecessary, compromised and failed organisation which is not fit for purpose.
It has proven itself to be at best incompetent and at worst nefarious.
Neither situation provides a tenable platform from which to demand an expansion of organisational power.
The World Health Assembly (WHA) is scheduled to meet in August this year to review progress on its working draft of the proposed treaty.
River of Filth | The Peoples Perspective
A glimpse of what went on down at the Beehive in Wellington New Zealand during the occupation that started as a convoy before the police shut it down on March the 2nd, 2022
It is anticipated that a progress report will be presented at 76th World Health Assembly in 2023.
On the current timeline, the final outcome will be submitted for consideration at the 77th World Health Assembly in 2024.
We should remain cognisant that timelines may be truncated in the name of expediency.
NZDSOS advises its supporters to share this information widely and actively voice opposition to the proposed WHO Pandemic Preparedness Treaty.
It is advised that we all get busy engaging with credible politicians, political parties, government departments and independent media outlets to verbalise our opposition and raise awareness.
The Specter of Asymptomatic Spread
In January 2020, at the very start of the pandemic, the New England Journal of Medicinepublished a letter that suggesting the possibility that covid could be spread by people who did not show any symptoms of the illness.
Germany’s public health agency, the Robert Koch Institute (RKI), later spoke with the person mentioned in the case report, who was supposedly the asymptomatic spreader, and she clarified that she did have symptoms encountering the second person mentioned in the article.
So, this case report, published in one of the world’s most prestigious medical journals, was a false alarm. But no matter, the myth of asymptomatic spread was born.
On June 8, 2020, WHO director general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus announced that asymptomatic people could transmit covid.
That same day, Maria Van Kerkhove, WHO technical lead for the covid pandemic, clarified that people who have covid without any symptoms “very rarely” transmit the disease to others.
WHO then backtracked on their original alarmist statement one day later.
Weeks later, Kerkhove was pressured by the public health establishment, including Harvard’s Global Health Institute, to backtrack on her statement that asymptomatic spread was very rare, claiming that the jury was still out.
Her original claim that asymptomatic spread was not a driver of the pandemic was correct, as is now clear. Given that no respiratory virus in history was known to spread asymptomatically, this should not have surprised anyone.
But the damage was already done. The media ran with the asymptomatic threat story. The specter of people with no symptoms being potentially dangerous - which never had any scientific basis - turned every fellow citizen into a possible threat to one’s existence.
We should notice the complete reversal that this effected in our thinking about health and illness. In the past, a person was assumed to be healthy until proven sick.
If one missed work for a prolonged period, one needed a note from a doctor establishing an illness. During covid, the criteria was reversed: we began to assume that people were sick until proven healthy. One needed a negative covid test to return to work.
It would be hard to devise a better method than the widespread myth of asymptomatic spread combined with quarantining the healthy to destroy the fabric of society and to divide us.
People who are afraid of everyone, who are locked down, who are isolated for months behind screens, are easier to control.
A society grounded on “social distancing” is a contradiction - it’s a kind of anti-society.
Consider what happened to us, consider the human goods we sacrificed to preserve bare life at all costs: friendships, holidays with family, work, visiting the sick and dying, worshipping God, burying the dead.
20th-century German medicine offers a cautionary tale that we'd do well not to forget.
In the 1930s, German medicine and German health care institutions were widely considered the most advanced in the world. However, subtle but enormously consequential shifts had been underway decades before Adolf Hitler came to power, starting with the rise of the eugenics movement in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
A metaphor from this and other influential works captured the imagination of the German medical establishment, undermining the traditional Hippocratic ethic that had governed medicine since antiquity.
Instead of serving the health of the individual patient presenting for treatment, German physicians were encouraged to be responsible for the “health” of the “social organism” - the volk - as a whole.
Instead of seeing afflicted individuals as sick and in need of compassionate medical care, German doctors became agents of a socio-political program driven by a cold and calculating utilitarian ethos.
If the social organism was construed as healthy or sick, some individuals (e.g., those with cognitive or physical disabilities) were characterized as “cancers” on the volk. And what do doctors do with cancers but eliminate them?
The first people gassed by the Nazis weren’t Jews in concentration camps (that came later), but disabled patients in psychiatric hospitals, murdered under the Third Reich’s “T4 Euthanasia Program.”
Each of these death warrants was signed by a German physician. Even after the lethal regime turned its attention to Jews and other ethnic minorities, they continued to deploy quasi-public health justifications: Recall that the Jews were routinely demonized by the Nazis as “spreaders of disease.”
If physicians serve not the needs of sick and vulnerable patients, but are agents of a social program, the German example shows us what happens when that social program is misdirected by a corrupt regime.
When the atrocities of the Nazi doctors were revealed at the postwar Nuremberg trials, the world rightly condemned the German physicians and scientists who participated.
That their actions were legal under the Nazi regime wasn’t an adequate defense; these doctors were convicted at Nuremberg for crimes against humanity.
To avoid such disasters in the future, the central principle of research ethics and medical ethics - namely, the free and informed consent of the research subject or patient - was then clearly articulated in the Nuremberg Code.
Here is the first of 10 points articulated in the Code:
"The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.
This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision.
This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject, there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment.”
This principle was further developed in the Helsinki Declaration of the World Medical Association, the Belmont Report commissioned by the U.S. government in the 1970s, and subsequently codified under the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations in the “Common Rule,” the law governing human-subjects research in the United States.
Fast forward to 2020. In the face of the novel coronavirus, and the fears generated by media propaganda, the principle of free and informed consent was once again abandoned.
The most egregious but by no means the only example was vaccine mandates enacted while the vaccines were still under emergency-use authorization, and thus by our federal government’s own definition, “experimental.”
How and why was the bulwark of 20th-century medical ethics abandoned so quickly, and with so little opposition from the medical and scientific establishment?
What were the immediate effects? What will be the long-term consequences of the shift back to a crass utilitarian ethic governing science, medicine, and public health during a pandemic?
A Jaw-Dropping 769 Athletes have Collapsed While Competing Over The Past Year – “Avg. Age of Players Suffering Cardiac Arrest is JUST 23”
Over the past year-plus, athletes across the world have been dropping like flies as they compete in games.
If they aren’t passed out cold, they are seen gripping their chests in agony, unable to breathe due to sudden cardiac events that hit in the heat of the competition.
This wave of heart issues is unprecedented, to say the least. Never before have we seen young, healthy, world-class athletes experiencing heart issues en masse like this. It has never happened, ever. Furthermore, the timing of this sweeping phenomenon could not be more relevant, coinciding perfectly with the rollout of the experimental Covid-19 vaccines.
In December nearly 300 athletes reportedly collapsed or suffered cardiac arrests after taking the COVID vaccines.
"Report Shows Nearly 300 Athletes Worldwide Collapsed or Suffered Cardiac Arrests after Taking COVID Vaccine This Year – Many Died."
But it gets worse. Thanks to a new explosive report by OAN that pegs the number of affected athletes in the hundreds.
In all, their investigation found a jaw-dropping 769 men and women who collapsed with heart issues during competition over the past year (between March 2021 and March 2022).
Most shockingly, the average age of those who experienced full-blown cardiac arrest was just 23.
Considering the timing of this never-before-seen issue in healthy athletes, and the universal push for Covid jabs, all signs point to one culprit: the experimental vaccine.
After detailing two recent high-profile cases, in which two tennis players were forced to recuse themselves from last month’s Miami Open, OAN’s Pearson Sharp reviewed their shocking investigation and asked a few pressing questions that should be answered if you are still questioning what is driving these heart issues in young individuals:
"These are just two o more than 769 athletes who have collapsed during a game on the field over the last year. From March of 2021 to March of this year. The average age of the players suffering cardiac arrest is just 23-years-old.
How many 23-year-old athletes were collapsing and suffering heart attacks before this year? Do you know any 23-year-old people who had heart attacks before now?
And these are just the ones we know about. How many have gone unreported? Nearly 800 athletes – young, fit people in the prime of life falling down on the field. In fact, 500% more soccer players in the EU are dropping dead from heart attacks than just one year ago.”
Just in case there is any lingering inclination to call this a coincidence, Sharp sets the record straight.
"Coincidence? When the Pfizer vaccine is known to cause heart inflamation? No. In fact, many doctors treating these players list their injuries and deaths as being directly caused by the vaccine…
This is not a coincidence – healthy teenagers dying after getting the Pfizer injection. Doctors warned the FDA before they released the experimental vaccine that it would ‘almost certainly cause terrible organ damage.”
The only question left is: when do we see some accountability?
This investigative report by OAN should serve, at the very least, as a catalyst to begin looking into the severe damage the vaccines have been causing, particularly in young people.
It has been obvious for a while that the jab does not even protect against the spread of Covid, yet, the fraudulent Biden Regime and Dr. Fauci recently approved a fourth dose, with a fifth likely coming very soon.
Continuing to push these vaccines with the information that is out there now (and has been for months) is beyond criminal.
For ANZAC Day: All Wars Are Bankers' Wars April 25 2022 | From: MichaelRivero / Various Sources
A very eloquent and relatively concise video discourse on how and why the title of this piece is so tragically true, followed by a very detailed article for those who wish to read more.
This really is a must see / must read piece to be aware of the real history of banking and warmongering over the last 100 years - along with the how and why such nefarious plans were implemented; and to what ends.
This exposes the same plan that is being rolled out globally, not just in the United States.
"The common enemy of all human kind are private central banks issuing the public currency as a loan at interest, and as history will show, they will do anything up to, and including global war - to keep their lock on yours and your children's economic wellbeing and productivity.
We are not a free society. Media will tell us that we are free, but we are not free.
We are slaves, our slave chains are made of paper - and that paper is the Federal Reserve note [including the central bankster issued debt-based-notes of every other country]."
Too few of our leaders have tried to stand up to this system of enslavement, usually with lethal results. But if all of the people of the world stood up at the same time and said "No more private central banks", it will come crashing down, just as slavery did, just as rule by divine right did and we will be embarking on a new era in human history where the emphasis on human development is on the people and not on the money junkies.
[Note: This does not mean we should not remember the dead, who were duped into giving their lives for lies.]
"Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin. The Bankers own the Earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create deposits, and with the flick of a pen they will create enough deposits to buy it back again.
However, take it away from them, and all the fortunes like mine will disappear, and they ought to disappear, for this world would be a happier and better world to live in. But if you wish to remain slaves of the Bankers and pay for the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create deposits."
- Sir Josiah Stamp, President of the Bank of England in the 1920s, the second richest man in Britain
All Wars Are Bankers Wars
I know many people have a great deal of difficulty comprehending just how many wars are started for no other purpose than to force private central banks onto nations, so let me share a few examples, so that you understand why the US Government is mired in so many wars against so many foreign nations. There is ample precedent for this.
The United States fought the American Revolution primarily over King George III's Currency act, which forced the colonists to conduct their business only using printed bank notes borrowed from the Bank of England at interest.
Interest Bearing bank note from the Bank of England, 1764
"The bank hath benefit of interest on all moneys which it creates out of nothing."
- William Paterson, founder of the Bank of England in 1694
King George III
After the revolution, the new United States adopted a radically different economic system in which the government issued its own value-based money, so that private banks like the Bank of England were not siphoning off the wealth of the people through interest-bearing bank notes.
"The refusal of King George 3rd to allow the colonies to operate an honest money system, which freed the ordinary man from the clutches of the money manipulators, was probably the prime cause of the revolution."
- Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father
Following the revolution, the US Government actually took steps to keep the bankers out of the new government!
"Any person holding any office or any stock in any institution in the nature of a bank for issuing or discounting bills or notes payable to bearer or order, cannot be a member of the House whilst he holds such office or stock."
- Third Congress of the United States Senate, 23rd of December, 1793, signed by the President, George Washington
But bankers are nothing if not dedicated to their schemes to acquire your wealth, and know full well how easy it is to corrupt a nation's leaders.
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
Visiting Robert Louis Stevenson April 24 2022 | From: WakeUpKiwi / RLS / Various
In early 2014 while visiting Samoa, I visited the home and burial place of Robert Louis Stevenson. RLS, as he is affectionately known, (especially on Samoa) is not just the author of Treasure Island and Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde. Search the website, and you’ll find he’s also a poet, a playwright, a Gothicist, a historian, an anthropologist, a Victorian, and a Postmodernist. In short, an outstanding modern writer, constantly experimenting.
A personal visit to the home of this man in Samoa revealed some interesting details, some of which I have been able to research into further, and others not so much. It is clear, however, that there is more going on with RLS than meets the eye at first glance.
I have been waiting more than two years to round this piece out into an article that could answer more questions that it had generated.
I have to conceed that at this point it seems we have all that we are going to be able to gain in terms of further insight on this matter. Perhaps submitting this information to a wider audience will in some way assist in flushing out further information that will help to complete the fascinating story or Robert Louis Stevenson; his charachter, his inspirations and his insights.
There is much to be read about Robert Louis Stevenson and there is a very good website that is dedicated to that very topic. Inspired by some very interesting details noted on a personal visit to the home and last resting place of the man, I felt compelled to put this piece together.
There is something to be said for spending time in the home of a person of historical note, observing their possessions, examples of their work and indeed in this case, standing in the very spot from where they transitioned from this world to the next.
To be clear, this article is in no way intended to be a sleight on the man. There are some very interesting details regarding Robert Louios Stevenson, both known and occult (secretive). All this piece intends to do is share some insights from a personal visit and perspective.
"Brother Robert Louis Stevenson in his novel “Doctor Jekyll and Mr. Hyde” portrays the paradoxical nature of humankind through his main character, who manifests both good and evil personalities.
Indeed the existence of good and evil in the world is the one of the most common themes in literature and art in general. In the Masonic Opera “The Magic Flute”, Papageno, accompanies Tamino into the chamber of reflection and is there put to test. Papageno fails these tests miserably, but surprisingly is rewarded nonetheless [xii], an obvious paradox."
Western Samoa is a beautiful tropical sovereign nation in the Northern Pacific Ocean, in the vicinity of the New Zealand dependency / protectorate states; the Cook Islands, Niue, Tokelau and Nauru.
The Robert Louis Stevenson Museum, as it is now known is actually the estate of RLS, located effectively at number 1, Robert Louis Stevenson Road, Apia, Samoa.
On January 10 1890 RLS, signed the deed of purchase for the Vailima estate. The formal driveway and exotic tropical gardens of the estate are both beautiful and timeless.
Although the driveway would have probably been gravel back in the day, today it is immaculately kept and presented with respect and pride. Surely it appears today much as it would have in the early 1900's.
Overview of RLS, Samoa and Vailima
His observations on the culture and on his experiences on his South Seas travels are to be found in the South Sea letters, published in Magazines in 1891 (and then in book form as In the South Seas in 1896). A historical account of colonial interference and conflict in Samoa was published as A Footnote to History (1892).
He also returns to Scottish history and settings with Catriona (or David Balfour) (1893) and the unfinished Weir of Hermiston (1896). Another unfinished work on which he expended much effort was St Ives (1897), a picaresque adventure with many Scottish scenes.
RLS chose Samoa because he liked the people, it was not too “civilized” and had a regular mail service (essential for his connections with agents, editors and publishers). Because of the great cost of the Vailima house and the extended family that lived there, RLS often felt under pressure to keep writing.
Despite this, his work of the 1890s continued to be of great interest and variety. “The Beach of Falesá” (1892) and The Ebb-Tide (1894) confront the results of colonisation and mark a new Realistic turn in his writing. The same setting and approach can also be seen in the form of the adventure novel, The Wrecker (1892). “The Bottle Imp” (1891) presents a Pacific-wide community as the setting for a fascinating moral fable.
While visiting the estate a number of esoteric symbols were noticeable in photographs, artwork, furniture and indeed at the burial site itself. In an attempt to decipher some of the more obscure references I contacted Jordan Maxwell and James Robert Wright, who are both well versed in Freemasonic symbolism.
James Robert Wright relayed to me that while there is definitely some esoteric symbology in play, especially on the 'circle hand painting', that he was unable to discern exactly what that particular symbology means.
Part of the reason for the delay in the publising this article is that I had been attempting to make contact with people who could identify the symbology that appears in the images I captured. I have managed to make some inroads in this regard but if any readers are able to offer further insights then that would be welcomed.
Some people have made references to potential links between RLS and the Order of the Golden Dawn but these seem difficult to verify. It is however possible that some of the very clear esoteric symbology present may be indeed related to such secret orders as Aleister Crowley's Golden Dawn and or other such secretive orders.
An early edition copy of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde
Life and Publications Summary
Robert Lewis (later: “Louis”) Balfour Stevenson was born in Edinburgh, Scotlandon 13 November 1850. His father Thomas belonged to a family of engineers who had built many of the deep-sea lighthouses around the rocky coast of Scotland. His mother, Margaret Isabella Balfour, came from a family of lawyers and church ministers. In 1857 the family moved to 17 Heriot Row, a solid, respectable house in Edinburgh’s New Town.
At the age of seventeen he enrolled at Edinburgh University to study engineering, with the aim – his father hoped – of following him in the family firm. However, he abandoned
Lemon Extract Outperforms Chemo Drugs
Why Are These 25 Carcinogens Still Being Sold?
CURRENT AFFAIRS
Homeland Security’s “Disinformation Board” Is Even More Pernicious Than It Seems
The Infowar
1. Honey
The Magical Healing Powers of Animals
The Scale of Reproducibility 
Use harmless trigger words like cloud, pork and pirates: 
The Earth’s magnetic fields are a carrier of biologically relevant information that connects all living systems.
The Year Was 1992
A Centralized World Order
