Why I Named My Website No-More-Fake-News In 2001

BreakAway3
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com
Jon Rappoport
December , 2016

This article is thanking you for your continued support.

As you know, these days mainstream news outlets are carrying out a ferocious attack against “fake news.”

They are composing lists of sites that disseminate “fake news.”

Of course, this is their attempt to find scapegoats for their own failure to predict the winner of the presidential election—the winner they supported with every ounce of strength they could muster, Hillary Clinton—who lost.

Why did Hillary lose? Because, they say, web sites published and spread negative “fake news” about her. And these sites actually got their fake news from, wait for it, Russia. That’s right. Russia.

So…mainstream outlets are floating an absurd and laughable conspiracy theory.

The mainstream emperor has no clothes, and everyone can see it.

Back in 2001, when I started nomorefakenews.com, I was 19 years into a career as a reporter, and it was clear to me that mainstream news was the dedicated purveyor of fake stories from one end of the planet to the other.

In particular, I had published a book, AIDS INC., Scandal of the Century (1988), which concluded that HIV had never been proved to be the cause of AIDS. In fact, AIDS was not one disease or syndrome. It was a fake label that had been applied to numerous conditions arising from immune-system failure; and that failure had many different causes, none of which was a virus.

Writing the book was a final crossing of the line. I was into territory no mainstream editor wanted to touch or think about.

Several reporters told me I couldn’t go back. I would never have a career in the mainstream. They weren’t paying attention. I never wanted that kind of career.

I’d already had a taste of editors assigning me stories that could write themselves and I’d felt like a sleepwalker turning them out.

Experiencing intense boredom was not my goal.

So, in 2001, when I decided to abandon my manual typewriter for a keyboard and a mouse, naming my new site was pretty much a no-brainer; nomorefakenews.com would do just fine.

I’ve never looked back.

Since then, I’ve seen mainstream reporters who were on their way up—potential stars—drop off the radar and disappear. Edged out by more photogenic competitors, they’ve gone into selling real estate and cars. I’ve watched good reporters leave their prestigious outlets and start their own online operations, because they couldn’t get “controversial” stories published or aired.

I’ve watched the see-saw tilt toward independent news and away from elite print and television outlets. I’ve watched the mainstream eat a whole lot of crow. They don’t enjoy the experience, because they believe they own the news. They believe the news is what they say it is.

So be it. They live and die by that faith—and now they’re dying.

I could claim I take no pleasure in this, but I’d be lying. I take a great deal of pleasure in it. I’m not a glazed-over New Age “humanitarian.” When the bad guys and chronic liars go down, that’s a good thing. That’s a victory.

When primped, coiffed, blown-dry elitist liars can’t punch their way out of a wet paper bag any longer, because they’re surrounded by independent reporters who are exposing them at every turn, that’s pure gold.

More and more independent reporters are realizing this. They’re realizing that their individual efforts to make the truth known are adding up to a revolution, and the revolution is a blooming success.

Who would have thunk it?

I’ll tell you who. Individual reporters and researchers.

You could say such individuals have excessive egos, but you know what? That’s a lie. All along, these reporters have known there was a chance of victory, a glint of light in the darkness. And they haven’t backed down. They’ve doubled and tripled down.

I’m one of those reporters. In case you’re interested, there are a few qualities you need to pursue this course. You need the knowledge that exposing corruption and crime is good, feels good, and it cracks the egg of passive acceptance. You want to crack that egg. This is isn’t just a duty. It’s an excitement. You wake up to it every day. You wake up with the possibility that you can find a new way to put a new crack in the egg.

People aren’t taught that, which is why I’m mentioning it. People are taught, these days, to be nicer than nice, as if somehow that will save the world. Baloney. That will save nothing. It’ll clog the bloodstream of society.

An independent reporter worth his salt goes on offense with no apology. He has nothing to apologize for.

If he feels moral outrage—and he does—he channels it into his work. He doesn’t let up.

Contrary to what, again, many people are taught, this outrage doesn’t eat you up. That’s a lie. That’s a piece of programming, mind control. That’s another New Age crock. Designed to keep people in a passive cage. No, moral outrage makes you stronger. It points the way. It carves out new space where there was no space before. It separates you from the herd of the self-absorbed who have been indoctrinated to be afraid of their own shadows.

And by the way, what we are seeing from mainstream news defenders of the crown these days is a significant amount of fear. They’re trying to lash out, but they’re trembling, because they’re trapped. Their placid front is crumbling, and underneath that, they’ve got nothing.

This is a marvel to behold.

I’m waiting for the Washington Post to report that all these “fake news” sites are getting their information piped in from dangerous ETs in the Orion Belt.

I’m ready for that one. Just last week, a few of those ETs printed out a message on my digital thermostat: “Hey, don’t blame us. We’re neutral. We like to watch. We’re peeping Toms. We don’t take sides.”

No More Fake News. Yes, that was a good name for my site in 2001, and it still is. Thank you for your support.

Read More At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
____________________________________________________________
Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

EPA just approved another toxic herbicide linked to infertility, birth defects and lung cancer in both humans and animals

Image: EPA just approved another toxic herbicide linked to infertility, birth defects and lung cancer in both humans and animals

Source: NaturalNews.com
Daniel Barker
December 7, 2016

The EPA has just approved the widespread use of a highly toxic herbicide called dicamba, a chemical which poses serious health risks to both animals and people. In doing so, the agency has turned its back on its legal obligation to assess any threat to endangered species, as well as its responsibility to protect human health.

Dicamba has been in use for years, and is an ingredient in more than 1,000 farming and gardening products. Under the EPA’s new guidelines, however, its use is expected to increase on a massive scale.

Dicamba use will increase current levels more than 20 times

The EPA approval covers the use of dicamba for spraying dicamba-resistant GMO cotton and soybean crops that were developed by (you probably already guessed it) Monsanto as an alternative to its glyphosate-resistant GM crops.

From The Daily Sheeple:

“Dicamba is part of Monsanto’s two-point plan: replace glyphosate (the main ingredient in the company’s best-selling RoundUp weed killer), as it increasingly comes under fire, and create public acceptance of the GM crops engineered to withstand dicamba.

“Monsanto’s own conservative estimates predict that dicamba use on soybeans will likely rise from around 233,000 pounds per year to 20.5 million pounds per year — and dicamba use on cotton could go from 364,000 pounds per year to 5.2 million pounds per year.”

Dicamba health risks

Like many other toxic herbicides, Dicamba can cause a range of serious negative health effects in both humans and animals. Dicamba exposure has been linked to lung cancer, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, reproductive damage, birth defects and hormonal disruption.

Monsanto would like for people to believe that dicamba represents a safer alternative to glyphosate, but it is also a highly toxic herbicide that will have an as-yet unknown impact on the environment and human health when its use is so dramatically increased.

The danger posed to other crops by dicamba

Dicamba has recently been making headlines due to crop damage caused by drift. At least 10 states have reported widespread damage to thousands of acres of “non-target” crops, and in one case, a farmer was allegedly killed over a dicamba drift incident:

“Allegedly, a farmer on the Missouri-Arkansas border applied dicamba without a permit and caused significant damage to a neighboring farmer’s soy crop. An argument bubbled over, which led the shooting death of one farmer, and the arrest of the other.”

Much of the recent drift problem was caused by illegal spraying of dicamba, and Monsanto has been highly criticized for selling its dicamba-resistant seed before the EPA approved the herbicide for use.

This resulted in widespread illegal spraying and incidents of herbicide drift – one peach farmer in Missouri lost 30,000 trees. Drift damage from dicamba also affected watermelon, tomato, rice and many other crops as well as non-dicamba-resistant strains of soybean and cotton.

Monsanto’s new dicamba-based herbicide product – designed to work with its dicamba-resistant GM soybean and cotton seeds –  is theoretically formulated to minimize drift contamination, but some are highly skeptical about its true effectiveness, while others worry that many farmers will continue illegally using the old drift-prone dicamba products.

At any rate, the EPA’s approval means that tens of millions more pounds of carcinogenic poison will be dumped yearly into our soil, water and air as the result of a money-making scheme propagated by an evil monopoly bent on owning and genetically manipulating the world’s seed supply, while destroying biodiversity and marginalizing those who would rather rely on organic farming techniques.

Monsanto wins a major victory with the help of the EPA

It sounds like the plot of an improbable Hollywood disaster film, but it’s all too real. Monsanto – after losing much of its company’s stock value and being forced to lay off a sizable portion of its workforce in recent years – seems to be rebounding with new strategies to maintain its stranglehold on global agriculture and food production.

Of course, having the EPA in its pocket hasn’t hurt Monsanto’s cause, either. In the war against food freedom and biodiversity, it appears Monsanto has just won a decisive battle.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources:

TheDailySheeple.com

BiologicalDiversity.org

EcoWatch.com

Book Review: The Imaginative Argument – A Practical Manifesto For Writers by Frank L. Cioffi

imarg

TheBreakaway
Zy Marquiez
December 7, 2016

This book is absolute dynamite.

The Imaginative Argument – A Practical Manifesto For Writers by Frank L. Cioffi is an unprecedented venture into boundless possibilities that lie on the other side of conformity for writers.

Cioffi stacks the book to the hilt with a vast amount of practical, thoughtful, yet incisive information that allows individuals to see the multitude of possibilities available in argumentation, while still leaving the reader with the versatility to focus and employ their own style in their writing repertoire.

Sourcing authors such as Orwell, Goffman, Benedict, Updike, James, Nabovok and more, the author helps the reader analyze them and view their notable writing idiosyncrasies for the strengths they were, also showing the vast range these writers employed.

The Imaginative Argument is an outside the box, or better yet, a NO-box, type of book that sets depth charges to foundations of traditionalism and strives for something imaginative, something greater, something more meaningful.

Cioffi’s skill in this book is a mixture of equal parts mad scientist and academician that employs mathematical precision merged with the range of an artist who employs the universe as its canvas.  A true perfect fusion of the left and right brain to boot.

That is very, very rare in any type of book, as usually books gravitate towards either taking a polarizing approach either being mechanical, or overly imaginative.  This is one reason why the book appeals to me.

Covered within the confines of this book are all of the major parts of constructing an essay: a solid foundational introduction, a consideration of the audience which is focused on quite a bit throughout the book, a foray into the writing process, a focus on the thesis, arguments, style, and much more.

Even provided at the end of the book are additional sample essays and writing prompts which serve to further one’s practice.

In its totality this book offers a lot of ideas for consideration in respects to writing.  Cioffi’s unique and no-holds bared approach serves to engage the reader quite saliently, also providing a veritable mixture of do’s and don’ts that are not only practical but useful.

Cioffi created an absolute masterpiece in the field of creative argumentation, and for that he should be applauded at length.

The Individual & His Future

DareToBeDIfferent!

Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com
Jon Rappoport
December 6, 2016

“It’s instructive to read what authors wrote about core values a hundred or two hundred years ago, because then you can appreciate what has happened to the culture of a nation. You can grasp the enormous influence of planned propaganda, which changes minds, builds new consensus, and exiles certain disruptive thinkers to the margins of society. You can see what has been painted over, with great intent, in order to promote tyranny that proclaims a greater good for all.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

Here I present several statements about the individual, written in 19th century America. The authors, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry David Thoreau, and James Fenimore Cooper were prominent figures. Emerson, in his time, was the most famous.

“All greatness of character is dependent on individuality. The man who has no other existence than that which he partakes in common with all around him, will never have any other than an existence of mediocrity.” James Fenimore Cooper

“The less government we have, the better, — the fewer laws, and the less confided power. The antidote to this abuse of [by] formal Government, is, the influence of private character, the growth of the Individual.” Ralph Waldo Emerson

“The former generations…sacrificed uniformly the citizen to the State. The modern mind believed that the nation existed for the individual, for the guardianship and education of every man. This idea, roughly written in revolutions and national movements, in the mind of the philosopher had far more precision; the individual is the world.” Ralph Waldo Emerson

“If a man does not keep pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music which he hears, however measured or far away.” Henry David Thoreau

“They [conformists] think society wiser than their soul, and know not that one soul, and their soul, is wiser than the whole world…Society everywhere is in conspiracy against the manhood of every one of its members….Whoso would be a man, must be a nonconformist…. Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind.” Ralph Waldo Emerson

Can you imagine, today, any of these statements gaining traction in the public mind, much less the mainstream media?

Immediately, there would be virulent pushback, on the grounds that unfettered individualism equals brutal greed, equals (hated) capitalism, equals inhumane indifference to the plight of the less fortunate, equals callous disregard for the needs of the group.

The 19th-century men who wrote those assertions would be viewed with hostile suspicion, as potential criminals, as potential “anti-government” outliers who should go on a list. They might have terrorist tendencies.

Contemporary analysis of the individual goes much further than this.

Case in point: Peter Collero, of the department of sociology, Western Oregon University, has written a book titled: The Myth of Individualism: How Social Forces Shape Our Lives:

“Most people today believe that an individual is a person with an independent and distinct identification. This, however, is a myth.”

Callero is claiming there aren’t individuals to begin with. They’re a group.

This downgrading of the individual human spirit is remarkable, but it is not the exception. There are many, many people today who would agree (without comprehending what they are talking about) that the individual does not exist. They would agree because, to take the opposite position would set them on a path toward admitting that each individual has independent power—and thus they would violate a sacred proscription of political correctness.

These are the extreme conformists Emerson was referring to a century and a half ago.

Unable to partake in anything resembling clear thought, such people salute the flag of the Collective, blithely assuming it means “whatever is best for everyone.” Such questions as “who defines ‘best’” and “who engineers this outcome” are beyond their capacity to consider. They rest their proud case in vagueness.

Without realizing it, they are tools of a program. They’re foot soldiers in a ceaseless campaign to promote collectivism (dictatorship from the top) under the guise of equality.

Let me repeat one of Emerson’s statements: “The antidote to this abuse of [by] formal Government, is, the influence of private character, the growth of the Individual.” The corollary: If there is no widespread growth of individuals and their independent thoughts, actions, and moral consciousness, if they don’t widen their horizons and spheres of influence, then in the long run what check is there on government?

Demeaning the individual is, in fact, an intentional operation designed to keep government power intact and expand its range.

Consider this question: If all opposition to overbearing, intrusive, and illegitimate government were contained in organized groups, and if there were no independent “Emersonian” individuals, what would be the outcome?

In the long term, those groups would stagnate and fail in their missions. They would be co-opted by government. Eventually, all such groups would be viewed as “special needs” cases, requiring “intervention” to “help them.”

That is a future without promise, without reason, without imagination, without life-force.

That is why the individual remains vital; above, beyond, and through any blizzard of propaganda.

“Art is individualism, and individualism is a disturbing and disintegrating force. There lies its immense value. For what it seeks is to disturb monotony of type, slavery of custom, tyranny of habit, and the reduction of man to the level of a machine.” Oscar Wilde. The Soul of Man under Socialism (1891)

Read More At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
______________________________________________________________

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.

What You Won’t Hear In The Mainstream Press: Anti-Dakota Access Pipeline Protest Site Now One Of The Largest Cities In North Dakota

Source: RTAmerica
December 6, 2016

Anti-Dakota Access Pipeline activists may have scored a big victory by blocking the pipeline’s original path, but many don’t want to leave the community they’ve built in North Dakota. The main protest camp just north of the Standing Rock Sioux reservation is a fully-functioning community with a population that makes it among the largest cities in North Dakota.

My Interview With Former CBS Star Reporter: Fake News

QuestionEverything2

Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com
Jon Rappoport
December 5, 2016

CBS is now publishing the names of sites they claim are fake news. Well, what about CBS itself?

Unless you’ve been living in a cave, you’re aware that a film, Vaxxed, has been showing in theaters across America and overseas—and audiences are stunned by its revelations.

Vaxxed exposes a huge scandal at the CDC, where a long-time researcher, William Thompson, confessed (2014) that he and colleagues committed gross fraud in a study of the MMR vaccine.

Thompson admitted the evidence showed the vaccine led to a higher risk of autism in children—but that finding was intentionally buried, and the vaccine was given a free pass.

Of course, mainstream reporters have been mercilessly attacking Vaxxed, and a segment of the population finds it impossible to believe that the CDC would ever commit this kind of fraud.

So, as a mind-changer, let me take you back to the late summer of 2009, and the Swine Flu epidemic, which was hyped to the sky by the CDC. The Agency was calling for all Americans to take the Swine Flu vaccine. Remember?

The problem was, the CDC was concealing another scandal.

At the time, star CBS investigative reporter, Sharyl Attkisson, was working on a Swine Flu story. She discovered that the CDC had secretly stopped counting cases of the illness—while, of course, continuing to warn Americans about its unchecked spread.

Understand that the CDC’s main job is counting cases and reporting the numbers.

What was the Agency up to?

Here is an excerpt from my 2014 interview with Sharyl Attkisson:

Rappoport: In 2009, you spearheaded coverage of the so-called Swine Flu pandemic. You discovered that, in the summer of 2009, the Centers for Disease Control, ignoring their federal mandate, [secretly] stopped counting Swine Flu cases in America. Yet they continued to stir up fear about the “pandemic,” without having any real measure of its impact. Wasn’t that another investigation of yours that was shut down? Wasn’t there more to find out?

Attkisson: The implications of the story were even worse than that. We discovered through our FOI efforts that before the CDC mysteriously stopped counting Swine Flu cases, they had learned that almost none of the cases they had counted as Swine Flu was, in fact, Swine Flu or any sort of flu at all! The interest in the story from one [CBS] executive was very enthusiastic. He said it was “the most original story” he’d seen on the whole Swine Flu epidemic. But others pushed to stop it [after it was published on the CBS News website] and, in the end, no [CBS television news] broadcast wanted to touch it. We aired numerous stories pumping up the idea of an epidemic, but not the one that would shed original, new light on all the hype. It was fair, accurate, legally approved and a heck of a story. With the CDC keeping the true Swine Flu stats secret, it meant that many in the public took and gave their children an experimental vaccine that may not have been necessary.

—end of interview excerpt—

——————————————————————

I’ll add a few details. It was routine for doctors all over America to send blood samples from patients they’d diagnosed with Swine Flu, or the “most likely” Swine Flu patients, to labs for testing. And overwhelmingly, those samples were coming back with the result: not Swine Flu, not any kind of flu.

That was the big secret. That’s what the CDC was hiding. That’s why they stopped reporting Swine Flu case numbers. That’s what Attkisson had discovered. That’s why she was shut down.

But it gets even worse.

Because about three weeks after Attkisson’s findings were published on the CBS News website, the CDC, obviously in a panic, decided to double down. If one lie is exposed, tell an even bigger one. A much bigger one.

Here, from a November 12, 2009, WebMD article is the CDC’s response: “Shockingly, 14 million to 34 million U.S. residents — the CDC’s best guess is 22 million — came down with H1N1 swine flu by Oct. 17 [2009].” (“22 million cases of Swine Flu in US,” by Daniel J. DeNoon).

Are your eyeballs popping? They should be.

In the summer of 2009, the CDC secretly stops counting Swine Flu cases in America, because the overwhelming percentage of lab tests from likely Swine Flu patients shows no sign of Swine Flu or…

Continue Reading At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
_____________________________________________________________

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.

Trump: What Dangers Does He Face From Globalists?

Trilateral Commission, CFR, WEF/Davos, Bilderberg

Global
Source:NomoreFakeNews.com
Jon Rappoport
December 3, 2016

As I keep emphasizing, Trump achieved two great things in his campaign for the presidency: he stopped Hillary Clinton from occupying the Oval Office, and he ran against big media, helping to further destroy its reputation.

From here on, we shall see.

How many compromises will the new president permit? How many will he seek?

To put it another way, how many covert victories will arch-Globalist David Rockefeller and his associates pile up? They are, of course, aware that Trump has promised to kick the can of Globalism down the road, stop the excesses of “free trade,” and bring stolen jobs back to America. What actions will they take against Trump?

Here’s a lesson from the past, about a president who put a brief dent in David Rockefeller’s master-plan. Let’s look at Richard Nixon and a different version of Watergate, the scandal that toppled him.

On the mega-corporate front, the plan for world control remains the Rockefeller template. “Free trade.” This plan was advanced, ceaselessly, for 40 years until, on January 1, 1995, the World Trade Organization was fully formed and took charge of criminal rules of global commerce: the crowning moment for global corporate predators. No more tariffs.

However, back in the early 1970s, the whole operation had almost been derailed. One man, a crook, a president, a liar, an insecure parody of a head of state, Richard Nixon, went off script. He REALLY went off script.

In an effort to bolster US companies and protect them from foreign competition, Nixon began erecting tariffs on a range of goods imported into the US.

If this Nixon economic plan spread to other countries, the entire global program to install “free trade” and mega-corporate emperors on their thrones for a thousand years could crash and burn.

Nixon was a Rockefeller man. He was owned by them. He’d been rescued from financial ruin by The Family, and now he was in the White House undermining their greatest dream. You can’t overstate the degree of the betrayal, from the Rockefeller point of view. You simply can’t.

Something had to be done. The president had to go. This was the real motivation behind Watergate. This was the real op. Yes, there were sub-motives and smaller contexts, but the prime move was: get Free Trade back on track; get suitable revenge on the puppet in the White House who went off the script.

Whether the Watergate break-in was planned to serve the higher goal or was pounced upon after the fact, as a grand opportunity, is beside the point. It was there, and it was used. It became the starting point for the Washington Post, its publisher, veteran editor, and two cub reporters to break Richard Nixon into pieces.

And if the Rockefeller people needed an inside man to report on the deteriorating mental state of the president as he heated up in the pressure cooker, they had Henry Kissinger, who was another Rockefeller operative.

The Washington Post was owned by Katharine Graham, who was a very close friend of the Rockefeller family. Years later, she would be awarded a medal of honor by the University of Chicago, an institution founded by John D. Rockefeller. On her death, a paid heartfelt obituary was inserted in the NY Times by the trustees, faculty, and staff of Rockefeller University, where she had served on the University Council.

And she and Nixon already hated each other by the early 1970s.

The managing editor of the Washington Post, Ben Bradlee, was an old hand at writing promotional material, having worked in Europe crafting releases for a CIA front group. A former Naval intelligence man, he liked one of his cub reporters, Bob Woodward, who had also worked for the Navy in intelligence.

When Woodward came to Bradlee with a story about a man in a parking garage who was passing secrets from the White House/FBI about Watergate, we are supposed to believe that Bradlee naturally responded by giving the green light to a major investigation. Woodward and Carl Bernstein, another cub, would undertake it—with nothing more than Bradlee’s reputation and the future survival of the Post and Katharine Graham’s empire on the line if the cubs got it wrong.

We are supposed to believe Bradlee gave the green light, without knowing who the man in the garage was, without knowing whether Woodward could be trusted, without even getting permission from Graham to move ahead.

Bradlee, a grizzled veteran of Washington, understanding exactly what Washington could do to people who told secrets out of school, just said to Woodward and Bernstein, “You’d better be damned sure you’re right, because otherwise we’re all in trouble.”

Two untested cub reporters set loose in a cage with tigers.

The odds of that happening were nil.

Bradlee had to know a great deal from the beginning, and he had to have Katharine Graham’s signal to move. The series of breaking stories would be spoon-fed to the unsuspecting young reporters, instead of veteran reporters who would become suspicious that they were being used. The cubs would be consumed by their ambition to advance their careers.

Bradlee was confident in the whole op because he had the essentials of the Watergate scandal in hand—all the way up to Nixon, the target—well in advance of his two young reporters.

To have proceeded otherwise—Bradlee was simply not that kind of fool. Whatever Deep Throat, the man in the garage, was dishing out to Woodward didn’t really matter. Bradlee already had it in his pocket. Deep Throat was merely a contrivance to allow the story to expand and grow by steps, and to permit Woodward and Bernstein to believe they were peeling layers from an onion.

The man behind the curtain was David Rockefeller.

After the whole scandal had been exposed and Nixon had flown away, in disgrace, from the White House for the last time, Rockefeller addressed a meeting of the Chamber of Commerce of the European Community (October 1975). He was there to allay their fears about Nixon’s betrayal of the new economic world order. There was really very little he needed to say. David had already created (1973) the elite free-trade Trilateral Commission; a new puppet, Gerald Ford, was in the White House; and Ford had appointed David’s brother, Nelson Rockefeller, as his vice president.

David told the European attendees, “Fortunately, there are no signs that these anti-[free] trade measures [of Nixon] are supported by the [Ford] Administration.”

And that was that. The global mega-corporate colossus was back on track.

The temporary rip in the Matrix had been repaired.

On a far lower level of power politics, everyone and his brother was consumed with the contrails of the scandal that had driven away Nixon and his colleagues. People were congratulating each other on expunging a corrupt conspiracy from public life.

The real players, of course, were still in place, more powerful than ever. David Rockefeller and his aides were preparing for an even greater coup. They had chosen an obscure man with zero name recognition to be the next president of the United States. Jimmy Carter. Carter would function to forward the goals of the Trilateral Commission in bold view of anyone who knew the score.

And every president since Carter, regardless of party affiliation, has supported and extended those Globalist-corporate goals. No questions asked. Obama, who fatuously remarked during his 2008 election campaign that NAFTA “needs to be revisited,” has taken his cues like any other puppet.

When, from this perspective, you examine…

Continue Reading At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________________________
Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.

…And Guess Who Else Wants To Go To Mars?

Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell
December 5, 2016

To say that news lately has been a very strange mix of events would be putting it mildly, and in that vein we’ve seen the strange Antarctica stories, the Turkish invasion of Syria, heated phone calls between Mr. Putin and Mr. Erdogan, and the strange UFO flap over Turkey as the latter were going on.

There’s another story that emerged during this period, of a more mundane but not necessarily purely terrestrial nature.   Regular readers here are well aware of the stories – first a drip and now a steady trickle – about the privatization and commercialization of space, as there has been a steady flow of stories about asteroid mining and how to do it; about permanent, and large, manned space stations not just in low Earth orbit, but in far Earth orbit at the equigravisphere between the Earth and the Moon; about manned human missions to the Moon and Mars and about the permanent human colonization of the same(see, for example, this recent offering from Popular Science: How The First Private Landing On The Moon Could Move Humanity Forward A conversation with the founder of Moon Expressshared by Mr. R.M.); there have even been stories about the planning being done for government structures for those projects; there have been stories about the major powers beefing up their space war waging capabilities. All of these various stories we have covered  and blogged about here.

But guess who else – what other company wants to go to Mars?

Surprise, surprise, it’s Lockheed-Martin, according to this story shared once again by Mr. R.M.:

Lockheed Martin Wants To Send Humans To Mars In 12 Years Orbiting laboratory could pave the way for a landing party

Now, the interesting thing here is the “using existing publicly-known technologies” angle of the story, it’s possible to place six astronauts – still just a life-boat by all measures, but a veritable ocean liner compared to the two and three man capsules we were dealing with in the 1960s and 1970s – in orbit around Mars to conduct close-up manned orbital exploration of the Red Planet, and to coordinate from close range remote robotic surface explorations, without those pesky twenty or so minutes communications delays from Mars to Earth and back again:

You won’t find any suspended animation pods or magnetic shields on Lockheed’s spacecraft. As cool as those might be, Mars Base Camp relies on near-term technologies–equipment that’s already been proven or is in development now.

“All of these pieces exist today, they’re not brand new,” says Antonelli. “We’re taking advantage of what we’ve already got.”

Orion provides the brain of the vessel, providing navigation and communications. There’s also a backup Orion vehicle to ensure a getaway plan if the crew runs into trouble.

The two Orion capsules would link up with larger habitat and laboratory modules, which Lockheed is already in the process of developing, as well as solar panels to provide power.

The rationale here is self-evident:

Without the delay, and with real-time feedback, scientists can stop to look at features that they might have missed otherwise. Plus, the use of flying robots would allow NASA to explore Mars in a whole new way.

Needless to say, I’m more than somewhat skeptical of this story. It was Richard C. Hoagland and his co-author Mike Bara who, in their best-selling book Dark Mission, pointed out that NASA was chartered under the U.S. Department of Defense. In other words, in spite of its billing as a civilian agency, NASA was firmly placed within the orbit – to coin a pun – of the military-industrial complex of the USA. One can appreciate the reasons: at that time there was concern, enunciated in the Brookings Report on space matters, that we might encounter someone, or their (technological) artifacts out there, and hence, that the whole issue of space faring involved national security in a major way.

The point to draw from this is the close association of NASA with the Defense Department and therewith with the whole military-industrial-finance-intelligence complex. The same pattern we may be assured, holds true in all other nations with major space programs: Europe, Japan, Brazil, Russia, India, and China.

Segue from this association to the hearings during the G.W. Bush administration, where Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and his assistants were being grilled by Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney(D- GA.) not only on the Pentagon’s budget procedures, but on the fact that the Pentagon’s data processing contracts were almost exclusively in the hands of corporations like Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, and so on. In other words, the government was not processing its data, defense contractors were.

Move this pattern that Congresswoman McKinney attempted to penetrate into space, and we see the problem: what control over any collected data will the government have when the major systems for the manned exploration of Mars are largely in the hands of private corporation, especially so if the database management itself is in their hands? If the record of NASA Mars missions(or for that matter, even Moon missions) is recalled, there have been numerous controversies over the years of debates over NASA photos of those planets’ surfaces, and controversies over whether or not NASA released undoctored pictures or attempted to embargo them altogether. Many of the same defense companies were involved in…

Continue Reading At: GizaDeathStar.com
_____________________________________________________________

Profile photo of Joseph P. Farrell

About Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.

Galactic Control, Science Fiction & The Individual

BreakAway3

Source:NoMoreFakeNews.com
Jon Rappoport
November 30, 2016

I cannot tell you how many times I have seen individuals achieve success through their own efforts, their own determination, their own commitment, their own intelligence, their own creative power—only to turn around and say:

“From my new position, my new point of view, I see what all of us together should do to usher in a better world…”

And in that superficially agreeable statement, they are implicitly denying the right to other individuals to achieve their own success.

They are slamming the door shut.

They are—having climbed the mountain—denying the mountain to others.

And with that brief introduction, here we go—

“Try looking at the world as a giant three-volume science fiction novel. Organizations of stupefying complexity rule the scene. There is an upside to this. You can gain a much deeper understanding of the archetype of the Rebel against the system.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

“What’s that you said? ‘We gave away our power?’ We? What ‘we’ is that? Did I miss a big meeting in the desert where we all got together and gave it away? Who are you anyway? A PR man for the Syndicate? There is no ‘we.’ Not until there’s an ‘I.’ Didn’t you learn that in Depro 101? Search this man. He’s either a dupe or an agent.” (Colossus Fortune, Jon Rappoport)

I’ve been chipping away and drilling the rock of Globalism for some years now.

Medically caused death and destruction. Toxic drugs. Toxic vaccines. Genetically modified food plants and their poisonous pesticides. International trade treaties. Manufactured unemployment. The pseudoscience of psychiatry. Political and media dupes. The art of group propaganda. Indoctrination and lowered IQ through education. Television mind control. Banking. Wall Street. Technocracy. And dozens more subjects.

The carrier of the Globalist world was chosen at the end of World War 2. It already existed, of course. But now it was seen as the prime instrument:

The mega-corporation.

Control of land, resources, labor. No other type of organization would be as efficient at mounting this operation.

Wars for the corporation. Population control for the corporation. Judiciaries for the corporation.

Language for the corporation. Streamlined stripped-down language for minds wedded to the corporation. Reduced minds.

And hundreds of millions, even billions of people stimulated and programmed to return to old fundamentalist religious and ethnic ideologies. If that wasn’t enough, syrupy New Age religions entered the scene.

Back far enough away from this Globalist world, and you’re looking at science fiction made real.

Philip K Dick: “Because today we live in a society in which spurious realities are manufactured by the media, by governments, by big corporations, by religious groups, political groups…So I ask, in my writing, What is real? Because unceasingly we are bombarded with pseudo-realities manufactured by very sophisticated people using very sophisticated electronic mechanisms…it is an astonishing power: that of creating whole universes, universes of the mind. I ought to know. I do the same thing.”

In this Globalist world, the individual is considered to be a cipher, a person without status or meaning. It is the mass, the group that counts.

The notion that the individual, within himself, has the power to affect the course of events seems absurd.

Yet it is exactly this juxtaposition that can give birth to extraordinary and unforeseen possibilities. The juxtaposition of: the rebel against the colossus.

The journey to discover one’s own authentic power is what is called for.

In 1974, Frank Herbert, the author of Dune, wrote this: “The current utopian ideal being touted by people as politically diverse (on the surface, but not underneath) as President Richard M. Nixon and Senator Edward M. Kennedy goes as follows — no deeds of passion allowed, no geniuses, no criminals, no imaginative creators of the new. Satisfaction may be gained only in carefully limited social interactions, in living off the great works of the past. There must be limits to any excitement. Drug yourself into a placid ‘norm.’ Moderation is the key word…”

The “utopian ideal” is sameness. It is promoted. It is propagandized. It is bought and sold. Therefore, underneath that illusion, what lives? That is the question. What exists below and behind this enormous sales pitch?

The individual and his power.

This is dormant force that, even at this late date in history, remains to be explored.

Part of that exploration is weeding out and disposing of cynical philosophical exploitations such as: “all power is evil.”

“All power=corruption.”

Power is not inherently the same thing as crime. Power is not the same thing as rule by force. Power is not the same thing as control of populations.

Not when you’re talking about the voyage of the individual as he discovers what is within himself.

I keep saying that, and I’ll keep on saying it.

See the planet as a “galactic” syndicate and you begin to see the real terms of the situation. The individual has been edged out, marginalized, co-opted into the structure whenever possible. The individual has been left in the darkness, as if he is a vestigial and extinct prop from an earlier period on the evolutionary tree.

Good. So be it.

It clarifies things.

The utopian ideal of Globalism is not only an illusion and a deception, it’s an impossibility—which is to say, all projections of a uniform society based on a group-outcome, in which we agree on an image of what we strive for…there is no freedom in that. There is no actual harmony in that. There is no passion in that.

The society to hope for and work for is an open one. And that means individuals, self-empowered, imagine and independently invent their greatest multiple futures and realities simultaneously.

And for that to happen, individuals have to discover what their own power is.

And then there can be authentic cooperation and community.

Let me put it this way. The Globalists are painting a gigantic mural, which they call Reality. They want us to look at it, be hypnotized by it, and walk into it, to take up residence there.

The notion that we can reject this mural and instead paint ONE NEW ONE together…is completely absurd.

That would be just another substitute, another version of slavery—in this case, self-imposed.

Freedom is not uniformity. It never was.

The overthrow of the machine of control eventually comes back to this: how many individuals are awake and alive to their own power, their own power to invent the future they most profoundly desire?

Why expend enormous amounts of energy if…

Continue Reading At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
_____________________________________________________________

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

CERN Death Star: Final Apotheosis – Dr. Joseph P. Farrell PhD Interviewed By DarkJournalist

Source: DarkJournalist
Daniel Liszt
December 1, 2016

The Ancient and Future Death Star

Prepare for a fantastic exploration of the antediluvian past and the looming, ominous high tech future as Dark Journalist Daniel Liszt invites Oxford Scholar Dr. Joseph Farrell back for his most important interview to date.Together in this part one of three episodes. they examine the unusual links between the obscure ancient technology that Farrell has researched in his Giza Death Star books and explore the connections it has with the futuristic dimensional doorway that the mysterious scientific organization CERN has created under the auspices of its controversial Hadron Collider experiments.

The Great Pyramid

Farrell theorizes that the Great Pyramid is much older than recorded history and was originally set up as a kind of super-advanced cosmological defense system with the power to wreak havoc on Earth and in the Cosmos through a highly complex series of resonances networked inside the structure. It’s an undeniable reality that over the last century hundreds of researchers, physicists, geologists and archaeologists have examined and noted the highly unusual and amazingly accurate mathematical patterns in the layout and construction of this marvel of the ancient world. These patterns suggest a sophisticated knowledge of astronomy, Earth science, geology and geometry that was certainly not available to early Egyptian civilization according to mainstream academics, raising the possibility that the true builders of the Great Pyramid were a forgotten technological civilization that was wiped out of existence in the distant past.

CERN

Farrell sees the CERN organization in Geneva, Switzerland as shrouded in mystery and finds that its most well-known project, the Hadron Super Collider ostensibly set up to unlock the ‘Higgs Boson’ or ‘God Particle’ by the use of a particle physics experiment, is actually a public cover for a far different activity to covertly deploy a dimensional doorway accessing super weapon for the 21st century that would rival its counterpart the Giza Death Star.

CERN has been mired in controversy since moving forward with its particle collider experiments over the objections of distinguished scientists who have observed unusual changes in the Earth’s magnetosphere when the collider is turned on. Some of these independent scientists have warned the public that hazardous by-products of the experiments called ’Strangelets’ pose a serious potential danger for the public at large and may damage the environment for centuries to come. CERN has also been accused of organizing occult rituals and being highly secretive during its scientific research with a public and private purpose for its vastly complex work. Attempts to sue CERN for its practices have fallen flat due to its unusual status as a ‘sovereign entity.’

Here’s Why “Fake News” Sites Are Dangerous

BreakAway3
Source:NoMoreFakeNews.com
Jon Rappoport
November 27, 2016

Here is your daily mantra: “narrow the range of thought, narrow the range of thought.”

Exposing elites who run the world?

Exposing pedophile networks?

Documenting the lies and fabrications of major media?

Laying bare the manipulations of Globalists?

Revealing the crimes of both major political parties in America?

Uncovering the spread of pharmaceutical devastation?

Tracking the ruthless ops of major corporations?

Yes, many so-called “fake news” sites do all this and much more—but something else is also going on.

Many of these sites were launched and are spearheaded by ONE man or woman.

No person outside the mainstream is supposed to be so emboldened by his/her own point of view and passion.

“All points of view belong to a group.”

We’re not supposed to believe these “fake news” INDIVIDUALS created their news operations on their own. We’re not supposed to believe each individual had a vision of what the news is supposed to be and followed that vision forward with great energy.

An individual works for what he believes is true? He keeps his own counsel? He forges ahead, despite all opposition? He may even, when all is said and done, make a profit from his own labors? We’re supposed to oppose these “evils,” and by the grace of governments and their shadow operators, we will emerge from the darkness and find our salvation in a New Order of things.

***And never—if you happen to disagree with what some independent news site is saying—NEVER entertain the idea of starting YOUR OWN news operation and building it from the ground up to reflect YOUR OWN vision. NEVER. That is individual power, which is the horrible fate that would await you.

DOING IT ON YOUR OWN?

Avoid it like the plague.

Haven’t you studied your history? This country was originally built on chipping away at people’s individual creations and tearing them down. Right? How else could America have succeeded? It is only by taking away independence in all its forms that we could have arrived at the cusp of this grand triumph now: One Collectivist World.

If we give all our attention to the six corporations that own big media and deliver their news to us, we will arrive.

Hail, Caesar! Your followers salute you!

Let the bands play. March to the tune.

No individual ever built anything, no individual can build anything, no individual ever will build anything.

Continue Reading At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
________________________________________________________________

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.

Catherine Austin Fitts – 2017 Destruction Of The Old Creation Of The New

Source: USAWatchdog.com
Greg Hunter
November 28, 2016

Investment advisor Catherine Austin Fitts says, “We are so overdue for a 25% correction. . . . I think 2017 is going to be a composting. In the destruction of the old, let there be the creation of the new. We’re going to be creating the new, and we’re going to be destroying the old. It’s going to be quirky. There are going to be all kinds of black swans that could hit us. So, do I think we are going to have a major correction and lots of digestive problems? Yes, I do. Now, if the new administration gets what it wants by getting tax rates down and bringing capital back into the country, then there is going to be a very exciting future and a very exciting pathway for North America.”

On gold and silver, Fitts contends, “I think we are in a long-term bull market for gold, but I don’t think the consolidation is over. I was hoping the consolidation was over given how it was trading in the first three quarters, but given how it is trading now, it looks like the consolidation may not be over. The reality is gold is a number of things. In Asia, it’s real money. I think as long as Asia is converging with per capita income, gold is going to have a floor under it, and silver too.

Join Greg Hunter as he goes One-on-One with Catherine Austin Fitts, Publisher of the Solari Report found on Solari.com.

Bombshell: David Gergen’s Elite Connections, His Attempt To Stop Trump

QuestionEverything2

Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com
Jon Rappoport
November 27, 2016

Yes, he works for CNN. He’s operated as “White House advisor” to four presidents: Ford, Nixon, Reagan, and Clinton. That should give you pause.

Why?

Because Washington insider David Gergen, currently a CNN political commentator, is also a member of the executive committee of the Trilateral Commission (TC) (see here, here, and here). The TC is one of the most powerful elite groups on the planet. Founded by David Rockefeller in 1973, the TC has been making domestic and foreign policy for America since the Jimmy Carter administration.

Before we get to the significance of Gergen’s TC ties, here is a sprinkling of critical statements about Donald Trump that Gergen made during the presidential race:

“Whatever chance Donald Trump still had of capturing the White House largely evaporated Sunday night in his second debate with Hillary Clinton.” (here)

“Donald Trump’s behavior on stage Thursday night and in the days that have followed strike many as unfathomable: How can anyone act so arrogantly and meanly in public life?” (here)

“[Donald Trump made the 2016 election a] ‘national joke’ [when he guested on The Dr. Oz Show to say he was in good health].” (here)

“[Trump delivered a] ‘slanderous speech’ [against Hillary Clinton, saying she should go to jail].” (here)

“Donald Trump is a walking example of someone who’s dismissive of women. Can you imagine what it’s like for him to think that he might be beaten by a woman? Serves him right.”

David Gergen never writes in depth about his own membership in the elite Rockefeller Trilateral Commission. The TC a) is a Globalist juggernaut, and b) Donald Trump’s attack on Globalism, its trade treaties, and its wholesale theft of US jobs, is in direct opposition to the Trilateral Commission’s aims.

A simple conflict-of-interest statement from Gergen would do. Something like this:

“Hi, I’m David Gergen, and I’m a member of an elite group determined to create a new international economic order. We favor the eventual eradication of national borders and the ascendance of transnational corporations and banks as the captains of the world. Therefore, I’m ideologically opposed to what that son of a bitch Donald Trump stands for.”

Then we’d know.

Here are two key Trilateral Commission quotes that reflect its global outlook:

“The nation state as a fundamental unit of man’s organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force: International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation-state.” — Zbigniew Brzezinski, co-founder of the Trilateral Commission.

Any doubt on the question of Trilateral Commission goals is answered by David Rockefeller himself, the founder of the TC, in his Memoirs (2003):

“Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure—one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”

The Trans-Pacific Partnership Treaty (TPP), a Globalist nightmare, is now under consideration. Trump has vowed to stop it as soon as he takes office. David Gergen, of course, as a member of the Trilateral Commission, favors it.

Gergen: “The [Obama] administration’s increasing focus on Asia is a welcome move, but it too has gone less well than expected…the famous ‘pivot’ will depend upon completion of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the most important trade agreement in decades. To its credit, the administration has aggressively pursued the deal but to little avail.”

Again, why doesn’t Gergen discuss his Trilateral membership in depth? Obviously, because it would fatally compromise his position as a journalist.

In order to avoid disseminating more fake news, CNN—already a Niagara of fake news—ought to introduce Gergen this way, every time he’s prepared to comment on Trump, the TPP, or Globalism:

“And now, remarks on the new president from our resident insider, David Gergen. David is a veteran member of the little-known but very powerful Trilateral Commission. He sits on its executive committee. The Trilateral Commission, founded by none other than David Rockefeller, favors eradication of national boundaries, a new international economic order, and Globalist trade treaties which of course give mega-corporations and banks control of the planet’s future. President-elect Trump opposes all this. David? What do you have for us today?”

“Well, when you put it that way…”

“Thank you, David. Talk to you again next week. We’ll be right back after the break.”

Going all the way back to 1978, here is the essence of an astonishing interview with two Trilateral Commission members about who was setting US domestic and foreign policy in Jimmy Carter’s administration.

The interview was conducted by reporter Jeremiah Novak. He was speaking with two American members of the Trilateral Commission:

NOVAK (reporter): Yes, but why doesn’t President Carter come out with it and tell the American people that [US] economic and political power is being coordinated by a [Trilateral Commission] committee made up of Henry Owen and six others? After all, if [US] policy is being made on a multinational level [by the Trilateral Commission], the people should know.

RICHARD COOPER [Trilateral Commission member]: President Carter and Secretary of State Vance have constantly alluded to this in their speeches.

KARL KAISER [Trilateral Commission member]: It just hasn’t become an issue.

Source: “Trilateralism: The Trilateral Commission and Elite Planning for World Management,” ed. by Holly Sklar, 1980. South End Press, Boston. Pages 192-3.

It didn’t become an issue because major media didn’t expose it, and neither did President Carter, contrary to what these two TC members claimed.

The very idea that Trump might not continue this massive covert op to deliver US government power into the hands of the TC and David Rockefeller…insider David Gergen and his TC cronies wouldn’t be happy about that at all. Not at all.

And CNN talks about “fake news.” They are Fake News Central.

They are complicit in maintaining the United States as a satellite of the Trilateral Commission.

You think this might be an overstatement of the TC’s power now?

In the run-up to his inauguration after the 2008 presidential election, Obama was tutored by the co-founder of the Trilateral Commission, Zbigniew Brzezinski.

Patrick Wood, author of Trilaterals Over Washington, points out there are only 87 members of the Trilateral Commission who live in America. Obama appointed eleven of them (!) to posts in his administration.

For example:

Continue Reading At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________________________

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.

 

Moms Speak Out About Genetically Modified Foods [GMOs]

Source: InstituteForResponsibleTechnology
November 23, 2016

No mother ever knowingly risks her child’s health. Hear what these mothers have to say about their experience with genetically modified foods.

My second open letter to Steve Bannon, Trump’s inside man

QuestionEverything2
Source:NoMoreFakeNews.com
Jon Rappoport
November 21, 2016

Yesterday, I published my first open letter to Steve Bannon: Trump’s chief strategist, special counselor, and, yes, avowed enemy of major media and their fake news bubbles.

Here is a follow-up. Like the first, this one involves solutions aimed at improving life in America.

And believe me, I understand that Progressive vampires and their allied subalterns are very nervous about workable solutions, especially as they empower people to succeed beyond permanent dependence on government, The Universal Teat and Provider. So be it.

Steve,

Again, I remind you, there are millions and millions of people out there who aren’t polled or counted or factored into the algorithms of political calculations. Some of them voted for your man, some didn’t vote at all. All of them want a role in the political process, and if sufficiently motivated and encouraged, they will suddenly show up and support you with an energy that will knock you off your chair.

They are against the multitude of lies big government has been feeding them for decades—lies that come back to the basic issue of HEALTH.

Here is an introductory list of what these millions of Americans are burning about:

GMOs in the food supply (never proven to be safe, never proven to increase crop yields). Toxic pesticides drenching the food supply. The lacing of our water with toxic fluorides (forced medical treatment with no informed consent). Harmful vaccine after vaccine injected into our children, and the cooked studies that claim these substances are universally safe and effective (watch the film Vaxxed (trailer) for a window into the fraud). The pharmaceutical assault on the population with toxic and unnecessary drugs (killing, at minimum, 106,000 Americans every year, a million Americans per decade—see Starfield, JAMA, July 26, 2000).

Let’s start with those. There are more.

I assure you, Steve, people with stacks of evidence, beyond official pronouncements, could come forward and make a case for the destructive toxicity of these substances. They already have. The crazies in this situation are actually the corporate and media front men, who are parroting what sold-out scientists at the FDA, CDC, and other agencies are feeding them.

Ridding the country of poisons, to put it frankly, would certainly rank as a solution. Healthier adults and children, filled with energy, alert and alive? Isn’t this a fundamental?

Of course, I’m showing you a tall hill to climb here, given the ubiquitous special interests who have been squeezing America for so long. But I would point out that you and others have been taking the fight to the proponents of global warming and exposing them for the frauds they are. That’s a big hill, too.

The toxic items I listed above are on the same hill.

Part of the solution? Serious DOJ prosecutions against FDA and CDC personnel for fraud, reckless endangerment, and waste of enormous federal funds.

You want to see a massive silent majority explode in support of your administration? Carry out those prosecutions. Extend them to pharmaceutical executives who have knowingly foisted their highly destructive drugs on the population.

At this point you’ll be thinking you can’t go that far. It’s too much to take on. Well, you took on climate change because you saw the agenda involved torpedoing the economy. What I’m giving you here (massive and unending toxicity in various forms) torpedoes the right to life itself.

This isn’t some wild-eyed appeal from the fringe, Steve. As an independent reporter (one of many) who has been covering these issues for more than 30 years, I assure you there is a whole library of evidence to support the points I’ve sketched out here.

You’re an expert on corrupt media. I guarantee there is no greater media corruption than in the area of health and medicine. Those boys and girls are locked up tight. If they aren’t lying, they aren’t living. From what I can see, you take great pleasure in overturning apple carts. Here is the big one. Flip it over, and you’ll watch some of the weirdest and slimiest creatures on this green Earth come crawling out.

You want a real revolution? It’s there.

Talk to the mother of a child whose brain has been hit and damaged with a vaccine. Listen to her. Look in her eyes. This is the fire of truth no liar can contradict. This is devastation.

It’s time to do something about it, come hell or high water.

Whether it’s your time, Steve, is up to you.

PS: I attach a letter about the fluoridation of our water supplies. It’s self-explanatory. It’s a bombshell.

Here is what the EPA Union of Scientists (!) had to say about fluoridation:

Quoting from a May 1, 1999, statement— “Why EPA’s Headquarters Union of Scientists Opposes Fluoridation” —written by William Hirzy, PhD, [Union of Scientists] Senior Vice-President, Chapter 280:

“…our opposition to drinking water fluoridation has grown, based on the scientific literature documenting the increasingly out-of-control exposures to fluoride, the lack of benefit to dental health from ingestion of fluoride and the hazards to human health from such ingestion. These hazards include acute toxic hazard, such as to people with impaired kidney function, as well as chronic toxic hazards of gene mutations, cancer, reproductive effects, neurotoxicity, bone pathology and dental fluorosis.”

“In support of this concern are results from two epidemiology studies from China that show decreases in I.Q. in children who get more fluoride than the control groups of children in each study. These decreases are about 5 to 10 I.Q. points in children aged 8 to 13 years.”

“Another troubling brain effect has recently surfaced: fluoride’s interference with the function of the brain’s pineal gland. The pineal gland produces melatonin which, among other roles, mediates the body’s internal clock, doing such things as governing the onset of puberty. Jennifer Luke has shown that fluoride accumulates in the pineal gland and inhibits its production of melatonin. She showed in test animals that this inhibition causes an earlier onset of sexual maturity, an effect reported in humans as well in 1956…”

“EPA fired the Office of Drinking Water’s chief toxicologist, Dr. William Marcus, who also was our local union’s treasurer at the time, for refusing to remain silent on the cancer risk issue. The judge who heard the lawsuit he [Marcus] brought against EPA over the firing made that finding—that EPA fired him over his fluoride work and not for the phony reason put forward by EPA management at his dismissal. Dr. Marcus won his lawsuit and is again at work at EPA.”

“…data showing increases in osteosarcomas in young men in New Jersey, Washington and Iowa based on their drinking fluoridated water. It was his [Dr. Marcus’] analysis, repeated statements about all these and other incriminating cancer data, and his requests for an independent, unbiased evaluation of them that got Dr. Marcus fired.”

“Regarding the effectiveness of fluoride in reducing dental cavities, there has not been any double-blind study of fluoride’s effectiveness as a caries preventative. There have been many, many small scale, selective publications on this issue that proponents cite to justify fluoridation, but the largest and most comprehensive study, one done by dentists trained by the National Institute of Dental Research, on over 39,000 school children aged 5-17 years, shows no significant differences (in terms of decayed, missing and filled teeth) among caries [cavities] incidences in fluoridated, non-fluoridated and partially fluoridated communities. The latest publication on the fifty-year fluoridation experiment in two New York cities, Newburgh and Kingston, shows the same thing. The only significant difference in dental health between the two communities as a whole is that fluoridated Newburgh, N.Y. shows about twice the incidence of dental fluorosis (the first, visible sign of fluoride chronic toxicity) as seen in non-fluoridated Kingston.”

“John Colquhoun’s publication on this point of efficacy is especially important. Dr. Colquhoun was Principal Dental Officer for Auckland, the largest city in New Zealand, and a staunch supporter of fluoridation—until he was given the task of looking at the world-wide data on fluoridation’s effectiveness in preventing cavities. The paper is titled, ‘Why I changed My Mind About Water Fluoridation.’ In it Colquhoun provides details on how data were manipulated to support fluoridation in English speaking countries, especially the U.S. and New Zealand. This paper explains why an ethical public health professional was compelled to do a 180 degree turn on fluoridation.”

“…mutation studies…show that fluoride can cause gene mutations in mammalian and lower order tissues at fluoride concentrations estimated to be present in the mouth from fluoridated tooth paste. Further, there were tumors of the oral cavity seen in the NTP cancer study…further strengthening concern over the toxicity of topically applied fluoride.”

“So, in addition to our concern over the toxicity of fluoride, we note the uncontrolled — and apparently uncontrollable — exposures to fluoride that are occurring nationwide via drinking water…

Continue Reading At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
______________________________________________________________
Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Book Review: LBJ & The Conspiracy To Kill Kennedy – A Coalescence Of Interests by Dr. Joseph P. Farrell

lbjknd
TheBreakaway
Zy Marquiez
November 22, 2016

LBJ & The Conspiracy To Kill Kennedy by Dr. Joseph P. Farrell is a landmark book into the conspiracy/coup d’etat that killed President Kennedy.

The main strength of this book is that it seeks to reverse engineer the threads of evil that wielded their ways in order to carry out one of the greatest conspiracies in modern times.

Without a doubt, this is a landmark book in every sense of the word.

In the nascent stage of this book Farrell makes it a point to lay the foundation for the methodology of the events that took place.  This helps the reader understand the angle he is going to take.

Beyond that, however, Farrell goes above and beyond what any average researcher does.  In his usual methodical, leave-no-stone-unturned fashion, Farrell not only analyzes the coalescence of interests that had a hand in the assassination – FBI, CIA, Banksters, Nazis, Masons, Mafia, Big Oil, The Military, The Secret Service – but further distills these to the deep core nexus that arguably played the most prominent roles in the assassination of President Kennedy.

Furthermore, and most importantly, Farrell, in harpoon-like fashion homes in on the most devious of all public players that played a notable role in the architecture of the conspiracy: Lyndon B. Johnson.

At minimum, the turn-coat and traitor Johnson cast his tentacles all over the official “investigation” derailing the possibility of any semblance of truth from rising to the foreground.

As Farrell notes:

“…it is certainly clear that Johnson, by his policies and behaviors after the assassination, acted as if he knew who was ultimately behind the murder, for at every turn, he acted in their interest as well as his own, in suppressing any evidence tending to incriminate him, or them.  Nowhere more did he do this more clearly than in his selection of those members of the Warren Commission itself.”[1]

What this book does is not only destroy the official story, which admittedly has been done by many other researchers, but also takes it a few steps beyond that into the realm of deeper and darker elements.  Elements that made it a point not only to carry out arguably the conspiracy of the century, but also transformed the consciousness of Americans and infused enough trauma into the social psyche the likes of which western society had not witness in modern times.  Such is the signature of those that slither behind the scenes.

With everything noted, and still so much left unsaid, everyone would be served well to read this book.  The value this book offers not only in understanding what took place that day, but the coup d’etat that took place  will help one understand why we are witnessing many of the issues we are in our society, and why things haven’t changed.  That alone should be reason enough, but the book offers countless more reasons for one to read it, as all of Farrell’s book do.

—————————————————————————————–
Source:

[1] Dr. Joseph P. Farrell, LBJ & The Conspiracy To Kill Kennedy – A Coalescence Of Interests, pg. 285.

Major Media Crash: They Need A Scapegoat

Propaganda
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com
Jon Rappoport
November 20, 2016

They kept telling the American people Hillary Clinton was going to win the election; and in every way they could think of, they told the American people this was a good idea.

Then, on election night, they, the media, crashed.

The results came in.

The media went into deep shock.

As protests and riots then spread across America, the media neglected to mention a) they’d been bashing Trump because he said he might not accept the outcome of the vote, and b) here were large numbers of people on the Democrat side who weren’t accepting the outcome of the vote.

A new campaign had to be launched.

Suddenly, on cue, it was: Hillary Clinton lost because “fake news” about her had been spread around during the campaign.

Fake news sites. That was the reason.

These “fake sites” had to be punished. Somehow. They had to be defamed. Blocked. Censored.

Here is an excerpt from a list of “fake news” sites suggested by one professor. The list is circulating widely on the Web: Project Veritas; Infowars; Breitbart; Coast To Coast AM; Natural News; Zero Hedge; The Daily Sheeple; Activist Post; 21st Century Wire.

Free speech? Bill of Rights? Never heard of it.

Obama put in his two cents: “Because in an age where there’s so much active misinformation and it’s packaged very well and it looks the same when you see it on a Facebook page or you turn on your television…If everything seems to be the same and no distinctions are made, then we won’t know what to protect.”

Excuse me. “We won’t know what to protect?” Meaning what to favor, what to promote, what to lie about? Meaning only some speech is free?

Obama is way, way behind the curve. Thousands of websites and blogs have been exposing major media as fake for years. I started nomorefakenews.com in 2001.

If Google, Facebook, and Twitter keep expanding their censorship of “disfavored messages,” they’re going to pay a price. More and more users will go elsewhere.

The facade of the major media is getting thinner. You can see a glow of rage and resentment behind it. They’re desperately looking for revenge on the millions and millions of people who are deserting them and laughing at them.

They presumed too much. They presumed they had us in the palm of their hand. We were their property. We were transfixed by their authority.

All that is going away. Bye, bye.

The big shift is accelerating. Independent media are in the ascendance. Understand that. Recognize it.

The impossible is happening.

Fake news sites? Please. The major media are the biggest fakes the world has ever seen. Their anchors and star reporters are bloviating cranks. They’re dinner-theater actors.

Over the years, I’ve talked to some of them. I’ve warned them of their coming troubles. They were miles away from believing me. Now, they’re starting to sweat blood.

Major media news for America is still basically manufactured in New York and Washington—plus occasional outbursts from Hollywood creatures who bemoan the decline of inclusive liberalism, as they expand their gun-toting security staffs and dig deeper bunkers. The New York-Washington axis exists in a self-serving bubble, which has now taken serious punctures. The delusional attacks against “fake sites” underlines how out of touch these elites are with the rest of the country.

Independent media outlets are winning. They won’t be stopped.

When the people who now head the tech giants were growing up, they were heralding the Internet as a new era of free information-exchange. But now that they find themselves working with the government in the Surveillance State, they’re fronting for censorship. In fact, they’re showing they were never for freedom. That was a pose all along. They were, from the beginning, agents of repression. They can try to stop independent media now, but they will fail.

Fake web sites? What about fake companies? What about Google, Facebook, Twitter? Behind their happy-happy messages, they were built to propagandize, profile, and control.

Understand this: major media have a rock-bottom article of faith. It is: “We own the news.”

They can’t give it up. They’ll never give it up. It fuels everything they do. It’s the substance and core of their attitude.

As their ship goes down below the waves, they’ll be chanting it. “We own the news.”

But they don’t. In truth, they never did. For a time, they managed to sell that delusion to the people.

That time is drawing to a close.

The elite political class and their media minions fear more than independent news countering their own news. For obvious reasons, every civilization down through history has had its own monopolistic media, its central “broadcasting system.” Its controlled outlet. But now, The One has become Many.

That is the threat.

The rapid proliferation of The Many is an unpredictable X-factor.

The population is waking up to decentralized media. Instead of the hypnotic attachment to one basic information source—the habit of a lifetime—the public is learning to handle multiple sources. Therefore, the hypnotic spell is being broken and dissolved.

This is the basic problem for the elites.

How can they reinstate the trance?

By trying to…

Continue Reading At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com

Space News: NASA’s EM [Warp] Drive Paper Says It Works, Musk Wants To…

Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell
November 19, 2016

To say that the last two weeks have been an incredible period for news would be putting it mildly, by almost anyone’s criteria. One of the most interesting stories – well, interesting to me at least – was that indicating the President-elect plans to reorient NASA from its current Low Earth Orbit mission orientation to a new deep-space, long-term human exploration mission. In this, there was nothing really that new. Previous presidents have tried to do this, beginning with the administration of G.H.W. Bush, which was then revived under his son G.W. Bush, and even President Obama made a couple of attempts to reorient NASA; none of the efforts were really successful. However, it should also be remembered that DARPA, or as we affectionately refer to it here (following a suggestion of Mr. J.B.), the Diabolically Apocalyptic Research Projects Agency, announced during the second Obama administration a goal to make the United States “warp capable” in 100 years. So, quietly, even during the “space quiescent” administrations of Bush II and Obama, space has quietly been pushing along. The current President-elect however seems to have more than just a mission-reorientation in mind, but has actually proposed a bureaucratic reshuffling that would transfer low earth orbit oriented missions to other departments of the federal government, thus freeing NASA for the longer-term deep space missions. From a purely political and bureaucratic point of view, this would seem to make some sense.

All that is context, in my high octane speculation playbook, for a few other stories that emerged in the last couple of weeks that indicate that something, indeed, may be “up” with space matters. There’s three stories in particular that regular readers here brought to my attention, that I’d like to pass along, together with my usual high octane, or in this case, orbital speculations:

SpaceX wants to launch 4,425 satellites into space to bring super-fast internet to the world

Leaked NASA paper shows the ‘impossible’ EM Drive really does work

Documents/The Artificial Inducement of Space Warp

That’s quite a list, so let’s begin at the first article, and SpaceX’s Elon Musk’s plans to launch over 4,000 satellites to “bring superfast internet to the world.” There are three paragraphs here that draw our attention. According to Arjun Kharpal, author of the CNBN article on Musk’s plans, this plan is presented in a filing with the FCC (Federal Communications Commission):

SpaceX – the company on a mission to colonize Mars – outlined plans to put 4,425 satellites into space in a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) filing from earlier this week.

That’s three times the 1,419 satellites that are currently in space, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists, a not-for-profit group made up of scientists across the world.

Once “fully optimized”, the system will be able to provide bandwith of 1 gigabytes per second for users globally. That’s over 180 times faster than the current global internet speed average of 5.6 megabytes per second which was recorded in the Akamai State of the Internet report at the end of last year.

Reports earlier this year suggested Google and Fidelity had invested $1 billion into SpaceX to support the satellite project.

As noted, Musk has presented formal filings to the FCC, and has heavyweight backers in the form of Google and Fidelity for high-speed internet development. The question is why? Here I find myself in agreement with former HUD Assistant Secretary Catherine Fitts, in that this built out is in part a massive project designed to preserve US dollar reserve currency status, and this project can be, and I strongly suspect is enhanced by the offer of rebates on internet devices, smart phones, and so on, denominated in dollars. There is, however, a deeper agenda here, and I suspect most regular readers here already see what it is: such a massive build-out also implies building massive redundancy into the international financial clearing systems, which are currently rather centralized, and hence, easily targetable, as much of that system currently flows through SWIFT (Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Transfer) in Belgium, and CHIPS (Clearing House Interbank Payments System). Decentralizing such systems, using other database management systems, builds a measure of security into the clearing system that is much needed, especially against potential threats. The question is, why now? Why the push to globalize such systems and to build in redundancy? The short answer is, such moves are only undertaken when long term strategic planning indicates potential conflict on the horizon. Here the question is, with whom?

I suggest the answer is suggested from the space context itself, which brings us to the recent announcements concerning NASA’s tests of the EM drive, which produces thrust from microwave reflections and interferometry within a shaped, conical cavity. While I’ve blogged about this story before, I want to draw the readers’ attention to something very interesting that appeared in the second article linked above, by Fiona MacDonald; first, note the numbers:

Last year, NASA’s Eagleworks Laboratory got involved to try to independently verify or debunk the EM Drive once and for all. And a new paper on its tests in late 2015 has just been leaked, showing that not only does the EM Drive work – it also generates some pretty impressive thrust.

To be clear, despite rumours that a NASA paper on these tests has passed the peer-review process, the version that’s been leaked hasn’t been published in an academic journal. So, for now, this is just one group of researchers reporting on their results, without any external verification.

But the paper concludes that, after error measurements have been accounted for, the EM Drive generates force of 1.2 millinewtons per kilowatt in a vacuum.

That’s not an insignificant amount – to put it into perspective, the super-powerful Hall thruster generates force of 60 millinewtons per kilowatt, an order of magnitude more than the EM Drive.

But that’s not what caught my eye. What caught my eye were these statements:

“The test campaign included a null thrust test effort to identify any mundane sources of impulsive thrust, however none were identified,” the team, led by Harold White, concluded in the paper.

“Thrust data from forward, reverse, and null suggests that the system is consistently performing with a thrust to power ratio of 1.2 ± 0.1 millinewtons per kilowatt.”(Emphasis added)

Yes, you read that correctly, the NASA team testing the EM drive and performing these tests was led by Dr. Harold White, that’s Dr. Harold “Sonny” White, of NASA’s warp drive project fame. Readers here will recall my previous blogs about Dr. White, for it was Dr. White who, by reworking the metric of Mexican physicist Miguel Alcubierre’s 1990s warp drive paper, came up with the breathtaking conclusion that the vast mass-energy conversion needed in Alcubierre’s paper – a mass-energy conversion factor on the scale of the planet Jupiter, and hence impractical as a potential human technology – was far too large, and that the actual mass-energy conversion factor was much smaller, and conceivably within reach to human science in, say, a hundred years or so. It was because of Dr. White’s reworking of that paper that DARPA came out with its 100 year warp drive goal in the first place, and additionally, that NASA placed White in charge of designing the initial proof of concept experiments for his re-working of Alcubierre’s metric. All this places his participation in the EM drive tests into a different light, for what is being suggested is that the EM drive may have some very minor space-warping properties. Now, this isn’t a big surprise to those of us who have been following the work of the late Gabriel Kron, the Hungarian electronics engineering genius who first told us that all electrical devices, no matter how simple, can be derived from the generalized equations of electromagnetism by specific applications of tensor calculus and hyper-dimensional operators. In essence, what Kron was saying was that all devices of an electric nature are both hyper-dimensional, and produce minute modifications of the lattice of space-time. In short, space warps.

Which brings us to the… oh, by the way, did you notice the date of Ms. MacDonald’s article? Nov. 7, 2016, a day before the US general election, which has given us a President-elect who’s talking about deep solar system manned explorations, and oh, who, by the way, had an uncle who was a Professor at MIT, John Trump, who according to some internet stories was tasked with looking at the late papers of Nikola Tesla…. Talk about things that make you go “Hmmmm….” At the minimum, the presence of this particular technologically-inclined Trump in the stump of the Trump tree means that the current President-elect, unlike almost all previous presidents, may have a unique family insight into technological history, and perhaps even into some very secretive aspects of it, a definite advantage over his predecessors.

Which brings us to the third article about a small “start up” company in Nebraska that has been doing simple warp-field tests, using (here it comes) interferometry, electrical tri-poles, and measurement by laser red-shift effects. You’ll note that the context here is Einstein’s general relativity, and this requires some basic explanation. In the theory of General Relativity, large masses such as stars or planets literally “warp” the lattice structure of space time, in a fashion similar to placing a large bowling ball or medical ball on a trampoline that one has drawn a grid work of squares on. Placing the ball on the trampoline compresses that lattice work by appearing to stretch it in the region immediately surrounding the ball. This is of course a two dimensional representation, so one has to imagine an infinite series of such planes each in touch with a point on the ball, and you get the idea. The trouble is, in General Relativity, it can work in both directions: a large mass can distort that local lattice work, or a distorted local lattice work can create the effect of the presence of a large mass, i.e., gravity. What’s interesting here is that physicists appear to be discovering, through careful manipulation of such effects electromagnetically, which physicists, including Einstein, long suspected, namely, that there’s some relationship between gravity and electromagnetism. What I find intriguing about these experiments is twofold: First…

Continue Reading At: GizaDeathStar.com
_______________________________________________________________

Profile photo of Joseph P. Farrell

About Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.

Monsanto’s ally Pompeo to head the CIA: bad move, Donald

Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com
Jon Rappoport
November 19, 2016

Trump has tapped Congressman Mike Pompeo to head the CIA.

In April of 2014, Pompeo introduced the bill that would become The Dark Act, banning states from passing laws mandating GMO labeling on food. Instead, The Dark Act introduces very weak and confusing federal GMO labels. Few people will pay attention to them or even realize they’re there.

I’m sure Monsanto execs are popping a few champagne corks right now. “Hey, remember Mike Pompeo? Can you believe it? He’s the new director of the CIA. If we need an extra helping hand taking over the world’s food supply, why can’t we call on good old Mike? Ha-ha…”

Mike is also a heavy supporter of the NSA’s surveillance programs: “Congress should pass a law re-establishing collection of all metadata, and combining it with publicly available financial and lifestyle information into a comprehensive, searchable database. Legal and bureaucratic impediments to surveillance should be removed.” (The Atlantic, 11/18/16)

Here’s what Mike had to say about Edward Snowden: “[He] should be brought back from Russia and given due process, and I think the proper outcome would be that he would be given a death sentence.” (Washington Examiner, 2/11/16)

Very bad move, Donald.

Read More At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________________________
Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.

F. William Engdahl/Jay Dyer: Lost Hegemon & Full Spectrum Dominance [Half]

Source: JaysAnalysis
Jay Dyer
November 19, 2016

This is the first free half of an interview, while the full interview can be obtained by subscribing at the PayPal links at JaysAnalysis.com. Professor Engdahl joins me for a deep politics discussion in relation to his new book, The Lost Hegemon: Whom the Gods Would Destroy. His book focuses on the usage of radical Islam by the West and how these networks are part of a larger strategy to control Eurasia. We also touch on his older book Full Spectrum Dominance in part, and how the entire Cold War and the earlier Great Game set the stage for the events unfolding today.

http://www.williamengdahl.com

http://www.jaysanalysis.com

http://trineday.com/paypal_store/prod…

_________________________________________________________________
Jay Dyer a writer and researcher from the Southern US with a B.A. in philosophy, his graduate work focused on the interplay of literary theory, espionage and philosophy. He is dedicated to investigating the deeper themes and messages found in our globalist pseudo-culture, illustrating the connections between philosophy, metaphysics, secret societies, Hollywood, psychological warfare and comparative religion. Jay is a regular contributor to the popular Intelligence Hub 21st Century Wire and the scholarly Soul of the East, as well as conducting numerous interviews with experts in fields ranging from espionage to history to economics. Jay’s work has appeared on the web’s top alternative media outlets: Activist Post, Red Ice, Waking Times, Rense, Icke and Infowars, as well as appearing on the Alex Jones Show. Jay has broken national and international news, numerous viral alt news stories, as well as surpassing 1 million views in its first 4 years.

The Illusion Called Medical Journalism: The Deep Secret

Corruption
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com
Jon Rappoport
November 17, 2016

—Some of the greatest illusions are sitting out in the open. They are bypassed for two reasons. People refuse to believe they are illusions, despite the abundant evidence; and the professionals dedicated to upholding the illusions continue their work as if nothing at all has been exposed.

Medical journalists in the mainstream rely completely on studies published in prestigious journals.

This the rock. This is the science.

This is also the source of doctors’ authoritarian and arrogant advice to patients.

“Studies show…”

Well, that wraps it up. Nothing else to prove. The studies in the journals are the final word.

Medical reporters base their entire careers on these published reports.

But what if higher authorities contradicted all these studies? What if they scrutinized more studies than any reporter or doctor possibly could…and came to a shocking and opposite conclusion?

This very thing has happened. And the conclusions have been published. But medical reporters ignore them and go their merry way, as if a vast pillar of modern medicine is still intact…when it isn’t, when it has been decimated.

Buckle up.

Let us begin with a statement made by Dr. Marcia Angell, the former editor of The New England Journal of Medicine, perhaps the most prestigious medical journal in the world—a journal that routinely vets and prints thousands of medical studies:

“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.” —Marcia Angell, MD, The New York Review of Books, January 15, 2009

You might want to read that statement several times, to savor its full impact. Then proceed to this next one, penned by the editor of The Lancet, another elite and time-honored medical journal that publishes medical studies:

Richard Horton, editor-in-chief, The Lancet, in The Lancet, 11 April, 2015, Vol 385, “Offline: What is medicine’s 5 sigma?”

“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…

“The apparent endemicity of bad research behaviour is alarming. In their quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often sculpt data to fit their preferred theory of the world. Or they retrofit hypotheses to fit their data. Journal editors deserve their fair share of criticism too. We aid and abet the worst behaviours. Our acquiescence to the impact factor fuels an unhealthy competition to win a place in a select few journals. Our love of ‘significance’ pollutes the literature with many a statistical fairy-tale…Journals are not the only miscreants. Universities are in a perpetual struggle for money and talent…”

Still standing? Here are several more statements. They are devastating.

The NY Review of Books (May 12, 2011), Helen Epstein, “Flu Warning: Beware the Drug Companies”:

“Six years ago, John Ioannidis, a professor of epidemiology at the University of Ioannina School of Medicine in Greece, found that nearly half of published articles in scientific journals contained findings that were false, in the sense that independent researchers couldn’t replicate them. The problem is particularly widespread in medical research, where peer-reviewed articles in medical journals can be crucial in influencing multimillion- and sometimes multibillion-dollar spending decisions. It would be surprising if conflicts of interest did not sometimes compromise editorial neutrality, and in the case of medical research, the sources of bias are obvious. Most medical journals receive half or more of their income from pharmaceutical company advertising and reprint orders, and dozens of others [journals] are owned by companies like Wolters Kluwer, a medical publisher that also provides marketing services to the pharmaceutical industry.”

Here’s another quote from the same article:

“The FDA also relies increasingly upon fees and other payments from the pharmaceutical companies whose products the agency is supposed to regulate. This could contribute to the growing number of scandals in which the dangers of widely prescribed drugs have been discovered too late. Last year, GlaxoSmithKline’s diabetes drug Avandia was linked to thousands of heart attacks, and earlier in the decade, the company’s antidepressant Paxil was discovered to exacerbate the risk of suicide in young people. Merck’s painkiller Vioxx was also linked to thousands of heart disease deaths. In each case, the scientific literature gave little hint of these dangers. The companies have agreed to pay settlements in class action lawsuits amounting to far less than the profits the drugs earned on the market. These precedents could be creating incentives for reduced vigilance concerning the side effects of prescription drugs in general.”

Also from the NY Review of Books, here are two more quotes from Marcia Angell, former editor-in-chief of The New England Journal of Medicine (“Drug Companies and Doctors: A Story of Corruption”):

“Consider the clinical trials by which drugs are tested in human subjects. Before a new drug can enter the market, its manufacturer must sponsor clinical trials to show the Food and Drug Administration that the drug is safe and effective, usually as compared with a placebo or dummy pill. The results of all the (there may be many) are submitted to the FDA, and if one or two trials are positive—that is, they show effectiveness without serious risk—the drug is usually approved, even if all the other trials are negative.”

Here is another Angell statement:

Continue Reading At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
______________________________________________________________
Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Google/Facebook Now Targeting “Fake News Sites”; I’ve Been Doing It For 15 Years

QuestionEverything2
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com
Jon Rappoport
November 16, 2016

Only I’ve been doing it for real, here at NoMoreFakeNews.com. That’s the difference. Google and Facebook are up to something else. They’re attacking truth emanating from the alt media.

It’s a reverse play on their part. Google will refuse to allow “fake sites” to use their AdSense Program. FB will try to limit “fake” posts.

They’re really getting desperate.

Major media election coverage was so phony it was laughable. Inside their bubble, Hillary was winging her way to victory. She was way out ahead in the polls. Wikileaks and Project Veritas were spooling out devastating revelations almost every day, and the press was studiously ignoring the implications. Why don’t FB and Google go after the NY Times and WaPo and CBS and NBC and ABC and CNN and FOX, if they want to limit fake news? Why? Because all those jokers, including Google/FB, are on the same page. They’re all PR firms fronting for the concoction called Globalism.

And they’re losing.

In mainstream news, everything should begin with the concept of a staged event.

Every television newscast: staged reality

“The news is all about manipulating the context of stories. The thinner the context, the thinner the mind must become to accept it. If you want to visualize this, imagine a rectangular solid. The news covers the top surface. Therefore, the mind is trained to work in only two dimensions. Then it can’t fathom depth, and it certainly can’t appreciate the fact that the whole rectangular solid moves through time, the fourth dimension.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

Focus on the network evening news. This is where the staging is done well.

First, we have the image itself, the colors in foreground and background, the blend of restful and charged hues. The anchor and his/her smooth style.

Then we have the shifting of venue from the studio to reporters in the field, demonstrating the reach of coverage: the planet. As if this equals authenticity.

Actually, those reporters in the field rarely dig up information on location. A correspondent standing on a rooftop in Cairo could just as well be positioned in a bathroom in a Las Vegas McDonald’s. His report would be identical.

The managing editor, usually the elite news anchor, chooses the stories to cover and has the final word on their sequence.

The anchor goes on the air: “Our top story tonight, more signs of gridlock today on Capitol Hill, as legislators walked out of a session on federal budget negotiations…”

The viewer fills in the context for the story: “Oh yes, the government. Gridlock is bad. Just like traffic on the I-5. A bad thing. We want the government to get something done, but they’re not. These people are always arguing with each other. They don’t agree. They’re in conflict. Yes, conflict, just like on the cop shows.”

The anchor: “The Chinese government reports the new flu epidemic has spread to three provinces. Forty-two people have already died, and nearly a hundred are hospitalized…”

The viewer again supplies context, such as it is: “Flu. Dangerous. Epidemic. Could it arrive here? Get my flu shot.”

The anchor: “A new university study states that gun owners often stock up on weapons and ammunition…”

The viewer: “People with guns. Why do they need a dozen weapons? I don’t need a gun. The police have guns. Could I kill somebody if he broke into the house?”

The anchor: “Doctors at Yale University have made a discovery that could lead to new treatments in the battle against autism…”

Viewer: “That would be good. More research. Laboratory. The brain.”

If, at the end of the newscast, the viewer bothered to review the stories and his own reactions to them, he would realize he’d learned nothing. But reflection is not the game.

In fact, the flow of the news stories has washed over him and created very little except a sense of (false) continuity.

It would never occur to him to wonder: are the squabbling political legislators really two branches of the same Party? Does government have the Constitutional right to incur this much debt? Where is all that money coming from? Taxes? Other sources? Who invents money?

Is the flu dangerous for most people? If not, why not? Do governments overstate case numbers? How do they actually test patients for the flu? Are the tests accurate? Are they just trying to convince us to get vaccines?

What happens when the government has overwhelming force and citizens have no guns?

When researchers keep saying “may” and “could,” does that mean they’ve actually discovered something useful about autism, or are they just hyping their own work and trying to get funding for their next project?

These are only a few of the many questions the typical viewer never considers.

Therefore, every story on the news broadcast achieves the goal of keeping the context thin—night after night, year after year. The overall effect of this staging is small viewer, small viewer’s mind, small viewer’s understanding.

Next we come to words over pictures. More and more, news broadcasts are using the rudimentary film technique of a voice narrating what the viewer is seeing on the screen.

People are shouting and running and falling in a street. The anchor or a field reporter says: “The country is in turmoil. Parliament has suspended sessions for the third day in a row, as the government decides what to do about uprisings aimed at forcing democratic elections…”

Well, the voice must be right, because we’re seeing the pictures. If the voice said the riots were due to garbage-pickup cancellations, the viewer would believe that, too.

We see Building #7 of the WTC collapse. Must have been the result of a fire. The anchor tells us so. Words over pictures.

We see footage of Lee Harvey Oswald inside the Dallas police station. The anchor tells he’s about to be transferred, under heavy guard, to another location. Oswald must be guilty, because we’re seeing him in a police station, and the anchor just said “under heavy guard.”

Staged news.

It mirrors what the human mind, in an infantile state, is always doing: looking at the world and seeking a brief summary to explain what that world is, at any given moment.

Since the dawn of time, untold billions of people have been urging a “television anchor” to “explain the pictures.”

The news gives them that precise thing, that precise solution, every night.

“Well, Mr. Jones,” the doctor says, as he pins X-rays to a screen in his office. “See this? Right here? We’ll need to start chemo immediately, and then we may have to remove most of your brain, and as a follow-up, take out one eye.”

Sure, why not? The patient saw the pictures and the anchor explained them.

After watching and listening to a month or two of news planted with key words, the population is ready to see the President or one of his minions step up to a microphone and say, “Quantitative easing…sequester…”

Reaction? “Oh, yes, that’s right, I’ve heard those words before. Good.”

A month later, those two terms disappear, as if they’d never existed.

Eventually, people get the idea and do it for themselves. They see things, they invent one-liners to explain them.

They’re their own anchors. They short-cut and undermine their own experience with vapid summaries of what it all means.

And then, of course, when the news cuts to commercial, the fake products take over:

“Well, every night they’re showing the same brand names, so those brands must be better than the unnamed alternatives.”

Which devolves into: “I like this commercial better than that commercial. This is a great commercial. Let’s have a contest and vote on the best commercial.”

For “intelligent” viewers, there is another sober mainstream choice, a safety valve: PBS. That newscast tends to show more pictures from foreign lands.

“Yes, I watch PBS because they understand the planet is interconnected. It isn’t just about America. That’s good.”

Sure it’s good, if you want the same thin-context or false-context reporting on events in other countries. Instead of the two minutes NBC might give you about momentous happenings in Iraq, PBS will give you four minutes, plus congenial experts commenting abstractly, employing longer words.

PBS’ experts seem kinder and gentler. “They’re nice and they’re more relaxed. I like that.”

Yes, the PBS experts are taking Valium, and they’re not drinking as much coffee as the CBS experts.

Anchors deliver the long con every night on the tube, between commercials.

Staged.

They’re marketing thin context.

And of course, the “science” promoted on the network news is also derived from marketing efforts at major government agencies, such as the CDC.

The anchor says, “Medical experts are now taking a heavier approach to parents who refuse to vaccinate their children and deny the benefits of vaccines.”

What sits behind that statement?

The announcement of so-called epidemics and outbreaks are part of a strategy for marketing vaccines. It’s obvious.

For example, read this from the World Health Organization Fact Sheet, Number 11, dated March 2014:

“Influenza occurs globally…Worldwide, these annual epidemics are estimated to result in about 3 to 5 million cases of severe illness, and about 250 000 to 500 000 deaths.”

Now consider a “measles outbreak” in the US. 150 cases.

In the matter of worldwide flu, WHO and the CDC choose not to hype and propagandize; but in the case of the measles, it’s suddenly all hands on deck and fear, fear, fear.

Why?

Because it’s time. It’s time to inflate the seriousness of a standard childhood disease. It’s time to focus on “the children.” It’s time, once again, to offset the massive rebellion against vaccination exploding in the US population. It’s time to engender fear. It’s time to attack anti-vaccination researchers. It’s time to take another step in the direction of mandating vaccines. It’s time to introduce…

Continue Reading At: NoMoreFakeNews.com
_____________________________________________________________
Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.

What’s the Harm in Taking an Antidepressant?

Source: KellyBroganMD.com
Dr. Kelly Brogan M.D.
November 8, 2016

what's-the-harm

We know that all drugs have side effects. That’s just part of the deal right? But is it really possible that an antidepressant can cause a sane person to act like a cold-blooded criminal?

I imagined my audience would be wondering as much as I arrived to an unseasonably chilly day at King’s College in London. I was there to share what I have learned about the medications that I so dutifully and faithfully prescribed during the early part of my career, and also about the deep potential for healing depression in simple, safe ways, according to the latest science.

The day before my flight, I had received an email from a man who I would choose to invite on stage with me that day. His name is David Carmichael and he wrote:

“I took the life of my 11-year-old son Ian on July 31, 2004 in a Paxil-induced state of psychosis and was charged with first degree murder. I was judged to be “not criminally responsible on account of a mental disorder” in September 2005 and received an absolute discharge from the forensic psychiatric system (in Ontario, Canada) in December 2009. I’ve been off all prescription drugs since September 2010. Prior to our family tragedy, I was a physical active sports consultant with no history of violence or mental illness.”

He told an audience of clinicians and patients, that day, about how it is that a normal citizen, prescribed a seemingly safe medication for work-related stress, goes on to commit a heinous act of violence against his beloved child. This academic classroom was heaving with grief when he finished his description of events.

This must be rare, right? Totally anomalous?

Wrong.

It has become my contention that the Russian Roulette that is played with each new prescription of psychotropic medication violates the physician’s most primal tenet – first do no harm – and does so in the absence of anything approximating informed consent.

Violence as a Side Effect?

Thankfully, we are often given multiple chances to wake up to a greater truth. It’s becoming easier than ever. With grassroots platforms like madinamerica.com, the information is out there, when you are ready to look beyond main stream media to what the real victims are claiming.

The truth about antidepressants and violence is also in the most recently published literature, including a critical review, hot off the press, by Carvalho et al where the authors dive into the research on the supposed safety of SSRIs and SNRIs. In this document, they present an evidence-based horror menagerie of ways in which a simple antidepressant can derail your life if it doesn’t take it. Leaving patients with new medical diagnoses, antidepressants prescribed often for difficult transitions in life like divorces and deaths, carry documented risks that your doctor cannot possibly tell you about because if they knew of them, they would put down their prescription pad immediately.

Let’s take a tour. Neatly summarized here, the adverse effects of antidepressants can sound like that droning voice in TV ads that we are inured to because we have been told these “side effects are rare, and outweighed by the benefits.”

But the benefits are shockingly limited so, let’s take a closer look at those side effects…

harm image

The Risks That Made Me Quit Prescribing

Having always represented antidepressants as safe and effective to my patients, I put down my prescription pad after learning 3 facts about psychiatric medications:

  • They result in worse long-term outcomes [1]
  • They are debilitatingly habit forming [2] [3] [4]
  • They cause unpredictable violence [5] [6]

These insights were apparently just the tip of the iceberg. Several years into the horror stories of patient experiences and new relationships with grassroots activists, I am left wondering. What on earth are these meds? How could biochemistry have ever manifested molecules capable of derailing, distorting, and suppressing the human experience to this extent?

With more unknowns than knowns at this point, the signal of harm is growing and patient alignment with this model of care, diminishing.

I pulled some choice phrases from the paper for your further enlightenment below but suffice it to say that many of these side effects are major gamechanging problems if not life-ending tragedies that render the placebo-level performance of these medications totally unacceptable.

Gut disturbance: “Some of the most frequently reported side effects associated with the use of SSRIs and serotonin noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) include nausea, diarrhea, dyspepsia, GI bleeding and abdominal pain.”

Liver toxicity: “Two main mechanisms may be involved in antidepressant- induced liver toxicity, namely a metabolic component and/or an immuno-allergic pathway. A hypersensitivity syndrome with fever and rash as clinical manifestations, as well as with autoantibodies and eosinophilia, and a short latency period (1–6 weeks) point to a predominantly immunoallergic pathophysiological mechanism, whereas a lack of hypersensitivity syndrome and a longer latency period (i.e. 1 month to 1 year) points to an idiosyncratic metabolic mechanism.”

Weight gain: “Notwithstanding the complexity of the clinical scenario, compelling evidence indicates that the use of most antidepressants may increase weight in a significant proportion of patients.”

Heart problems: “SSRIs and SNRIs may promote a decrement in heart rate variability (HRV). Although the impact of the effects of antidepressants on HRV remains to be established, data indicate that a lower HRV is a significant predictor of incident cardiovascular events.”

Urinary problems: “SSRIs can cause urinary retention by acting on central micturition pathways. Serotonin may increase the central sympathetic outflow leading to urinary storage, and at the same time inhibits parasympathetic flow, which affects voiding.”

Sexual dysfunction: “…a significant body of data shows that antidepressants may differentially affect sexual function in multiple aspects, leading to reductions in libido, arousal dysfunction (erection in males and vaginal lubrication in females) and orgasmic dysfunctions.”

Salt imbalance: “The mechanisms of SSRI-induced hyponatremia remain incompletely elucidated, but these agents can act by either increasing the release of antidiuretic hormone (ADH) or increasing the sensitivity to ADH resulting in a clinical picture similar to the syndrome of inappropriate secretion of ADH.”

Osteoporosis/Bone weakening: “The use of SSRIs has been associated with a reduction in bone mineral density (BMD) and a consistent higher risk of fractures.”

Bleeding: “All serotonergic antidepressants have been associated with an increased risk of bleeding. The most likely mechanism responsible for these adverse reactions is a reduction of serotonin reuptake by platelets, although other mechanisms have also been implicated.”

Nervous system dysfunction: “All kinds of EPS [extrapyramidal symptoms] are seen in patients taking antidepressants, but akathisia appears to be the most common presentation followed by dystonic reactions, parkinsonian movements and tardive dyskinesia…Headache was one of the most common side effects associated with the use of antidepressants in a large retrospective cohort of adolescents and adults.”

Sweating: “Most studies indicate that approximately 10% of patients on SSRIs may develop excessive sweating, although the incidence may be higher for paroxetine.”

Sleep disturbances: “The SSRIs and venlafaxine are associated with increased REM sleep latency and a reduction in the overall time spent in the REM phase while sleeping.”

Mood changes: “Many patients taking SSRIs have reported experiencing emotional blunting. They often describe their emotions as being ‘damped down’ or ‘toned down’, while some patients refer to a feeling of being in ‘limbo’ and just ‘not caring’ about issues that were significant to them before…Furthermore, an activation syndrome in which patients taking antidepressants may experience anxiety, agitation, panic attacks, insomnia, irritability, hostility, aggressiveness and impulsivity in the first 3 months of treatment may ensue.”

Suicidality: “The incidence of suicide and attempted suicide has been a frequently underreported adverse outcome across antidepressant RCTs.”

Overdose toxicity: “Patients with MDD are at increased risk of suicide and overdosing of prescribed medications is a common method used to attempted suicide.”

Withdrawal Syndrome: “These symptoms include flu-like symptoms, tremors, tachycardia, shock-like sensations, paresthesia, myalgia, tinnitus, neuralgia, ataxia, vertigo, sexual dysfunction, sleep disturbances, vivid dreams, nausea vomiting, diarrhea, worsening anxiety and mood Instability.”

Eye disease: “A subset of patients taking SSRIs reports nonspecific visual disturbances…SSRIs may increase intraocular pressure and lead to the emergence of angle-closure glaucoma…A nested case-control study found a higher likelihood of cataracts after exposure to newer generation antidepressants.”

Hormonal imbalance: “Long-standing increases in peripheral prolactin levels are occasionally observed in patients using ADs, including SSRIs [208] ; hyperprolactinemia may have deleterious health consequences (e.g. a decrease in BMD [bone mineral density] and hypogonadism).”

Pregnancy/Breastfeeding risk: “Most of the data describing the presence of birth defects associated with SSRI use have been based on observational studies and drug registries. Therefore, the clinical significance of these data is questionable.”

Cancer risk: “Preclinical studies have found that antidepressants can increase the growth of fibrosarcomas and melanomas, and may also promote mammary carcinogenesis.”

Whew! Now that’s depressing. And why don’t you know about these? Because your doctor doesn’t. I recently learned of a patient who was prescribed an antidepressant simultaneous to an antibiotic “just in case the antibiotic caused depression or mood changes”. We are trained to treat these medications as a “why not” application of pharmacology, and the truth is that, as the authors state:

the history of toxicology reminds us vividly of the lag that often occurs between the first approval of a drug for use in humans and the recognition of certain adverse events from that drug.”

Taking these risks seems all the more unecessary with the robust outcomes of lifestyle medicine – multimodal, multi-tier interventions that are low cost, immediately available, and side effect free. As the authors conclude:

The findings of this review suggest that long-term treatment with new generation ADs should be avoided if alternative treatments are available.”

I would have to agree and affirm that these “alternative” treatments are indeed available. These treatments offer not only resolution of symptoms and elimination/avoidance of meds, but an entirely new experience of self. This is not about getting “back to normal,” it’s about integration, evolution, and vitality. I’ve been working for several years to make self-healing toolkits available to everyone considering an antidepressant or looking to come off of one for less than the price of one doctor visit. Check it out!

[1] http://www.power2u.org/downloads/AnatomyofanEpidemic-SummaryofFindings-Whitaker.pdf
[2] https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/371865
[3] http://www.madinamerica.com/psychiatric-drug-withdrawal/#/home/
[4] http://kellybroganmd.com/stop-madness-coming-psych-meds/
[5] http://kellybroganmd.com/homicide-and-the-ssri-alibi/

Read More At: KellyBroganMD.com

_______________________________________________________________
© Kelly Brogan MD. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of Kelly Brogan MD. For more articles, sign up for the newsletter at kellybroganmd.com.

_______________________________________________________________

Kelly Brogan, MD

Kelly Brogan, M.D. is a Manhattan-based holistic women’s health psychiatrist, author of the New York Times bestselling book, A Mind of Your Own, and co-editor of the landmark textbook, Integrative Therapies for Depression. She completed her psychiatric training and fellowship at NYU Medical Center after graduating from Cornell University Medical College, and has a B.S. from MIT in Systems Neuroscience. View full bio. Want to share this article on your own blog? View our reposting guidelines.

Globalism: Revisiting The Monster In The Presidential Campaign

BreakAway3
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com
Jon Rappoport
November 14, 2016

“Over the weekend, thousands of protesters across multiple countries condemned impending [Globalist] trade deals promoted by governments and their corporate partners. Though the protests received little coverage from mainstream media, they stretched from Paris to Warsaw.” (Carey Wedler, Blacklisted News, 10/19/16)

Now that the election is over, it’s important to review a few facts about Globalism. It was a centerpiece of controversy during the run-up to the vote.

Globalism isn’t just an abstract word or idea. It gives survival to some, and tries to take it away from others. It lights on population like a storm of locusts. It undermines jobs and work. It steals. It is designed to make chaos.

Globalism is based on the elite conviction that “the best people” should rule over everyone else for the greater good. “We’re not trying to do harm. We’re spreading the wealth.”

We can find the seeds of Globalism in Plato and his ancient dialogue called The Republic. Plato made his final philosophic stand on that work. Step by step, he establishes that The Good, which is highest concept in the universe, which exists in a realm of “pure ideas” apart from the daily round of existence, must be accessed and understood, if society is to meet up with its best destiny.

But, naturally, not all people are able to fathom The Good or translate it into action here in this human realm. Only the few can grasp it—and they must rise to the top and rule.

So, in the end, there is a fascist paradise. It rebuffs all attempts at dilution.

This is how Plato, the humane philosopher, the champion of the individual and freedom and independent thought, painted himself into a terrible corner. But never mind. Down through the centuries, “the wisest of men” have taken their cue from him and built nations and civilizations based on their (self-serving) version of The Good.

And in the process, they have used propagandists to convince populations that rule from above is only carried out as altruistic service…

When a system has been devised, planned, launched, and maintained by criminals to undermine a nation, they are naturally going to defend it by saying: “It’s good for everyone AND THERE IS NO OTHER WAY TO MANAGE HUMAN AFFAIRS. BESIDES, WE CAN’T STOP IT NOW. THAT WOULD CAUSE WIDESPREAD CHAOS.”

In exactly the same way, a massive prison housing nothing but innocent people would superficially look like “chaos,” if the airtight security system were turned off.

The truth about the Globalist prison is simple. The underlying operation takes jobs away from America, in this instance, and sends them to Third World hell holes, where the same products are manufactured by the same companies, for pennies, using slave workers who labor in toxic environmental conditions that destroy their health.

Isn’t that easy to understand?

The American companies in those hell holes then sell the products back to Americans without paying taxes, tariffs, or penalties of any kind. The defenders of Globalism claim selling back the products cheaply is good for the American consumer. This is a lie, because many of those consumers no longer have jobs. Or they work at much lower wages than they used to, because the companies they worked for left America and went to the hell holes.

All in all, this arrangement is obviously designed to torpedo the national economy. It’s not an accident. It’s not an unintended consequence. The Globalists may be criminals, but they aren’t stupid criminals.

But what about the US companies who left America and set up shop overseas? Can’t they read the handwriting on the wall? Can’t they realize their base of consumers in the US is shrinking?

The companies are, in fact, stupid. They’re betting on short-term success vs. long-term collapse, and they’re going to lose. They plunge ahead with their eyes closed—because they can’t bring themselves to believe that the system they’re part of could have been fashioned with ultimate failure in mind.

The anti-Globalism movement is MUCH bigger than Trump, so no matter what you think of him, whether you believe in his honesty or not, the ideas he is bringing forward are having an immense impact on the populace—because the populace has figured out the Globalist game. They see and feel the destruction. They see and feel what is happening to jobs. Their jobs. They see the brutal reality, and they want no part of it.

They want America to endure. They want America to prosper. They want a free market. They don’t want their country reduced to Third World status.

All the politically correct humanitarian lingo in the universe is not going to change these basic realities. Globalism—the export of jobs, the rapid expansion of the Welfare State, the launching of senseless wars to pave the way for corporate plunder, the immigrant-flood through open borders—is a nation killer. It’s built to be a killer.

Decimating nations is an intentional precursor to ruling the planet from above by the Globalists-in-charge. “What we destroy we will resurrect on our own terms.”

No nation on Earth has a pure and clean history. But no nationdeserves to be leveled and destroyed. The founding ideas of the original American Republic were and are the best ideas about government ever forwarded in human history. They imply:

Severely limited federal power. Free individuals. Independent individuals. Individuals who choose their own dreams and destinies. Individuals who work to achieve those dreams.

Individual creative power.

Continue Reading At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
_____________________________________________________________
Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.

MSM FAIL: All the major polls were wrong, which should tell you everything you need to know about the corrupt media

Polls
Source: NaturalNews.com
J.D. Heyes
November 12, 2016

Yes, we get the irony. Natural News is part of the “media,” but as we’ve always said and demonstrated, we’re not a part of the so-called mainstream media (MSM), which has long been considered little more than the propaganda division of the Democratic Party.

The MSM proved it once more during this past presidential election cycle, when nearly every single major media outlet picked Hillary Clinton to defeat Donald Trump for the presidency.

It was the modern equivalent of a “DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN” headline – comical and monumentally false at the same time, but with dire implications for the future of the country.

That said, perhaps the biggest chump of the entire election cycle was none other than the Huffington Post, whose clueless and politically compromised editors devised an “election model” that predicted a 98.2 percent chance that Clinton would win.

That same model, as we reported, had Clinton winning 323 electoral votes, though in reality all she picked up (as of this writing – some counting is still going on) was 228, meaning the HuffPo presidential prediction model was off by nearly 100 electoral votes. That’s incredible, when you also figure that the prediction percentage of 98.2 percent was off by just as much.

The only people who are really shocked by that, however – besides the editors and founder of HuffPo, Ariana Huffington – are the rest of the mainstream media pollsters who were just as wrong, though maybe not by as much. It seems their polling methods and statistical models were also inaccurate.

80 percent of major national polls were wrong, and by a lot

As reported by The Hill, what took place on election night in the polling industry was nothing less than an “industry-shattering embarrassment,” though Trump had long said he knew the polls were biased against him.

Turns out he was exactly right, even though he was dismissed and mocked for saying so.

“It’s going to put the polling industry out of business,” said CNN anchor Jake Tapper. “It’s going to put the voter projection industry out of business.”

As the nation headed into Nov. 8, the vast majority of polling firms – in partnership with most MSM outlets – and election modelers were predicting an easy Clinton victory. For weeks, in fact, and despite reports that many of these MSM outlets were oversampling Democratic voters, most predicted, like HuffPo, that she would win something north of 300 electoral votes.

Here are some examples:

— The final University of Virginia Center for Politics model predicted Clinton would win 322 electoral votes to Trump’s 216, with Clinton taking Florida, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and North Carolina, all states that Trump won.

— A number of Left-wing critics attacked supposed data guru Nate Silver at the FiveThirtyEight.com blog for saying Trump had a better than one-in-three shot – 35 percent – of pulling off a victory. Ironically (and hypocritically), they claimed that Silver was intentionally trying to influence the public into making the race appear to be closer than it was.

— Of the 11 major national polls that were released during the final week of the campaign, just two – an LA Times/USC survey (which had consistently shown Trump ahead) and one from Investor’s Business Daily/TIPP – showed Trump in the lead.

But the Times poll was lambasted as “experimental” for polling the same pool of people, and for the way that it weighted black voters. It was dismissed as an outlier and, therefore, not to be taken seriously.

It was Trump, not Clinton, who ran the table in the battleground states

The remainder of the surveys for the final week showed Clinton up between 2 and 6 points, which boosted her to a 3.3-point lead nationally in the Real Clear Politics average.

Battleground polling data was just as inaccurate, as evidenced by the fact that there were no surveys at all from Wisconsin this year that showed him ahead (though he won the state’s 10 electoral votes). In fact, heading into election day, Clinton was up there by 6.5 points, and in fact, no political analysts were even discussing the possibility that Trump could win there (his victory marks the first time the state has gone to a Republican since President Reagan won it in 1984).

In other deep blue states like Michigan and Pennsylvania, where Republicans have not won in decades, polls did show the race tightening up in the final days, but all had Clinton pulling off the win. Only a single poll, from the Trafalgar Group, showed Trump leading.

But overall, election modelers did not have Trump flipping either state – which he would need to secure enough electoral votes to seal the deal – even though the Clinton camp rushed in over the past few days to defend them.

Also, in North Carolina Trump won by nearly 4 points, even though polls showed that state to be a toss-up.

Nationally, most pollsters believed the race would be within 2–3 points, but with Clinton winning all of the key battleground states just as President Obama did, which would determine the outcome.

It didn’t happen.

The bottom line is this: The pollsters all favored Clinton ideologically and it showed in their modeling. Plus, none of the major pollsters bothered to try to learn about who formed Trump’s base of support. They were too satisfied with remaining in their bubble of pre- and misconceptions.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources:

NaturalNews.com

TheHill.com

TheGatewayPundit.com

Trump.news

Veteran Reporter Exposes The New York Times’ Arrogant, Disconnected, Agenda Driven Perspective

screen-shot-2016-11-11-at-2-37-27-pm
Source: LibertyBlitzkrieg.com
Michael Krieger
November 11, 2016

Yesterday, Michael Cieply, a 12-year veteran of the New York Times who left this past July, wrote a phenomenal article at Deadline Hollywood titled, Stunned By Trump, The New York Times Finds Time For Some Soul-Searching. Before highlighting some key excerpts, let’s set the stage.

The New York Times’ coverage of the 2016 Presidential election was an abysmal disgrace. I first became aware of the extent of the paper’s shady and compromised reporting, when the editorial board endorsed Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary over Bernie Sanders without making an intelligible or coherent argument to justify the stance. This outraged me to such an extent, I wrote a post titled, A Detailed Look at The New York Times’ Embarrassing, Deceitful and Illogical Endorsement of Hillary Clinton, which you should reread in full.

Here’s how I began the piece:

The New York Times’ endorsement of Hillary Clinton against Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary consists of an unreadable, illogical piece of fiction. In this post, I will critique the paper’s position in detail, but first I want to take a step back and explain to people what I think is going on in the bigger picture.

In its endorsement of Hillary, the New York Times editorial board did such a sloppy job I can’t help but think it may have done permanent damage to its brand. Upon reading it, my initial conclusion was that the editorial board was either suffering from Stockholm syndrome or merely concerned about losing advertising revenues should they endorse Sanders. Then I thought some more and I realized my initial conclusions were wrong. Something else is going on here, something far more subtle, subconscious and illuminating. The New York Times is defending the establishment candidate simply because the New York Times is the establishment.

One of the biggest trends of the post financial crisis period has been a plunge in the American public’s perception of the country’s powerful institutions. The establishment often admits this reality with a mixture of bewilderment and erroneous conclusions, ultimately settling on the idea people are upset because “Washington can’t get anything done.” However, nothing could be further from the truth. When it comes to corruption and serving big monied interests, both Congress and the President are very, very good at getting things done. Yes it’s true Congress doesn’t get anything done on behalf of the people, but this is no accident. The government doesn’t work for the people.

With its dishonest and shifty endorsement of Hillary Clinton, I believe the New York Times has finally come out of the closet as an unabashed gatekeeper of the status quo. I suppose this makes sense since the paper has become the ultimate status quo journalistic publication. The sad truth is the publication has been living on borrowed time and a borrowed reputation for a long time. Long on prestige, it remains very short on substance when it comes to fighting difficult battles in the public interest. Content with its position of power and influence within the current paradigm, the paper doesn’t want to rock the boat. What the New York Times is actually telling its readers with the Hillary Clinton endorsement is that it likes things just the way they are, and will fight hard to keep them that way. It is as much a part of the American establishment as any government institution.

After the paper successfully helped to dispose of Senator Sanders, it continued to commit egregious errors as a result of its blinded, fanatical support of Hillary Clinton. I highlighted an example of this behavior in the August post: New York Times Fails to Disclose Op-Ed Writer’s Ties to Hillary Clinton’s ‘Principal Gatekeeper’.

Fast forward to just one week before the election, when I discovered a tweet in my stream from the paper with such an absurd forecast I immediately flagged it with the following tweet:

screen-shot-2016-10-31-at-12-11-04-pm

I didn’t find the Times’  tweet absurd because I was some ardent Trump supporter (I wasn’t). Rather, I was able to recognize it as absurd because it was absurd. So why was I, a nobody blogger, able to see the ridiculousness of this forecast so clearly when the New York Times couldn’t? Because The New York Times had a predetermined agenda, and this agenda blinded it to reality.

With that out of the way, let’s dig into how things work at The New York Times according to…

Continue Reading At: LibertyBlizkrieg.com

Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Speaks At Length About The Election, Rampant Voter Fraud, Mainstream Media Failing, Solutions & Much More

Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell
November 11, 2016

Mysterious Paralysis Affecting Young Children

Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell
November 10, 2016

This is such a disturbing article I don’t know where to begin, nor how to react other than in horror. It has been reported, even in some lamestream media outlets, that several young children are appearing all over the country, with mysterious paralysis symptoms resembling polio:

Mysterious illness suddenly paralyses hundreds of US children and doctors don’t know why

Here’s the central issue:

A handful of physicians had seen patients with similar symptoms and asked Dr. Carol Glaser to test them for polio.

“I thought, ‘Well that’s crazy. We don’t have polio here,” said Glaser, then head of the encephalitis and special investigations section at the California Department of Public Health.

Glaser quickly determined the patients weren’t suffering from polio. She also tested for pathogens that can sometimes cause such paralysis, including West Nile virus. All negative.

Then she decided to check for other viruses in the same family as poliovirus, known as enterovirus. And in some of the paralyzed patients, she found a possible culprit: enterovirus D-68.

Enterovirus D-68 was incredibly rare, almost never seen after it was first discovered in 1962 in four California children who had pneumonia. Though a cousin of poliovirus, it was only supposed to cause a runny nose and cough.

Van Haren had never heard of it.

And there’s this, further down in the article:

In late summer of 2014, enterovirus D-68 started sending kids struggling to breathe to emergency rooms around the country. News reports called it a rare, cold-causing virus, a danger to children with asthma.

But then an 11-year-old boy in Texas with a seemingly normal fever lost the ability to walk and move his right arm.

A 17-year-old girl in California experienced severe neck pain at her birthday party and ended up in the hospital, paralyzed from the neck down.

In Oregon, a 13-year-old boy’s diaphragm stopped working, so he needed a ventilator to breathe. He was completely paralyzed, able only to wiggle his toes and his right hand.

Whatever was happening to these children was “pretty much, literally, exactly, what polio did,” said Dr. Jean-Baptiste Le Pichon, a child neurologist who treated four such patients in 2014 at Children’s Mercy Hospital in Kansas City, Mo.

Glaser watched from California as the numbers of paralyzed kids grew. She became horrified that her theory about enterovirus D-68 might be correct.

That October, Van Haren spoke at a national meeting of child neurologists. He asked 300 specialists how many of them had seen these kinds of paralysis cases in the past few months.

“More than half the hands in the room went up,” he recalled.

There’s not much here for high octane speculation, but I’m going to advance one anyway: I strongly suspect that the horrid vaccination cocktails many states are now requiring to give infants is at the center of this. These stories remind me of similar stories I heard as a young boy, when there were controversies over the effectiveness of the Salk vs Sabin vaccines for polio. The Salk vaccines, at the time, were strongly suspected of giving some children the disease, and hence many switched to what appeared to be the more effective Sabin vaccine(the oral polio vaccine). Just a few years ago, doctors shied away from the vaccine cocktails now given to infants, for precisely the reason that their young immune systems were not strong enough to fight against the very diseases the vaccines were ostensibly designed to fight. That all changed just a few years ago.

And we all know who was ultimately behind the change: big pharma.

And that leads me to the next disturbing conclusion: how does one harvest the last remaining wealth of the middle class? To borrow the insight of Catherine Austin Fitts and many others, one makes them perpetually sick, with lifelong disabilities that are expensive to treat: an autistic child – and there’s another vaccine link that the “establishment medical community” does not want to confront with anything approaching objectivity – costs an average family millions of dollars. And now you can add this new “polio-like” disease to the mix.

How to harvest wealth? Keep people sick. How to keep them sick? Make them sick with shoddy products and forced vaccines. It’s the GMO issue all over again, same tactics, same arguments, same mercantilist penetration of government.

Don’t get me wrong. I am not one of those “anti-vaccine fundamentalists,” who thinks all vaccines are inherently wrong, or unhealthy (take your pick). Think of smallpox or polio here. But there are risks, and…

Continue Reading At: GizaDeathStar.com
_______________________________________________________________

Profile photo of Joseph P. Farrell

About Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.

 

Viral Video Showcases How The Election Can Be Outright Stolen & Rigged

Source: BlackBoxVoting.org
Bev Harris
November 8, 2016

A real-time demo of the most devastating election theft mechanism yet found, with context and explanation. Demonstration uses a real voting system and real vote databases and takes place in seconds across multiple jurisdictions.

Over 5000 subcontractors and middlemen have the access to perform this for any or all clients. It can give contract signing authority to whoever the user chooses. All political power can be converted to the hands of a few anonymous subcontractors.

“It’s a product. It’s scaleable. It learns its environment and can adjust to any political environment, any demographic. It runs silently, invisibly, and can produce plausible results that really pass for the real thing.”

Provides solutions and actions for immediate deterrence.

Read More At: BlackBoxVoting.org

Biggest Election Fraud In History Discovered In The United States

voter-fraud-ahead-caution | The Daily Sheeple

Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com
Jon Rappoport
October 31, 2016

Okay. She finally did it. On Monday, Bev Harris (blackboxvoting.org), the great investigator of vote fraud, appeared on the Alex Jones show and laid it all out. The GEMS vote-fraud system, “fraction magic,” the way the vote is being stolen. Not just in theory, but in fact. Listen to the whole interview and get the word out. Bev’s findings are staggering. Below the video is the original piece I did on this earlier this month.

High Alert: the election can still be rigged

Votes counted as fractions instead of as whole numbers

…[A]mazingly, the vote-rigging system it describes has not gotten widespread attention. The system can be used across the entire US.

As we know, there are a number of ways to rig an election. Bev Harris, at blackboxvoting.org, is exploring a specific “cheat sheet” that has vast implications for the Trump vs. Hillary contest.

It’s a vote-counting system called GEMS.

I urge you to dive into her multi-part series, Fraction Magic (Part-1 here). Here are key Harris quotes. They’re all shockers:

“Our testing [of GEMS] shows that one vote can be counted 25 times, another only one one-thousandth of a time, effectively converting some votes to zero.”

“This report summarizes the results of our review of the GEMS election management system, which counts approximately 25 percent of all votes in the United States. The results of this study demonstrate that a fractional vote feature is embedded in each GEMS application which can be used to invisibly, yet radically, alter election outcomes by pre-setting desired vote percentages to redistribute votes. This tampering is not visible to election observers, even if they are standing in the room and watching the computer. Use of the decimalized vote feature is unlikely to be detected by auditing or canvass procedures, and can be applied across large jurisdictions in less than 60 seconds.”

“GEMS vote-counting systems are and have been operated under five trade names: Global Election Systems, Diebold Election Systems, Premier Election Systems, Dominion Voting Systems, and Election Systems & Software, in addition to a number of private regional subcontractors. At the time of this writing, this system is used statewide in Alaska, Connecticut, Georgia, Mississippi, New Hampshire, Utah and Vermont, and for counties in Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin and Wyoming. It is also used in Canada.”

“Instead of ‘1’ the vote is allowed to be 1/2, or 1+7/8, or any other value that is not a whole number.”

“Weighting a race [through the use of GEMS] removes the principle of ‘one person-one vote’ to allow some votes to be counted as less than one or more than one. Regardless of what the real votes are, candidates can receive a set percentage of votes. Results can be controlled. For example, Candidate A can be assigned 44% of the votes, Candidate B 51%, and Candidate C the rest.”

“All evidence that [rigged] fractional values ever existed [in the GEMS system] can be removed instantly even from the underlying database using a setting in the GEMS data tables, in which case even instructing GEMS to show the [rigged] decimals will fail to reveal they were used.”

“Source code: Instructions to treat votes as decimal values instead of whole numbers [i.e., rigging] are inserted multiple times in the GEMS source code itself; thus, this feature cannot have been created by accident.”

A contact who, so far, apparently wishes to remain anonymous states the following about the history of the GEMS system:

“The Fractional vote [rigging] portion traces directly to Jeffrey W. Dean, whose wife was primary stockholder of the company that developed GEMS. He ran the company but was prohibited from handling money or checks due to a criminal conviction for computer fraud, for which he spent 4 years in prison. Almost immediately after being released from prison he was granted intimate access to elections data and large government contracts for ballot printing and ballot processing.”

I see no effort on the part of the federal government, state governments, or the mainstream press to investigate the GEMS system or respond to Bev Harris’ extensive analysis.

It’s not as if media outlets are unaware of her. From shesource.org, here is an excerpt from her bio:

“Harris has been referred to as ‘the godmother’ of the election reform movement. (Boston Globe). Vanity Fair magazine credits her with founding the movement to reform electronic voting. Time Magazine calls her book, Black Box Voting, ‘the bible’ of electronic voting… Harris’s investigations have led some to call her the ‘Erin Brockovich of elections.’ (Salon.com)… Harris has supervised five ‘hack demonstrations’ in the field, using real voting machines. These have been covered by the Associated Press, the Washington Post, and in formal reports by the United States General Accounting Office…”

So far, her analysis of GEMS seems to be labeled “too hot to handle.” Press outlets prefer to report the slinging of mud from both Presidential candidates’ camps. Meanwhile, the actual results of the coming elections—including Congressional races—appear to be up for grabs, depending on who controls GEMS.

Update: From what I understand, each state government appoints a “consultant” to manage GEMS on election night. That person would be capable of rigging the vote.

Read More At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com

_______________________________________________________________

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.

Book Review: The Monuments Of Mars – A City On The Edge Of Forever

mrsm
TheBreakaway
Zy Marquiez
September 7, 2016

The Monuments Of Mars – A City On The Edge Of Forever by Richard C. Hoagland is a phenomenal expedition into much maligned subject of space oddities du jour.

Predictably, the subject of Mars and evidence of ruins in space of an ancient civilization is one of those subjects that polarizes people between the devout believers, and the skeptics.  Regardless of what people believe, however, Hoagland takes an incisive approach in outlining all the data he and his colleagues have collated that reveal that NASA has undertaken a cover up of enormous proportions.

Hoagland searches for artificial evidence from places such as “The Face” of Mars, which was discovered by the Viking Mission, and also gives an in-depth look at Cydonia.  In these locales he finds geometrically precise anomalies that should not be there whatsoever. 

Whether one agrees with Hoagland or not, his reasoned and logical approach is coherent, cogent, and exceptionally academic in its precision.  This man [and a whole community of researchers] has found compelling data that should be taken quite seriously about artificial structures in places like Mars, the Moon, Iapetus and more.

The author also makes a substantial case in connecting the Egyptian Great pyramid to Mars.  That in and of itself should be quite troublesome, because, as the author notes:

“…what were the random probabilities that there would exist two isolated worlds, both with “pyramids” and “sphinxes,” and now, that the one site on this planet where the most perfect, most archtypal forms still stand – Cairo – would also form the key linguistic bridge that links those worlds…!?“[1][Bold Emphasis Added]

Synchronistically enough, Cairo means Mars in arabic.  How about those
apples pyramids?

In its totality, this is a book that should have flipped everything we know about history, space, and more, on its face [no pun intended].   Of course, predictably, that didn’t happen.

Which was quite predictable given that the mainstream media is utterly controlled by a handful of corporations – literally [Click Here For More].

That’s why it’s up to individuals on the grassroots level to examine the book by themselves, and come up to their own conclusions.  That’s one of the only ways we as a society are going to get at the core of the truth.

Hoagland’s breathtaking venture into the fringe has definitely located some data gems that should taken quite seriously and examined at the minimum.  If only a sliver of what he says is true, everything in the history of mankind changes forever.

______________________________________________________________
Source:

[1] Richard C. Hoagland, The Monuments Of Mars – A City On The Edge Of Forever pg. 289.

If Genetically Modified Foods Are Safe, Why Aren’t They Labeled

QuestionEverything2
TheBreakaway
Zy Marquiez
August 2, 2016

“The art and science of asking questions is the source of all knowledge.”
– Thomas Berger

“The greatest gift is not to be afraid to question.”
– Ruby Dee

Imagine yourself being the CEO of a big Biotech Corporation.

Imagine yourself being CEO of the most powerful Biotech Corporation on Earth.

The Board of Directors and yourself are having a meeting, and everyone’s discussing data on how genetically modified organisms [GMOs] are the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Every single one of you in this room is in agreement that Genetically Modified Foods, that your company has helped create, is a safe, great product.

Please keep in mind, as CEO, your ultimate job is that of increased profits for the company.  If you don’t perform, no profits are had, and you lose your jobs. 

Now, knowing this, as CEO of the most powerful Biotech corporation on the planet, wouldn’t it behoove you to label your product so people realize what type of product they are getting – that of a ‘safe’ variety?  Wouldn’t you and your company want people to realize which products you helped create as head of this corporation, since, not only they are ‘safe’, but ‘nutritious’?  Wouldn’t you, and your company, and ALL other Big Biotech companies want people to know who’s creating a more superior product as compared with everyone else, so that profits can begin and a pipeline of profits can be streamlined directly into your company?

The profit motive alone would lead one to believe that that if you wish people to use more of your product, as CEO, and if you wish to increase profits, then therefore you would want people to know when they are using to your product so they can stick with it, thus increasing profits year over year.  After all, as CEO, that’s your job.

Furthermore, even if other companies didn’t want to label their products [for whatever reason that would be], wouldn’t you, as CEO, want to distance yourself and your Biotech Company from other companies that will cut into your profits [since no genetically modified food products are labeled], in order to show that not only does your product works, but you are proud of it, and you want people knowing which product you help create so they can further support you and your righteous endeavours?

Ruminate upon that a bit.

_________________________________________________________

Decoupling from the above foray into the realm of imagination, let’s use another analogy.

Imagine yourself a prospective buyer of a new vehicle.  You just got a huge signing bonus to a job, and you have enough money to spend to purchase a brand spanking new $50,000 vehicle.

You and your other half go to the car dealership looking for this new vehicle.

Excitedly, both of you set off into the parking lot and begin browsing vehicles.  But then, you realize something rather odd.  None of the cars have logos on them.  You can’t tell which company made which car.  Well shucks, that would be quite suspect, right?

How could you verify from which company which car came?  You couldn’t.  How could you verify if the claims of the car’s performance match that of the official company specs?  You couldn’t.  How could you verify if the car’s safety data matches that of the official tests?  You couldn’t. 

Knowing all this, would you as prospective buyer, purchase a car from – Heaven knows whom? – this dealership?  Or would you go elsewhere where they tell you exactly what you’re getting?

Ruminate on that for a bit.

__________________________________________________________

Both examples are quite salient, because we have products, whose claims are being made are safe and effective, but which have no labels.

Except this has a direct correlation to the issue of Genetically Modified Organisms/Foods.

If you wouldn’t purchase a car if you didn’t know who made it and couldn’t verify its safety et al., why would you purchase foods that have genetically modified organisms from company _______ [we don’t know from which company, they aren’t labeled after all]?

After thinking long and incisively, you probably wouldn’t, would you?

This is one of the greatest issues that we as a society are faced with.

While other countries like Russia and others are banning [not labeling, banning] genetically modified foods/organisms, here in the United States, sell-out politicians and corrupt corporations just finished creating a law that obfuscates the issue even more that’s Orwellianly called Dark Act [who are they keeping in the dark?].

Thankfully, there is a solution at hand.  There are healthier alternatives, and for that please read this.

In our information age, individuals need to be cognizant when they are eating real food and when they are not.  If we don’t, we set ourselves up for failure at the outset and stand to lose greatly.

If we don’t look out for our health and that of our kith and kin, nobody will.

Vote with your dollars.  Make it count.

Support yourself, rather than those to seek to profit from you at your expensive.

If we don’t, humanity’s next chapter will be a Dark Act indeed.

How A Generation Lost Its Common Culture

young graduates students group

Source: MindingTheCampus.org
Professor Patrick Deneen
February 2, 2016

My students are know-nothings. They are exceedingly nice, pleasant, trustworthy, mostly honest, well-intentioned, and utterly decent. But their brains are largely empty, devoid of any substantial knowledge that might be the fruits of an education in an inheritance and a gift of a previous generation. They are the culmination of western civilization, a civilization that has forgotten nearly everything about itself, and as a result, has achieved near-perfect indifference to its own culture.

It’s difficult to gain admissions to the schools where I’ve taught – Princeton, Georgetown, and now Notre Dame. Students at these institutions have done what has been demanded of them:  they are superb test-takers, they know exactly what is needed to get an A in every class (meaning that they rarely allow themselves to become passionate and invested in any one subject); they build superb resumes. They are respectful and cordial to their elders, though easy-going if crude with their peers. They respect diversity (without having the slightest clue what diversity is) and they are experts in the arts of non-judgmentalism (at least publically). They are the cream of their generation, the masters of the universe, a generation-in-waiting to run America and the world.

Related: The Chaos of College Curricula

But ask them some basic questions about the civilization they will be inheriting, and be prepared for averted eyes and somewhat panicked looks. Who fought in the Peloponnesian War? Who taught Plato, and whom did Plato teach? How did Socrates die? Raise your hand if you have read both the Iliad and the Odyssey. The Canterbury Tales? Paradise Lost? The Inferno?

Who was Saul of Tarsus? What were the 95 theses, who wrote them, and what was their effect? Why does the Magna Carta matter? How and where did Thomas Becket die? Who was Guy Fawkes, and why is there a day named after him? What did Lincoln say in his Second Inaugural? His first Inaugural? How about his third Inaugural?  What are the Federalist Papers?

Some students, due most often to serendipitous class choices or a quirky old-fashioned teacher, might know a few of these answers. But most students have not been educated to know them. At best, they possess accidental knowledge, but otherwise are masters of systematic ignorance. It is not their “fault” for pervasive ignorance of western and American history, civilization, politics, art and literature. They have learned exactly what we have asked of them – to be like mayflies, alive by happenstance in a fleeting present.

Related: Courses without Content

Our students’ ignorance is not a failing of the educational system – it is its crowning achievement. Efforts by several generations of philosophers and reformers and public policy experts — whom our students (and most of us) know nothing about — have combined to produce a generation of know-nothings. The pervasive ignorance of our students is not a mere accident or unfortunate but correctible outcome, if only we hire better teachers or tweak the reading lists in high school. It is the consequence of a civilizational commitment to civilizational suicide. The end of history for our students signals the End of History for the West.

During my lifetime, lamentation over student ignorance has been sounded by the likes of E.D. Hirsch, Allan Bloom, Mark Bauerlein and Jay Leno, among many others. But these lamentations have been leavened with the hope that appeal to our and their better angels might reverse the trend (that’s an allusion to Lincoln’s first inaugural address, by the way). E.D. Hirsch even worked up a self-help curriculum, a do-it yourself guide on how to become culturally literate, imbued with the can-do American spirit that cultural defenestration could be reversed by a good reading list in the appendix. Broadly missing is sufficient appreciation that this ignorance is the intended consequence of our educational system, a sign of its robust health and success.

Books for Book-o-Phobes

We have fallen into the bad and unquestioned habit of thinking that our educational system is broken, but it is working on all cylinders. What our educational system aims to produce is cultural amnesia, a wholesale lack of curiosity, history-less free agents, and educational goals composed of content-free processes and unexamined buzz-words like “critical thinking,” “diversity,” “ways of knowing,” “social justice,” and “cultural competence.”

Our students are the achievement of a systemic commitment to producing individuals without a past for whom the future is a foreign country, cultureless ciphers who can live anywhere and perform any kind of work without inquiring about its purposes or ends, perfected tools for an economic system that prizes “flexibility” (geographic, interpersonal, ethical).

In such a world, possessing a culture, a history, an inheritance, a commitment to a place and particular people, specific forms of gratitude and indebtedness (rather than a generalized and deracinated commitment to “social justice”), a strong set of ethical and moral norms that assert definite limits to what one ought and ought not to do (aside from being “judgmental”) are hindrances and handicaps.

Regardless of major or course of study, the main object of modern education is to sand off remnants of any cultural or historical specificity and identity that might still stick to our students, to make them perfect company men and women for a modern polity and economy that penalizes deep commitments. Efforts first to foster appreciation for “multi-culturalism” signaled a dedication to eviscerate any particular cultural inheritance, while the current fad of “diversity” signals thoroughgoing commitment to de-cultured and relentless homogenization.

We Must Know…What?

Above all, the one overarching lesson that students receive is the true end of education: the only essential knowledge is that know ourselves to be radically autonomous selves within a comprehensive global system with a common commitment to mutual indifference. Our commitment to mutual indifference is what binds us together as a global people. Any remnant of a common culture would interfere with this prime directive:  a common culture would imply that we share something thicker, an inheritance that we did not create, and a set of commitments that imply limits and particular devotions.

Ancient philosophy and practice praised as an excellent form of government a res publica – a devotion to public things, things we share together. We have instead created the world’s first Res Idiotica – from the Greek word idiotes, meaning “private individual.” Our education system produces solipsistic, self-contained selves whose only public commitment is an absence of commitment to a public, a common culture, a shared history. They are perfectly hollowed vessels, receptive and obedient, without any real obligations or devotions.

They won’t fight against anyone, because that’s not seemly, but they won’t fight for anyone or anything either. They are living in a perpetual Truman Show, a world constructed yesterday that is nothing more than a set for their solipsism, without any history or trajectory.

I love my students – like any human being, each has enormous potential and great gifts to bestow upon the world. But I weep for them, for what is rightfully theirs but hasn’t been given. On our best days, I discern their longing and anguish and I know that their innate human desire to know who they are, where they have come from, where they ought to go, and how they ought to live will always reassert itself. But even on those better days, I can’t help but hold the hopeful thought that the world they have inherited – a world without inheritance, without past, future, or deepest cares – is about to come tumbling down, and that this collapse would be the true beginning of a real education.

Read More At: MindingTheCampus.org


Patrick Deneen is David A. Potenziani Memorial Associate Professor of Constitutional Studies at Notre Dame.

Reality Reduction: The 5 Media Conglomerates That Manipulate Reality & What We Know As “Truth”

We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.”
– William Casey, CIA Director [1981]
QuestionEverything2
[Editor’s Note]
This post was shared nigh two weeks ago, but since WordPress seems to love censoring things that matter, we will share it as many times as need be.  The truth will not be stopped.

_________________________________________________________________
TheBreakaway
Zy Marquiez
August 29, 2016

“The creation of this empire has been facilitated by the power of the corporate mass media, increasingly falling into fewer and fewer hands.  The ownership of the corporations that today control the information available to the broadest portion of the population can be traced back to the same families and companies who backed Hitler.”
– Jim Marrs, Rise Of The Fourth Reich – The Secret Societies That Threaten To Take Over America, pg. 353

Media of all type plays a vital role into what we see as ‘truth’.

If the media reports that there’s terrorism  attacks ever present, then that must be the truth.  It’s not like there’s statistics that say otherwise.  If the media says the two-party system [duopoly, anyone?] that sells out the populace nigh every time to corporate interests is fair and just, then it is ‘truth’.  If further, the media states that the economy is good, then it must be the truth.  It’s not like stores like Walmart or fast food places like McDonalds are closing establishments by the hundreds.  [P.S.   Those aren’t the only business closing stores en masse.]

Never mind the fact that the media refuses to touch subjects such as preventable medical mistakes, which kill over 250,000 people and are the third leading cause of death in the United States.  That is not the ‘truth’.  That must not be talked about.  That is not normal.

Never mind the fact that the media refuses to home in on the fact that the people’s rights to know what’s in their food was eviscerated – again – by Monsanto via the DARK ACT 2.0 and corrupt politicians [read above]

Never mind the fact that the media refuses to gaze at scientific fraud, censorship, intimidation, and even media collusion.

Never mind the fact that the media refuses to address issues, such as the testimony of CDC whistleblower Dr. William Thompson Ph.D., when he came out stating ‘We scheduled meeting to destroy vaccine-autism study documents’.  That’s not ‘normal’.  Vaccines are always ‘safe’ and ‘effective’.  Right.

Never mind the fact that there are hundreds of references in literature that speak about the many effects of the neurotoxin, Thimersoal, in vaccinations.  Again, that’s not ‘truth’.  We must not speak about it.

Never mind the fact that many doctors [Dr. Kelly Brogan, Dr. Peter Breggin, etc.] have come out showing what sham psychiatry is.  That must not get airtime, because, that’s not the truth.    After all, what kind of world would we have if depression was not a disease, but a symptom, as Dr. Brogan has postulated.

One would figure at least one of those news-worthy events would get plastered all over mainstream media, but such is not the case.   In fact, in the latest case of media censorship, Dr. Kelly Brogan’s book – even though it became a New York Times best seller without any mainstream media press – was blacklisted from mainstream press.  Of course, questioning mainstream narrative must not be done.  They only report on the “truth”.

As we can note, the mainstream media delineates what is, and what isn’t ‘truth’ in our society.  It’s reality reduction to the hilt.

As if that were not enough, the media can be homogenized at any time.

Very salient and troubling examples follow:

Exhibit A:

Exhibit B:

Exhibit C:

Please keep in mind, these are only some of the times the media’s been caught.  It’s impossible for us to know how often this takes place, but the fact that these have taken place goes to show the control the media is under for such to take place.  That also goes to explain why the mainstream media almost never reports conflicting information, even though the alternative media has shown how unreliable they are many times.

As you can see, whenever the tune is called, they all follow in lock-step.  It’s extremely worrisome that so many ‘different networks can use the same message.  So much for journalism!

How has this been accomplish?  With the consolidation monopolization of the media.

Jim Marrs, in his notable book Population Control elaborates:

“While the US was once a nation with a great variety of newspapers and periodicals, today virtually everything a person sees or hears is coming from one of only five multinational corporations – the Walt Disney Company, News Corporation, Time-Warner, and Viacom [which now includes CBS] and the German publishing giant Bertelsmann.  These five giants not only control the newspapers but for most of them also radio and television networks, movie studios, magazines, cable and satellite outlets, music companies, and even billboards.”[1][Emphasis Added]

In all fairness, the media is merely a puppet of the establishment.  This has been known for decades.

Nigh a century ago, Edward Bernays spoke succinctly about this in his book Propaganda:

“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. …We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. …In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons…who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.”[2]

As we can note, control of mass consciousness is nothing new.  In fact, it’s had decades to be perfected, which is why it’s become so efficient.

And with 5 Corporations calling the shots, how hard could the manipulation Bernays spoke of be to accomplish?

It’s imperative for us individuals to be mindful of this malicious manipulation that’s been happening for many decades now.  If we do not become cognizant of how the media manipulates our thoughts and beliefs, we stand to suffer greatly.

We as individuals need to seek information that’s not only truthful, but empowering.

Such information will allow us to see reality for what it really is, and empower us in the process.

Let’s get back to the initial point.

As we have learned, the media manipulation of reality unleashes brainwashing in certain ways people can’t imagine.  This shows how the power of the media can cast a dark veil on reality. 

Regardless of what the latest mainstream media spin is, follow your instincts.  They’ve led you this far.

The veil of propaganda will cease to have power over us the second we open our eyes and realize our inherent ability to see through the smokescreen.

And the best part about it is that the smokescreen is an illusion, a construct.  Put there by the media to keep us coupled to the reality they dictate on the daily basis.

Ultimately, illusions, once seen for what they truly are, become powerless.

Open your eyes and pierce the veil.

Open your mind and cast light on the darkness.

It’s the only way we’re going to see the reality for what it really is.

___________________________________________________________________________________
Sources:

[1] Jim Marrs, Population Control – How Corporate Owners Are Killing Us, pg. 290
[2] Edward Bernays, Propaganda, pg. 37-38.

How to Make Compost in the Winter Using the Sun, Leaves and a Black Garbage Bag

Source: Garden&HomeDIY
December 7, 2016

Making compost in the winter is super easy when you use the sun, leaves and a black garbage bag! Follow the quick tips in this video, and you’ll have some nice compost to feed your garden beds come spring planting time.

Is the Soda Industry Hiding Health Risks of Drinking Soda?

Source: NaturalSociety.com
Julie Fidler
December 7, 2016

When the soda industry funds studies into the health risks associated with consuming its products, soda always comes out looking rosy, according to researchers at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF).

A team of scientists from the university recently looked at studies published between 2001 and 2016 on the relation of soft drink consumption to obesity and diabetes. They found a 100% probability that a published study that finds no link between sugary beverage consumption and poorer metabolic health was underwritten by the beverage makers themselves, or was authored by researchers with financial ties to that industry. [1]

So the next time you see a study claiming that sugary drinks aren’t that bad for you, do a little digging and find out who funded the study. If the study wasn’t conducted by independent researchers, it’s probably trying to dupe you.


Source: Business Insider

Dean Schillinger, lead author of the report and chief of the UCSF division of general internal medicine at San Francisco General Hospital, said:

“If you look at just the independent studies, it becomes exceedingly clear that these drinks are associated with diabetes and obesity. Yet there are pockets of society that believe that they don’t cause these diseases because of the controversy that industry has created.” [2]

The authors wrote:

“This industry seems to be manipulating contemporary scientific processes to create controversy and advance their business interests at the expense of the public’s health.” [1]

Said Schillinger:

“If you were to poll the average American, you would find tremendous variation in the degree to which they understand and/or believe drinking five Mountain Dews a day can cause diabetes.” [3]

That’s the average amount consumed by teenagers in West Virginia, he noted.

Deceptive Dollars

Researchers looked at 60 experimental studies for their analysis and found that 26 of the articles – 43% – uncovered no link whatsoever between sugary soda consumption and either obesity or metabolic dysfunction. [1]

The remaining 34 articles, on the other hand – approximately 57%did reveal a link between the consumption of sugar-sweetened drinks and those health problems.

As you probably guessed, the 26 studies that showed no link between sugary drinks and health problems were carried out by researchers with financial ties to the beverage industry.

Repeat Performance

Wait; haven’t we seen this kind of disingenuous type of “science” before?

Well, pretty much everywhere.

The revelation that the beverage industry funds soda studies that frame their products in a positive light may be shocking, but it shouldn’t be surprising. When you write about this sort of thing for a living, biased research starts to become old news.

In September, I wrote about how the sugar industry fooled the public for 5 decades by hiring Harvard scientists to downplay the link between sugar consumption and heart disease and promote saturated fat as the cause, instead.

The Sugar Association, as it was called in the 1960s, was behind the market saturation of low-fat foods, which, unsurprisingly, required huge amounts of added sugar to even be edible.

In October, I wrote about how Coca-Cola and Pepsi fund 96 U.S. health groups, including some run by the government. Yes, even the American Diabetes Association took money from the nation’s top two soda companies.

And let’s not forget about the pharmaceutical industry. From 2006 to 2014, there was a 43% increase in clinical trials funded by drug companies. The federal government does not require drug companies to hire 3rd parties to test their products.

Those are just three examples of the dishonesty going on behind the backs of Americans each and every day.

But unlike the Sugar Association, most companies these days don’t go out and “buy” the results they want. Instead, they apply subtle pressure to the researchers they are funding. Sometimes that’s not even necessary. Sometimes all it takes to skew a researcher’s work in favor of a company is the back-of-the-mind knowledge of where the money is coming from.

New York University food researcher Marion Nestle said: “It’s way too simple to say that companies buy the results they want.” She added that:

“[T]here is something about funding that leads – almost certainly unconsciously and unwittingly – to skewing studies to get the desired results. This is not hard to do.” [1]

The beverage industry, of course, insists it has nothing but the best intentions. In a statement, the American Beverage Association (ABA) says that”

“Beverage companies are engaged in public health issues because we too want a strong, healthy America. We recognize that we have a role to play in reducing obesity, and we are taking voluntary actions to reduce calories and sugar from beverage consumption — working together as competitors and engaging with prominent public health groups.” [3]

The new review was published 31 October 2016 in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

Read More At: NaturalSociety.com

Sources:

[1] Los Angeles Times

[2] The New York Times

[3] HealthDay


Dove’s ‘natural’ beauty products contaminated with cancer causing chemicals, fake dyes and toxic fragrances

Image: Dove’s ‘natural’ beauty products contaminated with cancer causing chemicals, fake dyes and toxic fragrances
Source: NaturalNews.com
Amy Goodrich
December 7, 2016

Every day we are bombarded by unattainable standards of beauty. Magazines, TV, adverts, and social media all picture perfect models which undervalue the real beauty in ourselves. These beauty advertisements shape our expectation in terms of how we see ourselves.

The desperate need for the perfect body makes us buy the same products these models are promoting in the hopes it will make us flawless and beautiful like them. Unlike most other companies, Dove uses ‘real people’ in their campaigns, which makes us feel much better about the way we look.

This is one of the main reasons why people opt for Dove products that offer real and genuine beauty made from natural components. Or that is what they claim. In truth, Dove isn’t any better than all the other highly promoted toxic beauty products. Their so called ‘real’ or ‘pure’ products are one big scam since Dove, together with all the other companies, uses many toxic ingredients in their products.

What “Real Beauty” looks like

Today, Dove is one of the leading brands of cosmetics generating $2.5 billion in purchases worldwide. With their ‘Real Beauty’ campaign they have lured many insecure, health-conscious people to their side who believe they are buying a ‘pure’ or ‘natural’ product.

Sadly, Dove’s beauty products are one great cocktail of toxic chemicals that have been associated with a wide range of health issues ranging from simple allergies and obesity to more severe problems such as infertility and cancer.

In contrast to its pure messaging, Dove’s foundation product called ‘White Beauty Bar’ is loaded with substances you’d rather not apply to your skin. Marketed as the number one moisturizing product recommended by dermatologists, this traditional soap bar contains chemicals such as stearic acid, sodium tallowate, tetrasodium edta, cocamidopropyl betaine, and synthetic fragrances. Do these substances sound natural or real to you?

Here are just a few examples of harmful chemicals found in most Dove products and what they do to your body.

Methylisothiazolinone

Methylisothiazolinone is a widely-used preservative that has been shown to contribute to allergic reactions, neurodegenerative disorders, and seizures.

Fragrance/perfume

Since the law does not currently require a detailed list of what makes up a fragrance, a manufacturer can hide any substance it wants under the term fragrance or perfume. One of these unlisted chemicals is diethyl phthalate, which is a synthetic liquid commonly used to make plastics more flexible.

Tetrasodium edta

Tetrasodium edta breaks down skin tissue thus letting other chemicals enter the bloodstream more easily. Furthermore, it is made from formaldehyde which is a known carcinogen.

Retinyl palmitate

Retinyl palmitate is a synthetic version of retinol (vitamin A). When applied to the skin in the presence of sunlight, it may speed up the development of cancerous lesions and skin tumors.

Sodium laureth sulfate (SLS)

As reported by Organic and Healthy, approximately 16,000 studies have linked exposure to SLS to irritation of skin and eyes, organ toxicity, developmental and reproductive issues, neurotoxicity, ecotoxicology, endocrine disruption, mutations, and cancer.

These damaging substances are only the tip of the iceberg of the toxic chemicals found in Dove products. The complete list is so overwhelming that it is a surprise that these products are still allowed on the market. According to the Environmental Working Group (EWG) Dove has a whopping 215 different chemicals in their products that range from highly toxic to tolerable and innocuous.

To make sure none of these chemicals mess up your body opt for natural, organic, chemical-free beauty products instead.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources:

OrganicAndHealthy.org

DailyHealthPost.com

TimeForYouMag.com

American Alternative Media Threatens Defamation Lawsuit Against Washington Post for Red Baiting

Source: WashingtonsBlog.com
December 5, 2016

Yves Smith – who runs the respected liberal website Naked Capitalism – has retained a top gun lawyer to sue the Washington Post for defamation unless it retracts its smear piece calling alternative media sites “Russian propaganda.”

Smith has also launched PropOrNot.org … a satirical site complaining about the lack of first-rate propaganda by the powers-that-be.

We – American alternative media who are loyal to the U.S. and no other country – fully endorse both efforts.

Unlike the knuckleheads who are attempting to shut down alternative media by lumping us in with Russian state-sponsored media, and the twits who wrote and approved the Washington Post smear piece – who apparently embrace the values of tyrants  we fought the Revolutionary War to escape – we at Washington’s Blog actually believe in American values, such as freedom of the press and other liberties.

Read More At: WashingtonsBlog.com