In a Police State, Be Careful Trying to Sell Souvenirs

astronaut-space-nasa
Source: TheDailyBell.com
April 24, 2017

You know what a good use of law enforcement resources is? Detaining old women for attempting to sell moon rocks and space shuttle pieces.

Of course, NASA is one of the many federal agencies with their own police force. One thing they decided to use this police force for was setting up a sting to catch a woman selling a piece of a space shuttle and moon rock she had received from her deceased husband.

NASA claims ownership over all space shuttle pieces, and therefore assumed the woman was selling stolen federal property. But her husband used to be an engineer for NASA and had received the space souvenirs from his employers.

NASA didn’t have to work hard to catch this 75-year-old widow. She contacted them! But rather than politely inform the woman what she was doing may be illegal, agents set up a sting to meet the woman in a parking lot and exchange the contraband.

Six armed agents detained her for two hours in the busy parking lot, during which time she wet her pants, presumably because she was afraid.

NASA declined to press charges; they are so forgiving. The woman was selling the items in an attempt to raise money for the medical car for her sick son, who has since died.

Her youngest daughter also died, and Joann took responsibility for her grandchildren.

She decided to try to sell the paperweights and contacted auction houses without success. She finally emailed NASA for help in finding a buyer for what she called “rare Apollo 11 space artifacts.” She explained how her late husband had received them.

An appeals court will allow the woman to sue NASA. Because of sovereign immunity, the government can actually decide whether or not to allow people to sue them.

Of course what will likely happen is she will waste money and time in court, and still not get justice for the way she was treated.

This just makes you wonder what is going on in the minds of these government agents. Who was seriously concerned about specs of a space shuttle and moon rock trying to be sold? Who thought it was appropriate to pursue a sting of a woman who contacted them!

This is what happens in bureaucracy. There is no sanity, no thinking feeling human being behind the actions of government. And if they will do something like this automatically, it makes you wonder just what else they will do, how far they will go to do their duty to enforce the laws of the United States government.

Read More at: TheDailyBell.com

The Suppression Of Ideas & The Closing Out of Debate

CensorshipFreedom
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com
Jon Rappoport
April 18, 2017

Let’s start with an extreme case. A case that has been roiled in emotion for decades. A case that triggers people into making all sorts of comments.

At quora.com, there is an interesting Q and A. The subject is the Nazi holocaust.

The question is: Why is holocaust denial a crime in some countries?

One answer is offered by Olaf Simons, who states he is an “historian at the Gotha Research Centre.” Here is an excerpt:

“Anyone who tells you it [the holocaust] is ‘not real’ (because he has found something to support his doubt) is manipulating you with a political agenda.”

That’s quite a far-reaching assertion. It’s obvious that a) someone might come to the conclusion that the holocaust didn’t happen and b) he has no political agenda. Whether that person’s conclusion about the holocaust is true or false is beside the point. And even if that person did have a political agenda, why should his comments about the holocaust be suppressed?

Olaf Simons takes his argument further: “Holocaust denial is different. It is telling you that all the historical victims are actually cheating the public. It denies families the right to mourn the loss of grandmothers and grandfathers, mothers and fathers, friends and loved ones. It is an attempt to deny Jews the right to remember their collective history – and usually the right to have a Jewish state as a consequence of this, their history. All the Holocaust denier has to do is claim his right of free speech and tell the Jew, who has lost his family, that he is simply a liar. That is the point where we as societies must intervene…”

Doubting or denying the holocaust “denies families the right to mourn” their loss. I’m talking about a person who claims the holocaust didn’t exist. A person who would make an argument against the holocaust by presenting what he believes is evidence. This approach is against the law in Germany and other countries. I fail to see how such an argument denies victims the right to mourn.

Because you believe you are a victim, because you know you are a victim (use any formulation you want to), someone else who claims you’re not a victim actually prevents you from mourning your loss?

I think we can look at groups all over the world, down the long trail of history, who have been persecuted, and we’ll see that no one prevented them from mourning, even in the most dire of circumstances.

In fact, there were occasions where someone denying the persecution ever happened would have been the least of the victims’ worries—because the violence against them was continuing for decades. And still they mourned.

There is, of course, another reason given for banning holocaust deniers. Their speech, even if not intended to provoke, could incite others to commit crimes against the victims.

This is the “one thing leads to another” argument. On that basis, countries and organizations could ban all sorts of language. The slippery slope has no limit.

And on a lesser note, if, for example, I started a site based on the idea that 9/11 was an inside job, and that site became popular enough, a social media giant might ban me or lower my exposure, because I was spreading malicious gossip against the US government, and by implication, giving succor to terrorists. Or I was denying the families of people killed on 9/11 the right to mourn—the right to “mourn properly.”

There are all sorts of reasons for denying the right to free speech.

And there are all sorts of reasons for closing out reasonable debate.

Look at what has been happening on American college campuses. A group wants to bring in a controversial speaker, so students (and paid agitators) riot. College is supposed to be the place where all sides of an issue can be aired and analyzed. Instead, we get violence. What are these college students learning? What are they not learning?

They’re not learning the power of their own minds. If they were, why would they be angry? Why would they be afraid to listen to a person with whom they profoundly disagree?

If someone wants to stand at a podium in a college hall and say Donald Trump is the greatest president in the history of the United States, so what? If someone wants to say Hillary Clinton is a genius and Bernie Sanders is a fool, so what? If someone wants to say college students should stage a revolution by refusing to pay off their loans, so what? If someone wants to say all college freshmen should study Karl Marx and only Karl Marx, so what? Is the sky going to fall?

Suppose a professor tells his students, “You’re all assigned to go to the talk tonight and listen to a speaker who is going to argue that Donald Trump is exactly what American needs now. Take notes. Come to class tomorrow prepared to argue rationally, for or against. And I don’t want you spouting generalities. I want specifics. I want thought.”

Suddenly, many students are going to realize they can’t argue rationally. They don’t have the tools. And that makes them nervous. They move into the role of agitators, because they’ve got nothing else. Suddenly, they’re against free speech.

Instead of making people smarter and sharper, instead of bullet-proofing them against propaganda and anti-logic, instead of educating them so they’re immune to slogans and obvious fallacies, instead of educating them to live in a society where free speech is elevated beyond shouting matches, we are seeing myriad excuses for disallowing free speech.

There is no limit to the excuses. Tomorrow, someone is going to dream up a new one.

Numerous players these days are saying political content on the Internet has to be monitored. They have their covert agendas. But beyond that, there is no reason to monitor political speech. If people can’t deal with competing politics, they need to fortify their IQ. They need to become smarter. That’s the answer.

If we live in a sewer of propaganda, we need to climb out of the sewer.

I could go on with the topic of free speech for another 10,000 words, but I’ll end off, for the moment, with this. Look for the “special case” argument. The strategy: a group has been oppressed, and they deserve compensation and justice, AND part of justice is ensuring that language is never used to criticize the group, because they are special, owing to the amount of persecution that has been visited on them. This particular group is different. They must be served. They must never be discussed in terms that, even vaguely, could be construed as negative.

No free speech in that case.

But wait. There is another group, and it, too, is special.

And another group.

And pretty soon, free speech is walking around with canes and crutches and sitting in wheelchairs and tubes are hooked up to it.

Even worse, people are focused on the issue of free speech as if it consists of nothing more than nasty remarks; and the burning question is, who has a right to be nasty, and in what situations, and for what reasons?

Whereas, the intent and hope for free speech was that it would rise higher and elevate into conversation that actually sought the truth, and examined basic principles on which that truth would stand.

In a free society.

Where fear of an idea didn’t exist.

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.

Court Rules Facebook Can’t Challenge Demands for User Data (and Can’t Tell Users)

facebook-exposed
Source: TheDailyBell
April 14, 2017

Facebook is not exactly the champion of user privacy, but at least in one case, the company did go to bat for its users. Facebook took New York law enforcement to court over secret warrants that allowed authorities to collect user data.

Unfortunately, Facebook just lost their case in the New York courts. The court ruled that only users themselves, not facebook, can challenge law enforcement demands for their data.

The only problem is, the court orders usually come with a gag order as well. Facebook is not allowed to tell their users that law enforcement is taking their data. And Facebook is not allowed to challenge these orders on behalf of their users.

So in true kangaroo court fashion, the only people able to challenge the government are those forbidden from being told that the government is investigating them. Well isn’t that convenient for prosecutors.

How are gag orders even Constitutional? You would think things like free speech and the right to know your accuser might cover that. But again, the government plays by no rules.

While the Court of Appeals acknowledged that the case “undoubtedly implicates novel and important substantive issues regarding the constitutional rights of privacy and freedom from unreasonable search and seizure,” the majority found that they were constrained by the current law that bars appeals by third parties.

The court said the only remedy for Facebook users is to sue for invasion of privacy after the fact.

Once we are done with you, you can go ahead and sue us. That’s how justice works, right?

Read More at: TheDailyBell

Conformity Crisis: Curiosity Vs. Conformity

Conformity
TheBreakaway | BreakawayConciousness
Zy Marquiez
April 11, 2017

“Human spirit is the ability to face the uncertainty of the future with curiosity and optimism.  It is the belief that problems can be solved, differences resolved.  It is a type of confidence.  And it is fragile.  It can be blackened by fear and superstition.”
– Bernard Beckett

“The first and simplest emotion which we discover in the human mind, is curiosity.”
– Edmund Burke

Children are the most inherently curious people on earth by far.  This is in their very nature, like breathing is to people.  Watching a youngling carry on and about, asking questions about everything in sight is a wondrous sight.  It matters not what lies in front of them, there is no mountain to high, or not valley to low.  They are capable, because their curiosity hasn’t been dampened by society.  In their nascent stages, a child’s imagination is boundless; this prompts children to see reality itself as boundless, which allows them live in a world of vibrant stories and endless journeys which have not been stultified.  In fact, they believe they are so capable they often get themselves in trouble, as we have come to know.

Because children are inherently curious, they act as little sages, they are like little philosophers.  Ironically, philosophy means the love of wisdom.  Children, by using their curiosity as a platform for understanding the world, are attempting to gain wisdom of reality and its inherent intricacies.   There is much to be learned about that.

From the full breadth and scope of human history, two of the best philosophers to learn from Socrates and Descartes.  The former is known as “the Father of Philosophy” and represents best classical philosophy; the latter is known as “the Father of Modern Philosophy” and represents best of modern philosophy.

What all children have in common with these two great minds is their ability to question.  Just like Socrates and Descartes employed the ability to question everything, so do children.  This is a great gift, because it yields many results in gaining knowledge of the world, and more importantly, of the self.

Unfortunately, later in life, children’s curiosity gets shoved brashly aside.  One could even go as far to say that curiosity is surgically removed from the individual’s repertoire and only a ghost of curiosity’s former self remains.  Whether by parents, public schooling, church, or any other way, children are asked to: [1] conform to standards imposed on them stifling their uniqueness and creativity, [2] to trust authority unquestioningly, and by trusting authority they are ‘taught’ [which in other vernacular is called indoctrinated] into [3] not questioning authority.  That triumvirate of nonsense [sn] leaves kids, like a ship with a busted rudder unable to sail in the sea, unable to be free in mind as they would be if they weren’t forced to conform.  Moreover, these children grow into adults that are incapable of questioning anything because they do not have the curiosity that’s the fuel for seeking truth and employing critical thinking.  We also know that critical thinking does not get taught in public schooling.

All of these above issues cause a great imbalance, because the individual forfeits their natural path that they would have originally followed had they not been stultified

While adults have a much harder time posing questions beyond superficial ones, if they even do so at all, children are vastly capable until their creativity is corralled.  Before the creative consciousness of individual gets sealed away in a vault, it’s important not to allow that ever to take place.   Curiosity needs to be fostered and cared for in continuous fashion.  It’s the inherent curiosity that children feature which the adult world lacks in droves.

Mortimer J. Adler & Charles Van Doren, in their quintessential How To Read A Book – The Classic Guide To Intelligent Reading, put it best:

The child is a natural questioner.  It is not the number of questions he asks but their character that distinguishes him from the adult.  Adults do not lose the curiosity that seems to be a native trait, but their curiosity deteriorates in qualityThey want to know whether something is so, not why.  But children’s questions are not limited to the sort that can be answered by an encyclopedia.[Bold Emphasis Added][1][Emphasis Added]

Adults, however, seem to lack this very type of curiosity, the boundless type.  Admittedly, adults are ‘curious’ about the weather, or about other superficial issues, but it’s not even close to the same magnitude.   Part of the reason is because as adults, we have been taught not to question and we have been indoctrinated to follow orders and always follow authority.  Trust authority is something that gets hammered in our youth, like nails.  This is why adults follow orders en mass in modern days, even though over a century ago this wasn’t always so.

What makes it worse is that when adults see other people ask questions and get reamed by for it, as if questioning authority is a deadly sin, the learn to retreat into a state of fear and conformity falling back into ‘official reality’ – the one in which you must not question.  Continuous conformity continues to tow the party line of via this mass societal engineering with nigh no end in sight.

Regardless of how people ended up losing curiosity and end up conforming, if an individual never leaves the confining, restrictive and stultifying part of the system, the individual will never be able to become an incisive, questioning, critical thinking individual.  And those who never arrive at their full potential will only living life at a fraction of their capabilities when compared to the full breadth and scope that is to be had if an individual is robust and self sufficient.

We should seek to go beyond the confines of conformity and be our own very inherent authentic selves.

The individual needs to be open-minded enough to see when someone is trying to put them in a box, and brave enough to stop those that seek to halt their conscious awareness of issues, no matter who it is.

Only through achieving unbounded awareness of what one is capable of are individuals to free themselves from the confines of conformity and reimplement the original constitution of curiosity they were endowed with.  Then, and only then, will individuals follow their inherent curiosities into new journeys, into a new life.

If individuals are to master themselves, if they are to be able to get in tune with their deepest self, they will need to be allowed to make their own mistakes – children and adults equally.  If individuals are not allowed the opportunity to make mistakes and go through obstacles opportunities for growth, they will never master themselves. 

The only way to breakaway into conscious creativity with curiosity is through the employment of imagination and ceaseless curiosity.

Via imagination, life becomes boundless – an ocean to be traveled upon.  Thereafter, the embers of curiosity are reignited, and the ideas start to take place, possibilities ensue – wonder begins .

From there, an inquiring individual can go through life, searching, willing, and able to journey on their path in search for life’s hidden treasures, venturing towards their personal mysteries.  Or they can remained stultified just as the system has made many become.

Curiosity or conformity.

Freedom, or societal subjugation.

The beauty of this conundrum is, it’s merely a choice.  One way or another, everyone always decides.

Every.  Single. Day.
___________________________________________________________

[1] Mortimer J. Adler & Charles Van Doren, How To Read A Book, p. 264.
___________________________________________________________
This article is free and open source. You are encouraged and have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Zy Marquiez and TheBreakaway.wordpress.com.
___________________________________________________________
About The Author:

Zy Marquiez is an avid book reviewer, researcher, an open-minded skeptic, yogi, humanitarian, and freelance writer who studies and mirrors regularly subjects like Consciousness, Education, Creativity, The Individual, Ancient History & Ancient Civilizations, Forbidden Archaeology, Big Pharma, Alternative Health, Space, Geoengineering, Social Engineering, Propaganda, and much more.

His own personal blog is BreakawayConsciousnessBlog.wordpress.com where his personal work is shared, while TheBreakaway.wordpress.com serves as a media portal which mirrors vital information usually ignored by mainstream press, but still highly crucial to our individual understanding of various facets of the world.

Big Government Vs. The Free Individual

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

EmersonGovtIndividual

What if a mandatory penicillin vaccine were forced onto every child in America starting tomorrow?

Image: What if a mandatory penicillin vaccine were forced onto every child in America starting tomorrow?
Source: NaturalNews.com
S.D. Wells
April 10, 2017

Currently, the state of California requires all children to be force vaccinated with the entire schedule of CDC “recommended” vaccines in order to be able to exercise their right to attend public school and get an education. It doesn’t matter if any of those children are allergic to mercury, aluminum, polysorbate 80, African green monkey kidney cells, genetically modified bacteria, neomycin (an antibiotic), human serum albumin (other people’s blood), formaldehyde, monosodium glutamate (MSG), bovine extract, gelatin, calf serum, or sodium chloride. Every child must be injected with all of these ingredients, without being tested for allergies against them first, as they are all listed and contained in the CDC’s “excipient” list of vaccine ingredients, in case you have any doubts. How many other U.S. states will soon demand forced vaccination for all children?

Even though penicillin, an antibiotic about 5 to 10% of the U.S. population is allergic to, is not currently a vaccine ingredient, does it matter? Did you know many vaccines are made with a peanut oil extract, but it’s not listed because only “trace amounts” remain? Nearly 2 million U.S. children have severe peanut allergies. Coincidence? Are those trace amounts enough to cause severe allergic reactions? You bet they are, along with unnatural, violent immune system reactions to injecting human blood, monkey kidney cells, cow’s blood, chicken embryo and live viruses combined from different strains.

Extreme vaccine-induced allergic reactions occur when your immune system reacts to foreign proteins and chemicals lodged in muscle tissue or that cross the blood/brain barrier

Penicillin allergy occurs because certain children’s immune systems mistake the drug as a harmful substance, often because the drug is injected with several viruses, bacteria, chemical adjuvants, foreign proteins, human pooled blood samples, and other experimental excipients that have never been tested for safety, allergies or for their neurotoxic effects on humans. Children in America are guinea pigs, including infants and babies still in the womb. Mercury is toxic to humans at any level, even if only eaten or when it touches the skin. Imagine what’s happening when it’s shot directly into body tissue through a needle.

If the human body detects and identifies these chemicals, drugs, and foreign proteins as harmful substances, it develops antibodies to them, even if they are mixed with powerful antibiotics. The second and third time those same drugs and chemicals are injected into the child, the reaction can be violent, brain damaging, central nervous system damaging, and yes, sometimes lethal, just like with penicillin.

Why the massive autism epidemic in 2017? Do the math…

Since 5 to 10% of the U.S. population is allergic to penicillin, if you injected everyone today with a penicillin-loaded vaccine, millions of people would suffer a severe allergic reaction, and many would die. There are more than 300 million Americans. If just 2% had a lethal allergic reaction to a penicillin inoculation, that would equate to about 6 million deaths. That’s how many people were murdered in the Holocaust. Now if you injected 300 million Americans with mercury, aluminum, formaldehyde, polysorbate 80, MSG, and African green monkey kidney cells, and just 2% of those people had a severe allergic reaction where their immune systems went into shock and their brains were damaged by the neurotoxins, there would be about 6 million people with autism spectrum disorder (ASD).

A new government survey of parents suggests that 1 in every 45 children ages 3 through 17 have already been diagnosed with ASD. This number is much higher than the CDC estimate, and for good reason. There are approximately 80 million children in the U.S.A. now. That means there are about 2 million children diagnosed with some form of autism, and many, many others who are suffering from vaccine damage that’s not diagnosed as ASD. When will that number equal or surpass 6 million? Statistics show that every other child in America will have some form of autism by 2032 – that’s 40 million children and just 15 years from right now.

Nearly 4 million American kids today have either severe peanut allergies or autism–wonder why?

The next time those autistic children are injected with the same drugs and chemicals, including the mercury-loaded influenza vaccine, a.k.a. the “flu shot,” specific antibodies will flag the dangerous concoction once injected into muscle tissue and blood, and the chemicals released by this activity cause the signs and symptoms associated with severe and often lethal allergic reactions, just like with penicillin. Get it?

Signs and symptoms of allergic reactions to injecting vaccine ingredients like peanut oil, formaldehyde, MSG, sodium chloride, aluminum, human albumin, aborted fetal cells, monkey kidney cells, gelatin, neomycin and mercury include: skin rash, hives, itching, fever, swelling, shortness of breath, wheezing, anaphylaxis, central nervous system damage, brain damage, nausea, abdominal cramps, rapid pulse, drop in blood pressure, seizures, loss of consciousness, coma, and death. Some severe allergic reactions to vaccines occur days or weeks after the concoction is injected.

Ask your doctor if vaccines contain experimental excipients. Ask the nurse for the vaccine ingredients insert and read every ingredient aloud in front of the doctor and your child. You should be aware of the biggest medical fraud cover up in the history of medicine. Here’s what you can do right now to combat the insanity.

Watch the highly informative whistle-blowing interview with the directors of the controversial film VAXXED that exposes the CDC’s known link between vaccines (such as the MMR–measles, mumps, rubella combo jab) and autism: