Ætherna

Bulletin Board

BookRetreats
Home >> Feed aggregator >> Categories >> Consciousness

Consciousness

Patrick Herbert, Contributor
Waking Times

The United States 1754 – 1863

On April 25th 1863 Lincoln bankrupted a commercial company known as the original United States.

Prior to this, Lincoln had formed a Delaware Corporation doing business as The United States of America, Inc. in order to continue to keep the wheels of government moving following the departure, on March 27th 1861, of eleven congressional delegates that represented the Southern States, an action which forcefully adjourned congress without having established a future date to re-convene.

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

The United States of America, Inc. would claim to be a successor to the commercial company known as the United States; however, there was never any contract binding the original United States to any successor corporation. Lincoln essentially substituted his corporation as a successor trustee with the remaining members of congress acting as a corporate Board of Directors.

On April 24th 1863, Lincoln issued General Order 100 placing the Grand Army of the Republic in charge of the fate of the nation and then on April 25th 1863, Lincoln bankrupted the original United States.

By the time the Armistice is signed in April 1865, war had ravaged the country. The Southern States were in ruins and under military occupation and the Northern States were bankrupt. With the original Congress of the Constitution having been dissolved and replaced by a “Congress” acting as a corporate Board of Directors operating a private, for-profit, commercial corporation called The United States of America, Inc., the period of 1867 – 1868 and the passing of the Reconstruction Acts were a time of great deceit.

The corporate “Congress” engaged in the creation of five military districts in ten Southern States and allowed the military district commanders to appoint “judges” to run civil tribunals, essentially creating a form of law called “Special Admiralty” which is not and has never been authorized by the constitution. To this day the identification of this court is to be found by the presence of a gold fringed Stars and Stripes with the judge acting as the “captain” or “master” of the ship or enclave.

READ: FRACTIONAL RESERVE BANKING – HOW TO CREATE MONEY OUT OF THIN AIR

In 1868, this same corporate “Congress” proceeded to publish its corporate articles as a deceptive look-alike and sound-alike constitution. The title was purposefully given a similar name to the original constitution. Where the original constitution by the founding fathers was called “The Constitution for the united States of America” (the lower-case ‘u’ is intentional), the new document was called the “Constitution of the United States of America” and it was written in similar tone and language as the original.

With this new corporate charter, the articles and by-laws of this new commercial corporation no longer required any ratification of amendments by the states. This paved the way for the unratified Fourteenth Amendment to be born into law by a simple proclamation of it having been passed in 1868.

The Fourteenth Amendment was designed to establish the underlying debt of the Government to the international bankers. From then on, every person born was born into private corporate limited liability as a corporate entity called a “citizen of the United States” and the banks established maritime salvage liens against every man, woman, child, all land, and every business in America (see: We the Subjects).

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push();

The United States of America, Inc. 1868 – 1933

In February 1871, the corporate “Congress” formed a corporation, commercial agency, and government for the “District of Columbia” (see: Treason and the Act of 1871). With this, “Congress” declared itself to be the successor of all “United States corporations” and the property of all said corporations claiming complete ownership of every corporation in America. This claim extends to all the natural-born inhabitants (now called citizens) and all of their assets.

Not content with the semantic deceit wrought by both the new corporate charter posing as the constitution and the Act of 1871, which created a separate foreign government in the 10-square mile parcel of land known as Washington, D.C., the corporate “Congress” sought to legitimize itself through the creation of a separate nation using federal territories and possessions as “states” complete with their land jurisdictions. The permission for this was derived from a series of Supreme Court cases known as the Insular Tariff Cases. This “union” of “states” operating as “the United States of America (Minor)” in place of the Continental United States is composed of Guam, Puerto Rico, and American Samoa.

By 1912, the bonds that were owned by the bankers keeping the government-funded came due, and by that time a strategy was already well underway by European banking interests to gain exclusive control of the money supply for the government with a private, commercial, and mostly foreign owned association called the Federal Reserve. This association bought the United States of America, Inc. and all of its “state” franchises and “agencies”.

The use of the word “Federal” in the title was for the purposes of deceiving the population into believing that the bank was a part of the federal government. The Federal Reserve Act was signed into law by President Woodrow Wilson without being ratified by any state in 1913. In response to this, Congressman Charles A. Lindbergh famously said: “From now on, depressions will be scientifically created.”

In 1917, the corporate “Congress” acting in accord with their international banking bosses conscripted all private property in America through the passing of the “War Powers Act”. Prior to this time there has never been any mention of anything called “War Powers” or any avenue that could be pursued that would entitle any government entity to the private possessions of every man, women, and child in America for military use. This was an illegal and unconstitutional power grab.

Following the cessation of military involvement in the First World War, the corporate “Congress” and various Presidents continued to declare “states of emergency” and “states of war” in order to retain control of all assets belonging to the states and state citizens. It is for this reason that the United States of America, Inc. would be in possession of these assets when bankruptcy would eventually be declared in 1933.

Leading up to this bankruptcy was a boom known as the “Roaring Twenties”. The 1920’s saw massive leveraged investment speculation as the Federal Reserve was excessively printing money with the bankers allowing markets to build along with a comfortable population making increasingly risky investments hoping for a fortune in an overvalued market.

In 1929, the Federal Reserve abruptly and purposefully cut off the money supply and, as a result, triggered a depression. Businesses were closed and real estate prices dropped. The bankers, however, were positioned to benefit from this fallout immensely and make a tremendous amount of real estate acquisitions for pennies.

READ: A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE

At this same time, the US Treasury was paying interest to the Federal Reserve Corporation in gold certificates, coin, and bullion that were then shipped off to the European banks controlled by the elite. By 1933 the Treasury was drained and the government was insolvent.

On March 6th 1933, Roosevelt proclaimed the bankruptcy of the United States of America, Inc.

The Fourteenth Amendment had established a “citizen of the United States” that all “Governors” of 48 federal “State” franchises pledged “the good faith and credit” of as an asset to finance the Chapter 11 re-organization expenses and pay interest in perpetuity to the creditors on the “national debt”. Conveniently, the Fourteenth Amendment states that the payment of this debt “shall not be questioned”.

The creditors, of course, were the Federal Reserve bankers.

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Like Waking Times on Facebook. Follow Waking Times on Twitter.

About the Author

Patrick Herbert is a software engineer, researcher, and writer who currently resides in Texas. He has been through some remarkable metaphysical experiences that led to a spiritual awakening and is actively pursuing ways to help to raise the awareness of others with regards to the elements of what we call the global conspiracy and how it affects all of our lives regardless of political disposition. Visit his website athttps://patrickherbert.org/

Like Waking Times on FacebookFollow Waking Times on Twitter.

Mandy Froelich, Truth Theory
Waking Times

Thanks to the ingenuity of a blind inventor, people who lack sight can more easily navigate the world. The “smart cane,” or WeWalk cane, uses ultrasonic sensors to warn the user of nearby objects and obstacles through vibrations in the handle.

As CNN reports, the purpose of the device is to protect people from low-hanging objects and obstacles above chest level. Not only can the can be paired with a smartphone’s Bluetooth system for easy control but is is also integrated with Voice Assistant and Google Maps Software. Furthermore, the WeWalk cane has built-in speakers the user of nearby stores and infrastructural details that may not easily be detected.

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Notably, the CEO and co-founder of WeWalk, Kursat Ceylan, is blind himself. He told CNN that he was inspired to develop the cane to help other blind people benefit from modern technology.

Over 5000 people have downloaded our free ebook “Growth Hacking Tips And Rituals For Optimal Living” CLICK HERE to get your free copy now

In these days we are talking about flying cars, but these people have been using just a plain stick,” he told CNN. “As a blind person, when I am at the Metro station I don’t know which is my exit … I don’t know which bus is approaching … [or] which stores are around me. That kind of information can be provided with the WeWalk.”

The  device is certainly an investment. Currently, the Wewalk is being sold for $500. As the invention gains traction, the Turkish start-up hopes to pair it with ridesharing apps and transportation services. The goal is to further improve its navigational abilities and open the world even further to visually impaired individuals.

About the Author

I’m an RHN, chef, writer, activist, and entrepreneur who lives in Colorado. I share healthy plant-based recipes at Life in Bloom and cannabis-infused recipes at My Stoned Kitchen.Read More stories by Amanda Froelich

**This article (Blind Inventor Develops ‘Smart Cane’ That Uses Google Maps And Sensors To Identify Surroundings) was originally published at Truth Theory and is posted here with permission.

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Like Waking Times on Facebook. Follow Waking Times on Twitter.

 

Elias Marat, The Mind Unleashed
Waking Times

Notorious cartel boss Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman has some strong opinions about where his billions of dollars gained from the drug trade should go—and he’s hoping that it benefits the poor indigenous communities of his home country of Mexico.

On Wednesday, attorney Jose Luis Gonzalez Meza, who represents the former leader of the Sinaloa Cartel, told reporters that Guzman “said the money doesn’t belong to the United States but to the government of Mexico,” according to EFE news agency.

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Gonzalez noted that his client informed family members that he is well aware that Washington is seeking to seize some $14 billion of assets from the former drug trafficker.

“El Chapo” remains adamant that the money should remain in the hands of the Mexican nation on the condition that President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador redistributes it to needy indigenous communities, the lawyer added.

The statement comes two months after the Mexican president announced that his government would do all that they could to seize the former drug trafficker’s assets. Since then, the Mexican Senate has proposed the creation of a binational commission that would negotiate a return of assets seized from Mexican criminals tried and convicted in the U.S.

On Thursday, Lopez Obrador cautiously welcomed the statement from “El Chapo,” stating:

“I like the statement, I don’t know if it’s true, I can’t verify it, but if that’s how it came out in the media, that [El Chapo] wants his wealth to be delivered to the indigenous communities of Mexico, it looks good to me [and] I celebrate it.”

In July, federal Judge Brian Cogan gave the 62-year-old former narco a prison term of life plus 30 years while ordering Guzman to forfeit a whopping US $12.6 billion—an amount equivalent to the total amount of illegal narcotics the jury determined he shipped to the United States.

The heavy sentence came following an 11-week trial in which jurors heard grisly tales of brutal gang killings, political bribery, massive drug-smuggling operations, and the lavish lifestyle of the former cartel leader.

Guzman is currently incarcerated in a supermax prison in Florence, Colorado—one of the most fortified jails in the entire U.S.

International human rights bodies such as the U.N. Committee Against Torture have long criticized what they describe as the extremely harsh regime upheld in U.S. supermax prisons, where prisoners are held in almost total social isolation, often for years on end, with devastating effects on the human psyche.

Guzman’s lawyers have criticized the inhumane conditions in which he is being held. They have also threatened to reveal the names of senior government officials of former Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto, who ruled the country from 2012 to 2018 and whom they claim are “placing obstacles” in the way of the repatriation of Guzman and his money back to his home country.

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

By Elias Marat | Creative Commons | TheMindUnleashed.com

Like Waking Times on Facebook. Follow Waking Times on Twitter.

Marianne Williamson tweeted about how prayer and the power of the mind could potentially shift hurricane Dorian away from land and the media and influencers went a little haywire.

Her exact tweet, before she deleted it, read as follows, “The Bahamas, Florida, Georgia and the Carolinas…may all be in our prayers now. Millions of us seeing Dorian turn away from land is not a wacky idea; it is creative use of the power of the mind. Two minutes of prayer, visualization, meditation for those in the way of the storm.”

Many, including the opinions over at The View, have been seeing this as stupid, dangerous, silly and childlike. But is this idea really that crazy? Or was it just not explained properly?

The truth is, at least in my research, is that Marianne was referring to the power of consciousness and human intention which is widely recognized in scientific study as something that has merit. The US public and mainstream culture is fairly ignorant to this fact, but it doesn’t mean it’s not true.

My only feedback on how Williamson handled this was that perhaps this was a time to bring some of that research and evidence forward to enter into the public space as there is plenty of credible peer-reviewed research to go off of.

In the segment below I discuss in detail:

– What happened when Marianne made the Tweet

– The negative feedback she received and who it was from

– The science behind what she is referring to

– How this is an important time to shift culture in the West to understand the true nature of our reality

– How mainstream media is just keeping people stuck in a false reality

You can watch the full segment below or join us at CETV on a 7 day free trial and become a member so we can continue to bringing consciousness into the mainstream conversation as it’s direly needed right now and we believe a more well-rounded discussion of current events is the future of media.

The Takeaway

It’s not a bad thing that the mainstream culture does not understand what Marianne was getting at, it just shows what is. What’s important however is that by having Marianne run she is creating conversations that CAN open people’s minds providing this more extended discussion happens. If we let the mainstream media control this conversation and ridicule her without providing a deeper analysis and the facts, then the culture will remain the same.

It is up to the collective to take responsibility for the state of our world and begin making conscious media the media of the future. Otherwise, the same narratives will be said over and over and over again.

Join us at CETV, help make conscious media mainstream and provide the much needed conscious conversations our world needs… it’s not going to come from the mainstream, we have to take responsibility.

The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.—Theodore Parker, 19th Century Unitarian minister.

Those awakening to the truth of what is going on in the world tend to be particularly irked by the knowledge that the most powerful people, who are guilty of the most horrific crimes, seem to be able to get off scot-free. And the trafficking, rape, torture, and ritual sacrifice of children would qualify as the most horrific crime imaginable.

The Catholic Church has long exemplified this invulnerability, as priests and other officials involved in these types of crimes were not ostracized or even punished, but simply moved to another location to continue their depravity.

The Times Are Changing

However, things seem to be changing. Top ranking officials in the Catholic Church like George Pell have been prosecuted. Hollywood moguls like Harvey Weinstein are having their day in court. And, of course, Jeffrey Epstein, who roamed the planet freely after his sweetheart plea deal in 2008, was recently arrested on fresh charges of sex trafficking and sex trafficking conspiracy before being ‘suicided’ while in jail.

Since Epstein’s death, which some speculate was brought on to protect powerful people, prosecutors and the Department of Justice have made it clear that their efforts to get to the bottom of all this will continue with investigations intro the role of those complicit in Epstein’s crimes. That means, at least theoretically, that Epstein’s death actually puts the spotlight on elite Epstein associates such as his alleged ‘madam’ and frequent flyers on Epstein’s ‘Lolita Express.’

If we look at the reactions of those highly implicated in Jeffrey Epstein’s indictments, and the fact that it is no longer business as usual for these high-flying people, it is possible to conclude that we have arrived at a special time in history, and that we may indeed be placed to witness the arc of the moral universe finally bending towards justice.

In the latest episode of the Collective Evolution Show, Joe Martino and I speak about the increased scrutiny on the formerly ‘untouchable’ elite, and how each one is reacting to it in their own particular way.

You can watch the first chunk of this segment below, or the full segment on CETV by starting a free trial here.

In the full segment we dive into Bill Clinton’s definitive statement of denial, Ghislaine Maxwell’s subtle and symbolic threat, Prince Andrew’s attempts to obfuscate the authenticity of evidence against him, and the total disappearance of Jean-Luc Brunel, head of French modeling agency MC2 and an alleged supplier of young girls to Epstein. Watch here on CETV.

The Takeaway

There is no denying that we are in a different time than even a few years ago, as high-profile people are starting to be held accountable for crimes that more and more of us are becoming aware of. It is incumbent upon us, as part of the awakening community, to refrain from thirsting for blood and revenge, but rather to see this as the closing phase of “breaking the illusion” we have been living under for so long. If we can hold the space of equanimity as all this madness continues to unfold, then we will stop supporting the polarized energy that is currently all around us, and will push away from it and move into a unified and harmonious vibration more quickly.

Phillip Giraldi, Strategic Culture
Waking Times

There have been several interesting developments in the United States government’s war on free speech and privacy. First of all, the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Customs and Border Protection Agency (CBP), which is responsible for actual entry of travelers into the country, has now declared that it can legally access phones and computers at ports of entry to determine if there is any subversive content which might impact on national security. “Subversive content” is, of course, subjective, but those seeking entry can be turned back based on how a border control agent perceives what he is perusing on electronic media.

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Unfortunately, the intrusive nature of the procedure is completely legal, particularly as it applies to foreign visitors, and is not likely to be overturned in court in spite of the Fourth Amendment’s constitutional guarantee that individuals should “…be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” Someone at a port of entry is not legally inside the United States until he or she has been officially admitted. And if that someone is a foreigner, he or she has no right by virtue of citizenship even to enter the country until entry has been permitted by an authorized US Customs and Border Protection official. And that official can demand to see anything that might contribute to the decision whether or not to let the person enter.

And there’s more to it than just that. Following the Israeli model for blocking entry of anyone who can even be broadly construed as supporting a boycott, the United States now also believes it should deny admittance to anyone who is critical of US government policy, which is a reversal of previous policy that considered political opinions to be off-limits for visa denial. DHS, acting in response to pressure from the White House, now believes it can adequately determine hostile intent from the totality of what appears on one’s phone or laptop, even if the material in question was clearly not put on the device by the owner. In other words, if a traveler has an email sent to him or her by someone else that complains about behavior by the United States government, he or she is responsible for that content.

One interesting aspect of the new policy is that it undercuts the traditional authority of US Embassies and Consulates overseas to issue visas to foreigners. The State Department visa process is rigorous and can include employment and real property verification, criminal record checks, social media reviews and Google-type searches. If there is any doubt about the visa applicant, entry into the US is denied. With the new DHS measures in place, this thoroughly vetted system is now sometimes being overruled by a subjective judgment made by someone who is not necessarily familiar with the traveler’s country or even regarding the threat level that being a citizen of that country actually represents.

Given the new rules regarding entering the United States, it comes as no surprise that the story of an incoming Harvard freshman who was denied entry into the United States after his laptop and cellphone were searched at Boston’s Logan Airport has been making headlines. Ismail Ajjawi, a 17-year-old Palestinian resident of Lebanon, was due to begin classes as a freshman, but he had his student visa issued in by the US Embassy in Beirut rejected before being flown back to Lebanon several hours later.

Ajjawi was questioned by one immigration officer who asked him repeatedly about his religion before requiring him to turn over his laptop and cell phone. Some hours later, the questioning continued about Ajjawi’s friends and associates, particularly those on social media. At no point was Ajjawi accused of having himself written anything that was critical of the United States and the interrogation rather centered on the views expressed by his friends.

The decision to ban Ajjawi produced such an uproar worldwide that it was reversed a week later, apparently as a result of extreme pressure exerted by Harvard University. Nevertheless, the decisions to deny entry are often arbitrary or even based on bad information, but the traveler normally has no practical recourse to reverse the process. And the number of such searches is going up dramatically, numbering more than 30,000 in 2017, some of which have been directed against US residents. Even though permanent resident green card holders and citizens have a legal right to enter the United States, there are reports that they too are having their electronic media searched. That activity is the subject of an American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security that is currently working its way through the courts. The ACLU is representing 10 American citizens and a legal permanent resident who had their media searched without a warrant as required by the Fourth Amendment.

It is believed that many of the arbitrary “enforcements” by the CBP are carried out by the little-known Tactical Response Team (TRT) that targets certain travelers that fit a profile. DHS officials confirmed in September 2017 that 1,400 visa holders had been denied entry due to TRT follow-up inspections. And there are also reports of harassment of American citizens by possible TRT officials. A friend of mine was returning from Portugal to a New York Area airport when he was literally pulled from the queue as he was departing the plane. A Customs agent at the jetway was repeatedly calling out his birth date and then also added his name. He was removed from the line and taken to an interrogation room where he was asked to identify himself and then queried regarding his pilot’s license. He was then allowed to proceed with no other questions, suggesting that it was all harassment of a citizen base on profiling pure and simple.

My friend is a native-born American who has a Master’s degree and an MBA, is an army veteran and has no criminal record, not even a parking ticket. He worked for an American bank in the Middle East more than thirty years ago, which, together with the pilot’s license, might be the issue these days with a completely paranoid federal government constantly on the lookout for more prey “to keep us safe.” Unfortunately, keeping us safe has also meant that freedom of speech and association as well as respect for individual privacy have all been sacrificed. As America’s Founding Father Benjamin Franklin once reportedly observed, “Those who would give up essential Liberty to purchase a little temporary Safety will wind up with neither.”

**This post was originally featured at Strategic Culture

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Like Waking Times on Facebook. Follow Waking Times on Twitter.

It’s important to understand why Donald Trump, since he decided to run for president, gets demonized by mainstream media. The answer is simple, it’s because he is a disrupter. Many minds will have a hard time seeing this, and this is the power that mainstream media has had over the minds of the masses for years. It’s not hard for them to program a perception about an event or a person into the mind of the average human being. They have a very powerful ability to do so, and these programs stem from mainstream media’s relationships with intelligence agencies like the CIA. It’s simply a tool used to brainwash the masses.

The coordinated efforts among major news outlets including CNN, NYT, WaPo, HuffPo, and USA Today are no different from the concerted media attacks against Brazil’s Dilma Rousseff, which resulted earlier in 2016 in her impeachment and removal from power. In the case of Rousseff, we see what has been alternately described as a soft coup or a Wall Street coup, along the lines of the “color revolutions” that occurred a few years earlier (which are now largely understood as CIA-NGO orchestrated). In both cases, pretexts were created and hammered home by an insistent media that whipped up public opinion. In Brazil, it worked. It seemed like it would work in the US.

As for Donald Trump, his presidency in many ways falls against the two key pillars of the American ruling elite’s ideology: neoliberalism and neoconservatism. And this is why we constantly see him being demonized, and efforts to impeach him are abundant. It’s also why the ‘Russian collusion’ narrative existed, something that many should have been able to recognize as being completely fake.

There has clearly been an ongoing deep state attack on Trump. Whether or not you hate Trump, far beyond the point, what is being exposed here is far bigger than that.

Welcome to America, where fake news is pushed as real, and real news is heavily censored and ridiculed.

Not long ago, Noam Chomsky offered his thoughts and made some very good points on this. Chomsky is known as a deep critical thinker, a linguist, philosopher, cognitive scientist, historian, social critic, and political activist, among other things. I’m a longtime fan, and much of the work he’s put out deeply resonates with me, but at the same time, much of it does not.

He is usually spot on for the most part, in my opinion,  when it comes to his analysis of modern day politics. He recently shared his thoughts on this entire Russian collusion debacle.

He explained in an interview with Democracy Now that the media’s focus on Russian collusion with regards to the 2016 US election was a “joke.”

He did not confirm or deny his belief on whether or not it even happened, but rather explained:

First of all, if you’re interested in foreign interference in our elections, whatever the Russians may have done barely counts or weighs in the balance as compared with what another state does, openly, brazenly and with enormous support.

Israeli intervention in US elections vastly overwhelms anything the Russians may have done, I mean, even to the point where the prime minister of Israel, Netanyahu, goes directly to Congress, without even informing the president, and speaks to Congress, with overwhelming applause, to try to undermine the president’s policies – what happened with Obama and Netanyahu in 2015.

It’s a great point. Three-time presidential candidate and former member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Dr. Ron Paul, has been outspoken about the US meddling in the elections of other countries. He noted that in an ideal world, the US wouldn’t be concerned about other countries trying to interfere with their elections, and that the reason it’s not happening is because the US government is steeped in hypocrisy, doing the exact same thing they are accusing Russia of doing.

“The American people should be worried about the influence of our CIA in other people’s elections, I mean probably hundreds. It’s constant,” he said, even mentioning “domestic assassinations” the CIA has apparently been a part of.

Paul stirred the pot further by revealing that a “shadow government,” in the words of RT, has teamed up with major media in order to push an anti-Russian narrative on the public to instil fear and hatred and ultimately rile up more arguments between the opposing Republican and Democratic parties.

There Are More Important Issues

The point of presenting the interview with Chomsky and the points he makes is that there are more pressing issues. The supposed Russian hacking in the US election is not really important, it’s simply being used for political purposes and assassinations.

Modern day politics is extremely corrupt, and here at CE we’ve been presenting evidence for years that many of our political ‘leaders’ are actively engaged and involved in some very unethical and immoral behaviour. That shouldn’t really come as a surprise if you take a look at what is happening to our planet–it’s truly the result of psychopathic leaders that we, the people, allow to control all our resources and make decisions for us.

Furthermore, the interview also sheds light on interference in our electoral process that never gets any media attention. So, ask yourself, why?

Who Is Really In Charge? Do We Really Live In A Democracy?

One of many popular quotes we use here at Collective Evolution to shed light onto the world of modern day politics comes from New York City mayor, John F. Hylan, who once said, “like a giant octopus sprawls its slimy legs over our cities, states and nation.” This “little coterie of powerful international bankers virtually run the United States government for their own selfish purposes. They practically control both parties … [and] control the majority of the newspapers and magazines in this country.“

This begs the question, do we really live under a system of democratic vote? Do the people truly have a voice? It seems that corporations and other higher powers have complete control over political policy, and the will of the people is never really considered. For the most part, especially in the United States, elections come down to two people who don’t really have the best interests of the people or humanity at heart. Despite this fact, we keep voting, something that gives us the illusion that we are living in a democracy. Voting does absolutely nothing for change, and yet many Americans still give it grave importance. It seems that both democrats and republicans have simply been representing two different wings from the same bird for a long time.

This is the way the system works, it’s a rotten system, and I see elections as so much of a charade. So much deceit goes on… whether it’s a Republican or a Democrat president, the people who want to keep the status quo seem to have their finger in the pot and can control things. They just get so nervous so, if they have an independent thinker out there, whether it’s Sanders, or Trump, or Ron Paul, they’re going to be very desperate to try to change things… More people are discovering that the system is all rigged, and that voting is just pacification for the voters and it really doesn’t count.”  – Dr Ron Paul

There are dozens upon dozens of politicians who have referenced the ‘Deep State,’ not just Donald Trump. Despite the fact that Trump has often been labelled as a ‘conspiracy theorist’ by mainstream media, he joins a long list of politicians who have expressed the same things.

Another great example comes from Theodore Roosevelt,

Political parties exist to secure responsible government and to execute the will of the people. From these great staffs, both of the old parties have ganged aside. Instead of instruments to promote the general welfare they have become the tools of corrupt interests which use them in martialling [sic] to serve their selfish purposes. Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to befoul the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day. (source)

The point is, politics is not what we think it is. Not all that is presented to us is as it seems, and this is far from a conspiracy theory. We cannot keep going through the same process every four years believing that a difference will be made via the modern day political system.

Something needs to change because the human race has so much potential and we are squandering it.

The Takeaway

At the end of the day, politics has clearly been exposed as a game where one group tried to slander another for their own purposes. Rarely are decisions made with the intention of benefiting the people or the planet.  Politics is not about the will of the people, but rather a means to bamboozle the population into thinking a certain way while benefiting a small group of the financial elite. It’s become completely useless, and participation in it should be discouraged.

California has very strict compulsory vaccination laws for children in school, and as a result more parents are deciding to homeschool their children. The latest information regarding vaccines in California that’s making noise is Senate Bill 276 by Senator Richard Pan. The bill eliminated nearly all vaccine medical exemptions. Under this bill, politicians, not physicians, are in charge of deciding whether or not children may receive medical exemptions, which in turn would determine whether or not they can attend school.

This is, in many ways, insanity. And mainstream media isn’t helping. Take actress Jessica Biel, for example, who made an appearance with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Instantaneously headlines popped up everywhere claiming that she was ‘anti-vax’ when that wasn’t the case, she is simply a supporter of medical freedom and freedom of choice. Mainstream media constantly uses terms like ‘anti-vax’ to label those who oppose bills like these, without ever addressing the real science and concerns that many parents have, some of which are listed below.

State public health officials must not have the power to override the judgment of private physicians. SB 276 inappropriately places the granting or withholding of medical vaccine exemptions for patients in the hands of state employees, rather than in the hands of private physicians who personally care for patients. Doctors must be permitted to evaluate patient susceptibility to vaccine injuries, taking into consideration a variety of factors that cannot be legislated. SB 276 forces healthcare professionals to adhere to exceptionally narrow vaccine contraindications, which have been defined by government appointed officials working for the CDC, a public health agency. Doctors are so severely scrutinized and challenged for granting medical vaccine exemptions that, with precious few exceptions, most are concerned for their licenses and are no longer willing to grant them. Doctors must have the latitude to evaluate their patients and to grant medical exemptions when indicated.

Below is a very informative statement from Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Merck introduced its measles vaccine in 1963, claiming the vaccine would convey lifelong immunity equivalent to a natural infection, with health officials promising that 55% vaccine coverage would produce “herd immunity” sufficient to eradicate measles by 1967.

Leading scientists of the day, including the world’s preeminent bacteriologist, Sir Graham Wilsonand Harvard Virologist John Enders, who first isolated measles, warned against introducing a vaccine unless it provided lifelong immunity. Measles, they cautioned, would rebound with increased virulence and mortality as the vaccine forced the evolution of more virulent strains and shifted outbreaks away from children—biologically evolved to handle measles—to the elderly who could die from pneumonia, and young infants now unequipped with maternal immunity.

A 1984 Johns Hopkins University modeling study predicted that Merck’s population-wide experiment would increase measles outbreaks by 2050, (when the last generation subject to natural immunity died off,) compared to the pre-vaccine era. This is exactly what has happened. Merck’s vaccine, with a growing failure rate has been incapable of abolishing the disease. Vaccine failure has left millions of adult Californians effectively unvaccinated. And 79% of people affected by measles in this year’s California outbreak were adults.

When eradication predictably didn’t materialize and measles attacked fully-vaccinated populations, Merck simply moved the goalpost saying that herd immunity required 75% vaccination, then 85%, then 95%, then 98%. And now 99%. To distract the world’s citizens from its failed vaccine, Merck started blaming “anti-vaxxers.” (The Vaccine Safety Movement)

California’s bought or brain-dead lawmakers are proposing to “fix” Merck’s vaccine failure problem by punishing 4,000 vulnerable children with medical exemptions. In an act of legislative savagery, Democratic politicians propose to forcibly vaccinate children whose doctors have told them that a vaccine could kill or severely injure them. SB276 will not fix the measles outbreak or solve the problem of vaccine failure, it will only reward a corrupt company for a defective product.

Vaccines Aren’t Safe For Everyone

It’s no secret that vaccines are not completely safe for everyone, it’s clearly not a ‘one size fits all’ product, and that’s evident by the fact that nearly $4 billion has been paid out to families of vaccine injured children via the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA). As astronomical as the monetary awards are, they’re even more alarming considering that only an estimated 1% of vaccine injuries are even reported to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS). If the numbers from VAERS are correct – only 1% of vaccine injuries are reported and only 1/3 of the petitions are compensated – then up to 99% of vaccine injuries go unreported and the families of the vast majority of people injured by vaccines are picking up the costs, once again, for vaccine makers’ flawed products. According to a MedAlerts search of the FDA Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) database, as of 2/5/19, the cumulative raw count of adverse events from measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines alone was: 93,929 adverse events, 1,810 disabilities, 6,902 hospitalizations, and 463 deaths.

I’m just trying to make it clear that, again, vaccines are not safe for everybody. Furthermore, the NCVIA sounds like it has the best interests of this nation’s young citizens in mind, but actually serves a much different purpose. The NCVIA  sets limits on the liability of vaccine manufacturers. They don’t have to pay a dime, in most cases, if someone is injured as a result of a product they make. It comes out of taxpayers’ pockets, and this has been going on for more than two decades. The act completely protects pharmaceutical companies from any liability or responsibility for a vaccine product that caused or causes injury. They cannot get in trouble and they cannot be held responsible, which allows them to be completely careless with their products. A vaccine could kill multiple people and the company would not be held liable. It should really be called the pharmaceutical protection act.

Aluminum is another great example of vaccine safety concerns, in fact, it’s one of many. Here’s a detailed article I wrote that presents multiple studies as well as links to studies and a very informative interview with Dr. Christopher Exley, a Professor in Bioinorganic Chemistry at Keele University, who explains what happens to aluminum when it is injected via a vaccine.

These types of studies are never addressed or countered or even brought to light by the mainstream media. All they simply do is trigger complete silence, while ridicule and terms like ‘anti-vax’ and  ‘conspiracy theorist’ are constantly used.

The main motivation behind compulsory vaccine initiatives is “herd immunity.” The idea that the more people that are vaccinated, the more protection there will be for the whole. The public health establishment borrowed the herd immunity concept from pre-vaccine observations of natural disease outbreaks. Then, without any apparent supporting science, officials applied the concept to vaccinations, using it not only to justify mass vaccinations but to guilt-trip anyone objecting to the nation’s increasingly onerous vaccine mandates as well.

The mandatory measles vaccine initiatives are a great example, as measles outbreaks over the past couple of years have occurred in vaccinated individuals, which suggests a failing vaccine. In fact, highly vaccinated (measles) populations have had a history of measles outbreaks, and studies have also shown that vaccinated children could also be spreading/shedding the virus they’ve been vaccinated with. You can see multiple studies and examples that go into more detail in an article I previously published here.

An analysis in the Oregon Law Review by New York University (NYU) legal scholars Mary Holland and Chase E. Zachary (who also has a Princeton-conferred doctorate in chemistry), showed that 60 years of compulsory vaccine policies “have not attained herd immunity for any childhood disease.” It is time, they suggest, to cast aside coercion in favor of voluntary choice.

Herd immunity can’t exist unless vaccines are 100 percent safe. The idea that an unvaccinated child can pose danger to other children, especially children who are vaccinated, is completely false. If anything, the science showing that vaccinated individuals can shed their virus implies it’s the other way around.

Below is a thought provoking statement from Holland in Washington during the fight to stop mandatory measles vaccinations.

The various forms of vaccine failure not only make herd immunity impossible to achieve but also feed the occurrence of ‘vaccine-preventable illnesses’ in highly or even fully vaccinated populations. Again, I provide multiple links and evidence above that clearly show that vaccines are nowhere near as effective as they are marketed to be, as there are many instances of vaccines failing.

The Takeaway

The idea that politicians can force children to be vaccinated, including those deemed to be in danger of severe adverse reactions, and strip them of their rights to attend public school is insane. Freedom of choice and medical freedom should always exist, especially with regards to vaccines. If parents want to vaccinate, fine, but parents who wish to not vaccinate their children for whatever reasons should always have the freedom to do so.

Mandatory vaccination is tyrannical.

Vic Bishop, Staff Writer
Waking Times

The greatest question ever is what happens to us when we die, and while no one has the definitive answer, truth-seekers, philosophers and sages throughout time have come to understand this in unique yet remarkably similar ways. Do we meet God? Do we attain universal consciousness. Do we experience enlightenment? Do we reincarnate, and if so, as who or as what? When we look at others, are we really looking at the larger part of ourselves?

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

In a remarkable inspiring short story, Andy Weir weaves the questions together in a conversation between a man who dies unexpectedly in a car accident and God himself. Written in 2009, The Egg has been produced as a beautifully colorful film which has gone viral on the web since being released on September 1st, 2019.

Here is a transcript of the short story, followed by the must see video presentation.

The Egg by Andy Weir

You were on your way home when you died.

It was a car accident. Nothing particularly remarkable, but fatal nonetheless. You left behind a wife and two children. It was a painless death. The EMTs tried their best to save you, but to no avail. Your body was so utterly shattered you were better off, trust me.

And that’s when you met me.

“What… what happened?” You asked. “Where am I?”

“You died,” I said, matter-of-factly. No point in mincing words.

“There was a… a truck and it was skidding…”

“Yup,” I said.

“I… I died?”

“Yup. But don’t feel bad about it. Everyone dies,” I said.

You looked around. There was nothingness. Just you and me. “What is this place?” You asked. “Is this the afterlife?”

“More or less,” I said.

“Are you god?” You asked.

“Yup,” I replied. “I’m God.”

“My kids… my wife,” you said.

“What about them?”

“Will they be all right?”

“That’s what I like to see,” I said. “You just died and your main concern is for your family. That’s good stuff right there.”

You looked at me with fascination. To you, I didn’t look like God. I just looked like some man. Or possibly a woman. Some vague authority figure, maybe. More of a grammar school teacher than the almighty.

“Don’t worry,” I said. “They’ll be fine. Your kids will remember you as perfect in every way. They didn’t have time to grow contempt for you. Your wife will cry on the outside, but will be secretly relieved. To be fair, your marriage was falling apart. If it’s any consolation, she’ll feel very guilty for feeling relieved.”

“Oh,” you said. “So what happens now? Do I go to heaven or hell or something?”

“Neither,” I said. “You’ll be reincarnated.”

“Ah,” you said. “So the Hindus were right,”

“All religions are right in their own way,” I said. “Walk with me.”

You followed along as we strode through the void. “Where are we going?”

“Nowhere in particular,” I said. “It’s just nice to walk while we talk.”

“So what’s the point, then?” You asked. “When I get reborn, I’ll just be a blank slate, right? A baby. So all my experiences and everything I did in this life won’t matter.”

“Not so!” I said. “You have within you all the knowledge and experiences of all your past lives. You just don’t remember them right now.”

I stopped walking and took you by the shoulders. “Your soul is more magnificent, beautiful, and gigantic than you can possibly imagine. A human mind can only contain a tiny fraction of what you are. It’s like sticking your finger in a glass of water to see if it’s hot or cold. You put a tiny part of yourself into the vessel, and when you bring it back out, you’ve gained all the experiences it had.

“You’ve been in a human for the last 48 years, so you haven’t stretched out yet and felt the rest of your immense consciousness. If we hung out here for long enough, you’d start remembering everything. But there’s no point to doing that between each life.”

“How many times have I been reincarnated, then?”

“Oh lots. Lots and lots. An in to lots of different lives.” I said. “This time around, you’ll be a Chinese peasant girl in 540 AD.”

“Wait, what?” You stammered. “You’re sending me back in time?”

“Well, I guess technically. Time, as you know it, only exists in your universe. Things are different where I come from.”

“Where you come from?” You said.

“Oh sure,” I explained “I come from somewhere. Somewhere else. And there are others like me. I know you’ll want to know what it’s like there, but honestly you wouldn’t understand.”

“Oh,” you said, a little let down. “But wait. If I get reincarnated to other places in time, I could have interacted with myself at some point.”

“Sure. Happens all the time. And with both lives only aware of their own lifespan you don’t even know it’s happening.”

“So what’s the point of it all?”

“Seriously?” I asked. “Seriously? You’re asking me for the meaning of life? Isn’t that a little stereotypical?”

“Well it’s a reasonable question,” you persisted.

I looked you in the eye. “The meaning of life, the reason I made this whole universe, is for you to mature.”

“You mean mankind? You want us to mature?”

“No, just you. I made this whole universe for you. With each new life you grow and mature and become a larger and greater intellect.”

“Just me? What about everyone else?”

“There is no one else,” I said. “In this universe, there’s just you and me.”

You stared blankly at me. “But all the people on earth…”

“All you. Different incarnations of you.”

“Wait. I’m everyone!?”

“Now you’re getting it,” I said, with a congratulatory slap on the back.

“I’m every human being who ever lived?”

“Or who will ever live, yes.”

“I’m Abraham Lincoln?”

“And you’re John Wilkes Booth, too,” I added.

“I’m Hitler?” You said, appalled.

“And you’re the millions he killed.”

“I’m Jesus?”

“And you’re everyone who followed him.”

You fell silent.

“Every time you victimized someone,” I said, “you were victimizing yourself. Every act of kindness you’ve done, you’ve done to yourself. Every happy and sad moment ever experienced by any human was, or will be, experienced by you.”

You thought for a long time.

“Why?” You asked me. “Why do all this?”

“Because someday, you will become like me. Because that’s what you are. You’re one of my kind. You’re my child.”

“Whoa,” you said, incredulous. “You mean I’m a god?”

“No. Not yet. You’re a fetus. You’re still growing. Once you’ve lived every human life throughout all time, you will have grown enough to be born.”

“So the whole universe,” you said, “it’s just…”

“An egg.” I answered. “Now it’s time for you to move on to your next life.”

And I sent you on your way.

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push();

Read more articles by Vic Bishop.

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

About the Author

Vic Bishop is a staff writer for WakingTimes.com. He is an observer of people, animals, nature, and he loves to ponder the connection and relationship between them all. A believer in always striving to becoming self-sufficient and free from the matrix, please track him down on Facebook.

This article (Amazing Short Film Explores the Afterlife and Our Place in Universal Consciousness) was originally created and published by Waking Times and is published here under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Vic Bishop and WakingTimes.com. It may be re-posted freely with proper attribution, author bio and internal links. 

Like Waking Times on FacebookFollow Waking Times on Twitter.

Phillip Schneider, Staff Writer
Waking Times

On September 3rd, the University of Alaska Fairbanks released a study on their analysis of the infamous Twin Towers collapse. In it, they found that the third tower’s collapse was, “caused not by fire but rather by the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building.”

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

On September 11th, 2001, World Trade Center Building 7 collapsed in on itself at free fall speed, falling over 100 feet in less than 10 seconds. After the event, the New York City government cleaned up the debris before a full forensic investigation could be done.

This information and more has prompted many family members of victims, architects, engineers, and everyday people to be skeptical of the official narrative surrounding 9/11, that three buildings fell that day based solely on the impact of Al-Qaeda’s hijacked planes.

The report, lead by Dr. J. Leroy Hulsey and funded by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, is currently in draft form until its public comment period ends on November 1st. The final report is expected to be released before the end of the year.

“The principal conclusion of our study is that fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11, contrary to the conclusions of NIST and private engineering firms that studied the collapse.” – Dr. J. Leroy Hulsey

The conclusions of this four-year study, funded by the not-for-profit group Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, runs in complete contrast to the findings of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the government-funded agency responsible for the official conclusion that fire caused by jet fuel was responsible for the collapse of each World Trade Center building, including Building 7, which was not hit by a plane.

In the recent study, computer models were created to simulate each collapse scenario, including both the conclusions of Dr. J. Leroy Hulsey, as well as those of the NIST.

After analyzing each scenario, the study authors concluded that, “the collapse of WTC 7 was a global failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of all columns in the building and not a progressive collapse involving the sequential failure of columns throughout the building.”

“We discovered that NIST over-estimated the rigidity of the outside frame by not modeling its connections… overall thermal movements at the A2001 base plate support near Column 79 were not sufficient to displace girder A2001.” – Dr. J. Leroy Hulsey

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth is an organization which represents over 3,000 certified architects and engineers who question the official story put out by NIST and the White House. The nonprofit has produced other studies as well, including “15 Years Later: One the Physics of High-Rise Building Collapses”, published in the European Scientific Journal in 2016.

Footage of Building 7 collapsing on 9/11:

As time moves on, people seem to be more open-minded about the idea that the World Trade Center may not have fallen due to fire, as the official story suggests. Even Donald Trump suggested at one point that the buildings had probably been destroyed by explosives.

“How could a plane, even a 767 or a 747 or whatever it might have been, how could it possibly go through the steel? I happen to think they had not only a plane, but they had bombs that exploded almost simultaneously because I just can’t imagine anything being able to go through that wall…. I just think that there was a plane with more than just fuel.” – Donald Trump, 2001

The tragic events that occurred on 9/11 have led to many global changes including the war on terror, the TSA, the Patriot Act, and more, which were all introduced after the attacks. No matter what the cause of the collapse, people deserve to know the truth about this event that killed thousands and changed our government forever.

According to this analysis, the question is still very much up in the air.

“Despite simulating a number of hypothetical scenarios, we were unable to identify any progressive sequence of failures that could have taken place on September 11, 2001, and caused a total collapse of the building, let alone the observed straight-down collapse with approximately 2.5 seconds of free fall and minimal differential movement of the exterior.” – Dr. J. Leroy Hulsey

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

About the Author

Phillip Schneider is a student as well as a staff writer and assistant editor for Waking Times. If you would like to see more of his work, you can visit his website, or follow him on the free speech social network Minds.

This article (University of Alaska Study ‘Definitively’ Concludes Fire Did NOT Cause Building 7 Collapse on 9/11) as originally created and published by Waking Times and is published here under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Phillip Schneider and WakingTimes.com. It may be re-posted freely with proper attribution, author bio, and this copyright statement.

Like Waking Times on FacebookFollow Waking Times on Twitter.

There has been a rumor going around for a while that Trump signed an executive order to stop the spraying of chemtrails, and that now anything you see in the sky is actually cleaning agents being sprayed to remove the damage chemtrails have created. Sounds interesting, but I’m not sure it has even a lick of truth to it.

This is a BIG part of why I feel we are at a critical time in our collective journey where we must learn to take a step back and truly explore information from a neutral perspective. There are tons of issues, even in alternative media, when it comes to this culture of narratives.

I started to research this ‘Trump chemtrail’ claim a fair amount when I first heard it, and like the rumors that 5G was being pushed by Trump because ‘they now have a good version of 5G,’ I traced this latest one back to the same source: SerialBrain2. And like before, many are again regurgitating it.

Like the 5G claim, this new claim too has no evidence except that it attempts to decode public statements made by Trump and link them through various forms of symbolism and numerology to revelations of truth. While I think in some cases there are times when things are encoded, in most of the cases I have observed with the way SB2 is trying to link things, I don’t feel there is a match. In fact, the decoding more so attempts to find meaning in everything to stay very attached to a narrative that Trump is here to save the world and he can do no wrong… ever. That alone should raise a red flag.

Did Trump Stop Chemtrails?

You can say that hints of this rumor began back in 2017 when people mistook a test plane for a chemtrail plane as stated in this article by the Express. An image of Trump allegedly taking a tour of a chemtrail plane went viral and people all assumed this meant Trump was going to shut down chemtrails.

As we have talked about a lot here at CE, those images don’t actually resemble chemtrail planes, they are simply water ballasts found inside planes who take test flights to test various weights and distributions and how that affects flying. Nonetheless, it went viral, further adding fuel to the fire that seeks to debunk and discredit the reality of clandestine geoengineering.

In a new episode of The Collective Evolution Show (podcast version), I discuss in detail how this story unfolded and how there are now people who fully believe that the trails they see in the sky are now cleaning old chemtrails. Of course, I go into much more of an analysis on this but in short, it doesn’t seem like Trump stopped chemtrails, nor is there any evidence to this.

I feel in this case what we’re seeing is people clinging to saviour narratives and further providing fuel to discredit legitimate questions and concerns the public should have about clandestine operations.

The episode unfolds in this order:

  • Did Trump really stop chemtrails?
  • Discussing SerialBrain2
  • Joe Rogan and Mick West discussion
  • The evidence for clandestine geoengineering
  • The Harvard Geoengineering program
  • Shifts in alternative media
  • How we can think more critically

Listen to the podcast for free here, or start a free 7-day trial of CETV to watch this episode and much more on CETV.

The Takeaway

As I discuss in much more detail on the podcast, we are at a very critical time where we must learn to connect within as well as be critical in our thinking regarding what we hear. Now is not about having faith or blindly believing something, it’s about learning to empower ourselves as individuals and discover who we truly are. Much of that involves moving through the beliefs and narratives we often get trapped in or take sides with.

Listen to the podcast here: Did Trump Really Stop Chemtrails?

Going down the rabbit hole of the UFO/ET phenomena will make you realize how much you don’t know, but it will also make something else quite clear, and that’s the fact that there is something very strange going on, and whatever it is it seems to have been going on for much longer than we think. The human race still seems to be in the process of noticing this.

There is no doubt that UFOs are real and that militaries around the world for the past several decades have had thousands of encounters with crafts that are tracked on radars, clocked travelling tremendous speeds, and performed maneuvers that no known human air craft can perform. Apart from the millions of pages of documents that’ve been released over the years via governments as well as Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests that make this quite clear, there are also a number of whistleblowers that come from interesting backgrounds like academia.

Several astronauts have been quite outspoken about UFOs, like Apollo 14 astronaut Dr. Edgar Mitchell and high ranking military/government personnel from around the world as well. On top of all this, the simple fact that many people have had their own experiences has also sparked interest in the subject. There are also multiple videos that’ve been released by governments around the world, as a couple came from the Pentagon over the past few years via the To The Stars Academy. Here’s a picture that the Canadian Air Force released in the 60’s.

It’s great to see that this topic is being taken seriously and is no longer considered taboo, because one thing is for sure–it has  been taken seriously by government agencies for decades yet it’s still shrouded in secrecy.

As you can image, with all of this information comes a lot of stories and a lot of disinformation. On top of that, for years, we’ve been subjected to an “official campaign of ridicule and secrecy” (Ex-CIA Director Roscoe Hillenkoetter) on the subject. For UFO enthusiasts today, the field is no doubt still filled with disinformation, fake stories and more that seem to stem from some people either profiting off of it or who are perhaps part of what could be a highly intelligent disinformation campaign that’s still in operation today.

This was Richard Doty’s  specialty, apparently. As a former Air Force special investigations officer, his job was to spread disinformation about the UFO phenomenon, a subject that he knew was very real.

He has admitted to infiltrating UFO circles, and his colleagues joined him as they often fed ufologists lies and half truths. This is something I believe is still occurring within the UFO community–multiple disinformation campaigns that are now perhaps more sophisticated as well as a number of frauds who are sharing their ‘experiences’ when they’ve really had none.

As far as Doty’s identity, UFO researcher Alejandro Rojas wrote a piece for the Huffington Post in 2014 linking some very interesting documents regarding one of Doty’s misinformation missions, one of which he also speaks about in the interview below. The Guardian has confirmed his identity, as do these videos. But what really did it for me was Hal Puthoff’s response to this well-known UFO researcher.

He is an American physicist who earned his Ph.D. from Stanford University. He is the Director of the Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin. His research includes theoretical and experimental projects in electrodynamics, quantum physics, gravitation, cosmology, energy research and more. His professional background includes engineering work at General Electric and Sperry as well as three and a half years spent at the U.S. Department of Defence. He served various government agencies, the Executive Branch, and Congress as a consultant on leading-edge technologies and future technology trends. He has been awarded the DoD Certificate of Commendation for Outstanding Performance, post-doc appointments at Stanford University as Research Associate, and more.

He is currently part of the team at the To The Stars Academy and was also the co-founder of the US Government’s STARGATE program, which examined parapsychology.

You can view a number of his publications here.

Doty claimed that he worked with Puthoff on multiple occasions and also mentioned him in the interview below. I came across a tweet from well-known UFO researcher Grant Cameron who tweeted that Hal Puthoff confirmed Doty’s identity. Furthermore, another popular and well-known UFO researcher, James Iandoli, also asked Puthoff to comment on Doty’s claims, and he did.

It’s safe to say that Doty is who he claims to be. Whether or not he is telling the truth is up to you to decide.

Furthermore, the interview below is conducted by Dr. Steven Greer, who is well-known for his contacts with high-ranking personnel with verified backgrounds. People like Puthoff, astronaut Edgar Mitchell, former Canadian Defence minister, and countless others have all given him some very interesting interviews on the subject, so there is a lot of credibility here.

False Alien Experiences?

In the interview, Greer asks Doty, “Have you heard of any of the projects that deal with ET simulations? There have been some contact events… The one you’re referring to, I have sources… that it was not actually ET.”

Doty replies, “We did do that, yes. OSI did that, there was a special group…that came out and did that. They had these people, they had maybe some sort of defects, anatomical defects that were brought in to fool people into thinking they’re aliens. I can’t give you any specifics because the program is still classified and they’re probably still doing it. I wouldn’t doubt that they’re still doing it.”

Greer goes on to emphasize that he’s had a number of contacts share this type of information.

Why?

Both of them mention how it’s used as a fear tactic. Doty provides an example of people having an experience or coming across information they weren’t supposed to about the subject and something like that may be a catalyst to stage such an event.

Who really knows–experimentation? Mind control? More disinformation?

The point of disinformation campaigns is to squander the truth and have the UFO community ‘run’ with it so that they continue to get even further from the truth.

The idea that some alien contact experiences are organized and run by the military and intelligence agencies, and even some abduction experiences as well, is a well-known strategy that has been used with regards to this phenomena for years. It’s a bit shocking to see someone like Doty admit to having knowledge of it.

The interview is a long one, as he speaks about different beings, propulsion systems with regards to reverse engineering these crafts, and more. The part about staging alien contact events occurs around the 1:21 minute mark.

Another Popular Source For Staged Events

Carol Rosin, the first female Corporate Manager of Fairchild Industries, was also referenced in some interesting Wikileaks documents alongside astronaut Edgar Mitchell. Rosin stated in an interview with Greer:

I met the late Dr Wernher Von Braun in early 74, at that time Von Braun was dying of cancer, but he assured me that he would live a few more years in order to tell me about the game that was being played, that game being the effort to weaponize space, to control Earth from space and space itself.

He asked me to be his spokesperson, to appear on occasions when he was too ill to speak, and I did. And what he asked me to do was to educate decision makers and the public about why we shouldn’t be putting weapons into space… and what the alternatives are, how we could be building a cooperative space system.

What was most interesting to me, was a repetitive sentence that he said to me over and over again… And that was the strategy that was being used to educate the public and decision makers, and the scare tactics, the spin that was being put on the weapons system. And that was how we identify an enemy.

The enemy at first, he said, the enemy against whom we’re going to build a space based weapons system… First, the Russians are going to be considered the enemy… Then terrorists would be identified and that was soon to follow… Then we were going to identify third world crazies, we now call them nations of concern… The next enemy was asteroids… [And] against asteroids we’re going to build space based weapons.

And the funniest one of all was against what he called aliens–extraterrestrials–that would be the final card. And over and over and over, during the four years that I knew him and was giving his speeches for him, he would bring up that last card.

‘And remember Carol, the last card is the alien card. We’re going to have to build space-based weapons against aliens,’ and all of it, he said, is a lie.

You can read more about her and watch that interview here.

The Takeaway

It’s important to remember here that this phenomenon is real, as Doty admits and has been creating a lot of awareness about it. According to his knowledge, we are not alone, and governments around the world have had contact with multiple extraterrestrial races. Despite this fact, there was and possibly still is a massive disinformation campaign at work.

Dylan Charles, Editor
Waking Times

“The modern world needs true spiritual guidance and development.” ~ Taoist Master Hua Ching Ni

A spiritual war is upon us and the individual is challenged to maintain integrity in a sea of greed, egotism, terror and fear. With no clear path toward spiritual evolution, so many of us floundering and losing ourselves to addiction, despair and self-destruction.

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

When in the past ordinary religions might have served to offer a pathway toward spiritual awakening based upon the experiences of their ancient sages, today, the best they seem to offer is communal support. Far too often, though, modern religions are mired in greed, scandal, pedophilia and outright terrorism. Religions are failing to provide the help one needs to spiritually thrive in this insane world.

In a reading from the book 8,000 Years of Wisdom, Taoist Master Hua-Ching Ni talks about the state of religions today:

“Spirit can hardly be found in noisy, crowded churches and temples. Even where the teachings of the past sages have been established they have been spoiled by the insensitive trend of the times.

 

The spirit of the world’s religions died long ago and left most temples and churches merely empty shells.

 

These places continue as superficial social conventions and can only supply their devotees with shallow activities, psychological games of shadow playing, and hypnosis, all of which have absolutely nothing to do with spiritual reality.

 

This is the faith of today’s world, and most of their achievements are not the true answer.” ~ Taoist Master Hua Ching Ni

What then, is spiritual reality? And what does it look like in a world governed by fear, distracted by materialism, and kept in conflict by egotism? It’s really quite straightforward, says Master Ni, who refers to it as the “plain, simple truth of your life,’ which is best understood as the profoundly important concept of inner peace.

“The first spiritual goal of Taoism is the restoration and realization of one’s own well-balanced being, and then one’s spiritual evolution.

 

The highest goal of life is to combine oneself with the spiritual energy of the universe. There is one way to eliminate all wonder, bewilderment and confusion and that is to have inner peace.

 

The primary method or principle for personal cultivation is to keep peace within oneself and maintain normalcy in one’s environment; thus you can dwell with the spiritual energy and the spiritual energy dwells within you.” ~ Taoist Master Hua Ching Ni

Comparing the teachings of ordinary religions to true personal spiritual cultivation, Master Ni notes that undeveloped human beings follow and devote themselves to belief systems, deities and spiritual figureheads. In contrast, individuals seeking genuine spiritual evolution understand these systems for what they are: illusions and traps.

“People mistake religious emotionalism and hypnosis for spiritual reality.

 

Often in history religious emotion has been exalted as truth itself. This gave birth to all kinds of religious prejudice and persecution. Religious mobs have carried out the mischief caused by the hot-blooded in the forceful image of a spiritual sovereign. This has not the slightest connection with spiritual reality. It is the manifestation of the impure, heavy, bloody energy of undeveloped human beings before having completed their spiritual evolution.

 

Many people are fooled by their own ignorance or that of others. And in their ignorance they fool others too. People like this have no hope of reaching the spiritual realm. They will have no chance to touch the real spiritual life. So, before you commit yourself to any religion, you should develop the mental ability to discern what is religious emotion and what is the spiritual truth. One is the right way to follow, and the other is only a psychological pitfall and trap. This is very important for a seeker of truth on the spiritual path.” ~ Taoist Master Hua Ching Ni

Generating this type of spiritual emotionalism has become a profitable art form. Take note of the costumes worn by Catholic Cardinals and deference to the Pope in his symbolic Mitre hat. Islamic fundamentalists and ISIS do the same when they emote fear and terror by parading captives in front of religious soldiers clad in all black robes with faces covered, armed with rifles and sabres. Using symbolic imagery as tools of dominance and control, as Master Ni points out, has absolutely nothing to do with true spiritual reality.

What would the world look like if individuals first placed their own spiritual development ahead of their desire to change the world in accordance with their beliefs about spirituality and feelings religious emotionalism? What if individuals were instead offered a plan of genuine spiritual cultivation, a path that led to actual inner peace?

“The spiritual process itself is a process of the evolution of the human spirit.” ~ Taoist Master Hua Ching Ni

Read more articles by Dylan Charles.

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

About the Author

Dylan Charles is the editor of Waking Times and co-host of Redesigning Reality, both dedicated to ideas of personal transformation, societal awakening, and planetary renewal. His personal journey is deeply inspired by shamanic plant medicines and the arts of Kung Fu, Qi Gong and Yoga. After seven years of living in Costa Rica, he now lives in the Blue Ridge Mountains, where he practices Brazilian Jiu Jitsu and enjoys spending time with family. He has written hundreds of articles, reaching and inspiring millions of people around the world.

This article (Taoist Master Explains the Difference Between Religion and Individual Spiritual Cultivation) was originally created and published by Waking Times and is published here under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Dylan Charles and WakingTimes.com. It may be re-posted freely with proper attribution, author bio, and this copyright statement.

Like Waking Times on FacebookFollow Waking Times on Twitter.

China recently landed a probe on the dark side of the Moon. Mainstream media claims that these are the first ever pictures taken, but that’s false. It’s the first time we’ve landed there, but we’ve seen photographs of this side in the past. For example, members of the Society For Planetary SETI Research (SPSR) published a paper in the Journal of Space Exploration about certain features on the far side of the Moon that appear in the crater Paracelsus C.

The study argues that these features may be artificial in origin, meaning that perhaps another intelligent life form built them and put them there. They used images from one of the Apollo missions.

After the recent Chinese landing, the probe sent back images from the dark side of the Moon.  It’s no doubt a major milestone for space exploration within the public eye. The probe will also spend the coming months using its instruments to analyze the untouched surface, potentially helping scientists learn more about the structure and geology of the Moon, which is an area that scientists know little about.

And just to clarify, it’s referred to as the ‘dark’ side of the Moon due to the fact that we can never see that side from Earth, it’s not as if the sunlight never reaches that side of the Moon.

The latest news with regards to this mission comes in the form of a strange discovery of an unusual ‘gel-like’ substance that has an unusual colour.

According to Space.com

The mission’s rover, Yutu-2, stumbled on that surprise during lunar day 8. The discovery prompted scientists on the mission to postpone other driving plans for the rover, and instead focus its instruments on trying to figure out what the strange material is.

The drive team, excited by the discovery, called in their lunar scientists. Together, the teams decided to postpone Yutu-2’s plans to continue west and instead ordered the rover to check out the strange material.

With the help of obstacle-avoidance cameras, Yutu-2 carefully approached the crater and then targeted the unusually colored material and its surroundings. The rover examined both areas with its Visible and Near-Infrared Spectrometer (VNIS), which detects light that is scattered or reflected off materials to reveal their makeup.

So far, mission scientists haven’t offered any indication as to the nature of the colored substance and have said only that it is “gel-like” and has an “unusual color.” One possible explanation, outside researchers suggested, is that the substance is melt glass created from meteorites striking the surface of the Moon.

The Strange Lore Surrounding The Dark Side of The Moon

Not long ago, we published an article regarding a document published by Wikileaks that clearly implies that the United States had a “secret” base on the Moon that was destroyed by Russia. It’s one of many interesting documents that suggest strange things are, and have been happening, on the far side of the moon for a long time. You can access that and read more about it here.

The idea of bases on the Moon have been an open discussion within the government for a long time, although the information isn’t easy to find, and not spoken about publicly. That said, it’s all out there for people to see. This document from the government’s own publishing office is a great example. It clearly shows one of the goals of the United States government is to build a base on the Moon, and this is as far back as 1966.

Perhaps they accomplished that goal?

Being an avid researcher into this subject for a long time, I’ve come across a lot of information in the form of documentation and credible witness testimony from some very interesting people suggesting that something strange is and has been going on, on the far side of our Moon, for decades. I am not going to go into it here, but you can refer to this article for more examples that really represent the tip of the iceberg.

The Takeaway

There is information out there that has been kept from the human race, for a number of reasons. This fact is jumping out of the ‘conspiracy’ box as time goes on. Many of us work, raise our family, and don’t really have time nor even care to think about these kinds of things, but the implications of certain information are huge. They shift paradigms and would reshape society in a good way. This is a big part of why it’s kept secret.

We knew that the Earth was flat, we knew that we were the center of the universe, and we knew that a man-made heavier than air piece of machinery could not take flight. Through all stages of human history, intellectual authorities have pronounced their supremacy by ridiculing or suppressing elements of reality that simply didn’t fit within the framework of accepted knowledge. Are we really any different today? Have we really changed our acceptance towards things that won’t fit the frame? Maybe there are concepts of our reality we have yet to understand, and if we open our eyes maybe we will see that something significant has been overlooked.”

– Terje Toftenes, taken from his film, The Day Before Disclosure

There are so many good things about our world, and so many good people on our planet with great hearts. Human beings are built with a moral , empathetic and ethical compass, and that’s what makes us so special. But somewhere along the way in human history, something sad happened. We turned into selfish mass consumers who are literally programmed and brainwashed to think, behave and believe a certain way. This campaign of mass marketing and propaganda exist in virtually all areas that surround human life, and this includes the treatment of animals. Empathy is something we are born with, as children we naturally want to protect the most innocent and vulnerable, but where does that go when we become adults?

Today, billions of animals all over the world are raised for slaughter as a result of our mass consumption of meat and purchasing of other animal products, not to mention the clothes most of wear and other ‘goods’ that are raking in large amounts of money at the expense of living, sentient beings. When it comes to our consumption of animal products, it’s confusing to say the least. It not only destroys our health over time, but it’s also destroying our planet. The wide spread attention the Amazon is getting right now is a great example, the biggest causes of deforestation in the Amazon is clearing way for animal grazing so we can eat meat.

Despite all of this, we are and have been made to believe that consuming animal flesh is natural, healthy and necessary. This perspective could not be further from the truth.

What’s probably the most important point to consider is that animals are being tortured as a result of consumerism. It’s quite confusing how we can have pets, like a dog, yet still eat the flesh of other sentient intelligent and emotional beings. How would you like it if someone came and tortured your pet for their consumption?

How can you wear boots with animal fur on it? Would you be able to capture that animal and strip it of its fur yourself? There is a disconnect that exists between us an what is really happening. And that’s why videos like the one are extremely important to share.

I am not trying to make anybody feel bad, I am simply trying to bridge the gap of that disconnect and have people ask themselves questions and their actions. It makes no sense how we can love some animals, yet participate, indirectly, in the torture of others. It’s a psychological mystery.

A recent PETA expose into the cashmere industry in China and Mongolia, which are two of the world’s top cashmere exporters, revealed extreme cruelty to and the violent killing of cashmere goats.

The video is extremely graphic, and shows goats screaming in pain and fear as workers tear their hair out. After this, their throats are slit in the slaughterhouse an they are left to die.  Goats suffered on every farm in China and Mongolia visited by the eyewitnesses.

There is no such thing as a human animal product.

These are living, sentient, emotional beings that share the planet with us. What gives us the right to do what we do to them?

The Takeaway

The treatment of animals on our planet is one of the, if not the biggest genocide in history. The sad thing about it is that it continues today, but the good news is, the consciousness of everybody on our planet is shifting. More people are turning towards a cruelty free ways of life by voting with their dollar, changing their eating habits, and staying away from products that have exploited animals. The movement is stronger than ever and it’s only going to continue growing.

Phillip Schneider, Staff Writer
Waking Times

Scientists from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute at Harvard University recently discovered something that could change cancer treatment forever.

In their study, Harvard researchers learned that a compound in the cannabis plant called “flavonoids” can be used in the treatment of pancreatic cancer, one of the deadliest forms of cancer with a survival rate of only 20 percent within one year.

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Flavonoids are a common compound found in most plants, fruits, and vegetables, but the drug used to treat cancer, called FBL-03G, is specifically synthesized from the cannabis plant.

“In this study, a flavonoid derivative of cannabis demonstrates significant therapy potential in the treatment of pancreatic cancer.” – Michele Moreau, et al.

This discovery could provide much-needed hope and relief to patients with an illness that has only an 8-percent five-year survival rate. Although pancreatic cancer only affects 3 percent of all cancer patients in America, it is on track to become the second leading cause of cancer-related death in America by as early as 2020.

“The most significant conclusion is that tumor-targeted delivery of flavonoids, derived from cannabis, enabled both local and metastatic tumor cell kill, significantly increasing survival from pancreatic cancer. – Wilfred Nwga, PhD, study researcher

However, the flavonoid compound only makes up about 0.14 percent of the cannabis plant. In order to extract enough to use as treatment, drug manufacturers would need to grow fields of cannabis, something they are not likely to do.

To get around this, scientists are making a controversial move by learning how to genetically engineer the cannabis plant to produce more flavonoids. They are having trouble however, as genetic engineering still cannot yield enough cannflavins at this time.

“The problem with these molecules is they are present in cannabis at such low levels, it’s not feasible to try to engineer the cannabis plant to create more of these substances.” – Steven Rothstein, Molecular and Genetic Researcher at the University of Guelph, and co-author of a study on the use of cannflavins as painkillers

Perhaps the most exciting discovery is that the introduction of flavonoids not only kills cancer in the pancreas, but in cancer cells found throughout the body. This could mean that cannflavins may be used to treat other forms of cancer in the future.

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push();

“We were quite surprised that the drug could inhibit the growth of cancer cells in other parts of the body, representing metastasis, that were not targeted by the treatment. This suggests that the immune system is involved as well, and we are currently investigating this mechanism.” – Wilfred, Nwga

Scientists have found success in treating cancer with cannabis compounds in the past. The main components of the plant, THC and CBD, have been found beneficial in the treatment of lung, blood skin, and liver cancer, among others, but until recently have been kept illegal by big money interests like the alcohol and prison industries, which benefit from the illegality of these highly medicinal compounds.

Many anecdotal cases also exist of patients who believe that cannabis cured their cancer, including Cheryl Pearson who recovered from stage 4 Ovarian cancer after having an allergic reaction to her chemotherapy drugs and was told that her death was “imminent.” Three months after her supposed end of life date, she was officially in remission, she believes, thanks to cannabis oil.

“I guess I never would have believed it—the results I saw from this plant… Initially I only thought you could smoke it and I was not going that route. I didn’t have the knowledge. I was just thinking it was a puff of smoke and if I have cancer, I’m not going to add to it.” – Cheryl Pearson

As cannabis becomes more mainstream and scientists discover its medical benefits, we are likely to see a future where debilitating diseases like cancer can be treated not with harmful, synthetic drugs, but with compounds found in plants used for thousands of years – bringing that ancient wisdom into modern, everyday medical life.

Read more articles from Phillip Schneider.

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

About the Author

Phillip Schneider is a student as well as a staff writer and assistant editor for Waking Times. If you would like to see more of his work, you can visit his website, or follow him on the free speech social network Minds.

This article (Not Just CBD – Cannabis Flavonoids Also Show Promise in Fighting Cancer) as originally created and published by Waking Times and is published here under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Phillip Schneider and WakingTimes.com. It may be re-posted freely with proper attribution, author bio, and this copyright statement.

Like Waking Times on FacebookFollow Waking Times on Twitter.

We are fast approaching the 18th year anniversary of 9/11, and that tragic event is still waking up millions and millions of people. The idea that there were pre planted explosives inside of the building is a thought that’s been pondered by many families of victims, scientists, physicists, engineers, and many more. Franklin Square Fire Commissioner Christopher Gioia recently discussed his fire district’s recent passage of a historic resolution supporting a new investigation into events of 9/11.

The latest news on 9/11 investigation progress comes from the University of Alaska Fairbanks, where professor and Chair of the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Dr. Leroy Hulsey, will be releasing a new study proving “definitively,” according to Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth founder Richard Gage, that fire did not cause the destruction of World Trade Center Building 7 on 9/11.

This study has been in the works for a number of years, and the latest updates showed that, “the findings thus far are that fire did not bring down this building.” (source) Building failure simulations show that, to match observation, the entire inner core of this building failed nearly simultaneously.

Here is a lecture from 2017 of Dr, Hulsey explaining how “WTC 7 did not collapse from fire.”

The study that will be released to the public tomorrow is a draft report. It’s going to be interesting to analyze the information in it.

Dr. Robert Korol, a professor emeritus of civil engineering at McMaster University in Ontario, Canada, alongside Anthony Szamboti, a mechanical design engineer with over 25 years of structural design experience in the aerospace and communications industries and Ted Walter , the director of strategy and development for Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (mentioned above), a nonprofit organization that today represents more than 2,500 architects and engineers  published a paper titled “15 Years Later, On The Physics Of High-Rise Building Collapses” in the European Scientific Journal.“ That’s also worth noting.

The fact that Donald Trump also believes that explosives brought down the towers, along with the fact that numerous polls have shown that at least half of all American citizens don’t believe the official explanation given to them by the government should illicit a new investigation.

But as we now know, in America, there are governments within governments that argue and compete against each other.

Political parties exist to secure responsible government and to execute the will of the people. From these great staffs, both of the old parties have ganged aside. Instead of instruments to promote the general welfare they have become the tools of corrupt interests which use them in martialling [sic] to serve their selfish purposes. Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to befoul the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day. – Theodore Roosevelt (source)

The Implications of Accepting That Explosives Brought The Towers Down

The truth is, there is no Islamic army or terrorist group called Al-Qaeda, and any informed intelligence officer knows this. But, there is a propaganda campaign to make the public believe in the presence of an intensified entity representing the ‘devil’ only in order to drive TV watchers to accept a unified international leadership for a war against terrorism. The country behind this propaganda is the United States. – Robin CookFormer British Foreign Secretary (source)

It’s called false flag terrorism, it’s something that’s been happening for decades and something we here at CE, and many politicians, journalists  and ‘world leaders’ have been calling out for decades. It happens when a powerful group of people create an event, like a supposed terrorist attack for example, and then blame it on a certain group, individual or country in order to justify massive military intervention into a foreign country for ulterior motives unknown to the population. In the case of 9/11, it was used to justify the war in Iraq, which killed millions of innocent civilians and completely destroyed the country.

This type of thing requires a concerted effort within corrupt politics, finance, and the complete control over mainstream media in order to commence the mass brainwashing of society into believing something.

Were the attacks on 9/11 similar to what we’ve seen in Syria with the chemical gas attacks?

The statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception. – Mark Twain (source)

As you can see, the implications, if it was a controlled demolition, are huge. It means much of what we were told by our government is and has been a complete lie, and that includes the massive campaign of foreign intervention. It begs the question, who was really responsible for bringing down the towers? And why? If a new investigation is sparked, and new evidence made public, these questions will enter into the heads of millions of people and threaten the interests of some very powerful people.

Current presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard introduced the Stop Arming Terrorists Act (H.R.608), it was a bill to stop the U.S. government from using taxpayer dollars to directly or indirectly support groups who are allied with and supporting terrorist groups like ISIS and al Qaeda. It’s one of many examples of how many are quite aware that the US, or at least factions of the deep state are working with, and have worked these groups by creating and or funding them…..Something to think about.

A Note From Richard Gage

urgently need your help to raise $50,000 by August 31st to spread the word about this study far and wide. Fortunately, a determined donor has stepped forward with a generous challenge gift of $5,000. That means this donor is challenging the community — including you — to equal his donation by August 31st so that this report can be shared as widely as possible.

Will you donate now to make sure this report is spread far and wide?

When you give today, your gift will be used immediately to launch a multi-channel public awareness campaign about this groundbreaking study. For example, for just $25 you can ensure that ten engineers receive our large-format postcard about the report (plus you’ll receive one, too!), helping us reach 20,000 engineers across the country.

Not only that, but your gift will be used to organize presentations in Fairbanks, Berkeley, and New York, hold a major news conference in Washington D.C. with the Franklin Square fire commissioners, produce a powerful short video for social media, commission a new YouGov survey, and more.

Will you give generously today to make sure we do not miss this incredible opportunity to bring this game-changing study about Building 7’s destruction to the public’s attention?

The Takeaway

The amount of evidence suggesting 9/11 was a controlled demolition is now overwhelming. The fact that it was and still is ridiculed by the mainstream, and the fact that the evidence is not even addressed by the mainstream should raise a red flag.

Osteopenia (1992)[i] and Osteoporosis (1994)[ii] were formally identified as skeletal diseases by the World Health Organization (HTO) as bone mineral densities (BMD) 1 and 2.5 standard deviations, respectively, below the peak bone mass of an average young adult Caucasian female, as measured by an x-ray device known as Dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA, or DEXA). This technical definition, now used widely around the world as the gold standard, is disturbingly inept, and as we shall see, likely conceals an agenda that has nothing to do with the promotion of health.

Deviant Standards: Aging Transformed Into a Disease

A ‘standard deviation’ is simply a quantity calculated to indicate the extent of deviation for a group as a whole, i.e. within any natural population there will be folks with higher and lower biological values, e.g. height, weight, bone mineral density, cholesterol levels. The choice of an average young adult female (approximately 30-year old) at peak bone mass in the human lifecycle as the new standard of normality for all women 30 or older, was, of course, not only completely arbitrary but also highly illogical. After all, why should a 80-year old’s bones be defined as “abnormal” if they are less dense than a 30-year old’s?

Within the WHO’s new BMD definitions the aging process is redefined as a disease, and these definitions targeted women, much in the same way that menopause was once redefined as a “disease” that needed to be treated with synthetic hormone replacement (HRT) therapies; that is, before the whole house of cards collapsed with the realization that by “treating” menopause as a disease the medical establishment was causing far more harm than good, e.g. heart disease, stroke and cancer.

As if to fill the void left by the HRT debacle and the disillusionment of millions of women, the WHO’s new definitions resulted in the diagnosis, and subsequent labeling, of millions of healthy middle-aged and older women with what they were now being made to believe was another “health condition,” serious enough to justify the use of expensive and extremely dangerous bone drugs (and equally dangerous mega-doses of elemental calcium) in the pursuit of increasing bone density by any means necessary. 

One thing that cannot be debated, as it is now a matter of history, is that this sudden transformation of healthy women, who suffered no symptoms of “low bone mineral density,” into an at-risk, treatment-appropriate group, served to generate billions of dollars of revenue for DXA device manufacturers, doctor visits, and drug prescriptions around the world.

WHO Are They Kidding?

Osteopenia is, in fact, a medical and diagnostic non-entity.  The term itself describes nothing more than a statistical deviation from an arbitrarily determined numerical value or norm.   According to the osteoporosis epidemiologist Dr. L. Joseph Melton at the Mayo Clinic who participated in setting the original WHO criteria in 1992, “[osteopenia] was just meant to indicate the emergence of a problem,” and noted that “It didn’t have any particular diagnostic or therapeutic significance. It was just meant to show a huge group who looked like they might be at risk.”[iii] Another expert, Michael McClung, director of the Oregon Osteoporosis Center, criticized the newly adopted disease category osteopenia by saying ”We have medicalized a nonproblem.”[iv]

In reality, the WHO definitions violate both commonsense and fundamental facts of biological science (sadly, an increasingly prevalent phenomenon within drug company-funded science).  After all, anyone over 30 years of age should have lower bone density than a 30 year old, as this is consistent with the normal and natural healthy aging process.  And yet, according to the WHO definition of osteopenia, the eons-old programming of our bodies to gradually shed bone density as we age, is to be considered a faulty design and/or pathology in need of medical intervention.

How the WHO, or any other organization which purports to be a science-based “medical authority,” can make an ostensibly educated public believe that the natural thinning of the bones is not normal, or more absurdly: a disease, is astounding. In defense of the public, the cryptic manner in which these definitions and diagnoses have been cloaked in obscure mathematical and clinical language makes it rather difficult for the layperson to discern just how outright insane the logic they are employing really is.

So, let’s look closer at the definitions now, which are brilliantly elucidated by Washington.edu’s published online course on Bone Densitometry, which can viewed in its entirety here.

The Manufacture of a Disease through Categorical Sleight-of-Hand

The image above shows the natural decrease in hip bone density occurring with age, with variations in race and gender depicted.  Observe that loss of bone mineral density with age is a normal process.

Next, is the classical bell-shaped curve, from which T- and Z-scores are based.  T-sores are based on the young adult standard (30-year old) bone density as being normal for everyone, regardless of age, whereas the much more logical Z-score compares your bone mineral density to that of your age group, as well as sex and ethnic background.  Now here’s where it gets disturbingly clear how ridiculous the T-score really system is….

Above is an image showing how within the population of women used to determine “normal” bone mineral density, e.g. 30-year olds, 16% of them already “have” osteopenia” according to the WHO definitions, and 3% already “have” osteoporosis! According to Washington.edu’s online course “One standard deviation is at the 16th percentile, so by definition 16% of young women have osteopenia! As shown below, by the time women reach age 80, very few are considered normal.”

Above you will see what happens when the WHO definitions of “normal bone density” are applied to aging populations. Whereas at age 25, 15% of the population will “have” osteopenia, by age 50 the number grows to 33%. And by age 65, 60% will be told they have either osteopenia (40%) or osteoporosis (20%).

On the other hand, if one uses the Z-score, which compares your bones to that of your age group, something remarkable happens: a huge burden of “disease” disappears!  In a review on the topic published in 2009 in the Journal of Clinical Densitometry, 30-39% of the subjects who had been diagnosed with osteoporosis with two different DXA machine models were reclassified as either normal or “osteopenic” when the Z- score was used instead of the T-score. The table therefore can be turned on the magician-like sleight-of-hand used to convert healthy people into diseased ones, as long as an age-appropriate standard of measurement is applied, which presently it is not.

Bone Mineral Density is NOT Equivalent to Bone Strength

As you can see there are a number of insurmountable problems with the WHO’s definitions, but perhaps the most fatal flaw is the fact that the Dual energy X-ray absorpitometry device (DXA) is only capable of revealing the mineral density of the bone, and this is not the same thing as bone quality/strength.

While there is a correlation between bone mineral density and bone quality/strength – that is to say, they overlap in places — they are not equivalent.  In other words, density, while an excellent indicator of compressive strength (resisting breaking when being crushed by a static weight), is not an accurate indicator of tensile strength (resisting breaking when being pulled or stretched).

Indeed, in some cases having higher bone density indicates that the bone is actually weaker. Glass, for instance, has high density and compressive strength, but it is extremely brittle and lacks the tensile strength required to withstand easily shattering in a fall. Wood, on the other hand, which is closer in nature to human bone than glass or stone is less dense relative to these materials, but also extremely strong relative to them, capable of bending and stretching to withstand the very same forces which the bone is faced with during a fall.  Or, take spider web. It is has infinitely greater strength and virtually no density. Given these facts, having “high” bone density (and thereby not having osteoporosis) may actually increase the risk of fracture in a real-life scenario like a fall.

Essentially, the WHO definitions distract from key issues surrounding bone quality and real world bone fracture risks, such as gait and vision disorders.[v] In other words, if you are able to see and move correctly in our body, you are less likely to fall, which means you are less prone to fracture. Keep in mind also that the quality of human bone depends entirely on dietary and lifestyle patterns and choices, and unlike x-ray-based measurements, bone quality is not decomposable to strictly numerical values, e.g. mineral density scores.  Vitamin K2 and soy isoflavones, for instance, significantly reduce bone fracture rates without increasing bone density.  Scoring high on bone density tests may save a woman from being intimidated into taking dangerous drugs or swallowing massive doses of elemetal calcium, but it may not translate into preventing “osteoporosis,” which to the layperson means the risk of breaking a bone.  But high bone mineral density may result in far worse problems…

High Bone Mineral Density & Breast Cancer

One of the most important facts about bone mineral density, conspicuously absent from discussion, is that having higher-than-normal bone density in middle-aged and older women actually INCREASES their risk of breast cancer by 200-300%, and this is according to research published in some of the world’s most well-respected and authoritative journals, e.g. Lancet, JAMA, NCI. (see citations below).

While it has been known for at least fifteen years that high bone density profoundly increases the risk of breast cancer — and particularly malignant breast cancer — the issue has been given little to no attention, likely because it contradicts the propaganda expounded by mainstream woman’s health advocacy organizations. Breast cancer awareness programs focus on x-ray based breast screenings as a form of “early detection,” and the National Osteoporosis Foundation’s entire platform is based on expounding the belief that increasing bone mineral density for osteoporosis prevention translates into improved quality and length of life for women.

The research, however, is not going away, and eventually these organizations will have to acknowledge it, or risk losing credibility.

Journal of the American Medical Association (1996): Women with bone mineral density above the 25th percentile have 2.0 to 2.5 times increased risk of breast cancer compared with women below the 25th percentile.

Journal of Nutrition Reviews (1997): Postmenopausal women in the highest quartile for metacarpal bone mass were found to have an increased risk of developing breast cancer, after adjusting for age and other variables known to influence breast cancer risk.

American Journal of Epidemiology (1998): Women with a positive family history of breast cancer and who are in the highest tertile bone mineral density are at a 3.41-fold increased risk compared with women in the lowest tertile.

Journal of the National Cancer Institute (2001): Elderly women with high bone mineral density (BMD) have up to 2.7 times greater risk of breast cancer, especially advanced cancer, compared with women with low BMD.

Journal Breast (2001): Women in the lowest quartile of bone mass appear to be protected against breast cancer.

Journal Bone (2003): Higher bone density (upper 33%) is associated with a 2-fold increased risk of breast cancer.

European Journal of Epidemiology (2004): Women with highest tertile bone mineral density (BMD) measured at the Ward’s triangle and at the femoral neck are respectively at 2.2-and 3.3-fold increased risk of breast cancer compared with women at the lowest tertile of BMD.

View additional citations on the breast cancer-bone density link.

High Bone Density: More Harm Than Good

The present-day fixation within the global medical community on “osteoporosis prevention” as a top women’s health concern, is simply not supported by the facts. The #1 cause of death in women today is heart disease, and the #2 cause of death is cancer, particularly breast cancer, and not death from complications associated with a bone fracture or break.  In fact, in the grand scheme of things osteoporosis or low bone mineral density does not even make the CDC’s top ten list of causes of female mortality. So, why is it given such a high place within the hierarchy of women’s health concerns? Is it a business decision or a medical one?

Regardless of the reason or motive, the obsessive fixation on bone mineral density is severely undermining the overall health of women. For example, the mega-dose calcium supplements being taken by millions of women to “increase bone mineral density” are known to increase the risk of heart attack by between 24-27%, according to two 2011 meta-analyses published in Lancet, and 86% according to a more recent meta-analysis published in the journal Heart. Given the overwhelming evidence, the 1200+ mgs of elemental calcium the National Osteoporosis Foundation (NOF) recommends women 50 and older take to “protect their bones,” may very well be inducing coronary artery spasms, heart attacks and calcified arterial plaque in millions of women. Considering that the NOF name calcium supplement manufacturers Citrical and Oscal as corporate sponsors, it is unlikely their message will change anytime soon.

Now, when we consider the case of increased breast cancer risk linked to high bone mineral density, being diagnosed with osteopenia or osteoporosis would actually indicate a significantly reduced risk of developing the disease. What is more concerning to women: breaking a bone (from which one can heal), or developing breast cancer? If it is the latter, a low BMD reading could be considered cause for celebration and not depression, fear and the continued ingestion of inappropriate medications or supplements, which is usually the case following a diagnosis of osteopenia or osteoporosis.

We hope this article will put to rest any doubts that the WHO’s fixation on high bone density was designed not to protect or improve the health of women, but rather to convert the natural aging process into a blockbuster disease, capable of generating billions of dollars of revenue.

Learn more on the GreenMedInfo database:

References

(i) WHO Scientific Group on the Prevention and Management of Osteoporosis (2000 : Geneva, Switzerland) (2003). “Prevention and management of osteoporosis : report of a WHO scientific group” (PDF). Retrieved 2007-05-31.

(ii) WHO (1994). “Assessment of fracture risk and its application to screening for postmenopausal osteoporosis. Report of a WHO Study Group”. World Health Organization technical report series 843: 1-129. PMID 7941614.

(iii) Kolata, Gina (September 28, 2003). “Bone Diagnosis Gives New Data But No Answers”. New York Times.

 (v )P Dargent-Molina, F Favier, H Grandjean, C Baudoin, A M Schott, E Hausherr, P J Meunier, G Bréart Fall-related factors and risk of hip fracture: the EPIDOS prospective study. Lancet. 1996 Jul 20;348(9021):145-9. PMID: 8684153

Originally published: 2017-11-18

Articule updated: 2019-08-23

Want to learn more from GreenMedInfo? Sign up for the newsletter here.

Link to the original article.

The following is a chapter from my book ‘Parables For The New Conversation.’ One chapter will be published every Sunday for 36 weeks here on Collective Evolution. (I would recommend you start with Chapter 1 if you haven’t already read it.) I hope my words are a source of enjoyment and inspiration for you, the reader. If perchance you would like to purchase a signed paperback copy of the book, you can do so on my production company website Pandora’s Box Office.

From the back cover: “Imagine a conversation that centers around possibility—the possibility that we can be more accepting of our own judgments, that we can find unity through our diversity, that we can shed the light of our love on the things we fear most. Imagine a conversation where our greatest polarities are coming together, a meeting place of East and West, of spirituality and materialism, of religion and science, where the stage is being set for a collective leap in consciousness more magnificent than any we have known in our history.

Now imagine that this conversation honors your uniqueness and frees you to speak from your heart, helping you to navigate your way more deliberately along your distinct path. Imagine that this conversation puts you squarely into the seat of creator—of your fortunes, your relationships, your life—thereby putting the fulfillment of your deepest personal desires well within your grasp.

‘Parables for the New Conversation’ is a spellbinding odyssey through metaphor and prose, personal sagas and historic events, where together author and reader explore the proposal that at its most profound level, life is about learning to consciously manifest the experiences we desire–and thus having fun. The conversation touches on many diverse themes but always circles back to who we are and how our purposes are intertwined, for it is only when we see that our personal desires are perfectly aligned with the destiny of humanity as a whole that we will give ourselves full permission to enjoy the most exquisite experiences life has to offer.”

2. The Lawyer

The main village road on the island of Allandon was predominantly a bright and colorful façade of shops and businesses of all different kinds. Only a few buildings in the older section were dull and run-down, and on this day the village renovator and his young apprentice were setting about gutting and restoring one of those buildings as the owner had recently died.

On their way in, the renovator tapped his crowbar on the rusted metallic shingle hanging in the front that read Attorney-at-Law.

“This building was owned by the village lawyer,” the renovator said. “Poor fellow, he died a lonely man. It had been years since anyone had asked him to represent them.”

“Why, he couldn’t win a case?”

“Quite the opposite—he never lost a case! He was so good at clearly expressing his client’s side of a dispute that the decision always went in his favor.”

“So how come people stopped hiring him?”

“Well, he’s really only got himself to blame,” laughed the renovator. “He would always brag that he could win either side of any dispute, which was probably true—that’s how good he was. But as a result it slowly dawned on the people here in the village that both sides of a dispute could be seen to have merit if they were properly heard. We spoke about it amongst ourselves and came to realize that if we just learned how to listen to each other better, we could resolve our disputes ourselves.”

They walked into the building. The lawyer’s office was thick with dust, and cobwebs had started to form up the sides of his large oak desk. The renovator plopped down on the big leather chair and put his feet up on the desk.

“The great thing is, we eventually learned to resolve our disputes in a way that satisfied both sides. We tried to explain to the lawyer that we had found a better way to resolve disputes.”

“What did he say?”

“He dismissed it. He argued that we would go back to our old ways. So he came into his office every morning and sat here waiting for clients to come in. But they stopped coming.”

And you couldn’t convince him that things had really changed?”

“Convince him?” the renovator laughed. “This man made his living on being right. He didn’t know how to lose an argument.”

“Maybe that’s why he died lonely,” the apprentice said.

Twenty years ago I thought that I was well on my way to having life figured out. I had a Master’s Degree in Existential Philosophy and I had studied the History of Western Civilization at the prestigious Liberal Arts College in Montreal. Never mind that other people didn’t always agree with my beliefs about life, I felt that they hadn’t studied enough or simply weren’t intelligent enough to grasp what I was saying.

Ouch.

To me a great conversation was one in which I was able to convince someone to agree with my way of thinking, through the use of relentless logic and pertinent facts. And if I could be persuasive even when I wasn’t rock-sure about my position, all the greater was the accomplishment. I once convinced one of my peers to abandon his thesis proposal after arguing that it was flawed. When I later bragged to some classmates that I knew virtually nothing on the subject, I couldn’t understand why they were not fully impressed by my feat. There seemed to be no conversation more satisfying to me than convincing others of my point of view. Whether the other person benefited from the conversation didn’t really enter into the equation for me.

What I didn’t realize at the time was that I was setting myself up for quite a fall. In fact, I’ve been knocked off my high horse a number of times since then. Some of the bruises to my ego were so deep that I feel fortunate that I survived to tell the tale.

One such experience happened shortly after I graduated. I was introduced to a New Age discussion group that was hosted by a friend of my father’s named Steve. The group would discuss the work of some of the writers of the time such as Richard Bach, Ram Dass, Carlos Castaneda and others. What I found intriguing about the meetings was that, although I usually felt tired and unmotivated on my way there, the atmosphere and the conversation would always make me feel incredibly alive and energized by the time I left.

When my first ten week session had ended, Steve thought that my background in philosophy would make me a great facilitator for the group’s next session. I agreed to do it on the condition that each member made a commitment to be there for all the meetings. The previous session was more informal in this regard but I figured this was the least everyone could do if I was going to spend the time preparing for each meeting. As it turns out, they kept their end of the bargain while I ended up spending very little time preparing for each meeting. On the day of the meeting I would just think of a topic that I was familiar enough with and scratch out a few notes.

The group conversations that I was orchestrating had one simple dynamic: I would put a controversial idea out to the group and take up the position opposite to the general consensus. It seemed easy for me to argue my points. The participants usually could provide no evidence to substantiate what they said. They would simply say that’s how they felt or that’s what they believed, and so I left each week feeling that my arguments had prevailed.

What I didn’t feel at the end of each week was the energy and aliveness that had come during every meeting when Steve was facilitating. It just wasn’t there. The other participants might have noticed it too, but as they had made a commitment, they showed up every week without complaint. By the final week I was quite happy that the session was ending. It had become nothing less than a chore for me. As usual I presented the topic for the evening, and challenged one of the more reticent participants to give his opinion. But instead of speaking about the topic, he blurted out, “Richard, I don’t think it should be this way!”

I was taken aback. I collected myself and asked him to explain what he meant, but he felt that his outburst was out of line, and he apologized. He was going to address the topic, but I asked him again what he meant by that comment. He looked around at the others, and then took a slow breath and began to elaborate. And did he have a lot to say! He had noticed that the mood during the meetings were more serious and confrontational than they had been in the past. He felt that instead of arguing and debating, we should be sharing with and understanding each other. The more he spoke, the more embarrassed I became.

When he had finished, I decided that instead of moving forward with the topic, I would ask everyone else how the past ten weeks had gone for them. I figured I would get some different opinions that would give me some ammunition to counter what he had said. But one after another, each one echoed very similar comments. I was starting to feel that my facilitation had been a stark and unequivocal failure, and what was worse, I had been completely oblivious to it for the whole ten-week session.

But while their words seemed such a negative indictment of me, none of them had a hint of bitterness or anger. They all spoke with respect and compassion, almost apologetically. When it came around to Steve, the last person to speak, he simply offered a warm acknowledgment for my willingness to sit quietly and listen to it all. It was truly difficult for me to hold back tears.

The conversation surrounding how miserably I had failed as a facilitator lasted the entire two hours of the meeting, and by the time Steve had finished his comments it was time for us to go. But instead of all running off at the end as we had done the previous weeks, we hung around outside and talked for several more hours, well past midnight. We laughed and joked and felt an unbelievable connection to each other. The energy and lightness that I had felt in Steve’s sessions had come back. This final meeting turned out to be by far the best one that I had facilitated!

The lesson was big for me, and it took months to fully sink in. I came to realize that my judgment of the participants as shallow simpletons who were lacking conviction was way off base, as most judgments are. They just had nothing to prove, and their depth was in their compassion, their humanity, and their authenticity. This was my first real life lesson in the art of the conversation, where there didn’t need to be winners or losers, and where everyone can take something away including a real sense of connectedness with one other. I went into that facilitation thinking I had something to teach, and left realizing I had so much to learn.

I now believe that we all have a strong need and a deep longing for authentic conversation, in today’s society more than ever. I spent ten weeks trying to show everyone how smart I was, but it was only when the conversation became real—when I stopped having something to prove, and people were able to say what they really felt—that there was some kind of meaningful exchange. And where there is meaningful exchange, that is where true learning can take place, and a real connection can be felt.

There is risk involved, no question about it. We have a fear of being ridiculed, of being made wrong, and so we often conform to accepted opinion even if we don’t agree with it. When this happens, it’s no wonder we leave such exchanges feeling uninspired. We have a deep desire to express what we think and explore our unique perspective on things. There is no better time than now for each of us to look more deeply into the way we express ourselves, and no less importantly the way we provide an environment for others to express themselves.

The rules of the new conversation are simple in a way. Speak our deepest truth and allow others to do the same. We allow others to do the same when we are genuinely curious about what they might have to say. We acknowledge their triumphs and courage, and commiserate with their losses and sorrow. But this must be authentic, not some surface act of political correctness. Better to tell someone straight out that you don’t care about their story and leave the conversation. And what if we have trouble being authentic, what if we cannot help but judge other people? Then we can have that be the subject of our conversation. The new conversation can support this—especially this—since it is honest. The new conversation brings us close to our highest levels of vulnerability and authenticity. Of course it’s difficult to be authentic all the time, but surely we have some experience of authentic expression to draw on. When the desire is there, we all have the capability to support each other in creating a shared space of trust that is safe enough for us to be vulnerable and reveal our deepest truths.

Lately I have been noticing around me that people are getting better at this way of relating to each other. We are becoming more aware of the power of creating a non-judgmental space. I love to be in a conversation with someone who really gets it, and no matter how I express myself I’m not judged or made wrong. Yes, they have their own views, which they would tell me if I was interested. They might even invite me to try a new idea on, to see if it fits. But nothing is forced, because they don’t pretend to know what it feels like to walk in my shoes.

In retrospect I realize that this was the dynamic of my New Age discussion group. I was free to be myself for ten weeks, and only when I was ready to hear a deeper truth was it presented to me. While my ego had tremendous difficulty with what each person confessed about their experience of my facilitation, there was already an implicit trust because they had all spoken with compassion and humility throughout. As a result I was able to make a crucial connection between my behavior and my not feeling energized by these meetings. Had they been judging me and making me wrong, the outcome would have surely been different. Likely I would have put up my verbal fists for a real debate. Both sides might have teetered a bit but neither side would have conceded defeat.

This has long been the legacy of our society: arguing, debating, trying to prove we are right and the other is wrong, under the illusion that there is strength in being right and weakness in being wrong. But as our consciousness has expanded, we have come to see that the opposite is true. We have all felt in conversation the remarkable impact of someone admitting that they were wrong, as we have seen our impact on others when we are open to the possibility that perhaps they are right. And when we go beyond even that, to an awareness that it is not about right and wrong—that perhaps there isn’t really any right or wrong—then we find ourselves in a conversation that has the potential to unite us all where in the past we have been divided.

The notion that we are not quite living in the ‘real’ world has gained momentum since the phrase ‘Fake News’ entered the public lexicon. The schism between ‘normal’ mainstream-media-fueled perception and the naked truth about the events that are actually going on is getting so severe that awakening from the illusion will soon be the only way to avoid the intense suffering brought on by cognitive dissonance between our familiar perception and the facts.

Take the ongoing investigation into James Comey, for example. We have the Inspector General’s report that came out and revealed the following:

The office said he “violated applicable policies and his FBI Employment Agreement by providing one of the unclassified memos that contained official FBI information, including sensitive investigative information, to his friend with instructions for the friend to share the contents of the memo with a reporter.”

Further, the IG determined that Comey kept copies of four memos (out of the total seven he drafted) in a personal safe at home after his removal as director — and in doing so also “violated FBI policies and his FBI Employment Agreement by failing to notify the FBI that he had retained them, or to seek authorization to retain them.” And the IG said Comey again violated the rules “by providing copies … of the four memos he had kept in his home to his three private attorneys without FBI authorization.” (source)

Comey Speaks Out

One would expect, if not complete silence from James Comey, then at least some contrition or a fumbling apology trying to explain away his indiscretions. Instead, we get to witness his unapologetic Twitter response coming from that alternative universe of the slowly eroding mainstream perception:

DOJ IG “found no evidence that Comey or his attorneys released any of the classified information contained in any of the memos to members of the media.” I don’t need a public apology from those who defamed me, but a quick message with a “sorry we lied about you” would be nice.

— James Comey (@Comey) August 29, 2019

And to all those who’ve spent two years talking about me “going to jail” or being a “liar and a leaker”—ask yourselves why you still trust people who gave you bad info for so long, including the president.

— James Comey (@Comey) August 29, 2019

On the face of it, the offenses detailed in the Inspector General’s report may not ‘feel’ as though they were highly egregious. He was a little clumsy with sensitive information. So what, the casual onlooker might opine. It is true that Comey was careful not to release ‘classified’ information intended for the press, as the line he cherry-picked from the IG report states. And the decision on the part of Attorney General Bill Barr not to prosecute Comey for these crimes, against the Inspector General’s recommendation, seems to add credence to the idea that these actions are excusable.

But the story will certainly not end here.

Meeting With Trump

When one puts together the pieces to try to determine the intent and motivation behind these actions, it is difficult not to come to the conclusion that Comey was highly involved in an operation designed to entrap a duly elected president on fabricated charges and prevent him from taking or staying in office. An important piece of this puzzle begins with a meeting in January 2017 between then president-elect Donald Trump and FBI Director James Comey, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, CIA Director John Brennan, and Director of the National Security Agency Mike Rodgers. It continues, more importantly, with Comey staying behind when the others left to speak with Trump one-on-one.

In an interview with Lou Dobbs in the video below, the Washington Examiner’s Byron York discusses this meeting with all the intelligence heavyweights, and elaborates on what was said to have transpired afterwards, as illuminated in the IG report:

This meeting took place on January 6th, 2017, you remember there’d been all this controversy about Russia and the intelligence community had created a report on Russian efforts to interfere with the 2016 election. So on the 6th of January they go up to Trump Tower, to, as a group, present the report to president-elect Trump, and by previous agreement after they do that, they all leave the room except for Comey, and Comey and Trump meet one on one, and Comey tells the president-elect there is this allegation in that in 2013 you were in a Moscow hotel room with prostitutes, and Russian intelligence taped it all, recorded it all, and, you know, the president is stunned by this.

In the past, Comey has said that the only reason he did this was that they wanted to tell the president-elect that this was out there, and that it might get reported in the press and there’s this crazy story about you that’s out there. What we see in this new report is they meticulously planned this moment in which they would hit Trump with this information. Comey had met with his top officials and what they called the ‘Crossfire Hurricane’ team beforehand; they had made a plan where Comey would immediately write down everything he could remember from this; he went down to an FBI vehicle and there was a secure laptop waiting for him and he says that he started writing as the vehicle began moving; went over to the FBI headquarters in New York and there was a secure video teleconference set up for him to then talk with ‘Crossfire Hurricane’ supervisors plus top FBI officials about what Trump had answered to these dossier allegations.

Crossfire Hurricane

It’s important to understand what exactly the ‘Crossfire Hurricane’ operation really was in order to piece this all together. Although I am hesitant to use definitions from Wikileaks in terms of their political bias noted in one of my previous articles, the one below will suffice to give us a broad context.

Crossfire Hurricane was the code name for a covert counterintelligence investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) into links between Trump associates and Russian officials and suspected coordination between the Donald Trump 2016 presidential campaign and the Russian government’s interference in the 2016 United States elections.

The investigation was officially opened on July 31, 2016, initially due to information on Trump campaign member George Papadopoulos‘s early knowledge of Russians having damaging material on Donald Trump‘s rival candidate Hillary Clinton.

From late July to November 2016, the joint effort between the FBI, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and the National Security Agency (NSA) examined evidence of Russian meddling in the 2016 United States presidential election. The FBI’s team enjoyed a large degree of autonomy within the broader interagency probe.

The FBI’s work was taken over on May 17, 2017, by the Special Counsel investigation of 2017–2019, which eventually resulted in the Mueller Report. Mueller concluded that Russian interference occurred in a “sweeping and systematic fashion” and that there were substantial links with the Trump campaign, but that the evidence available to investigators did not establish that the Trump campaign had “conspired or coordinated” with the Russian government.

So we understand now that this investigation began ‘officially’ in July of 2016, although we are seeing evidence that the planning of ‘Crossfire Hurricane’ likely started not long after Trump became the presumptive Republican party nominee on May 3rd, after his victory in Indiana and the withdrawal of the last competitors, Ted Cruz and John Kasich, from the race. More evidence is coming out every day that ‘Crossfire Hurricane’ was not an investigation as much as it was a blatant attempt by higher-ups across the U. S. intelligence spectrum who are revealing themselves as key players in the Deep State.

The investigation’s ‘supposed’ inception was based on George Papadopoulos’ meeting with European professor Joseph Mifsud; however we now know that the story that Mifsud was there to disclose Russia-sourced dirt on Hillary Clinton to Papadopoulos is a fabrication according to both Papadopoulos and Mifsud himself. Allegations of sinister ties between Russia and former Trump aide Carter Page, which led to FISA warrants which the IG report said were ‘illegally obtained’ to spy on the Trump campaign, were equally a fabrication.

The Special Counsel Investigation headed by Robert Mueller, which took over two years and turned up absolutely no evidence of collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign, can now be seen for what it is: a continuation of the work that started with the Crossfire Hurricane investigation whose sole motive was to subvert the election and activities of a duly elected president. And the conversion of the Crossfire Hurricane efforts into the much broader public spectacle that was the Special Counsel was made possible by James Comey leaking information about the meetings with Trump:

York: The second part of the story was the leak of the fact that the top intel officials had briefed the president-elect about this salacious information. The meeting takes place on January 6th; on January 10th, CNN reports an exclusive: “The nation’s top intel officials have briefed the president-elect about embarrassing personal information that was gathered by a former British intelligence operative…”

Dobbs: All of which was concocted by Hillary Clinton-funded, Democratic National Committee-funded–oh yes!–and FBI-funded fiction-writing on the part of Christopher Steele.

York: And this leak was absolutely critical because it gave the news hook to report the dossier.

The famed ‘Steele Dossier,’ which was the source of the claims that Comey was warning Trump about in their one-on-one meeting, which is the source for the leaks to the press, which was the foundation for the inception of the Special Counsel, which was the basis for FISA applications that Comey signed was, in Comey’s own words to Congress, ‘salacious and unverified.’ Wow. How’s he ever going to get past that?

Comey’s Alibi

The wobbly leg James Comey is trying to stand on is to make people believe that his reason for going above and beyond the law and FBI regulations is because he felt he was doing what was best for the country. Even though there turned out to be no credible evidence at all that Trump or even members of his campaign were colluding with Russia, he is still trying to convince people that he was convinced at the time that Donald Trump was such a threat to the security of the country due to his alleged ties to Russia that he needed to take those extraordinary measures.

This is where the schism between mainstream perception is really starting to break away from reality and common sense. Deep State insiders like Comey have so long been protected behind a compliant mainstream media and other perception-controlling mechanisms that they still think that if they stand up and say something forthright and authoritative that the majority of people will believe them. But only the sleepiest of folk are now buying Comey’s alibi.

A far more reasonable explanation, which goes far beyond the simplistic notion that he hated Trump, is that Comey was working with the other heads of intelligence to prevent an outsider from coming into the White House and suddenly causing all sorts of trouble for the insiders. In the case of Brennan and Clapper, this would have been seen as a threat to their massive domestic surveillance operation, which was discussed in my previous article ‘The Hidden Reason The ‘Russia Collusion’ Investigation Ever Got Started.‘ In the case of Hillary Clinton and her minions, it was the threat that many of her crimes such as Uranium One and the private email server scandal would actually be properly investigated rather than continuing to be covered up.

The Insider/Outsider Game In Washington

I recently came across an article on ZeroHedge that outlined what it means to be an insider in Washington, and I believe it is germane to our discussion here:

Back in 2009, when the Obama administration was busy ensuring the nation’s financiers would become larger, more powerful and never serve a day in jail despite their historic crime spree, Larry Summers had dinner with Elizabeth Warren. During the course of that meal, he instructed her about how power really functions in the U.S.:

A telling anecdote involves a dinner that Ms. Warren had with Lawrence H. Summers, then the director of the National Economic Council and a top economic adviser to President Obama. The dinner took place in the spring of 2009, after the oversight panel had produced its third report, concluding that American taxpayers were at far greater risk to losses in TARP than the Treasury had let on.

After dinner, “Larry leaned back in his chair and offered me some advice,” Ms. Warren writes. “I had a choice. I could be an insider or I could be an outsider. Outsiders can say whatever they want. But people on the inside don’t listen to them. Insiders, however, get lots of access and a chance to push their ideas. People — powerful people — listen to what they have to say. But insiders also understand one unbreakable rule: They don’t criticize other insiders.

“I had been warned,” Ms. Warren concluded.

It’s also worth noting that Larry Summers gave that insider speech to Elizabeth Warren years before she was elected to the U.S. Senate. He was warning her that unless she stopped causing problems and agreed to play the game by this gangster code, she would never get anywhere and no one would ever listen to her.

The people who I refer to here as Deep State players, in this case Comey, Brennan, Clapper, Hillary, and the like, are the ‘insiders,’ people who support each other playing games above the law and sworn to play ball and not criticize each other, no matter how egregious the crimes they are witness to. The belief that this insider group still maintains the power to shield its members from prosecution would seem to be what Comey, Brennan Clapper, and Hillary Clinton are hanging onto, and fuels their continued castigation of President Trump on Twitter and other public forums.

But signs are growing that this protection has slowly been crumbling since Trump took office–by design. The number of firings and resignations alone is an indication. The fact that Attorney General William Barr decided to pass on prosecuting Comey for these offenses is no exoneration for Comey, just a temporary reprieve. When it comes time to bring up deeper matters, like Comey’s signature on FISA warrants that he himself admits were based on ‘evidence’ that was salacious and unverified, or other information that clearly brings to light that James Comey was involved in a criminal conspiracy, it seems reasonable to assume that James Comey, and ‘insiders’ like him, are going to have to face the music.

The Takeaway

Nothing happens by accident. It seems like we are in the final act of modern political theatre, where the great reveal is about to occur for the entire audience.

Pages

Connect with us

Subscribe to our rss and social networks accounts...

On the Subject of US

Ætherna Guild is a free will, clean energy & sustainable living community resource website. More

Navigation

Browse Ætherna's resourceful info!

Ætherna Guild



Energetic Balance Frequencies

Ætherna Guild's Mission

Awaken mankind's universal consciousness to find equitable solutions for a real, honest, best and prosperous Guild, based on unity and sharing, peace, respect and love, in harmony with nature and our environment to foster the achievement of collective goals leading to a higher intelligence and collective consciousness.

A Sovereign Space for One Hearth Guild ॐ

More