During my freshman year at the University of Georgia, I often took delight in the hot meals served ‘round the clock at one of the many dining halls on campus. No more cold cereal for breakfast, or sandwiches and salads at lunch. Instead, I had my choice of crispy bacon, scrambled eggs, and grits for breakfast, and my favorite casserole of poppy seed chicken served over white rice for lunch.
It must have been good — as I stood on the scales after my freshman year, I had nearly doubled the freshman 15.
Though I took delight in enjoying a hot meal in place of a cold one, I must say that as I get older, things change — tastes, and fortunately after a lot of running, waistlines.
As we enter into the dog days of summer, the last thing I want is something heavy and hot. Especially down South, the humidity and heat literally sock you in the mouth anytime you step outside.
- 6 large hard-boiled eggs, peeled
- 2 Tbsp. plus 1 1/2 tsp. mayonnaise
- 2 Tbsp. finely chopped dill pickle
- 1/2 tsp. cracked black pepper
- 1/2 tsp. kosher salt
- Paprika, as garnish
- Slice eggs in half lengthwise, and carefully remove yolks. Using a wire whisk or a fork, mash yolks with mayonnaise and next 3 ingredients in a small bowl until blended.
- Place egg white halves on a serving platter, and spoon yolk mixture into egg white halves. Garnish with paprika, and serve immediately.
U.S. Conducts Airstrikes Against ISIS in Libya reads The New York Times’ August 1 headline, capturing virtually everything wrong with US foreign interventionism. Tracing the strands emanating from that headline regrettably requires a deep dive into an ideological and moral cesspool, on which Hillary Clinton luxuriates in a floating lounge chair, sunning herself and sipping a piña colada, evidently not put off by the stench.
What’s ISIS doing in Libya? It’s an offshoot of ISIS in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan, which is an offshoot of al Qaeda in Iraq. That group was formed from an embittered core of Sunnis dispossessed of positions and property and jailed by the US government-installed majority Shiite government after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. Al Qaeda’s family tree starts with the mujahideen in Afghanistan, who were backed by Presidents Carter and Reagan in their war against the Soviet Union. The goal was to draw the Soviet Union into a protracted and debilitating quagmire.
The strategy worked, but not without unfortunate consequences. Allies can turn into enemies. The leader of the mujahideen, Osama bin Laden, became the US’s implacable foe after the US set up permanent military bases in Saudi Arabia, home of sacred Islamic shrines Medina and Mecca, during the first invasion of Iraq in 1990. His anger was reportedly the impetus behind 9/11. The Afghanistan success also taught US policymakers a “lesson” they would have been better off not learning: supporting local groups in armed conflict could produce low-cost, desirable outcomes.
Clinton supported the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. She claims it was a mistake now, but the invasion was, in light of later events, fully consistent with her stance on US interventionism. In subsequent situations, she has repeated her Iraq “mistake.” Afghanistan and Iraq were the first neoconservative forays into regime change and replacement with US-compliant governments, securing oil supplies, and nation building on the way to an efflorescence of democracy and increased regional toleration of Israel.
That’s not the way things have worked out. After a financial tally in the trillions of dollars, thousands of military casualties, and a civilian death toll in the millions, Afghanistan and Iraq are sectarian hell holes, beset by ISIS; US military forces are still present in both nations (Afghanistan counts as the longest war in US history); US intervention has been a major spur for Islamic extremism and blowback terrorism, and Afghans and Iraqis are part of the refugee flood overwhelming Europe.
There is no darker stain on Clinton’s record than Libya. The brutal regime change that led to chaos in Iraq was repeated in Libya, except the death by sodomy of Muammar Gaddafi was more grisly than Saddam Hussein’s comparatively dignified hanging. She was the prime proponent within the Obama administration of the Libyan fiasco, remembering everything but learning nothing from Iraq. Donald Trump’s campaign would be well advised to show Clinton’s infamous, “We came, we saw, he died…cackle” video over and over, juxtaposed with scenes of the chaos that has engulfed Libya, where three rival “governments” contest for control of the country. And let’s not forget Benghazi.
Clinton, her neoconservative cohorts, and the US’s Sunni allies in the Middle East—Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, and Turkey—have their hearts set on yet another regime change in Syria. (Many of these allies have made large donations to the Clinton foundation.) One shudders to think of the death they have envisioned for Shiite Bashar Assad if they’re successful. Clinton fully supports the US’s muddled policy of getting rid of Assad by using Islamic extremists pursuing the same goal. The US has quietly succored ISIS and affiliated jihadists while appearing to fight them, and has done nothing to stop its allies from doing the same.
However, they have been stymied by the Russia-Iranian-Hezbollah alliance, which has proven far more effective against ISIS and its affiliates than the US alliance. Clinton’s proposed response? Institute a no-fly zone over northern Syria, potentially risking a confrontation with the Russian air force and stifling its ability to fight ISIS.
Trump is attractive precisely because the Establishment fears and loathes him because 1) they didn’t pick him and 2) he might upset the neoconservative Empire that the Establishment elites view as their global entitlement.
The Establishment is freaking out about Donald Trump for one reason: they didn’t pick him. The Establishment is freaking out because the natural order of things is that we pick the presidential candidates and we run the country to serve ourselves, i.e. the financial-political elites.
Donald Trump’s candidacy upsets this neo-feudal natural order, and thus he (and everyone who supports him) is anathema to the Establishment, heretics who must be silenced, cowed, marginalized, mocked and ultimately put back in their place as subservient debt-serfs.
With Trump ascendant, the serfs are selecting the noble in the castle on the hill. Outrageous! Unheard of!
You know the Establishment is freaking out when Establishment pundit mouthpieces like David Brooks and Francis Fukuyama are freaking out about Trump. David Brooks could not restrain his disdain for Trump on a recent Charlie Rose segment, in which he intoned (and I paraphrase) that Trump can’t put eight words together without referring to himself, i.e. he is not just a narcissist, but he is (take this, Trump!) a fragile narcissist– unlike people like Brooks, of course, who are solid, secure, wise, well-educated, erudite water-carriers for the status quo.
Policy heavy-hitter Fukuyama confesses the political system in the U.S. is broken but he can’t understand why the citizenry has selected the “singularly inappropriate instrument” (his description of Trump in the pages of Foreign Affairs) of Donald Trump to express their disdain for their neo-feudal lords.
Well, Mr, Fukuyama, let me explain it to you: the debt-serfs have selected Trump precisely because the neo-feudal financial-political nobility you represent consider him a “singularly inappropriate instrument”.
Ten Great Deals For The Donald
But there is a sliver of hope. If Donald Trump is elected, eschews a law and order crusade and does not capitulate to the destructive policies of the Wall Street/Washington/bicoastal establishment, there is a way forward. The political outlaw who considers himself to be the world’s greatest deal-maker would need to do just that.
To wit, a President Trump determined to rid the nation of its mutant regime of Bubble Finance at home and failed interventionism abroad would need to make Ten Great Deals.
A Peace Deal with Putin for the dismantlement of NATO, cooperation in the middle east, strangulation of ISIS by the Shiite Crescent and a comprehensive worldwide agreement to end the arms trade and pave the way for general disarmament.
A Jobs Deal based on slashing taxes on business and workers and replacing them with taxes on consumption and imports.
A Sound Money Deal to repeal Humphrey-Hawkins, end the Fed’s war on savers and cash, abolish the FOMC and limit the Fed’s remit to passively providing liquidity at a penalty spread over market interest rates based on sound commercial collateral.
A Glass-Steagall Deal to break up the giant financial conglomerates, limit the Fed’s liquidity window to “narrow banks” which only take deposits and make loans and deny deposit insurance to any banking institution involved in Wall Street trading, derivatives and other forms of financial gambling.
A Federalist Deal to turn back most of Washington’s domestic grant and welfare programs to the states and localities in return for a mega-block grant with a 30-year phase-out.
A Regulatory Deal based on an absolute 4-year freeze on every single pending regulation, and then subjecting every existing statute to strict cost-benefit rules thereafter.
A Liberty Deal to get Washington out of the war on drugs, criminal law enforcement and regulation of private conduct and morality.
A Health Care Deal based on the repeal of Obamacare and tax preferences for employer insurance plans and their replacement with wide-open provider competition, consumer choice, and individual health tax credits.
A Fiscal Deal to slash post-disarmament defense spending, devolve education and other domestic programs to local government and to clawback unearned social security/medicare entitlements benefits from the affluent elderly.
And a Governance Deal to amend the constitution to rescind Citizens United, impose term limits and establish public finance of all Federal elections.
What follows are the facts and analytics which demonstrates why America is fast heading toward ruin under the existing policy regime, and why these ten deals could establish the charter for a new way forward.
Reprinted with permission from David Stockman’s Contra Corner.
Bill Kristol is downright despondent after his failed search for an alternative to Donald Trump. Max Boot is indignant about his “stupid” party’s willingness to ride a bragging bull into a delicate China policy shop. And the leading light of the first family of military interventionism — Robert Kagan — is actually lining up neoconservatives behind the Democratic nominee for president of the United States.
At the same time, the Democrats have become the party of bare-knuckled, full-throated American Exceptionalism. That transformation was announced with a vein-popping zeal by retired general and wannabe motivation screamer John Allen at the Democratic convention in the City of Brotherly Love. During his “speech,” a few plaintive protests of “no more war” were actually drowned-out by Democrats chanting “USA-USA-USA!”
This is the same Democratic Party often criticized by Kagan & Co. as the purveyors of timidity, flaccidity, and moral perfidy. It’s not that Democrats haven’t dropped bombs, dealt arms and overturned regimes. They have. And they’ve even got the Peace Prize-winning Obama-dropper to prove it. But unlike enthusiastically belligerent Republicans, the Dems are supposed to be the party that does it, but doesn’t really like to do it.
But now, they’ve got Hillary Clinton. And she’s weaponized the State Department. She really likes regime change. And her nominating convention not only embraced the military, but it sanctified the very Gold Star families that neocon-style interventionism creates. It certainly created the pain of the Khan family who lost their son in the illegal war in Iraq. But the Dems didn’t mention that sad fact as they grabbed the flag away from the Republicans.
It kinda feels like reality has slipped off its axis and we’ve landed on a Bizarro World version of America. Democrats are acting like Republicans. Pat Buchanan is championing the GOP’s “Peace Candidate.” And the neocons are fleeing from the party they’ve used like a geopolitical cudgel for the better part of three decades.
At first glance, it all makes sense. Trump captured the GOP nomination in no small part by trashing two of the neocons’ favorite things ever — the Bush family and the Iraq War. He also suggested early on that he’d approach the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza as (gasp!) an honest broker. Trump said he really wanted to “make that deal.” Without irony, one-time neocon wonderboy Marco Rubio remarked that it isn’t a “real estate deal” when, in fact, that’s exactly what it is.
But the ever-pliable Trump quickly got religion on Israel. He did an about-face, marched into AIPAC’s annual confab, and staked out a claim on the reflexively pro-Israel side of the issue. But it wasn’t enough to assuage the angst of the GOP’s forever-circling hawks.
Frankly, nothing seems enough to sway the neocons in Donald’s direction. But it’s not for lack of trying on Trump’s part. Really, he’s checked off many of the boxes that make neocons smile.
Trump wants a “yuuge” military … the biggest and baddest ever! So big, that no one in a million years will ever challenge it. That sure sounds a lot like Reagan’s “peace through strength.” Neocons do love, Reagan. And, as if on cue, the Kristol/Kagan-led “Foreign Policy Initiative” just posted a clarion call to spend more bucks to buy bigger bangs for an already gargantuan military. Doesn’t that fit with Donald’s plan to spend defense dollars like a drunken sailor?
Maybe neocons don’t want the military to be so big that no one will ever try anything. Maybe they want a few challenges here and there, just for a little creative destruction to keep the world on its toes. But Trump’s right there with them. He wants to “bomb the shit” out of ISIS. And he even said America has “no choice but to bomb Libya” and “take out” the Islamic State.
For a few years now, astronomers have been detecting hints that there may be a mysterious planet lurking undetected in some of the farthest reaches of our solar system.
But a new study suggests there may be a great deal more going on in the cold, dark regions of space beyond the eighth planet orbiting our sun, Neptune.
Scientists have discovered a bizarre new object, less than 124 miles (200km) across, with a strangely tilted orbit that sends it high above the flat orbital disk of the rest of the solar system.
They found the new minor planet, which they have named Niku after the Chinese for rebellious, which seems to be part of a cluster of other similar objects and icy planetoids with similar orbits.
It suggests they may have been pushed or pulled into this strange orbit by something far larger orbiting beyond Neptune.
At first, the astronomers thought it could be the hypothetical Planet Nine that astronomers have been hunting for far beyond Pluto on the farthest edge of the solar system.
However, they found Niku and its fellow tiny worlds are too close to the rest of the solar system to have been tugged out of place by this theoretical planet.
Instead, they suggest Niku and its neighbours may have been swept into their strange orbit by another undiscovered dwarf planet like Pluto or Ceres.
But they were unable to find any evidence for this either, which has left astronomers baffled and excited at the prospect of something waiting to be discovered in this region of the solar system.
Dr. Matthew Holman, an astronomer at the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics who was part of the team that discovered Niku, told New Scientist: ‘It suggests that there’s more going on in the outer solar system than we’re fully aware of.’
Niku is around 160,000 times fainter than Neptune and the astronomers estimate it is around 11 times smaller than the dwarf planet Pluto.
[Classic: November 18, 1997] — There is no popular demand for war with Iraq or anyone else, and President Clinton knows it. The pressure for war is coming from the usual quarters: those who, for various reasons, want the United States to dominate the Middle East.
The op-ed hawks are framing the issue as whether Clinton has the “character” (read: guts) to bomb Iraq. If there is one issue where he is vulnerable, it’s character. He is easy to caricature as a draft-dodging hedonist who lacks principle and courage. And the caricature requires only slight exaggeration. Clinton is no saint, and the kind of saint he least resembles is a martyr.
As a young man, Clinton saw Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon devoured by a long, futile, unpopular war. That was Lesson One.
Lesson Two came later. As a presidential candidate in 1992, Clinton faced a president who had just waged war on Iraq. It was the opposite of Vietnam: a short, popular war that cost few American lives and ended in overwhelming victory. During the campaign, Clinton himself was widely derided for his evasion of military service and for his subsequent lies about it. Yet he won, and George Bush, a decorated war hero, lost.
What Clinton learned from his own election was that even a successful war president can’t count on reelection. At one point the polls had shown public support for the Gulf War at over 90 per cent. Yet that support didn’t translate into electability for the commander in chief the following year.
So the lesson of Iraq was added to the lesson of Vietnam. What people will endorse passively is not the same thing as what they want passionately. Some of the op-ed warriors praised Bush for showing “leadership” in going ahead of the polls at an earlier phase when those polls had shown most Americans reluctant to step up hostilities. Though the later polls swung in his favor, Bush’s support was shallow. His political fate proved that 90 percent verbal approval isn’t the same thing as 90 percent enthusiasm.
From Clinton’s point of view, Nixon’s fate is the worst-case scenario and Bush’s is the best he could hope for. Furthermore, Bush was lucky. Nothing went wrong in his war, and he had enough sense to quit while he was ahead without toppling Saddam Hussein and trying to occupy Iraq, as some hawks had urged.
Right now the elites within the Beltway are eager for war. The cries for “action” against Iraq are deafening. Just this past weekend various talk-show panelists, liberal and conservative alike, called for everything from “carpet bombing” (Nina Totenberg of National Public Radio) to “ground troops” (William Kristol of The Weekly Standard).
Leaders of both parties in Congress want Clinton to act — i.e., attack. Yet there is no grassroots pressure for war. Most Americans don’t see their own welfare threatened by Saddam Hussein, however, they may despise him. The European allies of the United States — more precisely, the ruling elites of Europe — don’t want war either; they dread the hostility of the Arab masses and the wider Muslim world.
And they may be thinking that if Iraq is crippled, Iran will become the dominant power in the Middle East – in which case many of the same American voices who are demanding war with Iraq now will demand war with Iran later. Some of them have already named Iran as our chief enemy.
How many enemies do we want? We have the power to make an unlimited number, provoking terrorist retaliation in the short run and who knows what in years to come. And to what end? American military domination of the globe? Why is that desirable? What could it cost us?
As with Vietnam, the hawks are making it as awkward as possible for a president to behave with discretion and restraint. They threaten him with charges of cowardice if he retreats while offering redemption if he attacks.
The real question is whether Clinton will have the guts to endure being called a coward by people whose courage is measured by their willingness to send others to die.
This is one of 82 essays in Joe Sobran’s collection of his writing on the President Clinton years, titled Hustler: The Clinton Legacy. FGF Books is hoping to publish the second edition of this book shortly.
The Cold War was a period of great tension, and with all the posturing, stockpiling, and military maneuvering by the US and the Soviet Union, there came a rich history of obscure stories and eyebrow-raising tales. While the standoff between the superpowers was very much conventional, some of their top secret projects and undercover missions were incredibly bizarre.
10 The Military Liaison Missions
After the end of World War II and the division of Germany into four occupation zones, the Western Allies and the Soviets signed a series of agreements, allowing a small number of military personnel from each side (usually less than two dozen) to deploy in each other’s occupation zones. These soldiers would monitor the other side and ostensibly facilitate better relations between the superpowers. When the American military heard about this creepy chopper, they contracted the Hughes Corporation to make a helicopter that was as quiet as possible, and soon, the CIA was Hughes’s most clandestine customer.
The two OH-6A helicopters that were rebuilt for the CIA were cutting edge machines. They were fitted with electronics and external fuel tanks, and they were fine-tuned with specifically modified engines that could produce double the power of that on a normal OH-6. And of course, the choppers were painted black.
On December 5, 1972, one of these super-quiet helicopters, carrying two commandos, flew into North Vietnam. The team successfully planted the wiretap in the dead of night and managed to escape the country. The helicopters were never used again, but the CIA managed to get enough intelligence from the wiretap that Kissinger was able to negotiate with the North Vietnamese . . . but in the end, it was all for naught.
“And you tell me over and over and over again my friend, you don’t believe we’re on the eve of destruction.” – Barry McGuire
I think this needs to be said (not that what I think really matters) but I am so disappointed by so many of today’s musicians and artists who come out and publicly support this politician or that.
I have been noticing this trend amongst musicians and artists growing over these last 20 years or so. It astounds me that today’s artists are so fooled by the mass media that they will come out in support of certain political candidates. This is foolish as well as lacking in dignity and I will show you why.
I expect that Joe-Blow Average Guy – who watches too much TV – to suck it all in and be lead around by the ring in their nose like cattle to support a candidate. But I didn’t expect musicians and artists to be as daft as average Joe-Blow and openly promote criminal candidate A over criminal candidate B. (Yes. Yes. I know most artists and musicians are not rocket scientists but I still expect them to have a little more insight to life and how things work than the average 6-hour-a-day TV watcher.)
I get disgusted when I see artists posting some nonsense supporting some politician (or attacking that criminal – which is de facto supporting this criminal.) It especially astounds me when I see foreigners supporting some American politician. Guess what? No one in America gives a toss what you think. What would you guys from, say the UK, think if the bassist of Hootie and the Blowfish came out and said he supports the Conservative or Labor candidate in England?
You’d think he were an imbecile, wouldn’t you?
I don’t mean artists have to be apolitical, but I mean you need to publicly support principles, not individual candidates. Past history is proof enough that all politicians are liars and crooks. You should understand and know by now that we are ruled by an evil cabal. It doesn’t matter if Candidate A or Candidate B wins; nothing changes.
Or haven’t you been paying attention the last 50 years?
At this time, we don’t know if Candidate A or Candidate B is going to win the election. All we do know is that no matter who wins, the current direction and decline of the country will continue.
Here is what artists are supposed to be in support of End of the wars, end of poverty, end the bombings, end the war on drugs, more freedom for the people.
The fact of the matter is that all politicians are deceitful liars. They have to be. That’s part of the job. To think candidate A is going to change things is delusional. I explained that here in The US Presidency is a Donut Shop.
What is going on now; the vote rigging; Bernie’s disgraceful and total and complete capitulation; and what occurred with all our US presidents in these last 50 years should have been a wake-up call: The system is corrupt. It’s always been corrupt. It was built that way. It isn’t going to change. There is basically no difference in our ruling aristocracy and the ruling aristocracy of other corrupt nations.
The USA, Japan, and the EU haven’t a leg to stand on when we criticize North Korea or her president.
Besides the above, here is really why you should stop the political posts and support for any politician: when you do support one or the other, it makes you lose your ability to view the world as an observer. When you publicly support a certain candidate you lose your objectivity and are unable to keep your bias level at a minimum. It destroys your art and loses members of your fanbase. It is amateurish and completely unprofessional.
Still not convinced?
Remember when John Lennon was protesting the Vietnam War? Did he ever come out and say he supported this politician or that? No. He understood that our problems are not because of this politician or that. He fully understood that and said that the system is corrupt.
Can you imagine for a second someone like Lennon or David Bowie coming out and saying he supports a particular politician like Cameron or Corbin or Hillary or Trump?
Nope. Neither can I.
Do not support politicians. Support universal human rights and principles.
Of course, it really doesn’t matter what I think. But I think you do yourself a disservice by getting into politics. Musicians and artists are supposed to help us escape – even for a few minutes – the hell we live in.
Don’t pull us deeper into the cesspool.
di Gary North
Charles Hugh Smith inizia il suo saggio sulla frode nel modo corretto dal punto di vista retorico: dicendo la verità in un elenco di brevi osservazioni.
La seguente affermazione viene vista come una scortesia dal galateo maisntream: lo status quo in America è una frode.
Il sistema finanziario è una frode.
Il sistema politico è una frode.
La difesa nazionale è una frode.
Il sistema sanitario è una frode.
L'istruzione superiore è una frode.
I mezzi di comunicazione aziendale mainstream sono una frode.
La cultura -- da quella alta fino a quella popolare -- è una frode.
Devo andare avanti?
Non ho mai visto un breve elenco di punti, trascurati, ma importanti.
Ma Smith ignora che tutto questo è un'estensione della legge di Sturgeon: "Il 90% di tutto è una schifezza." In gioventù, Theodore Sturgeon era il mio scrittore di fantascienza preferito. Ma la sua legge è decisamente vera.
Però oggi c'è qualcosa di diverso: una quantità crescente di americani inizia a comprendere la specificità di alcune di queste frodi, e il popolo in generale sta percependo che c'è qualcosa di profondamente sbagliato.
C'è un altro aspetto importante in questo elenco: non riguarda solo l'America. La società industriale occidentale condivide le stesse frodi.
Il sistema finanziario è internazionale. Si tratta di una frode anglo-americana. Al centro di questa frode c'è la madre di tutte le frodi finanziarie: le banche centrali. Gli inglesi hanno fornito il modello nel 1694: la Banca d'Inghilterra.
L'istruzione superiore è una frode. Non solo in Occidente.
A parte lo Stato d'Israele, la difesa nazionale è una frode.
I sistemi politici del mondo occidentale sono stati delle frodi fin dall'inizio. L'aumento delle frodi è dovuto alla democrazia. In democrazia ci vogliono abilità e capacità superiori per imbambolare l'opinione pubblica rispetto a quante ce ne vogliano in dittatura. Questa è l'eredità della Grecia Classica lasciata all'Occidente. Alle persone colte in Occidente è stato chiesto di leggere il discorso di Pericle sulla democrazia ateniese ricostruito da Tucidide. Ai bei vecchi tempi, le persone colte leggevano il discorso in greco. Ma era raro che i loro insegnanti chiedessero loro di fare due più due. Pericle convinse Atene ad iniziare una guerra contro Sparta nel 431 a.C. Nel secondo anno di guerra, fu protagonista di un'orazione funebre -- una giustificazione retorica della sua mancanza di buon senso. Se volete un po' di background, leggete il mio articolo del 2003, "It Usually Begins With Thucydides." Atene perse la guerra dopo 26 anni. Cinque anni dopo, il governo di Atene condannò Socrate per aver corrotto i giovani con domande politicamente scorrette. Socrate fu abbastanza stupido da bere la cicuta piuttosto che andarsene, un'opzione concessa dall'assemblea. Credeva -- come lo credevano tutti -- nella salvezza attraverso la politica. Per i Greci, come per Tip O'Neill, tutta la politica era locale. Socrate preferì morire piuttosto che scendere dalla giostra della politica. Gli apologeti della democrazia greca e di Socrate hanno riproposto questa sequenza di eventi per un millennio. La tradizione politica occidentale si basa sulla frode. Più le cose cambiano, più rimangono le stesse.
Negli Stati Uniti, questo aumento nel regno della frode politica ha avuto il sostegno del popolo per oltre un secolo. Le elezioni del 1912 la solidificarono: il trionfo dei progressisti. Abbiamo avuto una tregua, 1921-1929. Poi è finita. In sostanza, le elezioni presidenziali del 1904 misero fine alla Vecchia Democrazia: governo civile limitato e basato sul modello di Grover Cleveland. Ma quanti storici -- per non parlare degli elettori -- ricordano quell'elezione e il candidato che perse? Quasi nessuno.
I media mainstream sono delle frodi in tutto il mondo.
Esistono sistemi sanitari che non sono frodi. Dove non c'è il sostegno dello stato, la tecnologia medica avanza e i prezzi calano. Pensate agli interventi di chirurgia estetica. Pensate alla chirurgia laser. Nel frattempo, i canadesi fuggono negli Stati Uniti per avere assistenza. Il sistema britannico è stato il pioniere in Occidente: il Servizio Sanitario Nazionale. L'Unione Sovietica ha battuto la Gran Bretagna.
In breve, quando mettiamo insieme la legge di Sturgeon, lo stato sociale e la finanza keynesiana, il mondo è nella morsa di un sistema fraudolento.
Le idee pessime producono pessimi risultati.
I genitori possono sfuggire alla frode dell'istruzione superiore? Ovviamente sì. I loro figli possono trovare un lavoro part-time da McDonald's e pagare il college: apprendimento a distanza. Alcuni genitori lo sanno, ciononostante ancora firmano gli assegni per mandare i loro figli in un college costoso. Gli sciocchi vengono sempre separati dal loro denaro. Il mio video su YouTube su come ottenere una laurea accreditata per $11 al giorno ha ricevuto oltre 115,000 visite negli ultimi dieci anni. Solo una persona mi ha contattato dicendomi di aver seguito il mio consiglio.
Ecco quello che Smith non ha detto: anche quando le persone sanno che qualcosa è una frode, la maggior parte di loro lo ignorerà. Tanto per citare la poesia di Kipling, The Gods of the Copybook Headings, scegliamo il minore dei mali. Questo è il metodo provato per vivere in sicurezza.
Il cambiamento produttivo avviene al margine. La maggior parte dei cambiamenti avviene al di fuori delle grandi guerre. La maggior parte dei cambiamenti fallisce. Questa è la legge 20/80 di Pareto. Prima di cambiare, proviamo a vedere se qualcosa funziona. La maggior parte di noi non cambia fino all'ultimo minuto. Anche se la maggior parte di noi può sfuggire alla maggior parte di queste frodi, scegliamo di non farlo.
Eppure in qualche modo abbiamo tirato avanti come civiltà. Il potere creativo della legge di Sturgeon ci ha permesso di andare avanti.
Dal punto di vista politico siamo intrappolati, ma dove potremmo andare se non fossimo intrappolati?
La difesa nazionale è una frode, ma almeno le nostre guerre ci sono costate soprattutto soldi, non vite. E non c'è alcun servizio di leva obbligatorio, il quale è stato abolito una generazione fa. Il grande truffatore Richard Nixon l'ha abolito.
I media mainstream sono fraudolenti, ma la loro influenza sta calando. Stanno perdendo quote di mercato.
La cultura di massa è fraudolenta, ma possiamo ancora leggere libri classici (pre-1923) -- a buon mercato o addirittura gratis. Scaricateli su Kindle.
Possiamo leggere gratis i grandi classici dell'economia di libero mercato sul Mises.org e sulla biblioteca virtuale del Liberty Fund. Possiamo acquistare copie stampate a buon mercato. Due decenni fa, la maggior parte di questi libri era disponibile solo nelle librerie dell'usato, e solo sporadicamente.
Possiamo ancora vedere i film classici per $2.95 con Google e Amazon -- per $3.95 possiamo guardarli in alta definizione. Non li guardiamo su schermi tremolanti in bianco e nero da 9 pollici.
La varietà di scelte è enorme e sta crescendo.
Possiamo usare la legge di Pareto e la legge di Sturgeon per accedere al meglio del 10%. Il prezzo è basso.
Il libero mercato ha fatto tutto questo per noi. La gamma di scelta cresce. I prezzi continuano a scendere. È qualcosa che come minimo va avanti sin dal 1820 negli Stati Uniti e Gran Bretagna. Non è una novità.
Il potere schiacciante del libero mercato di offrire alternative produttive alle masse e alle élite, è la spettacolare tendenza del nostro tempo.
Per quanto riguarda la frode, anch'essa cresce. La gente ci crede e la sceglie volontariamente.
Pogo Possum l'aveva detto una generazione fa: "Abbiamo incontrato il nostro nemico, e siamo noi."
Conosciamo la legge di Gresham da mezzo millennio: "La moneta cattiva scaccia la moneta buona." Ma questa legge è leggermente inesatta. Ecco la formulazione corretta: "La moneta che viene artificialmente sopravvalutata dallo stato scaccia la moneta che è artificialmente sottovalutata."
Vi è una legge di Gresham anche nella cultura: "La cultura cattiva scaccia quella buona." Ma anche qui c'è un'inesattezza. "La cultura cattiva quando sovvenzionata dallo stato scaccia quella buona."
Viviamo in un'epoca in cui lo stato è preponderante. Ci ha promesso protezione e ci ha promesso una rete di sicurezza. Nel settore bancario, questo si chiama -- con precisione -- "azzardo morale". Questo termine è stato coniato da Walter Bagehot nel 1873. Vale in ogni ambito della vita, non solo nel settore bancario.
Rimuovete le garanzie dello stato contro la concorrenza del libero mercato, e la legge di Gresham sarà abrogata. La moneta buona -- e tutto il resto -- scaccerà la moneta cattiva.
Sono ottimista. Credo che il libero mercato ridurrà la percentuale di cazzate all'80%. Poi, nel tempo, al 75%. I cambiamenti avvengono al margine. Ci vuole tempo. È un processo cumulativo.
Quanto a coloro che preferiscono le cazzate, il loro prezzo scenderà. Questa è la tendenza del libero mercato. "Vendete alla gente ciò che vuole, ma ad un prezzo inferiore."
Se la frode aumenta in un libero mercato, è perché siamo noi che la vogliamo. Come una ricca vedova che preferisce ascoltare paroline dolci dalle bocche di uomini più giovani e disoccupati, noi potremmo preferire la frode. Però non prendetevela con il libero mercato.
[*] traduzione di Francesco Simoncelli: http://francescosimoncelli.blogspot.it/
By Dr. Mercola
New research has emerged linking low vitamin D levels with a risk of cognitive decline and mental impairment, according to studies conducted on elderly Chinese.
Duke-NUS (a collaboration between Duke University in North Carolina and the National University of Singapore)1 announced the deficiency is caused primarily by lack of exposure to sunlight, which scientists already knew humans require to maintain strong bones and healthy muscles.
The new research has now broadened to encompass vitamin D as necessary for optimal brain function.
European and North American studies that have associated low “D” levels with cognitive decline further support previously noted heart and neurodegenerative diseases in individuals with the same deficiency. News-Medical observed:
How Much Vitamin D Is Ideal?
The Institute of Medicine (IOM) recommends 20 nanograms per milliliter (ng/ml) of serum concentration of 25-hydroxy vitamin D as an adequate level, or 600 IUs a day up to age 70 and 800 IUs if you’re over 70, but many vitamin D researchers believe that’s not even enough to prevent osteomalacia, let alone take advantage of vitamin D’s additional health benefits.
Fortunately, vitamin D supplements are readily available, but due to government nutrition recommendations for children and the elderly, only informed choices will help people stay on track with the vitamin D levels that will offer optimal health. If you can’t get enough sunshine for whatever reason, then you can take a vitamin D3 supplement.
As a general guideline, research by GrassrootsHealth suggests adults need about 8,000 IUs per day to achieve a serum level of 40 ng/ml. If you do opt for a vitamin D supplement, please remember that you also need to boost your intake of vitamin K2through food and/or a supplement, as well as get your levels tested to be sure you’re safely within the therapeutic range.
Vitamin D in Food
Foods containing vitamin D and their recommended dietary allowance (RDA), according to the George Mateljan Foundation,12 a not-for-profit food and nutrition science organization, include:
•Four ounces of wild-caught Alaskan sockeye salmon — 128 percent of the RDA
•3.2 ounces of sardines — 44 percent of the RDA
•One egg — 11 percent of the RDA
•Shiitake mushrooms — 5 percent of the RDA
Keep in mind that the RDA is far lower than necessary to raise your vitamin D levels into the therapeutic range, so it’s difficult to achieve enough vitamin D from dietary sources alone. In addition, it’s ideal to get your vitamin D from sunlight because the sun offers a wealth of health benefits above and beyond vitamin D.
The Role of Vitamin D in Disease Prevention
A growing body of evidence shows that vitamin D plays a crucial role in disease prevention and maintaining optimal health. There are about 30,000 genes in your body, and vitamin D affects nearly 3,000 of them, as well as vitamin D receptors located throughout your body.
According to one large-scale study, optimal Vitamin D levels can slash your risk of cancer by as much as 60 percent. Keeping your levels optimized can help prevent at least 16 different types of cancer, including pancreatic, lung, ovarian, prostate and skin cancers.
How Vitamin D Performance Testing Can Help Optimize Your Health
Is it any wonder then that no matter what disease or condition is investigated, vitamin D appears to play a crucial role? This is why I am so excited about the D*Action Project by GrassrootsHealth. Dr. Robert Heaney is the research director of GrassrootsHealth and is part of the design of the D*action Project as well as analysis of the research findings.
GrassrootsHealth shows how you can take action today on known science with a consensus of experts without waiting for institutional lethargy. It has shown how by combining the science of measurement (of vitamin D levels) with the personal choice of taking action and, the value of education about individual measures that one can truly be in charge of their own health.
In order to spread this health movement to more communities, the project needs your involvement. To participate, simply purchase the D*Action Measurement Kit and follow the registration instructions included. (Please note that 100 percent of the proceeds from the kits go to fund the research project. I do not charge a single dime as a distributor of the test kits.)
As a participant, you agree to test your vitamin D levels twice a year during a five-year study, and share your health status to demonstrate the public health impact of this nutrient. There is a $65 fee every six months for your sponsorship of this research project, which includes a test kit to be used at home, and electronic reports on your ongoing progress. You will get a follow up email every six months reminding you “it’s time for your next test and health survey.”
Internet Resources Where You Can Learn More
- Vitamin D for Public Health
- Free Vitamin D Educational Training for Medical Practitioners
- Scientific Consensus Paper Released; Assert Sunlight and Vitamin D are Essential for Human Health
- Vitamin D Resource Page
Where Do We Go From Here?
GrassrootsHealth is now undertaking a new project entitled the Protect our Children NOW! (POC) project. The aim of this project is to acquire participation of at least 500 pregnant women in a community, and to increase their serum levels to the suggested level of at least 40 ng/ml based on the clinical trial by Hollis & Wagner.
In addition, the project will take these results in two years and “march” on the various institutions in the state/government/to the March of Dimes, to demand that action be taken to protect the world’s next generation.
Among other items, the projects expected impact is likely to be a reduction in preterm births, (in some cases up to a 50 percent reduction). The project already has the blessing of the scientists, the physicians at the Medical University of South Carolina (which are implementing it in their practices) and even the insurance company.
Any community can implement this and make a difference for themselves and others. For further information contact Jen Aliano, Project Manager, at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Sources and References
- 1 The Gerontological Society of America June 19, 2016
- 2 News-Medical July 27, 2016
- 3 Elle UK July 25, 2016
- 4 PHE July 21, 2016
- 5 Health Spectator July 22, 2016
- 6 The Guardian Oct. 30, 2013
- 7 BBC News July 21, 2016
- 8 Psych Central 1995-2016
- 9 AJGP Dec.2006
- 10 BBC News July 21, 2016
- 11 Nutrition Research January 2011
- 12 Vitamin D, The George Mateljan Foundation 2001-2016
Are we about to witness one of the largest stock market crashes in U.S. history? Swiss investor Marc Faber is the publisher of the “Gloom, Boom & Doom Report”, and he has been a regular guest on CNBC for years. And even though U.S. stocks have been setting new record high after new record high in recent weeks, he is warning that a massive stock market crash is in our very near future. According to Faber, we could “easily” see the S&P 500 plunge all the way down to 1,100. As I sit here writing this article, the S&P 500 is sitting at 2,181.74, so that would be a drop of cataclysmic proportions. The following is an excerpt from a CNBC article that discussed the remarks that Faber made on their network on Monday…
The notoriously bearish Marc Faber is doubling down on his dire market view.
The editor and publisher of the Gloom, Boom & Doom Report said Monday on CNBC’s “Trading Nation” that stocks are likely to endure a gut-wrenching drop that would rival the greatest crashes in stock market history.
“I think we can easily give back five years of capital gains, which would take the market down to around 1,100,” Faber said, referring to a level 50 percent below Monday’s closing on theS&P 500.
Of course, Faber is far from alone in believing that the market is heading for hard times. Just recently, I wrote about how legendary investor Jeffrey Gundlach is warning that “stocks should be down massively” and that he believes this is the time to “sell everything“.
And on Tuesday, Donald Trump told Fox News that the stock market is “a big bubble”…
“If rates go up, you’re going to see something that’s not pretty,” the billionaire businessman told Fox News during a Tuesday morning phone interview. “It’s all a big bubble.”
Worries that the Fed has created a market bubble have shadowed the second-longest bull market in history as the central bank has kept its key rate near zero and expanded its balance sheet by $3.8 trillion in order to pump liquidity into the financial system.
Trump actually has a vested interest in seeing the stock market go down because that would help his chances in November.
In a previous article on The Most Important News, I explained that the stock market has indicated who would win the presidential election 86 percent of the time since 1928. During the final three months before election day, if the stock market goes up the incumbent party almost always wins. But if the stock market goes down, the incumbent party almost always loses. The only times this correlation has not held up since 1928 were in 1956, 1968 and 1980.
For the moment, the stock market is defying the laws of economics, and that is a very good thing for Hillary Clinton. But if this bubble suddenly bursts and the market starts catching up with economic reality, that is going to turn out to be very favorable for Donald Trump.
And without a doubt, the fundamental economic numbers just continue to get worse. Earlier today, we learned that productivity in the U.S. has now been falling for three-quarters in a row…
Productivity, a sore spot for the U.S. economy over the past few years, has now declined in three straight quarters, according to data released Tuesday.
Productivity in the second quarter unexpectedly fell 0.5%, well below expectations, the Labor Department said. Economists surveyed by MarketWatch had forecast a 0.3% gain in productivity in the quarter.
Productivity is down 0.4% from a year earlier, the first year-over-year decline since the second quarter of 2013.
On Tuesday we also learned that real estate sales in Las Vegas were down about 10 percent in July compared to the same period a year ago, and things are not looking so good in San Francisco either. Just check out what has been going on on Twitter…
Twitter is shaking up San Francisco. It’s the city’s 10th largest employer, and second largest tech employer, after Salesforce. But it hasn’t yet figured out, despite a decade of trying, how to make money. Last October, it announced that it would lay off 8% of its workforce. A couple of weeks ago, it reported a second-quarter net loss of $107 million along with disappointing user metrics and lousy projections. Its shares have lost 74% since their miracle-IPO-hype peak at the end of December 2014.
And now Twitter is dumping nearly one third of its total office space on the San Francisco sublease market.
Las Vegas and San Francisco are both prone to huge “booms” and “busts”. So the fact that it appears that both cities are starting to move into the “bust” end of the cycle is a very ominous sign.
Conditions are changing, and now is the time to position yourself for the exceedingly challenging times that are coming. As I end this article today, I want to share with you something written by Jim Quinn. He recently went out to visit his son Kevin in Colorado for a couple of weeks, and the following is how he ended his article about that trip…
After spending a week in this stunning paradise, it’s tougher than you know to go back to my two and half hour daily round trip commute into the slums of West Philly. John Muir’s words were right 100 years ago and they are right today. I am losing precious days and my days are spent trying to make money. I’ve got responsibilities. I’ve got bills to pay. I’ve got kids to get through college. We’ve got aging parents to help. I work because I have to.
I’m not learning anything in this trivial world of distractions and iGadgets. I don’t fit into this materialistic society. I don’t do small talk. I have no patience for fools. I prefer solitude. If I can survive this despicable rat race for seven more years, I’ll be joining Kevin in Colorado and living the life I’d like to live. The sun is setting and time is slipping away. Those mountains are calling me home.
I can definitely identify with what Jim is going through, because I once experienced similar emotions.
To Jim and everyone else that hopes that someday in the future they will be able to live the lives that they would like to be living right now, I would say this…
Don’t put it off.
Seize the day and find a way to make your dreams a reality.
Things are rapidly changing in this country, and if you keep putting off the life you want to be living for too long it may end up slipping away for good.
Reprinted with permission from The Economic Collapse.
The time at which most workers ‘hit the wall’ has now been pinpointed – to 2.22pm exactly.
A survey of 2,000 workers has been able to specify exactly when the post-lunch slump kicks in, triggering a lull in concentration and a lack of productivity.
The study found that a lot of workers find themselves in this position up to three times a week.
The most common reasons for the mid-day slump is attributed to a warm working environment, not enough sleep and the sheer volume of workloads.
Dehydration and eating too much at lunchtime were also found to contribute to British workers ‘hitting the wall’ in the afternoon.
And it seems the slump can often be office-wide as more than three-quarters of workers notice their colleagues have crashed at around the same time as they have.
Three in 10 people have been caught avoiding their workload and a quarter of those have even landed themselves in trouble with the boss because of it.
When former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was asked last week if she has misled the American people on the issue of her failure to safeguard state secrets contained in her emails, she told my Fox News colleague, Chris Wallace, that the FBI had exonerated her. When pressed by Wallace, she argued that FBI Director James Comey said that her answers to the American people were truthful.
After Clinton recognized that even her strongest supporters doubted her statement, she attempted to walk it back. In doing so, she repeatedly lied again, but offered as an excuse a bizarre claim that she had “short-circuited” her answer.
Who knows what that means? She claimed that she and Wallace were talking over each other and her answer had been misunderstood and misconstrued. Yet, Clinton said that Comey exonerated her as being “truthful” to the public when in fact he stated that she had been truthful during her three-hour, closed-door, unrecorded interview with the FBI.
Could this email have been used as evidence in the treason trial of the now-executed scientist?
That is not an academic question. Most of the intelligence community seriously mistrusts Clinton, as her recklessness has jeopardized their work. Some feared that many of their undercover colleagues were compromised or even killed due to Clinton’s emails.
Hillary Rodham Clinton has established a clear and unambiguous record of deception. Her deceptions are not about the time of day or the day of the week; they are about matters material to her former job as Secretary of State and material to national security.
Do you know any rational person who continues to trust her?
Reprinted with the author’s permission.
Wearing a Trump shirt in Florida is like wearing a Rolling Stones shirt at a Rolling Stones concert. In cities such as Berkeley, Madison, or Portland, however, it’s like wearing an M16 covered in dead babies of color. Liberals have built The Donald up to such a ridiculous straw man of pure villainy, showing support for him is worse than throwing acid in someone’s face. New York Times editorial writer Brent Staples recently asked, “What planet do they come from, these people who argue that a totalitarian, white supremacist government would [be] good for democracy….” New York is an interesting city to support Trump in because although it hasn’t voted for a Republican president since Coolidge, there are still plenty of hardscrabble blue collars who don’t fit Cruz’s “New York values” stereotype. Within only a couple of miles, you can go from retired cops to mobsters to third-generation welfare Puerto Ricans to middle-class hipsters to Wall Street billionaires. The blacks in Harlem think the blacks in Brooklyn are lazy losers who wear outdated jeans. It’s called a melting pot, but it’s really several dozen totally distinct cultures that manage to coexist without saying a word to each other, ever. I’d be surprised if even one Upper East Side Jew has ever met a Hasidic Jew from Williamsburg.
That’s where I started my journey. I wore a “Make America Great Again” hat and shirt to a hipster bar called Nitehawk in Williamsburg, Brooklyn. The venue doubles as a movie theater and is the epicenter of a cool-kid enclave that has become so yuppified, the real estate is now more expensive than Manhattan’s. I noticed some smiles as I sat down at the bar, and people nodded their heads and even raised the occasional glass. I said, “Thanks” and was pleasantly surprised until I realized they assumed I was being ironic. “Where did you get that?” asked one grinning millennial on a date. I said, “The website,” and my new friend glared at me with a confused face. “You support Trump?” he asked, on the off chance I was serious. “I most certainly do,” I responded. He laughed and faced the bar, deciding it wasn’t worth his time to try to figure out how serious I was. This happened several times throughout the night, with people smiling, then looking confused, then giving up.
The next day I was still in the neighborhood (I’m selling my place there) and could walk down the street with the shameless glory only the morning sun can provide. Williamsburg doesn’t get busy until around 11 a.m., but the few stragglers walking to work or home alone from a one-night stand were not like their peers from last night. I thought I’d get sneers, but what I got—almost without exception—was capitulation. When people looked at me, I’d happily return their gaze and they’d inevitably face the ground. They didn’t look disappointed. They looked cowed. This is what I’ve always suspected. They don’t want to smash the patriarchy. They want to rail against the patriarchy, unless of course, it has a problem with that, in which case, well, uh, nothing, sorry. Jared Taylor discovered this phenomenon after chasing down a necklace snatcher in New York City many years ago.
[The thief] then did something that saved him from a terrific beating. He went completely limp. He laid his head back on the sidewalk, stretched out his throat, put his hands up by his head, and opened them wide. He was holding a gold-colored necklace, which he let me take without the slightest resistance.
It feels great wearing this shirt around liberals, and it’s not just because they’re offended. Wearing a photorealistic shirt of a vagina would offend old ladies, but that would feel needlessly intrusive. This is more like being on the winning team. When Tampa Bay won the Super Bowl back in 2003, I was hanging out with a New Yorker from Tampa and he was wearing the Buccaneers jersey. He was fighting anyone who had a problem and doing shots and picking up girls like he owned the world. During a break in the festivities, he came up to me holding the front of his shirt out and said, “I feel like a superhero.” I finally understand what he was talking about.
I just heard the rawest kind of propaganda from former presstitute David Satter, who hangs out at the right-wing Hudson Institute and pretends to be an expert on Russia and Putin. On August 10 Satter told NPR’s audience that Washington’s hope to bring peace to Syria would fail unless Washington understood that the Russian government had no humanitarian feelings and did not care about the loss of human life. What Washington needs to do, said Satter, was to make sure that Putin and his henchmen understood that they would be held accountable as war criminals.
I should be hardened by now, but it never fails to astonish me that agents for the elite are willing to tell the most blatant and transparent lies. Perhaps this is because they know that the media and their fellow bought-and-paid-for “experts” will not challenge them on their statements. In fact, this is the way explanations are controlled and history rewritten.
Perhaps everyone has already forgotten that when Washington’s plan to invade Syria was blocked by the UK Parliament and Russian diplomacy, Washington sent the forces used against Gaddafi in Libya to overthrow Assad in Syria where they emerged as ISIS and commit extraordinary atrocities.
As ISIS was serving Washington’s purpose, Washington took no action against them. After a couple of years of death and destruction suffered by Syrians, the Russian government lost its patience and backed the Syrian Army with air power. Soon ISIS was defeated and on the run.
Washington was caught in a bind. In Iraq, Washington was fighting ISIS because ISIS was overthrowing Washington’s puppet in Iraq. However, in Syria Washington was supporting ISIS, often characterizing ISIS as “moderates” fighting to bring democracy to Syria. Now that ISIS is on the verge of total defeat in Syria, Washington’s whores among the “experts” want Russia punished for blocking Washington’s overthrow of Syria.
In the 21st century, the numerous war crimes are all accounted for by the US and Israel. These crimes were enabled by the EU which provided cover for the official lies, such as Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and Iranian nukes, that were used by Washington for its unprovoked aggressions that have destroyed in whole or part seven countries.
Real experts have integrity, and these experts want the Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama regimes tried for their war crimes. I think David Satter should be in the dock with them.
Project MKUltra, sometimes referred to as the CIA’s mind control program, was the code name given to an illegal program of experiments on human subjects, designed and undertaken by the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).
Experiments on humans were intended to identify/develop drugs and procedures to be used in interrogations and torture, in order to weaken the individual to force confessions through mind control.
If you’re a fan of Stranger Things, MK Ultra may sound familiar (see: Hidden Programming Within Stranger Things), and the truth is just as strange as fiction.
According to Wikipedia:
Organized through the Scientific Intelligence Division of the CIA, the project coordinated with the Special Operations Division of the U.S. Army’s Chemical Corps. The program began in the early 1950s, was officially sanctioned in 1953, was reduced in scope in 1964, further curtailed in 1967 and officially halted in 1973.The program engaged in many illegal activities, including the use of unwitting U.S. and Canadian citizens as its test subjects, which led to controversy regarding its legitimacy.
MKUltra used numerous methodologies to manipulate people’s mental states and alter brain functions, including the surreptitious administration of drugs (especially LSD) and other chemicals, hypnosis, sensory deprivation, isolation, verbal and sexual abuse, as well as various forms of torture.
The project’s intentionally obscure CIA cryptonym is made up of the digraph MK, meaning that the project was sponsored by the agency’sTechnical Services Staff, followed by the word Ultra (which had previously been used to designate the most secret classification of World War II intelligence). Other related cryptonyms include Project MKNAOMI and Project MKDELTA.
Headed by Sidney Gottlieb, the MKUltra project was started on the order of CIA director Allen Welsh Dulles on April 13, 1953.Its aim was to develop mind-controlling drugs for use against the Soviet bloc, largely in response to alleged Soviet, Chinese, and North Korean use of mind control techniques on U.S. prisoners of war in Korea. The CIA wanted to use similar methods on their own captives. The CIA was also interested in being able to manipulate foreign leaders with such techniques,and would later invent several schemes to drug Fidel Castro. Experiments were often conducted without the subjects’ knowledge or consent. In some cases, academic researchers being funded through grants from CIA front organizations were unaware that their work was being used for these purposes.
The documentary at the bottom of this article is from 1979, and delves deep into the CIA’s role in this nefarious agenda. It exposes the government’s role in the Age of Aquarius/New Age movement, acting as a “hidden hand” with the intention of destabilizing the political movements of the time, and turning humanity inwards so the emphasis was on serving the ego, and disassociating from society (ie: As Timothy Leary popularized, the ‘Tune In, Turn On, Drop Out’ mantra).
The copyright for this particular version derives from the US Department of Justice. This film is in the public domain as a work of the federal government.
Reprinted with permission from Collective Evolution.
Welcome to the British Lawn Mower Racing Association, the spiritual home of one of the cheapest and most entertaining ways to experience the thrills and adrenaline rush of grass roots motor sport.
Dreamt up over a few pints in a West Sussex country pub back in 1973, the sport has never looked back, spreading worldwide and developing into a professionally run, competitive, but above all, fun pursuit. If you feel like having a go and want to know what’s involved or simply want to come along and see for yourself one of the more unusual forms of motorsport, then you will find all the information you need on the site. The BMLRA are a friendly bunch so feel free to contact us with your queries – you may get hooked!
Reprinted from British Lawn Mower Racing Association.
I have worked with and for people like Donald Trump.
You see, such people have minds that move very fast through mountains of information and are satisfied if they capture about the most relevant 20% of the key points that convey 80% of the story. They then have no problem telling you how much they know about the subject, while messing up on the 80% of the points that tell only 20% of the story.
Their minds can move faster than their mouths at times; while delivering a message to an audience, they might forget about the specific angle that should be taken with that audience – not that the message is different, but that different points need be emphasized or minimized.
Come out strongly against the actions of the Treasury and the Federal Reserve, especially during 2007 – 2009 but also continuing. Hit on the point that these have maintained and improved the wealth of the 1% while doing nothing for or even destroying the wealth and livelihoods of the 99%.
This is obvious to the 99% – they just want to hear someone pound on the message and state clearly how he will act differently.
Hillary & Bill Corruption
Talk about a target rich environment! I need not expand.
In each case, Trump can paint a picture diametrically opposite to where Hillary stands. In each case, this picture is attractive to a majority of likely and potential voters.
Donald – just stay on point.
Reprinted with permission from Bionic Mosquito.