The RT site has been under attack from unknown sources, er, the Americans, since last month. This is a rare time where I was able to access their site.
“This could mean triggering Article 50, a referendum in other European nations leading to a break-up of the euro or sterling hitting below $1.20 or lower. The banks are ready for anything now,” the source in the bank told the broadcaster.
After the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union in June, there have been talks a similar referendum may be held in France, the Netherlands and other countries.
“Markets hate uncertainty and the events this year have unfortunately created a lot of mystery around what is going to happen next,” the source added.
Shares in the biggest banks have been plummeting. Deutsche Bank has lost almost 45 percent, Credit Suisse has lost 41 percent and the Royal Bank of Scotland went down 35 percent in 2016. Uncertainty and volatility has been spotted in all areas of the economy from mining to car production.
By far, Brexit has been the biggest uncertainty on the global financial agenda, but analysts urge companies to keep on working despite the unclear future and make steps to “de-risking and simplifying their businesses.”
“I think the main problem for the second half of the year is the uncertainty caused by Brexit, though that’s likely to persist for two years or more, so I suspect companies are likely to roll up their sleeves and get on with their business,” Laith Khalaf, senior analyst at Hargreaves Lansdown told CNBC.
With permission from
Vaccines, ISIS, Benghazi, Federal Reserve, major media
Sources: Free Press, NASDAQ, Business Insider, BBC, Forbes.
By Jon Rappoport
Every wonder why and how major media can cover up enormous scandals about vaccines, Benghazi, the creation and funding of ISIS, the complicity of the federal government in drug trafficking, the failure of the $2 trillion war on poverty, the private Federal Reserve banking cartel?
33 years ago, 50 companies owned 90% of US media.
Now, 6 companies own 90% of US media.
They are: Comcast; The Walt Disney Company; 21st Century Fox; Time Warner; Viacom; CBS.
Here are their 2014 revenues. Comcast, $69 billion. Disney, $48.8 billion. 21st Century Fox, $40.5 billion. Time Warner, $22.8 billion. CBS, $13.8 billion. Viacom, $13.7 billion.
Note: Viacom and CBS are part-owned by National Amusements, under Sumner Redstone. 21st Century Fox is owned by the Murdoch Family Trust.
Here is a partial list of media outlets owned by the big six companies: Universal Pictures, NBC Universal, USA Network, Bravo, CNBC, The Weather Channel, MSNBC, Syfy, ABC Television, ESPN, A&E, Lifetime, Lucasfilm, Pixar, Walt Disney Pictures, Fox Broadcasting Company, Fox News, Fox Business, Fox Sports, National Geographic, Wall St. Journal, NY Post, HarperCollins, CNN, CW, HBO, TBS, TNT, DC Comics, MTV, BET, Comedy Central, Paramount Pictures, CBS Television Network.
Identical parrot-like reporting, on so many major news stories, across the board, now requires the cooperation of only six companies.
To put it another way, there is ironclad agreement to cover up the truth.
There are two dominating wire services which feed all these news outlets: Associated Press and Reuters. The Associated Press is a non-profit owned by TV, radio, and newspaper outlets in America, many of which outlets, of course, are in turn owned by the big six companies.
But…the six companies controlling US media have a monumental problem. They’re a clumsy, slow-moving, complacent giant. Time and time again, they fail to perceive their own preposterous flaws. Even with CIA assets on board, tailoring stories, and shrinking down points of view, this giant has become exceedingly vulnerable to so-called alternative media.
Ordinarily, when faced with such alternatives, a giant invents controlled opposition and portrays it as “the rebel,” when in fact it’s simply a watered-down version of the mainstream. But in this case, there are too many independent media outlets and reporters to control.
The big six shapers of mass reality are becoming prisoners of their own game. Increasingly they’re being recognized as fabricators of information-bubbles that often bear little or no resemblance to what is actually going on in the world.
Perceptions are changing. What was once a hugely convincing mural painted on a wall a hundred miles long, avidly watched by populations and accepted as Reality, is now seen as a series of self-referring interlocking data packets, disconnected from true news about the men who are literally stealing the planet.
Indeed, these big six companies are allies of the thieves. They are in the Club.
Once this is understood, the decline of big six credibility is unstoppable.
The big six create caricatures of political leaders (who are already caricatures), handpick experts who will confirm a story’s pre-selected bias, telescope events into a few details that misdirect the public, pretend a consensus exists when it doesn’t, slide by with generalities and worn out homilies, and even at this late date expect to be believed.
As these strategies are more widely understood, the decline of big six credibility accelerates.
The big six do everything in their power to give the audience a theatrical presentation of the news, while trying to make it appear there is nothing theatrical about it.
As this is seen, their credibility becomes a joke.
“And now, for our top story tonight, we go to (field reporter) in (distant city).”
The field reporter knows nothing of consequence about the city he’s in, nor has he searched out a single item about the story himself. He may as well be speaking from a network studio in New York. And, by the way, his information is actually centered in New York. It consists of incoming wire service reports, phone conversations with government PR people, updates from biased law-enforcement officials…
Lights, camera, action.
Let the farce begin.
But the show is closing.
Research from The University of Queensland could lead to a new treatment for Parkinson’s disease, with future potential applications to nearly 50 other disorders.
In Parkinson’s disease – which affects about eight million people worldwide – vital nerve cells (neurons) in the brain malfunction or die.
Researchers from UQ’s Institute for Molecular Bioscience examined a genetic mutation that interrupts the traffic of materials within neurons and allows waste products to accumulate, causing Parkinson’s disease.
Associate Professor Rohan Teasdale said previous studies showed that dysfunctions in retromer (a protein machine responsible for transporting biological material within a cell) were linked to Parkinson’s disease, but the biological reasons behind this were unclear until now.
“It has been identified that one of these proteins (Vps35) is mutated in some Parkinson’s patients, which creates congestion in the transport network inside cells,” Associate Professor Teasdale said.
“As a result, it appears that the workers responsible for recycling material within these neurons are not getting to their correct work place and without their assistance the cells within the brain cannot rid themselves of waste materials, which increases the likelihood of cell death.
“It’s this cell death that then causes the symptoms of Parkinson’s disease, such as tremors and muscle stiffness,” he said.
In the United States, the wealthy have taken steps to obscure their opulent villas and extravagant estates from Google Maps, reports the real estate magazine Luxury Listings.
Aug 29, 2016
With permission from
Barbara H. Peterson
Aug 27, 2016
The game is rigged. The fix is in. Has been for a while, we’ve just been bandied about and hoodwinked into thinking that we can change the fact that corporations in league with the corporate government really do not care about our health or our very existence other than our worth as worker bees and “consumers” of whatever garbage they want to put on our plates.
The “label it” campaign was a farce, ripe for deception. It did, however, prolong our hopes until a more deceptive form of genetic engineering would take the stage and flood the kitchen with manufactured food-like organisms that have been designed to fly completely under the radar and any phony labeling laws. Eat up, America. Just don’t ask what it is you are putting in your mouths.
The ‘New And Improved’ Genetic Engineering
What we have seen thus far in the field of genetic engineering has been just the awkward beginnings of a plan to re-engineer the world and all of its various organisms into a ‘new and improved’ version (didn’t they say that about the last con they were selling?), created in a lab and designed to replace all that is natural.
According to proponents of this scheme, the world and its life forms as they exist are inconvenient, imperfect, not acceptable, and drastically need revision in order to be sustainable, green, healthy, and oh yes, let’s not forget, able to ‘end hunger’ and ‘feed the world.’ Lies. All lies.
There is an exciting new player in the ever-expanding field of genome editing. In a study reported in the January 2013 issue of Science, two groups—Cong et al.1 and Mali et al.2—explored the limits and adaptability of a prokaryotic RNA-based system for mammalian genome-wide editing. This new method of genome engineering is derived from an adaptive immune system known as CRISPR (Clustered Regulatory Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats) that bacteria and archaea use as a means to protect themselves against foreign invasive elements. These two studies show that the CRISPR system is an efficient method to alter mammalian genomes. At present, four types of discrete systems have been shown to generate, to different degrees of specificity and efficiency, genome-wide editing: three distinct protein-based nuclease systems,3,4,5 a chemical-based nuclease system,6 an adeno-associated virus (AAV)–based system,7 and now a protein RNA–based system.1,2
Resistance Is (Almost) Futile – Monsanto Is Upgrading The Borg
The first step in flooding the world with this new RNA technology lies in pesticide sprays.
It’s called the “BioDirect” initiative and it will eliminate costly resistance to glyphosate, eradicate vexingly resilient insects with “biopesticides” and even modify the genetic code of a plant by simply spritzing it with an RNA-infused surfactant spray. The technology is called “RNA interference” (RNAi) and it heralds a brave new world of profitability for agrochemical corporations. It also opens a Pandora’s box full of as-yet unanswered ethical questions about genetic drift, patenting plants on the fly and, most ominously, whether RNAi can, should or will be weaponized like another Monsanto product — Agent Orange.
RNAi technology hijacks DNA’s messenger system — the ribonucleic acid (RNA) that carries out DNA’s instructions. In effect, RNAi sends human-made messages that can, in turn, alter or kill its target by scrambling cellular functions, turning off organs, dropping resistance to a herbicide (glyphosate) or altering the DNA’s command system to produce an artificial gene expression.
The real issue is whether the next best move after drenching the planet in pesticides is to then start pumping out RNAi biopesticides.
RNAi pesticides appear to be next in line behind Roundup, which is coming under increased scrutiny ever since its main ingredient, Glyphosate, was declared a possible carcinogen by the World Health Organization.
Now, instead of conceding and working with nature, they are counterattacking with RNAi technology. Why? Because sales are flagging. The market is literally oversaturated with glyphosate. And Monsanto wants to extend the life and profitability of Roundup by knocking out resistance at the cellular level.
As a result, we face the unknown consequences of introducing a tidal wave of RNA into ecosystems that are not adapted to a sudden influx of genetic messages. Just think about that for a minute. Antonio Regalado pointed out in MIT Technology Review, “RNA may be natural … but introducing large amounts of targeted RNA molecules into the environment is not.”
The USDA and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have already signed off on RNAi apples engineered by a Canadian company and although Monsanto is still awaiting approval, a 2014 statement by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) indicates that their RNAi may already be baked into your cake…
…With Monsanto’s scientists pushing favourable papers at the EPA and with farmers who are supportive of agrochemical options clamouring for new GMO herbicide technology, it sure seems like resistance to their solution to glyphosate resistance is futile.
And the goal for Monsanto regarding these new pesticides? Not to provide an end-fix to the problem it created, but to prolong the life of the pesticide for added company profit. The company knows the effectiveness of any new creation will not last forever.
Robb Fraley, Monsanto’s chief technology officer, explained that RNAi was highly specific to the targeted pest. That requires added work on the front end to identify the genes for “interference.” Being specific won’t eliminate concerns with resistance, but should prolong the life of these pest control tools.
Regulations? We Don’t Need No Stinkin’ Regulations!
And the master plan is as it has always been – get the technology out there and into the public arena before any pesky regulatory committee needs to get paid off to pass flimsy regulations in favor of corporate interests. After all, any time you can save a buck, do so.
Nina Holland, researcher for Corporate Europe Observatory, says: “The biotech industry has waged an under-the-radar campaign to get new GM products absolved from GM regulation. The TTIP negotiations are seen by industry across the board and the US government as the perfect opportunity to block EU processes that are supposed to protect public health and the environment. The regulation of new GM techniques is a case in point.”
CRISPR-Cas9 – On To Editing Living Organisms With RNA Technology
Sprayable pesticides are just the first step. After all, who wouldn’t want a new and improved pesticide that you can simply spray on a plant and only certain plant pests bite the dust? And people will buy it hook, line and sinker. Just like they did the Roundup lie.
After that, it’s a case of ‘anything goes.’ RNA technology will be accepted. At least that is what the biotech industry is counting on. So, it’s on to crops. Why not? After all, it’s benign. Or so we think. We really don’t know, but a mere technicality such as that shouldn’t stand in the way of progress.
How will we deal with prospects for editing the genes of organisms in living environments?
In the realm of agriculture, that’s no longer hypothetical.
Since its 2013 demonstration as a genome editing tool in Arabidopsis and tobacco — two widely used laboratory plants — CRISPR has been road-tested in crops, including wheat, rice, soybeans, potatoes, sorghum, oranges and tomatoes. By the end of 2014, a flood of research into agricultural uses for CRISPR included a spectrum of applications, from boosting crop resistance to pests to reducing the toll of livestock disease.
What’s In Your Body?
But wait! It appears that some gene edited crops are already here, and using a different technique than CRISPR, totally unregulated, and flying completely under the radar.
Meanwhile, the first commercially available gene edited crop — produced using not CRISPR but another form of gene editing known as RTDS — has already appeared: an oilseed rape created by Cibus, a San Diego–based company. The rape has been altered for herbicide resistance, enabling farmers to spray their crop with weed killer. According to Nature, Cibus is marketing the product as non–genetically modified, since only a few snippets of the plant’s existing genes have been changed and “no gene has been inserted from a different kind of organism, nor even from another plant.” Even though RTDS is a different system than CRISPR, the similarities are sufficient enough that identical policy and regulatory questions apply to both.
Labeling makes no difference at all if that label does not reflect that any genetic engineering has taken place when in reality, it has. Just another sleight of hand by our corporate manipulators. Oh, they will get around to making some sort of regulatory statement sooner or later, but rest assured, whatever they decide, it won’t be in our best interests, but in the interests of corporate profit. And only until after the damage is done and we are well on our way to being saturated in the stuff.
Pesticides, Crops, Then Critters, Oh My!
Reports suggest that an entire barnyard of edited animals destined for industrial agriculture is rapidly filling the R&D pipeline. Recombinetics, a start-up firm, made headlines with hornless dairy cattle carrying a smidgen of genes from naturally smooth-headed beef cows. The company is now working on Brazilian beef cattle with larger muscles (for more meat, which may be more tender), while other firms are developing chickens that only produce female offspring (for egg-laying) and beef cattle that only produce males (for more efficient feed-to-meat conversion).
With respect to gene drives, while agriculture remains at the periphery thus far, researchers at Harvard’s Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering have outlined heady prospects. Gene drives could “pave the way toward sustainable agriculture,” they suggest, by reversing pesticide resistance in insects and herbicide resistance in weeds. Drive systems could also destroy or modify pesky plant pests and squelch populations of invasive species, such as rats and kudzu.
A CRISPR-tweaked farm system could have a smaller environmental footprint and even humanitarian benefits, if it means farmers don’t have to dehorn cattle or cull their male bulls.
As mentioned above, among the agricultural applications of CRISPR in the research pipeline are those that would alter the biology of insects and weeds — in some cases, editing genes to overcome resistance to pesticides and herbicides. CRISPR-assisted gene drive technology could propel such mutations through populations in the wild, creating the potential to modify entire plant or animal communities over just a few years.
Pave the way towards sustainable agriculture? Humane? Just who are they trying to kid? If Monsanto had not dowsed the world in deadly poisons, agriculture would be sustainable. Now that the ground has been poisoned, people are dying from cancer and all sorts of pesticide-induced illnesses, Monsanto and the biotech industry have the cojones to tell us that they will solve the problem by using a new and unproven gene editing technique to fix the problem created by them? Seriously? And not to mention that cows grow horns just like we grow feet. And hands. And noses. Horns are simply inconvenient for us. What’s next, beakless chickens? People with six hands so they can do more work for their employers? Humans are not exempt from the genetic mayhem by any means.
Chimeras Are Gestating on U.S. Research Farms
A radical new approach to generating human organs is to grow them inside pigs or sheep.
The experiments rely on a cutting-edge fusion of technologies, including recent breakthroughs in stem-cell biology and gene-editing techniques. By modifying genes, scientists can now easily change the DNA in pig or sheep embryos so that they are genetically incapable of forming a specific tissue. Then, by adding stem cells from a person, they hope the human cells will take over the job of forming the missing organ, which could then be harvested from the animal for use in a transplant operation.
“We can make an animal without a heart. We have engineered pigs that lack skeletal muscles and blood vessels,” says Daniel Garry, a cardiologist who leads a chimera project at the University of Minnesota. While such pigs aren’t viable, they can develop properly if a few cells are added from a normal pig embryo. Garry says he’s already melded two pigs in this way and recently won a $1.4 million grant from the U.S. Army, which funds some biomedical research, to try to grow human hearts in swine.
Do you really think that this will stop at human organs grown in pigs? Why not just create a ‘sustainable’ human? Maybe we can create one that doesn’t need to eat real food. Yeah, that’s the ticket.
Mary Shelly’s “Frankenstein” was prophetic. We are being engineered. This experiment is being conducted in plain sight with the approval of your friendly corporate government. The tools for its implementation are most likely already on your plate, in your field, in your water supply, and are flooding your body as I type.
One thing is certain – no one knows where this will lead. If anyone says they do know the long term implications of tweaking nature to suit some phony scientist’s vision of a perfect genetically engineered world, that person is a liar.
And this is just the beginning…
©2016 Barbara H. Peterson
The researchers point out that a 2011 study revealed nearly ony 17 percent of respondents believed it was at least party true that streaks in the sky left by aircrafts are actually attempts by the government to secretly spray harmful chemicals into the atmosphere.
Below are segments of various articles I’ve written on the subject that these mainstream media outlets never really mention. At the very end, a couple of documentaries are looked to illustrate why many people thing these programs are actually operational.
A couple of months ago, HRH Princess Basmah Bint Saud, humanitarian and daughter of King Saud, compared geoengineering science and programs to weapons of mass destruction, arguing that their implementation is like setting off a bomb without the nuclear explosion.
She also stressed that geoengineering threatens the world’s water and food supply, and is one of the keys of the “new power” in the world. She emphasized as well that the people behind these programs have a wealth of resources at their disposal, but are playing a very dangerous game with the planet’s equilibrium through geoengineering, and that this is a method of “slow poisoning.”
This occurred at the Istanbul Security Conference on December 5th, 2015, where she gave a keynote speech on “Global Justice and Ethics in the Changing World Order.”
You can see the full interview she did with Patrick Roddie below:
“In recent years there has been a decline in the support for weather modification research, and a tendency to move directly into operational projects.” – World Meteorological Association (source)
For those of you who don’t know, geoengineering is the deliberate and large-scale intervention into the Earth’s climatic system. This is done through various means, one of which is the spraying of chemicals into the atmosphere via planes. Weather modification actually dates back to the 1940s, when the General Electric Company demonstrated that a cloud of super-cooled water droplets could be transformed into ice crystals when seeded with dry ice. Shortly after this it was discovered that fine particles of pure silver iodide, with a crystal structure similar to that of ice, could be effectively used for global weather modification.
The Hughes Aircraft Company even has a patent dating back more than twenty years ago, to 1990. You can take a look at it here. It contains 18 claims to reduce global warming through stratospheric seeding with aluminum oxide, thorium oxide, and refractory Welsbach material.
Fast forward to today, with even more chemicals added to the mix, and it becomes clear why so many people are concerned about these initiatives. Since their inception in the 1940s, geoengineering programs have become increasingly more ubiquitous, springing up at various universities around the globe. The debate still rages on about whether these programs are actually operational, however, but for anybody who has done the research, it’s fairly easy to see the truth of the matter. According to M. Granger Morgan, the University and Lord Chair Professor of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie Mellon University:
I want to reiterate what John said, which is I think that any research in this area needs to be open. I think it would be truly disastrous if, you know, we discovered a few years from now that there was a “black program” that some government had stood-up to sort of learn on-the-quiet how to do this. . . .
We do stuff in the stratosphere all the time, of course, and so it’s not as though the stratosphere is absolutely pristine. But you don’t want to have people going off and doing things that involve large radiative forcings; or go on for extended periods; or, for that matter, provide lots of reactive surfaces that could result in significant ozone destruction. (source)
If we look at SPICE, a United Kingdom government funded geoengineering research project that collaborates with the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge, Edinburgh and Bristol, some of the proposed particles to spray in the air include:
They refer to it as Solar Radiation Management, and the idea is to spray these chemicals into the atmosphere in order to combat the effects of global warming by deflecting them away from Earth’s surface.
Geoengineering has also been used for more mundane purposes, such as to modify the weather in China for the 2008 Olympics. (source) This, to me, seems like a grossly irresponsible use of technology.
It’s also noteworthy to mention that these programs seem to be under the control of federal agencies. This means that if they are actually spraying things into the atmosphere, we would never hear about it, because it would fall under the category of ‘national security’ — a term used to justify the classification of millions of pages of documents every single year.
The CIA and NASA are certainly supporting the National Academy of Sciences with regards to geoengineering projects. This is quite clear in a United States government document printed at the request of the United States Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation in November of 1978:
In addition to specific research programs sponsored by Federal agencies, there are other functions related to weather modification which are performed in several places in the executive branch. Various federal advisory panels and committees and their staffs -established to conduct in-depth studies and prepare comprehensive reports, to provide advice or recommendations, or to coordinate Federal weather modification programs – have been housed and supported within executive departments, agencies, or offices.
I should mention as well that it’s not just the Princess who is speaking out against these programs. Concerns have been being voiced for years by various individuals from all over the world. For example, Rosalind Peterson, President and Co-Founder of the Agriculture Defense Coalition (ADC) and an ex-United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) employee, made this statement at a 2007 United Nations hearing on global warming:
One of the things that is affected by climate change is agriculture, but some of what we are seeing is man-made, but man-made in a different way than you may guess. Weather modification programs, experimental ones done by private companies, done by the US government, done by states across the United States, are underway; there’s more than 50 of them in operation across the United States. All of these impact agriculture because they change the micro-climates needed for agriculture to survive. None of these programs that I know of today, and this all public record, are available at anytime with oversight. . . . International corporations are modifying our weather all the time, and they’re modifying it in ways that cover thousands and thousands of square miles. Most of it is chemically altered, so that what happens is that we are putting chemicals, ground based chemicals that are shot into the air, or chemicals coming from airplanes, that change and modify our weather.
You can read more, and view that full hearing here.
A 1996 report conducted by top military personnel in the U.S., titled “Weather as a Force Multiplier; Owning the Weather in 2025,” reveals the supposed urgency to implement these programs:
Current demographic, economic, and environmental trends will create global stresses that provide the impetus necessary for many countries or groups to turn this weather-modification ability into a capability.
In the United States, weather-modification will likely become a part of national security policy with both domestic and international applications. Our government will pursue such a policy, depending on its interests, at various levels.