You were told to go home, “go home Yankees and fix your country”, and you did not listen.
And, you deserve the president you have in place.
The American empire is coming to an end. The U.S. economy is being drained by wars in the Middle East and vast military expansion around the globe. It is burdened by growing deficits, along with the devastating effects of deindustrialization and global trade agreements. Our democracy has been captured and destroyed by corporations that steadily demand more tax cuts, more deregulation and impunity from prosecution for massive acts of financial fraud, all the while looting trillions from the U.S. treasury in the form of bailouts. The nation has lost the power and respect needed to induce allies in Europe, Latin America, Asia and Africa to do its bidding. Add to this the mounting destruction caused by climate change and you have a recipe for an emerging dystopia. Overseeing this descent at the highest levels of the federal and state governments is a motley collection of imbeciles, con artists, thieves, opportunists and warmongering generals. And to be clear, I am speaking about Democrats, too.
The empire will limp along, steadily losing influence until the dollar is dropped as the world’s reserve currency, plunging the United States into a crippling depression and instantly forcing a massive contraction of its military machine.
Short of a sudden and widespread popular revolt, which does not seem likely, the death spiral appears unstoppable, meaning the United States as we know it will no longer exist within a decade or, at most, two. The global vacuum we leave behind will be filled by China, already establishing itself as an economic and military juggernaut, or perhaps there will be a multipolar world carved up among Russia, China, India, Brazil, Turkey, South Africa and a few other states. Or maybe the void will be filled, as the historian Alfred W. McCoy writes in his book “In the Shadows of the American Century: The Rise and Decline of US Global Power,” by “a coalition of transnational corporations, multilateral military forces like NATO, and an international financial leadership self-selected at Davos and Bilderberg” that will “forge a supranational nexus to supersede any nation or empire.”
Under every measurement, from financial growth and infrastructure investment to advanced technology, including supercomputers, space weaponry and cyber warfare we are being rapidly overtaken by the Chinese. “In April 2015 the U.S. Department of Agriculture suggested that the American economy would grow by nearly 50 percent over the next 15 years, while China’s would triple and come close to surpassing America’s in 2030,” McCoy noted. China became the world’s second largest economy in 2010, the same year it became the world’s leading manufacturing nation, pushing aside a United States that had dominated the world’s manufacturing for a century. The Department of Defense issued a sober report titled “At Our Own Peril: DoD Risk Assessment in a Post-Primacy World.” It found that the U.S. military “no longer enjoys an unassailable position versus state competitors,” and “it no longer can … automatically generate consistent and sustained local military superiority at range.” McCoy predicts the collapse will come by 2030.
Empires in decay embrace an almost willful suicide. Blinded by their hubris and unable to face the reality of their diminishing power, they retreat into a fantasy world where hard and unpleasant facts no longer intrude. They replace diplomacy, multilateralism and politics with unilateral threats and the blunt instrument of war.
This collective self-delusion saw the United States make the greatest strategic blunder in its history, one that sounded the death knell of the empire-the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. The architects of the war in the George W. Bush White House, and the array of useful idiots in the press and academia who were cheerleaders for it, knew very little about the countries being invaded, were stunningly naive about the effects of industrial warfare and were blindsided by the ferocious blowback. They stated, and probably believed, that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, although they had no valid evidence to support this claim. They insisted that democracy would be implanted in Baghdad and spread across the Middle East. They assured the public that U.S. troops would be greeted by grateful Iraqis and Afghans as liberators. They promised that oil revenues would cover the cost of reconstruction. They insisted that the bold and quick military strike-“shock and awe”-would restore American hegemony in the region and dominance in the world. It did the opposite. As Zbigniew Brzezinski noted, this “unilateral war of choice against Iraq precipitated a widespread delegitimation of U.S. foreign policy.”
Historians of empire call these military fiascos, a feature of all late empires, examples of “micro-militarism.” The Athenians engaged in micro-militarism when during the Peloponnesian War (431-404 B.C.) they invaded Sicily, suffering the loss of 200 ships and thousands of soldiers and triggering revolts throughout the empire. Britain did so in 1956 when it attacked Egypt in a dispute over the nationalization of the Suez Canal and then quickly had to withdraw in humiliation, empowering a string of Arab nationalist leaders such as Egypt’s Gamal Abdel Nasser and dooming British rule over the nation’s few remaining colonies. Neither of these empires recovered.
“While rising empires are often judicious, even rational in their application of armed force for conquest and control of overseas dominions, fading empires are inclined to ill-considered displays of power, dreaming of bold military masterstrokes that would somehow recoup lost prestige and power,” McCoy writes. “Often irrational even from an imperial point of view, these micromilitary operations can yield hemorrhaging expenditures or humiliating defeats that only accelerate the process already under way.”
Empires need more than force to dominate other nations. They need a mystique. This mystique-a mask for imperial plunder, repression and exploitation-seduces some native elites, who become willing to do the bidding of the imperial power or at least remain passive. And it provides a patina of civility and even nobility to justify to those at home the costs in blood and money needed to maintain empire. The parliamentary system of government that Britain replicated in appearance in the colonies, and the introduction of British sports such as polo, cricket and horse racing, along with elaborately uniformed viceroys and the pageantry of royalty, were buttressed by what the colonialists said was the invincibility of their navy and army. England was able to hold its empire together from 1815 to 1914 before being forced into a steady retreat. America’s high-blown rhetoric about democracy, liberty and equality, along with basketball, baseball and Hollywood, as well as our own deification of the military, entranced and cowed much of the globe in the wake of World War II. Behind the scenes, of course, the CIA used its bag of dirty tricks to orchestrate coups, fix elections and carry out assassinations, black propaganda campaigns, bribery, blackmail, intimidation and torture. But none of this works anymore.
The loss of the mystique is crippling. It makes it hard to find pliant surrogates to administer the empire, as we have seen in Iraq and Afghanistan. The photographs of physical abuse and sexual humiliation imposed on Arab prisoners at Abu Ghraib inflamed the Muslim world and fed al-Qaida and later Islamic State with new recruits. The assassination of Osama bin Laden and a host of other jihadist leaders, including the U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki, openly mocked the concept of the rule of law. The hundreds of thousands of dead and millions of refugees fleeing our debacles in the Middle East, along with the near-constant threat from militarized aerial drones, exposed us as state terrorists. We have exercised in the Middle East the U.S. military’s penchant for widespread atrocities, indiscriminate violence, lies and blundering miscalculations, actions that led to our defeat in Vietnam.
The brutality abroad is matched by a growing brutality at home. Militarized police gun down mostly unarmed, poor people of color and fill a system of penitentiaries and jails that hold a staggering 25 percent of the world’s prisoners although Americans represent only 5 percent of global population. Many of our cities are in ruins. Our public transportation system is a shambles. Our educational system is in steep decline and being privatized. Opioid addiction, suicide, mass shootings, depression and morbid obesity plague a population that has fallen into profound despair. The deep disillusionment and anger that led to Donald Trump’s election-a reaction to the corporate coup d’état and the poverty afflicting at least half of the country-have destroyed the myth of a functioning democracy. Presidential tweets and rhetoric celebrate hate, racism and bigotry and taunt the weak and the vulnerable. The president in an address before the United Nations threatened to obliterate another nation in an act of genocide. We are worldwide objects of ridicule and hatred. The foreboding for the future is expressed in the rash of dystopian films, motion pictures that no longer perpetuate American virtue and exceptionalism or the myth of human progress.
“The demise of the United States as the preeminent global power could come far more quickly than anyone imagines,” McCoy writes. “Despite the aura of omnipotence empires often project, most are surprisingly fragile, lacking the inherent strength of even a modest nation-state. Indeed, a glance at their history should remind us that the greatest of them are susceptible to collapse from diverse causes, with fiscal pressures usually a prime factor. For the better part of two centuries, the security and prosperity of the homeland has been the main objective for most stable states, making foreign or imperial adventures an expendable option, usually allocated no more than 5 percent of the domestic budget. Without the financing that arises almost organically inside a sovereign nation, empires are famously predatory in their relentless hunt for plunder or profit-witness the Atlantic slave trade, Belgium’s rubber lust in the Congo, British India’s opium commerce, the Third Reich’s rape of Europe, or the Soviet exploitation of Eastern Europe.”
When revenues shrink or collapse, McCoy points out, “empires become brittle.”
“So delicate is their ecology of power that, when things start to go truly wrong, empires regularly unravel with unholy speed: just a year for Portugal, two years for the Soviet Union, eight years for France, eleven years for the Ottomans, seventeen for Great Britain, and, in all likelihood, just twenty-seven years for the United States, counting from the crucial year 2003 [when the U.S. invaded Iraq],” he writes.
Many of the estimated 69 empires that have existed throughout history lacked competent leadership in their decline, having ceded power to monstrosities such as the Roman emperors Caligula and Nero. In the United States, the reins of authority may be in the grasp of the first in a line of depraved demagogues.
“For the majority of Americans, the 2020s will likely be remembered as a demoralizing decade of rising prices, stagnant wages, and fading international competitiveness,” McCoy writes. The loss of the dollar as the global reserve currency will see the U.S. unable to pay for its huge deficits by selling Treasury bonds, which will be drastically devalued at that point. There will be a massive rise in the cost of imports. Unemployment will explode. Domestic clashes over what McCoy calls “insubstantial issues” will fuel a dangerous hypernationalism that could morph into an American fascism.
A discredited elite, suspicious and even paranoid in an age of decline, will see enemies everywhere. The array of instruments created for global dominance-wholesale surveillance, the evisceration of civil liberties, sophisticated torture techniques, militarized police, the massive prison system, the thousands of militarized drones and satellites-will be employed in the homeland. The empire will collapse and the nation will consume itself within our lifetimes if we do not wrest power from those who rule the corporate state.
In this video, Melissa Dykes of Truthstream Media breaks down the 10 common characteristics of false flags to help better understand why the official story of Vegas shooting is suspect at best.
Watch their mini-documentary Obsolete here.
by: Mike Adams
October 03, 2017
(Natural News) Um, excuse me for a moment here, but I have a really stupid question. I know you told me there’s no such thing as a stupid question, but this one seems really stupid anyway.
The media has released photos of guns and ammo magazines laying around on the floor of the supposed “sniper’s nest” hotel room on the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay hotel in Las Vegas, but there’s something totally wrong with these pictures:
#1) Where is all the expended brass?
Now, maybe I’m just a moron who thinks automatic rifles discharge expended brass or something, because the last time I shot my rifle — which was yesterday — hot brass kept blasting out the right side port with every round. Very annoying. I wish I knew how to turn that off.
So, given that Stephen Paddock was firing full-auto rifles in a sustained 10-minute assault, at roughly the rate of six rounds per second, we should probably see massive piles of expended brass all over the place.
Let’s see: 6 rounds per second, times 60 seconds in a minute, times 10 minutes of sustained fire… that comes to 3600 rounds of ammunition. If you figure there were pauses in the automatic fire, you could discount that to maybe 3000 rounds actually fired.
Again, maybe I’m just stupid or something, but if Paddock fired 3000 rounds, there should be 3000 brass casings all over the floor of the hotel suite. (I know, I’m invoking logic and reason, both of which are banned in modern society and the mainstream media, but bear with me for a moment for the sake of appeasing a really stupid person…)
But what we see in the photos released by the media show only a tiny smattering of brass casings, almost as if they were thrown around to complete the staging of the scene:
Thank goodness the UK Daily Mail cleared all this up by stating there were, “Dozens of spent shells litter the floor… and a hammer.” Yep, DOZENS. In a mass shooting that supposedly involved the firing of thousands of rounds from this very location, the media proudly reports there are “dozens” of pieces of brass on the carpet.
Did the FBI sweep up all the brass before they took these photos? Maybe they needed the brass for their own reloads so they can stage the next shooting…
I also wonder why the media isn’t calling for a nationwide ban on hammers, since they can clearly be used in mass shootings. #BanHammers
And ban hotels, too, since they provide elevated platforms for mass shooters. That’s right, ban all hammers, but especially full-auto hammers, as they can smash hotel windows at an astonishing rate.
I must be really stupid, because the other day when I was training with my AR-15, I was doing an exercise called “keyhole shooting” which requires you to shoot at targets through nine different holes cut into a large piece of plywood that’s positioned vertically in front of you. Some of these holes are cut near the bottom of the plywood, meaning you have to lay down on the ground to shoot through those holes. Silly me, I forgot to wear a long sleeve shirt, and when I laid down on the ground to shoot from the bottom holes, I found my arms laying across hot brass that was expended from my earlier shots through higher holes.
Not surprisingly, I received serious burns on my skin for the simple reason that — DUH! — expended brass is really, really hot.
And I don’t know if you knew this or not, but the hotter your rifle gets, the hotter your expended brass gets, too. It’s apparently due to physics or some such thing. If you’re firing a full-auto rifle, some internal parts can reach temperatures of 400 C, which is hot enough to either cook a frozen burrito or set Maxine Waters’ hair on fire at the merest touch.
Now, at 400 C, most of your rifle grease smokes off, making it hard to breathe. After just a few hundred rounds, the air in that hotel room would have been unbearably polluted. It might have even caused global warming, which is exactly why we have to ban automatic weapons (plus full-auto hammers, see above).
Given that Stephen Paddock was smoking through thousands of rounds of ammunition, he was generating not only very hot rifles but also extremely hot brass that would have left burn marks in any synthetic carpet.
Where are all the burn marks in the carpet?
Wouldn’t you know it, but the carpet in this room just happened to look like a pattern of burn marks, thereby obscuring the absence of additional burn marks from brass or rifle barrels:
(Bet you didn’t even notice the carpet pattern until I pointed this out, right? You were looking at the guns and the dead body, because that’s what the media told you to look at.)
I’m not trying to diss the cops here. As you know, I’m an advocate of honest, local police, and it’s clear that the beat cops did a fantastic job helping people seek cover on the ground below. But I do have an issue with the 72-minute response time during a full-auto machine gun spree in a city where there are dozens of cops within a one-mile radius.
Seventy-two minutes? Really? Was there a committee involved somehow? Why is it that the FBI’s former traitor-in-chief James Comey can decide in an instant that Hillary Clinton is innocent of everything, but all the cops in Las Vegas can’t breach a simple hotel door in anything less than 72 minutes?
No, wait. It must be Stephen Paddock’s white privilege. When you’re white, you get an extra 70 minutes to carry out mass shootings. But if you’re black, the cops shoot you in the first two minutes, you see. At least that’s what we’re told by the lunatic, deranged left-wing media which has declared war on cops (and war on the truth, come to think of it).
Just remember all this when you’re out in public next time: Even in a city that’s full of well-meaning cops who are doing their jobs, when seconds count, the police are only 72 minutes away due to the bureaucracy that runs everything. You might want to carry your own semi-auto pistol. And if you can find out where Stephen Paddock got his magical guns, you might even be able to find a pistol that doesn’t eject brass. (They’re also called “revolvers,” just sayin’…)
So you know that rifle with the bipod they found innocently standing in front of the mini-bar? Yeah, I’m talking about this one, labeled #19:
Is it just me, or does this look exactly the same as the rifle shown in the photo with the dead guy, above? Same flared mag well, same bump fire stock, same bipod and even the same optics, it seems. If only we could see the serial numbers, we might know for sure, but of course they never release photos with that degree of resolution.
Can’t have the public looking too closely, you see, or we might keep asking really stupid questions like, “Hey, why were there originally just 10 guns reported, and now there are 27 guns being reported, but it really just looks like the same 10 guns re-staged and re-photographed to look like 27 guns?”
I mean, heck, why not make it 99 guns at this point? Clearly whoever set all this up really, really wanted to make sure we didn’t miss the guns. “Make it 10 guns! … No, wait. Hold on. Make it 20 guns! … Oh wait, why stop now? Let’s make it 27 guns! And then call for gun control!” Honestly, it seems the only person around here who lacks gun control is the police photographer.
This whole scene is being called a “sniper’s nest” by the entire fake news media, but I’ve looked and looked and I still don’t see a sniper rifle anywhere. What I see are a bunch of AR-15s that fire .223 rounds (or 5.56 mm for you metric heads). Sniper rifles are bolt-action rifles, not auto-loading semi-auto rifles.
Now, I’ve only fired about 100,000 of these rounds myself, so I’m still a newbie, but the last time I checked, these rounds are usually about 55 grains in mass, and they lose about 75% of their kinetic energy by the time they reach a 400-yard target (the distance from the Mandalay Bay hotel to the concert lot is about 400 yards). You can see the dope yourself at Gundata.org.
On top of that, the bullet drop is 32 inches, which is of course almost three feet of bullet drop. Now, given the elevated angle of the shooter, that bullet drop wouldn’t be quite as dramatic, as the coefficient of a 20 degree declination angle is, of course, 0.94. But the energy of this round at 400 yards makes it only marginally effective. It’s just at the outside boundary of the effective range of a .223 cartridge, as any good Marine will tell you.
Conclusion? All these casualties couldn’t possibly be caused by .223 rounds. Most likely, they were actually heavier rounds fired from something like a belt-fed AK system (7.62 x 39mm rounds), or perhaps even a belt-fed .308 automatic weapon. So where is all the brass, anyway? Did Stephen Paddock possess magical brass that can disappear after being fired?
I find it curious that ballistics details of the bullets that hit the pavement have not been released. All the evidence we need is all over the concert lot, yet the public will never be given access to details about that evidence. They also destroyed all the evidence immediately after 9/11, by the way. They called it “cleanup and salvage.” Really, it was a rapid evidence destruction exercise.
In summary of all this, we’re told that a flabby 64-year-old senior citizen accountant with a gambling problem managed to expertly lay down highly effective fields of fire, killing 58 and wounding 500+ people by firing off thousands of .223 rounds well outside their effective range, all while producing merely dozens of pieces of expended brass that were magically cooled before they hit the carpet of his hotel room.
This was accomplished, we’re told, by one man firing 10 rifles… wait, no, 27 rifles all by himself, without any military training whatsoever. This same man set up a James Bond spy camera in the hotel hallway to monitor police in an attempt to defend himself against the inevitable police assault, then he just changed his mind and shot himself the moment the cops showed up… all for no apparent reason.
Oh, and one more thing: This same guy who meticulously planned the hotel room, the rifles hidden in the luggage, the huge collection of 100-round magazines, the window hammer smashing routine, the concert calendar dates, the monotonous lugging of ammunition to his room and even the guarding of the mini-bar when another assault rifle just happened to mindlessly leave a bag of ammonium nitrate fertilizer in his car even though it has no practical use in this scenario unless you’re growing Azaleas. (Yes, fertilizer can actually be used as fertilizer. It’s not all for making bombs as the media stupidly claims.)
So wait, millionaire gambling man who has no military training, no familiarity with automatic weapons, no James Bond super spy training, no political affiliations and nothing in the world to complain about just got tired of living in a $400,000 home, banging Vegas hookers and flying around his private Cessna? Instead of that rather well-off life, he wants to run a suicide mission, set up spy cameras in the hallway, shoot a bunch of innocent people he’s never met and then shoot himself in the head while going down in history as a flaming piece of s##t who will burn in Hell forever? Oh yeah, and before he does all that, he wires $100,000 to his girlfriend in the Philippines?
Call me stupid, but something doesn’t add up here. I don’t know if it’s the missing brass, the missing carpet burns, the wildly fluctuating rifle count, the staged police photos, the B.S. suicide story, the totally laughable ballistics miracles of .223 rounds or the magically disappearing evidence of all the rifle rounds that hit pavement but then seemed to be whisked away by law enforcement. But something smells fishy about all this.
Or maybe I’m just so stupid that I can’t quite understand CNN. Yeah, that must be it.
Follow more news on all this insanity at Shootings.news.
“On my orders, the United States military has begun strikes against al Qaeda terrorist training camps and military installations of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan,” he said.
What Bush did not say was the fact that the War in Afghanistan would become the longest war in United States history. Thousands of American lives and billions of taxpayer dollars would be wasted at the expense of the U.S. war machine, and the “War on Terrorism” would only create more terrorism as a result.
Over 31,000 civilian deaths have been documented in Afghanistan following the U.S. invasion. It should be noted that over the last few years, civilian deaths have substantially increased—which serves as a reminder that the situation is only getting worse.
The United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan began documenting civilian casualties in 2009. The combined number of civilians who were killed and injured that year was nearly 6,000. The number has steadily increased over the years, and in 2016, it reached a record high with nearly 3,500 killed and nearly 8,000 injured.
A report from the UNAMA noted that in 2017, the death rate for children has increased by 9 percent over the previous year, and the death rate for women has increased by 23 percent. The report also claimed that an increase in airstrikes has led to a 43 percent increase in causalities.
Before the United States invaded Afghanistan, the production of opium poppies was significantly low, thanks to the Taliban. Not only did the presence of the U.S. military lead to a rise in opium production—because U.S. Marines were literally guarding fields of poppy plants—it led to a drastic increase that has done wonders for the illegal drug trade.
According to a report from the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, between 2015 and 2016, opium production in Afghanistan increased by 43 percent, and the area used to farm the poppy plant increased by 10 percent to 201,000 hectares. In response to the report, UNODC Executive Director Yury Fedotov said the figures were “a worrying reversal in efforts.”
After 16 years of war and a price tag of over $1 Trillion, the United States has not only helped Afghanistan to become the largest producer of opium in world, it has ensured that the war-ravaged country produces around 90 percent of the world’s opium supply.
When former President Obama ran for office in the 2008 election, he campaigned on the promise of ending the Afghanistan War—which resonated with a number of Americans who were hopeful that a fresh face in the oval office would bring about the “change” needed to finally end the war.
However, while Obama promised to end the war and increased it instead, President Trump has been much more blunt about the fact that the war in Afghanistan is not coming to an end anytime soon, and while the U.S. may have a strategy in mind, it does not appear to include an “exit.”
The longest War in United States history turns 16 years old today, and in just two years, brand new military recruits will have the opportunity to fight in a war that has been ongoing for as long as they have been alive. While there are many Americans who support the concept of military intervention—including in countries that have done nothing to the U.S.—even they should be asking the question of why the United States continues to fight a war that has only created an increase in terrorism, innocent civilian deaths and illegal drug production.
by: Mike Adams
October 07, 2017
(Natural News) The FBI is clearly lying about the Las Vegas shooting, which is why Americans don’t trust the FBI and increasingly believe the agency is likely involved in a massive criminal cover-up.
As The Gateway Pundit is reporting, the FBI is now coaching Mandalay Bay employees to change their stories and lie about what they heard: Multiple guests in Stephen Paddock’s room! Via The Gateway Pundit:
Waiters at Mandalay Bay said they heard Stephen Paddock “speaking with others” in his room while ordering food. But the FBI says he was faking that discussion. That’s what the waiters are now saying — Paddock was “speaking with others” but he was just pretending…
Huh? The official story of the FBI is now that Stephen Paddock was “pretending” to be speaking with other people in his room? To fool the waiters? To what end? The absurdity of all this is just off the scale. The FBI is not only lying itself; it’s now training hotel employees to change their stories and lie to the world.
The FBI’s lying is now so egregious that many Americans are outraged at the obvious cover-up. Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton has reached the same conclusion, tweeting out a strong statement, “I don’t trust the FBI.”
I don’t trust the @FBI.
With the FBI already reeling from its own self-induced reputation suicide thanks to the lying and corruption of James Comey, this is a time for the FBI to find a way to start telling the truth rather than repeating the same lies and deceptions that Comey made the agency known for. But instead of truth and professionalism, all we get is absurd announcements such as the laughable claim that the FBI concluded, in less than 24 hours, that Stephen Paddock had absolutely no ties to international terrorism groups.
As I explain in my video, below, this would only be possible if the FBI had a time-travel machine and used it to teleport to the future, conduct their investigation, then teleport back to the present to report their findings. The FBI, in other words, has become the laughing stock of America in its juvenile, dishonest handling of this Las Vegas massacre.
by: JD Heyes
October 07, 2017
(Natural News) A new study further highlights the negative implications of America’s obesity epidemic and why more education and policy changes are necessary to combat it: Some 40 percent of all cancers in the U.S. or about 630,000 cases annually, are linked to being overweight.
The findings by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are particularly relevant, officials said, because nearly three-in-four adults, or 71 percent, are either overweight or obese.
The study’s results “are a cause for concern,” said CDC Director Brenda Fitzgerald, in perhaps the biggest medical-related understatement of the year so far.
“A majority of American adults weigh more than recommended — and being overweight or obese puts people at higher risk for a number of cancers,” Fitzgerald said in a statement, as reported by Agence France Presse. “By getting to and keeping a healthy weight, we all can play a role in cancer prevention.”
Researchers say that people who carry around too much additional weight are at greater risk of developing 13 types of tumors that include cancers of the esophagus, thyroid, postmenopausal breast, stomach, gallbladder, liver, ovaries, pancreas, rectum, uterus and kidneys.
What’s more, incidents of obesity-related cancers are rising as the epidemic widens. This is in contrast to a drop in the overall rate of new cancer cases not related to obesity, which has been falling since the 1990s.
In fact, there was just one obesity-related cancer that has declined from 2005-2014, and that is colorectal cancer, researchers said. Those cases have fallen off 23 percent during the aforementioned timeframe, due in large part to better screening, the CDC study noted. But all other cancers tied to obesity rose 7 percent during the same period.
AFP noted that about two-thirds of the 630,000 weight-related cancers that were diagnosed in 2014 were found in Americans between the ages of 50 and 74. Researchers found that women in that age demographic were particularly susceptible, in fact; 55 percent of all cancers diagnosed in women were associated with being overweight or obese, compared to 24 percent of men who were diagnosed.
The problem is, as they say, only growing. The CDC breaks down the 71 percent overweight statistic thusly: 32.8 percent of Americans are overweight, while 37.9 percent are obese. (Related: Oregon university now pushing “fat studies” course that claims “weightism” is the new civil rights battleground.)
“Being overweight is defined as having a body mass index of 25-29.9 kg/m2, while obesity means a BMI of 30 or above,” says AFP. “BMI is calculated by taking a person’s weight in kilograms divided by the square of the person’s height in meters.”
Interestingly enough, the United States is not the world’s fattest country. In fact, according to the Gazette Review, the U.S. ranks No. 10 — below Mexico, Qatar, South Africa, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Egypt, Belize, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, in that order. The percentage of Kuwait’s population that is overweight is a whopping 42.8 percent.
The obesity-cancer link is well-established. Way back in 2004 Natural News founder/editor Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, reported that research by the American Cancer Society found the link:
This is a link that has been frequently overlooked by almost everyone but is now coming out as a strong link and one that deserves attention. What it means is that dietary factors that contribute to obesity also indirectly contribute to cancer. So that sugarcoated donut you had in the morning doesn’t just make you fat, it may also eventually move you towards more serious disease like diabetes or cancer.
Without question, America’s dietary habits — fast foods, processed foods, GMOs, sugary drinks — are the leading cause of obesity and cancer. And, as the above list of the world’s fattest countries proves, it’s also one of America’s most unhealthy exports: As U.S. fast food chains have spread to many of those countries, they brought with them what can only be referred to as “the food of death.”
J.D. Heyes is a senior writer for NaturalNews.com and NewsTarget.com, as well as editor of The National Sentinel.
With permission from
In the United States «conspiracy theory» is the name given to explanations that differ from those that serve the ruling oligarchy, the establishment or whatever we want to call those who set and control the agendas and the explanations that support the agendas.
The explanations imposed on us by the ruling class are themselves conspiracy theories. Moreover, they are conspiracy theories designed to hide the real conspiracy that our rulers are operating.
For example, the official explanation of 9/11 is a conspiracy theory. Some Muslims, mainly Saudi Arabians, delivered the greatest humiliation to a superpower since David slew Goliath. They outsmarted all 17 US intelligence agencies and those of NATO and Israel, the National Security Council, the Transportation Safety Administration, Air Traffic Control, and Dick Cheney, hijacked four US airliners on one morning, brought down three World Trade Center skyscrapers, destroyed that part of the Pentagon where research was underway into the missing $2.3 billion, and caused the morons in Washington to blame Afghanistan instead of Saudi Arabia.
Clearly, the Saudi Arabians who humiliated America were involved in a conspiracy to do so.
Is it a believable conspiracy?
The ability of a few young Muslim men to pull off such a feat is unbelievable. Such total failure of the US National Security State means that America was blindly vulnerable throughout the decades of Cold War with the Soviet Union. If such total failure of the National Security State had really occurred, the White House and Congress would have been screaming for an investigation. People would have been held accountable for the long chain of security failures that allowed the plot to succeed. Instead, no one was even reprimanded, and the White House resisted all efforts for an investigation for a year. Finally, to shut up the 9/11 families, a 9/11 Commission was convened. The commission duly wrote down the government’s story and that was the «investigation».
Moreover, there is no evidence to support the official conspiracy theory of 9/11. Indeed, all known evidence contradicts the official conspiracy theory.
For example, it is a proven fact that Building 7 came down at freefall acceleration, which means it was wired for demolition. Why was it wired for demolition? There is no official answer to this question.
It is the known evidence provided by scientists, architects, engineers, pilots, and the first responders who were in the twin towers and personally experienced the numerous explosions that brought down the towers that is described as a conspiracy theory.
The CIA introduced the term «conspiracy theory» into public discourse as part of its action plan to discredit skeptics of the Warren Commission report on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Any explanation other than the one handed down was debunked as a conspiracy theory.
Conspiracy theories are the backbone of US foreign policy. For example, the George W. Bush regime was active in a conspiracy against Iraq and Saddam Hussein. The Bush regime created fake evidence of Iraqi «weapons of mass destruction», sold the false story to a gullible world and used it to destroy Iraq and murder its leader. Similarly, Gaddafi was a victim of an Obama/Hillary conspiracy to destroy Libya and murder Gaddafi. Assad of Syria and Iran were slated for the same treatment until the Russians intervened.
Currently, Washington is engaged in conspiracies against Russia, China, and Venezuela. Proclaiming a non-existent «Iranian threat», Washington put US missiles on Russia’s border and used the «North Korean threat» to put missiles on China’s border. The democratically elected leader of Venezuela is said by Washington to be a dictator, and sanctions have been put on Venezuela to help the small Spanish elite through whom Washington has traditionally ruled South American countries pull off a coup and reestablish US control over Venezuela.
Everyone is a threat: Venezuela, Yemen, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, tribes in Pakistan, Libya, Russia, China, North Korea, but never Washington. The greatest conspiracy theory of our time is that Americans are surrounded by foreign threats. We are not even safe from Venezuela.
The New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, NPR, and the rest of the presstitutes are quick to debunk as conspiracy theories all explanations that differ from the explanations of the ruling interests that they serve.
Yet, as I write and for some nine months to date, the presstitute media has been promoting the conspiracy theory that Donald Trump was involved in a conspiracy with the president of Russia and Russian intelligence services to hack the US presidential election and place Trump, a Russian agent, in the White House.
This conspiracy theory has no evidence whatsoever. It doesn’t need evidence, because it serves the interests of the military/security complex, the Democratic Party, the neoconservatives, and permits the presstitutes to show lavish devotion to their masters. By endless repetition a lie becomes truth.
There is a conspiracy, and it is against the American people. Their jobs have been offshored in order to enrich the already rich. They have been forced into debt in a futile effort to maintain their living standards. Their effort to stem their decline by electing a president who spoke for them is being subverted before their eyes by an utterly corrupt media and ruling class.
Sooner or later it will dawn on them that there is nothing they can do but violently revolt. Most likely, by the time they reach this conclusion it will be too late.
For the gullible and naive who have been brainwashed into believing that any explanation that differs from the officially-blessed one is a conspiracy theory, there are available online long lists of government conspiracies that succeeded in deceiving the people in order that the governments could achieve agendas that the people would have rejected.
If liberty continues to exist on earth, it will not be in the Western world. It will be in Russia and China, countries that emerged out of the opposite and know the value of liberty, and it will be in those South American countries, such as Venezuela, Ecuador, and Bolivia that fight for their sovereignty against American oppression.
Indeed, as historians unconcerned with their careers are beginning to write, the primary lesson in history is that governments deceive their peoples.
Everywhere in the Western world, government is a conspiracy against the people.
With permission from
Oct 8, 2017
To say that the US public don’t care if ‘news’media lie, is shocking, but I shall here present evidence that it actually is true — not in some mere theory, but in empirical fact.
A typical example of Americans not caring about the truthfulness, nor even about the honesty, of their sources of alleged ‘news’, is that, during the period of October 3rd through the 5th, there were two news-reports both of which were true, but which, when taken together, display the total disconnect between newsmedia-honesty, on the one hand, and the confidence that the American people have in the nation’s ‘news’media, on the other.
One of these two news-reports was published on October 5th by the anonymous blogger who has come to be, amongst readers who closely follow and investigate the war in Syria, the most-trusted source of reporting on it, and the article was headlined, “Russia Issues Third Warning Against US Cooperation With Terrorists”, and it provided links to each of the three recent instances in which the US Government was cooperating with ISIS to defeat Syria and its defender Russia, in Syria. It summarily described the ways in which the US had been exposed (but not by US ‘news’media) as having been providing vital intelligence and other crucial assistance to ISIS, in ISIS’s efforts to overthrow and replace the existing Syrian Government (headed by Bashar al-Assad). That report should be read by anyone who proceeds further here, because it covers events that were certainly of top international importance and that might even precipitate war between the US and Russia, but which were reported little if at all in US ’news’media. Of course, it would be very bad for US ’news’media to allow the US to become involved in a nuclear war against Russia and to have hidden, from the American public, the US Government’s provocations which had produced such a war.
The US here was helping ISIS kill Russian and Syrian soldiers in Syria, who are trying to eradicate ISIS and all other jihadist groups there (including Al Qaeda etc.). Obviously, ISIS is not popular amongst the American public; and, for the United States to be constantly condemning ISIS in public, while secretly assisting ISIS to kill Russian troops and Syrian Government troops inside Syria (whose Government had invited Russia into the war to assist it to survive the onslaughts from ISIS and from the other US-backed fundamentalist-Sunni jihadist groups who are backed also by Saudi Arabia and by some other fundamentalist-Islamic Sunni governments, as well as by the US Government), would be disapproved of by the American people, if they were to have been informed of it. Some Americans would even be disturbed to recognize that the US and its allies in Syria are all invaders there, very unlike those Russian troops are, because Russians are allies of the existing government — quite the opposite of invaders (such as the US and its allies there). Some Americans dislike not only ISIS, but invaders and invasions, on basic principle. But American ‘news’media are very supportive of all of the US Government’s invasions — Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc. So, that was a very important article about very important matters that are being hidden from the US public by the US ‘news’ media.
The other news-report was from Reuters, and it headlined, on October 3rd, “The press, branded the ‘enemy’ by Trump, increasingly trusted by the public: Reuters/Ipsos poll”.
The report about the three warnings from Russia, proves (as do many other evidences) the deceit, the selective covering-up of crucial facts, by the US press. It’s not a “press” in the democratic sense, but instead a pro-invasion propaganda-operation — it is a propaganda-operation (as that October 5th article proved, and I have documented also many times, such as here, here, and here). However, Reuters reports that “The poll of more than 14,300 people found that the percentage of adults who said they had a “great deal” or “some” confidence in the press rose to 48 percent in September from 39 percent last November.”
How much sheer lying has been exposed (but not by the press) about America’s press, during that time? I, and many others who are not in the press, or who are no longer in the press, have reported plenty of it (such as I’ve linked-to here, and others are, in turn, additionally linked-to in each one of those articles about our scandalous American press-institution). Here, then, are a few of my own recent reports about important context for accurately interpreting this Reuters article, which is intentionally not mentioned (but is instead hidden) by Reuters:
One, just a few weeks ago, headlined “US Near Bottom In Public Trust Of Newsmedia” and reported that:
“According to the most extensive study ever done of the public’s usages of, and trust in, the newsmedia in their country — a study that (in late January early February) scientifically sampled thousands of people in each one of 36 different industrialized countries — the United States scored #28, which was in the bottom 22% of all 36 nations, regarding the public’s trust of the newsmedia.”
That study was done by the Reuters Institute, under the title “Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2017”. That title was credited in my rews-report, as being its source; and, so, my article about the “Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2017” should show up in a Google seach for “Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2017”, but it does not (which raises a question about the search-engine). However one other news-report about the “Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2017” does show up in a google search of that title: the Irish Timesheadlined “Report shows trust in news higher in Ireland than International average”, and it opened:
“Irish people under the age of 35 are more likely to pay for online news, according to the latest Oxford Reuters Digital News Report published today. The report notes that, despite growing up with free online entertainment, younger people have developed the habit of paying for some media. In Ireland, the 18-24 and 25-34 age groups are most likely to pay for online news, at 12 per cent and 13 per cent respectively. Irish people have a strong interest in news and have higher levels of trust in the news media than the international average, according to the report.”
Furthermore, a duckduckgo.com search for that Reuters title, “Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2017” shows an article headlined “Media Coverage for the Digital News Report 2017”, and that’s a news-report from, and published by, the Reuters Institute itself; and you can see there what the titles are of the news-reports about it, which Reuters itself had found and reported in their own story, and none of those titles would be of any interest to the general public, all of those titles were published only in the trade press for the journalism industry and for the public relations (or propaganda) industry (it’s now actually one industry-group). The news-report that I had done, didn’t show up anywhere, but it was the only general-interest news-report that had been based upon that massive Reuters Institute study, the only report focusing on what is of general interest in it. All the rest of the ‘news’media had ignored it altogether; and, though I submitted that news-report, the only one ever about the general-interest findings contained in the “Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2017,” to all US general-interest ‘news’media, the only media which published it, were: washingtonsblog, informationclearinghouse, off-guardian, greanvillepost, and rinf, plus mirror-sites of any of those (all of which sites are even smaller than those). So, unless a person happens to follow those sites, the individual won’t know anything of the important findings in that massive Reuters study.
And, my news-report on it pointed out that the Reuters study showed far below-average public confidence in the ‘news’media by Americans as opposed to the global average. But when, just a few months later, Reuters did a story which showed that Americans’ trust in the ‘news’media had increased, that merited a Reuters news-story to the general press, even though their global study, which had been published just months earlier, and which showed widespread distrust by Americans of the ‘news’media as compared to the publics in other countries, Reuters informed only PR agencies and ‘journalism’ corporations and professors about that study, and without any indication ever to anyone that the distrust of the press by the publics in a few countries, such as France and America, was very high (and that it was astronomically high in Greece and in Korea — only 23% trust in each). The ‘news’media hide their rottennesses, instead of investigating and reporting them.
Obviously, the press does a big cover-up job on its own rottennesses, which are institutional, and not merely “a few bad apples.”
Other news-reports that I have done on this subject include, for example, a report about how the press hid from the public the fact that when George W. Bush said on 7 September 2002 that the IAEA had found that Saddam Hussein was only six months from having a nuclear bomb, the press hid from the public the IAEA’s prompt and repeated statements that they had never issued any such finding or report at all. The invasion was based on such lies and cover-ups. After commonly repeated instances such as that, going on for so many years, and always hiding that the US Government is lying in order to invade some country or other, why doesn’t the US public yet recognize that the US press is what one finds in a dictatorship such as the US has been proven to be, and not an authentic journalistic institution at all. If the Greeks and Koreans have a 23% level of trust in their ‘news’media, is the only reason for Americans’ having a 38% level of trust (as shown on page 21) the US media’s greater effectiveness at fooling its public?
This news-report will (as I routinely do) be submitted to all US national ‘news’media for publication. How many do you think will publish it? And, how many of those will be major ‘news’media? Just google the headline here, “US Public Don’t Care if ‘News’media Lie”, in order to find out which the honest few actually are. But don’t trust Google, either. The entire media-institution is rotten. And, it’s not because of errors. It’s because of the lies and the cover-ups, which are systematic, and which pump things to support the ideology that’s called “neoliberalism” in economics, and “neoconservatism” in foreign policies. It used to be called simply: “imperialism.” It’s the modern ideology of dictatorship. It’s the ideology of the American press, and that’s an overwhelmingly documented fact — no mere hypothesis, at all.
With permission from
October 6, 2017
Consider this. The United States government doesn’t know who’s responsible for the so-called acoustic attacks on its embassy personnel in Havana. Then consider this. Cuban president Raúl Castro didn’t simply claim his government had nothing to do with the incidents, he did the unthinkable and invited the FBI to investigate. FBI agents haven’t been able to figure it out. Neither have American acoustics specialists or medical experts. Even Canada’s Mounties, whose own diplomats reported similar attacks, are stymied.
Despite the fact no one has identified either culprit or cause, the Trump administration is pre-emptively creating conflict with Havana. Why? And who benefits from that?
On October 3, the State Department announced it was expelling two-thirds of Cuba’s Washington embassy personnel, less than a week after it announced it was withdrawing sixty per cent of its own diplomats from Havana, and warning Americans against traveling there. The department called the moves “reciprocity,” but didn’t explain for what, since the Cubans haven’t expelled anyone.
The State Department insists it isn’t blaming the Cuban government for the attacks; it’s simply trying to protect American diplomats and tourists. Ironically, the U.S. Foreign Service Association, representing American diplomats around the world, opposes Washington’s directive. So do travel companies and airlines ferrying eager American visitors to the island in increasing numbers. So presumably do Americans generally, the majority of whom support improving relations with Cuba. While over 600,000 Americans visited Cuba last year, it’s worth noting not one has so far complained of symptoms similar to those reported by the diplomats.
Some context may be useful here. Late last year, U.S. diplomats in Havana began reporting hearing loud grinding, ringing noises inside areas of their homes and experienced the sensation that their bodies were vibrating. They claimed to suffer nausea, headaches and hearing loss. U.S. government officials now say some have been diagnosed with mild traumatic brain injuries. Twenty-one American and at least five Canadians diplomats and/or their families have been affected.
In the absence of evidence about who did what and why, media have been rife with speculation. At first, the most popular assumption was that the Cuban government must be targeting these diplomats. This is now considered unlikely, since the first of the so-called attacks occurred at a time when bilateral relations were beginning to improve, and Cuban president Raúl Castro has consistently favored improving relations with the United States.
Likewise, given that Canada and Cuba have traditionally maintained solid ties, there would have been little advantage for the Cubans in rocking that diplomatic boat.
That led to other theories: “rogue elements” in the Cuban security forces; officials inside US intelligence services keen to resort to Cold War times; Russians eager to bolster their own relationship with their erstwhile ally while sowing discord between the US and Cuba; maybe even Donald Trump himself, anxious to deflect attention from his own many domestic and international challenges.
We don’t know. And perhaps we never will. Or maybe the truth will only be revealed 30 years from now after sufficient time has passed and intelligence agencies (from whichever country is involved, if they are involved) finally release the pertinent documentation.
So what do we really know?
Well, we certainly know who is already working overtime to twist these unexplained events to their ideological advantage: anti-Cuba hawks in Washington and Miami. Still nursing their wounds from the Obama administration’s 2015 reset on relations with Cuba, they are eager to reassert their own hardline views on US policy.
The Trump White House — which has talked tough on Cuba but done relatively little so far to scale back actual policy changes implemented during the Obama era — seems eager to do the hawks bidding under cover of protecting US diplomats.
On Sept. 15, five right-wing Republican Senators, including virulent anti-Cuba Florida Senator Marco Rubio, sent an open letter to Secretary Rex Tillerson, asking him to “immediately declare all accredited Cuban diplomats in the United States persona non grata and, if Cuba does not take tangible action, close the U.S. Embassy in Havana.”
Two days later, Tillerson — who has since come close to putting a full checkmark beside their first demand — told CBS the State Department has shuttering the embassy “under evaluation… It’s a very serious issue with respect to the harm that certain individuals have suffered.”
It is indeed a very serious issue — which is exactly why Washington shouldn’t allow its response to be hijacked by baseless arguments of self-interested Senators eager to turn back the political clock, and a president paying back his political commitments to the wealthy Cuban-American lobby.
Over five decades were wasted after the Washington broke diplomatic relations with Cuba in 1961. The reopening of diplomatic relations just two years ago was a victory for common sense—but sadly is now in danger of being overturned because of self-seeking politics and ignorance.
John Kirk is Professor of Latin American Studies at Dalhousie University. He is the author/coeditor of 16 books on Cuba. His most recent book is Healthcare without Borders: Understanding Cuban Medical Internationalism (2015), and he is the coeditor of “The Evolution of Cuban Foreign Policy under Raúl Castro” (to be published in 2018). For many years he was the Editor of the Contemporary Cuba series with the University Press of Florida, and is now the Co-editor of the new series on Cuba published by Lexington Books.
Stephen Kimber is a Professor of Journalism at the University of King’s College in Halifax, CANADA, and the author of nine books, including the award-winning What Lies Across the Water: The Real Story of the Cuban Five.
Two of history’s greatest physicists argued for decades over one of the deepest mysteries of quantum mechanics. Today, their successors are opening new fronts in the battle to understand ‘spooky action at a distance’, writes Robyn Arianrhod.
It all began in October 1927, at the Fifth Solvay Congress in Brussels. It was Louis de Broglie’s first congress, and he had been “full of pleasure and curiosity” at the prospect of meeting Einstein, his teenage idol. Now 35, de Broglie happily reported: “I was particularly struck by his mild and thoughtful expression, by his general kindness, by his simplicity, and by his friendliness.”
Back in 1905, Einstein had helped pioneer quantum theory with his revolutionary discovery that light has the characteristics of both a wave and a particle. Niels Bohr later explained this as “complementarity”: depending on how you observe light, you will see either wave or particle behaviour. As for de Broglie, he had taken Einstein’s idea into even stranger territory in his 1924 PhD thesis: if light waves could behave like particles, then perhaps particles of matter could also behave like waves! After all, Einstein had shown that energy and matter were interchangeable, via E = mc2.
Einstein was the first to publicly support de Broglie’s bold hypothesis. By 1926, Erwin Schrödinger had developed a mathematical formula to describe such “matter waves”, which he pictured as some kind of rippling sea of smeared-out particles. But Max Born showed that Schrödinger’s waves are, in effect, “waves of probability”. They encode the statistical likelihood that a particle will show up at a given place and time based on the behaviour of many such particles in repeated experiments. When the particle is observed, something strange appears to happen. The wave-function “collapses” to a single point, allowing us to see the particle at a particular position.
Born’s probability wave also fitted neatly with Werner Heisenberg’s recently proposed “uncertainty principle”. Heisenberg had concluded that in the quantum world it is not possible to obtain exact information about both the position and the momentum of a particle at the same time. He imagined the very act of measuring a quantum particle’s position, say by shining a light on it, gave it a jolt that changed its momentum, so the two could never be precisely measured at once.
When the world’s leading physicists gathered in Brussels in 1927, this was the strange state of quantum physics.
The official photograph of the participants shows 28 besuited, sober-looking men, and one equally serious woman, Marie Curie. But fellow physicist Paul Ehrenfest’s private photo of intellectual adversaries Bohr and Einstein captures the spirit of the conference: Bohr looks intensely thoughtful, hand on his chin, while Einstein is leaning back looking relaxed and dreamy. This gentle, contemplative picture belies the depth of the famous clash between these two intellectual titans – a clash that hinged on the extraordinary concept of quantum entanglement.
At the congress, Bohr presented his view of quantum mechanics for the first time. Dubbed the Copenhagen interpretation, in honour of Bohr’s home city, it combined his own idea of particle-wave complementarity with Born’s probability waves and Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle.
Most of the attendees readily accepted this view, but Einstein was perturbed. It was one thing for groups of particles to be ruled by chance; indeed Einstein had explained the jittery motion of pollen in apparently still water (dubbed Brownian motion) by invoking the random group behaviour of water molecules. Individual molecules, though, would still be ruled by Newton’s laws of motion; their exact movements could in principle be calculated.
By contrast, the Copenhagen theory held that subatomic particles were ruled by chance.
Einstein began his attack in the time-honoured tradition of reductio ad absurdum – arguing that the logical extension of quantum theory would lead to an absurd outcome.
After several sleepless nights, Bohr found a flaw in Einstein’s logic. Einstein did not retreat: he was sure he could convince Bohr of the absurdity of this strange new theory. Their debate flowed over into the Sixth Solvay Congress in 1930, and on until Einstein felt he finally had the pieces in place to checkmate Bohr at the seventh congress in 1933. Two weeks before that, however, Nazi persecution forced Einstein to flee
to the United States. The planned checkmate would have to wait.
When it came, it was deceptively simple. In 1935 at Princeton, Einstein and two collaborators, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen, published what became known as the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox, or EPR for short. Podolsky wrote up the thought experiment in a mathematical form, but let me illustrate it with jellybeans.
Suppose you have a red and a green jellybean in a box. The box seals off the jellybeans from all others: technically speaking, the pair form an “isolated system”, and they are “entangled” in the sense that the colour of one jellybean gives information about the other. You can see this by asking a friend to close her eyes and pick a jellybean at random. If she picks red, you know the remaining sweet is green.
This is key to EPR: by knowing the colour of your friend’s jellybean, you can know the colour of your own without “disturbing” it by looking at it. But in trying to bypass the supposed observer-effect in this way, EPR had also inadvertently uncovered the strange idea of “entanglement”. The term was coined by Schrödinger after he read the EPR paper .
So now apply this technique to two electrons. Instead of a colour, each one has an intrinsic property called “spin”. Imagine something like the spin axis of a gyroscope. If two electrons are prepared together in the lab so that they have zero total spin, then the principle of conservation of angular momentum means that if one of the electrons has its spin axis up, the other electron’s axis must be down. The electrons are entangled, just as the jellybeans were.
With jellybeans, the colour of your friend’s chosen sweet is fixed, whether or not she actually observes it. With electrons, by contrast, until your friend makes her observation, quantum theory simply says there is a 50% chance its spin is up, and 50% it is down.