There are a multitude of false assumptions out there on what the collapse of a nation or “empire” looks like. Modern day Americans have never experienced this type of event, only peripheral crises and crashes. Thanks to Hollywood, many in the public are under the delusion that a collapse is an overnight affair. They think that such a thing is impossible in their lifetimes, and if it did happen, it would happen as it does in the movies – They would simply wake up one morning and find the world on fire. Historically speaking, this is not how it works. The collapse of an empire is a process, not an event.
This is not to say that there are not moments of shock and awe; there certainly are. As we witnessed during the Great Depression, or in 2008, the system can only be propped up artificially for so long before the bubble pops. In past instances of central bank intervention, the window for manipulation is around ten years between events, give or take a couple of years. For the average person, a decade might seem like a long time. For the banking elites behind the degradation of our society and economy, a decade is a blink of an eye.
In the meantime, danger signals abound as those analysts aware of the situation try to warn the populace of the underlying decay of the system and where it will inevitably lead. Economists like Ludwig Von Mises foresaw the collapse of the German Mark and predicted the Great Depression; almost no one listened until it was too late. Multiple alternative economists predicted the credit crisis and derivatives crash of 2008; and almost no one listened until it was too late. People refused to listen because their normalcy bias took control of their ability to reason and accept the facts in front of them.
There are a number factors that cause mass blindness to economic and social reality. First and foremost, establishment elites deliberately create the illusion of prosperity by rigging economic data to the upside. In almost every case of economic crisis or geopolitical disaster, the public is conditioned to believe they are in the midst of a financial “boom” or era of “peace”. They are encouraged to ignore fundamental warning signs in favor of foolish faith in the system. Those people that try to break the apathy and expose the truth are called “chicken little” and “doom monger”.
In the minds of the cheerful lemmings a “collapse” is something very obvious; they think they would know it when they saw it. It’s like trying to teach a blind person about colors; it’s not impossible, but it’s very difficult to get all these Helen Kellers to understand that what they perceive is not the whole reality. There’s a vast world hidden from them and they have no concept of how to observe it.
Crash events are like stages in the process of collapse; they create moments of clarity for the blind. However, they are also often engineered to benefit the establishment. There’s a reason why the elites put so much energy into hiding the real data on the state of the economy, and it’s not because they are trying to keep the system from faltering by using sheer public ignorance. Rather, a crash event is a tool, a means to an end. As Congressman Charles Lindbergh Sr. warned after the panic of 1920:
“Under the Federal Reserve Act, panics are scientifically created; the present panic is the first scientifically created one, worked out as we figure a mathematical problem…”
Central bankers and their cohorts manipulate economic data and promote the false notion of a boom before almost every major crash because they WANT to ambush the populace. They WANT to create panic, and then use it to their advantage as they rebuild and mutate the system into something unrecognizable only decades ago. Each consecutive crash contributes to the collapse of the whole, until eventually the society we once had is barely a distant memory.
This process can take decades, and the US has been subject to it for quite some time now. Once again in 2019 we are seeing the lie of an “economic boom” being perpetuated in the mainstream. The public was growing too aware of the danger and had to be subdued. More specifically, conservatives were growing too aware. The sad thing is that the boom propaganda is most prominent today among conservatives, who are desperately trying to ignore the fundamentals in an attempt to defend the Trump Administration.
The same people who were pointing out the economic bubble under Obama are now denying its existence under Trump. Trump himself argued that the markets were a dangerous economic fraud created by the Federal Reserve during his campaign, yet once he was in office he flip-flopped and started taking full credit for the bubble. What is mind-boggling to me is that many people, even in the liberty movement, still choose to dismiss this behavior in favor of worshiping Trump as some kind of hero on a white horse.
This only reinforces my theory that the system is due for another major engineered crash event, and that the ongoing collapse of the US is soon to accelerate. Each case of economic calamity in modern history was preceded by peak delusional optimism and peak greed. When the people traditionally most vigilant against crisis suddenly capitulate and claim victory, this is when reality strikes hardest. This is when the establishment triggers yet another controlled demolition.
In order to determine how long an empire will last, one has to take into account the agenda of the elites that control its institutions. As long as they are in key positions of power within the system and as long as they can inject their own puppet politicians, they will have the ability to influence the collapse timeline of that system.
Can they prolong and stave off crisis? Yes, for a short while. However, once the machine of a crash has been set in motion the best they can do is slow down the Titanic; they cannot change its path towards the iceberg. And frankly, at this point why would they? I hear it argued often that the elites are going to “keep the plates spinning” on the economy and that they don’t want to lose their “golden goose” in the US economy. This reveals a naivety among skeptics of the true agenda.
Firstly, the elites have a highly useful political puppet in the form of Donald Trump; he is useful in that he inspires sharp national division, and, he is a self proclaimed conservative champion and nationalist. If the elites did not trigger a crash under Trump, then this would give the public the impression that conservative ideals and national sovereignty works. This is the opposite of what they want. Why would globalists that want the erasure of nation states and the creation of a centralized socialist “Utopia” seek to make conservatives and nationalists look good? Well, they wouldn’t.
The only concern of the banks is that they do not take the blame as their engineered collapse of the old world order hits the public with increasingly painful consequences. These consequences are already becoming visible.
The next major crash has begun in the form of plunging fundamentals, and far too many conservatives are placing their heads in the sand for the selfish sake of proving the political left wrong. Declines in US manufacturing, US freight, global exports and imports, mass closures in US retail, as well as all time highs in consumer debt, corporate debt and national debt are being shrugged off and rationalized as nothing more than “hiccups” in an otherwise booming economy. The Fed’s repo market purchases, barely keeping up with demand from liquidity starved corporations are also not being taken seriously.
Conservatives and analysts are going to have to forget about supporting Trump, a Rothschild owned proxy, and start acknowledging reality once again. The only question now is, will the elites allow the crash to spread further into mainstreet and strike markets before or after the 2020 election?
As noted above, to predict the timing of a collapse in a nation or empire, one has to examine the agendas of the elites that dominate its institutions. We can gain some sense of timing from the public admissions of globalist organizations like the IMF and the UN. Each has announced the year 2030 as a target date for the finalization of globalization, a cashless society and sustainability goals. This means that the elites have around ten years to create a crisis and then “solve” that crisis with globalism.
Ten years is a narrow window, and if the elites intend for conservatives to take the blame for the next crash, they will have to initiate it soon. They may not have a choice anyway, as the chain of dominoes was already been set in motion by the Fed in 2018 with its liquidity tightening policies.
We can also gauge timing of a collapse to a point by understanding the common tactics the establishment uses to hide what they are doing. Generally, when a collapse is about to accelerate the elites use crisis events as cover to distract the public and produce scapegoats. In my article ‘Globalists Only Need One More Major Event To Finish Sabotaging The Economy’, I outlined three potential distractions that could be used in the near term, and if any of these events took place, then people should watch for the collapse to move faster. Two of these events now appear imminent: The first being a war with Iran, and the second being a ‘No Deal’ Brexit.
Finally, we can take into account the globalist need for a scapegoat, and it appears that conservatives and nationalists are their target for blame. This leaves less than one year for a crisis event if Trump is intended to leave the White House in 2020, or less than four years if he is intended to stay in for a second term. Keep in mind that A LOT can happen in a single year, and a second Trump term is certainly not guaranteed yet.
But why create a collapse in the first place? Crash events allow the establishment to consolidate control over hard assets as poverty forces the population to sell what they have to survive. This poverty also creates fear, which makes the public malleable and easier to control. Each new crisis opens doors to political and social changes, changes which end in less freedom and more centralization. Collapse is a succession of crashes leading to a complete erasure of the original society. It’s not a Mad Max event, it’s a hidden and insidious cancer that takes over the national body and warps it into a wretched form. The collapse is complete when the nation either breaks apart, or is so damaged for so long that no one can remember what it used to look like.
What we are witnessing today is the beginning of a new crash, and the final phases of a collapse of our way of life. The economic boom narrative among conservatives is a farce designed to trick us into complacency. The bubble that we warned about under the Obama Administration has been popped under the Trump Administration. Nothing has changed in the ten years since the 2008 crash except that the motivation for keeping the crash hidden is quickly disappearing.
Crashes are inevitable, but collapse is only possible when the public remains unprepared. Our civilization and its values are under attack, but they can only be destroyed if we stay apathetic to the threat and refuse to prepare for their defense. We must adopt a philosophy of decentralization. We need localized and self-sufficient economies, as well as a return to localized production. Beyond that, we have to prepare for the eventuality of a fight. The fate of the US economy has already been sealed, but the people who are destroying it can still be stopped before they use the collapse to force society into subservience. We have to offer security, we have to offer alternatives to the “new world order” and we have to remove the globalist threat permanently.
Make no mistake, we are living in the midst of an epoch moment; the outcome of collapse depends on us and our reactions. This is not the task of the next generation, it is a task for our generation. We do not have another couple of decades to take the danger seriously. The plates are not spinning, they have already dropped.
* * *
If you would like to support the work that Alt-Market does while also receiving content on advanced tactics for defeating the globalist agenda, subscribe to our exclusive newsletter The Wild Bunch Dispatch. Learn more about it HERE.
NOVEMBER 28, 2019
In 1961, I left Greece for the United States. The reason for that life-changing decision was education. The University of Illinois and the University of Wisconsin welcomed me and gave me a free education. I earned my Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees from Illinois and my doctorate from Wisconsin.
My education was a mixture of science and humanities. I combined zoology with Greek (ancient, medieval and modern) history, as well as Roman history and modern European (Russian, Soviet Union, Southeastern European and British) history. To this multidisciplinary bowl I added the history of science from my postdoctoral studies at Harvard.
I did all this book reading, test taking, and writing a dissertation in ten years. The next step was finding work. By the time I graduated from Wisconsin, in 1972, I was married with my first child. This made earning a living imperative.
I worked on Capitol Hill and the US Environmental Protection Agency for twenty-seven years.
Sporadically, I taught at several universities about things I learned at work: how the federal government regulates or fails to regulate pesticides and agriculture.
The hidden truth
If this sounds obscure, technical, and of little value, it is not. There’s complexity in these things, but within this complexity there are gems of truth on how this country works.
Imagine a group of bureaucrats led by a political representative of the president deciding how much pesticide poison goes into each fruit, vegetable, grain, bread, cheese and meat Americans eat. That’s what the Office of Pesticide Programs does. The responsibility is awesome. The science is dubious; the ethics abhorrent. I did not want to do anything with it, save for criticizing the very idea of poisoning our food under the guise of environmental protection, which translated into protecting the farmer and poison maker from legal suits. The moment I came across evidence of massive and chronic malpractice and fraud in the testing of pesticides, I knew my early suspicions were legitimate; I knew how agribusiness rules America.
This experience helped me understand the meaning and practice of “environmental protection” in an industrialized America. In other words, I brought to the classroom information not in environmental policy textbooks
History, and especially the history of science, hovered around me, always tempting my thought to precedents: how did people of earlier times and other societies face the natural world or raise food?
The message to my students
I probably overwhelmed my students with data, facts and explanations about the environment and how America works. But the take-home message to my students was a warning:
”Your elders have abandoned your protection to the unkind and often corrupt industry and politicians. Study the natural world, study the science of the environment and, once out of school, reform or change the politics of this country for your protection and the protection and health of the natural world. A polluted natural world is your enemy. It will make you sick or kill you.
“Do away with pesticides, industrial agriculture, nuclear bombs, nuclear power plants, plastics, and toxic chemicals. They were the products of war, ignorance and hubris.
“Build a society with different values, one based on carbon-free and toxic pollution-free technologies, including respect for nature. Don’t approve any industry disrupting ecosystems, poisoning the natural world, and causing the extinction of species. Learn from science and older traditions and wisdom how the world works. Learn from the natural world.”
I don’t know if my students understood me. I treated them like graduate students. I opened their eyes to the beauties of science and truth as well as the secret and corrupt ways of the chemical industry. I let them see and examine original documents showing industry-government corruption. Some of them might have passed my ideas to their parents and, possibly, administrators.
I knew college and universities were rarely on the forefront of justice or truth, much less political change. In many instances, like the land grant universities, they become the inventors of hazardous chemicals and technologies that enable agribusiness to control rural America. At other instances, universities legitimize pollution.
With some exceptions, my college colleagues were indifferent to me and my teaching.
At Humboldt State University in northern California, I taught about society and the environment in a sociology department. There was a possibility for a permanent position for me but the chairman of the department said not to bother to apply because my doctorate was in history, not sociology. I asked him to come to my class, so he could form his own opinion about my teaching. “I care less about your teaching or the admiration students have for you,” he said.
Twice at two different schools (the University of Maryland and Pitzer College) I spoke to the Dean about expanding teaching and research on the fate of black farmers in America who declined by 98 percent in the twentieth century. The Deans were black. They listened to me politely but did nothing.
These anecdotes may be a fly in the ointment, but they suggest a deeper malady.
America after WWII
Since World War II, the culture of America is becoming inimical to democracy and civilization. By civilization I mean justice, the rule of law, the employment of science for making decisions, equal opportunity for humans to make a living, relative equality among citizens and ethical and science-based government rules regulating corporate and business behavior. Moreover, protecting human and environmental health should be at the core of this civilization.
Civilization is in trouble in America. Perpetual wars, the nuclear bomb, and the supremacy of money have made this country an empire. This political transformation is dismantling democracy at home and threatens the planet.
An oligarchy of billionaires are behind this aggression. They have captured the government, milking its fat Pentagon budget while using other government departments like the Environmental Protection Agency to buy legal protection for their chemicals polluting our food, drinking water, air, rivers, lakes and the seas.
The spectacle of Trump
The spectacle of Trump being president says it all. This is a very bad man. Some people, including senior government officials, and especially ambassador Gordon Sondland, are saying Trump urged the government of Ukraine to dig dirt about his political opponent Joe Biden. Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA) accused Trump of being “a criminal in the White House.” Others charge him with betrayal and infamy for allowing the Turks to slaughter the Kurds who have been faithful American allies.
Trump is threatening democracy. He displays and employs government power for his personal benefit. He does not have a clue about international relations. He is an enemy of public and environmental health.
In desperation, the Democrats in the House are collecting evidence of wrongdoing for “impeaching” him. They know, however, that the Republicans in the Senate will declare Trump innocent of all charges.
This effort of finding Trump guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors is the ethical thing to do. But for me, Trump’s persistent undermining of this country’s environmental laws, including his willful ignorance of climate change, constitute high crimes and misdemeanors. They are translated into policies hurting and killing people all over the country. And pretending there’s no climate change, as the Trump EPA does, exacerbates the onslaught from climate change.
This official apathy and blindness is affecting the country, even the Democratic politicians running for president. The warming of the Earth and the fossil fuels causing it have all but disappeared from public discourse.
With the possible exception of Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), I just don’t think these candidates are passionate enough to embrace the climate threat and opportunity for shaping American politics and assuring the survival of civilization and the natural world. Yet they say climate change is the gravest danger America and the world face.
The hegemony of commercial television
Another way of explaining this pathology is the overwhelming power and influence of commercial television. It has remade Americans into obedient corporate subjects. Just like cigarette companies during most of the twentieth century brained-washed Americans to do nothing without a cigarette hanging from their mouth, advertisements and news reporting mix with each other so thoroughly the viewer, in most case, does not understand the difference between the two. The result of this willful malpractice and propaganda is the dumbing down of Americans.
Second, commercial television networks treat the natural world like a zoo: a place for expensive cruises, hunting, industrialized farming, logging, mining and forest fires. Even the PBS and BBC nature documentaries keep corporate crimes against nature strictly separate from the lives of the threatened species they document.
This television onslaught has been taking place for decades while most Americans live increasingly in cities, which separate them further from the natural world.
Despite this undemocratic and plutocratic record, commercial television is in charge of the Democratic presidential debates. They ask the questions and restrict answers to seconds and minutes.
Undoing this industrial-cultural-academic-television-propaganda complex requires a “political revolution” even greater than the revolution Senator Bernie Sanders has in mind.
The Sanders agenda
Sanders is an angry American prophet who insists in bringing justice back to America. He wants an economy for all. He is lashing at bankers, drug and insurance companies, billionaires, Trump and the Republicans. He is accusing them of theft: sucking trillions to an oligarchy and impoverishing the rest.
Should Sanders be elected, this country may be spared some of the calamity of climate change. He has promised repeatedly to put fossil fuel companies out of business – replacing them with carbon-free alternatives and creating 20,000,000 well-paying jobs.
In addition, Sanders is likely to save America from tyranny. This will demand a Herculean labor: channeling the Potomac River through the Washington stables of billionaires and industry lobbyists.
This would demand the end of exporting American jobs; taxing the billionaires enough to narrow the gigantic gap between them and the rest of Americans: use that money to fund climate change and cleaning up and eliminating pollution; outlawing the fossil fuels industry and funding alternative carbon-free energy technologies; revive the New Deal government programs of President Roosevelt for healthy farming, environment, and rebuilding of rural America; upgrade America’s medical mess to European health standards; make state universities free; give EPA the freedom and independence it needs to embrace its real mission; regulate commercial television: it should not be able to interrupt news with advertisements, nor charge money to politicians running for office; regulate and tax Wall Street; regulate and tax agribusiness: ban pesticides, break up large plantations, and bring back family farms.
Finally, take money out of politics.
Only this broad agenda of economic, social and ecological renewal can put the breaks to a Hothouse Earth and violent political revolution.
If you love drinking sugary drinks, you should definitely read this. The artificial sweetener that’s used to add flavour to the diet drinks and sugar-free products isn’t safe for consumption.
According to a study in Archives of Public Health by the University of Sussex, the reassurance that was given in 2013 stating that aspartame is safe for consumption by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) consists of considerable flaws.
The new study has revealed that EFSA completely disregarded the results of every single one of the 73 studies (out of 154) that said aspartame consumption is harmful, stating it was unreliable.
Since 1974, aspartame (or Nutrasweet as it is commonly known) which is seen in sugar-free products like sodas, gums etc, is known to cause damage to brain, lung and liver cancer, brain lesions and neuroendocrine disorders.
Professor Millstone, a University of Sussex expert on food chemical safety policy and one of the authors of this study is seeking suspension of authorisation for sale and consumption of Nutrasweet in the EU, till the independent re-examination and tests don’t prove its safety for consumption.
He said in a statement, “Our analysis of the evidence shows that, if the benchmarks the panel used to evaluate the results of reassuring studies had been consistently used to evaluate the results of studies that provided evidence that aspartame may be unsafe then they would have been obliged to conclude there was sufficient evidence to indicate aspartame is not acceptably safe.
He further adds, “This research adds weight to the argument that authorisation to sell or use aspartame should be suspended throughout the EU, including in the UK, pending a thorough re-examination of all the evidence by a reconvened EFSA that is able to satisfy critics and the public that they operate in a fully transparent and accountable manner applying a fair and consistent approach to evaluation and decision making.”
He believes that the drastic contrast in the findings could be due to a conflict of interest by commercial brands, who would have been affected adversely if Nutrasweet was indeed banned from consumption.
So until it is properly proven otherwise, it is highly advisable for you to stay away from sugar-free consumables.
John Christensen was a government economist living on the beautiful island of Jersey, off England’s southern coast, in a “hillside villa with views of France.” But that lifestyle ended after he spoke out on a fraudulent currency trading scheme involving a UBS subsidiary in Jersey, according to Bloomberg.
Christensen had a head of dark hair when he helped to expose the Jersey currency scheme, which resulted in UBS’s Jersey unit and accounting firm Touche Ross & Co. — now Deloitte — paying almost $40 million to settle lawsuits. Regular bike rides keep Christensen as trim as two decades ago, but his hair has turned pearl white.
He said: “I was set. We had a pretty good lifestyle and plenty of friends.”
JULY 24, 2019
It is my cheerful duty to announce the acquisition of around 85 gigabytes of leaked emails, phone calls, faxes, and other documents originating from the London-based tax shelter firm Formations House, best known to the public for the assortment of often colorful scandals involving such figures as former Ukranian president Viktor Yanukovych, and best known to the global kleptocracy as a cheap and discreet option by which to avoid taxes or steal them altogether. These materials, which cover fifteen years from the company’s founding in 2001, were recently obtained by Distributed Denial of Secrets, the transparency organization founded by longtime researcher, activist, and Freedom of Information Act request record-holder Emma Best to facilitate and host leaks from state and corporate actors. My own non-profit Pursuance, meanwhile, has partnered with DDOS to help oversee early access by reporters, and thereafter to implement experimental crowd-sourced research protocols by which networks of volunteers will sift through this immense field of data to better ensure that critical stories are discovered and made public over the coming months and years.
Formations is among the considerable number of firms that have proliferated in recent decades to provide a focused array of financial services to clients around the globe. We must hasten to add that the majority of these are not engaged in any significant wrongdoing, while the list of services includes all manner of perfectly mundane business functions such as accounting, VAT registration, and domain hosting. The most widely utilized of its more undignified practices – providing customers with a suitably handsome ersatz physical address in one of London’s most respectable and thus expensive neighborhoods – is neither criminal nor even terribly shameful, and no more fundamentally deceptive than anything else in 2019.
But thanks to a series of successful prosecutions as well as several years of keen journalism – most notably on the part of The Guardian’s Oliver Bullough – it’s gradually become clear that a key segment of its clientele has used Formations for a range of considerably more illicit purposes, often involving “shelf” companies – pre-made corporations built on a template, including a ready-made board of directors and other forms of what amounts to a sort of institutional camouflage by which to skirt revenue collectors and regulators. But in some cases, the scam has gone well beyond the millennia-old tendency of wealthy citizens to avoid paying their share for the very infrastructure, diplomatic apparatus, and international security arrangements that benefit them the most, or in some cases exclusively. At least one of the known convictions involving Formations involves high-stakes confidence tricks employing the classic “Spanish prisoner” advance payment hustle – by one of Formations’ own directors. At least one of his partners is still on the run.
But the most important stories that will gradually be yielded from these materials will concern the looting of public resources, which institutions across the West have continued to facilitate despite the incalculable damage that results to entire populations. In 2016 Bullough summarized the Yanukovych affair – and much else – as follows: “If it was difficult for a Brit to discover that a registered address at 29 Harley Street was meaningless, it was even harder for a Ukrainian… investigative journalists in Kiev could see that a piece of state-owned land in a forest outside the capital had been illegally privatised, but they did not know who by.”
What makes this story unique is that the millions of pounds in assets pilfered with the help of a London “financial services” firm were ultimately recovered. If even one of the “400,000 companies, partnerships, and trusts” Formations notes having set up for its clients since the turn of the century are discovered to serve a similar function, and the stolen funds returned to the developing the nation that can scarce afford to have lost them, this project will have served its purpose.
As it happens, we can expect more. In the 48 hours since we began recruiting press for early access, we’ve brought on journalists from outlets like ProPublica, CNN, The Daily Beast, and the Columbia Review of Journalism, with further partnerships arranged in principle with CounterPunch and Investigative Journal. Over time, we’ll be expanding access to the entire cache on the part of both traditional outlets and experiment research collectives of the sort Emma Best and I have been overseeing in similar contexts for nearly a decade, along with many of our volunteers. To ensure the greatest yield and accommodate the widest possible access, we’ll also be allowing journalists and anti-corruption officials who may be precluded from engaging with such leaks directly to instead submit names and other keywords to be searched by our team, with any responsive documents to be securely relayed back to the inquirer.
Other special requests, along with press inquiries/requests for access and questions about volunteering for this and similar projects, should reach out to Distributed Denial of Secrets via their contact page.
Our Partner Organizations
The #29Leaks Archive
To ensure the safety of those involved, the circumstances under which this cache was acquired and made available to DDOS will remain private for the time being.
The estimated 85 gigabytes are roughly divided along the following lines:
20GB – Mailboxes of specific employees of interest
50GB – SQL table containing every email received by the firm
7 GB – Misc. docs, faxes, phone calls
8 GB – Misc. databases
Moderately Amusing Excerpts from the “Terms and Conditions” page at Formation House’s website:
We reserve the right to refuse to offer any service or process any order or part of an order even if the order has been placed and accepted on our system, if in the light of further investigation if we feel that processing the order would damage our reputation.
Our email service is limited to 100mb of storage, any further use of storage and your emails will be deleted.
WARNING: Some viewers may find this video disturbing. Also, it is almost certainly Not Safe for Work.
The above commercial is vaguely reminiscent of the slick ads produced for and promoted by convicted Ukrainian credit card fraudster Vladislav “BadB” Horohorin, who was sentenced in 2013 to serve 88 months in prison for his role in the theft of more than $9 million from RBS Worldpay, an Atlanta-based credit card processor. (In February 2017, Horohorin was released and deported from the United States. He now works as a private cybersecurity consultant).
The clip above is loosely based on the 2016 music video, “Party Like a Russian,” produced by British singer-songwriter Robbie Williams.
Tip of the hat to Alex Holden of Hold Security for finding and sharing this video.
WARNING: Some viewers may find this video disturbing. Also, it is almost certainly Not Safe for Work.
The above commercial is vaguely reminiscent of the slick ads produced for and promoted by convicted Ukrainian credit card fraudster Vladislav “BadB” Horohorin, who was sentenced in 2013 to serve 88 months in prison for his role in the theft of more than $9 million from RBS Worldpay, an Atlanta-based credit card processor. (In February 2017, Horohorin was released and deported from the United States. He now works as a private cybersecurity consultant).
The clip above is loosely based on the 2016 music video, “Party Like a Russian,” produced by British singer-songwriter Robbie Williams.
Tip of the hat to Alex Holden of Hold Security for finding and sharing this video.
The men say that the pastor told them to get completely undressed during the ceremony, where he would perform various superficial rituals before performing oral sex on them. The pastor would then spit objects into a bag and tell the victims that he has removed the bad spirits from their bodies.
“He would then ingest my ejaculate and then would spit up multiple pieces of plastic or metal into a Ziploc bag,” one victim told reporters.
The men also described how the pastor put his tongue in their mouths to see if there were any spirits hiding in there.Eventually, the men started asking questions about the strange ritual and realized that something wasn’t right.
At least three men have reported these crimes to the police and the state attorney general’s clergy abuse hotline at separate times, but Weaver is still not facing any charges. He was required to appear for an internal church trial in January, but he never showed up for the appearance and renounced the authority of the church.
The church determined through an investigating committee “that there are probable grounds or cause to believe that an offense was committed by the accused,” according to MyCentralJersey.
Rev. Leslie Dobbs-Allsopp, interim leader of the Elizabeth Presbytery, the organization that oversaw the investigation, said that the allegations were “found to be credible.”
“In April 2018, the Presbytery of Elizabeth received allegations of multiple instances of sexual misconduct perpetrated by William Weaver, who was a minister member of the Presbytery… Mr. Weaver was placed on administrative leave while the Investigating Committee conducted interviews with multiple witnesses. The allegations were found to be credible, and disciplinary charges were filed, and an ecclesiastical disciplinary hearing date was set,” Dobbs-Allsopp said.
Yet, despite this evidence against him, Union County still refuses to press charges against the pastor.
After refusing to show up for the trial, Weaver forfeited his place in the Presbyterian Church and has since been living in a gated retirement community.
Some of these recent cases of sexual assault where members of the clergy have abused their authority have been extremely bizarre. Earlier this week, The Mind Unleashed reported that a 74-year-old Catholic priest dressed numerous young boys up like the baby Jesus before raping them.
Last year, the Catholic Church was caught paying off a lobbying firm to “persuade” politicians into blocking bills related to sex crimes against children. Between 2007 and 2015, the Catholic Church in New York spent more than 2.1 million dollars lobbying on various bills, mostly related to sex offenses.
“Segregated housing and schools, gerrymandered districts and voter suppression picked up where Jim Crow left off. Housing ghettos are born of racist housing policies that rob the black community of opportunities to amass wealth.” In 2011, a black mother was imprisoned for falsifying her daughter’s address to allow her to attend an affluent, predominantly white school.”
The recent college bribing scandal in the US revealed nothing we already didn’t know.
by David A Love
Earlier this month, a $25m fraud scheme which helped children of wealthy parents cheat their way into top American universities was unearthed by US prosecutors. As part of the investigation into the scheme, dozens of well-to-do parents, including Hollywood celebrities, have since been indicted for paying millions of dollars in bribes, arranging to falsify their children’s college entrance exam scores, and misrepresenting their athletic abilities to secure admission to elite universities by fraudulent means.
The revelations caused shock and outrage across the world, but they should not have. The scandal revealed nothing new. One of the worst-kept secrets of American education is that it is a rigged system. The deck is stacked in favour of the wealthy, who can buy the best education possible for their children, and at the expense of those without means, power or privilege.
Education in the US is a heavily privatised, for-profit scheme that excludes low-income people and members of disadvantaged racial groups, and only reinforces the existing socioeconomic inequities.
We all pretend the higher education system in the United States is based on meritocracy. American mythology dictates that in the land of opportunity, all people can pull themselves up by their bootstraps, work hard and achieve the American dream. Yet, what can one possibly do if he or she was born without boots? Those fortunate individuals who inherit resources, wealth, social capital and pedigree accumulated over generations enjoy a distinctly unfair advantage over poor students, who must work while studying or take out exorbitant amounts of loans to pay for fees.
The US is witnessing a student debt crisis with a record $1.53 trillion in outstanding debt – a figure which has more than doubled since the end of the 2009 recession, and exceeds the nation’s one trillion dollars in credit card debt. As a result, young people are saddled with a fortune in debt they are unable to pay off with low-paying or non-existent jobs, forced for years to forego buying a house, getting married or starting a family.
Wealthy students benefit from privilege compounded by more privilege, crowding out the rest from university spots. Many universities give preferences to legacy admits, students with at least one parent who graduated from the institution – a policy that overwhelmingly benefits privileged, white candidates.
Harvard, my alma mater, accepts 34 percent of legacy applicants, as opposed to six percent of non-legacy applicants, a nearly six-fold advantage. While over one-fifth of white admits to Harvard were legacies in recent years, only 4.8 percent of black admitted students, seven percent of Latinx students and 6.6 percent of Asian students were legacies, with the total number of white legacies surpassing all legacies of colour combined. Some 14 percent of Harvard’s class of 2022 are children of alumni, and over 29 percent have family ties to the school. Legacies are a significant portion of other university classes such as Yale (11 percent), Princeton (14 percent), the University of Southern California (16 percent), and the University of Notre Dame (22 percent).
Despite the ubiquity of legacy admissions, opponents of diversity and inclusion programmes in higher education focus instead on affirmative action for underrepresented students of colour. Students for Fair Admissions has waged a lawsuit against Harvard’s affirmative action programme on the grounds that it advantages black and Latinx students at the expense of Asian-American students.
Racial justice advocates argue that a cynical game of pitting various non-white groups against each other and positioning Asians as more deserving than other brown or black students will only benefit existing systems of white privilege. In 2017, for the first time in its 400-year history Harvard admitted a majority non-white class, and perhaps, that is part of the problem for some.
Increased economic inequality in America only exacerbates the economic segregation of schools and dims the prospects of success for low-income children, who are funnelled into under-resourced two-year community colleges rather than competitive four-year colleges.
Public primary and secondary education in the US depends substantially on property taxes for about one-third of its funding. Consequently, wealthier white enclaves have $23bn more in resources to devote to their schools, and are able to carve out their own racially exclusive school districts. Poor disproportionately black and brown communities are underfunded, particularly if states do not intervene to rectify the imbalance among school districts.
As a report published by Brookings Institution has noted: “Segregated housing and schools, gerrymandered districts and voter suppression picked up where Jim Crow left off. Housing ghettos are born of racist housing policies that rob the black community of opportunities to amass wealth.” In 2011, a black mother was imprisoned for falsifying her daughter’s address to allow her to attend an affluent, predominantly white school
Elite education creates an inherent tension between meritocracy and equal opportunity and Stuyvesant High School, the most exclusive of the eight specialised public high schools in New York City, is a good illustration of this phenomenon.
Earlier this month, the school announced its admissions for the next school year; it admitted only seven black students out of 895. Black students are one percent of the school population, with Latinx students at three percent, whites at 20 percent and Asian students at 73 percent, in a city in which black and Latinx students are 70 percent.
At issue is the Specialized High School Admission Test (SHSAT), an entrance examination which is the sole criterion for admission, which some students prepare for months or years, sometimes hiring tutors to gain an advantage. The exam contains material that is not taught in schools, raising questions regarding its validity and calls to reform the admissions process and eliminate or change the test.
High-stakes standardised testing in the US has its origins in racial bias. A century ago, the eugenics movement, which wanted to uphold the superiority of the white race were concerned the “infiltration” of inferior non-white people, “Negroes”, Southern and Eastern Europeans, Jews and others would dilute the superior genetic intelligence of the Anglo-Saxon stock. They developed IQ tests to maintain the existing racial and class hierarchy.
Psychologist Carl Bingham was very much influenced by these ideas when he helped develop the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT), the leading college entrance exam in the US. The SAT is an exam that, according to critics, does not predict college success or determine merit, contains questions that advantage white students, and is designed to create inequality and profit the testing industry.
It is ironic, or perhaps fitting, that rich white parents paid bribes to cheat on a test already designed to favour their children, while the SAT score of a black Florida student was invalidated recently for being too high.
The Trump administration – supported by many adherents to the white supremacist conspiracy theory that whites are threatened with extinction due to an assault by inferior people of colour through immigration, affirmative action and demographic changes – is in favour of ending affirmative action and has eliminated Obama-era measures promoting diversity in education.
President Donald Trump has presided over the undermining of the US education system through the gutting of civil rights protections, the underfunding of public education, and the facilitation of the economic exploitation of students by education profiteers. The president’s 2019 budget would cut the Department of Education budget by $7.1bn and eliminate 29 programmes such as afterschool and summer school for low-income children, bringing even more entrenchment to America’s unequal education along racial and socioeconomic lines.
African American parents have always told their children they must work twice as hard to get half as much. The problem is that with the current state of regressive politics in the US, our children’s children will likely have to hear the same words, unless we take urgent action.
As Drake University Law Professor Vinay Harpalani told me in a recent conversation with me on the topic of education: “As practiced in America today, meritocracy is largely hypocrisy. This hypocrisy is a product of elitism itself: the need to create very stark status differences. We need to think very critically about our notions not only meritocracy, but also of equal opportunity. Perhaps the most effective way to create equal opportunity is to address America’s obsession with status – an obsession which actually values inequality and justifies it under the guise of meritocracy and equal opportunity.”
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.
Yo Facebook, karma is a bitch! I also find that the explanation from FB about its site going down yesterday all over the world to be less than truthful. If FB, as it says, was down because of international maintenance you’d think it would have notified its users in advance. Facebook has either been hacked or some shenanigans are going on behind the scenes where FB is attempting damage control in order to hide stuff from the FBI.
The company is “cooperating with investigators”
Some of Facebook’s largest data deals are under federal criminal investigation following a nightmare year of scandals, reports the New York Times, which reveals that a New York grand jury has subpoenaed records from at least two leading manufacturers of smartphones and other devices which gained access to personal data of hundreds of millions of users.
The companies were among more than 150 firms, including Amazon, Apple, Microsoft and Sony, that had cut sharing deals with the world’s dominant social media platform. The agreements, previously reported in The New York Times, let the companies see users’ friends, contact information and other data, sometimes without consent. Facebook has phased out most of the partnerships over the past two years. –New York Times
Facebook – known for its occasional mistakes, said in a statement that they are “cooperating with investigators” and assured the Times that they “take those probes seriously.”
It is unclear when the grand jury probe started, nor has the scope or focus of the inquiry been disclosed. It is being overseen by prosecutors in the Eastern District of New York.
The company is simultaneously facing investigations by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), while the Justice Department’s fraud division began investigating the social media giant following reports that political consulting firm Cambridge Analytica had improperly harvested the Facebook data of up to 87 million people for political purposes.
The investigation into the Cambridge Analytica scandal by both the DOJ and FBI is ongoing in the Northern District of California, with one former Cambridge employee reporting that he was questioned by investigators as recently as several weeks ago, while three other witnesses in the case said that much of the questioning revolved around Facebook’s claims that it was misled by Cambridge.
In public statements, Facebook executives had said that Cambridge told the company it was gathering data only for academic purposes. But the fine print accompanying a quiz app that collected the information said it could also be used commercially. Selling user data would have violated Facebook’s rules at the time, yet the social network does not appear to have regularly checked that apps were complying. Facebook deleted the quiz app in December 2015.
The disclosures about Cambridge last year thrust Facebook into the worst crisis of its history. Then came news reports last June and December that Facebook had given business partners — including makers of smartphones, tablets and other devices — deep access to users’ personal information, letting some companies effectively override users’ privacy settings. –New York Times
Facebook’s orgy of data sharing allowed companies such as Microsoft map out the friends of virtually every Facebook user over Bing without their explicit consent, while Amazon was able to harvest users’ names and contact information through their friends.
In fact, thanks to the United States having no general consumer privacy laws regarding data, up to 400 million people’s private information was freely shared with the likes of Google, Netflix, Spotify and other partners – and Facebook didn’t sell it; they gave everyone’s information away for free throughout the tech community in order to foster industry relationships and advance their own interests.
New research has discovered that foreign non-citizens use nearly two times the amount of welfare as…
China’s Huawei and Russian search giant Yandex – accused last year by Ukraine of funneling user data to the Kremlin – also had access to Facebook’s unique user IDs.
Facebook records show Yandex had access in 2017 to Facebook’s unique user IDs even after the social network stopped sharing them with other applications, citing privacy risks. A spokeswoman for Yandex, which was accused last year by Ukraine’s security service of funneling its user data to the Kremlin, said the company was unaware of the access and did not know why Facebook had allowed it to continue. She added that the Ukrainian allegations “have no merit.” –NYT
Facebook was able to circumvent a 2011 consent agreement with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) which barred the company from sharing user data without explicit permission, because Facebook considered the partners extensions of itself – “service providers that allowed users to interact with their Facebook friends.”
“This is just giving third parties permission to harvest data without you being informed of it or giving consent to it,” said former FTC consumer protection bureau chief David Vladeck. “I don’t understand how this unconsented-to data harvesting can at all be justified under the consent decree.”
Facebook has defended itself aggressively – claiming that the partnerships were permitted under a provision in the FTC agreement covering service providers as “extensions” of the social network.
Perhaps they were, once again, mistaken?
Eric ZUESSE: The average US household lost at least around $223,000, from thefts (or ‘lost money’) by the US military, during 1998-2015.
The US military is the most respected institution by the American people. According to investigations by the Inspector General of the US Department of Defense — investigations which were based on inspections of only portions of the Department’s financial records, not of all of them, and so the amount is incomplete — that Department had disappeared at least $21 trillion of funds from US taxpayers during the 18-year period 1998-2015. The US population, during that period, was around 300 million people; so, at a bare minimum, approximately $70,000 was being stolen (or otherwise disappeared at the US Defense Department) from each American during that time. However, $10 in 1998 was worth $14.54 in 2015; so, considering inflation, each American was robbed, during that period, of at least around $90,000, by the most respected institution. The average US household or “family” has 2.54 people. So, the average US household lost AT LEAST around $223,000, from thefts (or ‘lost money’) by the US military, during 1998-2015. (This fact has never been published before, because this calculation has never before been done; the loss to individual persons and families hasn’t previously been calculated.)
Where did this money go? Did it go to US soldiers? Maybe a tiny bit of it did, but the typical US soldier doesn’t seem to be rich. They even have an abnormally high suicide-rate. The US Government doesn’t publish any comparison of the average lifetime income of a military versus a non-military person, and obviously it would do so if soldiers made more than non-soldiers, because that fact (if it’s true) would greatly assist military recruitments. The present writer has contacted several US military recruitment offices, and each of them said they didn’t know the answer to the question as to whether the average lifetime income of a veteran is higher than the average lifetime income of a non-veteran. Wouldn’t they know it — and be publicizing the fact — if it were so? But they provide no answer to this question. Furthermore, according to Vice Admiral James Houck, speaking on 12 November 2014, “Veterans have a harder time getting jobs than other people do, and it makes me wonder why.” So: no indication seems to exist that this $21 trillion went to any typical soldiers.
Of course, generals and other brass who sit on boards of the US international corporations that sell to America’s military — corporations such as Lockheed Martin or General Dynamics — or who lobby for them in the US Congress, or who are fellows at Brookings Institution or other corporate-funded think tanks that routinely recommend to the US Congress, and in op-ed articles, new military invasions, might have gotten some of this money, but nobody knows. In fact, this lack of information is the reason why the Inspector General of the US Department of Defense has highlighted that $21T, in the first place.
No one knows where this $21T went. However, expenditures on the US military — including not just the Defense Department but the Department of Veterans Affairs, and the military retirement system which is paid directly from the US Treasury Department, and all of the other military costs of the US Government — are currently at least half of all of the entire world’s military expenditures, and so there’s plenty of money for America’s weapons-manufacturing firms to get. The many news-articles in the press that argue for even more money to be spent on weapons could well be funded, ultimately, from this approximately one trillion dollars per year in disappeared funds that are going into the US military, to buy those weapons — since the money doesn’t seem to be going to soldiers. Or: is it instead being used in bribes to foreign governments, so as to get them to buy more US weapons? The IG of the US DOD just doesn’t know.
During 2-6 March 2017, the Morning Consult and Politico “National Tracking Poll #170301” asked “a national sample of 1,992 registered voters” the question “Here is a list of federal departments and agencies. For each of the following, please indicate if you think the department or agency should have its annual budget increased, decreased, or kept about the same?” For “Department of Defense” (the Department that actually buys the weapons), 47% chose “Increased,” and 17% chose “Decreased.” The highest of all for “Increased” was Veterans Administration, which services the injured and disabled vets: 60% of respondents said “Increased,” and 10% said “Decreased.” By contrast, the EPA, which deals with global warming and the rest of the environment, was 33% “Increased,” and 24% “Decreased.” The FDA, which oversees the safety of foods and of drugs, was 30% “Increased,” and 22% “Decreased.” However, there’s no indication of anything like a trillion dollars a year being pilfered from the EPA or the FDA, both of which are agencies that produce additional costs to US corporations, instead of produce virtually all of the income to military US corporations (such as to the contractors to the US Department of Defense). The least popular federal departments and agencies, therefore, were the ones that large US corporations dislike the most, and love the least. Maybe the American people don’t care whether they are being robbed by the corporations whose main or only market is the US Government and the foreign governments that the US Government labels to be its ‘allies’, such as Saudi Arabia and Israel. Clearly, that’s a good type of business for a big investor to control, especially for a big investor who invests in politics as much or even more than in military corporations of any other types of corporations directly. It’s the way for a big investor to leverage political control into enormous personal profits, which might include some of the approximately trillion dollars a year that disappears annually at the Defense Department.
Incidentally: this trillion dollars a year is spent and is received, but whether it’s all in addition to the trillion-dollar-plus annual congressionally budgeted US expenditures on the military, is unknown, because nobody except the spenders and the recipients keep any track of any of this money. Conceivably, the US is actually spending two trillion dollars per year on its military. Furthermore, the entire Fiscal Year 2018 Enacted federal budget is only $1.208 trillion; so, the current annual federal deficits of around a trillion dollars that are being added each year to the existing (coincidentally) $21 trillion dollar federal debt might be from the constantly disappeared and disappearing DOD money.
The existence of this problem has been known, and increasingly documented, for many years. Back on 18 November 2013, Reuters headlined “Special Report: The Pentagon’s doctored ledgers conceal epic waste”, and reported that “At the … offices that handle accounting for the Army, Navy, Air Force and other defense agencies, fudging the accounts with false entries is standard operating procedure.” That report showed that at least a substantial portion of the waste is due to military procurements, monies that go to pay US Defense Department contractors: “Over the past 10 years, the Defense Department has signed contracts for the provision of more than $3 trillion in goods and services. How much of that money is wasted in overpayments to contractors, or was never spent and never remitted to the Treasury, is a mystery.” It could have been pocketed by anyone along the payments-chain to the ultimate contractors, such as Boeing and United Technologies. Furthermore, the waste was okayed all the way to the top of the Pentagon: “A review of multiple reports from oversight agencies in recent years shows that the Pentagon also has systematically ignored warnings about its accounting practices.” This was wanted by the top people, not unwanted by them.
For some reason, this situation continues on for decade after decade, and yet Americans are far more worried about ‘illegal aliens’ and about ‘foreign tampering with American democracy’ than about this enormous documented theft from us — theft which is clearly being done on behalf of a small number of Americans much more than on behalf of any non-Americans. Are foreigners really the biggest threat to the American people, or are a few very wealthy Americans actually a much bigger threat to us — and far more responsible for America’s soaring wealth-inequality and spreading poverty (depriving the needs for “butter” so as to feed the military monster’s gluttons for “guns”), than any foreigners are?
Maybe America’s targets should be the people who now control what and whom America’s targets are. But that type of change can happen only in a democracy. Is the US a democracy? And, if we are, then why do pretty much the same group of mega-corporate-funded US Representatives and Senators and Governors and Presidents become re-elected, and advance in their careers, instead of being targeted for investigation and possible serious prosecution as maybe being even traitors who have tolerated these thefts? Can such people as that, really stand above the law, in a democracy? And, what about the people who control the ‘Defense’ contractors? Why are immigrants, and Iran, and Russia, and China, and North Korea, and Syria, and Yemen, and Nicaragua, and Venezuela, and Iraq, and Libya, being targeted as ‘America’s enemies’? Is it done so that there will be targets for those weapons to be used against? Is that the real business-plan here? When did any of those nations last invade America, or even threaten to invade America? Didn’t Israel do that, on 8 June 1967, and Saudi Arabia do that, on 11 September 2001? But they are our ‘allies’, and Saudi Arabia is even the largest foreign buyer of US weaponry. (And how transparent are those regimes?)
US President Barack Obama repeatedly said that America is “the one indispensable nation,” meaning that every other nation is “dispensable.” Is that, ultimately, the business-plan? Current US President Donald Trump seems to have adopted it with even more gusto than did his predecessor.
Hasn’t this business-plan been succeeding long enough, now? It’s not published (at least the finances of it aren’t); it’s never published; but all the evidence indicates that it exists. If it is ever to be investigated, then whom could be trusted to do the investigation? Is this situation actually hopeless? Do Americans accept that the actual perpetrators will never be punished, and that the perpetrators will never restore to us the trillions of dollars they’ve taken from us, to kill people in foreign lands, who never attacked ours? Is this, now, ‘patriotism’, in America?
There exists impunity at the very top in America, just as is the case in other regimes, such as in the Saudi regime, which is the American regime’s most important ally. However, the American regime is unique, because only it controls the world’s top reserve currency, the dollar. The Sauds are especially important because they perform the biggest role of any foreign power in continuing the dollar as the world’s top reserve currency. A Bloomberg News article recently explained how the US regime thus is able not only to get away with piling over a trillion dollars a year onto its Government’s debt and yet still retain its status as the supplier of the world’s chief reserve currency, but can and does even go beyond that, actually to make economic war with its currency, by means of imposing economic sanctions against any nation that it seeks to conquer, such as Iran and Russia. That Bloomberg article is titled “How the US Has Weaponized the Dollar: The currency’s ‘exorbitant privilege’ gives the nation extraordinary leverage.” (For example: what Mohammed bin Salman did to Jamal Khashoggi is what Donald Trump wants to do to Meng Wanzhou and to others who refuse to bully Iran.) A different Bloomberg News article explains how this reserve-currency system got finally instituted in 1974 by US President Richard Nixon and King Saud. It was titled “The Untold Story Behind Saudi Arabia’s 41-Year US Debt Secret”.
That is the key to the current world order. It also explains how the US Government can now manage to spend, actually, around as many dollars on its military each year as all other nations in the world put together. This is the institutional reality, and it can be understood only if one acknowledges: impunity at the top (especially the head-of-state) tends to produce psychopathy at the top. This fact, this tendency toward psychopathy at the very top (and especially in the head-of-state), is the basic reality that is being displayed by today’s history — the history being made in our own time.
One can’t understand our time, without understanding this basic reality. For example: it explains why the average US household lost at least around $223,000, from thefts (or ‘lost money’) by the US military, during 1998-2015; and why the individuals who were responsible for it have never been punished, much less punished as traitors.
Almost all psych drug use is unnecessary, claims doctor researching medical holocaust of over 5 million psych med victims
by: Jonathan Benson, staff writer
Monday, July 20, 2015
More than half a million people age 65 years or older die every year in the West from psychiatric drug use, and the worst part is that these death pills aren’t even effective at treating either mental illness or depression. Researchers from Denmark’s Nordic Cochrane Centre found that the benefits of psych drugs are minimal at best, and that most people who currently use them would be better off just ditching them entirely.
Published in The BMJ (British Medical Journal), an eye-opening paper by Professor Peter Gotzsche reveals that most antidepressants and dementia drugs are generally useless when it comes to providing tangible relief. The drugs are also vastly overprescribed, he says, and they come with such a high risk of adverse effects that it isn’t even worth it for the average person to try them.
Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of people are dying every year from the normal and prescribed use of psych meds like selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), which are linked to causing extreme depression and provoking users towards suicide or even homicide. Add to this the fact that most psych meds have never been shown effective, matching or not even reaching placebo in terms of their efficacy, and there’s no legitimate reason for their continued use.
“Their benefits would need to be colossal to justify this, but they are minimal,” Gotzsche warns about the more than half a million people age 65 and older in the West who die annually from psych med use. “Given their lack of benefit, I estimate we could stop almost all psychotropic drugs without causing harm.”
But what about all those drug trials that supposedly reinforce the science behind the safety and efficacy of psych meds? A bulk of them are funded by pharmaceutical companies that have become experts in the art of manipulation and pseudoscience, says Gotzsche.
By knowing how to conduct clinical trials in such a way as to arrive at preconceived conclusions in favor of drug safety and effectiveness, pharmaceutical companies are able to pull the wool over the eyes of regulators and the public to keep the racket going. For psych meds, this includes enrolling trial participants who were previously taking other drugs that left them with withdrawal symptoms temporarily mitigated by the new drugs being tested.
“Animal studies strongly suggest that these drugs can produce brain damage, which is probably the case for all psychotropic drugs,” contends Gotzsche, who takes particular issue with antipsychotics, benzodiazepines and antidepressants, which he says collectively kill nearly 4,000 people every year in Denmark, and many more in the U.S.
“Given their lack of benefit, I estimate we could stop almost all psychotropic drugs without causing harm — by dropping all antidepressants, ADHD drugs and dementia drugs… and using only a fraction of the antipsychotics and benzodiazepines we currently use. This would lead to healthier and more long-lived populations.”
The only people who should ever be given psych meds, in Gotzsche’s estimation, are those with extreme mental conditions that require acute and closely monitored treatment that is tapered off as quickly as possible — and even then, patients are strongly advised to seek other, safer treatment methods if possible. By no means should any individual ever take psych meds long-term, in other words, as these drugs are highly addictive and can cause serious side effects when trying to quit them.
“The short-term relief seems to be replaced by long-term harms,” says Gotzsche. “Animal studies strongly suggest that these drugs can produce brain damage, which is probably the case for all psychotropic drugs.”
Gotzsche wrote a book published back in 2013 entitled Deadly Medicine and Organised Crime: How Big Pharma Has Corrupted Healthcare that exposes the drug industry for engaging in massive fraud and deception to push deadly drugs like psych meds on the public. The system has been so corrupted by this influence that millions of people are now taking drugs that don’t work and are extremely deadly.
“The main reason we take so many drugs is that drug companies don’t sell drugs, they sell lies about drugs,” reads the book. “This is what makes drugs so different from anything else in life… Virtually everything we know about drugs is what the companies have chosen to tell us and our doctors… the reason patients trust their medicine is that they extrapolate the trust they have in their doctors into the medicines they prescribe.”
You can read a chapter of this powerful book for FREE at the following link:
To purchase a copy of Gotzsche’s book, visit:
On October 25, 2018 a recently retired emergency room technician of 20 years named Lori Ciminelli gave a speech at the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. Posted by Courtney Lynn here on Facebook, the video has already garnered 1.2 million views, with over 30,000 comments as of October 31.
She begins by explaining that none of her peers believe in flu shots. She said:
“I don’t come here with any degree. I come here as the public. I’m going to start with a quote by William Wilberforce, and he stated: ‘you can choose to look away, but you can never say you don’t know again.’ I just retired from a local hospital here. No one believes in the flu shots, my colleagues, I didn’t, because the efficacy, and I won’t give you data, you created the data, ten percent one year, eighteen percent the next, forty percent at best.”
“The flu mist you gave to your children from two to eight years, for almost four years it never worked, three percent, oh well.
I worked in a hospital where my colleagues, doctors, nurses, medical assistants, and patient care lab, we didn’t believe in that flu shot. We were probably at 40 percent and then came our mandates, and then came your (the CDC’s) recommendations.”
Then, she provided insight into what she was forced to do, to be an emergency room technician while refusing the flu shot. For a while it was customary for people like her or nurses to wear a mask constantly, opt to constantly wear a mask day after day rather than receive the shot.
“So you know what, for four years before I retired I put a mask on during 12 hour shifts. It wasn’t easy to breathe, but that’s how much I didn’t believe in your efficacy.
My colleagues didn’t believe in it either, but some of them couldn’t wear that mask for 12 hours. So in the beginning they said ‘I’m just getting a shot, I can’t wear the mask,’ but in the truth, the public’s truth, my observation, which is the first step in scientific theory, they didn’t believe in your shot.
This year, I retired. I’m grateful for that because my soul was sick at what I saw go on. That flu shot was crazy.”
What she’s talking about her “soul being sick at,” it’s real and beyond description. If you’re not familiar with what she’s talking about, only a lot of research could satisfy that question.
The government keeps a record of people who suffer from vaccine injury, it’s called VAERS (vaccine injury reporting system), so if you type in “VAERS injuries flu shot,” or for any vaccine into a search engine, you’ll find exactly what she is speaking of.
Again she continued:
“You govern globally, in this country. I’m glad I’m retired now, because now I can talk to you, because when I worked I couldn’t, because if I did: conflict of interest, I would have lost my job.
That’s truth: a lot of my colleagues did lose their jobs. I (worked at) one of the few hospitals in this city that allowed us to mask. I can name five hospitals that don’t: goodbye ‘pink slip, no flu shot.’”
To make her experience even more incredible, she never got the flu in seemingly her entire career: while being in contact with people who had it, day in and day out, for such an incredibly long period of time.
“How did I survive twenty years and never get the flu in that environment? ER, high volume: was I not on the front lines every flu case, 300 people a day every day, every flu case, it was me.
I never had the flu, you know why? I knew how to wash my hands, I knew how to take vitamin D, I knew how to take elderberry syrup.
I don’t approve of your flu shot. Now, you have pharmacists giving it. You bribe us with cards at Target, and you tell us ‘this is free,’ and it’s everywhere. There’s scare tactics that you should be ashamed of. Robert F. Kennedy Jr.: he fights for us, he does. He goes to court for us, for our kids who suffered.”
She drew her short yet information packed, 5 minute speech to a close, and her testimony went viral. Do you agree with what she is saying? More research would be great for everybody. Why is a controversial topic controversial?
An early draft of the Bible has been discovered at the University of Cambridge in the UK that has been marked as one of the most significant discoveries in modern history. The handwritten draft was found after it had been mislabeled inside an archive and had gone undetected for decades.
The book has been confirmed by leading experts as an early working of The King James Bible which is one of the most influential and widely read books in the English language.
The discovery has been hailed as definitive proof that Bible is a work of fiction as it shows a process of revising, cutting, and then more rewriting, which contradicts popular belief that the book is the “divine word of God”. The King James Bible or simply the Authorized Version, is an English translation of the Christian Bible for the Church of England that combines books from the Old and New Testaments as well as other Christian scriptures.
The notes and commentary in the recently discovered draft of this book show how “best bits” were cherry-picked from the original books and were then embellished, exaggerated or rewritten to make for “better reading”. There are also indications that sections were written under orders from the King to that would conform to the idea that the Royal bloodline was a divine one, to instill a false belief in the “common” people that the hierarchy of the ruling Elites was justified. The notebook containing the draft was found by an American scholar, Jeffrey Alan Miller, an assistant professor of English at Montclair State University in New Jersey, who announced his research in an article in The Times Literary Supplement. Mr. Miller was researching an essay about Samuel Ward, one of the King James translators, and was hoping to find an unknown letter at the archives.
While you can say he certainly accomplished that end, he definitely wasn’t expecting to find the earliest draft of the King James Bible — which is now giving new insights into how the Bible was constructed. He first came across the plain notebook not knowing what it was — it was incorrectly labeled. That’s why no one has found it until now. It had been cataloged in the 1980s as a “verse-by-verse” Biblical commentary with “Greek word studies, and some Hebrew notes.” When he tried in vain to figure out which passages of the Bible the commentary was referring to, he realized that it was no commentary at all — it was an early draft of part of the King James Version of the Bible.
Did they prevent a full-scale collapse? Yes. Was it necessary to do it the way we did? Not at all.
These guys got off pretty easy. (Photo by Scott J. Ferrell/Congressional Quarterly/Getty Images)
In 1948, the architect of the post-war American suburb, William Levitt, explained the point of the housing finance system. “No man who owns his own house and lot can be a Communist,” he said. “He has too much to do.”
It’s worth reflecting on this quote on the ten-year anniversary of the financial crisis, because it speaks to how the architects of the bailouts shaped our culture. Tim Geithner, Ben Bernanke, and Hank Paulson, the three key men in charge, basically argue that the bailouts they executed between 2007 and 2009 were unfair, but necessary to preserve stability. It’s time to ask, though: just what stability did they preserve?
These three men paint the financial crisis largely as a technical one. But let’s not get lost in the fancy terms they use, like “normalization of credit flows,” in discussing what happened and why. The excessively wonky tone is intentional – it’s intended to hide the politics of what happened. So let’s look at what the bailouts actually were, in normal human language.
The official response to the financial crisis ended a 75-year-old American policy of pursuing broad homeownership as a social goal. Since at least Franklin Delano Roosevelt, American leaders had deliberately organized the financial system to put more people in their own homes. In 2011, the Obama administration changed this policy, pushing renting over owning. The CEO of Bank of America, Brian Moynihan, echoed this view shortly thereafter. There are many reasons for the change, and not all of them were bad. But what’s important to understand is that the financial crisis was a full-scale assault on the longstanding social contract linking Americans with the financial system through their house.
The way Geithner orchestrated this was through a two-tiered series of policy choices. During the crisis, everyone needed money from the government, but Geithner offered money to the big guy, and not the little guy.
First, he found mechanisms, all of them very technical—and well-reported in Adam Tooze’s new book Crashed—to throw unlimited amounts of credit at institutions controlled by financial executives in the United States and Europe. (Eric Holder, meanwhile, also de facto granted legal amnesty to executives for possible securities fraud associated with the crisis.)
The response to the financial crisis was about reorganizing property rights. If you were close to power, you enjoyed unlimited rights and no responsibilities, and if you were far from power, you got screwed. This shaped the world into what it is today. As Levitt pointed out, when people have no stake in the system, they get radical.
Did this prevent a full-scale collapse? Yes. Was it necessary to do it the way we did? Not at all.
Geithner, Bernanke, and Paulson like to pretend that bank bailouts are inherently unpopular—that they were wise stewards resisting toxic (populist) political headwinds. But it’s not that simple. Unfair bank bailouts are unpopular, but reasonable ones are not. For an alternative, look at how a previous generation of Democrats handled a similar, though much more serious, crisis.
In 1933, when FDR took power, global banking was essentially non-functional. Bankers had committed widespread fraud on top of a rickety and poorly structured financial system. Herbert Hoover, who organized an initial bailout by establishing what was known as the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, was widely mocked for secretly sending money to Republican bankers rather than ordinary people. The new administration realized that trust in the system was essential.
One of the first things Roosevelt did, even before he took office, was to embarrass powerful financiers. He did this by encouraging the Senate Banking Committee to continue its probe, under investigator Ferdinand Pecora, of the most powerful institutions on Wall Street, which were National City (now Citibank) and JP Morgan. Pecora exposed these institutions as nests of corruption. The Senate Banking Committee made public Morgan’s “preferred list,” which was the group of powerful and famous people who essentially got bribes from Morgan. It included the most important men in the country, like former Republican President Calvin Coolidge, a Supreme Court Justice, important CEOs and military leaders, and important Democrats, too.
Roosevelt also ordered his attorney general “vigorously to prosecute any violations of the law” that emerged from the investigations. New Dealers felt that “if the people become convinced that the big violators are to be punished it will be helpful in restoring confidence.” The DOJ indicted National City’s Charles Mitchell for tax evasion. This was part of a series of aggressive attacks on the old order of corrupt political and economic elites. The administration pursued these cases, often losing the criminal complaints but continuing with civil charges. This bought the Democrats the trust of the public.
When Roosevelt engaged in his own broad series of bank bailouts, the people rewarded his party with overwhelming gains in the midterm elections of 1934 and a resounding re-election in 1936. Along with an assertive populist Congress, the new administration used the bailout money in the RFC to implement mass foreclosure-mitigation programs, create deposit insurance, and put millions of people to work. He sought to save not the bankers but the savings of the people themselves.
Democrats did more than save the economy – they also restructured it along democratic lines. They passed laws to break up banks, the emerging airline industry, and electric utilities. The administration engaged in an aggressive antitrust campaign against industrial monopolists. And Roosevelt restructured the Federal Reserve so that the central bank was not “independent” but set interest rates entirely subservient to the wishes of elected officials.
In 1938, Franklin Delano Roosevelt offered his view on what causes democracies to fail.
“History proves that dictatorships do not grow out of strong and successful governments,” he said, “but out of weak and helpless ones.”
Did the bailouts of ten years ago work? It’s a good question. I don’t see a strong and vibrant democracy in America right now. Do you?
More than one million American student loan borrowers default on their debt each year, a new report says.
That means by 2023, approximately 40 percent of borrowers are expected to default.
That is according to a new report by the Urban Institute, a nonprofit research organization dedicated to developing evidence-based insights on critical socioeconomic issues. Researchers found about 250,000 student loan borrowers see their debts go into default every quarter, and an additional 20,000 to 30,000 borrowers default on their rehabilitated student loans.
“My results indicate that the likelihood of student loan default is positively correlated with holding other collections debt (e.g., medical, utilities, retail, or bank debt). About 59 percent of borrowers who defaulted on their student loans within four years had collections debt in the year before entering student loan repayment (compared with 24 percent among non-defaulters). Those who will default on their student loans are more likely to reside in neighborhoods that have more residents of color and fewer adults with a bachelor’s degree or higher, but a borrower’s personal credit profile is a stronger predictor of default than the neighborhood where she resides,” said Kristin Blagg, a research associate in the Education Policy Program at the Urban Institute.
The average defaulter is more likely to live in Hispanic and black neighborhoods, Blagg found. Her previous research has shown that minorities are more burdened by their education debt because their parents have a lower net wealth as well as higher rates of unemployment. These neighborhoods also have a median income of around $50,000, compared with $60,000 for non-defaulters.
The Urban Institute made a startling discovery: Those with the smallest loan balances had a higher probability of not paying off their debt. In fact, 1 in 3 people who had a student loan balance less than $5,000 defaulted within four years, compared with 15 percent of borrowers who owed more than $35,000.
This is because students who dropped out of college have less debt, but are easily burdened by debt since they do not have the benefit of a degree, said Mark Kantrowitz, a student loan expert, who spoke with CNBC.
Also, Kantrowitz said, “They often lack awareness of options for dealing with the debt, such as deferments, forbearances, income-driven repayment and loan forgiveness.”
The report then describes the relationship between a borrower’s credit profile and student loan default in a nationally representative sample of student loan borrowers, over the first four years of repayment. It found that by the time the student loan falls into the default, the borrower will see their credit score plunge by 60 points, to an average of around 550. Borrowers who stay current, usually have credit scores in the high 600s.
As we have mentioned, millennials are delaying marriage, home-buying and having kids (pretty much delaying the American dream), simply because of their gig-economy job(s) cannot cover debt servicing payments of their loans.
“Negative effects of student loan default can be wage garnishments, tax offsets, and other methods of loan collections,” said Elaine Griffin Rubin, senior contributor and communications specialist at Edvisors. “In addition, some states suspend or revoke state-issued professional licenses, and some states suspend a driver’s license because of a defaulted loan.”
To make the situation worse, defaulting on student loans increases the balance, likely due to collection fees and the accumulation of interest. Kantrowitz said a borrower could expect their balance to jump by over 10 percent after default.
These myriad consequences that come with a default can be hard to recover from, Kantrowitz said.
“At best, it delays participation in the American Dream,” he said. “At worst, they are shut out permanently.”
Student debt is a crisis that many Americans will not be able to recover from. The College Board, a non-profit organization, says the average cost of a U.S. degree is $34,740 a year at a private college, minus living costs.
Graduates of the Class of 2016 owe a staggering $37,000 each in student loans. Total Student Loans Owned and Securitized, Outstanding (SLOAS) has surpassed the $1.5 trillion mark in Q2 2018, which is second only to home mortgages among categories of consumer debt and the main reason Americans’ household debt has swelled to a record high.
Credit bubbles are all the same. It just happens that the life cycle of the student debt bubble is nearing a deleveraging period. According to both Keynesian and monetarist theory, when the student debt bubble cracks, the state should intervene directly, and bailout the millennials who made terrible life decisions in accumulating massive amounts of debt for a worthless liberal arts degree, simply because the myth of going to college would usher in a high paying job. As it has become increasingly evident, that is not the case in today’s gig-economy. The failing education system has duped millennials, they have now realized that the greatest con of all time is college.
Ninety-eight members of the White Helmets, and a few hundred of their families, were evacuated by Israel and allies to Jordan late in evening of July 21. They will seemingly be shipped off to a few Western nations for resettlement: Canada, the UK, and Germany. So far, Canada has pledged to take 50 White Helmets and around 200 family members.
Wrongly dubbed the “Syrian Civil Defense” (the actual Syrian Civil Defense has existed since 1953), the White Helmets narrative is flawed in every conceivable manner.
Packaged as neutral, heroic, volunteer rescuers, who have “saved 115,000 lives”, according to White Helmets leader Raed Al Saleh, they are in reality a massively Western-funded organization with salaried volunteers, and have no documentation of those 115,000 saved. They contain numerous members who have participated in or supported criminal acts in Syria, including torture, assassinations, beheading, and kidnapping of civilians, as well as inciting Western military intervention in Syria.
James LeMesurier, a former member of the British military who founded the White Helmets, did so in countries neighbouring Syria: in Turkey and Jordan. They have since worked solely in terrorist-held areas of Syria, and according to Syrian civilians in eastern Ghouta, they worked directly with, or were themselves, extremists of Jaysh al-Islam or other extremist groups. Civilians in east Aleppo said that White Helmets worked with al-Qaeda in Syria (the Nusra Front).
The fact that White Helmets centres are frequently, if not always, found near or next to headquarters of al-Qaeda and other terrorist factions further supports the accusations that they collaborate with terrorists—even with ISIS, as noted by ISIS hostage John Cantlie. He described the White helmets as an “ISIS fire brigade“.
White Helmets have also been at the scene of executions; filmed standing over dead Syrian soldiers; cheering on and cleaning up after an execution in Daraa Governorate, and disposing of the bodies of assassinated Syrian soldiers (including decapitated bodies) in Daraa Governorate.
White Helmets members were present to welcome Saudi terrorist Abdullah al-Muhaysini, leader of al-Nusra (al-Qaeda in Syria) who the US government designated a terrorist for “acting for or on behalf of” al-Nusra, and helping to finance them.
Over sixty White Helmets members have clear ties to terrorist and extremist groups, as shown by their own social media accounts and videos. In many of their own photos they hold weapons. Some White Helmets members have called for the murders of Shia villagers in Idlib governorate, and were instrumental in the massacre and injury of over 300 villagers, including 116 children in April 2017.
Not exactly neutral and members of the Daraa batch of White Helmets could very possibly be among those soon to be en route to Western nations.
In September 2014, independent Canadian journalist Cory Morningstar wrote about the New York City PR firm, Purpose Inc, and its propaganda role regarding the White Helmets. In March and April 2015, independent US journalist Rick Sterling, further scrutinized the White Helmets and related “humanitarian” groups serving to call for a no-fly-zone in Syria.
Since then, and for years now, concerned journalists and commentators have written or posed questions on the entity known as the White Helmets. In addition to the years-long investigations by Vanessa Beeley, commentators – from former British ambassador to Syria Peter Ford, award-winning US journalist Gareth Porter, award-winning journalist John Pilger, and even rock legend Roger Waters, have noted that the White Helmets are a dangerous and fraudulent group, or as Pilger put it, a propaganda construct.
I have already outlined this chronology of investigations, refuting corporate media claims that voices critical of the White Helmets stem from Russian influence. Yet, slavish supporters of the White Helmets, continue to demonize anyone posing critical and needed questions on this group, generally labelling such people as “Russian bots”, “influenced by Russia”, or some variation of that, in an attempt to insist only people under the influence of Russia have been critical of the White Helmets.
In the case of the Atlantic Council’s Ben Nimmo, his tweet on the lack of or scant mention by RT or Sputnik in 2014, 2015, to mid 2016 of the White Helmets supports my argument: those are precisely the times when the above-mentioned independent journalists were investigating the group.
In Syria, I saw two different White Helmets centres in close proximity to terrorists’ headquarters: one in eastern Aleppo, and one in Saqba, eastern Ghouta. The Saqba centre was two hundred metres from a factory extremists used to manufacture mortars and missiles, quite possibly those used to bomb civilians in Damascus. It contained a fire-truck stolen from the real Syrian Civil Defense, as well as ambulances and vehicles all torched when the White Helmets left Ghouta with terrorists of Jaysh al-Islam and Faylaq al-Rahman, among others. They were all safely transported to Idlib as per the deal with the Syrian government.
The other White Helmets centre I saw was in the Ansari district of Aleppo’s east. Formerly a school (and now returned to this status), this centre was a half minute’s walk to the headquarters of al-Qaeda in Syria, as well as the Abu Amara Brigades, and other extremists.
Vanessa Beeley, who had previously been to Ansari, wrote a detailed article additionally noting that just 200 metres from that same White Helmets centre was Al Mashad Square, where 12-year-old Palestinian youth, Abdullah Issa, was savagely tortured and then slowly beheaded.
In the Old City, next to Aleppo’s citadel last May, I spoke with an older man who had remained in Aleppo during the terrorists’ rule. He told me: “The Civil Defence is supposed to rescue people, but they used to steal women’s earrings from their dead bodies. If she was wearing gold, they’d cut her hand to steal it. They are thieves, not rescuers. We saw them murdering people, many times.”
In Douma and Kafr Batna, I spoke with civilians who told me they saw Jaysh al-Islam extremists wearing White Helmets uniforms, and White Helmets working with Jaysh al-Islam. Another eastern Ghouta resident, Marwan Qreisheh, said the early White Helmets members who came to Ghouta weren’t Syrian, didn’t speak Arabic, and used their money to attract “volunteers”.
He spoke of them staging rescue scenes: “They’d start filming and claiming that SAA hit this area, it was in front of our eyes, and we knew it was all staged, but we didn’t dare to stand against them because they would kill us, they would empty their gun in you immediately.”
It was the White Helmets who released (WARNING: EXTREMELY GRAPHIC) videos and photos alleging a chemical attack in Douma in April 2018. Yet, no civilian among the many I met in Douma believed there had been a chemical attack and medical staff didn’t see patients exposed to a chemical agent. More recently, the OPCW ruled out the use of a nerve agent used in Douma, finding only traces of “chlorinated organic chemicals”.
So, who and what killed the women and children shown in the White Helmets-distributed video from Douma? Did the White Helmets take part in their murder, or merely film their bodies (some arranged) after the fact?
Corporate media has diligently avoided asking a single honest question of the propaganda group they laud, and has for years attacked those of us who do ask questions and take testimonies of Syrian civilians on this matter.
Canada has been assisting the White Helmets for some years now, under the pretext of aiding humanitarians. While the full extent of Canadian financial support to the White Helmets has yet to be revealed, at least Can$7.5 million (US$5.7mn) was given to the group, helping with “the development and expansion of early warning air raid systems.”
Following the Israeli evacuation of White Helmets and their families from southern Syria, Global Affairs Canada released a statement by Minister of Foreign Affairs, Chrystia Freeland, on the “courageous volunteers”, regurgitating the White Helmets “save the innocent and the wounded” unsubstantiated claim.
Unsubstantiated because, in spite of the fancy videos, neither the White Helmets nor its UK backers can provide a list of the supposed over 115,000 civilians rescued.
While the media has lauded Canada’s role in the evacuation of the White Helmets members, it’s worth noting the person, Robin Wettlaufer, behind this evacuation effort. Wettlaufer met with White Helmet leader Raed Saleh (once denied entry to the US due to his potential ties to extremists, according to Mark Toner) in late June, as the Syrian army was regaining territory in Daraa governorate.
In fact, she is the Special Representative to the Syrian Opposition, something noted in a December 2016 Global Affairs Canada video featuring Wettlaufer.
Given that Wettlaufer is thus Canada’s Representative to extremists in Syria, her key role in instigating the evacuation of the White Helmets is hardly surprising, let alone praise-worthy. But it should be worrying to Canadians. Did Canadians get to vote on whether or not to bring potential terrorists or supporters of terrorists to Canada? No. No vote in the Parliament, no public discussion. Will Canadians get a say in where these potentially dangerous men will be settled? No sign of that so far, and indeed highly unlikely.
Why did the Canadian government refuse the entry of 100 injured Palestinian children from Gaza in 2014, a truly humanitarian effort, and yet will fast-track the entry of potentially dangerous men with potential ties to terrorists?
As for the claims of danger to the White Helmets in southern Syria, their comrades in eastern Aleppo and in eastern Ghouta were safely transported out of those areas, along with their families and with extremists who refused to take amnesty, while Aleppo and eastern Ghouta had peace restored. The White Helmets are potential security threats to citizens in the Western nations planning on hosting them.
As citizens privy to all this information and all the questions on the White Helmets, we must demand our governments reverse this plan, or at least provide us with confirmation that the immigrants in question have been fully investigated and have not been involved in terrorist activities in Syria in any way.
Did you know that there was a shocking study published in the Public Library of Science Journal, that found“up to 72%” of scientists admitted their colleagues were engaged in “questionable research practices,” and that just over 14% of them were engaged in outright “falsification”?
If that’s not bad enough, between 1977 and 1990 the FDA found scientific flaws in 10–20% of all the studies they audited.
But it gets even worse; scientists at the Thousand Oaks biotech firm Amgen, set out to double-check the results of 53 landmark published studies in their fields of cancer research and blood biology. What they found was shocking; only 6 of the 53 studies could be proven valid. That means almost 90% were flawed, yet passed off to the public as fact. 
In other words, there’s a lot of scientific bullshit floating around my friends.
This becomes especially concerning when we consider how “science” seems to have replaced organized religion as the new authority that should blindly be obeyed in many ways. People speak of it as if it is infallible, and anyone who questions the high priests of science are generally attacked, degraded, and dismissed as modern day heretics.
But science, just like any religion, is not a god that only speaks unadulterated Truth. It is far from being infallible and is constantly in need of being updated, upgraded, challenged, revised, and changed, for the simple fact that science is subject to the narrow confines of mankind’s tiny flawed human perception; which is forever growing and expanding — and easily skewed by things like prejudice, pride, and corruption.
In and of itself, science is obviously inanimate and can do neither good nor bad because it has no mind of its own. It is not a person, so we need to stop talking about science like it is a super hero. It is simply a vehicle that requires a driver, and the destination obviously differs from one driver to the next.
While some may have the earnest pursuit of objective Truth in mind, most can be corrupted by the pursuit of money (such as Iowa State University professor Dong-Pyou Han who is now sitting in jail for his AIDS vaccine fraud), the want of fame, or simply personal prejudice and egotistical pride. And to help remind people why they should not blindly trust “science” — or any other body of purported knowledge for that matter — I decided to write this short article on how scientific bullshit has been used throughout history to manipulate our perceptions and beliefs.
More than half a century ago, big tobacco used science as a weapon to convince the naive and gullible about the safety of their cigarettes.
Notice the key phrase, “Scientific Evidence”/Image credit: Adpast.com
A number of different medical organizations and journals, including the New England Journal of Medicine and the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), were indeed on the payroll of Big Tobacco and helped to promote their agenda through the promotion of flawed “science”.
Image credit: Tobacco Exhibits
Notice the key persuading phrase in the above advertisement; “…the final results, published in authoritative medical journals, proved conclusively that when smokers changed to Philip Morris, every case of irritation cleared completely or definitely improved.”
Similarly, the sugar industry hired a group of Harvard scientists to hide the link between sugar and heart disease in the 1960s, and the International Sugar Research Foundation (ISRF) suppressed a study that showed sugar could potentially increase the risk of bladder cancer.
This is something we all need to understand my friends; our global society is run as a business, not as a non profit organization that values human life. And this means that any line of profession can easily be corrupted by money. Unfortunately our problems are systemic and have their roots in this painfully flawed paradigm.
In more recent history, the Bush Administration got caught manipulating science to conform to their agenda. Big oil has likewise bribed scientists to parrot their narrative. Similarly, biotech giant Monsanto and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have also been caught engaging in this unethical practice together. This is not the first time Monsanto has been caught acting in this manner either. In Canada, a group of scientists testified that the GMO giant offered them a bribe of $1-2 million, and in Indonesia they were fined for engaging in bribery of a government official as well. Another biotech giant, Syngenta, hired scientists to discredit professor Tyrone Hayes, who conducted research that found out their herbicide Atrazine posed health risks to the population. Merck was taken to court by two scientists that claimed the Big Pharma giant manipulated tests concerning their mumps vaccine’s efficacy.
Coca Cola was also caught paying scientists (to the tune of $132.8 million) to downplay the severity of consuming their sugary drinks, and other unhealthy products. In fact, corporations do this all the time. A perfect example, is a study conducted by the University of Colorado that claimed that diet soda was better at promoting healthy weight loss than water. Unsurprisingly, this study was funded by the soda industry.
Another study claimed that children who ate candy weigh less than children who don’t, and are less likely to be obese. This, unsurprisingly again, was funded by a trade association representing candy giants Butterfingers, Hershey and Skittles.
Today, a number of questionable practices in the name of science continue. Sadly, the manipulation (or incompetence) of science is something that most likely will never be truly eliminated from society because it is rooted in human fallibility and corruption. This is not to say that the concept of science does not serve an important purpose, because it certainly does; I personally use scientific methods and principles daily in my life, and even relied on scientific research to highlight corruption within the scientific community in this blog. But this was written specifically to remind us all that “science” can be used to deceive us — has been used to deceive us — and should always be questioned as a result. Scientists obviously need money to conduct their research, and corporations who place material profit above human life have plenty of it. The hand that gives usually controls the hand that takes.
Until we design a system that promotes unadulterated education, more than it does propaganda and ignorance; and rewards integrity more than the willingness to do anything for “money,” this type of pathetic human behavior will persist for obvious reasons.
ALWAYS QUESTION EVERYTHING.
1] Daniele Fanelli, Public Library of Science Journal, How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data, May 29, 2009
2] J. Leslie Glick, Scientific data audit—A key management tool, Pages 153-168 | Published online: 11 Jun 2008
3] C. Glenn Begley & Lee M. Ellis, Nature 483, 531–533, Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research, 29 March 2012
All my work is open source and I encourage it to be reproduced. I only ask that you give me credit, and include my social media profiles as listed in the EXACT FORMAT above, in an effort to help me build a formidable following of people truly intent on learning and creating positive change. If you are not willing to do that, you are NOT permitted to use my work.