A torrent of “foiled” terror plots have recently undulated headlines across the Western World. In Rochester New York, the FBI netted a man they claimed was plotting a shooting spree targeting US service members. In Australia, over 800 security agents swooped in on 15 ISIS suspects whom the Australian government claimed were plotting to randomly behead a member of the public. In the UK, 4 suspects allegedly linked to ISIS were arrested before carrying out a plot Scotland Yards claims was aimed at the Queen of England herself.
According to Western security agencies, in addition to ISIS’ regional campaign of brutality stretching from Lebanon, across Syria, and into Iraq, it is also working ceaselessly to carry out attacks against targets within the US, across Europe, and even in the Pacific.
US Policymakers Claim ISIS is Neither a Threat Nor Necessary to Defeat
Considering the hysteria generated by ISIS’ alleged global exploits, it should then be infinitely curious to readers who happen across US policymakers claiming that ISIS may pose a threat, but constitutes by far a lesser threat than Iran or Syria – the two principle nations leading the real fight against ISIS and its international sponsors. Furthermore, US policymakers claim there is no urgency to defeat ISIS, and it should instead be “contained.” Of course, this “containment” will be within states targeted by US-backed regime change – serving as a convenient agent of destruction, destabilization, and perhaps even regime change itself.
More troubling still, such policymakers hail from the US-based Brookings Institution, a prominent corporate-financier funded policy think-tank that has helped direct American foreign policy for decades. Brookings “Federal Executive Fellow” Robert Hein, a career US Navy officer, has presented analysis under an article titled, “The Big Questions on ISIS.” After diminishing the threat ISIS actually poses to the US and suggesting that the battle against the terrorist organization will be perpetual – without qualification he claims:
There are other hard questions for even bigger threats in the Middle East, such as how to ensure a nuclear free Iran and how to deal with the Assad regime in Syria. For ISIS, though, we may have it right.
It would have been interesting if Hein did qualify that final statement – explaining how an extraterritorial terrorist army armed and funded by some of the largest, most influential nation-states on Earth, currently ravaging three nations while allegedly plotting against the rest of the planet is somehow a lesser threat than Iran and Syria – both of which have not threatened the United States, and in fact, according to the Brookings Institution itself, have expressed a specific desire to avoid a confrontation with the West. …
There could hardly be a more stark expression of the eugenics ideology than declaring unhappy children to be sick by definition. Clearly there’s a lot of brainwashing and bribery going on in our medical schools.
Lawmakers are considering a bill that would shut off the water spigot to the massive data center operated by the National Security Agency in Bluffdale, Utah.
The legislation, proposed by Utah lawmaker Marc Roberts, is due to go to the floor of the Utah House of Representatives early next year, but it was debated in a Public Utilities and Technology Interim Committee meeting on Wednesday. The bill, H.B. 161, directs municipalities like Bluffdale to “refuse support to any federal agency which collects electronic data within this state.”
The NSA brought its Bluffdale data center online about a year ago, taking advantage Utah’s cheap power and a cut-rate deal for millions of gallons of local water, used to cool the 1-million-square-foot building’s servers. Roberts’ bill, however, would prohibit the NSA from negotiating new water deals when its current Bluffdale agreement runs out in 2021. …
The modern selection criteria for genetic fitness under our decades long eugenics regime are socioeconomic. Education, wealth and income have displaced race and ethnicity in large part because they are far easier to force on a population than race-specific roundups in the middle of the night. Synthetic economic depressions and covert adulteration of food with slow-acting poisons exploit differences in income and education, respectively. You can’t easily change your income bracket, but blind belief in medical and governmental authorities about food and health in this day and age is a prescription for early death without healthy offspring which can be easily avoided simply by educating yourself about commonsensical things like what food is and isn’t.
There’s a reason that food tastes and smells good and toxins taste and smell bad: these sensory reactions are the fruit of zillions of years of evolutionary adaptation, a natural intelligence that allows you to tell the two apart. It’s a safe bet that deliberately deceiving your body with chemicals which are designed to mimic the look, smell or taste of food without providing the corresponding nutrition is probably a bad idea. In fact this is how poisons like nerve gas kill: it’s similar enough to a neurotransmitter that the body incorporates it into that metabolic pathway, but it doesn’t act as a neurotransmitter and so neural impulses are blocked. Conceptually, artificial flavors act in the same way insofar as they appear to be food but only at a superficial level.
A study at the Imperial College of London found that people who drink a single 12-ounce soda a day increased their risk of type-2 diabetes by 18 percent – compared to those who avoided soda.
A study from Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston found that women who drink one soda per day double their risk of developing type-2 diabetes – compared to women who drink less than one soda per month.
“Unfortunately, many patients in my practice, and others seen in consultation, developed serious metabolic, neurologic and other complications that could be specifically attributed to using aspartame products. This was evidenced by the loss of diabetic control, the intensification of hypoglycemia, the occurrence of presumed ‘insulin reactions’ (including convulsions) that proved to be aspartame reactions, and the precipitation, aggravation or simulation of diabetic complications (especially impaired vision and neuropathy) while using these products… dramatic improvement of such features after avoiding aspartame, and the prompt predictable recurrence of these problems when the patient resumed aspartame products, knowingly or inadvertently.” – H.J.Roberts, M.D., F.A.C.P., F.C.C.P
“In view of all these indications that the cancer-causing potential of aspartame is a matter that had been established way beyond any reasonable doubt, one can ask: What is the reason for the apparent refusal by the FDA to invoke for this food additive the so-called Delaney Amendment to the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act? Is it not clear beyond any shadow of a doubt that aspartame has caused brain tumors or brain cancer in animals?” – Dr. Adrian Gross, former FDA toxicologist
“So in the case of diet drinks in aluminum cans, the very toxic brain aluminum fluoride compound co-exists with multiple toxins found in aspartame, thus creating the most powerful government-approved toxic soup imaginable. With the strong association between aluminum, excitotoxins, aluminum fluoride complexes and Alzheimer’s disease, it would be completely irresponsible to encourage people to consume this toxic mixture.” – Russell Blaylock, M.D.
Uninformed consumers, in an effort to reduce sugar intake and reduce the risk of diabetes, tend to think that artificial sweeteners offer some kind of ‘safe’ alternative to processed sugar. But, as we now know, the scientific evidence is abundantly clear – consuming artificial sweeteners actually increase the risk of obesity, diabetes plus many other health problems. ….
As it is here in the united states. Is the picture getting clearer?
The security services are facing questions over the cover-up of a Westminster paedophile ring as it emerged that files relating to official requests for media blackouts in the early 1980s were destroyed.
Two newspaper executives have told the Observer that their publications were issued with D-notices – warnings not to publish intelligence that might damage national security – when they sought to report on allegations of a powerful group of men engaging in child sex abuse in 1984. One executive said he had been accosted in his office by 15 uniformed and two non-uniformed police over a dossier on Westminster paedophiles passed to him by the former Labour cabinet minister Barbara Castle.
The other said that his newspaper had received a D-notice when a reporter sought to write about a police investigation into Elm Guest House, in southwest London, where a group of high-profile paedophiles was said to have operated and may have killed a child. Now it has emerged that these claims are impossible to verify or discount because the D-notice archives for that period “are not complete”. …
Theresa May, home secretary, this month told the Commons that an official review into whether there had been a cover-up of the Home Office’s handling of child-abuse allegations in the 1980s had returned a verdict of “not proven”. The review, by Peter Wanless, the chief executive of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, was prompted by the discovery that 114 Home Office files related to child abuse in the 1980s had gone missing.
On Saturday night the Labour MP for Rochdale, Simon Danczuk, whose book Smile for the Camera exposed the child sex abuse of the late Liberal MP Cyril Smith, said it was a matter of deep concern that D-notice correspondence had also disappeared, presumed destroyed. D-notices to media outlets are rare, with just five sent in 2009 and 10 in 2010, according to a freedom of information response from Air Vice-Marshal Andrew Vallance, secretary of the defence, press and broadcasting advisory committee, which oversees the system.
Danczuk said: “There are clearly questions to be answered as to why these documents were destroyed. They issue very few of them – where was the need to destroy correspondence? …
“Let me issue and control a nation’s money and I care not who writes the laws.” – Mayer Amschel Rothschild (1744-1812), founder of the House of Rothschild
Perhaps the single most important thing to know about power in the world today is that most nations do not have control over their own currencies. Instead privately owned, for-profit central banks – such as the Federal Reserve System in the US – create money out of nothing and then loan it at interest to their respective governments. This is an incredibly profitable scam, but that’s not the worst of it.
Not only do the central banks have the power to create money for free, they also have the power to set interest rates, to decide how much credit is issued, and to decide how much money is put into circulation. With this power central banks can – and do – orchestrate boom and bust cycles, enabling the super-wealthy owners of the banks to profit from investments during the booms, and buy up assets at bargain prices during the busts. And that still isn’t the whole story.
The most profitable of all central bank activities has been the financing of major wars, particularly the two World Wars. When nations are engaged in warfare, with their very survival at stake, the governments stretch their resources to the limit in the competition to prevail. The struggle to get more financing becomes as important as the competition on the battlefield. Moneylenders love a desperate borrower, and vast fortunes have been made by extending credit to both sides in conflicts: the longer a war continues, the more profit for the central bankers.
Centralised Wealth Leads to Centralised Power
“Some of the biggest men in the United States are afraid of something. They know there is a power somewhere, so organised, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.” – Woodrow Wilson (1856-1924), 28th President of the United States
Our political systems, based on parties competing to get elected, are inherently prone to corruption. Just as the struggle for financing is important in military campaigns, so is it important in political campaigns. Wealthy donors are able to get special treatment, when it comes to legislation and regulation that affects their business interests. This kind of corruption, however, is only the tip of the iceberg.
A more effective way that wealth translates into power is by the placing of agents – individuals loyal to wealthy backers – into positions of influence and power. For example, when the Rothschilds and Rockefellers joined forces to establish the Federal Reserve, they recruited an unknown professor, Woodrow Wilson, promised to make him President, and secured a return promise that he would sign the Federal Reserve bill when the time came. With their influence over party bosses, their control of newspapers, and unlimited funding, they were able to get Wilson elected. He may have later regretted his bargain with the devil, as suggested in the above quotation.
A more modern example is Obama, who in 2009 was tasked by Henry Kissinger (himself a key agent of the Rockefellers) to create a “new world order.” Like Wilson, Obama appeared out of political nowhere, was rocketed into the Presidency, and proved his loyalty in office. In Obama’s case, this involved promptly turning the White House over to central-banker agents from Wall Street – Timothy Geithner and his buddies. They make the policy; Obama makes the speeches.
This kind of thing has been going on for centuries, first in Europe and later in the US. What began as the placement of a few key agents has evolved over time. What we have now is an international web of control, with key agents placed in political parties, governments and their agencies, the media, corporate boards, intelligence services, and the military. At the centre of the web are the central banking dynasties – the Gods of Money – who remain mostly behind the scenes, pulling the strands of real power.
The Engineering of Transformation
“In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.” – Franklin D. Roosevelt (1882-1945), 32nd President of the United States
Have you ever daydreamed about what you would do if you had wealth and power? For some the answer might be a life of leisure and indulgence, but for many their thoughts would turn to changing the world, making the world ‘better’. An iconic example would be Bill Gates, who would rather use the bulk of his fortune for making changes in the world – primarily to do with population reduction – than devote it to amassing still more wealth.
The Gods of Money are like that. They’ve had wealth and power, in great excess, for generations, and unlike you and me, they can do more than daydream. The business they have been engaged in for the past couple of centuries has not been to accumulate more wealth, rather it has been to transform the world into their own desired kind of private fiefdom. They have been accomplishing this in a series of transformational projects on a global scale. What is referred to as ‘The New World Order’ is simply the latest in this series of projects.
The Great America Project: An Ideal Base of Operations
When the American colonies achieved independence from Britain, a new nation was created that clearly had the potential to become a truly great world power. A huge continent, bigger than all of Europe, and with immense resources, was available to be conquered and exploited. If the Rothschilds could gain control of America, they could use it as a base of operations to consolidate their power globally. ….
This first part of this article was inspired by, and derives directly from, Joe Quixote’s excellent Infowars piece, “Ferguson—Race-baiting for Political Power and Profit.”
Start with this. Michael Brown. Trayvon Martin.
Two deaths. Two killings.
With remarkable speed, as soon as the deaths occurred, they became national issues.
Incidents of police brutality across America are an ongoing fact of life, including brutality against young black men, but these two deaths were selected for special quick attention.
No doubt about it.
Media blew up. The Justice Dept. and the White House moved in right away.
There was no way to walk back those events and diminish their effect on the public.
The waves of emotion grew higher.
Black vs. white.
However, the curious thing was, in both cases the initial reports morphed into…doubt.
You can say the doubts were justified, or you can say they weren’t. Regardless, the media raised them. Police raised them.
Clear-cut cases of murder became self-defense. Maybe. Not sure. Could be.
Which produced even greater turmoil, accusation, and black-white conflict.
And set the stage for an “upcoming evidentiary finding.” A vital element of the covert op.
That put everyone on edge.
What would be the outcome?
Who would lie and who would tell the truth?
How much violence would break out once the result was announced?
If the Martin and Brown cases had been “natural events,” there was every chance the facts in the cases would be clear from the outset. Yes, it was unjustified murder. Or no, it was justified self-defense. And then the whole situation and its attendant emotions would have diminished.
But that’s not what occurred.
Media and the executive arm of government “just happened” to fasten on two cases where the facts were murky. Or could be presented as murky.
Exacerbating the tension.
“The race hustlers choose fact patterns like this because they know each side feels justified in its interpretation of events. Each side wonders how the other could be so blind. It must be because they don’t care, or they’re evil. Michael Brown’s death presents a perfect fact pattern to sow distrust and hatred. Never let a good crisis go to waste.” (Joe Quixote, Infowars, “Ferguson—Race-baiting for Political Power and Profit.”)
In recent years, who is the White House/Justice Dept. private citizen on the scene in these cases? Who is the prime number-one stirrer of the pot?
Many things can be said about the man, but one thing is: he has worked for the FBI. You know, the agency that has run many operations against black leaders—and thereby fomented black-white conflict. Example: Martin Luther King.
Read what the FBI secretly had to say about a particularly “dangerous” Black Panther, Larry Pinkney and why they ACTUALLY targeted him:
“[Black Panther Larry] Pinkney is potentially dangerous due to his demonstrated ability to unify black and white. [Get it?] His associates are Negro, White and Chinese. Special attention is being given to neutralizing him. The areas of sex and drugs appear to be the most effective ones to utilize. His habits in these areas are unknown, but are being monitored with this objective.” (Infowars, Nov. 21, 2014. “Special Report: FBI Attacks Black Panther For NOT Being Racist!” This information, from the FBI’s file on Pinkney, was obtained through William Mandel’s FOIA request.)
Al Sharpton went to work undercover for the FBI, after walking into a videotaped cocaine sting, where boxing promoter Don King was present. HBO played the tape years ago on its program Real Sports.
The usual account, moving forward, was: Sharpton was assigned a confidential informant number, CI-7, and spied on members of the Genovese crime family for his FBI handlers.
However, there is another aspect of the story. It illustrates that Sharpton has had a penchant for playing ball with all sorts of backers—even when their motives are anti-black.
And why might that be important? Because the current standoff in Ferguson isn’t being staged to benefit black people. …