George Soros is a major shareholder of netflix, which is reflected in its monotonously alienating, degrading and depressing selection of films. “Shock and Awe” (2018) is not available there despite major casting and directing, an excellent script and being based on the true story of how the vast majority of the american media deliberately and consciously lied us into attacking Iraq despite having access to the facts at all times. Heck, even little me knew about the WMD lie before the start of the “war”. You have to dig if you don’t want to be treated like a disposable piggy bank for the aristocrats. That’s why the satanists are trying to shut down the free internet.
Kerth found this at the local library. YMMV.
The following gives some idea of the reason for soros’s investment in netflix. It seems to have little to do with profit seeking. It has to do with cultural engineering, monopoly and social control.
Netflixonomics: Cash-Burning Machine Blows Billions On Content In ‘Winner-Takes-Most’ Race
When Netflix published its third-quarter earnings last October, Ted Sarandos, Netflix’s chief content officer forecasted it would spend roughly $7 billion to $8 billion on original content in 2018.
The Economist, quoting a recent Goldman Sachs equity assessment, states that Netflix could spend $12 billion to $13 billion on original content, which is more than any studio or television network spends on films or shows that are not sports related.…
As Netflix descends deeper into debt to fuel subscriber growth, the company is emblematic of everything wrong with the current debt-fueled Central Bank bubble economy. This is not sustainable…
The Iraq-Niger Uranium Controversy and the Outing of CIA Agent Valerie Plame Wilson
Doubts, dissent stripped from public version of Iraq assessment
The Downing Street Memo
US Tried and Failed to Plant WMD’s in Iraq
Saddam Started Out as CIA Assassin
In the future all such references to pleasure, bonding, joy and (most importantly) autonomous social organization will be pixelated out of existence in deference to the almighty state-god, who looks more like a goat than a man or woman anyway.
Women should feel lucky that the state hasn’t yet resorted to the mass editing of their actual physical anatomy as it has done to baby boys for decades, with total impunity. Don’t assume it’s not on the back burner.
Absolutely every major policy of the satanic establishment, from education to pediatrics to infotainment to psychiatry, is about mass social control, and that means pruning of the body and mind.
When I first saw this story, I thought for sure it was a satire piece. But it isn’t. The Healthline.com website has literally announced that the term “vagina” will no longer be used in their reporting because it might offend people who were born as biological men but now “identify” as women but don’t have a female vagina. Instead, Healthline.com will resort to the term “front hole,” which they believe is somehow more inclusive and respectful.
It doesn’t sound more respectful. “Hey, how’s your front hole?” But this is the new delusion of the Left’s language police: Now everything that has a gender-specific meaning must be utterly destroyed and replaced by crude-sounding gobbledygook in order to avoid offending people who are confused about their own gender or sexuality.
Lest you think I’m making this up, check their statement for yourself. , Healthline.com says:
…[W]e’ll refer to the vagina as the “front hole” instead of solely using the medical term “vagina.” This is gender-inclusive language that’s considerate of the fact that some trans people don’t identify with the labels the medical community attaches to their genitals.…
Hillary Clinton’s closest confidante and aide, Huma Abedin, edited a radical Muslim journal that blames women for rape, opposes gay rights, marginalizes African-American single moms, and claimed the United States was responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.
When she was hired as an intern for Hillary Clinton in 1996, Huma was the assistant editor of a pro-sharia Saudi rag called the “Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs,” where she worked under her mom, Saleha Abedin, the NY Post reported.
Saleha Abedin, a proponent of female genital mutilation, was then editor-in-chief of the journal — a position she retains to this day. The journal was founded in 1978 by Huma’s late father, Syed Abedin….
The USDA has inexplicably decided not to regulate the Crispr gene editing technique for food, and a slew of young companies are working around the clock to take advantage of this business-friendly approach and vie for dominance in the gene-edited crop sphere.
Gene editing technology is used to target certain genes within an organism, disrupting the ones that are associated with undesirable characteristics or changing them in a positive way. It might sound a little better than traditional genetic modification, which involves the transference of a gene from one type of organism to another, but the truth remains that we simply don’t know what the long-term effects of this approach and their impact on human health could be.
Nevertheless, its relative newness means the products it yields haven’t yet garnered unflattering nicknames like “Frankenfood” – and more importantly, the USDA’s lack of regulation means it’s a lot faster and cheaper to bring its products to market. (See USDAwatch.com for more coverage.)
The traditional genetically modified crop could cost $150 million to develop and market; that cost can be slashed by up to 90 percent with gene editing. And while genetically modified crops generally take 12 years to move from development to commercialization in the U.S., a gene-edited crop can accomplish the same in just five years.
U.S., EU regulators view Crispr gene editing differently
The USDA has said that none of the 23 inquiries it has fielded about whether such crops need regulation have met its criteria for oversight, with USDA Secretary Sonny Perdue claiming that the process introduces characteristics it considers “indistinguishable” from the type created in traditional plant breeding.
In contrast, the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled last month that gene editing is subject to the same regulations as genetically modified crops, making it illegal for commercial crops to be grown and limiting its use to research….
Given the state of the economy and the expense of eating, this should fit right in with any thrifty family’s budget.
Uhm, where exactly is the “academic” input into all this? Do we even have universities any more? Has the money corrupted every last corner of human endeavor? Are scientists now like doctors, incapable of embarrassment?
In a stunning vote of “no confidence” in the US monopoly over global payment infrastructure, Germany’s foreign minister Heiko Maas called for the creation of a new payments system independent of the US that would allow Brussels to be independent in its financial operations from Washington and as a means of rescuing the nuclear deal between Iran and the west.
Writing in the German daily Handelsblatt, Maas said “Europe should not allow the US to act over our heads and at our expense. For that reason it’s essential that we strengthen European autonomy by establishing payment channels that are independent of the US, creating a European Monetary Fund and building up an independent Swift system,” he wrote, cited by the FT.
Maas said it was vital for Europe to stick with the Iran deal. “Every day the agreement continues to exist is better than the highly explosive crisis that otherwise threatens the Middle East,” he said, with the unspoken message was even clearer: Europe no longer wants to be a vassal state to US monopoly over global payments, and will now aggressively pursue its own “Swift” network that is not subservient to Washington’s every whim….
I would be surprised if they didn’t just join russia’s and china’s effort, especially given europe’s russian natural gas imports and the nord stream II project which threatens the stability of the US-imposed ukrainian fascist government.
Absolutely everything the satanic neocons touch turns into a catastrophe for the USA and for world peace. Isn’t it time to deport them back to wherever they call home? Or just send them to guantanamo.
Russia’s Nord Stream II Pipeline Is Ukraine’s Worst Nightmare
Who is in charge of destroying borders and separate nations?
One group has been virtually forgotten. Its influence is enormous. It has existed since 1973.
It’s called the Trilateral Commission (TC).
Keep in mind that the original stated goal of the TC was to create “a new international economic order.”
In the run-up to his inauguration after the 2008 presidential election, Obama was tutored by the co-founder of the Trilateral Commission, Zbigniew Brzezinski.
In 1969, four years before birthing the TC with David Rockefeller, Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote: “[The] nation state as a fundamental unit of man’s organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force. International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation state.”
Goodbye, separate nations.
Any doubt on the question of TC goals is answered by David Rockefeller himself, the founder of the TC, in his Memoirs (2003): “Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure—one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”
Patrick Wood, author of Trilaterals Over Washington, points out there are only 87 members of the Trilateral Commission who live in America. Obama appointed eleven of them to posts in his administration….
In October 2017 United States African Command confirmed that three Green Berets had been killed and two more had been wounded when their patrol was ambushed in Niger. Reaction to this news from the non-Corbett Report audience was: “What? There’s a United States African Command?” followed swiftly by “What are Green Berets doing conducting patrols in Niger, anyway?”
First things first: As my long-time viewers will be aware, there is indeed a United States African Command (AFRICOM). It was established in 2007 and has been the spearhead of Uncle Sam’s attempts to gain a military foothold on the African continent. My viewers will likewise be aware that the whole Kony 2012 psyop was similarly used as a cynical ploy to increase American military intervention in Africa.
But the extent of US Special Forces penetration in Africa (also reported on in these pages in recent years) is a reality that is still only gradually being revealed to the public. A recent congressional review of the incident in Niger has again cast a spotlight on the use of Special Forces around the world, with the Pentagon now floating the possibility that they will cut back on commandos in Africa to concentrate on the “real” enemies: Russia and China.
There are two things wrong with this narrative. First, as a recent investigation by Nick Turse points out, the number of US Special Forces deployed in Africa has not budged at all so far. In fact, the use of such forces has dramatically expanded over the past decade. Back in 2006, just 70 Special Operations troops were operating in Africa, equivalent to 1% of Uncle Sam’s global deployment of Special Forces. By the time of the Niger operation last year, that number had swelled to nearly 1,400, or 16.5% of all US commandos deployed overseas. So far, despite rhetoric about reducing African deployments, that number has not changed.
But perhaps more importantly, the Pentagon’s assertion that they will cut back on Special Forces in Africa to concentrate on enemies like China is a misdirection. Even a cursory review of the evidence shows that one important reason the US is deploying so many commandos to Africa in the first place is precisely to counter Chinese interests on the continent.
Oh, yes, of course these forces’ official mission (to the extent that this is ever acknowledged) is to conduct (as the Old Grey Presstitute puts it) “shadow wars against terrorists in Yemen, Libya, Somalia and other hot spots.” But consider this: US participation in the NATO intervention in Libya in 2011 was motivated by a number of factors, one of them being a desire to block Chinese oil companies from continuing their development of the country’s resources.
The Libyan case is but one example of a much broader phenomenon. The truth is that there is a concerted battle taking place between the US and China right now for the jewel of Africa’s resources. But this battle is taking place almost entirely in the shadows, as the central role of Special Forces operators might suggest….