What Chemtrails Are Doing To Your Brain - Neurosurgeon Dr. Russell Blayl...

This is a crucial radio show on the most important topic of our time.  In my opinion, knowledge is the key to prevention and chelation therapy is the key to treatment.

North Korea Exposes the Western Propaganda (Full Documentary)

Taking it easy tonight with a little light viewing.  Obviously this video itself is a piece of propaganda, but in my opinion it's a more accurate description of what's going on than you'll ever get from the mainstream corporate media.

One thing very interesting about it is how many times it mentions that Americans are being poisoned intentionally by the corporations we are taught to worship and depend upon.  Interesting stuff...

New studies prove that "normal" people are crazy, and that "conspiracy theorists" like myself are sane and now a majority

When did thinking critically and independently suddenly become a sign of mental illness?  When the CIA decided to brainwash you into believing such nonsense, that's when.  Check this out!

New studies: ‘Conspiracy theorists’ sane; government dupes crazy, hostile

By Dr. Kevin Barrett, Reblogged from PressTV

Recent studies by psychologists and social scientists in the US and UK suggest that contrary to mainstream media stereotypes, those labeled “conspiracy theorists” appear to be saner than those who accept the official versions of contested events.

The most recent study was published on July 8th by psychologists Michael J. Wood and Karen M. Douglas of the University of Kent (UK). Entitled “What about Building 7? A social psychological study of online discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories,” the study compared “conspiracist” (pro-conspiracy theory) and “conventionalist” (anti-conspiracy) comments at news websites. 

The authors were surprised to discover that it is now more conventional to leave so-called conspiracist comments than conventionalist ones: “Of the 2174 comments collected, 1459 were coded as conspiracist and 715 as conventionalist.” In other words, among people who comment on news articles, those who disbelieve government accounts of such events as 9/11 and the JFK assassination outnumber believers by more than two to one. That means it is the pro-conspiracy commenters who are expressing what is now the conventional wisdom, while the anti-conspiracy commenters are becoming a small, beleaguered minority. 

Perhaps because their supposedly mainstream views no longer represent the majority, the anti-conspiracy commenters often displayed anger and hostility: “The research… showed that people who favoured the official account of 9/11 were generally more hostile when trying to persuade their rivals.” 

Additionally, it turned out that the anti-conspiracy people were not only hostile, but fanatically attached to their own conspiracy theories as well. According to them, their own theory of 9/11 - a conspiracy theory holding that 19 Arabs, none of whom could fly planes with any proficiency, pulled off the crime of the century under the direction of a guy on dialysis in a cave in Afghanistan - was indisputably true. The so-called conspiracists, on the other hand, did not pretend to have a theory that completely explained the events of 9/11: “For people who think 9/11 was a government conspiracy, the focus is not on promoting a specific rival theory, but in trying to debunk the official account.” 

In short, the new study by Wood and Douglas suggests that the negative stereotype of the conspiracy theorist - a hostile fanatic wedded to the truth of his own fringe theory - accurately describes the people who defend the official account of 9/11, not those who dispute it. 

Additionally, the study found that so-called conspiracists discuss historical context (such as viewing the JFK assassination as a precedent for 9/11) more than anti-conspiracists. It also found that the so-called conspiracists to not like to be called “conspiracists” or “conspiracy theorists.” 

Both of these findings are amplified in the new book Conspiracy Theory in America by political scientist Lance deHaven-Smith, published earlier this year by the University of Texas Press. Professor deHaven-Smith explains why people don’t like being called “conspiracy theorists”: The term was invented and put into wide circulation by the CIA to smear and defame people questioning the JFK assassination! “The CIA’s campaign to popularize the term ‘conspiracy theory’ and make conspiracy belief a target of ridicule and hostility must be credited, unfortunately, with being one of the most successful propaganda initiatives of all time.” 

In other words, people who use the terms “conspiracy theory” and “conspiracy theorist” as an insult are doing so as the result of a well-documented, undisputed, historically-real conspiracy by the CIA to cover up the JFK assassination. That campaign, by the way, was completely illegal, and the CIA officers involved were criminals; the CIA is barred from all domestic activities, yet routinely breaks the law to conduct domestic operations ranging from propaganda to assassinations. 

DeHaven-Smith also explains why those who doubt official explanations of high crimes are eager to discuss historical context. He points out that a very large number of conspiracy claims have turned out to be true, and that there appear to be strong relationships between many as-yet-unsolved “state crimes against democracy.” An obvious example is the link between the JFK and RFK assassinations, which both paved the way for presidencies that continued the Vietnam War. According to DeHaven-Smith, we should always discuss the “Kennedy assassinations” in the plural, because the two killings appear to have been aspects of the same larger crime. 

Psychologist Laurie Manwell of the University of Guelph agrees that the CIA-designed “conspiracy theory” label impedes cognitive function. She points out, in an article published inAmerican Behavioral Scientist (2010), that anti-conspiracy people are unable to think clearly about such apparent state crimes against democracy as 9/11 due to their inability to process information that conflicts with pre-existing belief. 

In the same issue of ABS, University of Buffalo professor Steven Hoffman adds that anti-conspiracy people are typically prey to strong “confirmation bias” - that is, they seek out information that confirms their pre-existing beliefs, while using irrational mechanisms (such as the “conspiracy theory” label) to avoid conflicting information. 

The extreme irrationality of those who attack “conspiracy theories” has been ably exposed by Communications professors Ginna Husting and Martin Orr of Boise State University. In a 2007 peer-reviewed article entitled “Dangerous Machinery: ‘Conspiracy Theorist’ as a Transpersonal Strategy of Exclusion,” they wrote: 

“If I call you a conspiracy theorist, it matters little whether you have actually claimed that a conspiracy exists or whether you have simply raised an issue that I would rather avoid… By labeling you, I strategically exclude you from the sphere where public speech, debate, and conflict occur.”

But now, thanks to the internet, people who doubt official stories are no longer excluded from public conversation; the CIA’s 44-year-old campaign to stifle debate using the “conspiracy theory” smear is nearly worn-out. In academic studies, as in comments on news articles, pro-conspiracy voices are now more numerous - and more rational - than anti-conspiracy ones. 

No wonder the anti-conspiracy people are sounding more and more like a bunch of hostile, paranoid cranks. 

KB/HSNDr. Kevin Barrett, a Ph.D. Arabist-Islamologist, is one of America's best-known critics of the War on Terror. Dr. Barrett has appeared many times on Fox, CNN, PBS and other broadcast outlets, and has inspired feature stories and op-eds in the New York Times, the Christian Science Monitor, the Chicago Tribune, and other leading publications. Dr. Barrett has taught at colleges and universities in San Francisco, Paris, and Wisconsin, where he ran for Congress in 2008. He is the co-founder of the Muslim-Christian-Jewish Alliance, and author of the books Truth Jihad: My Epic Struggle Against the 9/11 Big Lie (2007) and Questioning the War on Terror: A Primer for Obama Voters (2009). His website is www.truthjihad.com. More articles by Dr. Kevin Barrett

The Forces Behind Carbon-Centric "Environmentalism"

by James F. Tracy

Reblogged from MemoryHoleBlog • Tags: environmentalism, public relations, social engineering

On June 25, 2013 President Obama laid out his long term agenda for reducing US industrial and consumer “greenhouse emissions.” On July 11th the Department of Energy warns that “climate change”-related events will be threatening traditional sources of energy production and causing more energy supply disruptions. All the while, the notion that unusual or extreme weather events are primarily due to an excess of atmospheric CO2 and the consequent “greenhouse effect” is arguably based much more on long term economic and political designs than sound science.

As a response to the urgent pleas accompanying the purportedly thorough and unbiased research from scientists comprising the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that seeks to link climate change to human and industrial activity, an array of programs are being proposed and implemented by fiat in both Europe and the US. Such programs will drastically change the standard of living of most every individual in the developed world. Indeed, since global temperatures do not readily correlate with the minute rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide, there has been a marked shift within the CO2 public relations machine from the “global warming” meme to the more amorphous and catchall term, “climate change.”

The real agenda behind this international agenda and promotion of its almost religious ideology is establishing the rationale for a massive regulatory and taxation system to reshape human behavior and lifestyle, in addition to carving out an entirely new area for technology outlays and financial speculation using carbon-related securities and derivatives.

Ostensibly a not-for-profit enterprise, preaching the climate change creed has also become a lucrative endeavor, with immense financial resources provided for its continued proselytization. Indeed, the climate-related tax-exempt 501C3 organizations constitute a multi-billion dollar public relations machine devoted to driving home one central theme: humans are to blame for every weather-related disaster graphically presented in every electronic media outlet. Such phony environmentalism involves vigorous efforts to transform public policy based on dubious science while ignoring genuine environmental threats.

While such 501C3s may be found encouraging donations from the general public, the scale of many such organizations’ annual revenue and assets suggests reliance of very deep-pocketed individuals and institutions with an eye toward selling government officials and the broader public on the notion that almost every aberrant weather event is the result of greenhouse emissions.

The following list of nonprofit organizations devoted to pushing the view of climate change and sustainability—by no means complete—has been gathered from their 990 tax forms for 2010. In that year such 501C3s brought in over 1.7 billion in revenue ($1,742,350,656), with the Nature Conservancy, led by former Goldman Sachs managing director Mark Tercek, accounting for over half that amount. Data in the fourth column demonstrates the extent of such entities’ public presence; some command greater journalistic attention while others operate with almost complete anonymity.

501C3 Name	2010 Income	Net Assets	Mentions in Major World News Publications, July 1 2012-June 30 2013 (LexisNexis)
Sierra Club	$97,757,678	$52,209,573	726
World Wildlife Fund	$267,993,426	$182,067,246	993
Friends of the Earth	$5,495,897	$3,407,984	1,831
United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change	NA	NA	697
United Nations Environmental Program	NA	NA	115
United Nations Foundation	$197,737,803	$231,213,165	101
Nature Conservancy Inc.	$997,037,663	$5,180,558,726	242
Greenpeace Inc.	$27,465,948	$824,056	2,879
Climate Works Foundation	$83,026,313	$215,248,816	1
World Resources Institute	$50,079,176	$59,901,847	125
Center for Biological Diversity	$7,181,472	$10,734,072	115
Defenders of Wildlife	$30,229,512	$23,839,354	35
International Institute for Environment and Development	$30,335,978	$5,121,919	1
Natural Resources Defense Council	$97,957,964	$197,413,060	484
National Council for Science and the Environment	$3,526,925	$562,386	8
Global Green USA	$4,633,587	$4,372,965	8
Pew Center on Global Climate Change	$6,424,365	$4,666,874	2
Institute for Sustainable Communities	$15,007,337	$6,207,761	0
Sustainable Markets Foundation	$4,347,579	$1,660,940	0
US Climate Action Network	$2,414,999	$1,067,116	1
350 Org	$3,013,995	$2,250,300	109
Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education	$2,362,495	$736,159	0
The Alliance for Climate Protection	$19,150,215	$12,052,979	5
Climate Solutions	$2,642,682	$907,901	29
Alliance for Climate Education	$2,749,291	$369,251	2
Climate Central Inc.	$3,273,478	-$808,414	49
Climate Group Inc.	$2,746,784	$465,685	0

For example, the Al Gore-funded Climate Project was first set up for “educational purposes,” principally to have the message of An Inconvenient Truth carried into US classrooms. Another organization, Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education, similarly carries out the less prominent work of promoting the green agenda within colleges and universities. Overall, such resources are utilized to emphasize the alleged dangers of greenhouse gas emissions to the very existence of civilization and life itself. The extent of such resources is comparable to what many transnational corporations spends on advertising annually.

While Obama and the array of well-funded environmental organizations campaign on the purported dangers of gaseous emissions, they are wholly silent on what are truly grave threats to the environment and humanity—namely the widescale contamination of the food supply from genetically modified organisms, the array of clandestine weather modification and geoengineering programs, the destruction of the Gulf of Mexico, and grave pollution of entire global regions from depleted uranium and Fukushima radiation that will last many lifetimes.

In light of these ongoing catastrophes and the powerful financial interests behind carbon-centric environmental advocacy, Obama’s posturing over anthropogenic climate change and environmentalists’ well-funded overtures may be seen for what they actually are—the visible components of a complex social engineering program far advanced in convincing the public that its return to a pre-feudal-like existence will not only be agreeable, but absolutely imperative for the greater good.

-JFT

Berkeley Researchers Prove That Wealth Kills

This PBS video illuminates the fact that rich people are less likely to show empathy (aka are bigger assholes) than poor people.  Now imagine the richest people on the planet -- the banksters -- and how greedy, arrogant, and psychotic many of them must be.  It's no wonder considering that they get to play god with the global money supply...

Calgary Flood 2013: Geoengineered Disaster (VIDEO)

The real terrorists are pretending to fight fake terrorists.
Please bear in mind that 9/11 was an inside job.
This conceals the terrorists' real intent, deflects blame,
and allows them to terrorize you more thoroughly.
Get it?

I encourage people to watch all the videos by WeatherWar101.  This YouTube channel does a great job explaining climate modification technology and the agenda dictating that these capabilities currently be used for more harm than good.

War is the most profitable endeavor within the existing system but its horrible for public relations.  If wars can be waged covertly --  with Mother Nature taking the blame -- they can be fought more profitably, perhaps indefinitely, and with minimal interference or protest.

When one realizes that the bankster-controlled economy thrives on wastefulness, environmental destruction, and human suffering the motivation to cause "natural" disasters instead of preventing them becomes crystal clear.  War makes the rich richer and the poor more exploitable if not non-existent, just as it is with Cancer and the existing medical establishment.  War is good for the economy just like Cancer is.  Both are bad for human beings and the planet though.

Remember that banks, corporations, governments, and people who have insider info on what the weather will do can make obscene profits in the stock market.  Also remember that the "smartest" people within the corrupted and counterproductive system believe the Earth is overpopulated and that decreasing human emissions is the most important environmental issue of our time.

Please bear in mind that weather and climate modification could
be used (rarely) to prevent storms, green deserts, and for the
benefit of all humanity.  Too bad it's more "profitable" to
destroy things and kill people, eh?!  Doesn't have to be.

Impoverishing and killing people is a great way to decrease emissions. weather warfare is a great way to covertly achieve that goal.

In my opinion, geoengineering and weather warfare are the most dire threat facing humanity at the moment.  Please watch this video and help spread information and awareness on this crucial topic.  Peace.

Please bear in mind that weather and climate modification could be used (rarely) to prevent storms, green deserts, and for the benefit of all humanity.  Too bad it's more "profitable" to destroy things and kill people, eh?!  It doesn't have to be that way though.

Rise up for sanity, humanity, prosperity, and the sake of all things dependent on weather and climate.

Here is my latest video on the topic of weather warfare.  It's not actually 17 minutes long.  The last 7 minutes are a song.  Thanks for watching, caring, and sharing.  Peace!