Wednesday, November 7, 2007

Remains of ten bodies at Ben Franklin's home

The Sunday Times |February 11, 1998

WORKMEN have dug up the remains of ten bodies hidden beneath the former London home of Benjamin Franklin, the founding father of American independence.

The remains of four adults and six children were discovered during the £1.9 million restoration of Franklin's home at 36 Craven Street, close to Trafalgar Square. Researchers believe that there could be more bodies buried beneath the basement kitchens.

Initial estimates are that the bones are about 200 years old and were buried at the time Franklin was living in the house, which was his home from 1757 to 1762, and from 1764 to 1775. Most of the bones show signs of having been dissected, sawn or cut. One skull has been drilled with several holes. Paul Knapman, the Westminster Coroner, said yesterday: "I cannot totally discount the possibility of a crime. There is still a possibility that I may have to hold an inquest."

The principal suspect in the mystery is William Hewson, like Franklin a Fellow of the Royal Society, and the husband of Polly Stevenson, the daughter of Franklin's landlady, Mary Stevenson.

In the early 1770s Dr Hewson was in partnership with William Hunter, who, with his brother John, was one of the founders of British surgery. Dr Hunter and Dr Hewson ran a school of anatomy in Soho, but after an argument Dr Hewson left to live in Franklin's house, where he is believed to have established a rival school and lecture theatre. Dr Knapman added yesterday: "It is most likely that these are anatomical specimens that Dr Hewson disposed of in his own house, but we are still not certain about the bones' exact age or origin."

Evangeline Hunter-Jones, deputy chairman of the Friends of Benjamin Franklin House, the charity concerned with restoring the property and opening it to the public, said: "The bones were quite deeply buried, probably to hide them because grave robbing was illegal. There could be more buried, and there probably are."

Brian Owen Smith has volunteered to lead researches on behalf of the friends. He said yesterday: "The discovery represents an important insight into very exciting years of medical history. Benjamin Franklin, through his support for Polly and Dr Hewson, socially and scientifically, was very much part of that."

To the suggestion that Franklin might have been a grave robber, or an accomplice to Dr Hewson, Hilaire Dubourcq, of the Friends of Benjamin Franklin House, responded: "It is possible that he has an alibi. It seems likely that he actually let Dr Hewson have use of the whole house for his school for a time, and went up the street to live with Mary Stevenson. He did not necessarily know what was happening below stairs in the house during his absence."

Dr Hewson fell victim to his own researches at an early age. He accidentally cut himself while dissecting a putrid body, contracted septicemia and died in 1774, aged 34.

Franklin, who wrote the opening words to the Declaration of Independence, continued to support the widowed Polly, and when he returned to Philadelphia he invited her there to live as his neighbour. Both her sons became eminent medical men, as have successive generations of Hewsons in America.

If the first Dr Hewson did obtain bodies for his experiments and demonstrations by robbing local graveyards, he risked the death penalty or deportation. He might have had the help of his students in secretly burying the remains beneath the four-storey house, where the dissections may have been performed.

It is hoped to reopen the house to the public at the end of the year. Regular visitors during Franklin's residency included Pitt the Elder (the Earl of Chatham), Edmund Burke, James Boswell, Adam Smith and Thomas Paine, the author of The Rights of Man.


Tuesday, November 6, 2007

"PROMISE OF BREAD, DELIVERY OF CIRCUS"

It's the politician's mantra, "If you can make an "X", you're my kind of guy." The "X" is quite interesting because it's a bit of a mockery on the illumined man, because they know you're not illumined. You're in the dark. You're the "profane," you see, and "X" was the symbol of the illumined man. It was also used for those who couldn't read and write, not so long ago really. Mark your "X" down, that was your sign. That was your oath when you put a little "X" down there. You're giving authority to someone and you'll be in obeyance to that authority. That's what soldiers did in Europe in the last century. In the early last century and the centuries before, they marked their "X" because they couldn't read or write and they were now under the total command of their superiors. They've given their rights away as a member of the public to be a private. You're owned privately. There's another type of law you can see behind all of this, which you can figure out if you put the time to it, but it's all to do with contracts and contractual law. It's far better to have people believe that they have a say in things. They found out this 200-odd years ago in Britain. It's much easier if you give them what they think is democracy and representation, that way they don't revolt every four or five years. You just kick the last lot out and then you scratch your heads and you wonder why there seems to be an agenda continuing here with the next bunch that's in. Thomas Jefferson mentioned this in his own writings. He said, "When you see a particular agenda being carried forth through different houses (meaning different elected groups one after the other) and you see a particular agenda continuing, then you're under a form of control." Totalitarian type tyranny and we can certainly see it. It's not hard to see if anybody really wants to open the books. It's not conspiracy because those who have been the visible leaders to this, the front-men, have been well documented in the past. We find that in the writings of John Dee going back to England in the 1500's, the British Empire -- "Brytish Empire" (Brightish Empire) as he called it, with a free trade association of countries that would join and get special status if they joined; and eventually this system would be global. We also see it re-emerging in the time of Cecil Rhodes with his Rhodes Foundation and the amalgamation of the Rhodes Foundation with Lord Milner and the Round Table groups, now known as "The Royal Institute of International Affairs" that really is a government that is unelected. It has people placed in governments, but they have many people outside of the government in high positions and in big bureaucracies in federal levels; and this was also to bring in a world state based on Plato's Republic. They push continuously for a society where people will serve the world state. They will serve it. They will believe it's their duty to serve the world state. It sounds very appealing to the left-wingers because left wings are always looking for utopia and it never turns out that way. Even Gorbachev had to admit that. You find the guys that play both sides of the fence tend to say very honest things. They can afford to. It doesn't mean that they're against it. They just tell you it doesn't work. Utopias tend to create absolute horror on countries and nations and peoples, down through the centuries, as you hammer and force them to conform into a system, which is technically alien to them. A system based on a priority of commerce and banking. That is never questioned in all these utopian schemes strangely enough. These tokens for exchanges, the thing called "money" is never questioned, nor is it ever questioned as to why specific families have the right to decide what money is. Together these families form what is called "The World Bank", another front, a façade. Carroll Quigley, who was a professor at Georgetown University—Georgetown being famous for training people to go on to be high level bureaucrats first to do service abroad, generally in forms of charitable agencies, and then they come back and go up the ladder. He was responsible for picking out Rhode Scholars to send to Oxford in England, where this seems to be the center of all of this globalism really stems from. Oxford is tied with Cambridge for different functions. Cambridge tends to put out into the world the aristocratic elite, the ones that are a bit brighter to give positions to go out into the world. They run the spy agencies and stuff. Whereas Oxford seems to be based on training the people to go into high-level politics and bureaucracies worldwide. The Royal Institute of International Affairs has a branch in every British Commonwealth country, so you'll have the Australian Institute of International Affairs, Canadian Institute of International Affairs, et cetera, et cetera. Back in the early 1900's, Milner proposed and it was accepted and implemented that they'd take in other countries, such as India and Pakistan and countries which were not part of the Empire, eventually, such as the USA, and sure enough they'd be called The Council on Foreign Relations, so not to upset the citizenry of the countries who were non-affiliated with the British Empire. You'll find that the policies for the U.S. and all the English speaking countries having dictated fairly openly in their own writings for over a hundred years. Carroll Quigley mentioned that no one in these countries, NO ONE EVER, EVER, (underline ever) is elected to high office without being vetted and passed years before by the Royal Institute of International Affairs. It would be a form of scaled down competition for what appears to the public to be parties, but in reality the top people that form the upper cabinets would all be handpicked and vetted and trained for the position, years before the public even hear their names. That's also the same with the likes of Canada, with the provinces to the provincial level. The premiers and provincial level are also picked, vetted, passed and okayed. The reason THEY HAVE NEVER LOST CONTROL OF THEIR AGENDA AND THE DIRECTION—IS THEY PLAN THE FUTURE LIKE A BUSINESS. It's a business. They plan it with meticulous detail, not only a business but as a war; and the people of the world don't know the war is upon them. The elite factions of The Council on Foreign Relations (which is the American branch of The Royal Institute of International Affairs) are from aristocratic families in America, and the U.S. does have this aristocracy. It's got a fantastic reputation through propaganda of not having the same snobbery as parts of Europe, but it certainly does, just as much in fact, and they try and disguise it under different accents and so on, but still they're all from the same "Old Boys School". This has gone on for hundreds of years and the party business is a joke. It's one agenda. All countries have signed their sovereignty away when they signed first of all the "Atlantic Charter" at the beginning of World War II, and then subsequently they reinforced that by sending more of their sovereignty away with the United Nations. They cannot back out of the United Nations and go solo or sovereign without being called "a rogue nation". That's what they mean by that. They've broken their contract. It's all run by high Freemasonry. Back to John Dee and the Rosicrucian's—they were the ones who put out branches just like monks do. In monasteries, you'll find different branches of monks (because this is an ancient system) would ordain other or charter other branches of monks. The Dominicans would give branches off of itself and they call themselves something else et cetera, et cetera. It's kind of like weeds. They grow in the same stock like a dandelion and then blow away multifariously. You have these associations all going back to what we call today "Freemasonry," with its base structure comprised of the public, the profane and the low Masons who don't know much at all but are sworn to uphold this system. Regardless of what happens, they will uphold it. That's what a base is for. The base with the "all seeing eye" and even on their dollar and the Great Seal, which is the reverse side of the Great Seal, of two sides of it like the Janus character. It's planted in a wilderness. That's what it symbolizes, the parched wilderness. The wilderness of ignorance, the profane, the public and it rises above the public. It dominates the public and so the intellect - the light, "the intelligentsia" have been given the right to dominate the lessers. They are not the bosses though. The media has had a fantastic job of doing its usual of whipping up the frenzy, which they themselves coined the term. The election fever and the people who are programmed go right into the election mode of fever voting for whoever says the right things, because that's what parties do. It reminds me of the Community Party and Lenin said it and Marx before him. "You must lie to get in. You tell the people what they want to hear and once you're in, you do what you want." That really is what democracy is. If you look at democracy, there's not country where you can actually throw anybody out that you've elected if they go their own way. This has been tried here in Canada, even on local levels, and the people who investigate this and try to get the elected officials out find out that "under democracy the only right you have is to vote them in." That's the only right you have. Once they're in, they don't have to be responsible to you. You'd think they'd learn this down through the ages. You think people who grow up and see two or three elections in their life would start to catch on, but the conditioning overpowers them. The talking heads of the media gets them into the sports phrase and even use sports terminology, the same phrases you'll hear in football games, and one's bashing the other and who's routing whom, and it's like a war. It's such a farce, really, because it's all done by PR campaigns, publicity managers and scriptwriters. You're seeing actors basically parrot what they're told to parrot. They're lost without their scripts. That's why they always make such incredible boo-boos when they open their mouths and say what they think. They just parrot what they're said to say. They're actors on the stage like Shakespeare said. The people never fail to fall for this. They've been lied to so many times they haven't a clue what's really going on in the world, or what the big picture is, or the agenda—or, if they do, they're double-minded. It's like Orwell's double-speak: The ability to hold two opposite opinions in your head at the same time and rationalize each one of them. That's a condition of psychological tampering, basically. It's gets me that they actually really want these people who say these things, they really want them to do and implement these things that they promise to do. PROMISES. It's amazing. It never ever alters. They've been doing this democracy business for a couple of centuries now. It keeps evolving and changing, mind you, in its style and the people don't notice that either. They really think those people and the multimillionaires and the big corporate ex-CEOs that they vote for are going to change their lives for the better for them. All they have to do is to look for a little bit of honesty with themselves, because that's the only place that you can start, unless you torture somebody like Chertoff and his bunch do. That's the only time you get the truth out of someone. You can't force the truth out of someone if they're a born liar; and people who can lie to whole nations are born liars. It's a particular skill that's hard to do it without blushing or flickering the eyelids and that type of thing; and they do it very well. If they were in a lower class, they'd be very good salesmen selling vacuum cleaners that probably don't work. Honesty. You have to start with yourself and that means: Why do you honestly expect someone else to change your world for you? I highly recommend Carroll Quigley's books "Tragedy & Hope" and "The Anglo-American Establishment". Quigley, who was often consulted by the top politicians on policy abroad, was no simple professor. He was also the historian for the American branch of The Royal Institute of International Affairs called "The CFR" (Council on Foreign Relations). He had access to their records. He updated them and he was quite open about much of it in his writings. He tells you "here is the reasons why things really happen in history," and sure enough, it fills in all the little black spots that you don't get in school. All you have in school is dates and times, wars and battles and generals, and who won what and who killed who. They never go into what companies backed it up. What international corporations supplied the stuff? Who made fortunes? Which individuals made fortunes and also paid off the politicians? He does this. He goes into it in pretty good detail. He's the guy who picked Bill Clinton for a Rhodes Scholarship. Clinton, like all of them, are groomed from childhood for their roles. The president's you'll have in 10 years time have already been picked, same as prime ministers. The major events you'll find in history as you gone in years are already planned like a business format. "Nothing happens in politics by chance" and FDR said that. So why do people vote? Prior to all elections, Joe and Jane Average are worried about their own personal lives. Their lifestyle never matches the image they're sold by the media, by the "culture creators" at the top. Therefore they tend to blame themselves and that creates uncertainty in themselves and their own decision making. They feel like children. That's what they want you to feel like, like children who are helpless and then they can bring forth the father figures who seem full of self-confidence. They realize your concerns. They feel your pain and they vocalize what they know is going through your own lives what you're feeling. That's why we have such uncertainty in the world. It helps to make sure that we do keep this farce going by voting, thinking we can change it. I mean we shouldn't really encourage these guys by voting. It would be something else if we stopped voting all together, then the "real bosses" would have to come forth with force and show their faces, because they would not allow the system to disintegrate which they have always kept control of for thousands of years—the commercial system with its mercantile law. People vote because they're afraid. They want reassurance. They want to be made to feel that they're secure. This is what every CON MAN down through history has observed and they know how to exploit these fears. It's great when you can create the fears and then you can exploit them. You give the problem. You have the reaction to the problem for the public, then the fear, then you offer the solutions. It doesn't mean you have to carry those solutions out; or, if you do, you'll word it in such a way that it turns out completely different than the people envisage. People want heroes because they have no faith in themselves. Aldous Huxley in his Berkeley speech (which you can download from this site) was quite correct when he said that most people are really unhappy in their lives. He knew because the system which he and his forbearers had created were making it so. Most people certainly began to be terribly unhappy with all the anxiety of war after war and basically depressions; and in Britain, all through the '70's and '80's, it was called "a recession". They didn't want to call it "a depression". Everybody was depressed all right, but they called it "a recession." They were de-industrializing the country without telling the public that this was the official plan they'd actually signed back in 1945 or '46 with the United Nations to de-industrialize it for the European Union. The generations who were born in that period afterwards simply went through welfare and job after job if they could get it. The "dole," as they called it, a term borrowed from ancient Rome who gave the dole of wine and bread everyday to the public to keep them happy, to keep them from revolting. Everything was planned that way, as I say, which is now disclosed. They admitted it after they united Europe officially under a government. They came out and declassified all the documentation. So generations can suffer and they don't care at the top, because "well, the plan's the plan," you see, and "you can't make an omelet without breaking eggs," as Mr. Rockefeller said. People have to realize that the main problems they'll face in their life and they blame themselves for, it's not really their fault at all. They're conditioned in a system which gives them a fake perception of reality. When the myth that they go for does not turn out the same way as the myth is supposed to, they blame themselves and get depressed. They have family breakups. The children go their own way because they're indoctrinated in the school. That's where they get their values from, totally different from the parents, every few years they update this agenda to make it even more so. The people look for a hero outside of themselves, one who voices the concerns that they feel; and that's all they need is acknowledgement this person has stated their problems. They know their problems. They want a hero outside themselves and that's why they vote. It's interesting that when you look at the ones behind Adolph Hitler, who are often portrayed in history as a bunch of little nobody's who just worked their way up in society, renegades little psychopaths; and yet they try to make them seem as though they're almost illiterate; and that's really the upper class snobbery there because these guys were not stupid. We find that Goring, for instance, who was a flamboyant character and no doubt psychopathic to boot, and probably very likeable if you knew him personally, and who loved to dress in a Roman toga for his parties, and who was a theosophist and who carried his big jar of crystal around with him for the "good vibrations." He says: "It's the easiest thing to take control of a country. A few people can do it," he said. "All you have to do is to hype up the fear of an external threat and claim that the government's not doing enough to stop it and the public and that you will do more if you get in to protect them and then they'll vote for you. They'll get you in." People forget that Adolph Hitler was voted in democratically before he became de facto dictator. Albert Pike, the Pope of Freemasonry in the 1800's, said, "We always give the public their heroes. We give the heroes to every faction, every side." The people, once they hear this person saying all the right things, will give their allegiance to that person because "he or she speaks for me." That's how we rationalize it, and we sit back and we guide it again. They say go here, go do this, do that—and we do it. We give our power to the "authorized heroes". The VOTE SCAM never began with electronic voting. It's always been a scam. Even if they did it correctly and upfront and honestly, it wouldn't matter, because once again, the "Big Boys" at the top are handpicked and groomed by people you'll never see, like The Royal Institute of International Affairs Council, long before you ever hear the name and years and years before they ever run for office. The easiest way to control people is to get them into parties, especially two parties. This or that, up or down, left or right. You'll hear talk show hosts use the same formula on AM stations, your local AM stations or city AM stations, then they get you into the emotive topic. Are you for euthanasia? Are you against euthanasia? Are you for this? Are you for that? They drum it up, and sure enough, the people obligingly fall into their camps. Their emotional responses to sounds, to words, they're conditioned and they fall into their camps. If you want to control masses of people, you give them at least two parties. Three's a bit untidy but you can use the third one occasionally when it's so blatantly obvious the corruption is in both parties, you can always use the third one for a little while, as they do in Canada, once in a blue moon. The whole party thing is the easiest way to control millions of people. The United States was supposed to be a Republic first, which followed specific guidelines. Although they were wrote in such a way you could drive buses through it, and that was deliberate too. The party system is easy to take over because you just have to put your guy or a few at the top, and the rest are like trained seals at the circus. You know all the other politicians there they'd want the party. They want to get up the ladder. They're all Masons. They clap their fins (you know, their hands) and cheer their boss on and tell their constituents, "Well, I didn't like that, but I had to toe the party line," you see. "Toe the line," that's a Masonic saying. Sure enough, they do and the public says, "Oh well, I guess he had to," you see, and "we let it happen," but really, we encourage them by voting. In the Soviet Union they made it law that you had to vote because people just weren't coming out, so they made it law; because legally, you see, you have to give your power to the beast that rules you. They forced the people to participate. In Australia, I don't know if they passed it or not, but Howard the Prime Minister there, I think he's been there forever, he was going to do the same thing in Australia, because really there's not confidence in the system. The people are a little bewildered as to why all these things are happening, all this globalization and the Pacific Rim Region set-up and the laws that are getting passed. They can't quite figure it out, so he was thinking of making it mandatory to vote. If there's anybody in Australia, let me know, it would be interesting to see. They talked about that in Canada, but tossed it around once in a while. It's "good" you see when you can give them the right to rule over you. It's governed as such it's ruled because it's ruled to an agenda. "A rule" is another Masonic term because the first cane, the priest (Cane, Cain) and the first rulers were made of cane. Even when I was in school, maybe even still you can get cheap ones from China made of cane and marked off. It used to be inches. Now it's probably centimeters, as they move from the 12 to the 10 system. Again, the binary code coming in there, Masonic again, everything is, you see. You're living in a system which you don't even recognize is all around you, right down to your measurements. In the mythological ideal, The Republic would have been a system where there was one state. I mean it's like one party where all the rules and tenants of the party were laid down and "fixed in stone." The representatives would come from your area to represent just you, the people. That's what is in its mythological form. The party system of course does away that, because all the little hacks at the bottom have worked their way in there for power sake and status. They don't go there to serve the people. They'll say all right things because it's their nature, as good little psychopaths, when in reality it's self-serving. That's where they meet the future business contact, big ones. The largest contracts, of course, dished out in a country are from the federal government, so they make all their acquaintances for business future and so on. They're not there to serve the people. It's rather sad to see that's happened in all countries over the last 150 years or so, when even the ones who were supposed to represent the working people sell out very quickly, often beforehand, because they hand-pick their leaders; and again, they are all Masons. That's the common bond throughout the whole planet—Freemasonry. In all of its names, it's the same thing, male and female. Interestingly enough, I tuned into the news tonight on the Canadian television (I get three stations with my rabbit ears here), and there's a spokesman for a political party in Canada, a woman, and she gave the most obvious freemasonic handshake, so she's Eastern Star. It was interesting to see it so blatant. I guess she's only just passed the third degree and not much higher, because it was just too obvious; but that's the system we live under. It's the same in business. It's the same in law. It's the same everywhere. The signs, the symbols, the language is all around you and you don't see it. You don't see it. However, any president of the United States goes up to give his speech on the podium, everything around that set (and it's a set for your viewing), the same kind of methodology goes into the creation of that background as it does in a movie where everything's debated. Should this be here? Should that be there? Is this the right color? Color is very important too. It's a language. It goes all the way back, actually before Pythagoras who was the guy who brought it out of Egypt where he studied. You'll find every president of the United States will tell you his format by the way the flag behind them is draped. If the arrows are showing with the leg, you know the job is war. If it's the other leg of the eagle holding the olive branch, his job is to at least pretend peace, like Bill Clinton pretended peace; although, more missiles flew over the Middle East from ships and blew up all over the place in Iraq during his whole tenure there—TEN-YEAR. You can tell a good deal by the background. It's a language for "those in the know." Yep, if you can make an X, you're my kind of guy. Isn't it really interesting to see when it's time for electing who's going to be the front man at the top this fever they drum up with all the balloons. Balloons, placards, badges, funny hats, and cheering and so on at the party headquarters, it's like a circus. This is supposed to deal with you and problems with the country, finances and all; and here they are having a circus to drum up hysteria for the public and the public seem to respond to it. I noticed when I came to this country the difference in the advertising techniques, because they're suited to the types of mentality they've given to the public – and there is a culture mentality to give to the public. It's given to you. You're born into it and they update it, just like they update computers every so often, and the public never notice. In Britain, the ads were pretty boring because it was all suits and ties and steadfast and upstanding guys selling you something. Whereas in the U.S. and Canada, at that time it was salesmen who were dressed up literally like circus clowns with the big red noses on and big shoes and balloons in their hands selling used cars. I thought, "who in their right mind would buy a used car from a clown?" Yet they were successful it seems. The same technique is used for voting, as though utopia is coming tomorrow if you just vote this person in. Tomorrow comes and goes and then the promises are all broken and the same agenda, the same United Nations agenda moves steadily forward as always. It doesn't change and the people don't learn because they think this is all real, and they say, "if this bunch turned out bad, we'll vote the next bunch in next time," and that's what you really do. You don't vote new people in. You're voting the last lot out. You're so sick of them and yet you've no memory to realize the bunch you're voting in did the same thing when they were in the last time. In this system which is a totalitarian system which has always worn, not always worn but generally wears the velvet glove that covers the iron fist. It's much easier to have people obey by compliance rather than by brute force and to make them think they are actually guiding their own lives. But you'll find in this system all of, again, the mythos to do with the culture and the safety nets are out there for you that you're meant to believe are there. You've a caring system. You'll find the tools, if you have to go and use them eventually one day, and I always liken them to a highway that you walk along and there's your pick axe there and I don't need that. I'll keep going and there's the hammer there. I'll keep going. There's a spade. I'll keep going, I don't need that. However, if you ever do, you'll find that when you pick them up to use and you hit that pick-axe on the road, it bounces because it's made of rubber. It's made of rubber. THE SYSTEM DOESN'T GIVE OUT THE TOOLS TO HELP YOU OVERCOME THE SYSTEM. That's how clever this is. Everyone's divided from race, creed, religion, generations, male, female. Everything's divided and divided and divided. Every so often they get on side of the other fighting the other, via the media, over some emotive topic and that keeps it going, all divided and conquered. Everyone's divided and conquered. This is a science, an ancient science that is taught to those who are not elected, because the real bosses are not elected and they have no responsibility to answer to the public. It's so interesting to see that when, officially for the first time as an organization, The Council on Foreign Relations came on Canadian television nationally in March 2005 to do with the signing of the "United Americas Agreement." They said they were behind it, openly. None of those guys were elected to any political office. Some of them had been in politics prior to that. Some hadn't. They belong to these organizations, these "foundations" as they call them, because Masons make foundations and you build the society on the foundations. They are not responsible for their acts or decisions to the public. That's your democracy for you. The trick at election time is to whip up the public into a frenzy, because it's important that they get you "back in the box," getting involved as you think you are. Once you're into that frenzy and panic state and looking at the limited alternatives you're given, they've got you where they want you. They want your authorization to rule over you, come what may. People have asked me, "How do you combat this kind of totalitarian system, a secret government behind government?" I tell them; and I've said this on many radio shows and the hosts have never taken it up. They've dropped it quietly. I say: "Look. If you're going to give people authority to rule over you and do as they wish to you and your children, you better make sure you know everything about them. Everything about them, and you should definitely demand to know what organizations they belong to, have sworn allegiance to and have sworn to obey." That's a start. That's a very, very important start. When you find that they belong to all the nefarious organizations with "secrets" as they like to call them, not 'secret organizations', then you can't trust them at all. You cannot trust them, no matter what they say. Supposing they get down on their knees and repent and whatever they do, you can't ever trust them again. These people have sold out completely. People who sell out completely will repeat it over and over to the highest bidder. Carroll Quigley in his own books "Tragedy & Hope," writing in the 1960s said, "Nothing would stop this agenda because it has already taken over the U.S. Congress and Senate" (50 to 60 years prior to the writing of his book). "And by the time those in the public that would ever figure it out would catch on, the agenda would be accomplished." That's exactly how they united Europe, by the same secrecy, lying to the public and parliament after parliament that was elected in simply went along with the agenda – kept their mouth shut. Made excuses to the public as to why the country was in such a sad situation and getting sadder all the time, until it was all over and done. Then, once they had united Europe under a parliament, they declassified the documents to say, "Yes, this agenda to unite Europe must be kept secret from the public until it is completed." That's open democracy for you. It is no different in any other so-called "democratic" country.The old Rhodes/Milner groups, the secret government that was authorized to exist by the British Crown, were chartered to exist and do what they're doing, has never stopped on its goal towards this world government. Margaret Thatcher said it best. She said: "We who are ex-premiers of countries in various nations comprise another government." She says: "We never retire. We know each other. We've worked with each other for years and that is too valuable to be thrown away." She said that they were unelected, and now that they were out of office, they were not responsible to the public or recall or any of that nonsense. They could quietly work and get more done behind the scenes working for this private -- (the real one that exists) towards their agenda. Now it's interesting to note that the Rhodes Milner group of The Royal Institute of International Affairs has stated 80 years ago or more. It was about 100 years ago that they stated that they'd work with any type of government, even conflicting types like Communism. That's true because they helped to create Communism. This group is composed of the upper elite of the noble families of Europe, primarily Britain but now it's the rest of Europe. One of the points that they wanted to make was "they wanted to eradicate the middle classes under the guise of equality." They never mentioned eradicating the upper class and all their privileges. They take it as a priority that that will go on forever. That's what Aldous Huxley was talking about when he mentioned "the dominant minority." He said: "There always has been a dominant minority and I see no reason why there shouldn't always be one." It's true. There's nothing to stop them with their agenda, because the sad reality is we have been born into a Matrix system, totally planned and organized prior to your birth, prior to your parents birth, and this agenda has been going on for an awful long time. Even if President Bush or anyone else had another born-again experience, and the last time Bush had it was when he put out the coffin at Yale University the Skull & Bones Society. That's what it means when they do that; and that's what he means when he refers to it. Even if he had a real one, whatever that is, he couldn't stop it. If he did, he would be Lincoln'ed or Kennedy'ed in public view to warn others to stay in line. There's no doubt about that. The big boys at the top do not tolerate disobedience from any of their hirelings. I will be going into this system of control with The Royal Institute of International Affairs and The Council on Foreign Relations in more detail on tomorrow's show, so you can tune in then. There's nothing out there that really is as it seems to be. It's the appearance, it's the illusion of a particular spin on reality that's propagated to us the public. Most people have no idea that they're living in a scripted format of propaganda. You truly are meant to believe; and that's the trick of it, to make you believe that you're the most well informed people that's ever walked the planet because of all the news stations that you have, but all of the news stations get their news and basically their marching orders from the same source. That's why you flick through the channels if you have cable or satellite and you'll hear the same stories across the country, one after the other, in the same sequence, including the trivia. Same trivia. It's all controlled to give you the impression that you're the most informed being that's walked the planet. If you believe that, you'll never figure it out. You'll never figure out that your perceptions have been given to you. The diagnosis of the system has been given to you. You allow everything to come along that's detrimental to you like sheep, and you'll wonder why things are just "going to the dogs" as they say. This is the trick of the creation of particular perception. It's non-stop PR propaganda and public relations. There's nothing, from your local police station to even your school board, that doesn't come through a PR spokesperson, public relations. There's nothing. It's like having an intermediary lawyer to redefine reality to you. That's what a PR person does, to put a spin on something until it becomes acceptable to you. You don't think past the spin; and with this big circus show of elections, remember something. In ancient times they knew the trick of division. They knew that the public would join this group or that group. The trick was giving you the groups that you'd identify with, with always the right spokesperson to say what you were thinking. It's very simple. It's never failed. I don't see any reason why it should fail, really, with the majority of the public and the symbol of the eagle which is ancient – an ancient symbol going back for many thousands of years and has come down through the centuries through Rome. Prior to that, it was in Egypt, too, and then the Roman Empire, to the United States and the Russian system. They have the eagle as well. In high Masonry, the eagle is one like the falcon that can symbolically go as high as the sun and look into the face of the sun. That's what it means; and you'll find the symbol of the arrows and the olive branch very revealing. Very old symbol, you'll find it in the Old Testament, if you care to look, and you should ask yourself why they picked that one. The war and the peace, the arms can create war or peace. The wings are the parties left and right, male and female. These are the terms that they use. Emotion versus logic – that's what they mean by it. They're very sexist, of course, and they really hate females at the top. The body is covered by a shield – the body of the bird is covered by a shield. The body is hidden. The real body is hidden. You see the head above, but, again, in Masonic terms you can figure it out quite simply. The head below, the real virile power is covered. You don't get to see that. In ancient Egypt, they had two eyes sometimes on some of their symbols of pyramids. When the top eye was open, the bottom was closed and vice versa. The public get to see what they're meant to see, and nothing more. You'll find that there'll be some people who are replaced with this election over, as a token, but they were decided to go long before the public heard of it. They never leave politics. They join the real workers behind the scenes where they're not responsible to the general public. Mr. Rumsfeld, of course, was already scheduled to go off and do his nefarious things behind the scenes. He was always a front-man for the chemical companies and the big weaponry firms in combination with those chemical companies. He was the guy that even on the CBC was shown going over years ago and shaking his Masonic handshake with Saddam Hussein when he was giving him the chemicalized weaponry. Mr. Rumsfeld will simply go back into the "real work" behind the scenes, where he can do a lot of stuff without being responsible to Joe Public or the press or anyone else. You won't hear what he's been up to until years later. That's how the real system works. These guys never leave the art and the system they're involved in of governance, as opposed to government. Look at the website for upcoming shows. I'm on RBN broadcasting. No one's backing me; and for those who want to help out, you can check out how they can do it on the website at cuttingthroughthematrix.com.

Sunday, November 4, 2007

Ring of Power

Red Ice Creations

October 5, 2007

AmenStop Productions | video.google.com

This is a lengthy documentary - check links below to jump between chapters




From the mystery religions of ancient Egypt to the Zionist role in 9/11, “Ring Of Power” unrevises 4000 years of revisionist human history with never - before - seen revelations. “Ring Of Power” puzzles together the pieces of a giant puzzle into one BIG PICTURE documentary series.

Part I: 9/11 THE UNTOLD STORY (38 min.) Half the world believes Muslims were responsible for 9/11. The other half believes Israeli Zionists were responsible. Who’s right?

Part II: HIDDEN EMPIRE (22 min.) The world’s most powerful empire is not the U.S.A. It is an empire that insiders call “Empire Of The City”.

Part III: TRAIL OF THE PHARAOHS (25 min.) Did the Biblical Abraham really live to be 175? Did Moses really turn staffs into snakes and rivers into blood?

Part IV: GOD AND THE QUEEN (30 min.) Genealogy charts show that British and French royalty are descendants of Mary Magdalene and Jesus Christ. Is it true?

Part V: ALL THE QUEEN’S MEN (22 min.) How rich and powerful is Queen Elizabeth II?

Part VI: THE GODFATHERS (30 min.) They scammed control of the Bank of England and the U.S. Federal Reserve, then they found GOD – Gold, Oil and Drugs.

Part VII: CHEATING AT MONOPOLY (52 min.) How many people would play a game of monopoly if the banker was cheating and fixing the rules? Over 6 billion.

Part VIII: ASSES OF EVIL (29 min.) The New World Order Mafia are invisible rulers who make puppets out of politicians, heroes out of villains and villains out of heroes.

Part IX: KING OF HEARTS (22 min.) The ultimate goal of “insiders” is to disarm the world and create one world empire under one world ruler. Who is he?

Part X: SOLUTIONS (28 min.) Protesting and writing letters to deaf politicians doesn’t work. What does work?

The Producer is an experienced, award winning documentary filmmaker who, as a child, learned that her father was a member of the secretive cult of Freemasonry. She recalls many arguments between her parents over her father’s secret meetings and the exclusion of women from the brotherhood. The Masonic ring that her father wore had been passed down from father to son over the generations. When she asked her father about the meaning of the letter “G” and the compass and square on his ring, she got no response. As an adult, she decided to investigate. That investigation grew into four years of intensive research into the identity and history of the diabolical globalists who she calls the “Ring Of Power”. Their goal is one World Empire and one world ruler.

More: http://www.preferrednetwork.com/html/religion_exposed_details_66.htm

Article from: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4675077383139148549

Wal-Mart running private intelligence agency to monitor critics

No, this isn't fascism as defined by Benito Mussolini* …
Wal-Mart Stores has been recruiting former military and government intelligence officers for a branch of its global security office aimed at identifying threats to the world's largest retailer, including from "suspect individuals and groups."
Wal-Mart's interest in intelligence operatives comes at a time when the retailer is defending itself against allegations by a fired security employee that it ran surveillance operations against targets including critics, dissident shareholders, employees and suppliers. Wal-Mart denied any wrongdoing.
The jobs were listed with the Analytical Research Center, part of Wal-Mart's Global Security division, which is headed by former senior CIA and FBI senior officer Kenneth Senser. The analytical unit was created over the past year and a half, according to published comments by its head, Army Special Operations veteran David Harrison.
Many corporations hire law enforcement officers for their security departments.
But Steven Aftergood, who runs the government secrecy project for the Washington-based Federation of American Scientists, said Wal-Mart's efforts appear to go beyond what most companies are doing, raising questions about corporate intelligence work outside of the oversight process in place for government spying.
No, it's not fascism; it's a frightening by-product of the corporate right's decades-long assault on the very concept of the state.

Their knee-jerk anti-governmentalism -- as expressed everywhere from the diktats of the international financial institutions to the wholly fraudulent claim that Republicans are for "small government" -- and obsessive deregulation has resulted in a massive, quiet and largely un-debated shift in much of what we used to consider the exclusive tools of state power to the private sector. Here's an example of intelligence work being privatized, but it's also the case that states' former monopoly on the use of violence has been undermined by the proliferation of private security contractors. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it raises serious questions about oversight and accountability (and is, as we've seen in Iraq for example, a bad thing in practical terms).
In this case, we're talking about a company with an atrocious track record -- a record of suppressing workers' rights to organize, of racial and gender discrimination, of dumping on the environment and hiring undocumented workers and locking workers into stores overnight and the dozens of other charges that has made it a symbol of everything that's wrong with the culture of corporate America. Wal-Mart's ownership has proven itself to be reckless and irresponsible again and again -- the idea of their having their own little CIA to keep tabs on their critics is really disturbing.
*It's very unlikely that Mussolini actually said, "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." The quote's disputed, and it pretty much would have contradicted everything else he ever wrote about fascism (more here). I use it here because of its familiarity, and to justify the picture of Mussolini.

National Geographic is CIA Stooge

I think it was Covert Action Quarterly that first covered how National Geographic is a conduit for CIA propaganda. Here’s some tenative analysis. drew hempel, M.A.
Counter PunchI have a brain and free will, and am not anyone’s stooge, nor do I want anyone... As for National Geographic, I’m sure they have all sorts of covert ties, ...www.oilempire.us/counterpunch.html –
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/12/1206_021204_StoehrAtlas.html
More than 250 people contributed to this book over this past a year. The acknowledgements includes organizations such as the CIA, World Wildlife Fund and the United Nations. The Family Reference Atlas includes a full range of physical and political maps of the world, and its continents, as well as detailed regional maps. There is also a large section devoted to our oceans and space.
http://www.dooyoo.co.uk/printed-books/national-geographic/1001386/
VOICE OF THE CIA
Review from Aang about National Geographic, 02.11.04Author’s product rating
Advantages Occasional mildly interesting articleDisadvantages CIA propaganda. Little real geography.
Summary:
Full review Voice of the CIA
Pics of naked people used to make it interesting. But in today’s fascist, fundamentalist USA, naked pics are no longer allowed in the National Geographic.
The National Geographic appears to have become the mouthpiece of the CIA.
Just before 9 11, the National geographic was preparing maps and an article on Afghanistan.If you want to know which countries the Pentagon is about to invade, look at the National Geographic.
The latest edition of the magazine, dated November 2004, has an article on the Geography of Terror. The article, written by Walter Laqueur who recently retired from the Kissinger Chair at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, seems full of obvious disinformation.
The article refers to a number of countries:
Ireland – the article fails to mention US financing of terror groups, and the allegation that most of the worst incidents were the work of the UK security services.
Europe – the article fails to mention the CIA links to the terror which hit Italy in the 1980s. Remember the bombs in railway stations that ‘were the work of fascist groups with CIA connections’.
Indonesia – the article fails to mention (1) the CIA terror used to topple President Sukarno and then President Suharto (2) the US training of the generals who have been associated with terror in East Timor, the Spice Islands and elsewhere (3) the links between the US trained Indonesian military and ‘Moslem’ terror groups such as Laskar Jihad (4) the alleged involvement of the Indonesian military in the Bali bomb.
Palestine – the article does not make it clear that (1) the Palestinians were driven from their land by Jewish terrorist groups (2) the Israelis initially aided Hamas in order to weaken Arafat (3) the USA supports Israel in its occupation of Palestinian land and defiance of UN resolutions and in its possession of weapons of mass destruction.
Iraq – the article fails to mention the body of evidence that Saddam was a CIA agent and was put into power by the USA.
Al Qaeda – the article promotes the myth of al Qaeda. It fails to mention (1) the bin Laden links to the Bush family (2) bin Laden’s Jewish mother (3) bin Laden’s death in December 2001 (4) the controlled explosions that brought down the Twin Towers on 9 11 (5) the training of the alleged hijackers at US military bases.
The National Geographic is supposed to be about geography. But what do we get? We get endless stuff about:
Archaeology – particularly in the Mayan world.
History.
Biology – particularly fish and apes.
Astronomy
The articles are written in a strange style. The authors like to sound clever and literary but often they simply obscure the meaning of what they are trying to say.
The layout of text and photos also tries to be clever, but ends up being clumsy, like an american automobile.
Who advertises in the National Geographic? We get adverts for the sort of posh watches and posh cars which I could never afford.
Is the National Geographic worth buying? Just occasionally there is a mildly interesting article.

Explorers House: National Geographic and the World It Made

Exec Poole’s Nat. Geo. book:
Hardcover: 357 pages Publisher: Penguin Press (October 21, 2004) Language: English ISBN: 1594200327 Bob Poole’s book limns that whole idiosyncratic lineup with wry insight. Fondness for the institution (which he served as executive editor) aside, however, Poole doesn’t flinch from telling the tale warts and all – the Geographic’s prewar ambivalence toward Hitler’s Germany, its embrace in pre-Civil Rights America of the larger society’s racial prejudices, or its Cold War fling in aiding CIA efforts against the Russians.

Saturday, November 3, 2007

Council of Europe: Ban Creationism since it may become “Threat to Human Rights” and Democracy

Ominously paints a "war on the theory of evolution" by religious extremists "closely allied to extreme right-wing political movements"

[Editor's Note: Again, in this neo-communist world dictatorship based on the concept of social Darwinism, questioning the dogma of evolution is a crime on par with doubting that six-million Jews actually died during the Holocaust. It is thought-crime, and will not be tolerated. All of you people who believe in the Darwinist religion need to ask yourselves why the same people intent on implementing a massive 'new-eugenics' program of bioengineering and culling off entire sections of the global population are also such devout adherents of Darwinism. Is that really a very difficult question? The entire Darwinist religion is based on eugenics and better and lesser types of creatures. This fuels and, in their minds, justifies cruelty beyond imagination. There is nothing 'democratic' about a scientifically run society - it is cold and uncaring - and a society based on Darwinism is the opposite of 'democratic' - it is based on survival of the fittest, where the lesser types are slaughtered or eaten. Darwinism, and those who would use it to justify their actions, are the most grievous threat to human rights the world has ever seen. -Andre]

John-Henry Westen
LifeSiteNews.com
November 1, 2007

STRASBOURG - The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (CoE) has adopted a resolution to ban creationism from receiving any discussion in schools outside of religion classes. "The Parliamentary Assembly is worried about the possible ill-effects of the spread of creationist ideas within our education systems and about the consequences for our democracies," said the resolution adopted on October 4 by the Parliament made up of 626 members elected from each European Member State.

"If we are not careful, creationism could become a threat to human rights which are a key concern of the Council of Europe," said the resolution.

The CoE, an advisory body without power to mandate its resolutions, calls on all nations of Europe "to firmly oppose the teaching of creationism as a scientific discipline on an equal footing with the theory of evolution and in general resist presentation of creationist ideas in any discipline other than religion."

The statement has raised eyebrows of many in the scientific community who reject strict 'dogmatic' adherence to Darwinian evolution, and find scientific basis for belief in creation or in 'intelligent design' of the universe.

Over 700 scientists have signed onto a document proclaiming their skepticism about Darwinian evolution. The statement reads: "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

Moreover, a movie to be released in February of 2008 exposes how atheists in academia have in some cases brutally silenced scientists who have presented research which counters the Darwinian credo.

David Berlinski, a mathematician and senior fellow at the Discovery Institute (a think tank which is open to scientific inquiry into Intelligent Design) has made many scientific critiques of Darwinian evolution. Commenting on the CoE resolution said, "if this is what a threat to human rights amounts to, count me among its supporters; I'm threatening away with the best of them."

The CoE resolution paints those who question evolution theory and find scientific evidence for intelligent design of the universe as if they rejected science altogether. "The total rejection of science is definitely one of the most serious threats to human rights and civic rights," says the resolution. It ominously paints a "war on the theory of evolution" by religious extremists "closely allied to extreme right-wing political movements" who "are out to replace democracy by theocracy."

"If we are not careful, the values that are the very essence of the Council of Europe will be under direct threat from creationist fundamentalists," said the resolution. "It is part of the role of the Council's parliamentarians to react before it is too late."

Prior to its adoption, the European Center for Law and Justice opposed the resolution arguing: "The result of passing the Resolution would be the prevention of academic and educative discussion between the theory of intelligent design and the theory of evolution. This approach can only hamper the educational progress of students by restricting their examination of competing scientific ideas and will necessarily violate the right to freedom of expression, including academic freedom, and the right to free exercise of religion in education."

A Discovery Institute analysis of the resolution countered, "Isn't science supposed to permit - and even embrace - skepticism and doubt? By equating Darwin-doubting with a thought-crime against humanity, the resolution exposes the CoE as being the very types of dogmatists they claim to eschew."

See the resolution online here:
http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=/Documents/AdoptedText…

Friday, November 2, 2007

Genetic Advances To Pioneer Super-Human Elite?

Life extension researchers create 500 bio-mice with extraordinary capabilities but stress that to apply the science to humans would be "completely wrong"

Steve Watson & Paul Watson
Infowars.net
Fri
day, Nov 2, 2007

New scientific research into life enhancing genetic modification is paving the way for a near future where humans are able to live far beyond today's average life expectancy, but in the hands of the wrong crowd this could spell disaster.

Scientists have genetically engineered 500 "super mice" that can run further and faster, live longer and reproduce for longer with the view to one day applying the same science to enhance the performance of human athletes.

The London Independent reports:

The mouse can run up to six kilometres (3.7 miles) at a speed of 20 metres per minute for five hours or more without stopping. Scientists said that this was equivalent of a man cycling at speed up an Alpine mountain without a break. Although it eats up to 60 per cent more food than an ordinary mouse, the modified mouse does not put on weight. It also lives longer and enjoys an active sex life well into old age – being capable of breeding at three times the normal maximum age.

The Scientists at Case Western Reserve University at Cleveland in Ohio, emphasized that the research has not been undertaken with a view to apply the science to enhance the human race but did admit that the findings could be used to develop drugs that would enhance the abilities of whoever had the means of acquiring them.

The mice were bred by altering a single metabolism gene, a gene which is incidentally shared with humans. One side effect which was unexplainable to the scientists was that the mice became very aggressive.

Professor Richard Hanson commented:

"We humans have exactly the same gene. But this is not something that you'd do to a human. It's completely wrong. We do not think that this mouse model is an appropriate model for human gene therapy. It is currently not possible to introduce genes into the skeletal muscles of humans and it would not be ethical to even try."

Many within the scientific community have suggested that the development of successful life-extension technologies will be a reality within 30 years, but the application of such stunning advances will be tightly restricted by a ruling elite, and eventually may be used as a justification to completely wipe out humanity, according to some leading researchers.

A recent article carried by the Methuselah Foundation, an organization that advocates the development of life extension and nanomachinery technology, concludes that life-extension technology and "(greatly) augmenting our biology with nanomachinery" will have arrived by the 2030's, but that "The new bio- and nanotechnologies of the 2040s will be massive overkill for the "simple" task of repairing the damage of aging."

The report concludes that the greatest obstacle in the field is not the development but the application of such technology, suggesting that living for hundreds of years is inevitable only for the wealthy elite.

Pressure groups pushing for more widespread funding of life-extension technology research seem to be constantly frustrated by the fact that major global scientific institutions seek to contain progress within very selective parameters and are very reticent to encourage more open access to the field.

Those who advocate the necessity to mainstream life-extension technology research are keen to tackle the red herring of overpopulation, which is often cited as a reason to restrict the availability of such advances.

As the Fight Aging organization is keen to stress, the specter of overpopulation is a con game used by the elite to keep their subservient and enslaved population in poverty.

The fact is that population growth naturally declines and reverses with increasing wealth, industrialization and the creation of a strong middle class.

So it turns out that if 5% of the United States were converted into urban area with a population density of 6,000/km2, and 45% were converted into suburban area with a population density of 2,000/km2, with the remaining 50% left for rural area, parks, and farms, there would be enough room for 3 billion in the urban areas, and 9 billion in the suburban areas, for a total population of 12 billion. This is in the US alone. This scheme could be extended to the other countries and continents for a total population of around 100 billion. Everything between the Arctic and Antarctic circles are potential targets for colonization. This is about 130,000,000 km2 of land area (the circumpolar regions have about 20,000,000 km2 of land).

The planet would be perfectly able to sustain many more billions than currently occupy the earth if third world nations were allowed to industrialize and raise their living standards, but the elite, keen to protect a policy that exploits the third world and plunders their resources, are loathe to accept this and thus have to resort to scaremongering about the population bomb in order to maintain the status quo.

But there's another reason why the architects of the eugenics movement and the global warming bandwagon need to promulgate the hoax of the population bomb - to restrict access to life extension technologies, and pave the way for the "overkill" that their use will be directed towards during the second stage of their development.

Once a monopoly on the development of these new technologies is guaranteed, the stage will be set for the elite to render humanity all but obsolete and begin their long desired final solution - the elimination of the vast majority if not all of the human population.

As Sun Microsystems founder Bill Joy outlines in his essay, Why The Future Doesn't Need Us, once every aspect of human society is automated and operated solely by machines and robots - a foregone conclusion according to most futurists - and control of the machines is concentrated within a tiny elite, the rest of us will be superfluous and subject to elimination.

Since those without access to the life-extension technologies will be considered luddites and nothing more than a burden on the utopian technocracy that the elite have crafted, our fate is sealed.

The only other plausible scenario is that a small number of humans who are permitted to survive will be biologically or psychologically engineered by the same automated system the elite have created, meaning our roles will hold little more significance than domesticated animals.

Last week we also reported on an evolutionary theorist from the London School of Economics who caused controversy by suggesting that the human race will reach its physical peak by the year 3000 and will then split into two different species, one perfect elite race and one regressed race of small ugly goblin like creatures.

Oliver Curry forwarded his theory, the Bravo Evolution Report, based on sexual selection and an increasing move to use technology to enhance physical attributes and life expectancy.

Curry suggests that much like in HG Wells' novel The Time Machine, in 100,000 years a genetically perfected ruling elite will dominate the planet and be served by a dumbed down animalistic version of humanity.

These are not the ravings of paranoid conspiracy theorists scared to face the future, they form the modern-day cutting edge of futurist debate in the scientific fields of nanotechnology and trans-humanism.

Last year, in a feature entitled The new incredibles: Enhanced humans, the New scientist reported on the very real move toward a super-human technocracy:

the prospect of human enhancement is being taken increasingly seriously. The World Economic Forum discussed it at its most recent meeting in January. The US National Science Foundation and the UK's Office of Science and Technology are investigating the issues it raises. Even President Bush has been briefed about it in exhaustive detail.

“We're not talking about some distant sci-fi future. This is happening now” The report concludes.

Memos Prove Rumsfeld Directed Psychological Terror Campaign

Hyping climate of fear, threat of violence to achieve political objectives is the very definition of terrorism
Paul Joseph WatsonPrison PlanetFriday, November 2, 2007

New Pentagon memos released by the Washington Post prove that ex-U.S. defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld directed a psychological campaign of terror in order to achieve political objectives, making Rumsfeld himself a terrorist according to the very definition of the term.
"Donald Rumsfeld, the former United States defence secretary, tried to maintain an atmosphere of fear in America as part of the Iraq war propaganda campaign, a series of leaked memos has shown," reports the London Telegraph.
In an April 2006 memo, Rumsfeld encouraged Pentagon officials to "Keep elevating the threat" and "Talk about Somalia, the Philippines etc. Make the American people realise they are surrounded in the world by violent extremists".

Rumsfeld also urged his staff to concoct "bumper sticker statements" (mindless clichés) in an attempt to garner continued support for the occupation of Iraq.
In the most telling e mail, the former defense secretary ordered the Pentagon to "link Iraq to Iran," heralding the birth of the now saturated propaganda talking point that Iran is fueling the violence in Iraq and helping to kill U.S. troops, despite the fact that British officials patrolling the Iran-Iraq border admit that there is "No concrete proof that Iran is supplying Iraq."
Rumsfeld's obsession with micro-managing every aspect of the propaganda offensive upon the American people led to him disseminating anything up to 60 "snowflakes" or memos every single day, much to the chagrin of Pentagon employees.
His insistence that an artificial climate of fear be maintained in America about the threat of new terror attacks in order to sell the unpopular war in Iraq are the smoking gun for criminal charges to be initiated.

By several of the very definitions of terrorism, Rumsfeld has provably engaged in terrorism, by hyping the threat of terror to achieve a political objective.
Definitions of terrorism
- A psychological strategy of war for gaining political ends by deliberately creating a well-founded climate of fear among the civilian population.
- The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence against people or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies.
- The systematic use of terror, the deliberate creation and exploitation of fear for bringing about political change.
- The use of - or threatened use of - criminal violence against civilians or civilian infrastructure to achieve political ends through fear and intimidation, rather than direct confrontation.
- The calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear.
Under any of the definitions of terrorism listed above, Rumsfeld has demonstrably engaged in terror by artificially hyping the fear of new attacks as part of a strategy to achieve a political objective.

Thursday, November 1, 2007

CIA director defends torture

PAMELA HESS

CIA Director Michael Hayden defended his agency’s interrogation practices Tuesday as political pressure mounted on President Bush’s attorney general nominee to reject a technique that allegedly was part of the CIA’s interrogation program.

“Our programs are as lawful as they are valuable,” Hayden said in remarks prepared for delivery to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. “The best sources of information on terrorists and their plans are the terrorists themselves.”

Hayden said “the irreplaceable nature of that intelligence is the sole reason we have rendition, detention and interrogation programs.”

Several senior Senate Democrats had vowed to vote against the president’s nominee for attorney general, Michael Mukasey, unless he stated unequivocally that the practice of “waterboarding” is torture. That would render the practice illegal. The U.S. military already forbids it.

In a letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats late Tuesday, Mukasey called waterboarding “repugnant” but said he didn’t know if it is illegal because he hasn’t been cleared to receive a classified briefing on it. If after further study he finds that it is, he would rescind any federal legal opinion that allows its use, he wrote.

In September, ABC News reported that Hayden had banned waterboarding in CIA interrogations in 2006. Agency officials have neither confirmed nor denied waterboarding prisoners in the past, and they would not confirm the reported ban.

It is believed that fewer than five high-value detainees have been subjected to waterboarding, and the technique has not been used since 2003.

Waterboarding simulates drowning by immobilizing a prisoner with his head lower than his feet and pouring water over his face. Hayden said harsher interrogation techniques are used in “small, carefully run operations” that have been applied to fewer than 35 prisoners since 2002

'Everywhere chemicals' in plastics alarm parents

USA TODAY | October 31, 2007

By Elizabeth Weise and Liz Szabo, USA TODAY SAN FRANCISCO Consider the BornFree baby bottle. It's made from a plastic five times as expensive as the one routinely used for baby bottles. It has to be shipped all the way from Israel. And its retail price $9.50 is about triple that of a conventional bottle.

It's also a big seller in stores catering to parents who want the safest possible environment for their babies, stores where items labeled "bisphenol A-free" and "phthalate-free" line up next to the cloth diapers and breast pumps.

BornFree is "so popular, their products have been on back order because we can't keep them in stock," says Cara Vidano of Natural Resources, a store here for new and expectant parents.

To anyone not contemplating parenthood, phthalates and bisphenol A sound like something children bring home on chemistry quizzes, not cuddle in their cribs. But these chemicals are at the heart of worldwide scientific investigation and a debate over whether they are harmful to the very young.

Parents, activists and many scientists are concerned that if a baby drinks from a bottle made with bisphenol A or gums a toy made with phthalates, he or she could suffer serious, even permanent, harm.

The European Union and California have banned some phthalates from toys. And a division of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services concluded that one form of phthalate used in intravenous tubing and other hospital equipment could hamper the development of baby boys' reproductive tracts.

Bisphenol A and phthalates are sometimes called "everywhere chemicals" because they're so widely used. Bisphenol A, which is used to make plastics clear, strong and shatter-resistant, shows up in water bottles, food containers, baby bottles, some dental fillings and the coatings for the inside of cans containing foods. Phthalates (pronounced THAL-ates), which make plastic soft and flexible, are used in toys, rattles, teethers, car interiors and medical devices such as tubing, catheters and intravenous bags.

Nearly every American has been exposed. A 2000 study by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found phthalates in the urine of 75% of people tested. CDC research has shown that 95% of Americans have detectable levels of bisphenol A in their bodies.

There's mounting evidence, some of it in human studies and more in mice and rat studies, that these chemicals also may trigger hormonal changes. That is why they are labeled "endocrine disruptors": They can mimic the hormones that the body releases and are believed to be capable of interfering with the reproductive systems of fetuses and babies, even at extremely low doses.

The American Medical Association urged the Food and Drug Administration last month to require labeling of all medical products containing one phthalate to protect newborns in hospitals. More than 100 hospitals have begun to remove such products from their neonatal nurseries out of concern they could damage baby boys.

Whether these chemicals should be banned or curtailed pits scientists against chemical companies, consumers against manufacturers, the EU against the United States and the state of California against toy makers around the globe.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has asked the National Academies of Science to produce a report on phthalates, a process that could take several years. The National Academies data would help the EPA set a "reference dose" for those chemicals � the maximum amount scientists believe a person could be exposed to in food and water every day without harm. The agency will begin an updated assessment shortly on bisphenol A, which could take years.

Once the EPA sets reference doses, it's up to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission to determine whether their use needs to be regulated in consumer products.

EPA scientists and grant recipients have done much of the groundbreaking work on the possible health effects of endocrine disruptors. But it's slow going.

In 1996, Congress told the EPA to begin testing one type of chemical � pesticides � for hormonal effects. But other potential hormone-disrupting chemicals weren't included in the mandate. EPA officials say they have been working diligently on the program, but the agency has not tested a single pesticide.

In June, the EPA published a draft list of 73 pesticide ingredients to undergo the first round of screening. It will begin next year.

Clifford Gabriel, director of the EPA's office of science coordination and policy, says the agency wasn't able to screen chemicals immediately because proven tests simply didn't exist. It has taken years to develop such tests and, just as important, to make sure they're accurate.

"The science always comes first," Gabriel says. "We're looking at very complicated biological systems."

Parents act on their own

Though the government hasn't made up its mind, parents increasingly have. Marina Borrone of Menlo Park, Calif., aims to protect her home from chemicals that she fears could harm her family or the planet. The restaurant owner and mother shuns most plastic in favor of old-fashioned glass baby bottles and wooden toys.

"Europe took it (phthalates) out of toys years ago," Borrone says. "Why are we so behind?"

Her home state is catching up with her. This month, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law the country's first ban on the use of phthalates in toys and other children's products. Under the law, any product made for young children that contains more than one-tenth of 1% of phthalates cannot be sold or distributed in California beginning in 2009.

The chemical industry disagrees with that approach.

"We know that exposure to phthalates is very low," American Chemistry Council spokeswoman Marian Stanley says. "We believe that for the amount in which they're used, and the amounts that people are exposed to, there is not a problem."

Today's mothers are leading the push for "greener" consumer goods, says Jeremiah McElwee, who oversees health and beauty products at Whole Foods Markets.

Whole Foods tries to keep up with consumer demand and science, McElwee says. The chain stopped selling baby bottles made of polycarbonate plastic in January 2006 because of concerns about a form of bisphenol A used in the plastic. "The research doesn't say these compounds are bad," says Joe Dickson, Whole Foods' quality-standards coordinator. "It says these products have a lot of question marks around them."

Not so, says the Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association. In a series of fact sheets on the safety of bisphenol A, the association says that plastic containing the chemical "has been rigorously studied and tested by both industry and government for decades." It went on to say that a panel assembled by the National Toxicology Program in August found bisphenol A did "not pose any serious risk to infants, children or adults."

The wording used by the panel was that there was "some concern" that exposure to bisphenol A in utero could cause neural and behavioral effects. The panel expressed only "minimal" and "negligible" concern that problems such as prostate effects and birth defects could be caused by the chemical.

Whole Foods' Michaels says that unlike government agencies, which require a high burden of proof before enacting regulations, many parents naturally follow the "precautionary principle." They often err on the side of caution to protect their children.

Such concern is driving sales for bottles free of bisphenol A.

Medela bottles have always been bisphenol A-free. Evenflo has marketed a glass baby bottle since the era when all baby bottles were glass, but its plastic bottles contain the chemical. Gerber sells several bisphenol A-free bottles, including its Clear View, Fashion Tints and Gentle Flow lines. Playtex Nurser System disposable liners also do not contain the chemical.

Small companies focusing on baby bottles without bisphenol A are doing a brisk business. BornFree went on sale in the USA last year, and the Adiri Natural Nurser made its debut this summer.

Adiri can "barely keep up with demand" and ran out of its smallest bottles just after their launch in August, says Sarah Eisner, vice president of sales and marketing. "We don't want to say all other bottles are evil. You have this brand-new life, so why not start out with materials you know aren't harmful?"

The chemical industry has responded quickly to the threat to its market share. The American Chemistry Council, through a complaint filed with the Better Business Bureau, forced BornFree to change its marketing this year. The company used to pitch its bottles as a safer alternative but was ordered in February not to claim its products were more child- or eco-friendly.

Ron Vigdor, BornFree's president and chief executive officer, says: "Now, we are the 'safe and smart feeding system.' We used to be the 'safer, smarter' feeding system."

The action so far

In December, the National Toxicology Program, part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, concluded that one form of phthalate, called di(2-ethylhexyl), or DEHP, used in intravenous tubing, catheters and other plastic medical equipment, could pose a risk to the proper development of baby boys' reproductive tracts.

Phthalates can block the male hormone androgen, which governs testosterone production and thus the way the male develops.

In animal studies, that hormonal change has meant the urethra forms on the underside of the penis rather than the end, as well as undescended testicles, testicular tumors and decreased sperm counts at maturity, says Stacy Malkan with Health Care Without Harm, a non-profit that helps hospitals phase out DEHP.

Infants who spend weeks in neonatal intensive care units may be exposed to high levels of the chemical, according to the FDA. So far, major hospital chains such as Kaiser Permanente, Catholic Healthcare West, Consorta and Premier have pledged to phase out medical equipment made with DEHP, especially in nurseries.

FDA issued a public health notification in 2002 recommending that alternatives to phthalate-containing plastics be used in medical procedures that might expose newborn boys, women pregnant with boys, and boys just entering puberty. But other federal agencies are years away from even weighing in on whether any other restrictions should be issued.

In Maryland, James Hubbard, a member of the state House of Delegates, says the federal government's failure to remove phthalates from toys and other products shows why local measures are needed. Hubbard, a Democrat, has twice tried to ban phthalates and bisphenol A in children's toys. He blames his bill's defeat on the chemical and toy industries, which lobbied against them.

Hubbard will reintroduce the ban in the next legislative session. "If Congress isn't going to protect the country, we are going to protect our own states," he says.

Other countries already have acted. The European Union, representing 27 nations, decided in 2005 to ban three forms of phthalates in toys and child-care items and restrict the use of three others in items children might put in their mouths. Canada has had a voluntary agreement not to use phthalates in kids' products since 1998.

The science behind the concern

Probably the most widely known endocrine disruptor is DES, a synthetic estrogen given to some pregnant women in the 1950s and 1960s under the mistaken belief that it would prevent miscarriage and premature birth. Since then, according to the CDC, research has shown that women who took DES while pregnant have a modestly increased risk for breast cancer. Their daughters are at increased risk for cancer of the vagina and cervix.

It has been only since the 1990s that researchers have found evidence that common chemicals, including those used in plastics, insecticides, herbicides, fumigants and fungicides, could disrupt the endocrine system.

The strongest data come from fish and other aquatic animals exposed to agricultural chemical runoff. Bizarre physical changes, including male fish with immature eggs in their testicles, have been found in the Potomac River. Vicki Blazer, a pathologist with the U.S. Geological Survey, blames pollutants with estrogen-like properties.

Other researchers have shown that in mammals, endocrine problems can stem from exposure to chemicals that leach from plastics, especially when they are heated. When pregnant rats are exposed to phthalates, their male offspring are born with malformed genitalia.

In humans, a 2005 study by Shanna Swan, a professor of obstetrics/gynecology at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) School of Medicine and Dentistry, showed that sons whose mothers had higher phthalate levels in their urine, in particular a dibutyl phthalate, had a shorter distance between the anus and the genitals.

That measure is regarded as a sign of "demasculinization," Swan says. The boys in whom the distance was shorter were slightly more likely to have other problems, too, such as smaller penises and incompletely descended testicles.

Many babies could be at risk, Swan says, because the phthalate levels she found in the mothers of the affected babies also are found in about 25% of American women.

Bisphenol A research in rodents also has found evidence that exposure can cause a variety of problems: earlier sexual maturation in females exposed before birth, breast cancer, lowered sperm production, possible links to prostate cancer and increased insulin resistance, a precursor to diabetes.

The chemical industry disputes these studies, however. A bisphenol A website, sponsored by the American Chemistry Council, PlasticsEurope and the Japan Chemical Industry Association, says bisphenol A "has been safely used in consumer products and researched and studied for over 40 years."

The Phthalate Esters Panel site, by the American Chemistry Council, says "there is no reliable evidence that any phthalate has ever caused a health problem for a human from its intended use." Some organizations, it says, "have 'cherry picked' the results showing impacts on test animals to create unwarranted concern."

All of this science is new � new enough that the painstaking research necessary for making law hasn't had time to happen. The instrumentation needed to test for extremely low amounts of these chemicals only became cost-effective in the parts-per-million and -billion range in the past 15 years.

George Gray, the EPA's deputy administrator for its Office of Research and Development, says there's more to be done before conclusions can be made.

Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., says EPA officials are "dragging their feet. � There's no excuse for not having done the scientific research to get the answers we need."

Critics haven't been happy when the EPA did move. Last year the agency released a draft proposal that would have tripled the reference dose for dibutyl phthalate to 0.3 milligrams per kilogram of body weight a day. After criticism, the EPA said last year that it would postpone a final decision.

The EPA has asked the National Academies to provide advice "on the best approach for a cumulative risk assessment on phthalates," says Gray. The agency has begun work on a risk assessment to set a reference dose for bisphenol A.

The controversy may end up in court. In Los Angeles Superior Court, Melissa Melendez and other parents have joined a class-action lawsuit this year against manufacturers and sellers of baby bottles containing bisphenol A.

Melendez says she fears that the chemical, leaching from bottles, may have caused her 19-month-old daughter, Lexie, to show signs of premature puberty.

"It makes me so upset," says Melendez, 25, of Fallbrook, Calif. "To think I might have been harming her without even knowing it."

A hearing is set for Feb. 28. An attorney for the defendants declined to comment on the lawsuit.