thedailybeast--2019-03-23--Quillette Ben Shapiro and the Myth of Conservative Facts

Quillette, Ben Shapiro, and the Myth of Conservative ‘Facts’

“Today's culture wars are framed as a contest between Left & Right, but it's about epistemology more than politics,” tweeted Claire Lehmann. “On one side we have those who value evidence and reason, and on the other we have those who lay claim to knowledge via emotion and drama.”  Lehmann, the editor in chief of Quillette, is echoing a refrain oft shouted from the right: “We are the rational ones, the left is all about emotions. Facts don’t care about your feelings!” The irony, of course, is this mythology the right has built about itself ignores its deeply anti-intellectual roots and embrace of grievance and fear over facts.  Quillette, a site that fancies itself intellectually contrarian but mostly publishes right-wing talking points couched in grievance politics, recently published a piece by Richard Hanania, a research fellow at Columbia University, called “It Isn’t Your Imagination: Twitter Treats Conservatives More Harshly Than Liberals.“  Eric Kaufmann, a professor of politics at Birkbeck, University of London, said “[a] rigorous study finds that Twitter bans essentially fall exclusively on conservative commentators.” Finally, conservatives have proof of what they know deep down to be true: They are being oppressed. Except even a cursory glance at the “data” shows a shocking lack of rigor, intellectual honesty, and scientific standards.  “I began my analysis by compiling a list of every prominent individual or political party known to have been banned from Twitter since its founding,” Hanania writes. One would expect this to be quite an undertaking since Twitter has suspended thousands of users in its decade of existence, but when you opened the supporting evidence, it was merely a list of 22 cherry-picked names.  And if I were a conservative, I would be offended by those he claimed to own that label. David Duke is a Klansman. George Zimmerman a killer. Tila Tequila is a reality show “star” who dresses in Nazi cosplay. Other people on the list like Baked Alaska, Richard Spencer, and James Allsup are prominent members of the alt-right, also known as neo-Nazis. The tacit admission that modern conservatism is inextricably linked to racist white identity politics should not go unnoticed.  Of course, these data are nonsense for a few reasons:  So why would Quillette, a site atheist Jerry Coyne instructed his readers to “think of it as Slate, but more serious, more intellectual, and without any Regressive Leftism,” publish such a fact-free, embarrassing piece? Why would Claire Lehmann, a woman who embraces the label of “intellectual dark web,” get behind it?  Because the right, despite all its posturing about the left being inextricably tied to their narratives, has become all of what they claim to hate.  Take the National Review for example. NR was founded by William F. Buckley for the express purpose of creating a conservative intellectual tradition. In 1955 he wrote, “Ideas have to go into exchange to become or remain operative; and the medium of such exchange is the printed word.” Of course, those “ideas,” in NR were often repugnant.  Since then it has abandoned that intellectual pretense and employed Dinesh D’Souza, one of the most morally and intellectually bankrupt conservatives in America [citations: 1, 2, 3, 4] and Victor Davis Hanson, a man who might be a talented classicist but whose work has been called "spectacularly stupid" by even those on the right when it comes to his political and social writings.  Both of these men suffer deeply from Conservative Victimhood Syndrome, which attracts them to Trump, a born-rich white man who has failed up his entire life and yet claims to be “treated very unfairly.” D’Souza and Hanson consistently put feelings before facts as evidenced by Hanson’s recent interview with Isaac Chotiner in The New Yorker and David Frum’s detailing of D’Souza’s descent in The Atlantic.  National Review now publishes stories like Charcoal Face Masks Deemed an Example of ‘Racism’ and ‘Blackface’. This piece, written by NRO’s Kat Timpf, claims that liberals are saying white women can’t use charcoal facial cleansing masks because it looks too much like blackface. But even a cursory glance at the piece shows it is entirely false.  Timpf quotes three tweets as evidence, one from a person with eight followers and two by comedians. It is unclear if the tweet from the first person (who soared up to nine followers) was meant seriously or in jest but the others were clearly comedy from comedians, and Timpf was either too lazy, dishonest, or dunderheaded to see that.  This equation of “look at this outrageous thing we found 1-3 examples of out of a country of more than 300 million with no context” + “liberals are oppressing you with this ridiculousness” = “big story on conservative website” is not unique.  NRO was forced to retract another of Kat Timpf’s stories because it cherry-picked facts and left out context just like the Quillette piece, only this time, the claims were much more serious. Timpf claimed a University of Missouri student had been targeted for violating Title IX because he had “asked another student out on a date and is physically larger,” completely leaving out that he had stalked and harassed the female student over a period of months.  Timpf was not alone. The Daily Wire, a site run by Ben Shapiro, published the same specious story but refused to retract it even when the truth was exposed. Shapiro, whose tagline is “facts don’t care about your feelings,” has a long history of publishing misleading stories meant to inflame the right wing then either not correcting the mistake or taking weeks to do so.  When Young Kim, a California Republican, was in a tight race for Congress in southern California, The Daily Wire ran a story with the headline, “GOP Elects First Korean American Woman To Congress. But You Wouldn’t Know It.” It began:  “While leftists are howling at the moon over the ascent of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the youngest woman elected to Congress, the media has almost virtually ignored another historic victory from Tuesday night's midterm: Young Kim of the CA-39, the first Korean American elected to Congress, who is also a Republican.”  In fact, Young Kim narrowly lost that race, but the fact that they couldn’t wait for the results to push a narrative over leftist hypocrisy speaks volumes. After several days they put a disclaimer, “UPDATE: Despite early returns, Kim did not in fact win in CA-39. Instead, [Gil] Cisneros won a narrow victory over Kim,” on the article.  Other stories that were disproven after the Daily Wire published them include “Mohammed Is Most Popular Name For Newborn Boys . . . In The Netherlands,” Ben Carson Finds $500 Billion (Billion!) In Errors During Audit Of Obama HUD and “AWFUL: Top Democrats Refuse to Stand, Clap for Navy SEAL Widow Honored by Trump” among others.  You might not expect that from an editor in chief who says things like, “From Covington to Smollett, if a story seems perfectly constructed to fit a narrative, it probably is.” But the reality is the modern right is engaged in all of the practices they claim are unique to the left.  According to The New York Times, Shapiro is “the cool kid’s philosopher, dissecting arguments with a lawyer’s skill and references to Aristotle.” Current Affairs, a left-wing political magazine, did a deep look at Shapiro shortly after The New York Times published their story and ran a withering piece that takes apart this narrative with ease:  “What dispirited me about Shapiro’s approach is that he’s clearly not actually very interested in facts at all. The role that race plays in American life is a serious sociological question, one that isn’t answered easily. But Shapiro plucks only the statistics that suggest race doesn’t matter, and pretends the statistics that suggest it does matter don’t exist.  Nobody can trust him, because if he comes across a finding showing that incarceration rates more closely follow crime rates than racial demographics, you can bet it will appear in his next speech. But if someone shows that a white man with a criminal record is far more likely to receive a job callback than a black man without a criminal record, you’ll never hear it mentioned.”  But one need not even delve that far into Shapiro’s alternative-fact reality to see that he is given far too much credit for his debating skills. He recently got into a fight on Twitter with Ilyse Hogue of NARAL about motherhood in politics and it took only minutes for Shapiro to grow frustrated with his inability to win and shoot back: “You are aware you work for an abortion organization, correct? You might want to sit out the motherhood discussion.” Not only does this make very little sense considering 59 percent of women having abortions are mothers, but also Hogue is herself a mother and Shapiro is not.  Lehmann, Shapiro, NRO, and more expose the lie that the right puts facts above feelings. In 2017, Yale professors did a study and found they could turn conservatives into liberals by allaying fears for their safety. By giving them a thought exercise of imagining they were completely safe and protected from threats, Republicans became significantly more liberal when asked about their stances on social issues. Now we see why Shapiro and his ilk are so invested in fear mongering about the radical left with intellectual dishonesty.


activistpost--2019-03-19--SPACE FORCE US Defense Officials Want 304 Million Towards Space-Based Weaponry

SPACE FORCE: U.S. Defense Officials Want $304 Million Towards Space-Based Weaponry

Defense officials have asked for $304 million to fund research into Directed Energy Weapons (DEWs) including but not limited to — space-based lasers, particle beams, and other space-based weaponry in the 2020 budget, Defense One reported.  The officials want to test a neutral particle beam in orbit by fiscal year 2023 as a means of next-generation missile defense against adversary countries like China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran according to the report. However, the article only addresses $15 million of that budget, leaving a gap for what the other $289 million dollars is used for. As NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden revealed, under high levels of national security there was a black budget of 52.6 billion dollars. One may wonder how much more that cost has risen and how much is allocated to “space-based weaponry” off the books on the black budget?  According to Defense One:  The Pentagon first tested the concept of a neutral particle beam in the late 1980s as part of a program self-titled the Neutral Particle Beam, or NPB. According to a 1990 report that military scientists sent to lawmakers, scientists in black projects explored the possibility of a space-based weapon that could “kill missiles and reentry vehicles in the boost, post-boost, and mid-course portion of an ICBM trajectory as well as discriminated objects during the midcourse phase.”  In July 1989, the program put a neutral particle beam into orbit as part of a project called the Beam Experiment Aboard a Rocket, which is seen as “a major success for the NPBprogram.”  On the other side of the hemisphere, the Soviets had worked for years on ground-based directed energy weapons — mainly lasers, high-powered microwave masers, and exotic particle beam weapons. Evidence exists that the USSR tested these weapons (both anti-satellite and ABM (Anti-ballistic missile capable). Here is a declassified Defense Department photograph from 1980s of a suspected particle beam weapon installation allegedly located in Semipalatinsk, Kazakhstan.  In 2017 shortly before Trump’s inauguration a U.S. Air Force commander proclaimed that space weapons can now be used against ISIS. This type of technology has been developed, in secret, for years.  “If we want to be more agile then the reality is we are going to have to push decision authority down to some lower levels in certain areas the big question that we’ve got to wrestle with … is the authorities to operate in cyber and space,” General David Goldfein, the Air Force chief of staff, told USA TODAY.  Although General Goldfein did not go into detail, citing that the material is classified, there is enough data out on the Internet to speculate what weapons could be used against the Islamic State.  This preceded an announcement by U.S. President Donald Trump about creating a Space Force after Congress had discussed the creation of a new branch of the military.  In 2017 I wrote a lengthy exposé by a since-deceased military whistleblower in regards to a secret space program existing and having run several experiments that were always canceled over the years but received immense funding. Within that article, entitled: “The Origins And 50 Years Of Evidence Of A Secret Space Program,” I provided evidence that these military space plans weren’t canceled but were simply discredited while remaining operational and went into BLACK PROJECT SAPS or Special Access Programs.  Meanwhile, Congress voted under the Defense Authorization 2018 bill on forming a “new” sixth branch of the military called “Space Corps” which would take over Air Force Space Command Operations and likely Naval Space Operations or Naval Space Command.  In 2015, The New York Times reported that space could be the next war zone, warning about the implications of weaponizing space in an opinion piece literally entitled: “Preventing A Space War.”  It’s worth noting that space-based weaponry is nothing new. Believe it or not, history of space-based weapons goes back to 1959 when the Air Force first expressed interest in space weapons and considered a plan, Project A119, according to a declassified report by the Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center from June 1959. The report shows they wanted to investigate the capability of weapons in space.  Let’s first look at a project known as Horizon, which was supposedly just a drawn-up plan in the 1960s that is our first canceled project in a long list of projects that were canceled, that seemingly depicts the blueprints for a Secret Space Program including a base on the moon.  It’s worth noting that in 2017, a year prior before the announcing of Space Force, the U.S. and Russia agreed to build a moon base together, Activist Post reported.  NASA and the Russian space agency Roscosmos announced a partnership for human exploration of the moon and deep space. Both agencies signed a joint statement on the collaborative effort. It all stems from NASA’s “deep-space gateway” concept, a mission architecture designed to send astronauts into lunar orbit by 2020 (the statement sets a mid-2020s goal for beginning the project.)  “This plan challenges our current capabilities in human spaceflight and will benefit from engagement by multiple countries and U.S. industry,” NASA officials said in a statement.  Unlike Project Horizon, the recently proposed plan is an orbital station that will orbit the moon, as opposed to a stationary base on the moon’s surface.  Instead, the current plan resembles another previous proposal called the MOL (Manned Orbiting Laboratory) which was suggested during the Cold War.  The MOL ran from December 1963, until its alleged cancellation in June 1969. Its mission was to use an elite corps of secret U.S. astronauts to gather intelligence on the Soviets during the Cold War. This historical fact proves that secret astronauts were proposed and may exist today in black ops known as Special Access Programs or SAPS.  China and Europe also recently proposed to “build” a joint lunar command for their own future space endeavors in the past few years. This project, however, is the opposite and more closely resembles Project Horizon, a stationary joint command structure. on the moon.  A quote from President Ronald Reagan on June, 11th 1985 seems to allude to that fact. Reagan wrote in his diary that he had been told about a “space shuttle that carries 300 men” when having lunch with five of the top scientists at the time.  The quote by Ronald Regan in his diary makes only a little more sense when compared with a 1989, New York Times article which reported that the Air Force had shut down another planned manned space program, with a staff of 32 astronauts and a space shuttle launching facility in Colorado. The space facility and project costed an estimated minimum of $5 billion dollars, so why would they shut it down?  Reagan said, “space truly is the last frontier and some of the developments there in astronomy etc. are like science fiction, except they are real. I learned that our shuttle capacity is such that we could orbit 300 people.”  Modern space shuttles only carry eight passengers maximum, so 32 or 300 would be an accomplishment indeed.  Then there is the Air Force’s X-20 Dyna-Soar space plane, which was also designed in the 1960s and was allegedly scrapped for metal. The Air Force quietly announced its cancellation in 1963. Today the U.S. Air Force has another plane that has been documented to have been in space four times the X-37B. However, the X-37B is an unmanned craft and its mission purpose is classified and unknown. It’s also alleged that the X-37B operation is run from the Air Force’s Rapid Capabilities Office and not the U.S. Air Force Space Command.  Ronald Reagan is also the same president who signed the original SDI (Strategic Defense Initiative), aka “Star Wars” — a project to set up satellites with lasers that could destroy any ballistic missiles which threatened the U.S.  He gave his famous speech about how if Earth was invaded by a hostile force, we would all have to forget our differences and come together in peace.  There is also a space weapons agreement that a congressman proposed called the “Space Preservation Treaty” in 2005, which states that countries won’t seek to weaponize space. However, Obama recently violated this agreement under the 2017 NDAA Act, and no one noticed that the legislation he signed is essentially the Star Wars Defense Initiative II that his predecessor, Ronald Reagan, signed calling for a space-based missile system.  That proposed system is now under Trump’s control, and Defense officials now want more money to develop U.S. space-based weapons. Trump’s Pentagon arms-research chief, Michael Griffin, first expressed interest in Directed Energy Weapons last year, Activist Post reported.  WikiLeaks documents from Hacking Team, the mysterious Italian surveillance malware vendor, also show references to nonlethal Directed Energy Weapons already being sold globally.  Then there is this interesting document on the bio-effects of nonlethal weapons.  In fact, we know that Directed Energy Weapons have existed since at least April 28, 1997, when U.S. Defense Secretary William Cohen made the following statement according to the DoD:  However, currently Russia and China want a Treaty on the Prevention of the Placement of Weapons in Outer Space, Russian Ambassador to the U.N. Dr. Vitaly Churkin expressed.    In fact, other WikiLeaks documents — this time from John Podesta emails — show an email from the former astronaut and sixth to walk on the moon, Edgar Mitchell, who talks about this treaty with Podesta.  Is there any evidence that there is advanced weaponry in space?  Mitchell warned the “war in the space race is heating up.” Mitchell also sends Podesta a revised new space weapons treaty to ban the use of weapons in outer space.  What is the Rod Of God? The Rod of God is a part of the Directed Energy Weapon family; it’s a kinetic energy weapon.  The rods are directed munitions; the higher you are (the greater your distance from the planet), the greater the kinetic energy you have.  There is also the  Space Based Laser (SBL). All of these weapons and more used to be under the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command (SPAWAR.)  Like many of these projects, the Rod Of God weapon was proposed in the 1950s by the Rand Corporation prior to Reagan’s SDI (Star Wars Project.) Rand played with the idea of placing rods on the tips of ICBMs.  The “U.S. Air Force Transformation Flight Plan,” published by the Air Force in November 2003, references “hypervelocity  rod bundles” in its outline of future space-based weapons, and in 2002,  another report from RAND, “Space Weapons, Earth Wars,” talks about the effectiveness of such a weapon.  The concept of developing kinetic-energy weapons has been around ever since the RAND Corporation proposed placing rods on tips of ICBMs in the 1950s. Although the Pentagon won’t say how far along the research is, or even confirm that any efforts exist, citing those details are classified. The “U.S. Air Force Transformation Flight Plan,” published by the Air Force in November 2003, references “hypervelocity rod bundles” in its outline of future space-based weapons; and in 2002, another report from RAND, “Space Weapons, Earth Wars,” talks about the effectiveness of such a weapon.  It’s highly possible that the Rods Of God were used after a North Korean launchpad collapsed in 2017, since former Secretary of Defense James Mattis suggested the U.S. could use “kinetic weapons” against North Korea prior to the strange earthquake, as Activist Post reported.  An earthquake then happened; and although small, a 3.5 earthquake took place near its nuclear facilities in April right after Mattis’s comments and a bigger one then followed in July 2017 which was a 5.8 as reported by Australian News.com.au.  There was also a further earthquake in September 2017, which Voice Of America blamed on North Korea running nuclear tests, resulting in the deaths of dozens of people.  One month later in October, there was another nuclear test site destroyed when a mine shaft being dug at the regime’s nuclear test site collapsed and killed 200+ people which was blamed on the previous testing, Telegraph reported.  Last year a study by a group of geologists discovered that the Mount Mantap mountains used by North Korea for its nuclear bomb testing had collapsed as a result of the explosions last April. The collapsed mountain further raised concerns about radioactive fallout, which could make its way into China, according to scientists from the University of Science and Technology of China. The researchers believe this could be the true reason North Korean President Kim Jong-un announced the halt of their nuclear testing program.  I personally feel all these coincidental earthquakes after the kinetic weapon threat is un-ignorable empirical evidence since there were several nuclear test sites destroyed and hit with tremors.  Another time the Rod Of God weapon may have been used was in 2015 when Natural News reported that the several explosions in Tianjin, China were due to the Rod of God, largely due to the Chinese cyber attacks and presumably U.S. currency devaluation that took place in 2015 from dumping massive bonds.  In 2011, a few years prior, The New York Times reported that the Defense Department was working up new strategies to counter cyber attacks, including, as the paper reported, “a military response,” because they would soon consider cyber attacks as an act of war.  In 2015, The New York Times followed up with a report on “The Rods From God.”  Another type of blacklisted space weaponry is an aircraft known as Aurora or TR-3B.  When you first start researching space weapons, one man comes up a lot in your searches — and that man is Edgar Fouche.  Fouche, a former contractor with the Department of Defense, began leaking information in the 1990s pertaining to the existence of a U.S. Air Force triangular shaped craft known as the TR-3B or the Aurora Project. He alleged the aerial vehicle was an advanced version of the SR-71 and had been developed in secret by the NSA and the U.S. Air Force and had been flying since at least the 1980s.  Is Edgar Fouche credible? Yes, there are dozens of documents of his awards; he is indeed who he claims to be:  a technician who worked within DARC (Defense Advanced Research Center) who was stationed at Nellis Air Force base and Groom Air Force base. A few of those documents are below. It’s worth noting that on February this year a UFO researcher filmed unknown craft flying out of Nellis Air Force base on a daily basis.  “I was stationed at Nellis from 76-79. In the summer of 79 I worked at Groom AB and DARC (Defense Advanced Research Center). This is right before assignment to Kadena AFB, Okinawa Japan,” Fouche said.  Whistleblower Master Sergeant Edgar Fouche (deceased) worked as an avionics engineer for the U.S. Air Force for over 20 years, and in 1998, published details of an aerial vehicle known as the TR3-B that he claims was developed in secret by the NSA and U.S.A.F.  The performance characteristics of this vehicle are mind-boggling, using field propulsion to reduce the weight of the craft, plasma, and traveling faster than 30x the Earth’s gravity at Mach 9 (6,900 mph) vertically or horizontally.  Is this possible? Let’s first answer if the speed is achievable. Recently, warp drive technology like this became public and the Chinese tested the leaked EM-drive patent and manufactured the device, so the technology is indeed operational and NASA has confirmed too that it works. An astrophysicist claimed that we would have it within 100 years, while another scientist in Britain, Roger Shawyer, claimed he figured out the secret and we could reach the moon in four hours. Russia has made a similar claim, but with a nuclear-fission engine, claiming that the engine can provide a fast way to get to Mars in 6 weeks.  Next, let’s talk about the possibility to generate a magnetic field for the use of propulsion.  Is this plausible? A scientific paper titled, “Generating a magnetic field by a rotating plasma” proves that this is indeed possible.  Former Lockheed Martin Skunkworks Senior Scientist Boyd Bushman came out in 2012, on his deathbed, about Antigravity Propulsion Devices and how they tie into what is known as “Singularity,” which could allow you to move anywhere within the universe instantaneously. He further explained how magnetics worked by doing a magnet experiment with a copper pipe and aluminum pipe.  Is there any video evidence of such an anti-gravity craft being used? In Canada, released through a FOIA request, there is a video of the Avrocar, which was the U.S. Army’s top secret flying saucer, tested between 1952-1961. Although the Avrocar only reached hovering heights of three feet and speeds of 30 knots.  This shows that levitation technology was actively being developed in the 1950s-60s, so it’s believed to be a prototype of the hovering craft, but it’s not the only known prototype.  Another project, the supersonic flying saucer, was declassified and was worked on in the 1950s.  This wasn’t the only saucer project that the U.S. Air Force would be involved on working on. Declassified plans for another project around the same time in the 1950s shows another saucer that looks exactly like your typical UFO craft except this one was deemed “supersonic.” It was the same company, Avro Canada, in tandem with the U.S. Air Force who was tasked with developing this project. The supersonic flying saucer would propel itself by rotating an outer disk at very high speed, taking advantage of the Coandă effect. Keep this in mind as we are going to talk about another craft, the TR-3B, which I believe uses the Coandă effect later on in the article. Fouche says to the deniers in the video below that, “if you think these rumors are far-fetched look at the YB49 flown in 1948 and the XB70 flown in 1964, then look at the SR-74 and SR-75 Aurora which has been spotted numerous times you say that the government can’t keep a secret? Boy, you are wrong.” Fouche says that the “SR-74 and SR-75 or Aurora” were both “replacements for the SR-71 blackbird spy plane.” The SR-71 blackbird was developed in 1964, Fouche alleges that its replacement was created in the 1990s almost two decades later. Before the SR-71 in 1962, there was another plane as mentioned above, the X-20 Dyna-Soar, which literally says space plane on the Air Force’s website.  Do you really think that was the Air Force’s last attempt at a space vehicle? Today the Air Force Space Command, separate from the Air Force, admittedly has the X-37B an unmanned spacecraft that has had numerous unknown missions into space. In late 2017, U.S. President Donald Trump resurrected the U.S. National Space Council (NSC) by signing an executive order on June 30th, 2017 in order to steer the future of American space policy. The council was last active in the early 1990s during President George H.W. Bush’s administration. Pence chairs the reinstated council, with aerospace veteran Scott Pace serving as executive secretary to the committee. At @POTUS' direction, the Nat'l Space Council will hold first meeting with all aspects of space enterprise for 1st time in a quarter century pic.twitter.com/3YBiNUTV6l “At President Trump’s direction, the kick-off meeting of the National Space Council will bring together all aspects and sectors of the national space enterprise for the first time in a quarter-century,” Pence said in a statement. “This meeting will provide an opportunity for the Administration to lay out its vision for space exploration. As President Trump said, ‘We’re a nation of pioneers, and the next great American frontier is space.’” Focusing on the recent revival of the NSC or National Space Council, which has been dormant since it was disbanded in 1993 during the Clinton administration, the NSC helps Trump’s admin follow through with their goals in space. I will end this article the same way I ended my previous leak on 50 Years Of Evidence Of A Secret Space Program. Could the government keep such a massive secret hiding a Secret Space Program? The National Security Agency (NSA) was founded in 1952, but its existence was hidden until the mid 1960s. Even more secretive is the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), which was founded in 1960 but remained completely secret for 30 years. Then there was the Manhattan Project or the atomic weapons test which was kept secret through compartmentalization despite at least 1500 leaks. In other words, the project was broken into many isolated sub-projects exactly as is detailed above with the SSP. Most of the people managing sub-projects knew nothing about the other sub-projects.  They would report to a superior, who would provide the information they needed and nothing more. Vice President Harry Truman didn’t even know the Manhattan Project existed. So absolutely the government can keep a secret this vast and has before, but only for so long until whistleblowers emerge and journalists like me get curious and start digging and peeling back the secrecy to bring transparency to an issue that majority of the public doesn’t even know exists. The main thing to take away from all this information is, as SeattlePi wrote in a 2015 article, “Weapons in space put the world at risk.” Especially if they are running unsanctioned programs unbeknownst to Congress and even the President of the United States by Military Industrial Complex Aerospace corporations. It’s time to peel back truth’s protective layers; if they have worked on various black projects for fifty-plus years, what makes you think they stopped? The second thing to take away is that there is a tremendous amount of history where the U.S. has been working on these weapons, and many likely already exist at least in compartmentalized circles. Regardless, it’s now quite known that Space Force is a thing, but what if we have already weaponized space? Space-based weapons are quite literally a threat to National Security and American sovereignty – space is the final frontier as Neil Armstrong said. Although, I don’t think Armstrong meant to end life as we know it and expand war into space by bringing about our own demise through our actions towards other humans or an alien race. Aaron Kesel writes for Activist Post. Support us at Patreon. Follow us on Minds, Steemit, SoMee, BitChute, Facebook and Twitter. Ready for solutions? Subscribe to our premium newsletter Counter Markets.


activistpost--2019-12-06--Smartphone Class Action Lawsuits Consolidated. FCC Accredited Lab Confirms Models Exceed RF Safety L

Smartphone Class Action Lawsuits Consolidated. FCC Accredited Lab Confirms Models Exceed RF Safety Levels Up to 500%

In August the Chicago Tribune published a report that 11 smartphone models exceeded federal RF safety levels. This led to FeganScott law firm starting a class action lawsuit against Apple and Samsung. Consumers claim they were not adequately warned about radiation exposure risks from these devices. In fact, no “safe” level of cell phone radiation has still been scientifically determined for children or pregnant women.  For many years now, health experts, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, have also been warning that children are more susceptible to harm from exposure. Regardless, phone manufacturers continue to make and market smartphones and other wireless devices to children and for children.  Thanks to FeganScott for providing updates about their progress:  San Francisco – December 6, 2019 – National consumer-rights law firm FeganScott consolidated its two proposed class action suits against Apple (AAPL) and Samsung Electronics (SSNLF) after independent testing from a Federal Communications Commission-accredited laboratory confirmed that radio-frequency (RF) radiation levels from popular Apple and Samsung smartphones far exceeded federal limits when the devices are used as marketed by the manufacturers.  Beth Fegan, managing partner of FeganScott and the attorney representing the consolidated suit, which was filed after the firm hired the industry-recognized lab, says that smartphone manufacturers must take responsibility for misleading consumers about the levels of RF radiation emitted by their smartphones when used against or in close proximity to the user’s skin.  “Apple and Samsung smartphones have changed the way we live. Adults, teenagers and children wake up to check their email or play games and do work or school exercises on their smartphones. They carry these devices in their pockets throughout the day and literally fall asleep with them in their beds,” Fegan said.  “The manufacturers told consumers this was safe, so we knew it was important to test the RF radiation exposure and see if this was true,” Fegan noted. “It is not true. The independent results confirm that RF radiation levels are well over the federal exposure limit, sometimes exceeding it by 500 percent, when phones are used in the way Apple and Samsung encourage us to. Consumers deserve to know the truth.”  The FCC-accredited lab tested six different brand-new smartphone models at various distances, ranging from zero to 10 millimeters to measure the amount of RF radiation released when touching or in close proximity to the body. When tested at two millimeters, the iPhone 8 and Samsung Galaxy S8 were more than twice the federal exposure limit. At zero millimeters, the iPhone 8 was five times more than the federal exposure limit, and the Samsung Galaxy S8 was more than three times the federal exposure limit.  The consolidated suit filed by FeganScott includes a comprehensive list of all named plaintiffs and includes the extensive FCC-accredited lab test results from all the smartphones tested: iPhone 7+, iPhone 8, iPhone XR, Galaxy S8, Galaxy S9, and Galaxy S10.  The test settings reflected the smartphones’ actual use conditions, rather than the conditions set by manufacturers in order to produce results that appear to be safe for consumers.  “Smartphone owners across the country deserve to know that the RF radiation levels from smartphones when touching the skin or used close to the body may be unsafe,” Fegan noted. “The emails and calls from concerned consumers have increased as more research comes to light, and it is our goal to show that Apple and Samsung were aware of the alarmingly high radiation levels when their products arrived on the market.”  According to Pew Research Center, 96 percent of Americans own a cell phone, and of those, 81 percent own a smartphone. Common Sense Media, a nonprofit organization, reports that 29 percent of American teens sleep with their phones in bed with them, which makes the radiation level findings especially alarming.  Filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, the lawsuit seeks to represent Apple and Samsung smartphone owners. The suit asks the court to order the defendants to pay for medical monitoring and damages  FeganScott is a nationwide class-action law firm dedicated to helping consumers. The firm’s partners have successfully recovered $1 billion on behalf of consumers and victims nationwide. FeganScott is committed to pursuing successful outcomes with integrity and excellence, while holding unjust parties accountable. To learn more, visit www.feganscott.com.  Activist Post reports regularly about biological exposure risks from all sources of Electromagnetic Radiation aka Electrosmog. For more information, visit our archives and the following websites:  Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Become an Activist Post Patron for as little as $1 per month at Patreon. Follow us on SoMee, Flote, Minds, Twitter, and Steemit.  Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


bbc--2019-04-28--The Wandering Earth and Chinas sci-fi heritage

The Wandering Earth and China's sci-fi heritage

The Wandering Earth has been billed as a breakthrough for Chinese sci-fi.  The film tells the story of our planet, doomed by the expanding Sun, being moved across space to a safer place. The Chinese heroes have to save the mission - and humanity - when Earth gets caught in Jupiter's gravitational pull.  Based on Hugo Award winner Liu Cixin's short story of the same name, Wandering Earth has already grossed $600m (£464m) at the Chinese box office and was called China's "giant leap into science fiction" by the Financial Times. It's been bought by Netflix and will debut there on 30 April.  But while this may be the first time many in the West have heard of "kehuan" - Chinese science fiction - Chinese cinema has a long sci-fi history, which has given support to scientific endeavour, offered escapism from harsh times and inspired generations of film-goers.  So for Western audiences eager to plot the rise of the Chinese sci-fi movie, here are five films I think are worth renewed attention.  For most in the Western world, their first encounter with Chinese cinema came from directors like Wu Tianming (The Old Well, The King of Masks) and Zhang Yimou (House of Flying Daggers, Raise the Red Lantern).  They were largely preoccupied with themes like the loss of youth, tradition versus change, and creating the rural aesthetic most people associated with Chinese film.  But China in the 1980s was a scene of rapid modernisation, urbanisation and Westernisation, and films started responding to the impact of this massive change.  In Dislocation, a scientist creates an android version of himself to attend the endless meetings that rob him of his time, in a black comedy of mechanisation and bureaucracy.  Huang's take on the debate on artificial intelligence is superbly delivered against a surreal Kafka-esque dreamscape, with stark lighting and suspenseful music, making this film a delight to watch.  Hopefully the new interest in kehuan will see it gain an official release in the West.  A grown-up style of kehuan emerged in the 1990s, reflecting the themes of identity versus technological advancement which were also occupying Western sci-fi at the time.  In Warrior Revived, police officer Song Da Wei dies a gruesome death on duty and ends up in a decade-long coma. He's brought back to life by a "miracle cure" from a biologist who has found a way to repair defective DNA.  The genetically enhanced Song finds himself uncomfortable with the cyberised world around him, and excluded by his old comrades. Meanwhile, the heavily maimed villain he gave his life to destroy is plotting to steal the gene formula and wreak his revenge.  Like a lot of great cyberpunk movies before the age of CGI, this early mainland kehuan impresses with its high kitsch, low-budget, imaginative approach.  The villain's lair is filled with neon tubes, hand-crafted lab controls and walls covered with plastic bowls in the best traditions of the Tardis.  What it lacks in sleekness it more than makes up with innovative costume designs and soundtrack, diligent camera work and the sheer energy from the cast.  The 1980s brought a slew of Hollywood sci-fi films made for children, but which appealed equally to adults - like Explorers, Flight of The Navigator, and D.A.R.Y.L. - and filmmakers in China were taking a similar route.  Produced by the Children's Film Studios and hailed as the nation's first children's fantasy film, Wonder Boy tells the story of a child born with the ability to generate electricity.  Bei Bei is bullied by neighbours and kept in isolation by parents who want to protect him, but is still a caring and mischievous little boy, who uses his powers to help others and have fun in equal measure.  When Bei Bei is taken away to be experimented on - by a non-governmental, possibly foreign group - a handful of the close friends he has made come to his rescue.  Well-loved for its humour and accessibility, Wonder Boy is remembered in China as a great classic, and still enjoyed by children today when it is repeated on both national television and streaming services.  Produced by Jackie Chan and winner of the 2017 Grand Remi for Best Feature and Best Actress, Reset is a time travel thriller, which addresses a Chinese preoccupation with personal roles in a culture that so totally promotes the good of society.  Xia Tian (Yang Mi) is a senior researcher of wormhole technology and a single mother. When her young son is kidnapped, she is forced to hand over her research, but when the villain murders her child anyway she is forced to test her own discoveries into time travel in order to save his life, and maybe undo her own betrayal of the programme.  The film is an exploration of the plight of a New Chinese Woman, who walks the line between the roles of highly skilled professional and loving mother. The psychological exploration is fantastic. With several versions of Xia being generated by her repeated time travel, the face-off between our heroine and these alternate selves, including a darker, damaged one, creates an amazing tension which is missing from so many Western takes on this classic trope.  A female-led space kehuan story that also deals with single parenthood couldn't be more relevant in a society that is simultaneously beginning a golden space age, and struggling with attitudes to women's emancipation.  Wuxia, or kung fu fantasy, is so intrinsic to Chinese pop culture it was almost inevitable that its tropes would be incorporated into Chinese sci-fi.  Produced exclusively for IQiyi, China's version of Netflix, Super Mechs is set in 2066 in a world where humanity has begun to experience genetic mutations which leave some people with X-Men style super powers.  Global criminal organisations are threatening the order of society and private entities are stepping up to uphold it by developing highly advanced mechanised power suits.  Hero Xiao Qi is an ordinary office clerk enlisted by the Dragon Clan, who reveal to him his latent mutant ice powers, before arming him with a robotic power suit and sending him on a mission. Little does Xiao Qi know that he will be greeted by another mech-suited warrior with fire-based powers who will fight him to a standstill.  The "warriors with opposite powers" trope is a staple of the wuxia genre, but the film falls deeper down the rabbit hole when this deadly opponent is revealed to be Xiao Qi's long-lost brother.  Add in ancient warring clans, fast-paced action between the sleek computer-generated mechanical fighters and a cheeky sense of humour from our protagonist, and the high budget Huayi Brothers production appeals to fans of superhero, kung fu and toku/tecuo films alike.  The works of stalwart wuxia authors like Jin Yong are steadily being translated into English, so we will certainly see more from this sub-genre reach our screens.  Acknowledging the rich and varied Chinese science fiction tradition does not at all detract from the pride in the success of Wandering Earth.  With China's growing middle class and increased youth spending power, Chinese filmmakers are increasingly catering for a booming domestic demand for entertainment, and no longer worry as much about making their films palatable for export.  But with more East-West co-productions in the pipeline, like the animated Next Gen which originated from a Chinese web comic, it is certainly a sensible decision for companies like Netflix to bring films from platforms like IQiyi, to an English speaking audience, and that is going to include kehuan.  Western audiences may not immediately "get" some of these films, or may feel that some elements do not flow to their expectations.  But Wandering Earth and the titles above are the product of China's culture and worldview. And to some extent, it's what makes them different that will pique interest, fascinate and entertain.  Xueting Christine Ni is a writer and speaker on Chinese culture, based in the UK. She can be found on Twitter at @xuetingni


bbc--2019-05-20--Teaching machines to write better adverts than humans

Machines are now writing advertising copy as well as basic news reports, but are their efforts any good and can they be taught to be more inventive?  "Have a suite stay" read an ad for a hotel offering all-suite rooms. A neat - if obvious - pun you might think.  But what made this ad noteworthy was that it was created by an automated copywriting programme developed by Dentsu Aegis Network, the marketing giant.  The firm launched its natural language generation algorithm last year to increase output after changes were made to Google's advertising system, explains Audrey Kuah, the firm's managing director.  The programme creates 20 to 25 full ads a second in English and is "trained" by feeding it thousands of the kind of ads it is meant to produce, she says.  But what caught their eye about this ad was that it was quite witty.  Google's "cost-per-click-basis" advertising system, whereby the cost of an ad falls the more it is clicked on, encourages clients to play it safe, says Ms Kuah, making the ads rather pedestrian.  The algorithm couldn't learn to be more creative based on such a back catalogue of humdrum copy.  "We got quite fascinated by how we inject this concept of creativity," she says.  So they began to "feed" the algorithm with editorial headlines from travel articles and idioms to see if it could learn "more flowery" language.  "Our ambition is to train this AI [artificial intelligence] copywriter to learn how to inject a little bit of that human creativity, which today is taken out of the search advertising system because it may not be so readily rewarded," she says.  The idea of making AI more human-like and inventive is already happening to a certain extent in China.  Retail giant Alibaba, for example, enables merchants on its e-commerce ecosystem to dictate the tone of the language when using Alibaba's AI-generated copywriting service, a company spokesperson tells the BBC.  On the Taobao shopping site, for example, merchants can choose between descriptive "short-title" copy, more promotional "selling point" copy, and more emotional "heart-warming" copy.  One heart-felt ad for a hoodie read: "A windbreaker is enough to withstand the autumn wind in England".  The AI copywriter learns from millions of existing samples and can generate 20,000 lines of copy a second in Chinese, the spokesperson says.  While the copy created is not necessarily perfect, the service makes life easier for the many, smaller merchants on Alibaba's e-commerce sites, which do not have the resources to do a marketing push themselves.  "A single product might require up to 10 versions of copy for different advertising formats, like posters, web banners, product pages, and event pages," says Li Mu, director of Alimama Marketing Research and Experience Center. Alimama is Alibaba's digital marketing arm.  "Many merchants, and especially smaller ones, lack the marketing expertise or resources. We aim to solve this problem with easily-accessible and user-friendly technology."  Companies generally welcome the greater use of AI, says Parry Malm, chief executive of Phrasee, an AI-powered copywriting firm, headquartered in the UK.  An AI-generated email subject line for a Virgin Holidays campaign continuously outperformed a human-written one over a testing period, he says.  "Shop the sale - don't hang around, book today!" proved more popular than the human-written "There's still time to book that dream holiday for less".  "This resulted in a revenue increase of several million pounds for their email campaigns - which Virgin Holidays has confirmed was a direct result of using Phrasee's AI technology for email marketing," says Mr Malm.  But the scope of AI can be limited and making it more "creative" is not without its challenges.  Ms Kuah says the Dentsu Aegis algorithm sometimes gets confused when you give it new information.  "It will start to go haywire," she says. "You will suddenly have things that don't make sense appear. So it's a little bit like teaching a wayward dog that doesn't want to sit."  Phrasee meanwhile seeks to avoid what it calls "simplistic emotional tagging" altogether, says Mr Malm.  Instead, it tries to differentiate itself by allowing clients to create AI-generated copy that adapts to the "voice" of a particular brand through a "bespoke language model".  "The traditional approach for many marketers and providers has been to tag language with certain emotions - 'happy', 'sad', 'scary' - but such an approach is problematic," argues Mr Malm.  "It not only limits the language available to use but is highly susceptible to human error and prejudice. In other words, it's not scientific."  While the use of AI in advertising copywriting is still very niche, such automation is widely employed in the selling and distribution of digital ads, and increasingly, in journalism.  Broadcasters in Russia and China have recently introduced robot presenters, for example.  "The adoption of AI is growing significantly among advertisers with the increasing use of mass marketing," says Venkata Krishnan Seshadri, industry manager for information and communications technology at market research company Technavio.  "In 2018, over 40% of advertisers used AI for analyzing their target audience. This is expected to increase in the coming years, as numerous organizations are utilising their AI capabilities to streamline their marketing and sales process."  The bottom line is that if AI produces better responses to adverts than humans manage to achieve - and at lower cost - marketers will jump at the chance to use it.


sputnik--2019-05-13--Exerting Undue Influence Monsantos Long History of Threatening Journalists

'Exerting Undue Influence': Monsanto's 'Long History' of Threatening Journalists

French authorities have opened a preliminary enquiry into allegations that controversial US pesticide giant Monsanto illegally collected information on the views and pliability of hundreds of high-profile figures and media outlets in France.  The documents were apparently compiled by FleishmanHillard, which assessed the views of targeted individuals and media entities across France on the controversial weedkiller glyphosate and genetically modified crops, as well as the likelihood they could be influenced in their opinions. Monsanto was convicted in the US in 2018 of not taking necessary steps to warn of the potential risks of its product Roundup, despite being aware that the weedkiller contained a likely carcinogenic chemical.  Alongside journalists, politicians and scientists are listed, along with their leisure pursuits, addresses and phone numbers — some were considered "priority targets", others "potential allies".  France's former Environment Minister Segolene Royal is said to have appeared on the list — she noted that the allegations said "a lot about the methods of lobbyists…they carry out spying, infiltration, seek to influence, sometimes financially", and many other companies were likely to employ similar practices.  Sheldon Krimsky, Lenore Stern professor of humanities and social sciences in the Department of Urban and Environmental Policy and Planning at Tufts University, told Sputnik that Monsanto "has a long history" of threatening to litigate journals and publishers when they publish "uncomplimentary" articles or books about to the company.  "They've also had undue influence on US regulators, and exercised influence over journals to retract articles that came to conclusions against its financial interests. If the French prosecutor has probable cause of Monsanto exercising undue influence on journalists and lawmakers that violate French law, he has good reason to investigate. Monsanto has shown it will circumvent scientific standards and publication ethics to protect its products. If the French proceed with litigation and can obtain 'discovery documents' they will learn a great deal about this company that's often hidden from the public", Krimsky said.  "It's very bad publicity for the company and could open the way for deputies [French MPs] to vote for a law creating new offences and criminalising this and similar behaviour on the part of any country. In our epoch, everybody can manipulate everybody", she explained to Sputnik.  The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the speakers and do not necessarily reflect those of Sputnik


therussophileorg--2019-12-29--Jewish Brilliance: Synthetic Like Zirconia, by Eric Striker

This post was originally published on this site  The New York Times recently published an opinion piece by its gun-grabbing, open borders in-house “conservative” columnist Bret Stephens asserting that Ashkenazi Jews are an elite race by nature of their superior hereditary, culture and soul.  For sure, there are Jews of exceptional intellect and ability, but this is true for most races. Stephen’s dictation is an evacuation straight from the bowels of Zionist ideology into the minds of the liberal status quo beneath his feet. His inference is the contention that Jewish domination of Western cultural, economic and political choke points is a product of natural selection rather than nepotism and propaganda.  A cursory glance of history puts the Jews to shame.  When it comes to innovation, no nation has punched outside of its weight class like Scotland. With a modern population of 4.5 million and less than a million in England, Scots have gifted mankind with radar technology, Penicillin, the telephone, the vacuum flask and much more. Unlike abstractions like Marxism, Freudianism and Relativity, these inventions have have drastically improved the lives of all human beings and taken civilization to new heights.  In the sciences, Stephens points to Jews winning Nobel prizes at a disproportionate rate as evidence of their genius. Yet it is Swedes, with a population smaller than Jewry, who have discovered 20 elements on the Periodic Table, only slightly trailing the United Kingdom (24) and America (21) in the race to understand the hidden nuances of the world around us.  As a complement to Nordic scientific prowess, the smallest branch of the Latin-Mediterranean race, Portugal – a nation which during the 1500s had a population of less than 2 million – rose to prominence in the Age of Discovery, helping man fill an otherwise blank map of the globe.  Despite being a tiny sliver of land off the Iberian peninsula surrounded by hostile powers, Portugal had by the 16th century developed ships that shattered European limitations in sea travel (the equivalent of going to space at the time) to circumnavigated Earth and split claims to much of the newly discovered world with Spain at the Treaty of Tordesillas. The plucky Portuguese had a presence seemingly everywhere, with holdings and ports as far as Japan and India, not to mention permanent cultural and racial imprints in Africa and Latin America.  What, in comparison, are the major achievements of the booming Ashkenazi Jewish population during this time period? They may have a presence on every continent today, but only thanks to infrastructure and discoveries by nations like Portugal.  The biggest hole in the contemporary race theories Stephens quotes, by delineating Ashkenazis from Sephardics, is that the rise and fall in prominence of the two groups coincides with the arc of their hosts. When Latins ruled the world, it was Sephardics (including those expelled from Spain) who composed the elite of world Jewry in Britain, Holland, and so on. With Anglo-Saxon powers, Germany and the ethnic go-between of France taking Spain and Portugal’s place as superpowers, suddenly Ashkenazis woke up to find themselves in the driver’s seat. This suggests civilizational parasitism, not independent genius.  We can see other examples of Jewish underachievement in the Classical world. New studies show that the Roman Empire at its peak had a population of 5 million, while estimates of the Jewish population in times before Christ range from 3 to 8 million (Josephus claimed 1.1 million Jews died during the First Roman-Jewish War alone). Jews are purported to have had large armies and empires, but they were largely pastoralists who shared more in common with the Mongols in their violent disdain for high culture and intolerance, leaving behind few literary or technological achievements. Even the Western Wall, which Jews claim is their ancient Temple, is nothing more than the remnant of a Roman army fort.  The Myth of Einstein and “Relativity Hype”  Stephens emphasizes the cultural meme of Albert Einstein as the core evidence demonstrating the intellectual prowess of the Jews.  Jews are indeed highly overrepresented as Nobel Prize winners in the world of physics, where many of the theories are abstract and difficult (if not impossible) to prove or disprove, but are not very well represented in the most significant developments in the field in the last three decades: Quantum Teleportation (one Jew out of six authors), the Bose-Einstein Condensate (independently discovered by the Indian Satyendra Nath Bose yet credited to Einstein who merely reiterated the work afterwards), the “God Particle” (Peter Higgs and Francois Englert), etc.  The Einstein question thus personifies the problem with claims of Jewish superiority.  The theory of relativity was controversial inside the European scientific community when it was released in 1905 without peer review. Nobel Prize winning German physicists Johannes Stark and Philipp Lenard were open opponents of it due to what they saw as hijacking physics away from illustrative and intuitive norms towards unfalsifiable abstractions and overemphasis on math.  The German physics community’s main issue with the Einstein phenomenon was not just the theory, but how normal scientific standards were suspended to declare Einstein the new Copernicus.  This declaration was made by Einstein’s (a Zionist activist deeply integrated with pan-Jewry) fellow Jews in the press, which critics dubbed “relativity hype.” This both surprised and infuriated his colleagues. A book released in 1924 by renown physicist Ernst Gehrcke, “The Mass Suggestion of Relativity Theory,” recorded 5,000 newspaper articles affirming with no proof that Einstein had shattered all previous notions in classical physics despite the jury still being out among many of his most respected peers.  Einstein’s genius is the work of publicists and mass suggestion, in other words. Additionally, Einstein did not discover relativity, but merely reconstituted discoveries by Joseph Larmor (released in 1897 and work by Henri Poincare (published in 1898), both who abided by classical scientific norms. Whatever the merits or demerits of E=mc2, it was the Italian Galileo Galilei who first theorized about relativity in 1632. When confronted with these facts or dissenting opinions throughout his career, Einstein’s go-to tactic was to take to the newspapers that loved him and accuse his detractors of “anti-Semitism.”  With modern technology, the theory of relativity has been challenged time and time again. Every year a new scientist outside of the oxygen-deprived and politicized Western academy, like in India or Russia, provides mathematical or even common sense (like mass and energy being interchangeable) wrenches in the relativity machine, at least as Einstein proposed it. In 2011, the highly respected CERN caused waves in the media by seemingly disproving the core arguments attributed to Einstein when neutrinos sped faster than light during a high-tech experiment.  After outcry and dismay from certain gatekeepers in academia and the media, CERN claimed that a cable in their machine was loose and the previous results were not recreated after adjustment. While this incident alone does not prove an attempt to protect Einstein’s legacy, fear within the scientific community of losing grants in resource-starved physics research by making discoveries financial and political kingmakers do not like should not dismissed either.  Today, Albert Einstein’s reputation as the smartest man who ever lived is bolstered by a seemingly infinite number of books, TV shows, and movies celebrating his life and supposed achievements – far more than any other scientist in history. Jews excel in physics on paper but it was Einstein’s “common sense” oriented scientific opponents in the Third Reich that first developed the rocket technology that allowed us to reach space.  While this author is out of his element when it comes to the nuts and bolts of relativity, one looks at the Jewish spirit’s replacement of reason and intuition with abstraction and relativism in other fields like the arts, anthropology, culture of critique or music, and questions should arise regarding whether Einstein’s similar approach towards Physics has been more of a retarding arbitrary rule scientists are pressured to work within the confines of rather than the groundbreaking accomplishment we are expected to take for granted. Would this supposed “consensus” still be so if Germany had won the Second World War and science was freed of top-down Jewish pressure from people like Bret Stephens?  It is generally assumed that the hard sciences are free from political ideology, but challenging the Einstein myth provokes the same institutional reaction as James Watson affirming the biology of race (outside of the Jewish superiority context Bret Stephens and the New York Times has deemed appropriate). We are convinced that Jews are our masters only because celebrating the group-achievements of far more accomplished Europeans is forbidden by the establishment.  The brilliance of the plagiarist Einstein embodies the nature of Stephens’ broader patronizing claims of born-to-rule Jewish excellence: it may look like a diamond, but it’s synthetic like a zirconia.


21stcenturywire--2019-01-23--Hollywoods Mission The Systematic Degradation of Western Society

Hollywood’s Mission: The Systematic Degradation of Western Society

For music, TV and film, the current race to the bottom is palpable. For even the most casual observer of mass media and entertainment, it’s become increasingly obvious that Hollywood’s stock-in-trade is now marked by gratuitous, profanity, violence, sex, and one of the most disturbing trends: the increased degradation of women, and the systematic sexualized depiction of children.    AVAILABLE NOW: Esoteric Hollywood 2: More Sex, Cults & Symbols in Film  Programming and social conditioning through mass public ceremonies is nothing new and continues to this day, weaponized by the corporate entertainment industry to further degrade society. What first began through the planned counter-culture revolution of the 1960s, has now descended into a relentless onslaught of overt messaging through mass media. All of this is preparation for a new AEON being ushered in through even greater levels of psychological and cultural degradation, with the end game being the fragmentation of society through the institution of social engineering.  Author Jay Dyer explains how these carefully crafted mass public ritual ceremonies are one of the chief ways we are initiated into this anti-spiritual state: from the Beatles to Ariana Grande – know that society is being indoctrinated. Watch:


cnn--2019-01-17--Gen Z is as liberal as millennials if not more

Gen Z is as liberal as millennials, if not more

Washington (CNN) Most of them aren't old enough to vote yet, but Generation Z shows signs of being as liberal as millennials on a number of political and social topics, and they're more liberal when it comes to their belief about the role of government, according to a new report from Pew.  Pew defines Gen Z as those born from 1997 to 2012. They'll be ages 7 to 22 in 2019,and recent Pew surveys of teenagers and adults on political and social issues found members of Gen Z are often within just a few percentage points of millennials, who according to Pew were born from 1981 to 1996. Here are some of the issues where the two generations line up:  Believe increasing racial and ethnic diversity is good for society  Believe the Earth is getting warmer due to human activity  Approve of NFL players kneeling during the National Anthem to protest racial injustice  Believe same-sex marriage is either a good thing or doesn't make a difference  The two generations have a more substantial gap when it comes to beliefs about the role of government, one of the defining issues that separate conservatives and liberals.  In Pew's latest survey, though, 64% of millennials said they believe government should do more to solve problems, a figure higher than those older than them but lower than Gen Z, 70% of whom said government should do more to solve problems.  Most Gen Z members are too young to vote, and their political beliefs could evolve as they're shaped by political and social conditions and age. But Pew's early data suggests they could be as liberal if not more than millennials, reshaping American politics decades down the road.  Pew Research Center's results come from two online surveys derived from probability-based panels. Results among adults are based on a survey conducted Sept. 24 through Oct. 7, 2018. Results among those under 18 are from a survey conducted Sept. 17 through Nov. 25. Results among 2,674 millennials have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 2.8 percentage points, among the 1,178 Gen Z respondents, the error margin is plus or minus 4.2 points.


collectiveevolution--2019-04-15--Update Mother Enraged As Cause Of Babys Death 36 Hours After Vaccination Ruled Undetermined

Update: Mother Enraged As Cause Of Baby’s Death 36 Hours After Vaccination Ruled ‘Undetermined’

This article was originally published under the heading ‘Are Western Doctors Compelled To Support The Vaccine Industry?‘ If you have not read the article, it is included in full below and highly recommended. Otherwise, you can skip down to see an an update from a Facebook Post by Catie Clobes, the mother whose baby died 36 hours after the scheduled 6-month vaccines.  What is most shocking about the story, and what Catie elaborates on so eloquently and poignantly in her posts, is that despite promising otherwise, doctors did not investigate any possible link between baby Evee’s death and the vaccines, preferring to label her cause of death ‘undetermined.’  If we take a broad overview of the structure of conventional medicine in our Western societies, we are left with an inescapable conclusion: it is set up as a business, where profit is most highly valued and human health and safety is secondary. The evidence for this is overwhelming and is discussed in greater detail in many of our articles on the subject listed at the end of this article.  This is absolutely not to say that there are not loving, upstanding people who are doctors, researchers, or otherwise as part of the Western medical establishment. Not at all. I believe most of them are. However, when it comes specifically to the family doctors and pediatricians who are trusted by their patients to make recommendations for their patients’ health and well-being, there is a limit to how far they can push the boundaries of the highly controlled business structure they find themselves in.  This is probably most obvious when it comes to vaccines. I don’t think any doctor could tell me straight-faced that if they decided that vaccines were not safe for their patients, and they were openly vocal about it in public, that there wouldn’t be pushback from their industry, including intimidation and threats of losing their medical license. And so, unfortunately, there is a built-in bias from the start, and doctors know that going down the path of truly doing their own independent research into the safety and effectiveness of vaccines, in order to make an informed decision about what they will recommend to their patients, will either be a lot of work for nothing or will end up with them having to fight against their powerful establishment and risk losing their livelihood.  But haven’t doctors been thoroughly and convincingly shown already in Medical school the overwhelming proof that vaccines are safe and effective? There is somewhat of a misconception that the public is under about the process by which would-be doctors become convinced about the safety and effectiveness of vaccines:  Despite questioning the safety and efficacy of vaccination by reputable medical men since its introduction, debate has been, and is, increasingly discouraged. Information published in scientific journals is used to support this position, other views being regarded as “unscientific.” It was a received “article of faith” for me and my contemporaries, that vaccination was the single most useful health intervention that had ever been introduced. Along with all my medical and nursing colleagues, I was taught that vaccines were the reason children and adults stopped dying from diseases for which there are vaccines. We were told that other diseases, such as scarlet fever, rheumatic fever, typhus, typhoid, cholera, and so on, for which there are no vaccines at the time, diminished both in incidence and mortality (ability to kill) due to better social conditions. You would think–as medical students who are supposed to be moderately intelligent–that some of us would have asked, “But if deaths from these diseases decreased due to improved social conditions, mightn’t the ones for which there are vaccines also have decreased at the same time for the same reason?” But we didn’t. The medical curriculum is so overloaded with information that you just have to learn what you hear, as you hear it: nonvaccinatable diseases into the social conditions box and vaccinatable diseases into the vaccines box and then onto the next subject.–Dr. Jayne L. M. Donegan, foreward to Suzanne Humphries’ Dissolving Illusions  Having been convinced that vaccines are effective without spending any time looking critically at objective (not industry-funded) studies, doctors are led to treat the matter of the safety of vaccines as a foregone conclusion. This is notwithstanding the publicly available fact that the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act has paid approximately $4 billion to families with vaccine injured children, and that only accounts for 1 percent of vaccine injured children. This is a fact that doctors are not informed about by their industry, and those who become aware of it are almost compelled to wilfully ignore. You can read more about that act and access direct primary sources here.  Vaccines, the industry will repeat until the cows come home, ARE SAFE. PERIOD. Yes, there are extremely rare exceptions when they do cause damage, the industry admits when pressed on the matter, but because they argue that vaccines are so important to societal health, the industry will continue to say with unwavering certainty that VACCINES ARE SAFE. Consequently, while they are afforded a narrow bit of leeway for de-combining vaccines and delaying schedules, the solemn duty of doctors is to promote the safety of vaccines to their patients.  This is all fine and dandy for doctors. Until one of their young patients have serious adverse reactions or even dies after receiving vaccines. Much as many doctors would be heartbroken and would like to offer true love and support to the parents, the position they have been put in by the medical industry forces them to sternly deny the possibility that vaccines could be the cause of the damage, not because logic dictates so, but because they fear that their future career is dependent on this denial.  I recently came upon a Facebook post from March 22nd made by a woman named Catie Clobes that was actually the inspiration for this article. Her daughter Evee Gayle Clobes had tragically died on March 1st, a day and a half after receiving six vaccines at her six month doctor’s visit. The post below, from this brave woman looking for answers as to why her daughter died, explains it all:  Me: “I know this is going to sound morbid, but it sounds like with everything you’re saying to me, my daughter basically “took one for the team”, right?” Pathologist: “I don’t even know what to say to that.” I just finished up a very heated, baffling phone conversation with the very “cold” doctor who performed my daughter’s autopsy. The autopsy is pretty much complete on their end, there have been no answers, it’s at a finalizing paperwork phase. My mother was in the room when this call took place, she heard this all! I’m not exaggerating a thing. After several calls this week to try and get this doctor on the phone, I sent an email today requesting the simple additional tests that I wanted done in my daughter’s autopsy. I was assured the day of my daughter’s death by that office that “every test” would be performed, that her receiving vaccinations a day and a half prior was of concern, and they’d be running “those kinds of tests”, that they took infant deaths very seriously. I believed them. These simple tests I requested would reveal if vaccinations had played any part in my daughter’s death. Well less than an hour after sending that email, I finally got that doctor to call me back! She refused to do the tests, each and every one. Me: “My daughter was in perfect health and then received 6 vaccinations and died a day and a half later. Why wouldn’t you run ANY tests to check if vaccinations were the cause?” Pathologist: “It’s not medically necessary, there is no medical reasoning, and it’s not medically approved.” No kidding, she said this!! She refused to acknowledge that it might even be a possibility that it was the cause! State or County Medical Examiner offices refuse and will not run any tests in an autopsy that could reveal any link to vaccination as the cause of death because it is not “medically accepted.” This is a fact. They will put SIDS on the death certificate before running of these tests. At this point, being an angry, grieving mother, I said some controversial things to try and get some sort of sensible answer out of this woman. She was like a robot. I said to her, “It sounds like you’re just reading me some script the CDC and the government have given you!” I cried in disbelief and anger. I yelled, “If this was your baby that you just lost, you’d want answers no matter what it took.” I asked her opinion on why so many shots had to be given to such a small child? She never once gave any opinion. She kept repeating that science and research shows this and that, but none of it made sense. She had nothing to say about vaccination inserts saying that “SIDS” can occur, and all the other warnings. She had no solid fact, reasoning, nothing educational or productive. I couldn’t even believe I was speaking with a doctor. It was clear she was watching her words. I told her I didn’t believe in “SIDS” and that every death has a real reason behind it. She had nothing to say to that. What was NOT surprising was that a pause of hesitation came before each of her responses. She actually started to say to me “Listen, you are a part of a community that…” and I stopped her and I said “NO! I have vaccinated all of my children. I have always trusted medical professionals. I was never told by any doctor that more than a fever could occur after my babies getting their shots. I never knew any better because people like you shame that “community” and silence them. Don’t label me to try and discredit what I’m saying. I was “provaxx” just like you until I sadly had to find out in the worst way possible how many babies and children have died and been hurt by these shots.” That’s when I made the “take one for the team statement”. My last words to her were “you should be ashamed, you’re a doctor, and it’s your job to find answers and save lives and that’s not what you are doing.” There was silence on her end and then I hung up. I’m making nothing up. This is not “stuff” I’m hearing, this is what I am living. I understand the need for vaccinations, I get the government’s reasoning, the importance. Sure. The lack of care, lack of research, lack of information about gene testing and titer level testing to prevent injuries and deaths, lack of any TRUTH or answers, and the lack of any real accountability when it comes to the negative, that I don’t understand. The corruption – that is what blows my mind. So I will continue on my fight for the answer I am looking for. I’m just also on a mission to expose and share with everyone the crazy, sick truth I am experiencing along the way. (That’s what this post is about.) Mommy has got your back, my “Eeves Peeves”! She always has and she always will. #justiceforevee  One of the reasons we talk about vaccine injuries so much at CE is because they provide us with a clear window into the true motives and values of the powerful forces at the top of the medical industry, and who are just part of a larger group that control all facets of Western society.  It is sad and unfortunate that people like Catie Clobes continue to experience the injuries or deaths of cherished loved ones, just because we have a medical industry that puts profits above human health and safety. We do the most service to these people by supporting their efforts, sharing their stories, raising awareness, and aiming for a future in which our entire medical industry holds fast to the prime directive to ‘first, do no harm.’  Since the article above was written, Catie Clobes got final confirmation that the role of vaccines in her baby’s death was not investigated, and that the cause of death on Evee’s death certificate was ‘undetermined.’ I could go on about this, but Catie’s words in a later Facebook post carry much more weight on this than mine ever could:  – Evee ? was 100% healthy a day and a half before she passed as she was her whole life. – Evee ? had an appointment a day and a half before she passed and at that appt. I was asked if Evee was getting her vaccinations and I replied “yes” and not before or after was I given any information about adverse reactions of immunizations that are listed on the vaccinations’ inserts (including death) which I now know are overwhelming – Evee ? was given SIX vaccinations (research ingredients in vaccinations quick, if ya don’t know) in the form of 2 shots in each leg. I was clueless mother, doing what I thought was right for my baby. She was 15.1 lbs that day. ? – Evee’s nurse carelessly misdocumented the location she put the shots which I found out after she had passed (this was corrected after intervention) as if she was just “another patient poked”. – Evee ? had no symptoms. I found her peaceful, lifeless body March 1st, 2019, less than a day and a half after her shots. – Insignificant single mother (me) ✋ was promised every test and measure would be taken to determine the cause of her death, including vaccination-related testing, by the medical examiner’s office, right away. – I requested specific tests, vital to the determination of vaccines being the cause of death and was REFUSED these tests by the medical examiner/doctor. Flat out refused. How could a healthy baby just die, and doctors and the State of Minnesota, are OK with telling me “undetermined” was the cause of death in my daughter, after all of these facts? I’m sick. This is beyond wrong. Do you know there is a Federal fund set up to “pay off” families in situations like this?????? ? Wake up, friends who KNOW me, this is all real!! My best friend is gone and these are the facts!! ?? For those who are concerned about vaccine safety and the current push for mandatory vaccination, I would recommend that you follow Catie Clobes in her search for the truth on her Facebook page linked above. The latest news is that she will be building a website devoted to ‘Justice for Evee’. She is a brave young woman and she is fighting for truth and justice on a matter that affects us all.


dailykos--2019-10-21--Warren Misses the Mark

Warren Misses the Mark

Elizabeth Warren blames billionaires. “We cannot afford a billionaire class, whose greed and corruption has been at war with the working families of this country for 45 years,” she said at the October debate. But a more serious problem is the greed of ordinary Americans — greed fomented by the System that encourages everyone to climb social ladders and look down on and dominate those below. To counter greed, we need to transform the System, which is self-perpetuating.  A better alternative to Warren’s economic populism is a “democratic equality” that “guarantees all law-abiding citizens effective access to the social conditions of their freedom at all times,” as articulated by Elizabeth Anderson in her landmark essay, “ What is the Point of Equality? ” (see “ The Democrats: What Happened to Equality? ).  With her focus on “rebuilding the middle class,” Warren embraces greed, praises consumerism, and legitimizes upward mobility. When other candidates at the debate accused her of being “punitive” toward billionaires, she said, “ I don't have a beef with billionaires.... What we're all looking for is how we strengthen America's middle class.”  At her , Warren said. “Look, I get it. I know that some people will always have more money, so they can own more shoes or more clothes than other people.” She acknowledged, “Any great fortune in America was built, at least in part, using workers all of us helped pay to educate…. We’re happy to do it. This is America. We’re happy to invest in opportunities. But we’re saying that if you make it big, really big, really, really big, then pitch in two cents....”  Warren advocates equal opportunity. She wants to “transform our economy so that every person, no matter where they live, no matter who their parents are, no matter how much money they have, every person has real opportunity…, [to] truly level the playing field [and create] real opportunity, not just opportunity for people born into privilege, opportunity for everyone.”  None of the fifty-six plans on Warren’s target poverty, homelessness, or economic inequality. The site highlights five goals. The second is “rebuild the middle class.” That plank merely proposes “putting power back in the hands of workers and unions,” says “we can make investments that create economic opportunity, address rural neglect, and a legacy of racial discrimination (sic),” and envisions “an economy that works for everyone.”  “Upward mobility” is a myth that reinforces inequality. In White Trash: The 400-Year Untold History of Class in America, Nancy Isenberg writes, “We cling to the comfort of a middle class, forgetting that there can't be a middle class without a lower.” And despite some dramatic individual stories, most Americans have never been able to rise far above their standing at birth.  Anderson challenges the focus on “equal opportunity.” She argues:  In sync with this ideology, Warren proposes paternalistic measures to alleviate suffering when people fall behind during the race — rather than prevent suffering in the first place. Anderson points out that this liberal paternalism “seems strangely detached from existing egalitarian political movements…[that have fought for] the freedom to appear in public as who they are, without shame, [and] campaigned against demeaning stereotypes.”  Anderson’s alternative is to end oppression by creating communities “in which people stand in relations of equality” to one another. This “democratic equality” differs fundamentally from mitigation for the losers under starting-gate equal opportunity. “In seeking the construction of a community of equals,” she “integrates principles of distribution with the expressive demands of equal respect.”  Warren’s focus on economics is typical of those who identify as “leftist.” But their definition of “the system” is too narrow, materialistic, and reliant on economic determinism — and neglects the need for personal, social, and cultural transformation. So long as the self-perpetuating System persists and most Americans envy and identify with the wealthy and would like to be rich themselves while others are poor, a popular movement for real justice is unlikely to succeed.  In the September 30 New Yorker’s article, “Merit Badges,” Louis Menand says the “conception of meritocray as a machine that runs itself is a powerful one.” He wrtites, “Even if we randomized college admissions,... the level of income inequality will remain more or less the same…. The problem...is that the economy is structured to allow [some] to soak up most of the national wealth.” With their embrace of upward mobility as a solution, Warren, Bernie Sanders, and most leftists do not propose a fundamental restructuring of the meritocracy.  Economic populism misses that our social system consists of more than the economy and the government. The System also includes other major institutions, our culture, and ourselves as individuals, who reinforce the System with our daily actions. We must hold people accountable for crimes and other ethical violations, but we cannot place all or most blame on the billionaire class. The primary problem is the System and to transform it we must transform each and every element.  Anderson’s democratic equality is not new. It’s affirmed in the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”  But during the six hours of their September and October debates, the Democratic candidates for President talked about equality, much less equal respect, equal worth, co-equal partnerships, community empowerment, and individual empowerment. Instead, they merely want to help disadvantaged people to eventually “get ahead (of others).”  We, the people, are angry enough already. We don’t need economic populists to inflame anger, which breeds more anger. We need to channel our anger into effective, democratic, popular movements that push for a positive vision.  We don’t need leaders who believe a good leader is one who’s able to mobilize followers to do what the leader wants — especially if those leaders are politicians who primarily want their followers to vote for themselves and their allies and get others to do the same.  This elitism is often reflected in casual expressions of disrespect, as with Obama’s comment about guns and religion and Clinton’s reference to a basket of deplorables. Warren expressed similar disrespect when she was asked, “Let’s say you’re on the campaign trail and a supporter approaches you and says ‘Senator, I’m old fashioned and my faith teaches me that marriage is between one man and one woman. What is your response?” Warren answered, “Well, I’m going to assume it’s a guy who said that. And I’m going to say…then just marry one woman. I’m cool with that!” She then added: “Assuming you can find one.” The audience roared with laughter and applause.  Warren’s disrespectful crack betrays a fundamental arrogance that’s often reflected in her tone of voice and her claim to have the plan for everything. Unfortunately, she’s not alone. I suspect most Democratic Party activists are afflicted with similar arrogance. They probably laughed at her joke and most probably do not see a problem with her college-professor arrogance. But until Democrats really affirm equal respect and practice what they preach, they’ll continue to undermine their effectiveness.  In “ ,” inspired by Anderson (and Harry Boyte’s argument for ), I try to absorb the principles of democratic equality and point the way toward a more effective strategy.  With progressive taxation, the federal government could establish an Economic Security Trust Fund analogous to the Social Security Trust Fund and distribute money to local governments for public-service jobs to meet pressing human and environmental needs. And individuals, especially wealthy philanthropists, could donate to that fund, as they can to the Social Security Trust Fund. Regardless, one way or the other, with private and public money, we can assure everyone a living-wage job opportunity. A “federal jobs guarantee” need not involve more federal employees. Then all Americans could focus on the quality of life rather than the size of their bank account and take care of themselves, their family, their community, all humanity, and the environment.  Individuals can improve their economic condition without doing so at the expense of others. Win-win solutions and “the 99% for the 100%” are possible. A “us vs. them” battle of good vs. evil is not essential. Rather than inflaming anger as Warren does, we can inspire with a positive vision. We can affirm everyone’s equal value, establish relationships of equality throughout society, nurture mutual respect, and protect everyone’s right to a secure, comfortable, and meaningful life. Rather than reinforce the casino, paper economy and glorify the rich and famous, we can focus on human needs, save the environment, and build a humane economy.