My heart goes out to the victims of ISIS in the Paris attacks, in the Beirut attacks, and in the bombing of a Russian jet liner filled with over 200 vacationing Russians leaving Egypt. ISIS is indeed a clear and present danger and unrivaled since the 9/11 attacks in terms of its barbarous methods and willingness to kill innocent civilians in terror attacks.
As tempting and visceral as it is to fight fire with fire in responding to ISIS’ barbarity, it is counter-productive to simply up the ante and bomb more of ISIS’ facilities in Syria and Iraq, or for the U.S. or France or Russia to send ground troops into Syria. We are already seeing predictable reports of civilian casualties from these massive bombardments of Raqqa, a Syrian city of 350,000, by France, Russia and the U.S.
We need a different approach.
We now have a clear record of U.S. and European military ‘solutions’ in the Middle East and Afghanistan in the last decade and a half: 1) we bombed and invaded Afghanistan in 2001 and that country is a mess with the Taliban now surging again; 2) we bombed and invaded Iraq in 2003, taking out Saddam and also countless civilians in the process, creating a power vacuum that allowed Al Qaeda in Iraq to flourish, leaving that country in a mess; 3) we bombed Libya in 2011, taking out Qaddafi and leaving that country in a mess with no viable power structure or functioning economy and we are now seeing ISIS spring up there as well as in nearby Mali; 4) we are now bombing Syria and Iraq (again) and exacerbating the mess that Syria already was in before we began bombing it.
These four countries are now major sources of instability and havens for groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda. Perhaps there’s a lesson here. Maybe military solutions aren’t actually solutions. Perhaps the kneejerk “I’ll hit you harder than you hit me and make you regret ever hitting me” approach isn’t the smart approach when it comes to fighting terrorism.
The hydra was a many-headed sea beast that guarded the entrance to the underworld in ancient Greek mythology. Hercules, the archetypal hero, was tasked with killing the hydra but he found upon cutting off one of its many heads that two heads grew back immediately where there had been one before, frustrating his efforts.
The moral of the story: be careful how you attack one’s enemies because your tactics may breed more enemies.
The Origins of ISIS
It’s important, if we are to pursue more effective solutions to major problems like ISIS today, to look at how ISIS came into being and not repeat those mistakes. It turns out that we can trace the origins of ISIS directly to many U.S., Saudi, and European over-reaches and in some cases active efforts to support the most radical Islamist elements under the philosophy that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”
This is a complex debate, to be sure, but what is pretty clear is that the U.S. and our allies have time and again projected power and given billions of dollars in support without thinking through the consequences of our actions, including the possibility of “blowback”: when our former allies or partners in arms turn their sights on us.
There are three main events that led to ISIS becoming so strong, which I’ll focus on in this column: 1) U.S. support for radical Islamic groups in Afghanistan in the 1970s and 1980s; 2) the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003; and 3) U.S. support for moderate and radical groups in Syria in the last few years. Other key factors that I won’t go into include U.S. support for various Arab dictators in recent decades and the resentment that has caused; the Israeli/Palestinian conflict; and, of course, the ongoing struggle between Shi’a and Sunni branches of Islam.
U.S. Support for Islamic Radicals in Afghanistan Led Directly to Al Qaeda’s Empowerment
It is little known but now widely accepted, based on declassified records and the statements of high-level officials in various administrations, that the U.S. actively supported radical Islamists (“mujahidin,” or those who fight in jihad, holy war) in Afghanistan before and after Russia invaded that country in 1979, under the philosophy that supporting such elements would help to tilt the pro-Soviet Afghan government away from the Soviet sphere of influence and would embroil the Soviets in a Vietnam-like quagmire.
Pres. Carter’s National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, stated in a 1998 interview published in the French newspaper Le Nouvel Observateur:
According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise. Indeed, it was July 3, 1979, that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.
Lo and behold, there was a Soviet military invasion. The interview continued as follows, somewhat shockingly from today’s vantage point of a world in which Al Qaeda and ISIS have made regular headlines over the last 14 years:
Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn’t believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don’t regret anything today?
B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.
Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?
B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?
Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.
B: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn’t a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.
The CIA funneled billions of dollars (with a “b”) in aid to mujahidin in Afghanistan, from 1979 to 1989, as part of Operation Cyclone, through its partner, the Pakistani intelligence agency known as the ISI. The U.S. spent about $20 billion in total to fund the mujahadin in Afghanistan and related funding to Pakistan, as part of what came to be known as the Reagan Doctrine: the commitment to fund anti-Soviet groups around the world with little regard for the unintended consequences. This history is detailed in the 2015 book by Michael Springmann, Visas for Al Qaeda: CIA Handouts That Rocked the World: An Insider’s View and Peter Bergen’s 2001 book, Holy War Inc.
Charles G. Cogan, the C.I.A.’s operations chief for the Near East and South Asia from 1979 to 1984, stated in a 1994 interview with the New York Times after the 1993 World Trade Center bombings: “It’s quite a shock. The hypothesis that the mujahedeen would come to the United States and commit terrorist actions did not enter into our universe of thinking at the time. We were totally preoccupied with the war against the Soviets in Afghanistan. It is a significant unintended consequence.”
Part of the U.S. program involved the active training of mujahidin from Afghanistan. Springmann recounts (p. 79) how over 10,000 fighters were trained in U.S. facilities during the decade of support for the most radical elements in Afghanistan. So not only did we provide billions of dollars in funding, we also actively trained mujahidin in the arts of war and insurgency/terrorism.
There is no evidence that Osama Bin Laden received direct funding from the CIA or Pakistan’s ISI during this period, but it is apparent that he benefited directly from U.S. support and training for various mujahidin in Afghanistan during this time. Bin Laden created Al Qaeda, which is Arabic for “the database,” which, according to Robin Cook writing for The Guardian, originally referred to a list of mujahidin that the CIA supported and trained in Afghanistan.
The founder of ISIS, Abu al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian, set up a mujahidin training camp in Afghanistan with Al Qaeda funding in 1999 —a precursor to far more dangerous activities today in Syria and Iraq.
It is clear, then, that we have had a long history of fomenting and supporting radical Islamist efforts, based on the view that the benefits of the mujahidin on our side fighting the Soviets outweighed the potential downsides of such support.
The road from U.S. support of the mujahidin to the creation of Al Qaeda and the 9/11 attacks is fairly straightforward, but not of course the only factor, by far. Saudi Arabia’s support for mujahidin alongside U.S. support was also a large factor.
The U.S. Invasion of Iraq in 2003
The bigger mistake and tragedy was the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq. Former President Bush gave the order to invade Iraq in 2003, a country that had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. Much of the world strongly opposed the invasion even though over time the coalition of countries, the “coalition of the willing,” involved militarily in Iraq grew to number in the dozens.
The active war period and the toppling of Hussein was fairly brief, but the war to squelch remaining opposition in Iraq and to unite the major factions into a working government took many years. The widely-held view today is that the U.S. won the war but lost the peace by having no coherent plan to replace the power vacuum left by toppling the iron fist that was Hussein—our guy in that part of the world, until he wasn’t.
Many analyses, including records kept by the Pentagon, show that at least hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians were killed in the Iraqi war, and possibly over a million. Half a million Iraqis was at that time about two percent of the population, equivalent to over six million Americans being killed in terms of the equivalent percent of the U.S. population.
Al Qaeda in Iraq didn’t exist before the 2003 invasion. Zarqawi’s new group in Iraq, Monotheism and Jihad, joined Al Qaeda in 2004 and became “Al Qaeda in Iraq” or AQI. The marriage didn’t last long, however, and Zarqawi’s group split from Al Qaeda in 2006, shortly after Zarqawi’s death, due to many differences of opinion over strategy and tactics. This was the beginning of ISIS, the Islamic State. The two groups still communicated regularly, however, from 2006 until 2014, when the split became final, public and personal.
This history is recounted in William McCants’ 2015 book, The ISIS Apocalypse. ISIS distinguished itself in Iraq and Syria by being even more brutal than AQI and, as a consequence, seemed to attract even more eager martyrs to its battles in the Middle East.
It is also clear, then, that the misguided and illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a major factor in the creation and empowerment of ISIS.
Did the U.S. or its Allies Support Creation of the Islamic State in Syria?
The view of many commentators with respect to the situation in Syria is that the U.S. has been slow and cautious in taking action to quell the civil war that has been ongoing for four years now, with large parts of the Syrian population bearing the brunt for our inaction or cautious action. I suggest here that this view is way off. Rather, the U.S. and its allies have been actively involved in the Syrian civil war from the outset and have been supporting many opposition groups, including both moderate groups and radical groups.
A leaked 2012 memo from the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Pentagon’s own intelligence agency, stated in all capital letters: “THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING A DECLARED OR UNDECLARED SALAFIST PRINCIPALITY IN EASTERN SYRIA (HASAKA AND DER ZOR), AND THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE SUPPORTING POWERS TO THE OPPOSITION WANT, IN ORDER TO ISOLATE THE SYRIAN REGIME…”
The supporting powers are identified in the memo as the U.S., the Gulf States, and Turkey. ISIS, the Islamic State, is of course a Salafist state. Salafism is the hard-line version of Sunni Islam that ISIS follows, also known as Wahhabism, and also the variety of Islam that Saudi Arabia, a major U.S. ally, follows and actively exports where it can.
In an interview with Al Jazeera, Major General Michael Flynn, head of the DIA when this memo was written, stated that the rise of ISIS was, in his opinion, a “willful decision” by the Obama administration:
Hasan: You are basically saying that even in government at the time you knew these groups were around, you saw this analysis, and you were arguing against it, but who wasn’t listening?
Flynn: I think the administration.
Hasan: So the administration turned a blind eye to your analysis?
Flynn: I don’t know that they turned a blind eye, I think it was a decision. I think it was a willful decision.
Hasan: A willful decision to support an insurgency that had Salafists, Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood?
Flynn: It was a willful decision to do what they’re doing.
I’ve had an interesting dialogue with Juan Cole, a Middle East expert at the University of Michigan, about what this memo really means. His view is that the U.S. never actually supported ISIS or the creation of a Salafist state, partly because the same memo warns about the consequences of this occurrence in terms of a possible breakup of Iraq. Rather, Cole’s view is that it was primarily a Saudi decision to support the Salafist state that became ISIS.
I agree that the memo is ambiguous and sketchy but it would not have been at all difficult for the memo to make the distinction that Cole believes is the reality about the supporting states’ support for ISIS. If it was mainly Saudi Arabia that supported the Islamic State’s creation as a bulwark against Assad, why wouldn’t the classified memo simply state this and explicitly warn against it?
Anyway, while it’s not clear at this time how much direct or indirect support the U.S. and its allies provided ISIS before it became ISIS, it is clear that at least some U.S. allies supported creation of a Salafist state in Syria as a bulwark against Assad (including in similar arguments put forward this week the neocon John Bolton, who wrote in the New York Times about his recommendations for the creation of a Sunni state in territory currently held by ISIS). That policy has now backfired in spectacular fashion.
These three sets of events—support for radical Islamists in Afghanistan in the 1970s and 1980s, the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and support for moderate and radical Islamists in Syria against Assad—are direct links in the chain that led to the Paris attacks, the Beirut attacks, and the bombing of the Russian jetliner in Egypt.
So before France, the U.S., and Russia go all-in in Syria, guns blazing, perhaps we need to have a larger discussion about how we got to the present mess.
Obama, to his credit, has thus far not given in to the kneejerk reaction to escalate the U.S. war in Syria and Iraq even further. He has resisted calls for boots on the ground and continues to maintain that the bombing campaign and covert actions on the ground are the best way to degrade and defeat ISIS. He said shortly after the Paris attacks: “The strategy that we are putting forward is the strategy that ultimately is going to work. It’s going to take time.”
So What Should We Be Doing?
A few words of caution are due in any attempt to interpret the abundance of information about large-scale world events and trends: one can, of course, find information to support many different stories about the rise of ISIS. I’ve tried to be objective in my analysis here but space prevents me from including the caveats that should accompany almost every conclusion about causal chains, and relevant links in those chains.
That said, my key point is that the U.S. and its allies have pursued a singularly militaristic focus over the last few decades, and at the same time a foolish long-time trend of supporting the most virulent Islamic groups when it was convenient to do so, ignoring the potential for blowback that is now quite predictable from such actions. Many aspects of this history are surely debatable, but this general pattern emerges quite clearly from any objective analysis of these events.
It’s time for a very different approach to combatting terrorism, one that leads with strong defense at home, accurate education about our history in the Middle East, a more humble foreign policy, and active efforts to put fires out rather than to strengthen existing fires in volatile regions of the world.
This means being diligent about security in our homelands, using a scalpel to remove the most dangerous elements in unstable regions like Syria and Iraq rather than massive military force, and doing what we can to slowly reduce and transform the radical ideologies that the U.S. and allies like Saudi Arabia have supported in various ways now for decades.
Hercules finally defeated the hydra not only by cutting off its heads but cauterizing the wounds so that no new heads could grow back. The non-military solutions I’m advocating here are our means for cauterizing the terrorist heads of ISIS and similar groups. And, better yet, we should focus on eliminating the conditions that have allowed extremist Islamic groups to flourish, stopping the hydra from rearing its ugly heads in the first place.
Congress Told Publicly They Don’t Have Security Clearance To See Hillary Clinton’s Emails
- The Facts:
It has been acknowledged in public hearings that there is a secret power that acts as a shadow government within the intelligence community that is able to withhold classified information from Congress in blatant defiance of the Constitution.
- Reflect On:
Is the dam about to burst on the shadow government in America? Is it the work of truth-seekers in the awakening community that is really pushing this out into the open?
If there are readers out there who have any remaining doubts about whether there is a shadow government in the United States that has long usurped and exercised power not authorized by the Constitution, this article will hopefully put those doubts to rest. Furthermore, while this shadow government has arranged for itself the highest levels of self-protection and secrecy possible, the truth of its existence and motives has trickled out slowly over the past couple decades. In recent times, a huge increase in the number and volume of leaks suggests that the dam may be ready to burst.
Given the fact that the ‘Hillary Clinton email scandal’ has not gone away and it appears that investigations into it will resume, a look at how prior investigations into the scandal were obfuscated will provide us with a window into the mechanism by which this shadow government operates. Prior to the 2016 election, it was discovered that Hillary Clinton had used a private, non-secured server to store emails that contained sensitive, classified information. By July 2016, at a Public Hearing of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee into the matter (video below), it had already been determined that Hillary Clinton had ‘allowed somebody without a security clearance in a non-protected format to see’ the emails.
The Exposure Of Unconstitutional Authority
The Constitution of the United States of America grants the highest powers in the nation to the President and to Congress, as the elected representatives of the people. There are checks and balances in place to make sure that power is not being abused, one of which was brought forth in the 2010 Intelligence Authorization Act, which established the ‘Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community’:
In accordance with Title 50 U.S.C.A. Section 3033, the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community (ICIG) conducts independent and objective audits, investigations, inspections, and reviews to promote economy, efficiency, effectiveness, and integration across the Intelligence Community. The ICIG does so with integrity, professionalism, and independence. We conduct our mission free of external influence and provide objective assessments, findings, and conclusions, regardless of political or personal consequence.
In the discussion below, House Representative Jason Chaffetz asks Charles McCullough, the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community, to provide his committee with Hillary Clinton’s classified emails in order for this committee of Congress, the highest authority in the nation, to properly do their job of oversight.
Chaffetz: “Can you provided this committee, in a secure format, the classified emails?”
McCullough: “I can to a certain extent. I cannot provide a certain segment of them because the agency… uhhh… that owns the information for those emails has limited the distribution on those, so… They’re uh… characterizing them as ORCON.”
Chaffetz: “Explain what ORCON is.”
McCullough: “Originator Control.” “…uh, so I can’t… I can’t give them to even Congress without getting the agency’s permission to provide them…”
Chaffetz: “Which agency?”
McCullough: “I can’t say that here in an open hearing, sir.”
Chaffetz: “So you can’t even tell me which agency won’t allow us as members of Congress to see something that Hillary Clinton allowed somebody without a security clearance in a non-protected format to see, that’s correct?”
In this exchange, it is made clear by McCullough that Congress does not have authority over a certain government intelligence agency that the Inspector General dares not even name. This government agency claims ‘ownership’ of this classified information based on the concept of ‘Originator Control,’ which basically means that the agency has the power to limit and prevent such information to be seen by the very bodies–the Inspector General and Congress–that are supposedly empowered to provide oversight of all their activities.
Please note that this is not a matter of ‘National Security,’ as it is a simple enough matter to make members of Congress aware of the need to keep information secret and have them ‘read in’ as it were. This was actually done with members of the ICIG staff, just so they could see the portion of those emails that the unnamed intelligence agency was actually willing to release.
However, the ‘elephant in the room’ at the hearing, made obvious by Rep. Jaffetz’ reaction to the answers he was hearing, is that this intelligence agency and the broader conspiracy of powers behind it have usurped Constitutional authority from Congress and have established the power to conceal information of their choosing from any oversight. In this particular case, it should be obvious that the only reason that this information is not being released to Congress is to protect Hillary Clinton from prosecution, since she is a well-entrenched member of this power and was set to do their bidding had she been elected President.
Clinton Allies Threaten The Inspector General
In the video below taken over a year later, we see what happens to someone like McCullough, who was simply trying to do his job of alerting Congress to the danger and violations involved in Hillary Clinton putting classified information on an unsecured server. Due to his resistance to the rhetoric of the Obama government, who tried to minimize the danger posed by Clinton’s actions, he was marginalized and even threatened:
Voiceover: As Election Day approached, McCullough says the threats went further, singling him out and another senior government email investigator.
Interviewer: You were given a warning?
McCullough: I was told that we would be the first two to be fired, with her administration, that that was definitely going to happen.
Interviewer: Is that how it’s supposed to be?
McCullough: No, I was in this context a whistleblower, I was explaining to Congress, I was doing exactly what they had expected me to do, and all of a sudden I was the enemy.
Voiceover: More than 2100 classified emails passed through Clinton’s personal server, and to this day, no one is accountable.
Interviewer: If you had done this, what would have happened to you?
McCullough: I’d be sitting in Leavenworth right now.
The second half of the video below has Tucker Carlson talking with former Clinton Campaign Advisor Richard Goodstein about the matter, and I believe it is illustrative of the type of public relations tactics that have been used by the Clinton campaign as an attempt to avert criminal charges: minimize claims, challenge even the most basic and obvious truths, flat out avoid answering questions, and change the subject to demonize Donald Trump.
The layers of secret power within the shadow government, as McCullough suggests, have so far been able to prevent the prosecution of Hillary Clinton and her associates for this patently obvious criminal behavior. In fact, government committees who have the legal authority to investigate the matter appear to have neither the real power nor the ‘clearance’ to see the evidence they need to do their jobs.
The good news is, the veils of darkness and secrecy this shadow government has long been hiding under are lifting, and the growing awareness within the awakening community about the existence and nature of this ‘dark’ power will eventually lead to our emancipation from it the more we take our power away from it.
You can check out our CE protocol to dive into why understanding a bigger picture perspective of current events is key to changing our world.
5G Is The “Stupidest Idea In The History of The World”- Washington State Biochemistry/Medical Science Prof
- The Facts:
Martin L. Pall, PhD and Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry and Basic Medical Sciences at Washington State University outlines in a new report the many health risks associated with 5G technology and wireless radiation in general.
- Reflect On:
5G is gaining attention, and it might make us a little fearful of the effects, but we must observe this fear and bring things back to awareness of the issue so we can make better choices, but not be fearful. Check out our CE Protocol for this.
We are in the midst of a 5G wireless technology rollout, and politicians have yet to address safety concerns. I recently used Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau as an example, but it’s happening worldwide. It’s one of many examples that illustrates how large corporations completely control politics. I also recently wrote about Robert F. Kennedy explaining how this came to be, and how they’ve been able to completely compromise government, big media, and our federal regulatory agencies that are supposed to be protecting and informing us.
In the video, he uses Big Pharma as an example, as they provide the most money to congress; even more so than big oil and gas. In that article I also outline multiple examples of fraud so readers can get a clearer picture of what’s going on and see some actual evidence of it.
It’s clear that we are not being protected, and politicians are simply abiding to the the will of their masters, the big corporations, who in turn act as slaves to their ‘financial overlords,’ the big banks. We continue to see products and services being approved and implemented without ever going through any safety testing. This is a big problem, and one of the main reasons why we could be seeing a drastic rise in multiple diseases and ailments, especially when it comes to neuropsychiatric disorders. A study titled “Microwave frequency electromagnetic fields (EMFs) produce widespread neuropsychiatric effects including depression” published in the Journal of Chemical Neuroanatomy outlines this quite clearly, and it’s only one of thousands of peer-reviewed studies raising multiple concerns in regards to this type of technology.
Is there really any concern for the well being of humanity within these institutions? If not, why do we continue to support them? Is it because we’re under the illusion that there is actual concern? And why do we continue to take power away from ourselves by electing corrupt politicians?
Anyways, in this article, I’d like to draw your attention to Dr. Martin L. Pall, PhD and Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry and Basic Medical Sciences at Washington State University. Taken from his report titled “5G: Great risk for EU, U.S. and International Health! Compelling Evidence for Eight Distinct Types of Great Harm Caused by Electromagnetic Field(EMF) Exposures and the Mechanism that Causes Them,” he states that:
“Putting in tens of millions of 5G antennae without a single biological test of safety has got to be about the stupidest idea anyone has had in the history of the world.”
That report goes through a lot of science, which only adds to all of the science that’s already available regarding the harmful effects of 5G technology. If you’re looking for more information, I often point people toward the Environmental Health Trust because it’s a great resource that gives you access to more science.
This is not new information. For years, numerous studies have been published proving the health concerns regarding 5G technology and hundreds of scientists have petitioned the United Nations about them. These initiatives started as a result of the work done by Dr. Marin Blank from Columbia University’s Department of Physiology and Cellular Biophysics.
According to him, with regards to wireless radiation in general:
“We have created something that is harming us, and it is getting out of control. Before Edison’s light bulb there was very little electromagnetic radiation in our environment. The levels today are very many times higher than natural background levels, and are growing rapidly because of all the new devices that emit this radiation. Putting it bluntly they are damaging the living cells in our bodies and killing many of us prematurely.”
Again, it’s unbelievable that these technologies are being rolled out without any safety testing done. How is this even allowed to happen? The thing is, if there was safety testing done, there would likely be no changes made anyways, and these corporations would be allowed to rollout and utilize these technologies.
Seeing how this article is about the work of Dr. Pall, below is a lecture that goes into detail about his research and why we should be concerned with 5G technology.
It’s alarming that some people have been made to believe that this is “pseudoscience.” Not only is this surprising, but it’s also very concerning.
During the “Health in Buildings Roundtable” sponsored by the NIH and co-organized by the US CDC and several other organizations, Dr. Martin Pall from Washington State University (WSU) concluded that the “5G rollout is absolutely insane.” In this short presentation, Dr. Pall confirmed that the current 2G/3G/4G radiation the population is exposed to has been scientifically linked to: lowered fertility, insomnia, fatigue, depression, anxiety, major changes in brain structure in animals, cellular DNA damage, oxidative stress, hormonal disruption, cancer, and much more. Dr. Pall briefly explained the mechanisms of how the electro-smog emitted by our cell phones, wifi routers, cell phone antennas, and other wireless technologies affect human cells.
Related CE Articles & What You Can Do. We Don’t Have To Be Afraid
We’ve written about this topic in depth, and below are some recent articles we’ve published that go into more detail if you’re looking for more information.
On a side note, a lot of this information can spark a fearful reaction, and that’s normal. It could elicit the same fearful reaction you may have to other humanitarian issues including the massive amounts of pesticides being sprayed in our environment and on our food, the rising deforestation rates, and several other aspects of the human experience that need to be changed. As important as it is to not react with fear and panic, it’s even more important not to completely ignore these things and think everything will magically be okay.
Earth has become engulfed with this mess as a result of our ignorance, as a result of us ignoring important scientific findings such as these. If we continue along this path, disease rates will continue to rise. Awareness is key, and simply being informed about this issue is a huge step in the right direction.
So, what can you do? You could purchase some EMF protective clothing and bedding, or you could even paint your home with EMF protective paint. You can unplug your computer when not in use, turn off your cell phone, and unplug all your electronic devices before you go to sleep. You could have a wired internet connection, which is actually much faster than any wireless connection. You can live a healthy lifestyle, and you can use mind-body healing techniques to help you.
I write a lot about parapsychology, and it’s quite clear that our minds can have a significant impact on our biology. I know it sounds a little ‘new agey,’ but the truth is, if you don’t believe you are being harmed, odds are that the impact on your biology will be significantly different than someone who is fearful and stressed out about health concerns. Consciousness is huge, and it is one of the biggest factors in regards to preventative measures.
You can learn more about this balance through our CE Protocol.
Thanks To Yao Ming, The Slaughter Of Sharks For Their Fins Is Down 80%
- The Facts:
Thanks to the efforts of Yao Ming, the destructive history of shark fin soup is on the decline and so is the ivory trade in China.
- Reflect On:
What is your relationship like with plant and animal life? Do you view it as below you? As there simply to fulfill what you want?
The support for a shark fin soup ban has skyrocketed in China thanks to NBA Hall of Famer and GOAT of Chinese basketball, Yao Ming.
Back in 2011, Ming became the face of an awareness campaign on shark fin consumption that has been effective in raising awareness about an issue many thought was untouchable within Chinese tradition and cuisine. As a result of this campaign, most recent government surveys have shown that shark fin consumption in China has fallen by up to 80%!
Shark fin soup is considered a Chinese delicacy and has a deep history in traditional weddings, banquets and prestigious events. The soup, although considered a luxury item, has slight flavors and isn’t all that unique. Given the amount of suffering and death that goes into creating the soup, you’d imagine there would be something more to it other than light flavors and texture. Then again, our treatment of animals on this planet for even the slightest human benefit has been shocking for decades.
As many as 73 million sharks end up in the global shark fin trade every year according to Oceana.org. In many cases, when sharks are caught, their fins are removed and then they’re thrown back into the ocean to die as they’re unable to swim.
In 2006, as many as 75% of Chinese citizens were unaware that shark fins were actually used in shark fin soup. After awareness increased due to campaigns like the one Yao Ming participated in, public education has shifted the perception on shark fin soup.
Shark fin consumption in China has fallen by up to 80% in the last 10 years. And it just so happens that Yao Ming’s activism on the issue has been going for the exact same amount of time.
Ming Moved Onto China’s Ivory Trade Next… And Won
With Ming being China’s most powerful celebrity for 5 consecutive years between 2004 and 2009, you can imagine that, in a country of over a billion people, that truly says something in terms of public power. Ming was moved to take on China’s ivory trade and once again used his image and platform to raise awareness about elephant poaching. He teamed up with WildAid to eventually find success in making it illegal to buy Ivory in China.
Chinese state media Xinhua described the run-up to the ban as “one of the largest ever public awareness campaigns” with support from other celebrities such as actress Li Bingbing.
“We all know that there is ‘on paper,’ and under the paper, there’s still a long way to go to save the animals — and then save ourselves,” Ming told CNBC.
Yes, there is more work to be done. The way we treat our environment and the animal kingdom on this planet truly needs to change, and that change will only come from awareness and connecting to self. Great genocide takes place on our planet every single year… and it is that of animals for needless human consumption.
Even the largest of challenges we face can be changed with the efforts of people. Sure, in this case, it was a celebrity with great influence, but in many other cases, it is large groups of people coming together. The March Against Monsanto is a great example of that. I recall when that was first starting out and we were one of just a small handful of websites who actively raised awareness about Monsanto’s actions – even when other partnering companies wouldn’t work with us because of our efforts in that area of reporting.
Slowly but surely, our stories and articles became more and more viral over the years. The conversations eventually moved to the mainstream, and over time, it is now being turned into action across the planet against GMO foods and practices. Something that started out with just a few people has grown into a global movement thanks to their tireless efforts to do the right thing.
We have the power to do great things. Something that seems small can build to be impactful over time, but even if it doesn’t, doing what inspires you is an incredible energy to add to collective consciousness and inspire others.
Change truly starts within. That’s why I created The 5 Days of You Challenge and made it available for everyone. With this challenge, everyone can begin getting in touch with themselves and making a difference in our world. Check it out here.
Drone Footage Shows More Than 100 Whales Imprisoned In Underwater Jails
Recently, drone footage captured shots of over 100 whales trapped in secret underwater ‘jails.’ In total, 11 orcas and 90...
We are in the midst of a 5G wireless technology rollout, and politicians have yet to address safety concerns. I...