Connect with us

Alternative News

Humanity Has Become One Massive Genetic Experiment: What Everyone Should Know About GMOs

Published

on

Are you concerned about Genetically Modified Foods? Here’s (GMOs Revealed) a great documentary that addresses many of the questions and concerns most people have today. 

advertisement - learn more

In March 2014, scientists from Indiana University announced that they had conducted research to examine the operations of the fruit fly genome “in greater detail than ever before possible” and had identified “thousands of new genes, transcripts and proteins.” Their results indicated that the fly’s genome is “far more complex than previously suspected and suggests that the same will be true of the genomes of other higher organisms.” Of the approximately 1,500 new genes that were discovered, 536 of them were found within areas that were previously assumed to be gene-free zones. Furthermore, when the flies were subjected to stresses, small changes in expression level at thousands of genes occurred, and four newly modelled genes were expressed altogether differently.

Why is this important? Because it reveals how little we know about this planet and the organisms dwelling on it, yet also how much we think we know. This kind of hubris is found within all areas of human knowledge, but particularly when it comes to science.

Another great example that I’ve used before is when the populace first realized that the Earth wasn’t flat. Another is a statement made by physicist Lord Kelvin, who stated in 1900 that “there is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement.” This assertion was shattered only five years later when Einstein published his paper on special relativity.

When it comes to our genes, and the genes of other organisms, we really do know next to nothing. Unfortunately, proponents of the biotech industry (Monsanto, DuPont, Syngenta, etc.) claim otherwise, and have developed multiple, flawed assumptions that undergird agricultural bioengineering.

The information presented in this article comes from a variety of different sources, but my primary sourceis Steven Druker, a public interest attorney and the Executive Director of the Alliance for Bio-Integrity. He initiated a lawsuit in 1998 that forced the U.S. Food and Drug (FDA) to release its files on genetically engineered foods, and recently published a book about it, which has received dozens of rave reviews from the world’s most accredited scientists in the field. I draw primarily from his book for this article.

advertisement - learn more

“This incisive and insightful book is truly outstanding. Not only is it well reasoned and scientifically solid, it’s a pleasure to read – and a must-read. Through its masterful marshalling of facts, it dispels the cloud of disinformation that has misled people into believing that GE foods have been adequately tested and don’t entail abnormal risk.” 

– David Schubert, PhD, molecular biologist and Head of Cellular Neurobiology, Salk Institute for Biological Studies.

Natural Genetic Modification Versus Human Induced Genetic Modification

Biotech proponents have an unshakable faith in their GE crops, and these corporations also hold major sway over mainstream media outlets, and close relationships with government agencies like the FDA. Indeed, several high level industry employees have also held positions at these institutions. One example is the FDA Deputy Commissioner for Foods, Michael Taylor, who is also Monsanto’s former Vice President for Public Policy. While at the FDA, he was instrumental in getting approval for Monsanto’s genetically engineered bovine growth hormone.

Druker outlines in his book how the commercialization of genetically engineered foods was enabled by the fraudulent behaviour of these government agencies, and how this actually violates explicit mandates for federal food safety law. The evidence shows that the “FDA’s falsehoods have been abundantly supplemented with falsehoods disseminated by eminent scientists and scientific institutions, and the entire GE food venture.”

This is why it’s so amazing to see so many scientists within the field supporting the dissemination of truth, and bringing the falsehoods to light. So if you still think this type of thing is a conspiracy theory, we now have the documents as well as the science, which stands on its own, to show that something is terribly wrong here.

Joseph Cummins, Ph.D. and Professor Emeritus of Genetics at Western University in London, Ontario, believes that Druker’s book is a “landmark” and that “it should be required reading in every university biology course.” 

There are several presumptions on which the bioengineering venture was based, and one of them is that natural breeding is more random and unruly than bioengineering. The standard argument holds that genetic modification has been occurring for thousands of years, and what we do now is simply that process sped up and made better.

Key Presumptions on Which the Bioengineering Venture Was Based

Genetic engineering is based on the presumption that the genome is just a linear system, where the action of a single gene will not impact the action of other genes, or disrupt their normal function.

In 2007, the New York Times published an article outlining how “the presumption that genes operate independently has been institutionalized since 1976, when the first biotech company was founded. In fact, it is the economic and regulatory foundation on which the entire biotechnology industry is built.” 

Basically, genes are viewed as autonomous, adding to the whole without acting holistically because they don’t express their proteins in a closely coordinated matter. Another assumption used to justify genetic engineering is that genes aren’t organized in a specific way, that the sequence in which they occur is meaningless From this point of view, a gene would function normally if it were relocated to a different chromosome or came from a neighbouring gene. Quite a big assumption, don’t you think? Giorgio Bernardi, a biologist at the University of Rome III who specialized in the study of genome evolution, calls this perspective a “bean-bag view of the genome” because it regards the genes as “randomly distributed.”

Druker explains:

Together, these two assumptions supported the belief that a chunk of recombinant DNA could be put into a plan’s genome without inducing disturbance — because if the behavior of the native genes was largely uncoordinated and their arrangement was irrelevant, there would be no important patterns that could be perturbed by such insertions. Accordingly, they engendered confidence in the precision of genetic engineering, because they implied that the outcome of a gene insertion would be exactly what the bioengineers expected.

How could biotech proponents push the idea that the target organism would continue to function just as it had before, and that the change would be limited to the new trait endowed by the inserted gene? How can it simply be assumed that this would not alter any of the organism’s other qualities?

These presumptions still underly genetic engineering today. The example of the fly above serves well here. In the New York Times article cited earlier, the author noted that “genes appear to operate in a complex network,” and states that “evidence of a networked genome shatters the scientific basis for virtually every official risk assessment of today’s commercial biotech products, from genetically engineered crops to pharmaceuticals.”

Molecular geneticist Michael Antoniou, who testified at New Zealand’s Royal Commission in 2001, notes that agricultural bioengineering “was based on the understanding of genetics we had 15 years ago, about genes being isolated little units that work independently of each other.” He also presented evidence showing that genes actually “work as an integrated whole of families.”

Despite the grave possibility that these presumptions are indeed wrong, they still form the backbone of genetic engineering today.

Antoniou himself was even selected to represent multiple nongovernmental organizations to present precaution reasons to the UK’s GM Review Panel, and a plethora of studies that clearly justify it. Despite his presentation, and many others’, the 11 other scientists on the panel, who were biotech proponents, dismissed these studies and continued to argue that it makes absolutely no difference how genes are arranged.

How can a scientist make such a statement?

What do we have as a result? As Druker says:

Such disregard, denial, or avoidance in regard to the evidence was essential for maintaining faith in the venture, because its predictability and safety have always relied on the genome being largely disjointed; and the more the genome instead appears to function as a tightly coordinated system, the more potentially disruptive and unpredictable are the interventions of the bioengineers.

Geneticist, activist, and environmentalist David Suzuki weighed in on this very subject a few years ago in an interview with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC):

By slipping it into our food without our knowledge, without any indication that there are genetically modified organisms in our food, we are now unwittingly part of a massive experiment. . . . Essentially, the FDA has said that genetically modified organisms, or food, are basically not much different from regular food, and so they’ll be treated in the same way. The problem is this: Geneticists follow the inheritance of genes, in what we call a vertical fashion . . . [but] what biotechnology allows us to do is to take this organism, and move it, what we call horizontally, into a totally unrelated species. Now, David Suzuki doesn’t normally mate with a carrot plant and exchange genes. What biotechnology allows us to do is to switch genes from one to the other, without regard for the biological constraints. . . . It’s very very bad science. We assume that the principals governing the inheritance of genes vertically applies when you move genes laterally or horizontally. There’s absolutely no reason to make that conclusion.

More Differences

This is a common argument made by GE-food proponents, and commonly used whenever an expert brings up a challenge to the technology’s safety. For example, David Schubert, PhD, a molecular biologist and the Head of Cellular Neurobiology at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, commented in Nature Biotechnology that there was mounting evidence that the insertion of even one gene into a cell’s DNA alters the expression patters of genes throughout the entire cell. He said facts like this one, among many others, “cast doubt on the soundness of agricultural bioengineering — and entail the conclusion that it ‘is not a safe option.’ “

Predictably, when a professor and a laboratory director of one of the world’s most prestigious scientific institutions makes a comment like this, there’s going to be a response. This time it came in the form of a letter, published by 18 biologists at respected universities and institutions, stating that Dr. Schubert failed to properly consider “the genetic realities.” The main reality he allegedly failed to recognize is that the natural method of plant breeding is inherently more random than bioengineering.

A portion of the letter reads as following:

We do not take issue with Schubert’s basic contention that unintended genetic and metabolic events can take place. The reality is that ‘unintentional consequences’ are much more likely to occur in nature than in biotechnology because nature relies on the unintentional consequences of blind random genetic mutation and rearrangement to produce adaptive phenotypic results, whereas GM technology employs precise, specific, and rationally designed genetic modification toward a specific engineering goal.

In his book, Steven Druker offers the following counterargument: “This letter thus reveals how strongly the GE food venture relies on the presumption that the natural process driving biological development are intrinsically more disorderly and risk-bearing than the genetic interventions instigated by the human mind. And it confirms that this belief forms the ideological bedrock on which the venture rests.”

In fact, a report published in 2004 by the National Academy of Sciences couldn’t uphold “even the more modest notion that bioengineering and natural breeding pose the same risks.” The panel that produced the report ranked various modes of plant breeding in terms of their disposition to produce unintended effects. They were forced to acknowledge that bioengineering produces far greater effects than pollen-based sexual reproduction. Despite this fact, they still insisted that this does not mean a difference in risks.

Druker says in response:

Thus, there’s no rational way to reconcile the fact that natural breeding is less disruptive and more predictable than bioengineering with the claim that it poses equal or greater risk, which is why the admission in the 2004 report is a rarity — and why biotech proponents almost always ignore or deny that fact and instead assert that natural breeding is more disorderly and unpredictable.

Randomness

According to the biotech industry, natural plant breeding could actually result in crops that are dangerous to human consumption, which is why we should be grateful for genetic engineering. For example, in the same NAS report mentioned above, they portrayed what are known as “jumping genes” as more randomly mobile and threatening, but failed to recognize, as Druker points out, that although these entities do not pose risks within natural pollen based breeding, when bioengineering is employed they do because that process alone “tends to stir them up and get them jumping.”

When it comes to sexual reproduction, it’s yet another area where biotech proponents state that it’s a random phenomenon, despite the fact that we now know that it’s not random, and that there are multiple factors that can and do influence the genetics of life.   Genetic engineering, be it human induced or naturally occurring, requires a genetic “rearragnement,”  a recombination of DNA. The difference between the artificial way and the natural way is that the natural way does not disrupt the entire organism, as was discussed a little earlier in the article and touched upon in the Suzuki quote above.

As Druker explains:

This natural form of recombination occurs during the formation of gametes (the sperm and egg cells). It includes a step called crossover in which two partner chromosomes break at corresponding points and then exchange complementary sections of DNA; and every time a gamete is produced, every set of paired chromosomes engages in it. In this way, all the chromosomes end up with genes from both parents instead of from only one. However, all the genes are preserved, as is the sequences in which they’re positioned. The only changes are in the relationships between aleles. . . . So this natural recombination augments diversity while maintaining stability. And without it, except for the occasional favorable mutation, the composition of chromosomes would stay the same from generation to generation, and genetic diversity would grow at far too sluggish a pace.

He goes on to mention how natural recombination preserves the order of the genes, and is predictable in the way it cuts DNA. The entire process displays a great deal of order.

Despite this fact, scientists who support GE state, as in, for example, the 2004 NAS report, that “genetic engineering methods are considered by some to be more precise than conventional breeding methods because only known and precisely characterized genes are transferred.” They use the idea that the randomness and unpredictability of natural engineering make bioengineering safer.

Yet, as Druker so brilliantly captures:

This misleading tactic fixates on the predictability of the plant’s specific agronomic traits; and it portrays traditional breeding as less predictable than bioengineering because undesired attributes are often transferred along with the one that is desired. However, those who employ this ploy don’t acknowledge that if both parents are safe to eat, the unwanted traits hardly ever pose risk to human health. Rather, they’re undesirable for reasons irrelevant to risk (such as aesthetic appearance or seed size), and breeders must then perform back-crossing to eliminate them while retaining the trait they want. However,  although the inclusion of unwanted traits entails more work, it does not increase attendant risks. Therefore, while breeders can’t fully predict what traits will appear, they can confidently predict that the resulting plant will be safe to eat.

This is why the GE stance on natural modification is so flawed and misleading.

Druker goes on:

Although it describes the sexual reproduction of food-yielding plants as a messy and risky affair that involves the transfer of “thousands of unknown genes with unknown function,” we actually know quite a lot about those genes. And what we know is far more important than what we don’t know. We know that they’re all where they’re supposed to be, and that they’re arranged in an orderly fashion. And we know that during the essential process in which some of them are traded between partnered chromosomes in order to promote the diversity that strengthens the species, their orderly arrangement is marvelously maintained. Most important, we know that their functions mesh to form an exquisitely efficient system that generates and sustains a plant that regularly provides us with wholesome food.

This sharply contrasts with genetic engineering.

As you can see, comparing natural modification to biotech modification is not an easy process, and this isn’t even the tip of the iceberg. Research shows that it’s not natural modification that’s more random and risky, but biotech genetic modification:

The inserted cassettes are haphazardly wedged into the cell’s DNA, they create unpredictable disruptions at the site of insertion, the overall process induces hundreds of mutations throughout the DNA molecule, the activity of the inserted cassettes can create multiple imbalances, and the resultant plant cannot be deemed safe without undergoing a battery of rigorous tests that has yet to be applied to any engineered crop.

RELATED CE ARTICLES: 

Below are a few of many articles we’ve published on GMOs, if you’re interested in reading more please browse through our website.

Reviewed Science Loosing Credibility As Large Amounts of Research Shown To Be False

Wikileaks Cables Reveal The US Government Planned To Retaliate Cause & Cause Pain On Countries Refusing GMOs

Federal Lawsuit Forces The US Government To Divulge Secret Files On Genetically Engineered Foods

New Study Links GMOs To Cancre, Liver/Kidney Damage & Severe Hormonal Disruption

Why Bill Nye Is Not A Science Guy: What He Gets Wrong About GMOs

Get Your FREE In Depth Numerology Reading

Your life path number can tell you A LOT about you.

With the ancient science of Numerology you can find out accurate and revealing information just from your name and birth date.

Get your free numerology reading and learn more about how you can use numerology in your life to find out more about your path and journey. Get Your free reading.

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Alternative News

U.S. Soldier Claims To Have Shot & Killed A 12-Foot Giant In Afghanistan

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    There is corroborating testimony that a patrol of U. S. Soldiers shot and killed a giant 12-15 feet tall in Afghanistan, widely known a 'The Kandahar Giant.'

  • Reflect On:

    What would be the implications about human history if we came to know that there were one or several other humanoid species that once lived on the planet, or indeed still live here today?

In 2002 a U. S. patrol had gone missing in a very remote area of Afghanistan. Another patrol was dispatched on a search and rescue mission, and one soldier on that patrol described what he saw after coming around the side of a mountain:

As we bent around this corner you could see the opening of the cave. And then I see a lot of rocks which is another oddity. And then bone matter. I’m not close enough to identify what kind of bones but I did see what I knew to be a piece of our communications equipment. So instantly we’re thinking ‘ambush,’ maybe animal, you know, could be anything. There was enough room in front of the cave, but it had a sheer drop-off; but there was enough room that we got into a decent dispersal in case of ambush.

Not long after they had gotten into that dispersal formation, they saw something emerge from the cave that, despite their preparedness, caught them fully off guard.

It was a man at least 12 to 15 feet in height. This is a MONSTER. Red beard, with his hair–was longish, past his shoulders, a scarlet red. And Dan runs at him and starts shooting, which broke all of us into the reality–because it was surreal.

While Dan is moving at him, another bro of mine is laying down fire and I start firing. He skewers Dan–he’s now got him on this ‘pike.’ It went through him. He’s got him and he’s coming after more.

We all just clicked in. I don’t know what it was, but I remember we were all like, ‘Shoot him in the face, shoot him in the face!’ He’s taking multiple hits, and he’s still moving.

advertisement - learn more

Eventually, the giant was killed. Dan had been killed as well. And the patrol unit was soon visited by a helicopter that dropped some cargo netting. They were told they had to bundle up the giant in the netting, and soon after they were done, a larger helicopter came by, dropped a hook, and the giant was carried off.

The soldier confirmed that the red-haired, fair-skinned giant had six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot. After they had submitted their after-action report, the soldier recounts that they were told by their top brass to re-write it in a particular fashion, presumably to remove any mention of a giant being.

Corroborating Testimony

Although not an eyewitness, another special ops soldier in Afghanistan provides the following corroborating testimony:

We would come back to the base and started hearing this rumor about a unit that killed this, what they started calling this really tall person. At first I didn’t think anything of it, then come to find out that the person they killed was actually three times the size of a man, had extra digits on their hands, and extra digits on their feet, and had red hair, and a special unit had come in and wanted this target.

Well we’d heard that they killed this thing inside a cave, or the mouth of a cave, and there was common knowledge among the military to hear this. When you first hear, you’re thinking like, this has got to be a joke. This has got to be a hoax. Then after things go down a certain way, and you keep hearing it, you start to realize it’s not a joke.

They kept telling us to keep our weapons high, which normally means it’s two to the chest, one to the head, but they kept telling us to put it towards a man’s head, and put it higher. So we would question, why would they want us to shoot higher than a man’s head?

Recorded Interviews

These testimonies are found in the compilation video below, from interviews conducted by L. A. Marzulli with the two soldiers who wanted to remain anonymous. In addition, there is some footage from Coast to Coast with host George Noory featuring a pilot who saw and actually transported the giant.

Pilot’s Testimony

This pilot had landed at a base in Afghanistan and was told that they had to pick up special cargo and that there were absolutely no cameras allowed. The pilot describes the ‘cargo’:

It was basically a dead ‘guy,’ and this guy was extremely large, and when I say large, our pallets are basically, if I remember correctly, about 9 by 12 feet, or so, and this guy was laying in a fetal position, on the pallet, and he filled the pallet. He was around an 1100 pound guy.

The pilot corroborated much more of the details given by the other two witnesses, including the fact that this giant was fair-skinned, red-haired, and had extra digits on his hands and feet.

Widespread Corroboration

As impressive as the consistency of these three separate testimonies is, there is actually much more widespread corroboration about the existence of fair-skinned, red-haired giants with six fingers and toes, and double rows of teeth. Certainly, in Afghanistan, the stories among the natives were rampant about the existence of cannibalistic giants living in caves. The soldiers who could understand the natives’ language tended to refer to these stories as ‘legends’, although a few noted that the presence of bones near cave entrances suggested that humans were killed and eaten by something living in the cave, either by ambush or, according to the natives, by sacrifices they offered the giant.

There is plenty of evidence that a cannibalistic, red-haired race of giants once inhabited North America, and menaced several native tribes whose folklore and legends (or for the tribes, history) tell stories similar to the one recounted in this article:

After years of strife and numerous casualties on both sides of the fence, the natives decided to end this giant threat for good-by uniting under a single flag. It wasn’t long until the red-haired giants were crippled and forced out of their homes.

The giants retreated inside a cave, but were tracked down by the natives, and with a will to avenge their fallen brethren, they set up a considerable fire that had them all burnt or intoxicated. Those who ventured outside to try to escape the putsch were met with retribution to the last one.

In reference to red-haired giants, there is a discussion between David Wilcock and Corey Goode where it is said that these giants have been found in stasis, which means in suspended animation, until such a time that they are supposed to return. More than one person within the UFO community has borne witness to these red-haired giants being found in stasis chambers, in full battle regalia and other adornments, seemingly in preparation to resume their role on Earth at the appointed time.

Reasons For Non-Disclosure

In asking one of the U. S. army witnesses why this information was being kept secret from the world, he said,

My personal opinion is, if it points to the Bible’s accurate, they don’t want it. If it goes against Darwinian Evolution, it’s not to be spoken of.

This is very much in keeping with my previous article on Giants in North America, where it seems that those in power are trying their best to keep everybody from finding out that human history is very different from the neo-Darwinian model in which human evolution has been a slow, unbroken, random pattern without intervention from any other sentient species. It’s likely that just learning of the existence of one different species here on Earth would completely break the spell and have a majority of us ready to demand the truth about our history and our place in this universe alongside other intelligent species.

Snopes Weighs In

Of course mainstream attempts to dampen the credibility of this type of story starts at the top–the top of a Google search, I mean. A search on ‘Kandahar Giant,’ predictably, has this Snopes article first on the list, to tell us of course that the whole story is false. The proof?

A Department of Defense spokesman told us they have no record of such an incident: “We do not have any record or information about a special forces member killed by a giant in Kandahar.”

If you’ve made it this far in the article, I rather doubt that this ‘proof’ is very compelling to you.

Our Role

Our role as awakened and awakening citizens in the truth-seeking community is to continue to do our best to bring to light all the evidence of information that has been suppressed, hidden and denied. As more and more eyewitnesses and other whistleblowers gain the courage to come out and talk about what they have experienced, it is becoming easier to start building a bigger picture about our true history and what’s really going on in our world.

Get Your FREE In Depth Numerology Reading

Your life path number can tell you A LOT about you.

With the ancient science of Numerology you can find out accurate and revealing information just from your name and birth date.

Get your free numerology reading and learn more about how you can use numerology in your life to find out more about your path and journey. Get Your free reading.

Continue Reading

Alternative News

Round UFO Seen Hovering Over Indian Prime Minister’s Residence – “Details Cannot Be Revealed”

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    A round UFO appeared over India Prime Minister Modi's residence. Delhi police chief spokesperson Deepak Pathak confirmed the sighting but did not disclose any details.

  • Reflect On:

    What are your thoughts on UFO sightings? Are they manned by humans or ET's? Have you looked into the subject of ET's and UFO's? If not, Search our website as we have covered it in great detail and the subject relates to our evolving consciousness.

“Multiple government agencies were pressed into action,” a statement made by an Indian correspondent to CNN a few days ago  According to the Hindustan Times, “special commissioner of police and Delhi police chief spokesperson Deepak Pathak confirmed the sighting but said details of the incident cannot be revealed.

“The sighting was reported but nothing threatening was found. More details cannot be shared keeping security reasons in mind,” Pathak added. This was also reported across multiple mainstream outlets.

This follows the release of footage from the Pentagon, and a massive wake up call article written in the New York Times,  as well as a big article on the topic by Christopher Mellon in the Washington Post, he served as deputy assistant secretary of defense for intelligence in the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations. He is a private equity investor and an adviser to the To the Stars Academy for Arts and Science.

To the Stars Academy are the ones who released the Pentagon UFO videos a couple of months ago.

It’s important to remember that these are establishment mouthpieces, and they have all but lost the people’s trust in covering events in an accurate and unbias manner. Documents, along with award-winning mainstream media journalists have made this quite obvious, and there are multiple examples that seem to be happening all the time, like the recent coverage in Syria, for example. The real portrayers of fake news seem to be the ones who created that title in the first place…

Why has the establishment, or a fraction of it, chosen to release this information? All they’ve done with information is use it to deceive the masses for ulterior motives, those motives include, for example, the ‘war on terror’ as well as the ‘war on drugs.’ Now the UFO/ET topic is too big to hide, so they are choosing to control the disclosure narrative to essentially protect themselves and their cover-up.

advertisement - learn more

What’s Next For Disclosure?

The UFO topic is becoming quite strange, because never before in history have we seen this type of mainstream media coverage. It’s hard to think that it’s not being used for reasons to “heighten” national security interests, perhaps a reason to justify space? After all, Donald Trump is now talking about creating a military space force, despite the fact that multiple high ranking military whistle-blowers, as well as the biggest military computer hack of all time that went mainstream in 2010, uncovers enough evidence to support the idea that space has already, quite possibly, been militarized.

Are they planning a false flag alien invasion? Or is a faction within the Deep State really trying to let the world know that something is going on here? Is this a process of slow disclosure to prepare us for the inevitable? Extraterrestrial contact.

If one thing is for certain, our plant is quite something…We don’t live in a world of transparency, the majority of people on the planet do not even want to think about the world, and what’s going on. The term “ignorance is bliss” is understandable, but one should not project any type of hate towards any type of activism…

It’s going to be interesting to see where the mainstream is going to take this. Unfortunately, much of the mainstream coverage and release seem to justify a “threat narrative.” Regardless of the fact that contained within the millions of pages of UFO-related documents, that have been released by multiple governments worldwide, many instances do mention “evasive” manoeuvres. Former Canadian Defence Minister Paul Helyer once said, “Decades ago, visitors from other planets warned us about where we were headed and offered to help. But instead, we, or at least some of us, interpreted their visits as a threat, and decided to shoot first and ask questions after.”

Perhaps that’s true, perhaps multiple races, some with good intentions and some with malevolent intent have visited us? This would line up with much of the testimony and research regarding a reptilian influence on Earth. Perhaps, as astronaut Storey Musgrave said at a UFO conference, there are trillions of races out there, “and they’re doing star travel.”  You can see a quick clip here, along with two other astronauts.

Just imagine the implications of such a truth? there is another way, whether it’s wormholes or warping space, there’s got to be a way to generate energy so that you can pull it out of the vacuum, and the fact that they’re here shows us that they found a way.”  Jack Kasher, Ph.D, a professor emeritus of physics at the University of Nebraska.

Intelligent beings from other star systems have been and are visiting our planet Earth. They are variously referred to as Visitors, Others, Star People, ETs, etc. . . . They are visiting Earth NOW; this is not a matter of conjecture or wishful thinking.

– Theodore C. Loder III, Phd, Professor Emeritus of Earth Sciences, University of New Hampshire

There are hundreds of statements from people like the above mentioned, to complement the documents and military whistle-blowers.

Do We Really Know What’s Going On?

Can we really say we know what is going on? To a degree, yes. We know that we’ve been lied to for decades regarding the existence of strange aerial objects that defy our understanding and belief. There is also a great deal of evidence to suggest some are extraterrestrial. There is also a great deal of evidence suggesting human governments are in contact with ET beings.

This information leaves no aspect of humanity untouched. The biggest thing we can do for disclosure right now is to continue to look at ourselves. We need to look at what we are allowing to happen on our planet right now via a controlling cabal/elite and come to terms with this reality.

We can change the human experience any-time we want, but what is going to take? So far, we’ve seen activism shift many problems. There are a lot of people out there doing a lot of good, but we still have major issues that need to be sorted out. What the global citizenry truly wants, is peace. That peace begins within each of us as Change Starts Within.

It’s time to start questioning our opinions, perspectives, beliefs in our systems today and ask why we choose to support them. It’s time to find out what stops us from having peace within ourselves within our own emotional turmoil we have in our lives. These shifts, in fact, effect collective consciousness and begin opening the door for others to change too.

The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic societyThose who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are moulded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of.

– Edward Bernays (“the father of public relations”), Propaganda, 1928 (note that Bernays’ book, Propaganda, begins with the above quote).

It’s time for Earth to experience a new paradigm, and even though we fear stepping out of our comfort zone, we must.

Related CE Podcast Episode for self-exploration: Ep#17: Who You Truly Are

Get Your FREE In Depth Numerology Reading

Your life path number can tell you A LOT about you.

With the ancient science of Numerology you can find out accurate and revealing information just from your name and birth date.

Get your free numerology reading and learn more about how you can use numerology in your life to find out more about your path and journey. Get Your free reading.

Continue Reading

Alternative News

Second FBI Informant Tried To Entrap Trump Campaign With $2 Million Offer For Hillary Dirt: Roger Stone

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Trump aide alleges that an FBI informant tried to spy on and infiltrate the campaign, and entrap them in a deal to exchange cash for Hillary intel.

  • Reflect On:

    If Trump was not an outsider, why was the Deep State so interested in spying and trying to infiltrate his campaign? What do we make of our election process when this is the type of behaviour taking place? Time to evolve?

We had been reporting a great deal during the 2016 campaign that if Hillary made her way into office it would have been the Deep State plan going to perfect tune once again. We talked about a great deal of corruption associated with her as a person, her foundation and her administration.

When Trump ended up in office we talked about this as a divide or fork in the Deep State that Trump was essentially disrupting the longtime running plan that had been going on for decades, as well as playing a key role in pushing for deeper reflections for humanity. This is why we see, for example, a full-on mainstream media barrage against Trump. The cabal is using their voices to attack and confuse the public about the ‘outsider’ that got his way in.

Now, as time goes on, more is being revealed about the shady nature of the 2016 election, as with any, and more is coming forward about not only the previous administration but Hillary’s campaign. We all know what they did to push Bernie Sanders out, the same was being done to Trump.

More Scandals

(Zerohedge) Now, Trump campaign aides Roger Stone and Michael Caputo say that a meeting Stone took in late May, 2016 with a Russian appears to have been an “FBI sting operation” in hindsight, following bombshell reports in May that the DOJ/FBI used a longtime FBI/CIA asset, Cambridge professor Stefan Halper, to perform espionage on the Trump campaign.

“When Stone arrived at the restaurant in Sunny Isles, he said, Greenberg was wearing a Make America Great Again T-shirt and hat. On his phone, Greenberg pulled up a photo of himself with Trump at a rally, Stone said. –WaPo”

The meeting went nowhere – ending after Stone told Greenberg “You don’t understand Donald Trump… He doesn’t pay for anything.” The Post independently confirmed this account with Greenberg.

advertisement - learn more

After the meeting, Stone received a text message from Caputo – a Trump campaign communications official who arranged the meeting after Greenberg approached Caputo’s Russian-immigrant business partner.

“How crazy is the Russian?” Caputo wrote according to a text message reviewed by The Post. Noting that Greenberg wanted “big” money, Stone replied: “waste of time.” -WaPo

Stone and Caputo now think the meeting was an FBI attempt to entrap the Trump administration – showing the Post evidence that Greenberg, who sometimes used the name Henry Oknyansky, “had provided information to the FBI for 17 years,” based on a 2015 court filing related to his immigration status.

He attached records showing that the government had granted him special permission to enter the United States because his presence represented a “significant public benefit.”

Between 2008 and 2012, the records show, he repeatedly was extended permission to enter the United States under a so-called “significant public benefit parole.” The documents list an FBI agent as a contact person. The agent declined to comment.

Greenberg did not respond to questions about his use of multiple names but said in a text that he had worked for the “federal government” for 17 years.

“I risked my life and put myself in danger to do so, as you can imagine,” he said. -WaPo

“Wherever I was, from Iran to North Korea, I always send information to” the FBI, Greenberg told The Post. “I cooperated with the FBI for 17 years, often put my life in danger. Based on my information, there are so many arrests criminal from drugs and human trafficking, money laundering and insurance frauds.”

Stone and Caputo say it was a “sting operation” by the FBI:

“I didn’t realize it was an FBI sting operation at the time, but it sure looks like one now,” said Stone.

“If you believe that [Greenberg] took time off from his long career as an FBI informant to reach out to us in his spare time, I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I want to sell you,” Caputo said in an interview.

Greenberg told WaPo he stopped working with the FBI “sometime after 2013.”

In terms of the timeline, here’s where the Greenberg meeting fits in:

April 26, 2016 – Maltese professor Joseph Mifsud allegedly tells Trump campaign aide George Paoadopoulos that the Russians had dirt on Hillary Clinton

Papadopoulos’ statement of offense also detailed his April 26, 2016, meeting with Mifsud at a London hotel. Over breakfast Mifsud told Papadopoulos “he had just returned from a trip to Moscow where he had met with high-level Russian governmental officials.” Mifsud explained, “that on that trip he (the Professor) learned that the Russians had obtained ‘dirt’ on then-candidate Clinton.” Mifsud told Papadopoulos “the Russians had emails of Clinton.” -The Federalist

May 10, 2016 – Papadopoulos tells former Australian Diplomat Alexander Downer during an alleged “drunken barroom admission” that the Russians had information which “could be damaging” to Hillary Clinton.

Late May, 2016 – Stone is approached by Greenberg with the $2 million offer for dirt on Clinton

Related CE Podcast: Trump, Alt News, & Disclosure W/ Jordan Sather

July 2016 – FBI informant (spy) Stefan Halper meets with Trump campaign aide Carter Page for the first time, which would be one of many encounters.

July 31, 2016 – the FBI officially launches operation Crossfire Hurricane, the code name given to the counterintelligence operation against the Trump campaign.

September 2016 – Halper invites Papadopoulos to London, paying him $3,000 to work on an energy policy paper while wining and dining him at a 200-year-old private London club on September 15.

Foggy memory

Stone and Caputo say they didn’t mention the meeting during Congressional testimony because they forgot, chalking it up to unimportant “due diligence.” Apparently, random offers for political dirt in exchange for millions are so common in D.C. that one tends to forget.

Stone and Caputo said in separate interviews that they also did not disclose the Greenberg meeting during testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence because they had forgotten about an incident that Stone calls unimportant “due diligence” that would have been “political malpractice” not to explore. -WaPo

While Greenberg and Stone’s account of the meeting mostly checked out (after Greenberg initially denied Stone’s account), Greenberg said that a Ukrainian friend named “Alexi” who was fired by the Clinton Foundation attended as well, and was the one asking for the money – while Stone said Greenberg came alone to the meeting.

“We really want to help Trump,” Stone recalled Greenberg saying during the brief encounter.

Greenberg says he sat at a nearby table while Alexei conducted the meeting. “Alexei talks to Mr. Stone, not me,” he wrote.

The Clinton Founation has denied ever employing anyone with the first name of Alexi.

Caputo’s attorney on Friday sent a letter amending his House testimony, and he plans to present Caputo’s account of the Greenberg incident to the Office of Inspector General for the Department of Justice, which has announced it is examining the FBI’s use of informants during the Russia probe. Stone said his attorney has done the same. -WaPo

Second FBI informant

Caputo hinted at the interaction in late May when he said that there were multiple government informants who approached the Trump campaign:

“Let me tell you something that I know for a fact,” Caputo said during a May 21 interview on Fox News. “This informant, this person [who] they tried to plant into the campaign … he’s not the only person who came into the campaign. And the FBI is not the only Obama agency who came into the campaign.”

“I know because they came at me,” Caputo added. “And I’m looking for clearance from my attorney to reveal this to the public. This is just the beginning.”

Stone told the Post that he may be indicted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller and charged “with a crime unrelated to the election in order to silence him,” and that he anticipates the meeting with Greenberg may be used to try and pressure him to testify against President Trump (leaving no stone unturned), which he told the Post he would never do.

Get Your FREE In Depth Numerology Reading

Your life path number can tell you A LOT about you.

With the ancient science of Numerology you can find out accurate and revealing information just from your name and birth date.

Get your free numerology reading and learn more about how you can use numerology in your life to find out more about your path and journey. Get Your free reading.

Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

EL

Watch: Exclusive Uncut Interview With David Wilcock'Disclosure & The Fall Of The Cabal'

Enter your name and email below to watch the interview.

You have Successfully Subscribed!