- The Facts:
A Bill was proposed in Virginia that aims to make it easier for a woman to get a late-term abortion. Subsequent comments made about it by the Governor of Virginia have some suggesting that this bill pushes infanticide.
- Reflect On:
Can we see how the abortion issue is so polarized these days that there is little room to have the kinds of discussions that bring us together on this matter and try to define who we want to be as a collective?
The proposal of a Bill in Virginia that aims to make it easier for a woman to get a late-term abortion, and subsequent comments made about it by the Governor of Virginia, have set off a firestorm in public discourse, and understandably so.
However, rather than getting into the polarized ‘discussions’ that are taking place both in the political arena and between everyday citizens, let’s take a seat above the fray and try to see what’s going on here at a higher level.
If you consume information on this subject from mainstream media, what is inevitably highlighted are the most extreme conclusions coming from the two sides, where the battle of rhetoric between left and right seems to be what is considered newsworthy rather than the issue at hand.
And this is as it was meant to be. For there is an agenda behind how mainstream media reports on the news. As long as it keeps people in a polarized state it actually maintains the system in place and forces people to stay within the control matrix. Those who continue to rigidly identify as a Democrat or as a Republican, as Pro-Choice or Pro-Life, are leaving themselves open to being controlled. The mainstream narrative will continue to think for you, rather than create a space in which you can think for yourself, the latter being one of the main aims of conscious media.
The Facts About The Virginia Bill
Let’s begin with the facts about the Virginia Bill and see if we can navigate through what has happened with a greater degree of emotional neutrality and perspective.
Kathy Tran Introduces The Bill. Kathy Tran is a Democrat who was elected to the Virginia House of Delegates in 2017. She introduced HB 2491 earlier this year, which sought to change the number of physicians required for an abortion to be sanctioned as well as broaden the health circumstances under which an abortion would be allowed. As with many bills, this one was introduced with little fanfare and only really came to public attention in a committee hearing on Monday, where she was questioned about the bill by fellow delegate Todd Gilbert, a Republican.
The Committee Hearing. If you watch the video closely–and I believe it is certainly worthwhile to do so–you will see in Kathy Tran a person who is pushing for significant changes in abortion law, but seems neither well-informed about the bill itself nor a particularly passionate defender of it. Tran often evades questions or gives inappropriate answers, or simply doesn’t have an answer and defends her lack of knowledge by saying “I’m not a physician,” while she and her lawyer rue the fact that “expert witnesses” who are physicians were not present because they were “seeing patients.”
The most significant line of questioning can be illustrated in this exchange in which Gilbert is concerned specifically about the leeway being afforded to allowing abortions right up until birth based on a physician’s assessment of the risk to a woman’s mental health:
Gilbert: “How late in the third trimester could a physician perform an abortion if he indicated it would impair the mental health of the woman?”
Tran: “Through the third trimester. The third trimester goes all the way up to 40 weeks.”
Gilbert: “Where it’s obvious that a woman is about to give birth, would that still be a point at which she could request an abortion if she was so certified? She’s dilating.”
Tran: “My bill would allow that.”
It took a while for Gilbert to make clear to Tran that he was asking about mental health only, and got no answer from either Tran or her lawyer as to what kind of standards or examples of mental health risks would be considered legitimate. However, Tran finally did concede that the bill did not require the physician to have any ‘specialized training in mental health’ in order to certify a third-trimester abortion based on mental health risks.
Governor Northam’s Comments. The Governor of Virginia stepped in with some ill-advised comments during station WTOP’s Ask The Governor radio show two days later. Northam went strong on the stance that what a women does with her body should be her decision in consultations with her physician(s). But he did nothing to distinguish whether a baby that had actually been delivered was no longer a part of the mother’s body. Here are the comments that caused the greatest ruckus:
“If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.”
Now, it must be said that when Northam talks about third-trimester abortions, he created the context that ‘it’s done in cases where there may be severe deformities, there may be a fetus that’s non-viable.’ But still, he seems to be going beyond even what Tran was proposing, saying here that a baby that is delivered and is still alive may be subject to a decision between the doctor and the mother as to whether that baby should live or die. There is a bit of vagueness and contradiction in his thought process, so you can follow along in this short clip and judge what he really meant to say.
What Is Really Going On Here?
Does the evidence suggest that the Democratic party should be considered supporters of infanticide, which represents the killing of a child after that child had been delivered? Kathy Tran has since said that she ‘misspoke’ when she said that her bill would allow a woman’s request for an abortion while she was in labor to be executed. Meanwhile, a spokesperson for Gov. Northam told Vox his comments were “absolutely not” a reference to infanticide, and that they “focused on the tragic and extremely rare case in which a woman with a nonviable pregnancy or severe fetal abnormalities went into labor.”
But really, this has little to do with Kathy Tran and Ralph Northam. This has much more to do with the long-term social engineering plans of the powerful elite that are behind the Democratic party. While I believe there is some validity in a woman’s right to choose, there appears to be a darker overriding agenda to gradually desensitize human beings to the sanctity of life, which would then allow practices such as pedophilia, child blood sacrifice, and cannibalism to continue in the shadows with increasingly less resistance.
Kathy Tran, by all appearances, is hardly part of this group, and in all likelihood unaware of their sinister agenda. The first-term representative, however, was likely chosen by the party brass to introduce this bill because of the optics, being not only a woman but a mother of 4 who breastfed her daughter on the floor of the Virginia House of Delegates. Who better to introduce a sensitive piece of legislation that further tries to facilitate late-term abortions?
For his part, Governor Northram has been instructed to be a champion of women’s rights, often repeating the mantra that ‘men shouldn’t be deciding what women do with their bodies’ and that ‘we want the government not to be involved in these types of decisions, we want these decisions to be made by the mothers and their [health] providers.’ With Tran’s bill attempting to reduce the number of physicians needed to consent to a late-term abortion down to 1, this would enable pro-abortion doctors to use their authority and knowledge to subtly steer women towards the decision to have an abortion.
Where Planned Parenthood Comes In
And this is where Planned Parenthood enters into the equation. This organization receives $500 million in funding from the government each year, and has disclosed that it contributed $30 million back to the Democratic Party (source), (with actual undisclosed contributions allegedly closer to $65 million (source, post 2674)).
This closed loop reveals one of the fulcrums of this abortion agenda fronted by the Democratic party. As I discussed in my article ‘Illuminati Pedophilia: Attempts To Normalize Sex Between Adults And Children (Part 2),’ there is fairly incontestable evidence that Planned Parenthood sells the body parts of human fetuses for tremendous profits.
Let’s look again at the main three aspects of HB2491:
1) Eliminates the requirement that an abortion in the second trimester of pregnancy and prior to the third trimester be performed in a hospital.
2) Eliminates all the procedures and processes, including the performance of an ultrasound, required to effect a woman’s informed written consent to the performance of an abortion.
3) Eliminates the requirement that two other physicians certify that a third trimester abortion is necessary to prevent the woman’s death or impairment of her mental or physical health, as well as the need to find that any such impairment to the woman’s health would be substantial and irremediable.
All of these aspects point to facilitating abortions that could further erode a societal respect for human life. They make it easier for a single doctor who is aligned with the Planned Parenthood agenda to make a personal assessment without any psychiatric training about the risks of the delivery to the mother’s ‘mental health,’ thereby subtly influencing mothers to consent more to abortions, which then enriches the business end of the Planned Parenthood agenda.
Backlash Against Northam
While the global elite may hope to eventually achieve some conditional acceptance of infanticide, given that they have absolutely no regard for human life, their plan has always unfolded slowly and incrementally, done in the shadows as much as possible. They know full well that at this time they cannot just introduce legislation that would permit allowing a woman to ‘abort’ a baby after it had been delivered, because it would cause outrage and bring attention to their agenda. As it turns out, this is exactly what has happened.
In this regard, Governor Northam unwittingly let the cat out of the bag, and now he is being demonized by the Democratic party with some racist scandal from a photo that appears on Northam’s medical school yearbook page which shows Northam dressed in blackface and another student in a KKK costume, obviously for some kind of costume party. On the basis of this one picture from 35 years ago conveniently surfacing, the Democratic party is trying to hide their own agenda by distancing themselves from Northam and having many party members now echoing the call for him to resign as governor. Too bad Northam couldn’t be as effective as Democratic Governor Andrew Cuomo, who recently celebrated the passing of legislation in New York that loosens restrictions on abortions.
It’s Not Just About Democrats
While the abortion agenda has long been the domain of the Democratic party, it should be made clear here that the overall agenda of the global elite has always run through both parties to a large extent. The global elite will advance their agenda in ways that are always disguised to associate with each party’s particular policies. While the Democratic party is used to erode the sanctity of human life, the Republican party may be used more to ensure that a global corporatocracy is strengthened and any signs of sympathy towards socialist doctrines and a minimum standard of living for the poor are effectively quashed.
The fight that rages between Democrats and Republicans has long been to give the illusion of choice to the people, to make us feel that the power of our vote allows us to be masters of our own destiny. In reality, from our seat high above the fray, we see that this has been a false dichotomy which only serves to polarize us, and no matter which party is seen as ‘winning’ or ‘losing’ a particular battle, the outcome is designed to continue to advance the ultimate agenda of the global elite, which is world domination and the enslavement of humanity.
On most issues that are subjected to the violent political tug-of-war between the left and the right, the everyday person feels that they have to identify with one polarity or the other if they want to participate in the discussion. Back when I was younger, and the passing of Roe v. Wade was still in its infancy, the abortion debate was conducted with a bit more openness and curiosity into the nature of what it is to be human, and how we wanted to govern ourselves as a society.
I was always one who supported a woman’s right to choose what to do with her body, and so in a sense I always supported a women’s right to an abortion to the extent that I believed what was being aborted was a part of her body and not a discrete living being. That does not mean I supported the performing of abortions as such; however, I did favor that those women who had good reasons to want or need to abort a fetus should be able to do it in a safe way rather than in an unsanctioned back-room clinic.
That said, two questions remained difficult to answer. The first was, what reasons (aside from the birthing process threatening the life of the mother) could be accepted as justifying getting an abortion? The second was, at what point does the fetus stop being a part of the mother’s anatomy and start being a discrete being on its own? On one extreme, the fetus is considered a separate being from the moment of conception; on the other extreme, the fetus is considered a separate being only after the umbilical cord has been cut. Generally speaking, the debate occurred in between these two extremes, and can only be resolved by reasonable people in an open discussion of the rights and essence of both a mother and a fetus, as well as the essence of who we are as a society. There was a sense of curiosity, and some humility in terms of nobody really knowing the definitive answers to these questions, but being willing to put thoughts and feelings forth in order to arrive at some consensus in terms of legislation on this matter.
Today, the matter is dominated by extremists, and that fits in with the globalist agenda. It is important that those of us who are awakening to the big picture disengage from the polarized discussion, and realize that such discussions about the nature of who we are and who we want to be as people and as a society have to take place in that seat high above the fray of polarity, and in recognition of how this and many other important issues have been co-opted by powerful forces.
Check out our plan and join our campaign here.
NSA Whistleblower Speaks About Julian Assange & The ‘Shadow Government’
- The Facts:
Longtime high-ranking NSA employee William Binney shares his thoughts on the arrest of Julian Assange and who is really in control.
- Reflect On:
Why do we continue to believe that a president can make changes? Why do we continue to elect and vote without addressing the real issue behind decisions made in politics? Why not address the secret government and its stranglehold on politics?
Even to this day, if you tell people there is an ‘invisible government,’ or a shadow government that’s international in scope, they may call you a conspiracy theorist or give you a funny look. This is in large part due to the lack of education, particularly self education, of a population who is trained to go to school, get a job and ‘enjoy’ life. Sure, that’s all fine and dandy, but to deny and condemn a thought or an idea without any investigation is definitely the height of ignorance. Not only is it the height of ignorance, it also prevents humanity from moving forward. In order for us to move forward, we must properly identify our problems, and it doesn’t help when the most important problems that need to be identified are not even believed as a result of mass brainwashing and lack of education. No one is thinking for themselves, instead they simply rely on establishment media, which has been nothing but a massive propaganda machine since its inception.
The idea of a shadow government doesn’t only come from statements made by a number of global politicians and ‘world leaders,’ it’s been proven by policy changes and decisions that are not in favour of the people or the planet, which expose how our federal regulatory agencies are run by rogue interests. The CDC and the “Spider Papers” are one of many great examples, along with multiple whistleblowers from multiple agencies.
Political parties no longer support the people, and it’s hard to say if they ever really did. Government and politics are now simply, as president Theodore Roosevelt emphasized, “tools of corrupt interests which use them in martialling [sic] to serve their selfish purposes.” He flat out stated that “Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to befoul the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day.”
This is the unseen power that exists today. Roosevelt wasn’t the only one, in his farewell speech President Eisenhower warned about the rise of misplaced power that “exists” and will “persist” within the military industrial complex.
Not long ago, President Vladimir Putin explained how, after a president in the United States is elected, “men in dark suits” come in and basically run the show. (source)
According to President Woodrow Wilson:
Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men’s views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it. (The New Freedom, A Call For The Emancipation of the Generous Energies of a People, Written in 1913)
It seems that John F. Hylan, Mayor of New York City from 1918-1925 was correct in saying that “the real menace of our Republic is the invisible government, which like a giant octopus sprawls its slimy legs over our cities, states and nation.”
At the end of the day, if you follow the money, it’s not hard to see who this “invisible government” that so many have referred to is. One thing is quite clear, it doesn’t seem like they have too much concern for humanity or planet Earth. There is so much evidence showing that the global financial elite (various members of big politics, corporations, Hollywood, Royal Families, people in positions of great power, the Vatican, etc.) are engaged in some very psychopathic behaviour. But are you really surprised? Look at the world and its systems and all aspects that surround humanity… it’s truly a reflection of psychopathic ‘leaders.’ And it’s a reflection of us being totally oblivious to it as a result of mass brainwashing. Still, in many cases, we support and stand up for these systems, and accept no other way… We refuse to acknowledge things that any fairly intelligent person should be able to see with a bit of investigation.
This is why I felt the need to share the interview below of William Binney. Binney is a former high ranking intelligence official with the National Security Agency who turned whistleblower after more than 30 years with the agency. He blew the whistle, like Edward Snowden did, after 9/11 on the agency’s mass data collection and surveillance programs, along with J. Kirk Wiebe and Edward Loomis, two other employees at the agency.
Since then, he has been quite outspoken and has helped shed light on several other matters. He’s also stated that the NSA surveillance programs have nothing to do with keeping the population safe, but are rather means to further continue “total population control.” (source)
This would make sense, and it also corroborates with all of the evidence proving the connections between terrorist organizations and the government/military industrial complex, including evidence proving their involvement in the funding, support, and creation of these organizations. Despite all of this, they still claim to be “going after” the same terrorists they’re supporting in the name of democracy.
In the interview below, Binney also references the shadow government in regards to Julian Assange, the founder of Wikileaks, specifically regarding his recent arrest and detainment.
Below is a quote from the interview:
To me, this is simply a continuation of the takeover of the world by the shadow governments of the world and their relationships internationally. They’re always there, they don’t get voted in and out. They control all the information that gets fed to the president, for example, to make decisions. They can tailor what they want him him to do by focusing certain information to him and and keeping others away like shadow blocking. You don’t allow other opinions to get to him so that he doesn’t have the opportunity to see another view. They have most of the mainstream media under wraps and doing what they want them to do now, but it’s kind of like the nail in the coffin that says, ‘if you ever do something that exposes all the crimes we’re committing or any of the criminality that we’re doing behind the scenes, if you ever do that, we’ll get to you.’
In the interview he also mentions how they use “national security” as an excuse to do everything in secret, and how it’s become a name used to justify secrets that are very unethical and wrong.
And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. – JFK (source)
There is a lot of good food for thought, so be sure to check out the interview.
“The message is to everybody else in the world, either you conform to what we tell you to do, or we’ll do this to you.”
The influence from the ‘secret government’ is exactly why we see so many Presidents speaking out against certain things during their campaigns, and then all of a sudden they do a one hundred eighty degree flip on their promises once they’re in office. Presidents, along with other politicians, are most likely blackmailed, extorted, brainwashed, or kept away from certain narratives and perspectives. Most of them have been nothing but puppets for the global elite. Some do this willingly, and others unknowingly. If one thing is true about global politics, it’s that what we are presented with is far from the truth with regards to what’s really going on behind the scenes.
Check out our plan and join our campaign here.
The Anatomy of Conspiracy Theories
Whether you believe in conspiracy theories or not, we can all agree that the use of the term has exploded in media and in conversation. The question is, why? Are we now using the term “Conspiracy Theory” more indiscriminately and on more platforms than previously? Are we, as a society, simply becoming unhinged and absurd? Are seemingly nonsensical stories, for some unknown reason, starting to resonate with people? Or are some conventional narratives getting challenged because some of these “alternative” explanations are in fact accurate, despite the fact that conventional sources refuse to acknowledge them as even potentially valid? Notice that the last two possibilities are different sides of the same coin. If you think “conspiracy theorists” are unhinged, it is highly likely that they are suspicious of your sanity as well. Both sides insist that they are right and that the other has been hoodwinked. Note that if you choose to not pick a side, you are, by default, allowing the conventional narrative to perpetuate. That is how convention works.
Merriam-Webster defines the term conspiracy theory as “a theory that explains an event or situation as the result of a secret plan by usually powerful people or groups”. The key elements of this definition remain consistent across all authoritative lexicons: the group responsible for an event must be powerful and covert. However, if we refer to the Wikipedia definition as of 11/2018 a new element emerges: “A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy—generally one involving an illegal or harmful act supposedly carried out by government or other powerful actors—without credible evidence.”
When an explanation is labeled a “Conspiracy Theory,” by today’s definition, it has no evidence to support it. An explanation with no supporting evidence is a hypothesis, not a “theory.” “Conspiracy Theory,” as it is used today, is thus an oxymoron. These “Conspiracy Theories” we seem to hear about everyday should really be called “Conspiracy Hypotheses.” More concerning is that the “Conspiracy Theory” label identifies an explanation as inherently baseless. Given this linguistic construct, where is there room for a conspiracy that is in fact true?
There is also something troubling about using the term “credible” in the definition of conspiracy theory. Legally, evidence that is credible is that which a reasonable person would consider to be true in light of the surrounding circumstances. If evidence suggests an explanation that seems at the surface to be unreasonable, how does a reasonable person avoid automatically labeling the evidence not credible? If we are not careful, the credibility of the explanation and resultant conclusions would then determine the credibility of the evidence that supports it. Is this really so important? Perhaps you are quick to see that with this approach, our understanding of what is true and real can never evolve. If any evidence arose that radically disproved our understanding or eroded our faith in trusted institutions we would automatically discard it as “not credible” and remain entrenched in our accepted paradigm. “Credible” evidence cannot be a necessary requirement of a theory that challenges what is credible to begin with.
To better illustrate this, let us consider an old but very real “conspiracy theory.” About 400 years ago, European civilization was emerging from centuries of scientific and philosophical stagnation known as the dark ages. What more befitting a place for such a renaissance to occur than the center of the universe? You see, the idea that the Earth was one of eight planets revolving around a star that is orbiting the center of one of hundreds of billions of galaxies would have been absurd in Europe in the sixteenth century. Any sane person could see that the Sun and the Moon and every celestial body rises in the East and sets in the West. At that time, if someone went about proposing the idea that everything rises and falls because the Earth was spinning, they would have been laughed out of the tavern. Would that person be a conspiracy theorist? They are not proposing that “powerful actors are carrying out a harmful act,” they are merely suggesting an alternative explanation for what is observed. However, the implication of their suggestion seems to incriminate the authority on such matters as ignorant of the truth or, possibly, the perpetrators of a lie. The possibility of a conspiracy has now been introduced.
Now, let us say that this person claims to have proof of their absurd theory. Would you have taken the time to examine the evidence or would you have been more likely to dismiss them without further consideration? The very idea that they could be right would have been not just silly or heretical, but inconceivable to many, if not all. How could the evidence be credible if it implied something inconceivable? Dismissing their idea would have seemingly been the most logical and, therefore, the smartest thing to do.
When Galileo Galilei appeared in 1610 armed with a rudimentary “telescope,” few would peer into it. He claimed that the refractive properties of the pair of “lenses” would allow you to see things at great distances very clearly. With it one could see Jupiter and its moons revolving around the giant planet just as our moon revolves around Earth. How enchanting! The difficulty would arise when you put the telescope down: your feet would no longer be planted on the previously immovable center of creation. Would you have looked into his telescope? What would have been the harm in taking a peek? Certainly the fear of being proven more gullible than most would have been on your mind. What about the fear that he might be right?
Imagine what must have been going through Galileo’s mind after his monumental discovery. He saw irrefutably that the entire model of the universe had been completely misconceived. One just has to look. Most did not. I can only imagine how hard he must have tried to convince anyone to simply stop, look and listen to what he had discovered. At the time, Galileo was the Chair of Mathematics at the University of Padua and had previously held the same post at the University of Pisa. Despite his bonafides and reputation as a solid contributor to the Italian renaissance, his discovery would likely have died in obscurity if it weren’t for the support of an influential family, the Medicis, who offered Galileo a platform from which he could spread his theory. It was only through allying himself with political power that he was able to slowly generate interest in his heliocentric model of the solar system. His proposition eventually caught the attention of the Catholic church, who initially warned him to desist. Eventually, he was brought to trial in the Roman Inquisition 23 years after his discovery. At the age of 70, the intrepid mathematician and astronomer was allowed to return home if he agreed to recant his story. Instead Galileo chose to spend the rest of his years in prison because he believed that that would be the only way to get people to open their eyes.
Did it work? It did not. Galileo died incarcerated while Europe continued to slumber under stars that moved around them. By today’s standards, Galileo would have been labeled a Conspiracy Theorist from the day he announced his findings until he was proven right fifty years after his death. When the Principle of Gravitational Attraction eventually became widely accepted as true, the church had to retract their position because the motions of the stars and planets could not be explained under Newton’s laws.
On the other hand, Galileo is credited with being the father of not only observational astronomy, but of the scientific method as well. The scientific method demands that one tests an explanation without bias towards an outcome. All data is considered before deductions are made. When all other explanations have been proven wrong, the only explanation remaining becomes a theory. The theory persists as long as all subsequent experiments continue to uphold it. This is how we ultimately know what we know and have an inkling of what we don’t. If I had to choose a posthumous title for myself, “The Father of the Scientific Method” is one I could die with. Galileo is credited with this honorific not only because he valued it more than his freedom, but because he had the discipline to regard evidence objectively despite how unimaginable the implications were. This is how a body of knowledge expands. By considering the validity of the evidence first, we then can accept what was previously unimaginable, otherwise what we know tomorrow will be no different than what we know today.
All conspiracy theorists are not Galileos. Neither are all conspiracy theories true. However, can we be certain that all of them are false? At their very core, all conspiracy theories directly or indirectly point at a central authority acting covertly and simultaneously at the media for either missing it or looking the other way. This, of course, is unimaginable, as we all know the government can make mistakes but would never do anything intentionally harmful to its citizens and then hide it. Even if they did, somebody would come forward and the media would let us know about it. This is why such a deception could never occur. The idea that your lover could be in bed with your best friend is inconceivable. Evidence of such a thing would not be credible. Dismissing all conspiracy theories seems logical and therefore seems like the smartest thing to do.
In “Sapiens”, Yuval Harari proposes an explanation for why our species, Sapiens, out fought, out thought and out survived all other Homo species on the planet. He suggests that it was our unique ability to describe and communicate situations and events that had no basis in reality which set us apart. In other words, we could tell stories and they could not. By uniting under a common idea, story or even myth, thousands (and now thousands of millions) of Sapiens could come together with a shared purpose, identity or belief system to disband our cousins who were as individuals more sturdy and just as cunning but not nearly as good at cooperating as we were. This advantage, Harari proposes, has not only led our species to eventual supremacy over all others, but has also allowed us to form communities, governments and global alliances.
Siding with the majority has served us well–until it hasn’t. One only needs to revisit the history of Galileo and basic astronomy to understand this. In actuality, the first observant minds woke up to the fact that the Earth went around the sun and not the other way round nineteen centuries before Galileo did. The Greek mathematician, Aristarcus, is thought to be the first Western person to place the Sun in the middle of a “solar system” in 270 BC. A human being traveled to the moon just 360 years after Galileo “discovered” what Aristarcus had shown nearly two millennia before. How many centuries was this journey delayed because an alternative explanation in ancient Greece became a “conspiracy theory” against authority and convention?
This poses an intriguing question. Is there something hardwired in our behavioral patterns that push us towards conformist narratives and away from alternative ones at a precognitive level? Is it this tendency that gave rise to our enhanced ability to unite that keeps us in “group-think” more than we should be? How do we know we are looking at the world objectively and rejecting alternative belief systems from a purely rational basis? How does one know whether one is biased or not?
One way is to apply the scientific method. The scientific method demands that every possibility, no matter how outlandish, is tested for its veracity and dismissed only when it can be proven wrong. Without this objective pursuit of truth, misconceptions can persist indefinitely, just as the geocentric model of the universe did. Interestingly, Aristarcus was allowed to retain his theory because he lived at a time and place where philosophers, mathematicians and scientists were revered, protected and free to pursue their notions. The freedom ancient Greek society afforded its scientists only endured for a few centuries after Aristarcus lived. In Galileo’s day, the Roman Catholic church had been presiding over such things as facts for well over a thousand years. His incontrovertible proof was suppressed by the power that had the most to lose.
These days, establishing the facts of the matter may not be as easy as we presume. Conspiracy theorists claim to have proof just like the debunkers do. How do we know that the proof offered on either side is valid? Who has the time to apply the scientific method? It certainly seems safer to go with the conventional narrative because surely there are more rational minds in a larger group. Though it seems a reasonable approach, it may be in fact where we misstep. By deferring to others, we assume the majority will arrive at the truth eventually. The problem is that those in the majority who are trained to examine evidence objectively often must take a potentially career-ending risk to even investigate an alternative explanation. Why would an organization be willing to invest the resources to redirect their scientific staff to chase down and evaluate evidence that will likely endanger their reputation with the public without any upside? Thus, conventional narratives survive for another day, or in the case of an Earth-centered universe, for a couple of thousand years.
Whether or not you are not a “conspiracy theorist” we can all agree that there is a possibility, however slight, that some conventional narratives could be wrong. How would we know? Is there a source that we can trust 100%? Must we rely on our own wits? A short inquiry into this question can be disquieting. Most of us must admit that our understanding of history, science and geopolitics are merely stories that we have been told by people, institutions or media that we trust explicitly or implicitly. Because most of us are not authorities on anything, it would be impossible to overturn any conventional narrative with an evidentiary argument. Challenging these paradigms is necessarily left to others. Generally speaking, there is no real reason to argue with convention if everything is seemingly unfolding acceptably. But what if you wanted to know for yourself ? Is there any way to ever really know the truth without having to have faith in someone or something else?
There may not be. However, it is also naive to believe that if someone, scientist or not, was in possession of evidence that challenged our deepest held beliefs that it would take root in the ethos on its own. Galileo enjoyed unsurpassed credibility as one of Italy’s foremost mathematicians. He also possessed irrefutable, verifiable and reproducible evidence for his revolutionary theory, yet the convention he was challenging did not crumble through his discoveries. History has shown us that it makes no difference how valid a point is; truth emerges only when someone is listening.
So, rather than seeking to independently validate or refute what we are being told, it becomes more productive to ask a different question: How biased is our society by historical standards? How does our society regard alternative theories? Do we let them co-exist with convention as the ancient Greeks did? Do we collectively invest resources to investigate them openly? Or do we dismiss, attack and vilify them as was done in the papal states in Galileo’s time? Which kind of society is more likely to get it right? Which runs the greater risk of being hoodwinked in the long run? Which is more free?
Check out our plan and join our campaign here.
US House of Representatives Investigating if the Government Created Lyme Disease As A Bioweapon
- The Facts:
A New Jersey lawmaker suggests the government turned ticks and insects into bioweapons to spread disease, and possibly released them. He is not the only one who believes so.
- Reflect On:
This is not the only example of supposed human experimentation on mass populations by the government
There are a number of subjects that were once considered ‘conspiracy theories,’ which are now no longer in that realm. ‘Conspiracy theories’ usually, in my opinion, arise from credible evidence. The implications, however, are so grand and so mind-altering that many may experience some sort of cognitive dissonance as a result. One of the topics often deemed a ‘conspiracy theory’ is weaponized diseases, and the latest example comes from an approved amendment that was proposed by a Republican congressman from New Jersey. His name is Chris Smith, and he instructed the Department of Defence’s Inspector General to conduct a review on whether or not the US “experimented with ticks and insects regarding use as a biological weapon between the years of 1950 and 1975” and “whether any ticks or insects used in such experiment were released outside of any laboratory by accident or experiment design.”
The fact that Smith brought this up shows that any intelligent person who actually looks into this has reason to believe it’s a possibility, yet mainstream media outlets are ridiculing the idea, calling it a conspiracy instead of actually bringing up the points that caused Smith to demand the review.
The fact that the amendment was approved by a vote in the House speaks volumes. Smith said that the amendment was inspired by “a number of books and articles suggesting that significant research had been done at US government facilities including Fort Detrick, Maryland, and Plum Island, New York, to turn ticks and insects into bioweapons”.
Most people don’t know that the US government has experimented on its own citizens a number of times. All of this is justified for “national security” purposes. National security has always been a term used as an excuse to prolong secrecy, justify the government’s lack of transparency, and create black budget programs that have absolutely no oversight from Congress.
For example, on September 20, 1950, a US Navy ship just off the coast of San Francisco used a giant hose to spray a cloud of microbes into the air and into the city’s famous fog. The military was apparently testing how a biological weapon attack would affect the 800,000 residents of the city.The people of San Francisco had absolutely no idea. The Navy continued the tests for seven days, and multiple people died as a result. It was apparently one of the first large-scale biological weapon trials that would be conducted under a “germ warfare testing program” that went on for 20 years from 1949 to 1969. The goal “was to deter [the use of biological weapons] against the United States and its allies and to retaliate if deterrence failed,” the government later explained. Then again, that’s if you trust the explanation coming from the government.
This could fall under the category of human subject research. It’s still happening! A dozen classified programs that involved research on human subjects were underway last year at the Department of Energy. Human subject research refers broadly to the collection of scientific data from human subjects. This could involve performing physical procedures on the subjects or simply conducting interviews and having other forms of interaction with them. It could even involve procedures performed on entire populations, apparently without their consent.
Human subjects research erupted into national controversy 25 years ago with reporting by Eileen Welsome of the Albuquerque Tribune on human radiation experiments that had been conducted by the Atomic Energy Commission, many of which were performed without the consent of the subjects. A presidential advisory committee was convened to document the record and to recommend appropriate policy responses.
When it comes to Lyme disease, the Guardian points out that:
A new book published in May by a Stanford University science writer and former Lyme sufferer, Kris Newby, has raised questions about the origins of the disease, which affects 400,000 Americans each year.
Bitten: The Secret History of Lyme Disease and Biological Weapons, cites the Swiss-born discoverer of the Lyme pathogen, Willy Burgdorfer, as saying that the Lyme epidemic was a military experiment that had gone wrong.
Burgdorfer, who died in 2014, worked as a bioweapons researcher for the US military and said he was tasked with breeding fleas, ticks, mosquitoes and other blood-sucking insects, and infecting them with pathogens that cause human diseases.
According to the book, there were programs to drop “weaponised” ticks and other bugs from the air, and that uninfected bugs were released in residential areas in the US to trace how they spread. It suggests that such a scheme could have gone awry and led to the eruption of Lyme disease in the US in the 1960s.
This is concerning. It’s a story that, for some reason, instantly reminded me of the MK ultra program, where human subjects were used for mind control research.
If things like this occurred in the past, it’s hard to understand why someone would deem the possibility of this happening again a ‘conspiracy theory.’ What makes one think this wouldn’t be happening again, especially given the fact that there is sufficient evidence suggesting it is?
Lyme disease is also very strange. If you did get it, you probably wouldn’t know immediately – unless you’re one of the chronic sufferers that have had to visit over 30 doctors to get a proper diagnosis. Lyme disease tests are highly inaccurate, often inconclusive or indicating false negatives.
Why? Because this clever bacteria has found a way to dumb down the immune system and white blood cells so that it’s not detectable until treatment is initiated. To diagnose Lyme disease properly you must see a “Lyme Literate MD (LLMD).” However, more and more doctors are turning their backs on patients due to sheer fear of losing their practices! Insurance companies and the CDC will do whatever it takes to stop Chronic Lyme Disease from being diagnosed, treated, or widely recognized as an increasingly common issue.
You can read more about that here.
It’s becoming more apparent that our government as well as our federal health regulatory agencies are extremely corrupt. There are a number of examples to choose from throughout history proving this. The fact that something like this doesn’t seem believable to the public is ridiculous and further enhances and prolongs the ability for the powerful elite and the government to continue conducting these activities. Awareness is key.
Check out our plan and join our campaign here.
“Sacrificial Virgins” – A Must-See Film About Young Girls Being Severely Damaged By HPV Gardasil Vaccines
“I would never give my daughter, or my son the shot… This is a massive PR event by the company...
The Dark Secrets Behind The Pope’s Audience Hall (It’s a Giant Reptilian)
The Pope's Audience Hall is a building designed to look exactly like a reptile. In essence, the Pope speaks to...