Tag Archives: Freedom of speech

Geoengineering Genocide Must Be Exposed & Stopped

Many issues exist in our world, but one stands out among the rest.  That is because this topic has extreme significance for the future of the entire planet and all life on it.  The situation has become so dire that I have decided to create regular posts on the topic.  I’m talking about geoengineering.

The subject of geoengineering affects freedom of speech in that we have all, in effect, been silenced. Our consent was never offered for these programs.  Speaking about it often brings nothing but ridicule. Like so many other important acts of corruption, it has been associated with the word “conspiracy”. This word is a carefully crafted code word. It makes people stop taking something seriously and shuts out further logical thought. The conspiracy theorist label also discredits anyone who brings to light evidence that proves any real conspiracy exists.

Geogengineering affects freedom of press in that most media will not touch it. When they do, they distort it. To this end, a massive disinformation campaign has been underway for at least two entire decades. Maybe you have heard of it. The terms  “global warming” or “climate change” come to mind.

Some say human beings have contributed to the warming of the planet. This is true. It’s true in ways most refuse to believe, as we will see.

Yet it’s also false in that the idea has been and will be used as an excuse for global control and governance through organizations such as the United Nations, World Bank, International Monetary Fund, and others. The assumption goes that carbon emissions alone have been causing all the droughts, floods, hurricanes, heat waves, etc., and that through regulating carbon the problem can be solved. This of course calls for a global solution. What a convenient conclusion for power-hungry sociopaths at the helm of elite bureaucracy.

More than just carbon

Though carbon may be a factor, it pales in comparison to the grim reality of Geo engineering and its impact upon all life on our planet.

Geo engineering involves massive manipulation of weather systems on a scale few can conceive.  It turns out many patents exist for these programs.

This technology does exist.  It is being used and has been used for decades.

Overwhelming scientific and visual evidence has been compiled proving the existence of these programs. The conclusions are so catastrophic that many people will choose not to believe them, despite all evidence.

And therein lies the greatest problem in communicating this reality. It’s too grotesque for most people.  Most would rather create a world inside their own minds where it doesn’t exist then face facts and attempt to cope with the problem. It’s just too overwhelming for most.

Yet if we do not make up our minds to face it, we will soon no longer have minds at all.

Autism, Alzheimer’s and Aluminum

Systematic poisoning of populations would have an effect on children and the elderly first. And that’s exactly what’s happening. Autism and Alzheimer’s have been rising in exponential fashion over recent years.  The Alzheimer’s Association predicts a 44% rise in the disease over the next eight years.  Just look at this staggering chart regarding autism rates:

geoengineering contributing to autism, alzheimers

What can be causing this alarming increase in neurodegenerative diseases?

Some doctors have pointed to aluminum as the common link. Aluminum is a known neurotoxin. The following comes from Dr. Joseph Mercola:

“The aluminum hydroxide used in many vaccines, including hepatitis A and B, and the Pentacel cocktail for diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, polio, and meningitis, has been clearly linked to symptoms associated with Parkinson”s, ALS (Lou Gehrig”s disease), and Alzheimer”s.

 Scientists discovered the link after injecting mice with an anthrax vaccine developed for the first Gulf War. After 20 weeks, a fifth of the mice developed a skin allergy, and memory problems increased by 41 times compared to a placebo group. Also, inside the brains of mice, 35 percent of the cells that control movement were destroyed.”

So many debilitating diseases that we have come to believe “just happen” for no apparent reason have a very specific reason. There may be many factors involved, but without a doubt one of the biggest involves aluminum build up in our brains.

Aluminum being injected into the bloodstream is one thing. One can avoid toxic vaccines, although that becomes more difficult by the day. While we still have some small sliver of medical freedom in that regard, we have absolutely no freedom when it comes to the air we breathe.

Now that I’ve described what the problem looks like, let’s get into some details.

Owning the Weather

To be clear, I’m not making any of this up. I’m summarizing the processes described in a USA Air Force research paper entitled “Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather by 2025”. See the paper here (Nothing secret, it’s available to the public).

One can modify a weather system in a simple way. Perhaps you have heard of HAARP, which stands for high-frequency aurora research program. Many of them exist around the world. They consist of large fields of gigantic radio towers that broadcast upwards instead of outwards. These instruments can channel enormous energy into the ionosphere.

Yet this is only one component of the programs. The real problems arise from another factor.

Materials that act as a multiplier increase the effectiveness of any energy used.

This part gets really tough.

That said, let us turn our attention to the materials being released into the atmosphere on a constant basis.

Extremely high levels of metals such as aluminum, and radioactive elements such as barium and strontium, have all been found in rainwater and soil tests around the world.  Former bio-environmental engineer, Krysten Meghan, has blown the whistle on her lab results containing high levels of these contaminants.

Geoengineering patents specifically refer to these very same materials. 

As you can see in the clip below, planes flying overhead appear to be spraying something into the upper atmosphere.

As evidenced by the spray turning on and off, these cannot be condensation trails. They don’t even come from the engines. The trails come from all areas of the plane, even out to its wingtips. Wingtips do not create condensation.  Turning condensation on and off is impossible.

Furthermore, condensation trails only last 60-90 seconds before dissipating, and most jet engines today are almost incapable of producing condensation trails.

Devastating effects

If the visual evidence, patents, and scientific lab results do not convince you, just look at the effects happening in the world already. To begin:

Dane Wigington, founder of Geoengineeringwatch.org has stated, “the results of this are going to become so catastrophic that no one will be able to deny it for much longer”.

And as for conspiracy deniers who always seem to ask the question, “if this is real, why don’t you do something about it, such as taking legal action?”

For one, I am doing something about it, by getting the word out. What’s more, legal action has already been underway for some time.

What will you do, now that you know?

Please leave your thoughts in a comment below and share this post.

 

 

Professor Punishes Students’ Freedom of Speech – What Would You Do?




Freedom of Speech

Another week, another freedom of speech related controversy.

The OC Register provides a summary of the event: 

“An Orange Coast College student who secretly videotaped his instructor making anti-Trump statements was suspended from school and told to write a letter of apology as well as a three-page essay about the incident.

The college suspended Caleb O’Neil for the current semester and the summer term, saying he violated a Coast Community College District policy prohibiting recording someone on district property without that person’s consent.”Again, a conservative has been silenced. Have you begun to recognize a pattern by now?

Meanwhile, a radical professor seems free to make claims such as “it is an act of terrorism” to have voted for one political candidate over the other.   And she argues as a result we are “back to being in a civil war”. She even went so far as to say those “leading the assault are among us”. This implies that voting for a particular political candidate makes one a terrorist. As of the time of this writing, she has not faced any consequences whatsoever.

Inappropriate Context

Keep in mind that this all happened during a course on “human sexuality”.  Speculating on what motivated this rant, during this class, is not my place.  Although, doing so might lead to very entertaining conclusions (dear writers at The Onion – here’s some prime material for you).

So what happened to this innocent student as a result of taping a portion of this bizarre lecture on “human sexuality”? As mentioned above, he was suspended for the entire semester and into the summer. He also has to write a letter of apology and a three-page essay.

Does the teacher have to apologize to conservatives in her class whom she might have horrified with her radical rant? It seems that’s not a consideration.

By the way, the student recorded the rant for the very reason that he was scared of what might happen if someone found out he was a conservative.

We have entered an era where a college student can’t help but wonder, “Is this crazy person going to lash out at me or bump my grade down if she finds out I don’t agree with her radical statements?”    

As a result, he recorded part of the lecture, not so he could post it online, but to bring it to the attention of the campus administration. Students posted the video online only after the administration failed to act:

“O’Neil took the video to leaders from the school’s College Republicans, who, joined by attorney Shawn Steel, complained to the campus administration. A week later, saying they were frustrated that the administration had not acted on their concerns of a teacher using her  classroom as a bully pulpit, the campus Republicans posted video clips online, where they quickly became national news.”

 Of course, no one on campus reacted to such statements. They agreed with the whole of the teacher’s rant, more than likely.

As a result, little recourse remains for a student placed in such a situation. He was faced with the choices to either make the video public or continue to be silenced and live in fear. William Becker, O’Neil’s attorney for this case, explained the situation quite well:

“This is an attack by leftists in academia to protect the expressive rights of their radical instructors at the expense of the expressive rights of conservative students on campus,” said Becker, president of Freedom X, a nonprofit dedicated to preserving religious and conservative freedom of expression. 

A host of recent instances similar to this one might fit the same statement. Take for example the raging protests against now former Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos.

In addition, it speaks volumes that an organization such as “Freedom X” even needs to exist in the first place.

Constitution Under Continued Attack

We already have something dedicated to preserving religious rights and freedom of expression. It has existed for over two centuries.  The Constitution of the United States of America and the Bill of Rights serves this purpose.

Yet decades of social engineering and indoctrination have chipped-away at all aspects of the document that first made America great. Once a shining beacon of liberty and prosperity, America has now been reduced to a squabble of bickering children.

All this fighting only distracts us from bigger issues that affect us all. This fury ought to be directed, for example, at central bankers hell-bent on impoverishing nations through devaluation of central bank-issued fiat currencies. Or in the case of the European Union, impoverishing an entire continent at once by putting it under the control of a single central bank and currency.

Dangerous Ideas

We must do everything necessary to maintain what little freedoms we have left. Do not allow those who practice intolerance in the name of tolerance to silence you.

We must stop the association of populism with terrorism.  it’s already legal in America to imprison anyone suspected of terrorism without proof or trial.  Therefore, there can be few ideas more dangerous than this.

All in all, college campuses appear to be stifling freedom of speech more than nurturing it. True, filming a professor during a lecture is against the rules.  However, this professor was not lecturing at all. She was ranting – on an inappropriate topic, in a dangerous way. Outrageous assertions, like suggesting that an election was an act of terror, belong on a blog or social media site. Not in a college lecture regarding human sexuality.  One ought to be free to make such assertions, but not in a context where it threatens another’s expression.

It becomes difficult to discern who has the right to freedom of expression when one’s right silences another’s.

What do you think? Was the professor out of line?  What would you do in such a situation?

Should the student have been suspended? Should they both be tried for terrorism?

Leave your thoughts in a comment below.

 

 

Protest Against Breitbart Editor Heralds the End of Freedom of Speech

“I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”. – Voltaire

The timeless words of Voltaire have been lost on today’s populace.

It seems people prefer to riot, vandalize, and set things on fire rather than allow someone to express an opposing viewpoint.

Last week, Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos was scheduled to give a speech at the University of California at Berkeley. His speech wound up being canceled due to widespread rioting and violence.

People were smashing windows, setting fires, and throwing fireworks at police. What a way to fight against violence!

Outside Agitators

It’s important to note that many of these protestors were not students at UC Berkeley.   One can discern that much by the ninja-like apparel they were wearing. Dressed in all black with black bandanas or masks around their faces, these people incited violence on a magnificent scale. Who knows if they were paid provocateurs or just anarchists looking for a good time? Both scenarios seem plausible.

The following comes from ABC: 

“…But officials said it was a smaller group of protesters dressed in black and in hooded sweatshirts that showed up as night fell to break windows with metal barricades, throw smoke bombs and flares and start a large bonfire outside the building with a diesel generator.

“This was a group of agitators who were masked up, throwing rocks, commercial grade fireworks and Molotov cocktails at officers,” said UC Berkeley Police Chief Margo Bennet.

Bennet said police determined at that point they couldn’t guarantee security, canceled the event and evacuated Yiannopoulos from the building.”

All this was done in the name of preventing “hate speech”, on the grounds that it might incite violence. And get this – Yiannopoulos’ speech was supposed to be about the very topic of violent protestors shutting out alternative viewpoints and silencing freedom of speech.

One can almost taste the irony and hypocrisy.

What’s most disgusting about this demonstration of hatred and intolerance is that it was rewarded. The speech had to be cancelled because of the violence. The message was clear: throw a temper tantrum, mix in some provocateurs, and you can silence anyone you want.

President Trump weighed in on the night’s events with the following Tweet:

“If U.C Berkeley does not allow free speech and practices violence on innocent people with a different point of view – NO FEDERAL FUNDS?

According to Breitbart, UC Berkeley receives almost half of all its funding from the federal government. So Trump’s threat, if more than mere rhetoric (doubtful), would be quite a serious one, having severe ramifications upon the operations of the university.

Although the violence that led to the cancellation of the speech seems to have been induced by outside agitators, at least in part, it still speaks to the sad state of freedom of speech in America that college students would have any part in such a thing.

From free speech areas to safe spaces

When I was in college (not many years ago), there was a “free speech area” on campus. People used this space for all kinds of things ranging from musical performances, promoting political ideas, advertising businesses, playing music and dancing, or ranting on a PA about some topic no one really cared about. Even religious fanatics would come on campus preaching their ideas to a less than receptive audience.

No one threw a fit about it. No violence or protests ever ensued. For the most part, people either listened or walked away. It was that simple.

While some people ridiculed the idea of a so-called “free speech area” on the grounds that all areas ought to be designated as such under the constitution, in retrospect that criticism pales in comparison to what has been happening as of late.

Instead of free speech zones, campuses now have “safe spaces”. These can be seen as the polar opposite of a free speech zone. It seems some students have grown so sensitive to opposing viewpoints that they cannot tolerate even entertaining thoughts that counter their own.

It’s as if, when encountered by someone such as a religious fanatic, instead of walking away, people now either break down and cry or respond with violence.

And when a speaker some people don’t like comes to campus, a violent riot ensues. In the past, people who didn’t want to hear someone just wouldn’t attend the speech. Perhaps they’d encourage others to do the same. Why does that option no longer occur to people in certain instances?

I have inkling as to why.

Indoctrinating Intolerance

If you listen to the enraged screaming of violent rioters, the same theme often comes up regarding why they just cannot let someone speak.

They say that misogynistic, racist, homophobic, etc. speech cannot be allowed. They argue this on the grounds that it might incite violence. The very kind of violence they engage in and promote against those they say will cause such violence.

This kind of behavior has come about as a direct result of the radical feminist brainwashing machine. Indoctrination on college campuses has been happening for years. And it seems to have reached a peak as of late. (See The Flipside of Feminism: What Conservative Women Know — and Men Can’t Say)

This school of thought promotes hatred against so-called “privileged” members of society. For the most part, that includes white heterosexual males.  Hatred must not be tolerated. When it comes to white males, however, hatred is not only tolerated but also justified, righteous, and even necessary.

The hatred stems from beliefs about patriarchal hegemony. Entire books exist on the subject. Yet distilled to its purest essence, it can be seen as the idea that all of society’s injustices stem from imperceptible privilege that allows certain people power, thereby marginalizing others. These people are men, but not gay or minority men.

If inequality and injustice arise from a single group of people, what solution exists?

The answer involves a single word: genocide.

Yes, there are radical feminists out there who advocate for genocide of all white males. And even if they did not, the logical progression of this idea system cannot lead anywhere else.

It’s flawless logic from the perspective of such ideology. Get rid of white males, and society will become equal, harmonious, peaceful, and magical.

This general concept has been repeated throughout history.  It progresses from the scapegoating of one segment of the population.  While details differ, the general process looks like this: 1) All of society’s problems fall upon one specific group. 2) This group gets perceived as having all power. 3) Envy ensues, leading to rage and hatred. 4) Hatred gives way to silencing (the step we are at now). 5) Silencing then increases, either to marginalization or genocide.

Distraction Epidemic

One would think that with labor force participation rates near forty-year lows, national debt including unfunded liabilities exceeding $200 trillion, central banks impoverishing the world, and issues such as geoengineering destroying the entire planet,  we’d be able to stop fighting and focus on issues that affect us all.

Yet as long as education focuses on indoctrination, and mainstream news focuses on division, there will never be solutions to the direst issues that have a detrimental impact upon everyone. Most will never even think about such issues.

In short, hateful rhetoric inspires reprehensible behavior. When freedom of speech becomes silenced, the group doing the silencing become perpetuators of the exact type of hegemony they claim to be rallying against.

What do you think? Is it okay to shut down another’s scheduled speech because you disagree with them? Have we as a society become so obsessed with tolerance that we have become intolerant? And does rhetoric perceived as violent deserve to be silenced with actual violence?

Leave your thoughts regarding the current state of freedom of speech in a comment below.

 

Five Reasons why the “Russian Hacking” meme doesn’t hold weight

Russian hacker freedom of speech

“Russian hackers” and “propaganda” being used as excuse to threaten freedom of speech

By now, everyone has heard of this infamous, anonymous “Russian hacker” who has infiltrated USA elections.  And somehow, under the direction of Putin himself, this person or group allegedly elected Donald Trump to the presidency.  If true, this would have dire implications for the meaning of freedom in our elections.

In case the absurdity of this accusation isn’t apparent, allow me to articulate the reasons why it holds no weight whatsoever.  Following the evidence in this article, (or rather, lack thereof) one will begin to question how anyone buys into this hysterical fabrication against Russia.

  • Denial by Julian Assange.

As the story goes, Russia somehow leaked the DNC hacks to Wikileaks, while keeping the RNC leaks under wraps.  The only problem with this story is that Assange himself has stated that the leaks came from directly within the DNC itself, not Russia.  Russia had nothing to do with it. Neither did Putin.  According to Assange:

“The Clinton camp has been able to project a neo-McCarthyist hysteria that Russia is responsible for everything. Hillary Clinton has stated multiple times, falsely, that 17 US intelligence agencies had assessed that Russia was the source of our publications. That’s false – we can say that the Russian government is not the source,” Assange told the Australian broadcaster as part of a 25-minute John Pilger Special, courtesy of Dartmouth Films.

In addition to this, there are also several experts who explain why these assertions do not align with reality.

  • Analysis by William Binney

For those unaware, William Binney designed the NSA’s surveillance system. He left the NSA due to ethical concerns about what bulk data collection meant for freedom, another in-depth subject not to be covered here. In short, Binney finds it ridiculous that the Russians had any involvement in the DNC hacks.  He points out that there is no evidence for this claim:

“This is a big mistake, another WMD or Tonkin Gulf affair that’s being created until they have absolute proof” of Russian complicity in the DNC hacks, he charged during a Newsweek interview. He noted that after the Kremlin denied complicity in the downing of a Korean Airlines flight in 1983, the U.S. “exposed the conversations where [Russian pilots] were ordered to shoot it down.” Obama officials “have the evidence now” of who hacked the DNC, he charged. “So let’s see it, guys.“

As it turns out, Binney is not the only expert questioning these far-fetched accusations.

 

  • John Mcafee statements

John Mcafee created one of the world’s premier anti-virus software systems. He also ran for the Libertarian Party’s candidacy in 2016. Again, here we have another example of a cyber security expert calling out the Obama administration on its utter fabrication. With regard to the FBI Joint Analysis Report:

“McAfee argues that the report is a “fallacy,” explaining that hackers can fake their location, their language, and any markers that could lead back to them. Any hacker who had the skills to hack into the DNC would also be able to hide their tracks, he said

“If I was the Chinese and I wanted to make it look like the Russians did it, I would use Russian language within the code, I would use Russian techniques of breaking into the organization,” McAfee said, adding that, in the end, “there simply is no way to assign a source for any attack.”

 So we see that the very basis of the “Russia did it” meme cannot be true under any circumstances. There exists no possible way of knowing the Russians did it. Understanding the fallacy behind this idea leads one to the question: why now?

  • Suspicious Timing of the Accusations

One simple question arises out of all this: why has it only come to light now? Of course, the suggestion was brought up during the campaign that so-called “Russian hackers” MAY, at some point, possibly “hack the election”, whatever that means. And as to be expected, with this narrative implanted in the matrix, it was then seized upon once Trump emerged victorious. What a convenient excuse for the failed campaign of Hillary Rodham Clinton. Consider this – if it was known that someone may “hack the election”, why were precautions not taken to ensure it wouldn’t happen? Why has this only come out after Trump won? So many things do not add up here.

Not only does the entire idea make zero sense whatsoever, but no evidence has ever been presented that could possibly lead one to believe it.

  • Lack of Evidence

Of all the reasons not to believe this Russian hacking conspiracy, this one is the simplest and most obvious. Not a single shred of evidence has been conjured to back these baseless accusations. Not one. Absolutely nothing. The only thing that even comes close involve some shadowy, vague reports from intelligence agencies suggesting that it might have been Russians, but they really can’t say for sure, and have no concrete evidence. This ought to be a red flag. And as stated earlier, these reports have come under question by experts who highlight the fallacious nature of the statements made.

All in all, this conspiracy theory has to be one of the craziest ever concocted by mainstream fake news media. In addition, the fact that this has been used to justify cracking down on so-called “Russian propaganda” has serious implications for the meaning of freedom of speech. Now anyone who presents a viewpoint contrary to the establishment narrative may be labeled a Russian agent, and therefore censored.  While that may sound hyperbolic, Orwellian legislation has already been passed to just this end.

This begs the question, will the author of this article be branded as such? Am I indeed an “agent of Russia”? Did Putin himself force me to write this article? And, most importantly, does this justify censoring my views and writings?

I encourage the reader to question and research this fake news.

What do you think? Are Russians responsible for the election of Donald Trump? Even if this hacking accusation were true, does it justify curtailing freedom of speech? Leave your thoughts in a comment below.