FBI agent accidentally reveals own 8chan posts; attempts to redirect white supremacist rage against Russia Posted on 17 June 2019 by @henrykrinkie Updated August 4, 2019: Added link to “A.C.L.U. Says F.B.I. Funded ‘Army’ To Terrorize Young War Dissidents“

Current Events Inquiry
image

FBI agent accidentally reveals own 8chan posts; attempts to redirect white supremacist rage against Russia
Posted on 17 June 2019 by @henrykrinkie
https://ceinquiry.wordpress.com/2019/06/17/fbi-8chan/

Updated August 4, 2019: Added link to “A.C.L.U. Says F.B.I. Funded ‘Army’ To Terrorize Young War Dissidents“

gun-control-experts

The unsealing of an application for a search warrant by the federal government on 8chan’s servers has unintentionally revealed that a federal agent has been trolling the site and attempting to redirect the users’ conspiracy theories against the Russian government instead of the CIA or Mossad.

The legal case stems from the April 27th shooting at a California synagogue by white supremacist and 8chan user John Earnest. The day of the shooting, Earnest is believed to have posted to 8chan a link to an anti-Semitic Pastebin manifesto and a not-so-cryptic suggestion that he was about to commit a murderous act of violence to back up his beliefs. In the accompanying affidavit to the search warrant application, FBI Special Agent Michael J. Rod requests the “IP address and metadata information about Earnest’s original posting and the postings of all of the individuals who responded to the subject posting and/or commented about it. Additionally, agents seek information about any other posting coming from the IP address used by Earnest to post the subject posting.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poway_synagogue_shooting

In Appendix 1, Rod attaches a serious of screen caps from an 8chan thread that took place the day of the synagogue attack (it is not ultimately clear that Earnest took part in this thread). What is notable is that next to the “Anonymous” user label on some of the posts is a “(You)” marking:

you
you
you2
you2
you3
you3

As it turns out, this text is to let the user know that they are looking at their own posts! This means that Special Agent Rod inadvertently exposed himself as 8chan user ID “8f4812” by including these screenshots as his supporting exhibit. As it turns out, a more complete version of this thread was saved on archive.is before it was deleted. By using Ctrl+F on the page and inputting “8f4812”, you can look at all the posts made by the FBI in this thread.
http://archive.is/YJzmC

The longest reply can be found here:
http://archive.is/YJzmC#selection-54329.2-54357.10

Guys. Read my posts. I believe that the ahooter did post on here but there is also more. Ive been here all day. There are at least two others that are posting in a bot, shilllike fashion to promote this. This theead never would have made the first page, where I found it this morning.
think there is outside involvement. Likely Russian.
In the posts not attributed the man himself, these two not only hyped this thread in an awkward way, they continued an odd pattern of posts to keep this thread alive. Look at the parallel language and style. pol does not talk like that.
Look at the memes chosen in these posts. Not even a fucking clown.
While I believe John may have been motivated by hia own beliefs and reasons, I believe that there are other forces at work here that may have provoked him.
The original link leads to a Tarrants Lads group In russian.
He may have been rightfully upset with the way the world is, but he may have been manipulated into this by something that is not.
I’d blame Mossad, the CIA and FBI too, but this time I am not so sure. We know all three of them can meme because we are shilled all day long by them.
He chose a crappy pistol. Anyone would have planned a litte more thoroughly. If BT is a hero to him as he describes, he would have learned from this mistakes, or at a minimun made an effort to emulate him and do the same. To walk in there completey unprepared with a single pistol sends off even more red flags,
This is very unusual. This is not the typical (((conspiracy))) and I am worried. I dont believe this is the end of this.
I hope some one else takes it upon themselves to investigate what I posted above as well.

In another series of replies the fed poster follows up on the Blame Russia theme:

This was posted by one of the shills that
knew of the shooting prior. Notice screen shot is at 20:00. That correlates with ukraine and western russia if you do the math

Seriosuly, one of you has to dig on this. Please review this thread. There is some russian/ukranian involvement.

At one point, another user accuses the fed of being Mossad:

extremely fake. who believes this shit? sloppy job mossad

The fed replies:

No. Not mossad. Stop attacking the board and sliding this thread. Sloppy job putin. Dick

The other user:

suck my ball

Fed:

Its balls. Let putin know your psyop worked, but you fucked it up with your shit english.

I presume you were chosen because you said you could talk, speak, and type “like american?”

Now, I don’t think for one second that any 8chan posters were convinced by this FBI agent to be more suspicious of potential Russian black ops. At the same time, what the hell was this fed thinking? It certainly looks like he is attempting, however half-assedly, to get the white supremacists that inhabit 8chan’s /pol/ forum to start directing their rage and conspiracism at Russia for a change.

This, of course, isn’t the first time informants have been caught or revealed to be inflaming or attempting to inflame extremists. In 2015, an FBI agent texted ISIS sympathizer Elton Simpson advising him to “tear up Texas.” A couple of days later Simpson attempted to shoot up a Draw Muhammed event in Garland.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/fbi-agent-apparently-egged-on-draw-muhammad-shooter?ref=scroll

But more importantly, there is a long history of collaboration between various US security apparatuses and private right-wing groups. The case of Howard Berry Godfrey and the Secret Army Organization (SAO) is instructive. https://lorenzoae.wordpress.com/2018/09/08/a-brief-history-of-american-vigilantism/
https://sites.google.com/site/cointelprodocs/the-use-of-informants-in-fbi-intelligence-investigations#b221
According to the Church Committee, Godfrey was a member of the “right-wing paramilitary” SAO and engaged in numerous acts of violence and sabotage against left-wing targets at the same time he was a paid FBI informant (bolding mine):

Godfrey and the FBI entered into a relationship in 1967 by which Godfrey would provide the Bureau information. This relationship was formalized in August of 1967 when Godfrey was officially “approved” by the FBI’s Washington Headquarters as an informant. […] Godfrey’s relationship with the FBI lasted over five years, terminating in November of 1972. Godfrey was paid varying amounts from 1967 through 1970 when he began to receive $250 per month plus up to $100 per month in expenses. He continued at that level until his termination. […] Examples of the types of actions Godfrey and/or the Secret Army were involved in include firebombing, smashing windows, placing stickers bearing SAO or Minutemen symbols on cars and buildings, propelling lug nuts through windows with sling shots, and breaking and entering. […] The SAO’s actions escalated to a level of violence and destruction where Godfrey’s name had to be revealed as an FBI informant. Two events precipitated this. The first was the shooting of Paula Tharp, who was in the residence of the San Diego State University professor Peter Bohmer. Briefly, while Godfrey and an SAO associate were “on a surveillance” of Bohmer’s residence (instituted by Godfrey), the associate, according to Godfrey, picked up a gun Godfrey had under the seat of his car and fired shots into the Bohmer house, one of which struck Ms. Tharp. [231] Previously the SAO and Godfrey had singled out Professor Bohmer in their literature for special attention:

For any of our readers who may care to look up Red Scum, and say hello, here is some information that may help. His address is 5155 Muir, Ocean Beach, telephone number is 222-7243, he drives a dark blue 1968 VW Sedam, California licence DKY 147. Just to make sure you talk to the right guy here is his description: he has dark brown shoulder length hair, green eyes, weight is about 160 lbs. and he is 5’10” tall. Now in case any of you don’t believe in hitting people who wear glasses, to be fair I guess we will have to tell you he wears contact lences. [sic]

The significant factor for the Committee’s analysis of FBI informants is that even this shooting incident did not immediately terminate Godfrey as an informant. Rather the FBI records show that Godfrey remained on the Bureau payroll until November, 1972. And, it was not until the second major act of destruction that Godfrey was “surfaced” as an informant.

The second major act of destruction which occurred was the bombing of the Guild theatre in San Diego. According to Godfrey, the bombing was perpetrated by his subordinate in the SAO, one William Yakopec. Godfrey participated in the SAO sale of some explosives to Yakopec. Yet, he promptly notified the FBI of Yakopec’s alleged involvement in the Guild Theatre bombing. Yakopec, who maintains his innocence, was subsequently indicted and convicted of the bombing offenses in the local courts of San Diego.

For more information on this affair, see: “The Strange Tale of The Secret Army Organization (USA): An investigation” by Richard Popkin, http://www.unz.com/print/Ramparts-1973oct-00036 Ramparts Magazine, October 1973, pp. 36-37; and also “A.C.L.U. Says F.B.I. Funded ‘Army’ To Terrorize Young War Dissidents” By Everett R. Holles, http://archive.is/hP7qN NY Times, June 27, 1975.

Also relevant are the Nazi sympathies of J. Edgar Hoover.

Frank Donner, The age of surveillance: The aims and methods of America’s political intelligence system, https://books.google.com/books?id=bY4oAQAAMAAJ 1980, p. 86:

B09Ynt8CMAAWuoL

Eric Lichtblau, “In Cold War, U.S. Spy Agencies Used 1,000 Nazis,” http://archive.is/f1zXy#selection-467.81-467.91 NYT, 26 Oct 2014:

Mr. Hoover, for his part, personally approved some ex-Nazis as informants and dismissed accusations of their wartime atrocities as Soviet propaganda. In 1968, Mr. Hoover authorized the F.B.I. to wiretap a left-wing journalist who wrote critical stories about Nazis in America, internal records show. Mr. Hoover declared the journalist, Charles Allen, a potential threat to national security.

Tulsi Gabbard Sues Google for Censorship of Ads

Tulsi-Gabbard-Brian-Snyder-Reuters-640x480
Tulsi GabbardBrian Snyder/Reuters

Tulsi Gabbard Sues Google for Censorship of Ads
ALLUM BOKHARI25 Jul 20194,748
https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/07/25/tulsi-gabbard-sues-google-for-censorship-of-ads/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=daily&utm_campaign=20190725&utm_content=A

Presidential candidate and military veteran Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) is suing Google after the tech giant blocked her ads account shortly after the first Democrat presidential debate, when Gabbard became the most-searched-for candidate in the Democrat field.

Gabbard’s complaint accuses Google of censoring the candidate at the very moment when millions of Americans wanted to learn more about her. It also accuses Google of sending Gabbard’s campaign emails to people’s Gmail spam folders at a “disproportionately high rate.”

The campaign seeks a legal injunction against Google to prevent further election meddling, as well as $50 million in damages.

Via Gabbard’s legal complaint against Google:
At the height of Gabbard’s popularity among Internet searchers in the immediate hours after the debate ended, and in the thick of the critical post-debate period (when television viewers, radio listeners, newspaper read-ers, and millions of other Americans are discussing and searching for presidential candidates), Google suspended Tulsi’s Google Ads account without warning.
For hours, as millions of Americans searched Google for information about Tulsi, and as Tulsi was trying, through Google, to speak to them, her Google Ads account was arbitrarily and forcibly taken offline. Throughout this period, the Campaign worked frantically to gather more information about the suspension; to get through to someone at Google who could get the Account back online; and to understand and remedy the restraint that had been placed on Tulsi’s speech—at precisely the moment when everyone wanted to hear from her.

The Gabbard campaign’s legal complaint cites Breitbart News reporting to highlight Google’s interference in the democratic process. The complaint cites the Google Tape, an hour-long recording of Google executives’ reactions to the 2016 general election obtained by this reporter and published by Breitbart News last September, and Google employees’ campaign to ban Breitbart from Google Ads, an effort that was revealed by Breitbart News last year.

The legal complaint argues that Google could have a nefarious impact on American democracy if its behavior is allowed to continue unchecked. This is the viewpoint of Dr. Robert Epstein, who says the Silicon Valley Masters of the Universe will “go all out” to influence the 2020 election.

In a series of Tweets, the Hawaii Democrat said Google’s actions “reveals the danger of their dominance & how the dominance of big tech over public discourse threatens core American values.”

Tulsi Gabbard

@TulsiGabbard
TULSI2020: In the hours following the 1st debate, while millions of Americans searched for info about Tulsi, Google suspended her search ad account w/o explanation. It is vital to our democracy that big tech companies can’t affect the outcome of elections http://tulsi.to/tulsi-vs-google

27.8K
1:33 PM – Jul 25, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
11.3K people are talking about this

Tulsi Gabbard

@TulsiGabbard
· Jul 25, 2019
Replying to @TulsiGabbard
2/3 – #Google controls 88% of internet search in the US — giving it control over our access to information. Google’s arbitrary suspension of the account of a presidential candidate should be of concern to all Americans. http://tulsi.to/tulsi-vs-google

Tulsi Gabbard

@TulsiGabbard
3/3 – Google’s discrimination against our campaign reveals the danger of their dominance & how the dominance of big tech over public discourse threatens core American values. They threaten our democracy & #Tulsi will fight back on behalf of all Americans. http://tulsi.to/tulsi-vs-google

6,437
1:33 PM – Jul 25, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
1,935 people are talking about this
According to the complaint, “Google could unilaterally and decisively end a presidential candidate’s bid for office if it chose to, for example by tweaking its search algorithm to disfavor the candidate; or blocking the candidate from its ad platforms; or keeping the candidate’s communications from getting to interested voters who use Gmail for email communications.”

Are you a source at Amazon, Facebook, Google, or any other corporation who wants to confidentially share information about wrongdoing or political bias at your company? Reach out to Breitbart Senior Technology correspondent Allum Bokhari at allumbokhari@protonmail.com. Use a free Protonmail to ensure your message is encrypted.

“Global dimming” is a plot to EXTERMINATE humanity by terraforming the atmosphere with SMOG pollution, killing Earth’s food crops and unleashing ecological collapse

China-City-Pollution-Smog 
TERRAFORMING has begun: “Global dimming” is a plot to EXTERMINATE humanity by terraforming the atmosphere with SMOG pollution, killing Earth’s food crops and unleashing ecological collapse
12/04/2018 / By Mike Adams
https://www.chemtrailsnews.com/2018-12-04-global-dimming-globalist-plot-to-eliminate-humanity-terraforming-food-crops-pollution.html

Now we come to the end game for humanity. This is it, folks: They have a plan to collapse global food production, kill off over 90% of the human race, devastate natural ecosystems and pollute the Earth’s atmosphere… and it’s all being sold to you under the banner of “environmentalism.”

The scheme is called “global dimming,” and it’s a dangerous geoengineering plot to spray billions of tons of smog into the atmosphere so that pollution levels would block sunlight and halt global warming. This is literally what the mad environmental scientists are now proposing — the very same people who have, for years, claimed that “chemtrails” are a conspiracy theory and don’t exist. Now, all of a sudden, they want to chemtrail the entire planet in order to “save” us all from global warming.

“Stratospheric aerosol injection” now the new name for chemtrails / geoengineering

The global dimming scheme is, of course, based on spraying chemtrails into the upper atmosphere using thousands of high-altitude flights that release pollution to dim the sun. The very idea of “chemtrails” has, until now, been mocked by the media and the science establishment, who have for years claimed the very idea of chemtrails is a lunatic conspiracy theory. So they’ve changed the name to “stratospheric aerosol injection,” and they now have a science paper that outlines all the costs involved.

“We lay out a future solar geoengineering deployment scenario of halving the increase in anthropogenic radiative forcing,” writes Wake Smith and Gernot Wagner in their paper, “Stratospheric aerosol injection tactics and costs in the first 15 years of deployment.” Published in Environmental Research Letters, you can view the full text of the study at this link.

Geoengineering is another term that many people use synonymously with “chemtrails.” And now it’s a strategy being openly advocated by scientists to halt so-called “climate change,” a fake science hoax that has been perpetrated on the world by power-hungry globalists who want humanity to surrender to global rule in the name of “saving the planet.”

The study cites the specific aircraft that would be needed to achieve chemtrails pollution. “[P]urpose-built high-altitude tanker with substantial payload capabilities” would be deployed to spray sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere. The paper proposes 4000 flights a year, costing $2.25 billion per year, continuing over 15 years to make sure the atmosphere is significantly polluted to dim the sun and achieve the terraforming goals of globalists (see more details, below).

In the conclusion of their abstract, the study authors explain the program would require, “thousands of flights annually by airliner-sized aircraft operating from an international array of bases,” making it almost impossible to keep secret.

Of course, this very program has already begun, and secrecy isn’t necessary when you have the entire media and science establishment condemning any belief in chemtrails as a form of mental illness. So just remember: As they pollute the skies and dim the sun, if you point out that they’re polluting the skies and dimming the sun, you’re a “conspiracy theorist.”

And there’s no such thing as chemtrails, you see. Nope, it’s “stratospheric aerosol injection” now, which sounds almost sciency. That’s how this program is already being perpetrated right under our noses, right now, even while the media runs a global cover-up to dismiss such ideas as bizarre theories.

The global controllers hope you never read the science papers, of course, because there, geoengineering is routinely cited and even advocated as the “solution” to climate change.

Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI) explained… and yeah, it’s just another name for chemtrails

“Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI) would require lofting hundreds of thousands to millions of tons of material each year to altitudes up to ~20 km,” explain study authors. They also ask, “Could it be done in secret?”

The study offers heavy discussion on the design and costs of aircraft that could deliver the planned pollution to the upper atmosphere:

IPCC (2018) states that ‘there is high agreement that aircrafts after some modifications could inject millions of tons of SO2 in the lower stratosphere (~20 km)’.

The overall goal of the geoengineering program is to inject 5 million tons of SO2 (sulfur dioxide, otherwise known as “smog”) into the atmosphere. Achieving that goal, “assumes a rational actor seeking to implement a scientifically sensible SAI program,” write the study authors, somehow claiming it is “rational” to disperse mass pollution across the atmosphere of your own planet. The same authors also claim this program must be conducted, “purely out of humanitarian and environmental considerations.”

Shocking realization: This is terraforming planet Earth to collapse the global food supply and kill off humans

In considering the sheer lunacy of the “Stratospheric Aerosol Injection” plan, I feel compelled to state that these climate change / global warming scientists are dangerously insane sociopaths and they must be stopped before they murder us all. These lunatics, if given enough government funding, will literally murder our planet and destroy human civilization. Such is the cost of the decades of false propaganda in our public schools that has brainwashed children into believing “climate change” is real and must be halted. The schemes now being proposed to halt this non-existent problem will, themselves, bring about the global destruction that children are being warned about with global warming.

This global pollution / terraforming program, if allowed to continue, could unleash the following devastating consequences, especially if deployed at a time when the sun is in its own dimming cycle that would accelerate global cooling.

#1) Global collapse of food crops – The reduction in solar radiation caused by geoengineering, combined with the natural cycle of global cooling from sun cycles, could produce a sharp reduction in food crop production across the globe. This would result in increased food prices and reduced food supplies, adding to vectors for civil unrest and “climate refugees” invading First World nations to escape starvation.

#2) Global rise in cancer from vitamin D deficiency – Reduction in solar radiation reaching the surface of the planet would exacerbate vitamin D deficiencies that already strongly contribute to cancer fatalities around the world. Sunlight is currently the primary source of vitamin D for billions of world citizens. Dimming the sun would be a death sentence for millions each year who would suffer the dire consequences of chronic vitamin D deficiencies.

#3) Global drop in IQs due to increased air pollution – Increases in air pollution have been scientifically found to lower children’s IQs. In addition, air pollution is scientifically documented to damage DNA in the womb, increase the risk of ventricular arrhythmia and increase the risk of bone loss in humans.

#4) Massive loss of habitat and ecosystems due to decreased sunlight and colder temperatures – Entire ecosystems — such as rainforests — could be devastated by a pollution-initiated drop in solar radiation. Marine ecosystems also rely heavily on solar radiation to power the photosynthesis of ocean plants such as seaweeds, grasses and algae, which serve as a pillar food source for the entire marine food web. Dimming the sun would have devastating consequences for all ecosystems on the planet, resulting in a catastrophic loss of life, habitat and eco-diversity.

#5) Huge increase in global acid rain that will devastate forests and food crops – The mass injection of SO2 into the atmosphere will result in SO2 being dispersed into lower levels of the atmosphere over time. There, mixed with rain storms, it will create sulfurous acid, otherwise known as acid rain. This acid rain will devastate forests and food crops and result in the acidification of crop soils, destabilizing soil microbes and leading the widespread crop losses.

#6) Decreased plant production of oxygen that’s necessary for humans, primates and mammals to survive – Nearly all plants depend on solar radiation for photosynthesis, which uses CO2 as a “fuel” and produces oxygen (O2) as a byproduct. Reducing solar radiation through chemtrails pollution would reduce the production of oxygen by plants, resulting in a global fall in atmospheric oxygen levels, ultimately leading to the mass asphyxiation of humans, primates and mammals if allowed to continue. Even the EPA (see source below) admits that SO2 interferes with human respiration and makes it difficult for people to breathe.
Photosynthesis-600

Even the EPA recognizes sulfur dioxide as a dangerous pollutant that makes it difficult for humans to breathe

Note carefully that the geoengineering efforts being advocated to dim the sun are based on sulfur dioxide, a known pollutant. “Short-term exposures to SO2 can harm the human respiratory system and make breathing difficult,” warns the EPA. “…[G]aseous SOx can harm trees and plants by damaging foliage and decreasing growth… SO2 and other sulfur oxides can contribute to acid rain which can harm sensitive ecosystems,” the EPA writes.

In other words, it isn’t even debated whether sulfur dioxide is a pollutant. It’s smog (or technically, it reacts to create smog), and the very idea that mass polluting the atmosphere with SO2 would somehow “save” the planet is rooted in nothing less than advanced psychosis or some other dangerous form of mental illness. That such schemes are marketed under the banner of “science” just shows how twisted the institution of science has now become.

Why would any rational institution seek to mass pollute our entire planet and destroy food crops, forests, mammals, primates and humans? The answer is even more shocking than the proposal itself, it turns out. Keep reading, as one possible explanation for all this continues below…
Stratospheric-Aerosol-Injections-Liberals-600

It wasn’t long ago that scientists warned about “global cooling” and the coming Ice Age

It was only a generation ago that young scientists were being warned that Earth was entering a “global cooling” crisis that would bring about a whole new ice age. This was the climate panic of the 1970s and early 1980s. Today’s older scientists remember the warnings quite well. We were all told that if we didn’t find a way to warm the planet, we would all perish as Earth was turned into a ball of ice.

Beginning in the 1990s, the scientists flipped the script, reversing their warning and suddenly claiming the problem was too much heat. We were all going to die from global warming if we didn’t change something, we were told. A decade or so later, when it was revealed that government science scammers were faking all the warming data, they changed the scam to “climate change,” since they couldn’t scientifically support either warming or cooling.

Here’s the cover of TIME Magazine from 1977, which warns, “How To Survive The Coming Ice Age,” then urges readers to get on board to save the planet, saying, “51 Things You Can Do to Make a Difference.”
Time-Magazine-Ice-Age-400

Today, we’re told the most absurd, insane things by these scientists who insist that the climate never changed at all before the year 1920, with the rise of the combustion engine and “human activity.” And now we’re constantly terrorized by the fake news media into thinking that if we don’t pollute the Earth’s atmosphere with smog, we will all somehow die from the rise of carbon dioxide, the No. 1 most important greening nutrient for plants, forests and food crops.

So now they’ve decided they have to poison the atmosphere to fight climate change, and they’ve got about a billion gullible world citizens convinced that this is somehow an amazing idea. What they would really unleash, of course, is absolutely catastrophic to all life on our world. Remember: They want to disperse billions of tons of sulfur dioxide (smog) into the atmosphere through massive government-funded chemtrailing of the planet. The question now emerges: Is the destruction of humanity deliberate? If so, who would hatch such a nefarious plan?

Geoengineering is a planet-wide weapon system being deployed to eliminate human life on Earth while terraforming the planet for some other purpose

Here’s the cosmic inconvenient truth that Al Gore doesn’t want you to consider. What we are really witnessing here is the planned terraforming of planet Earth for some other purpose. And by “other,” I mean other than human.

If you wanted humans to thrive on planet Earth, you would not unleash mass pollution, acid rain, food crop failures, oxygen depletion and global dimming. You would, instead, try to reduce pollution, support plant life, enhance food crop production and protect global ecosystems from pollution. That’s the normal, rational thing that any human being would naturally want to pursue.

Yet we are subjected to these nefarious geoengineering schemes that directly contradict every principle of sustainable life on Earth. And it’s all described as a way to “save” the planet, even as it would destroy global life support for humans.

I can’t help but be reminded of the outstanding film Oblivion, starring Tom Cruise. In the film, the Cruise character thinks he’s protecting human civilization, but he’s actually (unknowingly) working for extraterrestrials who are stealing Earth’s resources and exterminating humans. The film is one of the best science fiction films of all time, and its story sounds eerily similar to what may be happening right now with so-called “geoengineering.”

Who (or what) would want to alter the atmosphere, decimate oxygen levels, destroy the food supply and collapse human civilization? The answer should be obvious: Something that is in competition with humans and sees no further use for humanity. Human life on Earth appears to be in the process of being “cleansed” in a cosmic ethnic cleansing scheme that will produce an altered, low-oxygen atmosphere that might prove advantageous to a life form which isn’t already part of Earth’s existing ecosystem. The reduction in solar radiation reaching Earth’s surface would make the planet more hospital to a life form that originated from a planet located farther from its home sun than Earth is from our own sun.

It raises the obvious, if bizarre-sounding, question: Are Earth’s globalists preparing the planet for a post-human era? And is that plan disguised as a “climate change” emergency course of action so that the sheeple can be told the mass pollution of the skies is a bold plan to save humanity rather than exterminate it? What if “climate change” is actually a cosmic false flag hoax that was designed from the very start to convince Earthlings to support their own extermination? Given the now-planned destruction of Earth’s atmosphere in the name of “climate change,” we must now consider such possibilities, no matter how bizarre they first seem.

Why are all the globalists suddenly talking about escaping to Mars and terraforming Mars into a habitat where humans can survive? Why are globalists now so desperate the alter Earth’s atmosphere and make the planet inhospitable to humans? Why such a recent focus on the Arctic seed vault to preserve the seeds of life in preparation for a global cataclysm? Why are so many globalist insiders building underground bunkers and living in them?

I don’t have the answers to all these questions, but I do know that the fairy tale stories we’re being told about “climate change” and how we must save the planet by polluting the skies are rooted in complete quack science fiction and brainwashing propaganda.

On the other hand, if humans are stupid enough to destroy their own planet in the name of saving the planet, perhaps they’re simply not qualified to participate in an intelligence universe after all. Natural selection, after all, is likely playing out on a cosmic scale, and Earth appears to be flunking the cosmic IQ test that wonders, “Hey, is that civilization stupid enough to commit suicide based on a fairy tale hoax?”

So far, it appears the answer for Earth and humans is a resounding “Yes!”

This entire topic, by the way, will be featured in this Sunday’s broadcast of Counterthink, airing at 6pm cental at InfoWars.com, with the full episode also appearing at Counterthink.com a few days later. Don’t miss it.

 

MadMedic’s Post Venezuelans Now Regret Letting Government Take Their Guns Away: https://wordpress.com/read/feeds/347470/posts/2310497637

n-maduro-venezuela-1200x630
Venezuelans Now Regret Letting Government Take Their Guns Away
Not long ago, millions of Venezuelans decided to become loved by the left and voted away their right to keep and bear arms. Now they regret it.

Published 3 days ago on June 11, 2019 By Warner Todd Huston

Venezuelans Now Regret Letting Government Take Their Guns Away

Not long ago, millions of Venezuelans decided to become loved by the left and voted away their right to keep and bear arms. But now that their government has descended into a socialist nightmare where everyone is starving to death, these same people are now regretting their votes to give away their right to self-defense.

venezuela-violence-1200x630

It is an object lesson for the folks here in the U.S. who want to travel down the same path as Venezuela; gun-free, socialism and all.

Venezuela implemented its gun ban six years ago before their world took its last steps into the living hell it has become. Now they have no defense against the junta and the socialist criminals controlling their nation.

“Hollywood’s favorite strongman banned arms for citizens. It has not ended well for those starving to death under a socialist dictatorship,” actor James Woods noted on Twitter.

https://pbs.twimg.com/card_img/1136824484391006208/X8kUWQbF?format=jpg&name=600×314
James Woods

@RealJamesWoods
Hollywood’s favorite strongman banned arms for citizens. It has not ended well for those starving to death under a socialist dictatorship… #DemocratsAreDangerous https://www.foxnews.com/world/venezuelans-regret-gun-prohibition-we-could-have-defended-ourselves

14.5K
2:38 PM – Dec 14, 2018
Twitter Ads info and privacy

Venezuelans regret gun ban, ‘a declaration of war against an unarmed population’
As Venezuela continues to crumble under the socialist dictatorship of President Nicolas Maduro, some are expressing words of warning – and resentment –regarding the country’s earlier gun control bill…

And boy is he right.

As Fox News reported on Friday:
“Guns would have served as a vital pillar to remaining a free people, or at least able to put up a fight,” Javier Vanegas, 28, a Venezuelan teacher of English now exiled in Ecuador, told Fox News. “The government security forces, at the beginning of this debacle, knew they had no real opposition to their force. Once things were this bad, it was a clear declaration of war against an unarmed population.”

Under the direction of then-President Hugo Chavez, the Venezuelan National Assembly in 2012 enacted the “Control of Arms, Munitions and Disarmament Law,” with the explicit aim to “disarm all citizens.” The law took effect in 2013, with only minimal pushback from some pro-democracy opposition figures, banned the legal commercial sale of guns and munitions to all – except government entities.

Naturally, Chavez sponsored a “gun buy-back” program before implementing his confiscation. Few Venezuelans were much interested in the government’s cash. So, by the end of the year, Chavez forcefully seized 12,500 guns. But that was just the start

And when Chavez mercifully died, the country’s next president, Maduro, continued the confiscation policies…

In 2014, with Nicolás Maduro at the helm following Chavez’s death but carrying through his socialist “Chavista” policies, the government invested more than $47 million enforcing the gun ban – which has since included grandiose displays of public weapons demolitions in the town square.

And since then? Well, the government has become despotic and has run roughshod over the Venezuelan people, jailing and shooting them at will. And the people now have no defense to stop Maduro from subjugating them.

“Venezuela shows the deadly peril when citizens are deprived of the means of resisting the depredations of a criminal government,” said David Kopel, a policy analyst, and research director at the Independence Institute and adjunct professor of Advanced Constitutional Law at Denver University. “The Venezuelan rulers – like their Cuban masters – apparently viewed citizen possession of arms as a potential danger to a permanent communist monopoly of power.”

No doubt.

Make no mistake, America. This is what Democrats want to happen here, America. They want the American people disarmed so that there is no resistance to their authoritarian reign. Democrats are fascists at heart but they know that your privately held firearms are the biggest threat to their power. Don’t give away your protection willingly.

Glyphosate Worse than We Could Imagine

“It’s Everywhere”
Glyphosate residues have been found in tap water, orange juice, children’s urine, breast milk, chips, snacks, beer, wine, cereals, eggs, oatmeal, wheat products, and most conventional foods tested. It’s everywhere, in brief.

Glyphosate is killing off good bacteria in the soil and in human intestines
Earthworms disappear, Humans can’t absorb some minerals because of Glyphosate

Glyphosate Worse than We Could Imagine. “It’s Everywhere”

monsanto-400x282

By F. William Engdahl
Global Research, April 27, 2019
Region: USA
Theme: Biotechnology and GMO, Law and Justice, Science and Medicine

As new studies continue to point to a direct link between the widely-used glyphosate herbicide and various forms of cancer, the agribusiness lobby fights ferociously to ignore or discredit evidence of human and other damage. A second US court jury case just ruled that Monsanto, now a part of the German Bayer AG, must pay $ 81 million in damages to plaintiff Edwin Hardeman who contracted non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma cancer. The ruling and a line-up of another 11,000 pending cases in US courts going after the effects of glyphosate, have hit Bayer AG hard with the company announcing several thousand layoffs as its stock price plunges.

In a trial in San Francisco the jury was unanimous in their verdict that Monsanto Roundup weed-killer, based on glyphosate, had been responsible for Hardeman’s cancer. His attorneys stated,

“It is clear from Monsanto’s actions that it does not care whether Roundup causes cancer, focusing instead on manipulating public opinion and undermining anyone who raises genuine and legitimate concerns about Roundup.”

It is the second defeat for the lawyers of Monsanto after another jury ruled in 2018 that Glyphosate-based Roundup was responsible for the cancer illness of a California school grounds-keeper who contracted the same form of cancer after daily spraying school grounds with Roundup over years, unprotected. There a jury found Monsanto guilty of “malice and oppression” in that company executives, based on internal email discovery, knew that their glyphosate products could cause cancer and suppressed this information from the public.

A new independent study shows that those with highest exposure to glyphosate have a 41% increased risk of developing non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) cancer. A meta-analysis of six studies containing nearly 65,000 participants looked at links between glyphosate-based herbicides and immune-suppression, endocrine disruption and genetic alterations. The authors found “the same key finding: exposure to GBHs (glyphosate-based herbicides) are associated with an increased risk of NHL (Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma).” Further, they stated that glyphosate “alters the gut microbiome,” and that that could “impact the immune system, promote chronic inflammation, and contribute to the susceptibility of invading pathogens.” Glyphosate also ”may act as an endocrine disrupting chemical because it has been found recently to alter sex hormone production” in both male and female rats.

In a long-term animal study by French scientists under Gilles Eric Seralini, Michael Antoniou and associates, it was demonstrated that even ultra-low levels of glyphosate herbicides cause non-alcoholic liver disease. The levels the rats were exposed to, per kg of body weight, were far lower than what is allowed in our food supply. According to the Mayo Clinic, today, after four decades or more pervasive use of glyphosate pesticides, 100 million, or 1 out of 3 Americans now have liver disease. These diagnoses are in some as young as 8 years old.

Glyphosate from Monsanto’s Roundup Decimates Microbes in Soils and the Human Gut – New Science

But glyphosate is not only having alarming effects on human health. Soil scientists are beginning to realize the residues of glyphosate application are also having a possibly dramatic effect on soil health and nutrition, effects that can take years to restore.

Killing Soils too

While most attention is understandably drawn to the human effects of exposure to glyphosate, the most widely used agriculture chemical in the world today, independent scientists are beginning to look at another alarming effect of the agrochemical– its effect on essential soil nutrients. In a study of the health of soils in the EU, the online journal Politico.eu found that the effects of spraying of glyphosate on the major crops in European agriculture is having disastrous consequences on soil health in addition to killing weeds.

Scientists at Austria’s University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences in Vienna showed that casting activity of earthworms had nearly disappeared from the surface of farmland within three weeks of glyphosate application. Casting is the process of the worm pushing fertile soils to the surface as they burrow, essential for healthy soil and plant nutrition. A study at Holland’s Wageningen University of topsoil samples from more than 300 soil sites across the EU found that 83% of the soils contained 1 or more pesticide residues. Not surprisingly,

“Glyphosate and its metabolite AMPA, DDTs (DDT and its metabolites) and broad-spectrum fungicides… were the compounds most frequently found in soil samples and at the highest concentrations.”

The use of various pesticides, above all glyphosate-based ones like Roundup, has exploded over the past four decades across the EU much as across the USA. The agribusiness industry claims that this has been the key to the dramatic rise in farm crop productivity. However if we look more closely at the data, while average yields of major grains such as rice, wheat and maize have more than doubled since 1960, the use of pesticides like glyphosate-based ones has risen by 15-20-fold. Oddly enough, while the EU requires monitoring of many things, monitoring of pesticide residues in soil is not required at the EU level. Until recently the effects of heavy use of pesticides such as Roundup have been ignored in scientific research.

Evidence of soil experts is beginning to reveal clear links between use of pesticides such as glyphosate and dramatic drops in soil fertility and the collapse of microbe systems essential to healthy soil. Worms are one of the most essential.

It’s well-established that earthworms play a vital role in healthy soil nutrients. Soils lacking such are soils that deprive us of the essentials we need for healthy diets, a pandemic problem of soil depletion emerging globally over the past four decades, notably the same time frame that use of pesticides has exploded worldwide. Earthworms are beneficial as they enhance soil nutrient cycling and enhance other beneficial soil micro-organisms, and the concentration of large quantities of nutrients easily assimilable by plants.

The EU puts no limits on how much glyphosate can be put on crops even though it is established that glyphosate can kill specific fungi and bacteria that plants need to suck up nutrients in addition to its effects on earthworms. That is a major blind spot.

Where now?

What is becoming clearer is the colossal and obviously deliberate official blind eye given to potential dangers of glyphosate-based pesticides by regulatory bodies not only in the EU and the USA, but also in China, which today produces more glyphosate than even Monsanto. Since the Monsanto Roundup patent expired, Chinese companies, including Syngenta, Zhejiang Xinan Chemical Industrial Group Company, SinoHarvest, and Anhui Huaxing Chemical Industry Company, have emerged as the world’s major producers of the chemical as well as largest consumers, a not good omen for the future of the legendary Chinese cuisine.

Glyphosate is the base chemical component for some 750 different brands of pesticides worldwide, in addition to Monsanto-Bayer’s Roundup. Glyphosate residues have been found in tap water, orange juice, children’s urine, breast milk, chips, snacks, beer, wine, cereals, eggs, oatmeal, wheat products, and most conventional foods tested. It’s everywhere, in brief.

Despite the overwhelming evidence, however, EU Commission bureaucrats and the USA EPA continue to ignore prudence in not banning the toxic chemical pending thorough independent investigation over longer time. If I were cynical, I would almost think this continued official support for glyphosate-based herbicides is about more than mere bureaucratic stupidity or ignorance, even more than simply corruption, though that for sure plays a role. The nutritional quality of our food chain is being systematically destroyed and it is about more than corporate agribusiness profit.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook” where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from NEO

Glyphosate from Monsanto’s Roundup Decimates Microbes in Soils and the Human Gut – New Science

Gut bacteria is gaining increasing attention for the role it plays in our overall health. Given its influence on everything from immune function to digestion to brain function, research has been consistently showing the power of healthy gut bacteria – and the dangers of getting it wrong. Unfortunately, one very common chemical that has made its way to our food supply has now been shown to decimate gut microbes: glyphosate.

This chemical is already at the center of class action lawsuits filed by cancer patients, and the news keeps getting worse. As the main ingredient in the world’s most widely used herbicide, Monsanto’s Roundup, the ramifications for human health are huge.

Some of the medical problems linked to an imbalance of gut bacteria include colorectal cancer, diabetes, liver disease, cardiovascular disease, asthma, inflammatory bowel disease, autism and obesity.

As new studies continue to point to a direct link between the widely-used glyphosate herbicide and various forms of cancer, the agribusiness lobby fights ferociously to ignore or discredit evidence of human and other damage. A second US court jury case just ruled that Monsanto, now a part of the German Bayer AG, must pay $ 81 million in damages to plaintiff Edwin Hardeman who contracted non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma cancer. The ruling and a line-up of another 11,000 pending cases in US courts going after the effects of glyphosate, have hit Bayer AG hard with the company announcing several thousand layoffs as its stock price plunges.

In a trial in San Francisco the jury was unanimous in their verdict that Monsanto Roundup weed-killer, based on glyphosate, had been responsible for Hardeman’s cancer. His attorneys stated,

“It is clear from Monsanto’s actions that it does not care whether Roundup causes cancer, focusing instead on manipulating public opinion and undermining anyone who raises genuine and legitimate concerns about Roundup.”

It is the second defeat for the lawyers of Monsanto after another jury ruled in 2018 that Glyphosate-based Roundup was responsible for the cancer illness of a California school grounds-keeper who contracted the same form of cancer after daily spraying school grounds with Roundup over years, unprotected. There a jury found Monsanto guilty of “malice and oppression” in that company executives, based on internal email discovery, knew that their glyphosate products could cause cancer and suppressed this information from the public.

A new independent study shows that those with highest exposure to glyphosate have a 41% increased risk of developing non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) cancer. A meta-analysis of six studies containing nearly 65,000 participants looked at links between glyphosate-based herbicides and immune-suppression, endocrine disruption and genetic alterations. The authors found “the same key finding: exposure to GBHs (glyphosate-based herbicides) are associated with an increased risk of NHL (Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma).” Further, they stated that glyphosate “alters the gut microbiome,” and that that could “impact the immune system, promote chronic inflammation, and contribute to the susceptibility of invading pathogens.” Glyphosate also ”may act as an endocrine disrupting chemical because it has been found recently to alter sex hormone production” in both male and female rats.

In a long-term animal study by French scientists under Gilles Eric Seralini, Michael Antoniou and associates, it was demonstrated that even ultra-low levels of glyphosate herbicides cause non-alcoholic liver disease. The levels the rats were exposed to, per kg of body weight, were far lower than what is allowed in our food supply. According to the Mayo Clinic, today, after four decades or more pervasive use of glyphosate pesticides, 100 million, or 1 out of 3 Americans now have liver disease. These diagnoses are in some as young as 8 years old.
Glyphosate from Monsanto’s Roundup Decimates Microbes in Soils and the Human Gut – New Science

But glyphosate is not only having alarming effects on human health. Soil scientists are beginning to realize the residues of glyphosate application are also having a possibly dramatic effect on soil health and nutrition, effects that can take years to restore.

Killing Soils too

While most attention is understandably drawn to the human effects of exposure to glyphosate, the most widely used agriculture chemical in the world today, independent scientists are beginning to look at another alarming effect of the agrochemical– its effect on essential soil nutrients. In a study of the health of soils in the EU, the online journal Politico.eu found that the effects of spraying of glyphosate on the major crops in European agriculture is having disastrous consequences on soil health in addition to killing weeds.

Scientists at Austria’s University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences in Vienna showed that casting activity of earthworms had nearly disappeared from the surface of farmland within three weeks of glyphosate application. Casting is the process of the worm pushing fertile soils to the surface as they burrow, essential for healthy soil and plant nutrition. A study at Holland’s Wageningen University of topsoil samples from more than 300 soil sites across the EU found that 83% of the soils contained 1 or more pesticide residues. Not surprisingly,

“Glyphosate and its metabolite AMPA, DDTs (DDT and its metabolites) and broad-spectrum fungicides… were the compounds most frequently found in soil samples and at the highest concentrations.”

The use of various pesticides, above all glyphosate-based ones like Roundup, has exploded over the past four decades across the EU much as across the USA. The agribusiness industry claims that this has been the key to the dramatic rise in farm crop productivity. However if we look more closely at the data, while average yields of major grains such as rice, wheat and maize have more than doubled since 1960, the use of pesticides like glyphosate-based ones has risen by 15-20-fold. Oddly enough, while the EU requires monitoring of many things, monitoring of pesticide residues in soil is not required at the EU level. Until recently the effects of heavy use of pesticides such as Roundup have been ignored in scientific research.

Evidence of soil experts is beginning to reveal clear links between use of pesticides such as glyphosate and dramatic drops in soil fertility and the collapse of microbe systems essential to healthy soil. Worms are one of the most essential.

It’s well-established that earthworms play a vital role in healthy soil nutrients. Soils lacking such are soils that deprive us of the essentials we need for healthy diets, a pandemic problem of soil depletion emerging globally over the past four decades, notably the same time frame that use of pesticides has exploded worldwide. Earthworms are beneficial as they enhance soil nutrient cycling and enhance other beneficial soil micro-organisms, and the concentration of large quantities of nutrients easily assimilable by plants.

The EU puts no limits on how much glyphosate can be put on crops even though it is established that glyphosate can kill specific fungi and bacteria that plants need to suck up nutrients in addition to its effects on earthworms. That is a major blind spot.

Where now?

What is becoming clearer is the colossal and obviously deliberate official blind eye given to potential dangers of glyphosate-based pesticides by regulatory bodies not only in the EU and the USA, but also in China, which today produces more glyphosate than even Monsanto. Since the Monsanto Roundup patent expired, Chinese companies, including Syngenta, Zhejiang Xinan Chemical Industrial Group Company, SinoHarvest, and Anhui Huaxing Chemical Industry Company, have emerged as the world’s major producers of the chemical as well as largest consumers, a not good omen for the future of the legendary Chinese cuisine.

Glyphosate is the base chemical component for some 750 different brands of pesticides worldwide, in addition to Monsanto-Bayer’s Roundup. Glyphosate residues have been found in tap water, orange juice, children’s urine, breast milk, chips, snacks, beer, wine, cereals, eggs, oatmeal, wheat products, and most conventional foods tested. It’s everywhere, in brief.

Despite the overwhelming evidence, however, EU Commission bureaucrats and the USA EPA continue to ignore prudence in not banning the toxic chemical pending thorough independent investigation over longer time. If I were cynical, I would almost think this continued official support for glyphosate-based herbicides is about more than mere bureaucratic stupidity or ignorance, even more than simply corruption, though that for sure plays a role. The nutritional quality of our food chain is being systematically destroyed and it is about more than corporate agribusiness profit.

Green New Deal Reveals the Naked Truth of Agenda 21, by Tom DeWeese

eagle

apclogo600
https://americanpolicy.org/2019/02/25/green-new-deal-reveals-the-naked-truth-of-agenda-21/

25 Feb
Green New Deal Reveals the Naked Truth of Agenda 21
Posted at 13:59h
Environment, Featured, Property Rights, Sustainable Development
by Tom DeWeese

h-15151184-ocasio-1542147296-e1542147448245

Sometimes if you fight hard enough and refuse to back down, no matter the odds, your truth is vindicated and prevails!

For twenty years I have been labeled a conspiracy theorist, scaremonger, extremist, dangerous, nut case. I’ve been denied access to stages, major news programs, and awarded tin foil hats. All because I have worked to expose Agenda 21 and its policy of sustainable development as a danger to our property rights, economic system, and culture of freedom.

From its inception in 1992 at the United Nation’s Earth Summit, 50,000 delegates, heads of state, diplomats and Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) hailed Agenda 21 as the “comprehensive blueprint for the reorganization of human society.” The 350-page, 40 chapter, Agenda 21 document was quite detailed and explicit in its purpose and goals. They warned us that the reorganization would be dictated through all-encompassing policies affecting every aspect of our lives, using environmental protection simply as the excuse to pull at our emotions and get us to voluntarily surrender our liberties.

Section I details “Social and Economic Dimensions” of the plan, including redistribution of wealth to eradicate poverty, maintain health through vaccinations and modern medicine, and population control.

105767748-1551385404955preview-1-150x150

To introduce the plan, the Earth Summit Chairman, Maurice Strong boldly proclaimed, “Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable.” Of course, according to the plan, if it’s not “sustainable” it must be stopped.

In support of the plan, David Brower of the Sierra Club (one of the NGO authors of the agenda) said, “Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license.” Leading environmental groups advocated that the Earth could only support a maximum of one billion people, leading famed Dr. Jacques Cousteau to declare, “In order to stabilize world populations, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day.”

Section II provides the “Conservation and Management of Resources for Development” by outlining how environmental protection was to be the main weapon, including global protection of the atmosphere, land, mountains, oceans, and fresh waters – all under the control of the United Nations.

To achieve such global control to save the planet, it is necessary to eliminate national sovereignty and independent nations. Eliminating national borders quickly led to the excuse for openly allowing the “natural migration” of peoples. The UN Commission on Global Governance clearly outlined the goal for global control stating, “The concept of national sovereignty has been immutable, indeed a sacred principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation.” That pretty much explains why the supporters of such a goal go a little off the rails when a presidential candidate makes his campaign slogan “Make America Great Again.”

rep-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-speaks-as-other-house-news-photo-11

The main weapon for the Agenda was the threat of Environmental Armageddon, particularly manifested through the charge of man-made global warming, later to conveniently become “climate change.” It didn’t matter if true science refused to cooperate in this scheme as actual global temperatures really are not rising and there continues to be no evidence of any man-made affect on the climate. Truth hasn’t been important to the scare mongers. Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation said, “We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.” To further drive home their complete lack of concern for truth, Paul Watson of Green Peace declared, “It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”

So in their zealotry to enforce the grand agenda, social justice became the “moral force” over the rule of law as free enterprise, private property, rural communities and individual consumption habits became the targets, labeled as racist and a social injustice. Such established institutions and free market economics were seen as obstructions to the plan, as were traditional family units, religion, and those who were able to live independently in rural areas.

Finally, Agenda 21 was summed up in supporting documents this way: “Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced. It requires a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals, and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level.”

Of course, such harsh terms had to be hidden from the American people if the plan was to be successfully imposed. They called it a “suggestion” for “voluntary” action – just in case a nation or community wanted to do something positive for mankind! However, while using such innocent-sounding language, the Agenda 21 shock troops lost no time pushing it into government policy. In 1992, just after its introduction at the Earth Summit, Nancy Pelosi introduced a resolution of support for the plan into Congress. It’s interesting to note that she boldly called it a “comprehensive blueprint for the reorganization of human society.” In 1993, new President, Bill Clinton ordered the establishment of the President’s Council for Sustainable Development, with the express purpose of enforcing the Agenda 21 blueprint into nearly every agency of the federal government to assure it became the law of the land. Then the American Planning Association issued a newsletter in 1994, supporting Agenda 21’s ideas as a “comprehensive blueprint” for local planning. So much for a voluntary idea!

However, as we, the opponents started to gain some ground in exposing its true purpose and citizens began to storm city halls protesting local implementation, suddenly the once proud proponents lost their collective memories about Agenda 21. Never heard of it! “There are no blue-helmeted troops at city hall,” said one proponent, meaning policies being used to impose it were not UN driven, but just “local, local, local”. “Oh, you mean that innocuous 20 year-old document that has no enforcement capability? This isn’t that!” These were the excuses that rained down on us from the planners, NGOs and government agents as they scrambled to hide their true intentions.

I was attacked on the front page of the New York Times Sunday paper under the headline, “Activists Fight Green Projects, Seeing U.N. Plot.” The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) produced four separate reports on my efforts to stop it, calling our efforts an “Antigovernment Right-Wing Conspiracy Theory.” The Atlantic magazine ran a story entitled, “Is the UN Using Bike Paths to Achieve World Domination?” Attack articles appeared in the Washington Post, Esquire magazine, Wingnut Watch, Mother Jones, and Tree Hugger.com to name a few. All focused on labeling our opposition as tin-foil-hat-wearing nut jobs. Meanwhile, an alarmed American Planning Association (APA) created an “Agenda 21: Myths and Facts page on its web site to supposedly counter our claims. APA then organized a “Boot Camp” to retrain its planners to deal with us, using a “Glossary for the Public,” teaching them new ways to talk about planning. Said the opening line of the Glossary, “Given the heightened scrutiny of planners by some members of the public, what is said – or not said – is especially important in building support for planning.” The Glossary went on to list words not to use like “Public Visioning,” “Stakeholders,” “Density,” and “Smart Growth,” because such words make the “Critics see red”.

Local elected officials, backed by NGO groups and planners, began to deride local activists – sometimes denying them access to speak at public meetings, telling them that Agenda 21 conspiracy theory has “been debunked”. Most recently an irate city councilman answered a citizen who claimed local planning was part of Agenda 21 by saying “this is what’s “trending.” So, of course, if everyone is doing it is must be right!

Such has been our fight to stop this assault on our culture and Constitutional rights.

Over the years, since the introduction of Agenda 21 in 1992, the United Nations has created several companion updates to the original documents. This practice serves two purposes. One is to provide more detail on how the plan is to be implemented. The second is to excite its global activists with a new rallying cry. In 2000, the UN held the Millennium Summit, launching the Millennium Project featuring eight goals for global sustainability to be reached by 2015. Then, when those goals were not achieved, the UN held another summit in New York City in September of 2015, this time outlining 17 goals to be reached by 2030. This document became known as the 2030 Agenda, containing the exact same goals as were first outlined in Agenda 21in 1992, and then again in 2000, only with each new incarnation offering more explicit direction for completion.

Enter the Green New Deal, representing the boldest tactic yet. The origins and the purpose of the Green New Deal couldn’t be more transparent. The forces behind Agenda 21 and its goal of reorganizing human society have become both impatient and scared. Impatient that 27 years after Agenda 21 was introduced, and after hundreds of meetings, planning sessions, massive propaganda, and billions of dollars spent, the plan still is not fully in place. Scared because people around the world are starting to learn its true purpose and opposition is beginning to grow.

So the forces behind the Agenda have boldly thrown off their cloaking devices and their innocent sounding arguments that they just want to protect the environment and make a better life for us all. Instead, they are now openly revealing that their goal is socialism and global control, just as I’ve been warning about for these past twenty years. Now they are determined to take congressional action to finally make it the law of the land.

Take a good look, those of you who have heard my warnings about Agenda 21 over the years. Do you see the plan I have warned about being fully in place in this Green New Deal?

I warned that Agenda 21 would control every aspect of our lives, including how and were we live, the jobs we have, the mode of transportation available to us, and even what we eat. The Green New Deal is a tax on everything we do, make, wear, eat, drink, drive, import, export and even breathe.
In opposing Smart Growth plans in your local community, I said the main goal was to eliminate cars, to be replaced with bikes, walking, and light rail trains. The Green New Deal calls for the elimination of the internal combustion engine. Stay alert. The next step will be to put a ban on the sale of new combustion engines by a specific date and then limiting the number of new vehicles to be sold. Bans on commercial truck shipping will follow. Then they will turn to airplanes, reducing their use. Always higher and higher taxes will be used to get the public to “voluntarily” reduce their use of such personal transportation choices. That’s how it works, slowly but steadily towards the goal.
I warned that under Smart Growth programs now taking over every city in the nation that single-family homes are a target for elimination, to be replaced by high-rise stack and pack apartments in the name of reducing energy use. That will include curfews on carbon heating systems, mandating they be turned off during certain hours. Heating oil devises will become illegal. Gradually, energy use of any kind will be continually reduced. The Green New Deal calls for government control of every single home, office and factory to tear down or retrofit them to comply with massive environmental energy regulations.
I warned that Agenda 21 Sustainable policy sought to drive those in rural areas off the farms and into the cities where they could be better controlled. Those in the cities will be ordered to convert their gardens into food producers. Most recently I warned that the beef industry is a direct target for elimination. It will start with mandatory decreases in meat consumption until it disappears form our daily diet. The consumption of dairy will follow. Since the revelation of the Green New Deal the national debate is now over cattle emissions of methane and the drive to eliminate them from the planet. Controlling what we eat is a major part of the Green New Deal.
I warned that part of the plan for Agenda 2030 was “Zero Economic Growth.” The Green New Deal calls for a massive welfare plan where no one earns more than anyone else. Incentive to get ahead is dead. New inventions would disrupt their plan for a well-organized, controlled society. So, where will jobs come from after we have banned most manufacturing, shut down most stores, stopped single-family home construction, closed the airline industry, and severely regulated farms and the entire food industry? This is their answer to the hated free markets and individual choice.

The Green New Deal will destroy the very concept of our Constitutional Republic, eliminating private property, locally elected representative government, free markets and individual freedom. All decisions in our lives will be made for us by the government – just to protect the environment of course. They haven’t forgotten how well that scheme works to keep the masses under control.

Cortez

Though the label “Green New Deal” has been passing around globalist circles for a while, it’s interesting that its leaders have now handed it to a naïve, inexperienced little girl from New York who suddenly found herself rise from bartending to a national media sensation, almost over night. That doesn’t just happen and there is no miracle here. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a created product. They probably needed her inexperienced enthusiasm to deliver the Green New Deal because no established politician would touch it. Now that it’s been introduced and she is set up to take the heat, the gates have swung open allowing forty-five members of Congress to co-sponsor it in the House of Representatives as established Senator Ed. Markey (D-MA) has sponsored it in the Senate. That doesn’t just happen either. Nothing has been left to chance.

Behind the sudden excitement and rush to support it are three radical groups each having direct ties to George Soros, including the Sunrise Movement – which markets itself as an “army of young people” seeking to make climate change a major priority. Justice Democrats – which finds and recruits progressive candidates, and New Consensus – organized to change how we think about issues. Leaders of these groups have connections with other Soros-backed movements including Black Lives Matter and Occupy Wall Street. According to The New Yorker magazine, the plan was written over a single weekend in December, 2018. Ocasio-Cortez was included in the effort, chosen to introduce it. This may be the single reason why she was able to appear out of nowhere to become the new darling of the radical left.

So there you have it — Agenda 21, the Millennium Project, Agenda 2030, the Green New Deal. Progress in the world of Progressives! They warned us from the beginning that their plan was the “comprehensive blueprint for the reorganization of human society”. And so it is to be the total destruction of our way of life.

To all of those elected officials, local, state and federal, who have smirked at we who have tried to sound the alarm, look around you now, hot shots! You have denied, ignored, and yet, helped put these very plans into place. Are you prepared to accept what you have done? Will you allow your own homes and offices to be torn down – or will you be exempt as part of the elite or just useful idiots? Will you have to give up your car and ride your bike to work? Or is that just for we peasants?

Over these years you have listened to the Sierra Club, the Nature Conservancy, the World Wildlife Fund, ICLEI, the American Planning Association, and many more, as they assured you their plans were just environmental protection, just good policy for future generations. They have been lying to you to fulfill their own agenda! Well, now the truth is right in front of you. There is no question of who and what is behind this. And no doubt as to what the final result will be.

Now, our elected leaders have to ask real questions. As the Green New Deal is implemented, and all energy except worthless, unworkable wind and solar are put into place, are you ready for the energy curfews that you will be forced to impose, perhaps each night as the sun fades, forcing factories, restaurants, hospitals, and stores to close at dusk? How about all those folks forced to live in the stack and pack high-rises when the elevators don’t operate? What if they have an emergency?

How much energy will it take to rebuild those buildings that must be destroyed or retrofitted to maker them environmentally correct for your brave new world? Where will it come from after you have banned and destroyed all the workable sources of real energy? What are you counting on to provide you with food, shelter, and the ability to travel so you can continue to push this poison? Because – this is what’s trending — now! And how is it going to be financed when the entire economy crashes under its weight? Is it really the future you want for you, your family, and your constituents who elected you?

Every industry under attack by this lunacy should now join our efforts to stop it. Cattlemen, farmers, airlines, the auto industry, realtors, tourist industry, and many more, all will be put out of business – all should now take bold action to immediately kill this plan before it kills your industry. Stomp it so deeply into the ground that no politician will ever dare think about resurrecting it.

For years I’ve watched politicians smirk, roll their eyes, and sigh whenever the words Agenda 21 were uttered. As George Orwell said, “The further a society drifts from the truth the more it will hate those who speak it”. Today I stand vindicated in my warnings of where Agenda 21 was truly headed, because it’s not longer me having to reveal the threat. They are telling you themselves. Here’s the naked truth – Socialism is for the stupid. The Green New Deal is pure Socialism. How far its perpetrators get in enforcing it depends entirely on how hard you are willing to fight for freedom. Kill it now or watch freedom die.
Share

Short-Term Pain, Long-Term Wonder Foreclosure.com Scholarship Program Winning Essay 2017, (Grand Prize)

You know, I just read the following article, and see that the “Millennials” are being brain washed. Goldman Sachs said back around 2008 “Only the rich should own houses, everyone else should be renting”. Sorry, I am still looking for the article wherein I quoted from. I will find it, I used that in a brief.

I knew that meant trouble. Even with foreclosure hell in the middle of its heyday, it still meant something. Not long after that, people being foreclosed upon, began being offered the chance to rent the house that they just lost.

Now, these third party entities popped up almost over night, and instead of the properties at foreclosure, reverting back to the lenders, these third parties now purchase at foreclosure auctions. Then they offer to rent you your house, or take you to magistrate court and have your thrown out, instead of the banks having to do that.

Funny thing, if you research most of these third parties, back far enough, the banks own them too, so still the same thing, just different names. Nevertheless, I could not help but post the article. It is obvious that “they” want us all in little apartments in and around the cities, easier to control “us”. I just had not realized that they were in the progress of brain-washing the Millennials into not even wanting to own a house.

Read the article:

Short-Term Pain, Long-Term Wonder
Foreclosure.com Scholarship Program Winning Essay 2017, (Grand Prize)
https://article.foreclosure.com/short-term-pain-long-term-wonder-82f82b90ff52
Go to the profile of Foreclosure.com Staff
Foreclosure.com Staff
Feb 28, 2018
By Jack Duffley | University of Illinois At Urbana-Champaign

foreclosure-kid
(photo from https://article.foreclosure.com/short-term-pain-long-term-wonder-82f82b90ff52)

In the gleeful times of 2005, my parents decided, like so many others, that it was time to “upgrade.” They sold our smaller home on the other side of town, which had appreciated nicely, and bought a 3700 square foot behemoth in a town with already exorbitant property taxes. My younger brother and I were thrilled to finally have a basement, our own rooms, and even a concrete basketball court in our backyard! All eight-year-old me knew was that things were going to be a whole lot more comfortable from there, and my optimistic parents seemed to think the same.

Jack Duffley | University of Illinois At Urbana-Champaign
The year is 2017, and my parents have only just now reached the equity levels in the house that they started with over a decade ago, nearly one-hundred-fifty mortgage payments later. However, after being bombarded by extremely high taxes for that entire time, they are essentially underwater on the property, but see little choice but to hang on for dear life until equity recovers just a bit more before they abandon ship. A thin retirement plan, mostly resting on the house, has forced their hand.

My parents’ story is in no way unique; millions of Americans who purchased homes before the 2008 recession have faced similar dilemmas, often worse than theirs. Many had no choice but to foreclose during the worst of it. After all, the homeownership rate has declined almost 5 points nationwide since the recession.[1] If anything, they can be considered lucky, yet they are still stuck in the mud. Their children, on the other hand, are now at their own fork in the road: to be [a homeowner] or not to be.

And, all things considered, they are often choosing not to be. The census shows a stark dip in homeownership among those under the age of 35 of almost 10 percent, lowering significantly from its peak pre-recessionary levels of 43 percent to a dismal 34 percent. At the same time, rental vacancy rates nationwide fell from over 10 percent to less than 7 percent as more people turned to renting, millennials especially.[2] Why is this happening?

Aside from the obvious fear of the failure that their parents faced, millennials are renting more as they define their own unique lifestyle. Millennials, in ever increasing numbers, are focusing on “living now.” They are choosing to move into urban areas in particular. As a predominantly liberal group, and with large cities tending to lean left, this is partially due to political forces. The majority, however, is due to lifestyle conveniences that come with a city: multiple options for transportation and not needing to own a car, proximity to cultural events and nightlife, and, especially with the decline of the suburbs as retail simultaneously sinks, a more positive future economic outlook. They more readily take the loss in living space for these benefits than their previous generations did.

At the same time, a growing number of millennials are facing burdensome student loan debt. Rather than come out of college with pristine back-end ratios primed for a hefty mortgage, they are handcuffed by the debt that they have amassed in their early twenties. As the Pew Research Center has noted, 37 percent of people under the age of thirty have student loan debt. They contribute to the $1.3 trillion in student debt, leverage that could presumably be used for a mortgage or some other useful credit if it were not locked up already.[3] Millennials are trying to increase their earning power by going to school so that they have the opportunity to advance economically, but it is simultaneously holding many of them back via years of extra debt — debt that is notably not going to a physical asset.

What does this mean for real estate? For the single family home market, it spells disaster, at least in the short term. Grant Cardone, one of the premier real estate investors in the world, calls homeownership a “scam,” and emphasizes that renting over homeownership among young people is becoming more and more popular. He notes that there is a huge need for affordable rentals as millennials deviate away from single family homes. Cardone is always one to advocate renting as a more advantageous and flexible lifestyle choice, and, as it has been mentioned, millennials increasingly value the flexibility that comes with renting instead of buying a home. Many, like Cardone, now see homeownership as a solely negative ordeal.

While it may not be up to the level of a “scam,” there are significant drawbacks with owning a home. For one, it locks up a significant amount of capital, money that could be used for a number of different projects or investments. In sum, homeownership is very expensive, at least in the short term when people make their initial down payment and any potential renovations. This makes it very hard to own a home for people of all ages. Additionally, owning a home can financially lock someone to a particular location, one which they might not want to be in after a while. Finally, for those hoping for appreciation when they purchase their home, as with any investment, there is a chance that it does not pan out. A poorly timed crash can wipe out an owner’s equity in seconds just as it did to my parents and so many others.

While there are drawbacks, the Great Recession and its subsequent lifestyle shift suggest the lack of education about the benefits of owning real estate. Even my parents are constantly warning me of the dangers of homeownership; the shift is not totally driven by millennials themselves. They too are still shaken by their mistakes and the sledgehammer that was the crash. They ignore the value of building equity over the long term, the typical tax benefits that come with a primary residence, and the relative stability of the real estate market because they mistakenly overpaid for a house that, in hindsight, they cannot comfortably afford in a downturn. They just hope that I do not do the same, and rightfully so. However, what millennials should have learned from the recession is not that real estate is bad, but that they simply must be careful and reasonable with what they assume when purchasing it.
3310-Harrison-Rd-east-point
Unfortunately, the average consumer purchases on emotion. With the tremendous amounts of emotional trauma from the recession, millennials are increasingly refusing to buy a home as their parents might have desired at the same age. But what are they purchasing in its place? Many take on higher rents, consistent with the “living now” mentality. Many more use their money to buy a wealth of products online. Some are even speculating on cryptocurrency, something far more unknown than real estate, expecting to make a lot of money. Why do they do that? Because the average consumer purchases on emotion, not on something systematic. Real estate has already been proven to be a relatively safe and a potentially very powerful asset. Instead, the negatives have been, and continue to be, emphasized. This masks the positives of owning a home, or even a simple condo. Millennials in some cases are mistakenly ignoring all real estate and not just the kind of overleveraging or speculating that got their parents into trouble.

Does this spell the end to America? Will the country burst into flames as millennials move to urban areas? Of course not. It must be noted that the current trend does not own the future; millennials could very well begin to purchase homes in huge numbers, especially as prices drop over the next few years. While it is likely that this will not be the case, it is impossible for anyone but millennials themselves to determine that.

What is certain is that, in the short run, there will be pain. The single family housing market is going to suffer as millennials make lifestyle choices contrary to their parents. The market will be oversupplied with single family homes. However, millennials will still need a place to live, just like anyone else. Their increasing demand for urban locations and conveniences will push rent up in cities, as it already has in places like San Francisco and Seattle. This will open a new, and huge, opportunity for real estate investors and developers alike to profit in the cities as millennials develop their own American Dream. After all, a dream is only what a person makes of it, not what someone else defines it as.

References:
[1] U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Homeownership Rates for the United States and Regions: 1968–2016, (accessed Dec 10, 2010), https://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/data/charts/fig05.pdf

[2] U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Rental Vacancy Rates for the United States and Regions: 1968–2016, (accessed Dec 10, 2010), https://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/data/charts/fig03.pdf

[3] Anthony Cilluffo, “5 facts about U.S. student loans,” Pew Research Center, last modified August 24, 2017. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/08/24/5-facts-about-student-loans/

The winning essay above was submitted to Foreclosure.com’s scholarship program.

The 2017 essay topic:
IS THE “AMERICAN DREAM” OF ONE DAY OWNING A HOME ALIVE AND WELL AMONG MILLENNIALS?
Millennials having experienced the “Great Recession,” which was the traumatic housing crisis that triggered the financial crisis a decade ago. As a result, data suggests that Millennials (those born between 1981 to 1997) have been slow to adopt homeownership. Discuss the pros and cons of homeownership for Millennials, as well as which factors could increase or decrease homeownership among the generation. Will their collective hesitation and apprehension hurt them in the long run or are Millennials simply in the process of re-defining the “American Dream?”