HOW TO MAKE MORE MONEY THAN WHAT YOU DREAMED; the death of the American dream.

There is something about animation that makes you laugh when in truth you really want to cry. Let the tears run, whichever way you look at it, someone is having fun.

People do not understand how the world can be controlled through the reserve banking industry of central banks. Put simply, coming out of the Fed all the other economies of the world are effectively influenced by the US dollar, but this operation is so subtle only those who have the insight into reality recognize that this is the case. Everyone else argues that we live in democracies, the local banks control the economies of the country in which we live, so how can the world be controlled by a few.

Simple illustration: 10 people grow up together. One is stronger than the other nine and he intimidates them by physically punishing them when they do not do what he says. Consequently, the stronger one became known as Strongman. Strongman is feared by all.

Strongman favors one of the nine, and they sleep together. Favored one becomes Strongman's Captain. Captain noticed that people were afraid of Strongman, so they came to him to ask what they could do. Captain began to realize that he had considerable influence over the people. Strongman recognized this and he suggested to Captain that it might be better that he slept with one of the eight, so he chose Lieutenant to sleep with Captain. Lieutenant was also given some favorable treatment that he did not get before.

Just in case Captain and Lieutenant got strange ideas, Strongman decided to make one of the seven his sergeant at arms. Sergeant got to sleep with Strongman and was given the task of making sure everything was in order. Still even now and again Strongman would sleep with Captain and remind him of what else he would do if Captain got funny ideas.

Strongman now has Sergeant checking on Captain and Lieutenant and treats him special. Captain is very careful about Sergeant and does not want to get on the wrong side of Strongman. Strongman ensures that Sergeant is not so liked by the rest of the group by publicly giving him more favors than what Captain gets.

Strongman now controls everyone by utilizing his influence over Captain and Sergeant in such a way that they know that if either of them steps out of line, they will gladly put a bullet in the other's head, if need be. Lieutenant realizes that he is part of the select few and longs to be in Strongman's favor. Lieutenant believes that if anything were to happen to either Captain or Sergeant, he would get to sleep with Strongman.

Strongman shares his power with Captain and the two of them control the other eight. The Pareto principle works in Strongman's favor. Effectively Strongman and Captain, together exercise 80% influence over the group. Sergeant and Lieutenant exercise the remaining 20% influence over the group. This is how 40% of the group influences the rest to do what is required.

Now that you understand that little illustration, the following is what is happening in the real world:

from the Guardian

UN Report Tells How Richest People Own 40% Of the Planets Wealth

The richest 1% of adults in the world own 40% of the planet's wealth, according to the largest study yet of wealth distribution. The report also finds that those in financial services and the internet sectors predominate among the super rich.

Europe, the US and some Asia Pacific nations account for most of the extremely wealthy. More than a third live in the US. Japan accounts for 27% of the total, the UK for 6% and France for 5%.

The UK is also third in terms of per capita wealth. UK residents are found to have on average $127,000 (£64,000) each in assets, with Japanese and American citizens having, respectively, $181,000 and $144,000. All data relate to the year 2000.

The global study - from the World Institute for Development Economics Research of the United Nations - is the first to chart wealth distribution in every country as opposed to just income, for which more comprehensive date is available. It included all the most significant components of household wealth, including financial assets and debts, land, buildings and other tangible property. Together these total $125 trillion globally.

Anthony Shorrocks, director of the research institute at the United Nations University, in New York, led the study. He affirmed that the existence of a nest egg provided an insurance policy that helped people cope with unforeseen events such as ill health or a lost job. Capital allowed people to drag themselves out of poverty, he added. "In some ways, wealth is more important to people in poorer countries than in richer countries." It was more difficult in developing countries to set up a business because it was harder to borrow start-up funds, he said.

His team used detailed data from 38 countries, but had to rely on incomplete information from the rest.

Many African nations as well as North Korea and the poorer Asia Pacific nations were places where the worst off lived.The report found the richest 10% of adults accounted for 85% of the world total of global assets. Half the world's adult population, however, owned barely 1% of global wealth. Near the bottom of the list were India, with per capita wealth of $1,100, and Indonesia with assets per head of $1,400.

"These levels of inequality are grotesque," said Duncan Green, head of research at Oxfam. "It is impossible to justify such vast wealth when 800 million people go to bed hungry every night. The good news is that redistribution would only have to be relatively small. Such are the vast assets of the rich that giving up a small part of their wealth could transform the lives of millions."

Madsen Pirie, director of the Adam Smith Institute, a free-market thinktank, disagreed that distribution of global wealth was unfair. He said: "The implicit assumption behind this is that there is a supply of wealth in the world and some people have too much of that supply. In fact wealth is a dynamic, it is constantly created. We should not be asking who in the past has created wealth and how can we get it off them." He said that instead the question should be how more and more people could create wealth.

Ruth Lea, director of the Centre for Policy Studies, a thinkthank set up by Margaret Thatcher, said that although she supported the goal of making poverty history she did not think increasing aid to poorer countries was the answer. "It's no use throwing lots of aid at countries that are basically dysfunctional," she said.

The UN report was issued as the Swiss magazine Bilan released a list of the richest Swiss residents. Ingvar Kamprad, the founder of Ikea, topped the list with an estimated fortune of $21bn.

Keys To Success Found In 10 Truths That Sustain Successful Entrepreneurs

As an entrepreneur, you will run into a number of challenges along your journey. You will likely also run into advice from virtually every resource imaginable. I have found that no matter what your goals are, the industry you are in or what you are looking to achieve, there are a few pieces of solid that always apply that help entrepreneurs succeed. Here are the 10 that I find most important:

1. You can achieve what you thought was impossible.
Along your journey, chances are you will have plenty of people telling you what you can’t do. In fact, you may be one of the people telling yourself that something is impossible. Aim big, you are capable of achieving anything, even what you thought was impossible, no matter what anyone says. Always trust this. Always believe in yourself and never give up. My years of experience have proven to me we are all capable of achieving more than we think.

2. There will be failures.
We all fail, and chances are you will fail a lot before you find any measure of success. The key to finding the success you seek is not giving up when these failures come around. Pick yourself back up and keep working. It will pay off in the end.

3. Growth takes time.
You aren’t going to double the size of your company overnight. In fact, you aren’t going to notice big growth at your company in a few weeks or a few months. Real, sustainable growth takes time and it happens slowly.

4. Freedom is the best reward for your work.
There are many people who make a million dollars a year, but are slaves to a job or a boss they don’t respect. The best earnings from your work as an entrepreneur is the freedom to do what you want and get the most out of life.

5. It’s OK to lose.
There will be times when you lose money and you will want to give up on your efforts. You may be in the entrepreneurship game to make money, but it doesn’t mean you won’t lose it as well. You can lose. In fact, you can lose a lot, just don’t lose everything and give up.

6. Successful entrepreneurs control their emotions.
Being self-employed is tough, its overwhelming and its hard. Never lose control of your emotions. Keep them in check so a cooler head can always prevail.

7. Never be afraid to be wrong.
You will be wrong at some point or another in your journey. No one is ever right 100 percent of the time. Don’t be afraid to be wrong, and take some risks. They may pay off in the end, or they may not, but either way it is OK.

8. Your success depends on you.
The level of success you achieve depends entirely on your individual commitment. If you are not reaching the success you think you deserve, chances are you are not committed enough to your goals.

9. Never stop trying to improve.
You must never stop learning and improving. Even when you think you have achieved a desirable level of success, there is always room to work more, achieve more and improve more.

10. Financial freedom can help you get the life you deserve.
Financial freedom is a powerful thing, but it is important to remember it shouldn’t only be your end goal. No matter where you are from or what you are working for, people all over the globe, want one thing: to love and be loved. Love and happiness are the most important things in the world, and financial freedom can help you get there. Works towards financial freedom not so you can buy things but so you can have the time, energy and resources needed to find love and happiness and to spend quality time with those who matter most.

Entrepreneur

How To Capitalize On George Soros Knowledge: but once the cat is out of the bag, it is too late. When something is a sure thing, the one thing we can be sure is those in the know do not tell the world.

Did you know that one Saturday morning George Soros quietly filed a piece of paperwork with the Federal Government that could have made you a small fortune had you known about it at the time.

The form detailed how his hedge fund was buying up 2.4% of all outstanding shares of a little-known internet media company headquartered in the Cayman Islands.

Over the next 7-months that stock ran up from $35 to over $98, delivering $17,955 in profits on every $10,000 invested. Imagine if you had $3.5 million to invest, you could have turned that into $9.8 million.

That wasn't the first, or the last, time Soros would tip his hand and reveal what he was buying. And he's not the only one.

Julian Robertson, founder of the $22 billion Tiger Management, filed the same form showing he was buying up shares of a manufacturer of smart phone components selling at about $14.

Robertson watched as the stock exploded up to $105.99.

If you'd seen that piece of paper when Robertson filed it you could've jumped in and made $67,000 in profit on every $10k you invested. Now that is better than what you could have done if you were following Soros lead.

But how is it that it is possible for you to get in on the action. Well, you see, the SEC requires these fund managers to file a special report on what they are buying and selling. And if you know how to read it, you can tell when these billionaire fund managers are in the middle of a big trade - and ride their coattails to life-changing profits.

Micron Technologies was an unknown manufacturer of flash memory that traded at $4. Suddenly, EIGHT of the top hedge funds on Wall Street all filed paperwork showing they were buying large quantities of the stock.

Shortly thereafter the stock jumped to $36.59 - an 814% gain.

The guy who sent me this information would like to show you and me how to get access to those SEC filings and explain how he has managed to decipher them to tell when Wall Street is buying or dumping a stock....

Seriously, though, would you tell the world, if you had access to this information. However, Barry Burns would do this because he is such an altruistic individual....naturally, he would like a little donation to help with the costs of deciphering.

Prophet Muhammad and Women: the man and his wife and his other wives. A view that highlights the challenge to Muslim fundamentalists from within Islam.

Prophet Muhammad and Women is an educational and revelatory documentary that aims to shatter preconceived notions about gender relations in Islamic faith. This intimate look at Muhammad's historical relationships with women contradicts the attitude of misogyny that is prevalent in radical Islam even to this day.

Theological and historical experts provide an oral history of Muhammad's life, a narrative that begins in 7th century Mecca and focuses largely on Muhammad's two great loves, Khadija and Aisha. Muhammad's relationship with Khadija defied many societal norms of the time. Not only was Khadija a successful merchant as well as Muhammad's employer, she was fifteen years his senior and the one to propose marriage. It is Khadija that taught Muhammad how to pray and is historically known as the first Muslim, although fundamentalists often ignore this fact due to her gender.

Upon Khadija's death at the age of 65 Muhammad moved to Medina. After twenty-five years in a monogamous marriage, he began practicing polygamy which was common at the time. As his harem grew he remained most passionate about the first of his new wives, Aisha. In this segment of the film we learn how his relationship with his wives, but especially with Aisha, furthered his belief in just and fair treatment towards women and ultimately led him back to a belief in monogamy.

Muhammad was revered by his peers, with men and women alike flocking to him for advice in love and relationships. Contrary to the prudent image most Muslims carry, female pleasure was emphasized in the prophet's writings. He wrote that the only difference between man and animal is man's ability to give women pleasure. According to the film's interpretation of Muhammad, refusing bodily pleasure was seen as the same as refusing God.

The scholars interviewed here inform viewers of the many ways in which Muhammad fought for women, but note he was met with significant push-back, a resistance that is ongoing in certain sects of contemporary Islam. Described as a "modern man of his time" the film asks what Muhammad would think of today's fundamentalists who impose an inaccurate interpretation of his seemingly feminist legacy.

Must Libertarians Believe in Open Borders?

by Sean Gabb

As I write, there are several thousand non-European refugees outside Calais, all trying to enter the United Kingdom. Because they are disrupting travel across the Channel in the main holiday season, the British media has no choice but to report on their presence, and to keep reporting. Their presence is followed by the British public in part because of the disruption, but mainly, I think, because of what they visibly represent.

Britain, together with every country like Britain, is faced with an inward movement of peoples no smaller in extent than the mass-emigrations from Europe that settled North America and Australasia, and perhaps as great in its effects as the incursions from across the Rhine and Danube that transformed the Western Provinces of the Roman Empire. We face a mass-immigration from the Third World that may eventually double or treble our populations, and that will, by inevitable force of numbers, make us minorities in what we have so far considered to be our homelands.

What have we, as libertarians, to say about this?

The mainstream response, I suggest, has been unsatisfactory. For the libertarian mainstream, the only legitimate use of force is to protect individual rights. Since movement across a border is not in itself a violation of individual rights, closing the borders is, by definition, an illegitimate use of force. Therefore, the libertarian mainstream is formally opposed to immigration control.

Of course, libertarians are not blind. They are usually aware of the crime and welfare dependency, and of the demands for accommodation to the ways of the newcomers – demands increasingly backed by threats of terrorism, or by actual terrorism. They are also sometimes aware of how the arrival of the newcomers has been used as an excuse by our ruling classes to abolish freedom of speech and association, and to create a multicultural police state, and to reverse the gradual equalisation of classes that has taken place since about 1850. Many are quietly troubled by the demographic projections.

Their response, though, has been to look more at treating symptoms than at addressing the cause. They call for a smaller welfare state, to discourage the more undesirable sort of newcomers. They call for an end to the censorship and coerced association laws. Or they turn for comfort to a partial reading of Hans-Hermann Hoppe, and insist that neither mass-immigration not its effects would exist in a free world.

But none of this will do. State welfare will not be abolished in the short term. Even if it were, coming here to beg in the streets would be a better option for many immigrants than staying put. It is difficult to argue for freedom of speech, when it will only provoke rioting and the sort of targeted murders we saw in Paris earlier this year. And, whatever solutions might have emerged in a free world – however the problem might not have emerged in a free world – we live in a world of overextended states. These have crowded out alternative institutions, and these institutions are a work of many decades or even centuries.

We are where we are. Either mass-immigration must be stopped with the means currently at hand, or it will not be stopped. This means passports and visas, and agencies empowered to seek out and return those who slip through the first line of immigration control. Where the refugees in Calais are concerned, it means deporting them to the last non-European country they left, and making sure that no more of them are allowed to reach the northern shores of the Mediterranean.

This is, I hasten to add, only part of the solution. Our governments must also stop turning much of the Third World into slagheaps soaked in human blood. They must stop veering between support of local tyrants and their more recent insistence on forms of government inappropriate to actual conditions. They must, so far as possible, leave other peoples to work out their own destinies in their own ways. This will, I have no doubt, reduce the outward push behind the migrants. Even so, we must secure our own borders.

Now, for many of those libertarians who accept the existence of a problem, this solution is itself a problem. An ideology that cannot be followed in extreme cases must be a false ideology. If the non-aggression principle is not to be consistently applied, is it worth applying at all?

I appreciate the difficulty. At the same time, it is a manufactured difficulty. It would not have been recognised as a difficulty by most of our intellectual ancestors. If many libertarians, when they think about mass-immigration, are now beginning to look like scared ostriches, or the more double-joined Indian fakirs, this is not because of any defect in the libertarian fundamentals. It is because, over the past few decades, libertarianism has been re-interpreted in ways that part company with reality. To be specific, the non-aggression principle has been raised from something to be desired within circumstantial constraints to an abstract and absolute imperative. If the only legitimate use of force is to protect individual rights, all other uses of force are illegitimate, and must be rejected out of hand by libertarians.

Let us consider how distant this imperative is from reality.

First, look at the nature of the imperative. It is not something written into the basic laws of the universe. There is a line of verbal trickery, culminating perhaps in Ayn Rand, that tries to establish individual rights with the same firmness as we recognise the nature of a circle, or are able to know the melting point of lead. But, unless you want to claim that God wants us to be free – a claim attended by difficulties still unsettled after several thousand years – your assertion of rights is no more than a request for other people to leave you alone. If your request is rejected in whatever degree, you must either put up with being less free than you would like, or choose between defensive force and escape.

Second, there is no reason to believe that most people want to be free in the sense demanded by libertarians. This is not to deny the value of freedom. When those who want to be free are enslaved, everyone else may suffer. But most people, in all times and places, have been content to be free only in the sense allowed to teenage children, or to the citizens of an authoritarian police state. They want to be free to choose what colour shoes to wear, or whether to lie in on a Sunday morning. Beyond that, they are willing to leave all the other choices to custom or the direction of those set over them. Wherever this has not been the case, freedom has generally been granted unrequested from above, or it has been demanded as one item in a package of more highly-valued goods.

Third, what most people do want is an identity beyond themselves. This may be provided by a religion. Most often, it is provided by a sense of shared nationality. People join together with those who share their blood, their language, their basic assumptions and habits of thought. They research and celebrate their history. They take consolation for their own death as individuals in the belief that their nation will continue indefinitely into the future.

As with the non-aggression principle, nationhood is not an abstract imperative. It is, however, an immensely powerful desire, shown in all times and places of which we have knowledge. People will kill for their nation. They will die for it. When committed for the sake of their nation, they will condone what would otherwise be thought the most shocking crimes. They regard their own lives and property as leasehold interests in a freehold held by the nation as a whole. However they began, and whatever else they do, states are regarded as legitimate so far as they perform their duties as agent of the national freeholder.

You may insist: “I am not part of any collective. I have no group interests. I am a sovereign individual.” In a country like England, you will not be killed for saying this, or shunned by your neighbours. But your wishes will be ignored. You will be punished if you are caught breaking the laws of your country, or if you refuse too openly to pay your taxes. Again, there is no abstract right or wrong in this. It is just what happens, and what most people want to happen.

If, on the other hand, there are enough people in a nation who share your belief – or if the authorities choose with sufficient firmness to outlaw national feeling – the natural consequence is that your nation will lose out to other nations that remain more cohesive.

This brings me to immigration. The scale of what we presently face seems likely to turn majorities into minorities. I repeat that this is neither good nor bad in the abstract. But there are plain dangers in belonging to a separate and visible nationality that lacks its own territory and machinery of state. Though often tolerated, minorities are not always tolerated. They are under permanent threat of a range of harms bounded by forced assimilation and murder.

The Israelis know this very well. Where non-Jews are concerned, they operate one of the most restrictive immigration policies in the world. They flatly refuse any “right of return” to the descendants of the Arabs they once expelled, and they are surrounding their country with steel fences. Israel is their Jewish State, and they will do whatever it takes to keep it so. The white Rhodesians and white South Africans have discovered the same truth. It was a truth discovered by all the peoples displaced by European settlers – why else did the Maoris and Red Indians fight such hopeless wars of resistance, once the immigrant ships began arriving in earnest? Though it cannot be forthrightly discussed, given our multicultural police state, it is a truth known well enough in Britain and every country like Britain.

What all this means for libertarians is that we have, for the past few decades, been trying to explain and influence the world with the equivalent of a non-Euclidean geometry. Not surprisingly, our movement has got nowhere. Not surprisingly, many of us are now scratching our heads and asking how, if we have been reasoning correctly from our premises, what we conclude about mass-immigration is so at variance with what we and most other people really believe.

The answer, I suggest, is to bring libertarianism back to the realities of human nature. Lack of belief in wide-open borders should cease to be regarded as at best a derogation from the orthodox view. Instead, we should accept that we are members of a nation, and that our nation is precious to us – so precious that we want it to be free. There are sound utilitarian arguments for freedom of speech and association, for due process of law, for minimal taxes and regulation, and for a non-interventionist foreign policy. Though they do not exist in the abstract, rights do exist in a nation state, where they can be seen as nodes in the permanent circuitry of power.

Whether directly or by secondary benefit, free people are happier than unfree people. This is to be welcomed. And a free nation, there can be no reasonable doubt, is richer and more powerful than less free nations, and is better able to defend its territory and its way of life.

Considered in this light, libertarianism is not a prescription for letting be done to ourselves what we did to the Maoris. It is instead part of a strategy for group survival and advancement.

None of this means asserting that we are morally or genetically better than other nations. We do not need to hate other nations, or to wish them ill. We may find it useful, now and again, to learn from them, or to encourage them to learn from us. If the most vocal opponents of mass-immigration at present are authoritarians, this is entirely an accident of fashion. There is no necessary connection between wanting our own country for ourselves and wanting a despotic government. Just as authoritarians and libertarians both wear trousers, or drink coffee, there is no reason why they should not both believe in their nation – though they might have radically different ideas of how and to what extent it should be governed.

That we belong to a nation, and that we want our nation to be free, is a better start to a conversation with non-libertarians than the usual output of the libertarian movement. It is also a better start to a conversation with ourselves.

Afterword:

True Libertarianism is the freedom to be responsible..Being responsible means being wise. Being wise means we love ourselves. How we love ourselves is how we will love others. If we are wise when it comes to ourselves, we will be wise when it comes to others. The question then becomes is it wise to have people create ghettos in other countries. Is it wise to permit people from on culture into another culture when they are cannot assimilate? Is it wise to create conflicts within one's own home? What would be the responsible way to the admit immigrants into your hometown?

10 Disturbing Facts Most Americans Are Too Fearful To Face

AUGUST 14, 2015

By Bernie Suarez

Sometimes you have to put out information in hopes that those who haven’t heard this will at least absorb a fraction of it. If you haven’t heard this and you absorb just one of these random points, I believe that may be enough to cause a major paradigm shift in your life or in the life of someone you know. Here are 10 random, mostly recent but some archival information that is factual and verifiable for anyone willing to look it up.

1. Genetically Modified Foods are illegal in many countries for health and medical reasons all the while the U.S. passes laws making GMO labeling illegal.

You may be thinking, say what? That’s right. U.S. citizens are being propagandized daily and are being practically forced to blindly consume GMOs while countries like Austria, Bulgaria, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Japan, Luxembourg, Madeira, New Zealand, Peru, Australia, Russia, France and Switzerland all have booted Monsanto and their GMO crops from their countries. That’s like being booted out of a town for being a rapist and child molester only to have that same person settle into the next town over and become a grade school teacher or pastor. Now imagine the citizens of that other town having a law forced on them that says rapists and child molesters must be allowed to teach little kids and run churches. That’s what we’re talking about here.

While humanity in other countries wakes up fully to the dangers of GMO foods, Monsanto and other GMO food producers are having a feast in the U.S. buying out politicians, distorting news, research and evidence that proves GMO foods are directly linked to cancer. Like a scene from a bad movie, only it’s not a movie. Actually it’s YOUR life if you are in the United States dealing with this nightmare.

As bizarre as it seems, only in the U.S. do criminal corporations like Monsanto enjoy the benefits of the support of the political and legal system. A bird’s eye view of the situation clearly shows how corrupt and evil the control system in the United States really is. Sadly, most Americans have no idea that they are being lied to every day and lured into eating dangerous cancer-causing and health-destroying food just so that someone can profit from your disease later on.

2. As a result of “Act of 1871″ by the 41st Congress, the United States “Corporation” was created to trample the original Republic.

Shockingly, this fraudulent synthetic corporate government entity is the only “United States” most people in America know today. And this non-governmental corporate entity covering a 10-square-mile grid in Washington D.C. parades as a sovereign legitimate government and has been doing so for over 100 years.

Of all the things that need to be repaired and reversed in the United States, this single issue is one of the most important root issues for people to wrap their heads around.

Imagine the impact of getting a real grassroots movement of people to push awareness of the truth of the current District of Columbia U.S. Corporate Government and the corresponding imitation Constitution OF the United States (instead of “For” the United States as stated in the original organic document).

This is one of those issues that most people don’t know where to start, how to apply this idea, and how to lead this idea in a meaningful way so they simply give up. The fact is that people are afraid to face this mega-sized issue with overwhelming implications for the average person.

3. “7 countries in 5 years.”

This wide open confession came straight out of the mouth of U.S. General Wesley Clarkyears after the illegal invasion of Iraq. The General openly spilled the beans on the U.S. military’s plan to illegally invade 7 countries in the Middle East under the lie of the war on terror. Shockingly, to this day no war crimes trials have taken place. No one has been executed, convicted or imprisoned for these massive crimes against humanity. Shockingly, the criminals even still make TV appearances and prance around the country offering their opinions and enjoying a comfortable life appearing at events and speaking.

In fact, General Wesley Clark himself ended up being promoted to lead NATO units in the Middle East. He has even made recent propaganda appearances on TV playing into the Jade Helm “master the human domain” psyop teasing freedom lovers with Hitler-like rhetoric about caging anyone who doesn’t agree with the U.S. government!

4. The U.S. military and its defense contractors have over 150+ live legitimate patents and  for spraying the sky with nano-particles, all the while the masses are told it's a "conspiracy."

Those still unaware of this may be shocked to know these patents are not even hidden from the public. You can read them all for yourself. Despite this open knowledge these programs roll on comfortably as we have observed their spraying techniques change from various forms of chemtrails to aerosolized plumes/injections or chembombs to a mixture of both.

Astoundingly, we are now living at a time when we are surrounded by a generation of young Americans that think tic-tac-toe is normal in the sky. They think that crazy lines in the sky are part of nature. They see advertisements with lines in the sky and think nothing of it. They have no idea that not long ago there was a time when there were no lines in the sky at all. They have no concept of blue skies and clear starry nights. Shockingly and sadly an integral part of this lack of knowledge is the fear of knowing. More than any other topic, probably the spraying of our skies is cloaked in fear and anxiety of what to do if it is true. Many people would rather not know.

5. As briefly mentioned in #3, the United States Military is currently conducting an admitted A.I. psychological operation on the human domain as people carry on as usual.

It’s called Jade Helm and right now learning more about Jade Helm for many Americans means putting down that remote control, turning off that ballgame, pausing the video game or missing their favorite TV show. It takes work to research this and, more importantly, the insecurity that comes with knowing that our own military is studying you the individual to control you is again too profound to really understand for some. They might ask, why would the military do this? Not knowing that the new world order has been planned for over 100 years now.

This is another issue that is too overwhelming for the average person to understand or, more importantly, face head-on. SOCOM documents exposed by researchers are clear about the intention of Jade Helm Jade 2 software and no matter how much you ignore it, it’s still here, it’s very real and it’s in motion as we speak.

6. The entire debt-based fiat worthless paper money circulating in the U.S. is supplied and controlled by a private corporation with no legal authority to do so.

We call them the Federal Reserve. It’s the illegal private banking system created officially in 1913 under the Federal Reserve Act which Congress gave a green light to. This single act essentially handed the United States of America to a gang of private bankers with no accountability to the people. Along with the Act of 1871, this Federal Reserve Act is also one of the most significant and horrific turning points in the history of America. An act that accounts for many of the problems and sufferings in America for now over 100 years.

If enough people could finally wrap their heads around this single reality, that a private illegal mob of banksters have psyched out and enslaved Americans, fooling them into accepting their fake fiat currency while ensuring their perpetual enslavement, the full-on revolution would start today.

7. Throughout the history of humanity people do things by planning it out; this simple act of organizing is considered bizarre, unlikely and improbable by a generation of brainwashed people controlled by one hypnotic phrase – “conspiracy”!

That’s right. You may be reading this and thinking this refers to you. The simple phrase “conspiracy” or “conspiracy theory” has singlehandedly mind-controlled millions of Americans like no other word or phrase has. Unfortunately, there is no way around it. “Conspiracy” is a substitute word for an otherwise ordinary act of planning or coordinating. Something all people do, especially groups like corporations and governments. You MUST plan, organize, or “conspire” to do things. That’s how things get done!

8. The U.S. has been caught numerous times militarily defending, arming, supplying and training ISIS fighters.

Here we are at the one-year anniversary of the ISIS super psyop American TV marketing campaign, and today the ISIS psyop has been blown wide open more often than the amount of times the global warming movement has been exposed as lies. These reports trapping U.S. and Israeli (NATO) governments in baldfaced staged lies and capturing solid evidence of their support for ISIS have gone completely ignored and censored by U.S. mainstream media to keep the ISIS psyop narrative going in the minds of Americans.

The situation is so controlled and so propagandized that even if every member of ISIS went on TV tomorrow exclusively expressing their partnership with the CIA and Mossad, the very next day U.S. mainstream media will present another ISIS story telling you how much they are the enemy and need to be defeated. Make no mistake, this control system is completely immune and entirely unfazed by truth, hard evidence and hard facts.

9. Turning back the clock – 5 Israeli men were caught, arrested, fingerprinted and detained on September 11th 2001.

After they were celebrating the destruction of the world trade center seconds after the buildings were destroyed, while the buildings burned AND while the rest of America watched in shock and tears. These men were later mysteriously released back to Israel where they bragged on camera about being in New York City to “document the event”. The history of Israeli entities’ involvement in the 9/11 attacks are particularly concrete, yet the frightening reality is that today’s U.S. mainstream media acts like none of this ever happened.

For this reason it’s always good to remind everyone that this is very real. The individuals names are Sivan Kurzberg, Paul Kurzberg, Yaron Shonvel, Oded Ellner and Omer Gavriel Marmari and they were given a clean pass back to Israel by then Chief of Justice Department Michael Chertoff. Of course Chertoff would later become Director of George Bush’s Homeland Security and play a significant role in writing the Patriot Act. Plainly put, one of the head masterminds of 9/11 essentially singlehandedly released a handful of key 9/11 suspects and allowed them to fly peacefully and freely back to their Israel homeland to brag about what they did.

10. In the U.S, like it was with Hitler’s Germany, propaganda is perfectly legal.

Most Americans have no idea this is the case. They don’t realize that the U.S. corporate fraudulent government can legally lie to you every single day to get you to believe whatever they want you to believe and then turn around behind closed doors and laugh at you for believing their legal lies. Try telling that to most Americans and see how they look at you.

This is another example of a hard-to-handle lie that is pushed on Americans every day; and the average working American has no time to truly wrap their heads around this stunning fact so they bury their heads in the sand instead, unwilling to look at the issue because they fear they won’t know what to do with the information.

It’s no wonder that today’s TV shows and comedic rants are often shaped to put a positive slant on lying. To trivialize the seriousness and the consequences of lying. They even make lying seem like an evil necessity or even a cool trend. Most people are completely unaware of these subliminal messages that endorse the control of a government whose survival is dependent on continuous lies and deceit.

Solutions

Let’s keep sharing the information and forcing people to look at this information. These are just 10 random issues I felt are important, but there could be another 10 here just as easily. Information is spreading and people are getting this. Sometimes it takes hitting rock bottom before people take action and start to think differently. Whatever drives someone you can always be sure that pushing the information will help accelerate this process. Let’s keep doing that and if you agree share this information with someone and give them something to think about.

The Worldwide War On Cash That Is Happening Before Your Eyes

The War On Cash: Why Now? JULY 29, 2015 — Charles Hugh Smith You’ve probably read that there is a “war on cash” being waged on various fronts around the world. What exactly does a “war on cash” mean? It means governments are limiting the use of cash and a variety of official-mouthpiece economists are calling for the outright abolition of cash. Authorities are both restricting the amount of cash that can be withdrawn from banks, and limiting what can be purchased with cash. These limits are broadly called “capital controls.” Why Now? Before we get to that, let’s distinguish between physical cash — currency and coins in your possession — and digital cash in the bank. The difference is self-evident: cash in hand cannot be confiscated by a “bail-in” (i.e., officially sanctioned theft) in which the government or bank expropriates a percentage of cash deposited in the bank. Cash in hand cannot be chipped away by negative interest rates or fees. Cash in the bank cannot be withdrawn in a financial emergency that shutters the banks (i.e., a bank holiday). When pundits suggest cash is “obsolete,” they mean physical paper money and coins, not cash in a bank. Cash in the bank is perfectly fine with the government and its well-paid yes-men (paging Mr. Rogoff and Mr. Buiter) because this cash can be expropriated by either “bail-ins” or by negative interest rates. Inflation and Negative Interest Rates Mr. Buiter, for example, recently opined that the spot of bother in 2008–09 (the Global Financial Meltdown) could have been avoided if banks had only charged a 6 percent negative interest rate on cash: in effect, taking 6 percent of the depositor’s cash to force everyone to spend what cash they might have. Both cash in hand and cash in the bank are subject to one favored method of expropriation, inflation. Inflation — the single most cherished goal of every central bank — steals purchasing power from physical cash and digital cash alike. Inflation punishes holders of cash and benefits those with debt, as debt becomes cheaper to service. The beneficial effect of inflation on debt has been in play for decades, so it can’t be the cause of governments’ recent interest in eliminating physical cash. So now we return to the question: Why are governments suddenly declaring war on physical cash, the oldest officially issued form of money? Why They Hate Cash in Hand The first reason: physical cash has the potential to evade both taxes as well as officially sanctioned theft via bail-ins and negative interest rates. In short, physical cash is extremely difficult for governments to steal. Some of you may find the word theft harsh or even offensive. But we must differentiate between taxes — which are levied to pay for the state’s programs that in principle benefit all citizens — and bail-ins, i.e., the taking of depositors’ cash to bail out banks that became insolvent through the actions of the banks’ management, not the actions of depositors. Bail-ins are theft, pure and simple. Since the government enforces the taking, it is officially sanctioned theft, but theft nonetheless. Negative interest rates are another form of officially sanctioned theft. In a world without the financial repression of zero-interest rates (ZIRP — central banks’ most beloved policy), lenders would charge borrowers enough interest to pay depositors for the use of their cash and earn the lender a profit. If borrowers are paying interest, negative interest rates are theft, pure and simple. Why are governments suddenly so keen to ban physical cash? The answer appears to be that the banks and government authorities are anticipating bail-ins, steeply negative interest rates and hefty fees on cash, and they want to close any opening regular depositors might have to escape these forms of officially sanctioned theft. The escape mechanism from bail-ins and fees on cash deposits is physical cash, and hence the sudden flurry of calls to eliminate cash as a relic of a bygone age — that is, an age when commoners had some way to safeguard their money from bail-ins and bankers’ control. Forcing Those With Cash To Spend Their Cash Negative interest rates (and fees on cash, which are equivalently punitive to savers) raise another question: why are governments suddenly obsessed with forcing owners of cash to either spend it or gamble it in the financial-market casinos? The conventional answer voiced by Mr. Buiter is that recession and credit contraction result from households and enterprises hoarding cash instead of spending it. The solution to recession is thus to force all those stingy cash hoarders to spend their money. There are three enormous flaws in this thinking. One is that households and businesses have cash to hoard. The reality is the bottom 90 percent of households have less income now than they did fifteen years ago, which means their spending has declined not from hoarding but fromdeclining income. While corporate America has basked in the glory of sharply rising profits, small business has not prospered in the same fashion. Indeed, by some measures, small business has been in a six-year recession. The bottom 90 percent has less income and faces higher living expenses, so only the top slice of households has any substantial cash. This top slice may see few safe opportunities to invest their savings, so they choose to keep their savings in cash rather than gamble it in a rigged casino (i.e., the stock market). The second flaw is that hoarding cash is the only rational, prudent response in an era of financial repression and economic insecurity. What central banks are demanding — that we spend every penny of our earnings rather than save some for investments we control or emergencies — is counter to our best interests. A War on Cash Is a War on Capital This leads to the third flaw: capital — which begins its life as savings — is the foundation of capitalism. If you attack savings as a scourge, you are attacking capitalism and upward mobility, for only those who save capital can invest it to build wealth. By attacking cash, the central banks and governments are attacking capital and upward mobility. Those who already own the majority of productive assets are able to borrow essentially unlimited sums at near-zero interest rates, which they can use to buy more productive assets. Everyone else — the bottom 99.5 percent — is reduced to consumer-serfdom: you are not supposed to accumulate productive capital, you are supposed to spend every penny you earn on interest payments, goods, and services. This inversion of capitalism dooms an economy to all the ills we are experiencing in abundance: rising income inequality, reduced opportunities for entrepreneurship, rising debt burdens, and a short-term perspective that voids the longer-term planning required to build sustainable productivity and wealth. Physical Cash: Only $1.36 Trillion According to the Federal Reserve, total outstanding physical cash amounts to $1.36 trillion. Given that a substantial amount of this cash is held overseas, physical cash is a tiny part of the domestic economy and the nation’s total assets. For context: the US economy is $17.5 trillion, total financial assets of households and nonprofit organizations total $68 trillion, base money is around $4 trillion, and total money (currency in circulation and demand deposits) is over $10 trillion (source). Given the relatively modest quantity of physical cash, claims that eliminating it will boost the economy ring hollow. Following the principle of cui bono — to whose benefit? — let’s ask: What are the benefits of eliminating physical cash to banks and the government? No Benefits In Eliminating Physical Cash, But: The benefits to banks and governments by eliminating cash are self-evident:  Every financial transaction can be taxed.  Every financial transaction can be charged a fee.  Bank runs are eliminated. In fractional reserve systems such as ours, banks are only required to hold a fraction of their assets in cash. Thus a bank might only have 1 percent of its assets in cash. If customers fear the bank might be insolvent, they crowd the bank and demand their deposits in physical cash. The bank quickly runs out of physical cash and closes its doors, further fueling a panic. The federal government began insuring deposits after the Great Depression triggered the collapse of hundreds of banks, and that guarantee limited bank runs, as depositors no longer needed to fear a bank closing would mean their money on deposit was lost. But since people could conceivably sense a disturbance in the Financial Force and decide to turn digital cash into physical cash as a precaution, eliminating physical cash also eliminates the possibility of bank runs, as there will be no form of cash that isn’t controlled by banks. So, when the dust has settled who ultimately benefits by this war on cash, government and the central banks, pure and simple.