What do Angela Merkel, The Vatican and Lucifer have in common? It may seem like a stretch to some, but the answer is total world domination.  That’s right…total world domination.

German chancellor Angela Merkel is leaving office soon, but she is not going quietly. In a recent address to the Konrad Adenauer Foundation in Berlin, she said that “Nation-states must today be prepared to give up their sovereignty.” Pretty disturbing comment, I’d say. Of course, Merkel was speaking to a bunch of globalists and, as I’ve said before, globalism and nationalism are totally incompatible ideologies. Only one can survive and obviously Merkel intends for globalism to be the winner, at the expense of everyone else (including you and me).

Fast forward to the Vatican. Unbeknownst to many, The Vatican is also in the star-gazing business. That is, they take money from the poor in order to buy telescopes. Expensive ones, too.  Costing upwards of one billion dollars, the Vatican has a telescope on Mt. Graham in Arizona which is referred to as the “Large Binocular Telescope Near-infrared Utility with Camera and Integral Field Unit for Extragalactic Research,” and dubbed Lucifer, by some. One of their stated missions is to search for extraterrestrial life.  One of the key features of the Lucifer telescope is its ability to spot infrared objects in space.  Why infrared? Well, some objects in space which are approaching earth can only be seen in the infrared light spectrum.

The truth is that The Vatican is obsessed with astronomy because they are looking for, indeed are expecting, the arrival of an extraterrestrial antichrist. It’s a belief that is shared by almost all of the world’s elites. The link between Angela Merkel, The Vatican and Lucifer is a dirty little secret that you’re not suppose to know about…but, of course, now you know (sort of).

 

Epilogue

Then, there’s all of the sex scandals concerning priests in the Catholic Church, not to mention Kevin Spacey’s upcoming sex-crime trial involving a minor.  Just another piece of the Luciferian puzzle.  I’ll let you connect the dots. And you probably thought that the Catholic Church was all about Christianity.

 

 

To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their individualism, loyalty to family traditions, national patriotism and religious dogmas.”  – Brock Chisolm, former director of the United Nations World Health Organization

Advertisements

There’s an ideological realignment happening in the country, unlike anything we’ve ever seen before.  Some people are moving further left politically, some further right and some are coalescing in the middle. Even minority groups are splintering in terms of their political allegiance.   This change in ideology can be seen clearly in both parties.  For example, Bill Scher wrote an article in Politico inviting Never Trumpers to become Democrats and, of course, you have the #WalkAway Movement where some Democrats are leaving their party. Strange stuff, indeed.

So, what is driving all of this?  Enter Amy Chua, author of the book Political Tribes. Chua’s book is mainly a critique of American foreign policy, but it has relevance within the country as well.  She argues that what she calls tribal affiliation exerts a powerful force on people’s political behavior and identity.  Here’s a couple of excerpts from her book:

  • Elites in the United States have either not cared about or been remarkably oblivious to the group identities that matter most to large segments of ordinary Americans, including people they are supposedly trying to help. Comment:  I agree. Just look at the tent cities that have sprung up in sanctuary cities that cater to illegal immigrants.
  • Occupy Wall Street, for example, was a movement intended to help the poor—but which did not actually include the poor. On the contrary, it was overwhelmingly driven and populated by the relatively privileged. Comment: I agree and the movement was organized by the elites (even though that may seem counterintuitive to some).

Her views more or less supports the long-held notion that people vote first and foremost according to race and religion.  However, something happened suddenly to our political landscape recently. While there have always been issues of race and religion in our country, there is a new element that has seemingly reshaped everything.

However, before I go there I think that it’s first necessary to define how people are currently aligning themselves politically. I believe that there are primarily three major political divisions within the country, as follows: the far left, the far right and the middle. The further left one gets on the ideological spectrum, collective rights are more important than individual rights and the further right you go, individual rights are more important than collective rights.  It’s pretty much as simple as that.  At the risk of oversimplifying, the far left is generally represented by people like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Andrew Gillum and Beto O’Rourke and the far right typically by fundamentalist Christians. In addition, the far-left wants a large socialist government and the far right wants free markets (as opposed to the crony capitalism/fascism that we have today) and limited government.

Most everybody else is in a hodgepodge I refer to as The Middle including some liberals and some moderate Republicans, even though they have different political philosophies. They are all in the middle because they cannot find a home in the new political landscape. In a polarized world, you can have only left and right, up and down, on and off.

Why did this happen now, what’s driving it? I contend that none of this would have actually happened if Hillary Clinton had won the election, rather than Donald Trump.  First of all, this all came about way too fast and it started almost immediately after the presidential election.  Even revolutions take years to boil to the surface. Post election, it became commonplace to protest in the streets ala Antifa and no less than John Brennan, the former CIA director, called for open insurrection against the President by executive branch officials. Nothing like this ever happened under Obama.

In recent times, the Democratic Party has been dominated by its moderate faction.  When the liberals did win the party nomination, they lost the national election (e.g. Dukakis, Mondale and McGovern). However with Clinton’s loss to Trump, the door was opened for a movement within the party to the left, especially since a moderate had just been rejected by the electorate.  Further, one of the biggest takeaways from the election’s aftermath was the disenfranchising of Bernie Sanders’ supporters by the old guard of the Democratic Party.  As a result, the old guard within the party will now have to share power with the far-left and could well completely lose power in the near future.

The New York Times summed it up this way: “The dominant role of well-educated, relatively upscale white Democrats in moving the party to the left reflects the declining role of the working class in shaping the party’s ideology.” Of course, that begs the question as to what has happened to the working class which has been historically a standard-bearer of the Democratic Party.  The answer is that the far-left ideology no longer represent the values of the working class and they are increasing leaving the Democratic Party.  They are now in the group I call The Middle and they now may or may not vote Democratic, depending on the candidate and the specific election issues.  In moving left politically, the Democratic Party has taken for granted a big chunk of its base and its ideology now targets primarily millennials and minorities. The upstart of that is that the huge advantage that they enjoyed with black and Hispanic voters is diminishing due in part to the immigration issue and millennials, of course, will become more conservative over time as they age.

Hillary Clinton lost because she ran solely on her record (and on the record of Barack Obama). There was no specific message to the electorate in direct opposition to Trump.  Now the Democrats have a clear message which stands in stark contrast to Trump – open borders vs. immigration controls; populism vs. nationalism; socialism vs. capitalism; collective rights vs. individual rights (civil liberties). The thing is that the Democratic Party’s new platform of open borders, populism, socialism and the abandonment of civil liberties runs counter to American culture and history.  Welcome to the new Civil War.

 

Epilogue

Of course, the elites control both political parties and have orchestrated the us vs. them mentality that has become so prevalent today.  Their script is to create a crisis and then provide a solution to a non-existent problem. They don’t truly believe in ideology (not even their own).  What they want is to control the public narrative, by any means necessary. This kind of “warfare” has been around for many years, but has been severely ramped up in just the last two years. Unfortunately, few realize what is happening and that the divisions in this country, while very real, are not the true cause of the problem.  Civil war is merely a political tool of the Deep State.

 

“The term ‘deep state’ is not a conspiracy theory but a basic concept in political analysis. It simply refers to the self-evident and undeniable fact that there are people in power within America who were not elected (primarily the plutocrats, corporate media, intelligence community and military-industrial complex), and that those people tend to form alliances and collaborate toward agendas that benefit them.”  – Caitlin Johnstone

 

The Warmongers

12/22/2018

So, finally we’re withdrawing our troops from Syria (and Afghanistan as well). Trillions spent and lives lost.  Yet, the Deep State has gone into panic mode now that we’re leaving, all of our 2,000 troops in Syria being withdrawn.  One has to ask what’s the big deal?

There’s a couple of salient points that everyone seems to ignore with respect to our continued military presence in the Middle East.  Let’s start with Carl Bildt Co-Chair European Council on Foreign Affairs.  Bildt said that Trump’s decision reflects that he has overruled “other voices” in Washington.  Exactly, what other voices would that be?

Well, Hilary Clinton once said that she was happy to have the offices of the Council on Foreign Relations right down the street from her office (when she was Secretary of State) so that anytime she had an important decision it was just a quick walk down the street. The Council on Foreign Relations is a non-governmental think tank specializing in U.S. foreign policy and international affairs.  The key word here to remember is nongovernmental, and yet they wield such immense power over top governmental officials like Secretary of States and even presidents.

The other voices are from the Washington establishment.  They are the same people who were mute when we started fighting an illegitimate war in Syria.  Now that we’re leaving, they are all up in arms. Here’s a short list of those opposing the withdrawal of our troops from Syria:

  • John Bolton, National Security Advisor
  • Bob Corker, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
  • Senators Bob Menendez and Jack Reed, the ranking members of the Senate’s Foreign Affairs and Armed Services Committees
  • Mike Pompeo, Secretary of State
  • Jim Mattis, Secretary of Defense
  • Senators Lindsey Graham, Jeanne Shaheen, Joni Ernst, Angus King, Tom Cotton and Marco Rubio
  • Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House

The last salient point: One of the goals of the warmongers in Washington is perpetual war and destabilization in the Middle East. To further that goal, the U.S. has been part of an alliance that created and funded ISIS.  It’s about time that we stopped pretending to fight it.

 

“Trump’s decision to pull US troops is correct…There’s nothing left worth fighting to win in Syria.” – Ron Paul

 

 

So, the United Nations has now formally passed the U.N. migration pact.  That is, 164 countries have signed up to allow the United Nations to, in effect, run the world.  Not surprisingly, the United States is not one of them.  Simply put, the countries who did not vote for the pact have simply decided not to sacrifice their sovereignty.

Immigration is a very divisive issue, even in this country where Nancy Pelosi says that building a wall to keep out migrants is morally wrong.  Never mind that we already have a border wall along some portions of the U.S. southern border and Nancy Pelosi voted for the funding of those walls. Further, Nancy didn’t mention that many countries already have such walls and she didn’t accuse them of being morally wrong, now did she? Maybe, Nancy should even ask the President of Mexico not to build a wall on its southern border as they have decided to do.  Better yet, maybe she should ask China to allow Muslim immigration from the Middle East instead of genociding the Muslims (Uyghurs) that they already have in their country.  Come to think of it, why shouldn’t Muslim countries in the Middle East (like Turkey, Egypt, Jordan, Iran and Saudi Arabia) be required to take care of the Arab immigration problem?

The funny thing is – most of the countries who voted for the pact don’t want immigrants in their own country, only in someone else’s country.  For example, Saudi Arabia doesn’t want to take any responsibility for solving the Palestinian issue.  Not that I blame them, but if Saudi Arabia is not going to be responsible for other Arabs why should the rest of the world?

Of course, there will be political fallout over governments voting for the pact. For example in Belgium, Prime Minister Michel may resign due to a possible “no confidence vote” triggered by his support for the U.N pact.  Likewise in France, a group of military generals have accused President Macron of treason for signing the pact. That’s, in part, what led to the Yellow Vest protest which has now spread to other countries.

One of the arguments that keeps getting repeated over and over again is that there is a humanitarian reason for allowing such immigration. Of course, that’s based on the assumption that others have the wherewithal to finance significant amounts of immigration.  The elephant in the room, though, is that the world is broke. Flat broke, even the industrialized nations.  Even the United States.

Yes, unbeknownst to most, we are broke, our federal budget is seriously in the red and our federal debt has so many zeros in it that most people couldn’t read the number. Globally, there isn’t one country where their money is even worth the paper that it is printed on. The global markets and the world economy are in the process of collapsing and we will soon, therefore, have much bigger problems to worry about than immigration. Buckle up folks, it’s going to be a bumpy ride.

 

“A nation that cannot control its borders is not a nation.” – Ronald Reagan

Supposedly, chemtrails don’t exist.  Supposedly, it’s a conspiracy theory.  I said supposedly.

You see, Harvard scientists have said that they will attempt to replicate the climate-cooling effect of volcanic eruptions with what they say is a world-first solar geoengineering experiment which is set for early 2019.  The project, called The Stratospheric Controlled Perturbation Experiment, will inject chemicals into the air high above the earth in an attempt to reflect some of the sun’s rays back into space.

Their stated goal is to reduce global warming. I said stated goal, you understand. What we’re talking about here, though, is chemtrails. Of course, this would not be the “first” solar geoengineering experiment.  Far from it, since geoengineering has been going on for more than 40 years now. This is just their way of “coming out of the closet,” so to speak.

We can argue about how much global warming there has been in the last 140 years, or so, although the Goddard Institute for Space Studies reports that the Global Annual Mean Surface Air Temperature Change from 1880 to 2017 was just over one degree Celsius. So, in other words, very little warming over such a long period of time.

However, there is no argument over the fact that NASA reported that global temperatures for the two-year period February 2016 to February 2018 shows global average temperatures had the biggest two-year drop in the past century; or that the Weather Channel has stated that 2018 is the coldest winter, so far, in the last 50 years.  They reported that “We really face Global Cooling as this is now the third winter which this is becoming the colder with each passing year.”  Therefore, the Weather Channel haconfirms the NASA data that global warming has stopped and that we now have global cooling.

So, if there is no global warming, why would anyone want to go ahead with this experiment, considering all of the significant risks involved? We’re talking about the global impact on precipitation patterns, ozone depletion and crop yields, resulting in droughts, floods and extreme weather events. Because of the risks, climate geoengineering should be considered only as a last resort (according to the Institute of Physics).  Scientific American said more or less the same thing in an editorial they published entitled,The Hidden Dangers of Geoengineering.

By the way, who gave Harvard University the approval to go ahead with their little experiment?  After all, the United States has withdrawn from the Paris Agreement on climate change. Didn’t we?

 

“Playing with the Earth’s climate is a dangerous game with unclear rules.”  – Robert Jackson, director of Duke University’s Center on Global Change

 

 

 

 

Back in 1977, Time Magazine ran the story “How To Survive the Coming Ice Age” on their cover. Since then, global warming has dominated the headlines; at least, until this winter.  Now, cold weather is back in the news.

On December 9th, a record-breaking winter storm wrecked havoc all the way from the Midwest to the eastern seaboard, dumping 12-18 inches of snow in the Carolinas and leaving nearly 400,000 without power. Here’s a few more examples of some of our crazy weather lately:

  • October 12 – Des Moines, Iowa – Snowiest October day in last century
  • October 15 – Denver, Colorado – Record cold for 10/15, totally obliterating the old record by 8 degrees
  • November 9 – Seattle, Washington – Coldest 11/9 on record
  • Thanksgiving – Macy’s parade – coldest on record 
  • November (month) – Kansas City – Coldest on record

 

So, which is it? Are we getting warmer or colder?  Well, let’s ask a few of the weather experts:

  • Goddard Institute for Space Studies – Reports that the Global Annual Mean Surface Air Temperature Change from 1880 to 2017 (almost 140 years) is just over one degree Celsius.
  • NASA – Official global temperature data for the two-year period February 2016 to February 2018 shows global average temperatures had the biggest two-year drop in the past century.
  • The Weather Channel -2018 is the coldest winter, so far, in the last 50 years.  They reported that “We really face Global Cooling as this is now the third winter which this is becoming the colder with each passing year.”
  • Scientific study – As reported in The Telegraph, a scientific study indicates that we are approaching a mini ice-age similar to what occurred in the 17th century, when the River Thames froze.

So, warmer or colder?  I think that  John Casey, a former White House advisor and author of the book Cold Sun, got it right. Casey says that the sun goes through natural cycles and a 206-year cycle of the sun has recently ended a global warming period and that we are now entering a new cold climate period.

As for the people who still champion global warming in the face of the developing scientific consensus which points to global cooling: I guess that just makes them global cooling deniers.

 

“Unfortunately, the IPCC (United Nations) climate change documents do not provide an objective assessment of the earth’s temperature trends and associated climate change….As one of the invited expert reviewers for the 2007 IPCC documents, I have pointed out the flawed review process used by the IPCC scientists in one of my letters. I have also pointed out in my letter that an increasing number of scientists are now questioning the hypothesis of Greenhouse gas induced warming of the earth’s surface and suggesting a stronger impact of solar variability and large-scale atmospheric circulation patterns on the observed temperature increase than previously believed.”

             – Dr. Madhav Khandekar, environmental scientist

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CNN recently reported that a team of scientists from Harvard and Yale Universities proposes spraying sun-dimming chemicals into the Earth’s atmosphere so that the increased pollution levels would block sunlight and halt global warming. Their computer models indicate that this process could cut the rate of global warming in half.  Never mind that scientists now admit that there is very little global warming – that their previous computer models were seriously flawed, and never mind that the entire planet, then, would be contaminated from the fallout of the spraying (as reported in a BBC documentary on the subject).

An article in Natural News, gives an analysis of the agenda behind this new proposed plan. To begin with, these are the very same scientists that previously claimed that chemtrails was a conspiracy theory and now they, themselves, want to chemtrail the entire planet, only now they want to call it “stratospheric aerosol injection.” According to the article, dimming the sun would actually produce global cooling and could have devastating consequences on the planet’s ecosystems. That’s because plants depend on solar radiation for photosynthesis, which uses carbon dioxide as a fuel and produces oxygen as a byproduct. Reducing solar radiation through “stratospheric aerosol injection” would seriously affect the greening of the planet and lead to food crop failures. Further, the oxygen production of plants would be seriously affected and pose a grave risk to the human species. If you wanted humans to thrive on planet Earth, you would not unleash mass pollution (billions of tons of sulfur dioxide/smog) and reduce CO2 levels. Instead, you would do exactly the opposite. That is, reduce pollution and support plant life and food production through higher levels of CO2.

Obviously, I’ve hardly scratched the surface of the material covered in this article.  To get all the details, go to the following link: https://www.naturalnews.com/2018-12-04-global-dimming-globalist-plot-to-eliminate-humanity-terraforming-food-crops-pollution.html

 

“Climate change is real…that is true, but it’s a meaningless statement.  Climate change is of course real.  Climate has been changing for all of earth’s history.”  –  Steve Goreham, Executive Director of the Climate Change Coalition of America

 

For a video on Steve Goreham’s speech on climate science, go to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtHreJbr2WM

.

 

What Is A Bank?

12/10/2018

It’s a seemingly odd question which was prompted by a comment I received the other day. Surely, everyone knows what a bank is, don’t they?

Actually, I’m not so sure. Here’s, perhaps a different perspective, although maybe it’s old news to some.  A bank is an entity that “borrows” money from the general public, generally at little to no interest, and then relends it back to the public at market interest rates.  Does that sound right to you?

Well, consider that when you open up an account with a bank, the money is legally no longer yours.  Any monies that you deposit with the bank belongs to them and you become simply a creditor of the bank. Of course, you can have the money back any time you like, but if the bank goes bankrupt first you better hope that the FDIC bails you out.  I think you and I are in the wrong business, although my mother always wanted me to be a banker.  Maybe, she knew something.

A lot of scientific research seems to be taking place in one of the few frontiers still available to man – inside the Earth.  For example, an article published in the journal Nature states that researchers believe that a vast water reservoir lies beneath the mantle of the Earth.

Then, there’s a team of scientists from Harvard University who believe that they have found evidence that the Earth is really a planet within a planet. This was apparently due to a “worlds in collision” scenario.

Finally, scientists trying to determine where mysterious ‘ghost particles’ called neutrinos come from, found them – coming from inside the planet. According to these scientists, the neutrinos are responsible for the majority of the heat produced by planet Earth.  Interestingly enough, neutrinos are the result of decay of nuclear elements, in other words radioactivity.  So it’s possible that an inner sun could very well be the source of the heat!

To sum it up, here’s what we may have inside of planet Earth -a sun, lots of water and a small planetary body.  Well, the scientists from Harvard University drew a picture of their version of what the inner earth looks like.  Oddly enough, they pictured that the Earth was hollow at the north pole and south poles, each pole with an entrance going inside the planet to reach the inner world. Sound familiar?

 

“Truth is stranger than fiction, but is because fiction is obligated to stick to possibilities; truth isn’t.”  – Mark Twain

What Is A Matrix?

12/07/2018

The matrix is basically a computer simulation.

Physicist James Gates discovered that scientific theories which describe the fundamental nature of the universe contain embedded computer codes.  In other words, physicists’ formula scribbled on their blackboards can be broken down into binary code (1s and 0s, just like in your own computer’s software).

Think of it. Computer code has been found in the very fabric of reality itself, meaning that everything is programmed. Our world is a program running on someone’s hard disk. You can argue whether the programmer is God, an advanced intelligent race of beings or maybe just artificial intelligence, but it apparently has been programmed nonetheless.  The Big Bang obviously occurred when the program was turned on!

 

Epilogue

According to cosmologist Max Tegmark, everything in the universe is part of a mathematical structure. Everything in nature is full of patterns such as the Golden Ratio and the Fibonacci sequence, which are mathematically based. As Joseph Gordon-Levitt put it,“The spiral in a snail’s shell is the same mathematically as the spiral in the Milky Way galaxy, and it’s also the same mathematically as the spirals in our DNA.” My question is this. What kind of intelligence does it take to make that happen exactly that way?

 

 “There’s a one in billions chance that we’re not living in a computer simulation.”

              – Elon Musk