Saturday, May 26, 2018

Post-brexit UK - authoritarianist descent



UK among worst in Western Europe for freedom of press after 'staggering decline', Reporters Without Borders index claims


Quote:

A host of recent developments in the UK had threatened the press' ability to hold powerful people and institutions to account, the report found, including what it called an “alarming” proposal by the Law Commission to replace the Official Secrets Act with an updated Espionage Act.

The move “could make it easy to jail journalists as 'spies’ for obtaining leaked information and see them jailed for up to 14 years”, the report found.

RFS also criticised the Government over the introduction of the Investigatory Powers Act, saying the new law contained insufficient protections for whistleblowers, journalists and their sources.





Sunday, April 1, 2018

Newsweek discovers Russian authorities waging hybrid war against Europe






Putin's secret plan — divide and conquer Europe


Newsweek realized it only now!!! (or pretending to have it "discovered"). The power rulers of Russia have been waging hybrid war against Europe as its prime foreign policy objective, for a very long time. Probably since the 18-th century, at least.
The post WWII timeline is as follows:

- begun shortly after the WWII by the SU financing all communist parties (except those financed by China).

- by early 1960-ties they realized it failed, switched to financing, training and supporting the radical left students and other "useful idiots" and social disruptors.

- by early 1970-ties they realized it failed , switched to financing and training the hard-core terrorist groups such as German Red Army Fraction and Italian Red Brigade groups.

- by 1980-ties it failed so they switched to more subtle tactics of radicaising minorities of all kinds to disrupt the social order. At the same time they begun planting and financing environmentalist movements such as Greenpeace and German Green Party.

- Since that last strategy of social disruption worked, they enhanced that by mid 2000-d by subverting certain political parties to promote open border unchecked immigration into Western Europe but only from selected Middle Eastern and North African countries such as to maximize social disruption, excluding from this the dangerous (suspicious towards Russia) populations from the Eastern Europe.
[I forgot to add last but not least]

- Not everybody realizes that even though Brexit campaign was formally organized by UKIP, it was paid by Russia. The purpose was to carve Britain out of Europe. Notice how the post-Brexit British politicians have suddenly stopped immigration from the Eastern Europe but not from the radicalized Muslim countries. Let Newsweek find the answer to that! ;)

The power rulers of Russia are currently winning the hybrid war against Europe. In my opinion, logic dictates that the next hybrid front will be opened up in those European countries who are NOT in NATO!

Tuesday, February 20, 2018

Mueller finds that CNN, MSNBC and Fox Helped Russia Sow Discord by Promoting Fake Anti-Trump and Pro-Trump Rally


Mueller finds that a Russian organisations organized both anti-Trump and pro-Trump rallies after the election.
Based on Rich Noyes article published 19/02/2018 in:


CNN and MSNBC Helped Russia Sow Discord by Promoting Fake Anti-Trump Rally


Quote:

One of the revelations in Friday’s indictment handed down by Special Counsel Robert Mueller was that alleged Russian attempts to sow disunity in 2016 included the organization of both pro- and anti-Trump rallies in New York City on the Saturday after Election Day.

A check of their November 12 coverage showed both CNN and MSNBC gave enthusiastic coverage to the Russian-organized anti-Trump rally that day, with live reports every hour. Correspondents celebrated the idea that it was “a love rally,” and repeated the marchers’ anti-Trump mantras, such as: “We reject the President-elect.”

While the two liberal anti-Trump networks offered heavy coverage of the anti-Trump rally throughout the day, a check of coverage between noon and 5:00 p.m. Eastern found that the Fox News Channel offered only a short re-cap (66 seconds) at the start of their 4:00 p.m. Eastern hour.

Of course, none of the networks were aware of who was allegedly behind the march, but CNN and MSNBC reveled in the inflammatory messages of the march. At one point, MSNBC anchor Alex Witt credulously responded to the ridiculously alarmist rhetoric: “That woman, when she’s saying she’s concerned that black people will be shot in the street....Is that a legitimate concern for her? Because, that’s scary.”

Correspondent Morgan Radford cheerfully played along: “Alex, it’s not only a legitimate concern for her, it’s a legitimate concern for a lot of people I’ve spoken to....They’re wondering if this [Trump’s election] is almost a license to carry in terms of hate.”


...

If the goal of the secret Russian organizers was to inject nonsense like that into the American political dialogue, then their unwitting helpers on CNN and MSNBC certainly gave them plenty of assistance that day.

Both CNN and MSNBC talked about who they thought was organizing the rally. On MSNBC a few minutes before the march began, anchor Alex Witt asked Radford: “Hey, Morgan, can you tell who has organized this rally?...Is there someone in charge here?”

“Right now, this is lots of different groups of people who have come together,” Radford explained, “with no, necessarily, official leader, and that’s been some of the criticism.”

An hour later on CNN, correspondent Brynn Gingras said the rally had been organized by “a 20-year-old student from St. John’s University here in New York....We’ve seen him several times shaking hands with police officers....It is the most organized protest that I’ve seen here in New York City.”

A little after 3:00 p.m. Eastern, Gingras marveled at the crowd size, saying she had been “texting with the person, a 20-year-old college student here in New York City who organized this protest. I’ve been texting with him, and I asked, ‘Are you impressed with the size,’ and he says ‘It’s amazing what the collective voices can spread.’”

But according to Mueller’s indictment:

In or around November 2016, Defendants and their co-conspirators organized a rally in New York through one ORGANIZATION-controlled group designed to “show your support for President-Elect Donald Trump,” held on or about November 12, 2016. At the same time, Defendants and their co-conspirators, through another ORGANIZATION-controlled group, organized a rally in New York called “Trump is NOT my President” held on or about November 12, 2016.



Saturday, February 10, 2018

Medicine - a cruel art

Written by Derek Coulter, my guest author, posted with the author's permission. (The title is mine,  Stan B.)
9-Feb-2018

One unexpected thing was mentioned in the last Q drop: Big pharma, and by extension the medical establishment. Q implies full knowledge of the decades-long corruption within this industry. From experience, I regard the medical establishment as among the most cruel, most deceptive institutions in existence. If this shocks you, realize it's not hyperbole. How can we criticized our wonderful medical professions? Do they not help us when we're sick? If you suffer from almost any chronic disease, or someone you love has died of one of the diseases we consider common today, you owe it to yourself to understand this. Keep reading.

By the term 'medical establishment' I mean allopathy and allopathy-driven big pharma. So, what is allopathy, or allopathic medicine? It's a school of thought in medicine which aggressively displaced the other prevailing medical philosophies in the early 20th century. It did not do this by merit, but through a carefully executed plan under direction of Carnegie and Rockefeller. Search the Flexner Report to find out how they brought about the sad state of affairs we live today, where the public looks to allopathy by default for every kind of medical need, without the slightest whit of understanding as to how this profession views coping with disease in a complex organism (e.g., the human body).

An allopathic physician is trained to observe the current state of the body's anatomy and biochemistry. Emphasis: Current state. Your doctor looks for what's wrong in your physiology by looking for manifestations of disease (symptomology), then matching that to treatment options—which are sadly limited to drugs or surgery under allopathy. Their mantra is, "Where observable signs of disease are found, therein lies the disease." The approach is to target treatment options on the symptoms. This is perfect for a simplistic pathology, notably trauma, but this philosophy falls flat on its face when dealing with any complex pathology—that is, where there's no direct relationship between the measurable, observable signs (the symptoms) and the causation. Virtually all chronic or serious disease are complex pathologies. In fact, they're chronic (meaning long term) or serious precisely because of inadequate treatment. By only treating the manifestations of disease, not only is the pathology left in-place, but the ongoing treatments (typically drugs) which only manage (mask) the symptoms are a significant toxin load on the body. Through the combined effect of never actually curing your problem—that is, TRULY BEING RID OF IT—and by continually medicating you, or subjecting you to one or more surgeries, you get sicker and sicker. It's a cycle of dependence, where you are the victim and the profession you trust is the benefactor.

Is your doctor evil? No. Is your doctor 'in on it'? Not consciously. They are trained and indoctrinated into a profession which operates very much like a priesthood. In fact, admission to medical schools is deliberately structured to select-in students who are excellent knowledge sponges, but select-out those with superior insight, creativity, and critical thinking. A profession with such blatant inadequacies clearly can't have practitioners who ask too many questions. While it's a highly technical profession, the appearance of which masks the reality that it is more ideology than it is science.

Long ago, they—the powers that (should not) be—realized there is fabulous wealth in managing problems. Even more in deliberately perpetuating them. Even more in causing them! But very little in actually solving problems. This cruel mindset, bereft of compassion and morality, has come to dominate our world, and we are its victims IF WE FAIL TO REALIZE IT, particularly when it comes to our own health. If you see your doctor on a regular basis, if you have been prescribed one or more medications, know that there is almost certainly a better way. Don't endlessly manage it, cure it! But this can never happen through your allopath, who by their training is philosophically bound from addressing the causation of disease. Seek out a practitioner of the appropriate medical philosophy to deal with your issue. This is key: Use the right approach for the right problem. Don't fall for the trope that only Western medicine (allopathy) is scientific or reliable. It can only deal with trauma effectively, and infection to an extent, because this is what allopathy was designed for in the first place. Trust it for most anything outside of this, and you enter the cycle mentioned above.


Monday, January 22, 2018

Why I am posting it?

Why I am posting it? It resulted from a recent conversation with a friend, when I was asked certain questions and certain issues were pointed out. Since these are very generic issues, they deserve to be responded to in a way that is more general and not tied to particular conversation.

Topic for consideration 1: - what do I want to accomplish?

I want to help people who are ready, to transition towards a unitarian (i.e. non-dualistic) frame of mind. And help myself in the process. Many of us are ready at this time, to upgrade our thinking from seeing everything from a "you are against me" point of view towards "let's see what is really going on". Most ideologies (but not all) and most religions (but not all) are incompatible with the unitarian attitude.

Topic for consideration 2: how to discuss topics that the interlocutor identifies personally with, involving membership in churches and other ideologically-oriented societies.

I tend to discuss, debate or challenge them anyway, in a way that is respectable to people I speak to, but does not have to be reverential towards an institutions they may (or may not) be the members of. Institutions have no feelings. :)

Topic for consideration 3: how to separate institutions that foster or protect certain beliefs or ideologies, from the beliefs or ideas themselves.

Institutions publish papers, textbooks, "holy" books and other literature. The beliefs are the thoughts that individual people harbor and express personally. It is easy to specify what is being discussed, for example a critical comment of a certain book does not automatically apply to someone's belief nor denigrates that person.

Topic for consideration 4: How to separate between some organizations' noble intent and hidden agendas?

I suspect that it is not always possible, although sometime an original intent behind a certain ideology may be gleaned by the results we observe. "From the fruit of their labor..." . We can read a certain edition of a holy book or some ideological paper - but how would one know what the intentions were in the minds of those who told, translated, edited and published that? There could have been multiple intentions and many agendas, different at any given point in time and space. For that reason I generally tend to ignore intentions and agendas, and most often, I may be just interested in the meaning of the contents, and in the practical implications for self-preservation, such dealing with some homicidal regimes that follow certain ideologies (note - I grew up in a communist country) . Unlike intentions and agendas, the contents is for all to see.

Topic for consideration 5:
when is it appropriate to be RESPECTFUL towards ideas, gurus or institutions?

I think (it is my personal opinion) it is irrelevant or even inappropriate to express RESPECT towards ideas, thoughts, theories or institutions, but it is always a good idea to RESPECT living beings. Please note that unlike "fear", RESPECT is a universal emotion that can only be earned but not forced.

Topic for consideration 6:
when is it appropriate to be REVERENT towards gurus or institutions?

I think (it is my personal opinion) it is inappropriate to express REVERENCE in any situation, however it may be appropriate to express RESPECT instead, if the circumstances warrant it and if the interlocutor earns it.

Topic for consideration 7:
- how, when and if it is important to engage people, or get them to listen to my/your points of view, while offering some challenging opinions?

I gave up a long time ago, trying to please people in order to make them accept me the way I am, including making them listen to my opinions. Moderating or withholding my opinions in order to appear to "fit-in" to a group (or to an individual), never works for me! Most people are no fools. They quickly realize that I am somewhat "different" and I would find myself shunned anyway. I found out that I am better off being honest, often MUCH better off just saying what I think is true (or "true enough") and following that through with action, "come hell or high water". I may end up shunned by 9 out of 10 acquaintances but I am not really "loosing" anything! Fewer is sometimes better than more. :)

Regards for Everyone,
Stan Bleszynski