Presidential Election 2012: Analysis From a Space Alien

By Michael Suede, informationliberation

In this article I am going to present a rather unique way of interpreting the recent election results.  I’m going to present them from the point of view of a space alien philosopher.  I’m choosing to use this point of view because it is completely disconnected from any cultural programming.  I want you to think outside the box.  I want you to try and think about what I’m saying in a way that a person who is completely unfamiliar with human political systems would view them.

*Dons space alien hat*

As a space alien, I find human democratic political systems to be very interesting, but they don’t seem to make much sense to me.  Humans seem to love democracy, but it seems like a rather repressive system of social organization to me.  The vast majority of humans seem to agree that the majority of people should be able to impose their will upon the minority, and that this should be accomplished through a system of voting and political organization.  However, they do this in a rather odd way.  Rather than the public voting on each and every law that is passed, they instead vote for a small handful of people who then go on to create hundreds of thousands of laws that everyone else must obey.  But what I really don’t understand about the whole “voting” thing is that they don’t seem to play by their own rules.

From my orbiting spaceship, I’m able to connect to their internet.  While researching human political systems I came across a website by George Mason University.  The site tracks voter turnout for general and primary elections.  According to the site, only 61.6% of eligible voters voted in the 2008 general election.  I suspect we will see similar numbers (or lower) this time around as well.  Doing the math, if roughly half of the voting public voted for Obama and half voted for McCain, that means their were more people “voting” for “none of the above” than either of the two candidates, yet their votes don’t seem to count at all.  If humans actually believed that majority rule was the proper way to organize society, then how could they ignore the huge numbers of people who don’t seem to want anyone running their lives at all?  Shouldn’t the humans give up these rather ridiculous political systems all together if most people vote for “none of the above” every election?

Further, I don’t understand all the squabbling humans engage in over what appear to be rather petty issues.  The major political candidates agree on everything of seeming importance, but their political supporters become furious over petty things like tax cuts for people making over $250,000 dollars an earth year, which hardly any humans manage to earn.

Speaking of taxes, here’s another rather insane system that all humans seem to think is necessary to organize their societies.  Where I come from, if someone used threats or violence to take another person’s property, our security forces would be on top of them immediately!  Yet the humans organize virtually all of their societies around this principle!  From my point of view, the human political parties are what we refer to as criminal mafia organizations.  Everything in the human political systems seem to have different words for them, and by assigning things different words, the humans automatically accept a different moral connotation to the actions those words are assigned to.

For example, humans become outraged at mass murderers, but when a mass murder is called war, they all line up to participate!  Humans become outraged at theft, but when theft is called taxation, they all fork over their money with no questions asked.  Humans become outraged at fraud, but when fraud is called quantitative easing, they cheer it as if it will improve the lives of everyone!  There is an endless list of moral inversions based simply on what word they chose to call the same action. I don’t understand this at all.

Where I come from, each person “votes” by voluntarily giving their money and resources to the security and justice systems they like the most.  If I don’t like the services that are being provided by one organization, I take my money elsewhere.  In fact, many of my alien friends chose not to pay for security or court insurance at all.  Instead, they chose to protect themselves and pay out of pocket for those services as they might need them.  There’s a lot of space alien security services out there to chose from, so I always get a great bargain for my money.  What interests me is that the humans seem to recognize the benefits of this free market system too, but they reject it when it comes to politics!  According to the Reuters website, there are more private security guards than political police!  Hmmmm, isn’t that a sign that their police forces must not be doing a good job of protecting their property?  Why would they continue to support a system that doesn’t even provide the services that they are being taxed for?

It has become clear to me that many humans support these mafia-like political systems because these mafias provide welfare services to poor people and the elderly.  But what I don’t understand is why they would support a political system to provide these services when the political system they advocate for uses the money for all sorts of other heinous acts?  If a person stole money from people and used part of the stolen booty to help old people, but then turned around and used the rest of it to engage in acts of mass murder, would they consider his behavior to be morally acceptable?  Further, the old people seem to support these political systems the most, but the political systems are simply stealing the money they are getting from their own grandchildren!  How morally reprehensible is that?

I recently came across a human economist that thinks the way we aliens do.  It was quite refreshing to listen to his lectures.  His name is David Friedman.  He gave a talk entitled “The Machinery of Freedom” that pretty much explains how our space alien system of security and justice operate.  Perhaps one day humans will evolve their political systems into a peaceful one that is more like our own.

Source: http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=41647 

Political Influence and Lobbying: Top Contributors, Recipients & Trends

Pharmaceutical Manufacturing, Center for Responsive Politics

Pharmaceutical companies, which develop both over-the-counter and prescription drugs, have been among the biggest political spenders for years. While the industry has traditionally supported Republican candidates, some key players have recently increased donations to Democratic candidates as the GOP’s power in Washington erodes.

The pharmaceutical manufacturing industry will likely fair better this decade now that President Barack Obama’s initial plan to institute a public health insurance did not become a part of sweeping health care reform legislation signed into law in 2010. A government-run plan, because of its size, would have had considerable negotiating power to draw down drug prices. [Read more Background]

 

                                                                             ...view more Contributors                                                                                                      

 ...view Totals



 


















                                                                                              ...view more Lobbying

 

                                                                 ...view more Recipient

 

 ...view more Money to Congress

Data for the current election cycle were released by the Federal Election Commission on Monday, October 01, 2012

Source: http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?cycle=2012&ind=H4300

"Gun Control": The "SOLUTION" the State Always WANTED !

In the aftermath of the Colorado "Batman" shootings by James Holmes, a medical student at the University of Colorado, pursuing a PhD in neuroscience, the media is rife with talks about regulations (restrictions and bans) and calls for Gun Control. Is "Gun Control" the real "Solution" to the "Problem" at hand? Or is it what the State WANTS us to believe as the ideal "Solution" to the "Problem"?  

Guns have been part of Americans since the founding of America 200 plus years ago. How did it become a problem now, especially in the last couple of decades or so?

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights [Wiki]. Therefore, the Right to bear arms (Amendment II) is a Fundamental Right granted by the US Constitution.

Why were the people of America allowed to bear arms?

I used to ridicule the idea of civilians bearing arms, until I realized there's a good reason and logic behind it. Though the idea of allowing citizens to own firearms sound ridiculous at first, the fact that this Amendment occupy second place in the list of amendments should itself show its importance.

The Second Amendment, as passed by the Congress, states:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".

The sole reason why the Constitution granted rights to bear arms was that if ever the government turned oppressive against its people, the government should know that the people have weapons. It was to deter any sort of government tyranny or dictatorship because an armed public cannot be easily subjugated. History proves it true. Here’s a short list of government mass murder carried out throughout history, almost always immediately following the disarmament of the public (and usually involving staged false flag events to justify the disarmament):

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. (Stalin) From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938. (Hitler) From 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935. (Mao Tse-tung) From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. (Idi Amin) From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. 
[Source: A little History that if we don't know it, we will be condemned to repeat it]

So, the founding fathers of America, who drafted the Constitution 200 plus years ago, seems a lot smarter and far-sighted than their counterparts today and knew exactly what they were doing while granting rights to bear arms. Perhaps, it's for this reason, the right to bear arms gained the importance to be placed as the Second Amendment to the Constitution. And today, the Second Amendment is more important than ever before, as America is inching towards a dictatorship with more and more powers being taken away from the people by the government and the society becomes increasingly under surveillance. Even drones are now being used over civilian airspace for surveillance.

On the other side, 2011 smashed the records for gun sales in America, with 16 million guns sold. December 2011 broke the monthly records for sale of guns in America, just in time when Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) into law. That tells, more and more people are becoming aware of the dangers of brain-dead pigs in positions of power, more than they fear incidents like the Colorado shootout.

Adolf Hitler once said: “The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to posses arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.”

Similarly, the plans to disarm American public have been brewing for many years now. Former U.S. Attorney General, Janet Reno is on record stating “Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal” . This has been their moto and all they need is the right crisis. Therefore, the Colorado “Batman” sort of crimes is simply an excuse or just the right kind of crises the government needed to enforce gun control. The prohibition of private firearms is the ultimate goal of the administration, and therefore the escalation of firearm related crisis is an essential evil for them.

If that sounds crazy, have a look at this CBS News clipping where a deliberate plot staged by the government itself, Operation Fast and Furious, pulled off by the ATF, which helped smuggle tens of thousands of guns into Mexican drug cartels for the purpose of causing “gun violence” in the USA, then blaming the Second Amendment for it. They could care less about crime. Crime is only an excuse to disarm the American people. Interestingly, this shootout also happens just in time for the vote for passing the UN Small Arms Treaty, which wouldresult in the confiscation of personal firearms in the United States; perhaps to stir up support.

As mentioned, guns have been part of Americans for 200 plus years. One should ask why in the past couple of decades there is an escalation of psychic shootings. Guns are often blamed, but the real reasons will surprise you (For example, see this article). If you talk to elderly Americans, many of them have lived around guns; sometimes dozens of guns. One of the comments that is commonly heard from elderly folks is: "Gone are the days when we used to leave our house unlocked; gone are the days when we used to leave our keys in the ignition with loaded guns at the back of our truck." No one stole the guns; no one shot each other. So what's wrong with the present generation? Again, often overlooked are the cases where agencies like FBI, CIA, used mind-controlled victims or pre-programmed killers for such crimes, which hardly ever gets the attention of mainstream news channels.

It's unfortunate that some crazy people misuse guns and this kind of crime happens. However, that's no way comparable to the mass murders committed by governments of the world and therefore no justification to call for gun control or gun confiscation.

Here is a link to an article which touches upon several issues related to Colorado shootings:

http://www.naturalnews.com/036536_James_Holmes_shooting_false_flag.html

How to Disappear Completely (From the Internet)

Leaving the Web behind might just be the key to your privacy—and sanity.

by John Herrman, Popular Mechanics

If you’ve ever used the Internet, you have an online identity. Maybe it’s slight: a Hotmail account here, a comment on a news story there. Or maybe you’ve been more prolific, leaving a trail of usernames, accounts, messages, and profiles across the digital landscape. In any case, an active internet user owes it to himself to do a bit of self-Googling. What you’ll find will be both enlightening and humbling—even worrying.

Unease about your online identity shouldn’t be limited to how much information is publicly available. Online advertising is the engine that drives the Internet’s largest sites, including Google and Facebook, and it depends on your personal—and allegedly private—data for fuel. "The government, companies, and marketers all want us to share as much information as possible because that’s what’s good for them," says Rebecca Jeschke of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, "and it’s time to think of what’s good for us."

While most Internet users seem fine with privacy tradeoffs, the lack of control will lead some to consider the nuclear option: total Internet evacuation. But taking yourself offline isn’t as simple as logging out—it requires a little bit of work. Here’s how.

Popular Sites

When a website is new, the last thing its creators are thinking about is how to help users leave. Thankfully, many of the Internet’s largest identity properties—Facebook, Google, Amazon, and Microsoft—are fairly mature and have evolved enough to offer well-defined, if well-hidden, escape plans.

If you’ve ever used Gmail, Google Docs, Google+, or Picasa, to name a few, then you have a Google account. Google accounts can contain an astounding amount of personal data—check google.com/dashboard to see exactly how much—but removing it is a straightforward process. Before you hit the switch, be sure to back up any information you want to keep—a Google account can be recovered for only a few months after its deletion. Google doesn’t have a software tool for exporting data from its services, but most services have their own, typically found under the settings menu on the upper-right-hand side of the screen. As with other webmail services, the easiest way to back up your Live or Hotmail messages is to add your account to a mail app such as Outlook or Apple’s Mail before deletion—this will have the added benefit of backing up your contacts.

Once you’ve copied your important data offline, navigate to your Google account dashboard (google.com/accounts). Next go to My Products, and click Edit. Then select Close Account and Delete All Services and Info Associated With It. You’ll be presented with a list of Google services that you’ve used in the past. (In my case, this included three that I didn’t remember signing up for.) Check the box next to each, along with the two are-you-really-sure boxes at the bottom, and select Delete Google Account. The account will be instantly wiped from the public Internet, but the company warns on its website that "residual . . . accounts may take up to 60 days to be deleted from our active servers and may remain in our backup systems," but not be accessible in any way, "for an additional period of time."

Until 2008, there was no obvious way to permanently delete your information from Facebook. Instead, there was a Deactivate option only, which removed your profile from public view but left it on Facebook’s servers indefinitely. Thousands complained, so Facebook built a tool for permanently and instantly deleting user data—then promptly hid it away in the site’s Help section. To access it, log in to Facebook, navigate to facebook.com/help, and type "delete my account" in the search box. The top result will link you to the deletion page. Click Submit and confirm your choice, and you’re done. While Facebook doesn’t offer much help for backing up your data—a particular concern if you use Facebook to hold your photo collection—there are a number of free Facebook apps designed to archive your albums, such as Facebook Exporter for iPhoto and FBPhotoExport.

To pull yourself free from Microsoft’s services, go to account.live.com and scroll to the bottom of the page. Under the Other Options header, click Close Account. On the following page, reenter your account password and press Yes. Unfortunately, there is no account-wide export option.

Closing an Amazon account is a more roundabout process. Click Help in the upper-right-hand corner of any page on amazon.com and search "closing your account." On the resulting page, pick Contact Us, then click on Something Else. Below that, select Account Settings from the menu, then Close My Account. At the bottom of the page, click Send Us an Email, fill out the form, and send.

Smaller Sites

Most reputable websites will offer some sort of account deletion option. Smaller sites that have posted (or more likely, reposted) your data without your permission can prove more difficult; after all, the owners never had your permission to republish your blog posts, photos, or videos in the first place. Finding this type of information—or derogatory and misrepresentative comments about you—is no more difficult than doing a search on Google or Bing. (Be sure to place quotation marks around your name.)

Searching for yourself isn’t about narcissism; it’s not unusual for job recruiters, current employers, or even potential dates to vet new acquaintances on search engines. A misleading search result or libelous information could cause serious distress and do damage to your reputation.

On a smaller site, sending a direct request to a webmaster to pull infringing or upsetting material is your best course of action. if there is no prominently listed con- tact information for the site’s operator, or if you aren’t able to get a response from the listed address or phone number, you can find direct contact information for the site’s administrator by conducting a search on whois.net. Domain owners are required by the internet Corporation for assigned names and numbers to supply contact information for Whois searches, including a phone number. This may at least get you on the phone with someone or give you a working email address. Whether that will be of any help is a different story.

If a site refuses to take down content that belongs to you, you can try sending a takedown notice. Under the Digital Millennium Copyright act (DMCA), you are entitled to have infringing content—images, text, or video that you own, specifically taken down. There are a number of forms available online for submitting DMCA notices to internet hosting companies; there are even forms for asking Google, Yahoo, and Bing to remove content from their search results. While these forms don’t guarantee cooperation, the mere threat of legal action will at least be enough to get a site owner’s attention. if your DMCA notice doesn’t get a response, it might be time to talk to a lawyer.

The Data That Won’t Die

It’s easy to tell when your data has been removed from public display; if you can’t find it anymore, then it’s effectively gone. Finding out whether or not a company is still holding your data privately—or selling it to third parties—may be impossible. "There’s no way to verify that your information has been deleted," Jeschke says, nor is there an overarching law or regulation governing data retention. Some data simply can’t be reclaimed; you relinquished control the moment you hit Submit, after you clicked past that 50-page license agreement.

This is a valuable lesson, and while it might not help you seize full control of your online identity, it’s instructive. When you sign up with a service, make sure you trust its parent company and understand what data you’re giving up. To sign up with Google or Facebook is to sell yourself in a literal way; as an astute (and anonymous) poster on the news site MetaFilter wrote, "if you are not paying for it, you’re not the customer; you’re the product being sold."

A WEB APP TO END ALL WEB APPS

Signing up for social media sites is, by design, almost entirely frictionless. Three or four clicks will get you in the door, but finding your way out takes significantly more time and effort. The Web 2.0 Suicide Machine (tagline: Meet Your Real Neighbors Again) is a one-shot tool for deleting your profiles from some of the largest social sites on the Web, including Twitter, Myspace, LinkedIn, and Facebook.

The tool was released last year by the New Media Lab in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, and still lives up to its name—with one exception. Facebook has taken action to disable the site’s “suicide” script, and even sent the creators a stern cease-and-desist letter, demanding that Facebook be exempted from its deletion tools. Among the concerns included in Facebook’s legal letter? “[T]he protection of users’ privacy.”

CHOOSING AN ONLINE PRIVACY TOOL

Private Browsing

This feature is included in most new Internet browsers and goes by a few different titles: Private mode, Incognito mode, and InPrivate. All these names are a bit of an overreach: This mode prevents Web browsers only from collecting history and cookies. It keeps other users of your computer from seeing what you’ve been doing (buying gifts being the most palatable example); it won’t shield your IP address or existing cookies from external sites.

Virtual Private networks

Paid virtual private network (VPN) services route your Internet traffic through an intermediary, masking your computer’s address from the sites you visit. Sites will, however, still be able to deposit tracking cookies on your computer, and your browser will still be prone to exploits and viruses. VPNs reroute all Internet traffic on your computer, not just from Web browsers, which makes them popular with file sharers. Reputable services include WiTopia and Blacklogic.

CoCoon (getCoCoon.Com)

This service is a plug-in for the free Firefox browser that combines the advantages of private browsing and a VPN with extra security features. Traffic is routed through remote servers and made anonymous, and all incoming files—downloads or websites—are scanned for viruses and malware. Other features include throwaway email addresses for spam prevention, and full portability, so you can access your Cocoon account from other computers.

Read more: How to Disappear Completely (From the Internet) - Popular Mechanics

 

ALL the Vaccines Are Contaminated - Every Last One of Them

S. Edmonson for Salem-News.com

"The chief, if not the sole, cause of the monstrous increase in cancer has been vaccination" - Dr. Robert Bell, once Vice President International Society for Cancer Research at the British Cancer Hospital

Experts say families need to take a critical look at vaccines.

(WASHINGTON, D.C.) - Have you been rushing out to get a yearly flu vaccine or diligently taking your children for the 40 or so mandated childhood vaccines?

That's really a shame because you have unwittingly been trading a run-of-the-mill flu or just the measles, for loading up your or your children's bodies with cancer and other deadly viruses, a destructive bacteria, a chemical selected to damage fertility, and with synthetic DNA that threatens to damage your own DNA - the biologic code for your existence.

Who is saying the vaccines are contaminated?

None other than the (now deceased) head of vaccines at Merck, Dr. Maurice Hillerman, who on camera admitted that Merck's Hepatitis B vaccines, contaminated with a virus, caused the AIDS epidemic in the US.  He went on to say that all of Merck's vaccines are contaminated with cancer and other viruses.  (The US government has conceded the HEB B vaccine causes Lupus. That vaccine is mandated for every infant in the US on the day of birth, and is associated with MS as well.)

That vaccine is mandated for every infant in the US on the day of birth, and is associated with MS as well.)

For Jews who have almost religiously believed in medical authorities about vaccines and poo-pooed those worried about the safety of vaccines, they might want to notice that Hillerman was Jewish.

Or they might recognize that so is Dr. Larry Palevsky, a board certified NY pediatrician, who for ten years routinely gave vaccines to his patients until he noticed them losing eye contact and then began looking into the vaccines he had blindly trusted.  He found that they are ALL contaminated with viruses that are so small they can never be removed.  He no longer gives any vaccines.  He now treats his young patients for autism and other neurologic injuries from vaccines.

Donald W. Scott, the editor of The Journal of Degenerative Diseases and the co-founder of the Common Cause Medical Research Foundation, links vaccines to AIDS (as did Hillerman) and to US bio-weapons research, and says they are contaminated with mycoplasma, a primitive bacteria that takes apart cell walls.

Perhaps the highest scientific authority saying vaccines are contaminated is Garth Nicolson. He is a cell biologist and editor of the Journal of Clinical and Experimental Metastasis, and the Journal of Cellular Biochemistry. He is one of the most cited scientists in the world, having published over 600 medical and scientific peer-reviewed papers, edited over 14 books, and served on the editorial boards of 28 medical and scientific journals. He is not just saying that vaccines are contaminated with mycoplasma but is warning the US that they are. Nicolson goes further and says that we are all being damaged by them and contracting chronic degenerative diseases that.

That damage translates into lifelong patients (and thus life-long profit) for the pharmaceutical industry making the vaccines and he says doesn't appear to be accidental.  

According To CIA Statistics:  As Shots Increase, U.S. Lifespan Is DECREASING

1980: 9 vaccines, autism is rare
2009: 36 vaccine$ before age 5
2010: 55 vaccine$ before age 6

Vaccines vs. Autism, 2009	Vaccinations before age 5	Deaths per 1000 under 5 yrs old	Autism Rate	Lifespan Ranking
United States (c)	36	7.8	1 in 91	34
Norway	13	4.4	1 in 2,000 ab	5
Denmark	12	5.8	1 in 2,200 ab	18 d
Japan	11	4.2	1 in 475 a	4
Sweden	11	4.0	1 in 862 a	2
Iceland	11	3.9	1 in 1,1000 ab	1

All the vaccines mandated to children and many other vaccines as well, including the seasonal flu vaccines being mandated to health care workers, are contaminated with polysorbate 80, the central ingredient in a pharmaceutical industry patent to damage fertility. The pharmaceutical industry has a long history of of seeking a vaccine that would covertly sterilize whole populations So, in addition to being contaminated with cancer and other viruses, and with the bacteria mycoplasma, vaccines are intentionally "contaminated" with a chemical as well, which is, given the patent, a "patently" sought-after sterilizing agen

 

Beyond containing polysorbate 80 and cancer and other viruses, and likely mycoplasma, the Gardasil vaccines are contaminated in an additional way.  It and all the new vaccines are contaminated with genetically engineered DNA.  It can contaminate people's DNA, just a genetically engineered crops can contaminate normal crops.  Gardasil itself is contaminated with a man-made version of the HPV DNA, the very virus it was supposed to protect against, which now it threatens not only altering kids' healthy DNA with synthetic DNA (!) but with a diseased version.  

Gardasil was suspended in India after 4 girls died but the killing has gone on in the US despite the confirmed deaths of 100 girls. and now the CDC, with special ties to Merck, its maker, wants all boys to take it, too.

Informed consent is the core of the Nuremberg Code that was created by the Nuremberg Tribunal to keep the pharmaceutical industry from ever again committing the hideous "medical" abuses it did during the Holocaust. In California, Jerry Brown is dismantling informed consent in order to get these deadly  vaccines associated with infertility, into all school children.  And it was during the Holocaust that the pharmaceutical experimented on Jewish women prisoners at Auschwitz to develop a vaccine that sterilized covertly.  Henry Kissinger recommended the development of covertly sterilizing vaccines in a major report to the US government and as late as 2009 a Finnish Health Minister said he was behind the H1N1 vaccine that was meant to lower population.

Jerry Brown has just signed into law a bill that will allow children as young as 12 to decide whether to take a vaccine for sexually transmitted disease.  Parental consent is not needed and parents will not even be allowed knowledge as to whether the child has taken the vaccine.  Merck's Hepatitis B vaccine is one that is included, as is another Merck vaccine, Gardasil, allegedly for ovarian cancer.  A Gardasil researcher says there is no evidence it works.  "This raises questions about the CDC's recommendation that the series of shots be given to girls as young as 11-years old. 'If we vaccinate 11 year olds and the protection doesn't last... we've put them at harm from side effects, small but real, for no benefit,' says Dr. Harper. 'The benefit to public health is nothing, there is no reduction in cervical cancers … ' "

Current Data for Gardasil up to AUG 12, 2011 

Disabled 763 
Deaths 103 
Did Not Recover 4777 
Abnorm. Pap Smear 430 
Cervical Dysplasia 157 
Cervical Cancer 41 
Life Threatening 444 
Emergency Rm. Visit 9115 

Hospitalized 2307 
Extended Hosp. Stay 201 
Serious 3111 
Adverse Events 23388

But these figures are based on statistics from medical professionals who do not wish to be sued.  In reality, "less than 10% of deaths, seizures, paralysis, etc., are being reported as caused by the vaccinations that doctors gave in their office. 

The following real-world estimates are based on reports from a law firm:

“

840 young girls and 2 boys have died after receiving the Gardasil HPV Vaccine 201,010 young girls have suffered debilitating events such as fatigue, seizures, paralysis, etc. after receiving the Gardasil HPV Vaccine.

”

The California law even approves in advance, ALL yet-to-be made (and completely untested) vaccines for sexually transmitted diseases, though of the two current Merck vaccines they are pushing on children, one Merck vaccine caused AIDS and causes Lupus and the other Merck vaccine is contaminated in multiple ways and proving highly lethal. Children will be the ones decide whether to take the vaccines, and they will make that decision after being forced to see videos of people dying terrible deaths from cancer. Not only would the vaccine be given without parental consent, but parents are denied knowledge that the vaccine is going to be given or that it was given. If the child has a seizure or dies afterward, parents may not see their own children's medical records.

This is what is left of the "informed consent" meant to provide human rights to protect the world from pharmaceutical industry abuses against mankind.

After World War II, it was Merck which received the flight capital of the pharmaceutical industry indicted for crimes against humanity, human enslavement and mass murder. 

In the case of children, rather than their facing childhood diseases of insignificant threat, they are, by legal mandate, being bombarded repeatedly throughout their childhood with viruses that cause diseases (including cancer), a cell-destroying bacteria, a a threat to the very integrity of their DNA, and a chemical specifically chosen to impair fertility.  And laws are being written to add to the already long list of vaccines they must take, including two mandated Merck vaccines.  One is an old Merck vaccine that caused AIDS and is causing Lupus.  The other is a Merck vaccine claiming to prevent cervical cancer though girls have little chance of contracting it in the first place (and boys, none!) and it can easily be detected by pap smear and treated successfully and there is NO evidence the vaccine prevents it.  Meanwhile, it is killing children.

Contamination of the polio vaccine and the continuing effects

FACT: Before the Polio Vaccine, there had never been a virus from another species deliberately injected into humans.

FACT: 61% of all human tumors (at autopsy) now contain the SV40 monkey virus, traceable to the Polio vaccine of the 1950s and 60s

FACT: CUTTER vaccine division and WYETH produced a deadly Polio vaccine with a live virus that actually gave the recipient POLIO

FACT: All above information was withheld from the public for years to avoid a public panic and to prevent a loss of faith in vaccines. polio was a very rare infectious disease that presented little risk to the public, but the risk was greatly exaggerated by the Polio Foundation before the introduction of the  polio vaccine, the miracle vaccine - contaminated with a monkey virus which has been the cause of soft tissue cancers for decades since.

Though facing no serious health risk, people are paying to have their bodies contaminated by contaminated vaccines.  In taking vaccines, they are trading the minimal risk of even contracting common diseases and which themselves are rarely dangerous and can be treated if contracted - for the absolute certainty of loading their bodies with

1. cancer and other infectious viruses,
2. a destructive bacteria, and
3. a fertility impairing chemical.

They are doing this because they are being terrorized by their own government with false information on the risks of various diseases and denied critical information on the scientific risk of the vaccines.

Those vaccines without a doubt threaten their own and their children's fertility, and their very lives.

Social Engineering For Global Change

By Carl Teichrib, (www.forcingchange.org)

NOTE: Although this essay was originally penned a number of years ago, it is as vital today as when first published. Some slight editing changes have been made, but the essay is essentially the same as when it was released in 2004. 

“Fifty years is ample time in which to change a world and its people almost beyond recognition. All that is required for the task are a sound knowledge of social engineering, a clear sight of the intended goal – and power.” — Arthur C. Clarke, Childhood’s End. [1]

“A world society cannot be haphazard. Since there are no precedents, its cannot be traditional at this stage in its development. It can only be deliberative and experimental, planned and built up with particular objectives and with the aid of all available knowledge concerning the principles of social organization. Social engineering is a new science.” — Scott Nearing, United World [2]

Without question, one of the greatest tools for social engineering is in the realm of public education. This is not a blanket statement downplaying the role of education per se, but a judgment call recognizing the tremendous influence that the educational system can play in creating “social change.”

Consider this statement from Naresh Singh, a program director at the International Institute for Sustainable Development,

“Education has been advanced as significant in bringing about changes in attitudes, behaviour, beliefs and values… In order to redirect behaviour and values towards institutional change for sustainable development there is a need to investigate strategic options in relation to educational philosophies, scope for propagation and adoption, and groups most likely to be susceptible to change.” [3]

All of this points to a radical shift now taking place – a shift which emphasizes “global thinking” and “planetary norms.” According to the IISD literature, “the task of education for the immediate future is to assist in activating an ethic of planetary sensitivity… We must pass from a human-centred to an earth-centred sense of reality and value.” [4]

This “global-shift role” for general education is a foundational platform for UNESCO, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation. The first Director General of UNESCO, Julian Huxley, clearly laid out UNESCO’s educational scope,

“In general, Unesco must constantly be testing its policies against the touchstone of evolutionary progress. A central conflict of our times is that between nationalism and internationalism, between the concept of many national sovereignties and one world sovereignty…

The moral of Unesco is clear. The task laid upon it of promoting peace and security can never be wholly realised through the means assigned to it – education, science and culture. It must envisage some form of world political unity, whether through a single world government or otherwise… However, world political unity is, unfortunately, a remote ideal, and in any case does not fall within the field of Unesco’s competence. This does not mean that Unesco cannot do a great deal towards promoting peace and security. Specifically, in its educational programme it can stress the ultimate need for world political unity and familiarise all peoples with the implications of the transfer of full sovereignty from separate nations to a world organization.” [5]

Back in 1968, UNESCO, along with The Twentieth Century Fund (now called The Century Foundation) and the Ford Foundation, helped start a new educational body located in Geneva, Switzerland; the International Baccalaureate Organization. [6]

Originally, the IBO was established to provide a common educational basis for international students that would be acceptable to universities around the world. With this in mind, IBO curriculum has, for over 35 years, emphasized that its students broaden their understanding of various cultures, languages, and points of view.

Understanding other’s points of view, cultures and languages is, in itself, a noble task – it’s something that I work at pursuing and instilling within my own children and in myself. But underlining IBO’s philosophy is something deeper; according to George Walker, the Director General at IBO, “International education offers people a state of mind: international-mindedness. You’ve got to change people’s thinking.” [7] Hence, “students develop an awareness of moral and ethical issues and a sense of social responsibility… fostered by examining local and global issues.” [8]

This is not ambiguous language. In advancing the international-mindedness of IBO, the organization has endorsed the Earth Charter – an earth-centered declaration which venerates global political-ethical-moral and spiritual unification. Some, such as Mikhail Gorbachev, have gone so far as to compare the Earth Charter with “those 10 or 15 Commandments which we all know about… those famous testaments…” [9]

Providing the Earth Charter initiative with advanced support, the International Baccalaureate Organization has agreed to become an Earth Charter partnership entity, along with such groups as the Association of World Citizens, Friends of the Earth, Global People’s Assembly, Rain Forest Action Network, the US branch of the United Nations Association, and the World Parliament of Religions. [10] Furthermore, IBO Deputy Director General, Ian Hill, sits on the Earth Charter Initiative Education Advisory Committee.

Propagating this new global “testament,” IBO is currently looking at ways to incorporate the Earth Charter into the following curriculum areas; Theory of Knowledge, Environmental Systems, Environmental Science, Technology and Social Change, Peace and Conflict Studies, Experimental Science, Philosophy, Geography, History, Math, and the Arts. [11]

None of this would be very remarkable if the IBO were a small entity stuffed somewhere in a forgotten corner of the world, but it’s not. Presently, almost 1,300 schools around the globe are authorized to offer IBO programs. And in the United States and Canada, close to 650 schools are tied into the IBO, with 473 in the US. Adding to this, the IBO is linked into a number of United Nations’ functions beyond the UN inspired Earth Charter and UNESCO – where it holds a special consultative status. Examples of this UN partnering includes: preparatory work for the UN’s World Summit on Sustainable Development, activities within a number of UN International Schools, and involvement with a variety of United Nations Model programs. [12] Simply put, it’s an organization with considerable “social change” inroads at the international level.

Funding for the body also reflects this global-local-global approach. During the month of October, 2003, in a monetary show of support, the US Department of Education awarded the IBO a grant of $1.17 million. According to the IBO press release, these US taxpayer funds were to be specifically channeled into setting up IBO programs “in six middle and high school partnerships in disadvantaged areas in Massachusetts, New York and Arizona.” [13]

Additional funding for the IBO has come from 14 other major national governments, including the United Kingdom, Japan, and Canada. Monies have also been funneled through contributions from the Goldman Sachs Foundation, the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, the US Agency for International Development, the Armand Hammer Foundation and the Armand Hammer United World College, the United Nations International School, the New York Times Foundation, Gulf Canada, the IBM World Trade Organization, and many others. [14] Obviously, incorporating a global mind-change educational agenda carries a hefty price tag – and it’s no surprise that foundations and financial actors are involved in the play.

Progressing the idea of an international educational platform, Professor Azim Nanji, Director of the Institute of Ismaili Studies, delivered a speech to the International Baccalaureate Organization on May 5th, 2003, stating that we need to see things in broader terms than just nation-states and western liberal democracy. Additionally, he stated that when people’s religious beliefs become a vehicle for political and social agendas, it’s an abuse of religion. [15]

Somehow I think the irony of this proposition went unnoticed. By endorsing and incorporating the Earth Charter, the IBO is blatantly pushing a pseudo-religious/spiritual agenda – an international social-change concept that is grossly intertwined with global governance aspirations, United Nations empowerment, and earth-centered religious philosophies. UNESCO itself, as part of IBO’s foundational base, endorses a quasi-religious version of international education through the work of a former high-ranking UN official, Robert Muller.

In 1989, Robert Muller received the UNESCO Peace Education Prize for his work in developing a World Core Curriculum. Frederico Mayor, the Director-General of UNESCO at the time, praised Muller as an “innovator in education” and gave accolades for Muller’s book New Genesis: Shaping a Global Spirituality, saying that it “offers the world a blueprint for a new, spiritual vision of human destiny.” [16]

Yes it does! According to New Genesis,

“…humankind is seeking no less than its reunion with the “divine,” its transcendence into ever higher forms of life. Hindus call our earth Brahma, or God, for they rightly see no difference between our earth and the divine. This ancient simple truth is slowly dawning again upon humanity. Its full flowering will be the real, great new story of humanity, as we are about to enter our cosmic age and to become what we were always meant to be: the planet of God.” [17]

Predictably, Muller’s World Core Curriculum follows this New Genesis -New Age vein. In fact, Muller’s World Core Curriculum is really more of a philosophy of education than an actual curriculum – a philosophy firmly grounded in New Age concepts of man’s deification and “Earth spirituality.” Bridging all of this, Muller explains, “Yes, global education must transcend material, scientific and intellectual achievements and reach deliberately into the moral and spiritual spheres.” [18]

Why? According to Muller,

“We must manage our globe so as to permit the endless stream of humans admitted to the miracle of life to fulfill their lives physically, mental, morally and spiritually as has never been possible before in our entire evolution. Global education must prepare our children for the coming of an independent… happy planetary age.” [19]

Lucile Green, a long-time world government activist and friend of Robert Muller, describes this new “planetary age” in her memoir, Journey To A Governed World,

“The most urgent item on the planetary agenda is to set the limits of freedom and order in supra-national, global affairs. A constitution for the world is needed which combines the achievements of both hemispheres: that is, constitutional limitations and a bill of rights from the West and a spacious world-view from the East.” [20]

Another contemporary of Muller, William D. Hitt, wrote in his book The Global Citizen, “As global citizens, we will need a new type of thinking.” [21]

This is the crux of global social change: a “new type of thinking” that bridges international education, global ethics, world political unity, and the emergence of a “planetary spirituality.” It is the desire to shape and mold man according to man’s image. It is the desire to re-cast history and human endeavor to conform with a centralized-utopian version of a “world society” – a society shaped by propaganda, planetary-correctness, and a faulty and exalted image of man and nature. And finally, when contemplating the move towards this world society and the propaganda role of “international education,” consider the words of Scott Nearing, who was an avid socialist and proponent of world government,

“The conversion of a continent of localists into a continent of nationalists in a few generations must rank as one of the outstanding achievements of modern times. Indoctrination works. Human loyalties can be and are speedily shifted by experience coupled with propaganda.

Worldizing processes are building up a great number and variety of world experiences. Millions of human beings, responding to these experiences, are already world conscious, world minded and prepared to function as citizens in a world society. Such human beings have passed through and graduated from the school of nationalism. They are wordlists. They wait with impatience for the emergence of a world commonwealth.” [22]

As the line between education, “political correctness,” and propaganda becomes increasingly blurred, it is essential that we navigate this global maze with sobriety, clear thinking, and an understanding of the forces that are shaping our 21st century.

Endnotes:

1. Arthur C. Clarke, Childhood’s End (New York: Ballantine Books, 1953), p.69.

2. Scott Nearing, United World (New York: Island Press, 1944), p.221.

3. Naresh Singh, “Empowerment for Sustainable Development: An Overview,” Empowerment For Sustainable Development (Halifax, NS: Fernwood Publishing/Winnipeg, MB: International Institute for Sustainable Development, 1995), p.27.

4. Budd Hall and Edmund Sullivan, “Transformative Education and Environmental Action in the Ecozoic Era,” Empowerment For Sustainable Development (Halifax, NS: Fernwood Publishing/Winnipeg, MB: International Institute for Sustainable Development, 1995 – edited by Naresh Singh) p.102.

5. Julian Huxley, UNESCO: Its Purpose and Its Philosophy (Washington, DC: Public Affairs Press, 1947) p.13.

6. See “Founding Donors” at the IBO’s webpage, www.ibo.org [accessed February 18, 2004].

7. IBO Background Paper – Themes in Education, Education Weaves Together the Threads of Peace, IBO Head Office, Geneva, Switzerland, 15 June, 2003 (see page 2).

8. See “The Six Academic Subjects” at the IBO webpage, www.ibo.org [accessed February 18, 2004].

9. Mikhail Gorbachev, “The Earth Charter,” Speech: Rio+5 Forum, March 18, 1997. Green Cross International webpage, www.gci/ch/GreenCrossFamily/gorby/newspeeches/speeches/spech18.3.97.html [accessed March 20, 1998] This particular website has since been moved to http://web243.petrel.ch/GreenCrossFamily/gcfamilyhp.html and Mr. Gorbachev’s speech can be read at

http://web243.petrel.ch/GreenCrossFamily/gorby/newspeeches/speeches/speech18.3.97.html. See Gary Kah’s book, The New World Religion (Noblesville, IN: Hope International Publishing, 1999), chapter six. Note: These links are currently not accessible.

10. See “Our Partners” at the Earth Charter Community Summits webpage, www.earthchartersummits.org [accessed February 18, 2004].

11. See “Educational Resources” at the Earth Charter Community Summits webpage, www.earthchartersummits.org [accessed February 18, 2004].

12. The work of the IBO at the World Summit on Sustainable Development was published by the International Institute for Sustainable Development, Earth Negotiations Bulletin, Special Report on Selected Side Events at WSSD PC-III, 25 March – 5 April, 2002. The other connections can be easily found by doing a basic web search on the IBO and the United Nations.

13. IBO Press Release, “US Department of Education Grants IBO US$1.17 Million,” IBO Head Office, Geneva, Switzerland, 14 October 2003.

14. See “Founding Donors” at the IBO’s webpage, www.ibo.org [accessed February 18, 2004], it contains a list of other contributors and regular funding partners.

15. “IIS Director Delivers 2003 Peterson Lecture,” June 2003, document from the Institute of Ismaili Studies, posted at the IBO webpage as a PDF file.

16. Excerpt from the address by Mr. Federico Mayor, Director-General of UNESCO, 20 September 1989. Reprinted in Robert Muller’s book, Dialogues of Hope (Ardsley, NY: World Happiness and Cooperation, 1990), p.172.

17. Robert Muller, New Genesis: Shaping a Global Spirituality (Anacortes, WA: World Happiness and Cooperation, 1982), p.49.

18. Ibid., p.8.

19. Ibid., p.8.

20. Lucile Green, Journey To A Governed World: Thru 50 Years in the Peace Movement (Berkeley, CA: 1991), pp.34-35.

21. William D. Hitt, The Global Citizen (Columbus, OH: Battelle Press, 1998), p.110.

22. Scott Nearing, United World (New York: Island Press, 1944), pp.20-21.