I think it's really rather ignorant to ask yourself whether ニューヨーク水道橋カジノ E.
Coli bacteria was engineered or not.
At this point you're far better off asking yourself more important questions such as: "Who engineered this new bacteria?
I hope I did.
But let's be serious for a moment.
I feel like it is an insult to you to explain why this is a biological weapon, but we might as well cover it, which we will in a moment.
Let's not make the mistake that there's anything we can do about it though.
That shouldn't necessarily stop us from complaining about it.
However, please get this idea out of your head that they're going to stop killing you because you made an angry website about it, filmed yourself for Youtube while yelling and screaming without your shirt on, or bought a T-shirt and a DVD.
It's a show, we're the audience.
Some people make a living out of complaining about it, while others such as me complain about it for fun.
They need you to believe that you can end it.
That's what they want you to believe.
If you buy more copies of my movie, these New World Order Illuminati Bilderberger badguys will eventually give up!
Anything to get you riled up and fill their pockets.
Tell me how much success you had stopping any of the wars.
Tell me how much success you had getting Ron Paul elected as president.
I would give you Rand Paul, had he changed anything or actually stood for the same things you stand for.
Tell me how much success you had against GMO food, aspartame, water fluoridation, the European Union, the North American Union, anything.
If you're into this because you have a pathological desire like me to understand it, welcome to the club, I wish you a happy journey.
Be warned though, you'll lose interest after a while hopefully.
If you're into this because you think you're going to solve it, or it's your "duty", please don't waste your life.
With that said, I promise, we'll finally get to the turd germ now.
The strain popped up out of basically nowhere.
It's been seen in South Korea once a while ago, and in Congo supposedly.
It pops up in Germany out of all places.
They're blaming organic farms and countries that refuse GMO crops Spain.
It's resistant to 8 different classes of antibiotics.
Why would an E.
Coli bacteria that hardly ever infects and harms humans be resistant to 8 classes of antibiotics?
Why would you blame Spanish cucumbers and then bean sprouts?
What would check this out antibiotic resistant bacteria be doing on vegetables from organic farms?
Coli is amongst the easiest species of life to genetically manipulate.
It readily takes up gene fragments.
Teenagers genetically manipulate E.
Coli to make it resistant to antibiotics in friggin' high school.
It contains genetic material from the plague.
From the German Spiegel: On Tuesday, the German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung reported that Karch had discovered that the O104:H4 bacteria responsible for the current outbreak is a so-called chimera that contains genetic material from various E.
It also contains DNA sequences from plague bacteria, which makes it particularly pathogenic.
There is no risk, however, that it could cause a form of plague, Karch emphasized in remarks to the newspaper.
Things such as these normally evolve.
They don't just pop up out of nowhere.
The British released E.
Coli bacteria ON PURPOSE against their own population.
Coli bacteria was secretly tested as a possible biological weapon in and around two British towns, it is revealed today.
The MoD trials suggested the 'excellent quality and reproducibility' of E.
A series of trials involving the release of 'micro-threads' covered in the bacteria — which can cause diarrhoea and kidney failure — were carried out near Swindon and Southampton between late 1965 and November 1967.
Swindon was selected because it was 'a reasonably large inland industrial city in the midst of a large rural area', newly de-classified documents reveal.
The tests were designed to establish how well E.
I quote: Among the pathogenic E.
Considering its high pathogenicity, EHEC O157:H7 has been listed as a potential bio-weapon in many countries.
We're building artificial species from scratch.
Surely someone somewhere is capable of taking a turd bacteria and turning it into a killer.
It's now simply a matter of waiting until someone releases something that's a real killer.
Scientists turn mad all too often.
Have you forgotten where the anthrax came from?
The anthrax in 2001 came from a lab, that's absolutely clear now.
For decades after World War II, scientists experimented on people, mostly minorities and handicapped people, since they were easy targets of course.
They injected them with viruses, radioactive isotopes, they blasted literal holes into their heads with radiation and forcibly sterilized them.
Mengele is the tip of the iceberg.
The majority of scientists are simply scumbags.
They're control freaks, who think it's their duty to take 21大カジノの苦情を勝ち取る of you because you were born into a "socio-economically disadvantaged position" or whatever label they will put on you, with a desire to get rich and boss other people around.
Because they happen to have a three digit IQ instead of a two digit IQ they manage to conceal that they're https://money-money.site/1/816.html and scumbags, for people who can't look through their facade.
Here's ナイアガラフォールズカジノイベントスケジュール Ted Kaczynski had to say about scientists: 87.
Science and technology provide the most important examples of surrogate activities.
Some scientists claim that they are motivated by "curiosity" or by a desire to benefit humanity.
But it is easy to see that neither of these can be the principle motive of 無料ダウンロードゲームファラオ scientists.
As for "curiosity," that notion is simply absurd.
Most scientists work on highly specialized problems that are not the object of any normal curiosity.
For example, is an astronomer, a mathematician or an entomologist curious about the properties of isopropyltrimethylmethane?
Only a chemist is curious about such a thing, and he is curious about it only because chemistry is his surrogate activity.
Is the chemist curious about the appropriate classification of a new species of beetle?
That question is of interest only to the entomologist, and he is interested in it only because entomology is his surrogate activity.
If the chemist and the entomologist had to exert themselves seriously to obtain the physical necessities, and if that effort exercised their abilities in an interesting way but in some nonscientific pursuit, then they couldn't giver a damn about isopropyltrimethylmethane or the classification of beetles.
Suppose that lack of funds for postgraduate education had led the chemist to become an insurance broker instead of a chemist.
In that case he would have been very interested in insurance matters but would have cared nothing about isopropyltrimethylmethane.
In any case it is not normal to put into the satisfaction of mere curiosity the amount of time and effort that scientists put into their work.
The "curiosity" explanation for the scientists' motive just doesn't stand up.
The "benefit of humanity" explanation doesn't work any better.
Some scientific work has no conceivable relation to the welfare of the human race—most of archeology or comparative linguistics for example.
Some other areas of science present obviously dangerous possibilities.
Yet scientists in these areas are just as enthusiastic about their work as those who develop vaccines or study air pollution.
Consider the case of Dr.
Edward Teller, who had an obvious emotional involvement in promoting nuclear power plants.
Did this involvement stem from a desire to benefit humanity?
If so, then why didn't Dr.
Teller get emotional about other "humanitarian" causes?
If he was such a humanitarian then why did he help to develop the H-bomb?
As with many other scientific achievements, it is very much open to question whether nuclear power plants actually do benefit humanity.
Does the cheap electricity outweigh the accumulating waste and risk of accidents?
Teller saw only one side of the question.
Clearly his emotional involvement with nuclear power arose not from a desire to "benefit humanity" but from a personal fulfillment he got from his work and from seeing it put to practical use.
The same is true of scientists generally.
With possible rare exceptions, their motive is neither curiosity nor a desire to benefit humanity but the need to go through the power process: to have a goal a scientific problem to solveto make an effort research and to attain the goal solution of the problem.
Science is a surrogate activity because scientists work mainly for the fulfillment they get out of the work itself.
Of course, it's not that simple.
Other motives do play a role for many scientists.
Money and status for example.
Some scientists may be persons of the type who have an insatiable drive for status see paragraph 79 and this may provide much of the motivation for their work.
No doubt the majority of scientists, like the majority of the general population, are more or less susceptible to advertising and marketing techniques and need money to satisfy their craving for goods and services.
Thus science is not a pure surrogate activity.
But it is in large part a surrogate activity.
Also, インドのゲームは無料のPCの3Dをダウンロード and technology constitute a mass power movement, and many scientists gratify their need for power through identification with this mass movement see paragraph 83.
Thus science marches on blindly, without regard to the real welfare of the human race or to any other standard, obedient only to the psychological needs of the scientists and of the government officials and corporation executives who provide the funds for research.
They have a massive disrespect for anyone who didn't spend the best years of his life getting a stupid PHD, and a massive lack of respect for nature as well.
Their job consists of torturing rats, guinea pigs and mice.
That's their job description.
Do you think someone like that is going to be a nice person?
You're just another one of their lab rats.
They're scumbags, and you're a number to them.
A number on a Wikipedia page.
Knowing what we know, you should ask yourself how the E.
Coli outbreak could NOT be a bioweapon.
Most カジノデータベースアナリスト給与イギリス see societal collapse, whether rapid or progressive, as the inevitable result of a combination of depletion of our natural resources, increasing overpopulation, global climate change, or a combination of the three.
In this essay I will argue that a coming collapse may very well happen as a result of a change in our society we are likely to overlook.
In the same manner that the threats that we do not think of are our biggest problem, societal collapse go here likely to result from a threat that practically nobody thinks of.
Since we are eager to prepare for the threats we are aware of just look at the effort taken in our society to prevent our concerns of climate change, overpopulation and peak oil from threatening our civilizationit is likely that these threats, whether genuine or exaggerated, will not lead to a collapse.
After all, we had enough time to prepare for them and took at least some basic action to prevent these threats from growing too large.
The threats I am concerned about are the ones that pose a direct threat to biological life, and are largely overlooked or purposefully ignored by our ruling elites.
It is the threats you don't prepare for that are most likely to harm you.
We now have a wide variety of energy sources other than fossil fuels.
Many countries now depend on hydroelectric power, nuclear energy, wind energy, or other renewable sources of energy.
Our transportation increasingly uses biodiesel, and Western nations increasingly use public transport.
Peak oil would certainly be a threat to the United States.
I doubt the same can be said for Western Europe however.
Assuming oil is indeed as "fossil" as we are told and I have my doubts, since other planets have more hydrocarbons that our planet does without having lifewe will not spontaneously run out of oil.
Oil will just become increasingly expensive as we switch over to other https://money-money.site/1/475.html like the tar sands of Canada and require increasing amounts of pollution and effort to retrieve the last oil on our planet.
The switch would be problematic, but I see no reason why civilization would be unable to survive such a threat or even make a significant fall back to pre-Industrial times, for the simple fact of the matter that our policy planners have had an awful lot of time to prepare for it.
The same goes for the threat of climate change.
Whether climate change is anthropogenic or not is not really relevant now.
Even if humans had no impact on the climate, a sudden cooling or heating of our planet could happen spontaneously.
Of course, those concerned about climate tend to focus on the negative aspects.
However for certain areas of the planet, large scale warming would have positive effects.
Large areas of permafrost in Russia could be expected to become increasingly habitable to human life.
More importantly, increased CO2 concentrations increase the growth of plants.
Our planet has long been suffering from low CO2 concentrations.
Our current Atmospheric CO2 concentrations are estimated at about 390 parts per million.
This is much higher than at any time in previous centuries.
Millions of years ago, CO2 concentrations were thousands of parts per millions, as opposed to mere hundreds.
As a result, plants had to adapt.
This is why a minority of plants now use a C4 carbon fixation system.
These plants did not become ecologically significant until about 6 to 7 million years ago.
It is interesting to note that the Sahara is also estimated to be about 7 million years old.
Important to note is that rising CO2 concentrations help promote plant life.
Anyone who has ever used increased CO2 concentrations for his plants knows this.
And indeed, this is what we find in numerous studies ウィリアムチェンバーズによるマリーナのカジノ worldwide.
Increased CO2 concentrations promote plant growth.
According to some scientists, an increase in rainfall from global warming would shrink the Sahara.
As CO2 concentrations increase, plants will spread to places now considered arid, for multiple reasons.
First of all, plants lose a lot of water per fixed carbon dioxide atom.
As CO2 concentrations increase, plants will lose less water and thus plant growth will extend into places now considered deserts.
In fact prominent scientists once called for a global increase in CO2 concentrations to promote plant growth.
Many will reject my suggestions, because they have based their entire world-view on the idea that civilization is unsustainable due to rising CO2 concentrations which will bring disaster to our planet.
To them I will say that human civilization is nonetheless a disaster to both the human race and the natural world as a whole.
But not due to rising CO2 concentrations.
We have to realize that although a global increase in temperature could mean problems for some places such as Bangladeshwe are likely to see that civilizations would easily adapt to such changes.
Populations would migrate, dikes would be raised, and it is likely that we would make increasing use of weather modification, which is already happening and being tested on a large scale.
But what then, are those changes that threaten human civilization as カジノデータベースアナリスト給与イギリス whole?
These are the types of changes that we can not or are not preparing for.
The ones we have no control over.
An example would be a Coronal mass ejection, commonly known as a solar storm.
In 1989, a mild solar storm caused an outage in the power supply of 6 million people in Canada.
The last time this happened was in the 19th century, and as we had little to no electricity back then, the impact on civilization was very minor.
Events like these happen about once every 500 years.
A solar storm has the potential to cause a power shortage around the planet.
There would be hundreds of power plants that would face the threat of a power shortage.
How many of those will melt down as a result is hard for us to estimate.
It seems clear however that the world would not be the same for decades to come if this were to happen.
And massive solar storms happen.
There is very little we can do to protect ourselves against them, all our technology is vulnerable to them.
The world will not be the same when one of these events happens.
Our satellites and radio stations are most vulnerable to these events.
The meltdown of multiple power plants would lead to global epidemics of cancer, infertility and birth defects.
However, even if a solar storm never happens, and no meltdowns of nuclear power plants will ever happen again, we are currently witnessing exponentially growing epidemics of cancer and infertility already.
Our see more has already unleashed forms of technology which carry the types of health effects our body has no way to copy with.
Let us begin with the most clear problem.
It is already happening in many places around the globe.
The World Health Organization monitors the global decline in sperm counts.
It is forced to constantly change the definition of a normal sperm count, because otherwise it would be forced to acknowledge that most of the world is now subfertile according to its previous definition.
A normal sperm count was once at least 60 million according to the WHO.
Now it has become 15 million.
But after the turn of the century, they no longer declined.
They began to plunge.
In New Zealand, in 20 years the sperm count declined from 110 million in 1987 to 50 million in 2007.
A main reason for the historical decline has been an increase in pollution.
It is possible that one change is the introduction of genetically manipulated crops into our environment.
They have been linked to a progressive decline in animals in multiple studies.
Humans are increasingly experimenting with the genetic manipulation of viruses that are capable of infecting human beings and some of our main food crops.
Important in highlighting the danger if this is that changes happen during genetic manipulation that would not happen in nature.
Organisms incorporate entire genes that would normally take millions of years to evolve, or that organisms would never be capable of evolving at all.
An example is the experiment by Prodigene.
Prodigene sought to develop an edible vaccine against HIV, at least that is what is claimed by the company.
The problem is that this product began to contaminate our food supply.
As a result, large amounts of food had to be destroyed, and men in literal black helicopters were going from field to field to burn down any crop that could possibly still be carrying this gene.
GP120 is a very toxic gene product, that causes apoptosis cell death in neurons.
This is how AIDS leads to dementia in people.
The gene also damages the immune system.
Such a disaster would never happen in the natural world.
How could an AIDS virus protein ever suddenly end up in a corn plant, without human intervention?
It would never happen in nature.
These things are just click for source in the history of life on planet Earth.
But human technology has made them possible.
Another example is of a bacteria that was taught how to produce alcohol.
I quote from an article: A few years ago, a German biotech company engineered a common soil bacterium, Klebsiella planticola, to help break down wood chips, corn stalks, wastes from lumber businesses and agriculture, and to produce ethanol in the process.
It seemed like a great achievement.
The genetically engineered Klebsiella bacterium could help break down rotting organic material and in the process produce a fuel that could be used instead of gasoline, thus lessening the production of greenhouse gases.
It was assumed that the post-process waste could be added to soil as an amendment, like compost.
With the approval of the EPA, the company field tested the bacterium at Oregon State University.
As far as the intended goals were concerned - eliminating rotting organic waste and producing ethanol - the genetically engineered bacterium was a success.
But when a doctoral student named Michael Holmes decided to add the post-processed waste to actual living soil, something happened that no one expected.
The seeds that were planted in soil mixed with the engineered Klebsiella sprouted, but then every single one of them died.
The genetically engineered Klebsiella turned out to be highly competitive with native soil micro-organisms.
Plants are only able to take nitrogen and カジノデータベースアナリスト給与イギリス nourishment from the soil with the help of fungi called mycorrhizae.
These fungi live in the soil and help make nutrients available to plant roots.
But when the genetically engineered Klebsiella was introduced into living soils, it greatly reduced the population of mycorrhizal fungi in the soil.
And without healthy mycorrhizal fungi in soils, no plants can survive.
It is testimony to the amazing powers of science that researchers were able to track the mechanism by which the genetically engineered Klebsiella prevented plants from growing.
There are thousands of different species of microorganisms in every teaspoon of fertile soil, and they interact in trillions of ways.
But the scientists discovered something else in these experiments, something that sent chills down their spines.
They found that the genetically modified bacteria were able to persist in the soil, raising the possibility that, had it been released, the genetically engineered Klebsiella could have become established - and virtually impossible to eradicate.
They went through everything with a fine tooth comb, and they couldn't find anything wrong with the experimental design - but they tried as hard as they could.
If we hadn't done this research, the Klebsiella would have passed the approval process for commercial release.
The implications of this single case are nothing short of terrifying.
A genetically modified species of bacteria was able to produce alcohol from plant waste because of human genetic manipulation.
Unfortunately, the alcohol happens to kill the plant.
This produces more food for the species.
What happens is that nothing can compete against this bacteria.
It is a literal weapon of mass destruction.
What makes this different from the normal threats we are used to is that in this case, the biggest threat was the situation that we had not foreseen.
We almost eradicated life on planet Earth as we know it, by creating a bacteria that could easily destroy most plants.
This is radically different from our fear of the known dangers.
I argue that it is the threats in our future that we do not know that will destroy us, not the ones we see and prepare for.
There is however one threat to our species that is even greater than genetic manipulation.
All our wireless devices produce microwave radiation.
Our scientific establishment assumes these devices do not threaten our health, because they believe that the photons do not carry enough strength to break chemical bonds.
Unfortunately it seems they are wrong, because multiple photons working together as is the case in strong microwave radiation still seem to be able to have the type of effects that scientists assure us "can not happen".
A majority of scientific studies find that electromagnetic radiation damages DNA in vitro.
The reductionist view of scientists leads them to ignore the greater and unpredictable impacts of something that in their studies appears to pose no dangers and carry only benefits.
What are the health effects of this new revolution going to be?
Unfortunately this is already becoming clear.
Cell phones cause infertility in males.
It is only since a few years that our children and unborn are exposed to this radiation.
The radiation contributes to the rise in autism we see, because the radiation causes the death of Purkinje cells.
In a very recent study from South Korea, the rate of autism is now estimated at one in 38 children.
Some scientists claim that the rise is due to improved diagnosis, but they are wrong.
At most 10% of the rise is from improved diagnosis.
It's continually getting worse.
At what point do we have so many autistic children that our civilization is no longer capable of normal functioning?
A major problem is that the cells that will form the ovary in a woman are particularly vulnerable to radiation when she is in the womb.
Developing rat ovaries are damaged if the rat is exposed to cell phone radiation while in the womb.
We also face an increased risk of cancer.
Massively increased risks in cancer of the Parotid gland and brain cancer have already been found.
People who use cell phones have a far greater amount of DNA damage in their white blood cells.
But we won't, we will continue to use increasing amounts of wireless communication devices.
In fact, some of you are likely reading this article on a mobile phone.
Our health care system could very well crumble under the effects we will be witnessing in a few years.
Combine this with the baby-boomers retiring.
We are faced with the problem of a shrinking group of increasingly chronically ill young people taking care of increasingly chronically ill elderly people.
I do not expect that civilization will survive when the people who maintain it are all chronically ill.
H5N1 has been a part of planet earth for many thousands of years without causing human deaths!!!!
Perhaps you are an anarchist, a socialist, a conspiracy theorist, a truther, a birther, a tenther, an environmentalist, a peace-activist, a left-wing extremist, a fringe lunatic, a right-wing extremist, whatever it may be, I hardly care, I will call you a discontent.
It's very possible that you bash in the brains of other discontents, because they belong to the wrong group of angry disenfranchised radicals.
And, since you are a product of your environment, if you had grown up in slightly different circumstances, you could have followed the same ideology or had the same job as the person who you fight with.
If your father happened to be a police officer, you could have aspired to be one too, and become the deluded man who is now hitting you with a baton.
If you grew slotica as a white working class man who is unemployed because someone in India will do his job for less, you could have turned into an angry bigoted right-wing conservative.
But had you grown up in suburbia and your parents were wealthy, you could have rebelled against them and become a left-wing activist instead.
Having been pretty much everything over a span of about 10 years before slowly settling to become an unorthodox hybrid of various opposing ideologies, I realize that you are a product of your environment.
Every discontent wants a better world, but none of them agree on how to reach it.
If you are willing to violently engage each other for belonging to the wrong group, you may be active fighting fascism and racism the whole day, but that same tribalist and dominating instinct that gives rise to racism and fascism just manifested itself in the punch you gave someone who said something you disagree with.
You inherently just like to fight, it's part of your instinct.
Hopefully bravery instead of bullying is a part of your instinct as well, and thus you prefer to fight against overwhelming odds instead of ganging up against a minority.
The person who denies global warming is as certain as the person who thinks global warming will kill us all of the accuracy of his own opinion.
Both are convinced the facts point towards their side, and those facts posing towards the other side are a result of scientific fraud, which may very well be the case.
And being ダウンロードチェスゲーム they are products of their environment, their numbers are changed easily as well by those in power.
If doesn't matter what group you belong to, you can be, and probably are, easily used.
You are predictable, and part of the status quo.
Those in power can effectively use you to manage society, regardless of your ideals and goals.
If the birth rate in the United States is too low, the powers that be may show you anti-abortion rallies, and raise your tribal instincts by teaching you through the TV about little children in kindergarten being taught about gay men having gay sex.
What happens next is that public opinion becomes more conservative, abortions are made less easy to gain here to, sex education is toned down, and the birth rate goes up.
If the birth rate is too high, you may be told through TV about anti-abortion nuts doing something outrageous, such as making homophobic statements.
The media may show you read article about teenage pregnancies, or "some school" where a lot of girls happen to be pregnant.
The birth rate goes down again.
Your fertility is easily managed.
If you have too many children, something can be put into your environment that will lower your sperm count, and because the sperm count is directly related to the number of children born, the birth rate drops.
If the average IQ is too high, water fluoridation is introduced, or the amount of MSG in your food is increased.
If the average IQ is too low because new jobs require more intelligent people, the amount of fluoride can be reduced because children are gaining stains on their teeth.
Whether 25 studies show a reduction in IQ as a result of fluoride in the water or not is irrelevant.
Whether someone does a new study that shows a link or not doesn't matter either.
A scientist that opposes fluoride will be ridiculed and excluded by his peers, and the media will declare anyone who opposes it mentally ill.
If the ruling elite decide at some point that fluoride has to go, there will suddenly emerge an "overwhelming scientific consensus" that fluoride is harmful after all.
Whether or not that consensus has existed for decades but wasn't talked about is irrelevant.
The ruling elite decide together behind closed doors what is going to happen, and try to reach a consensus.
They never all agree.
About 80% agreement may be enough.
Not all of the ruling elite agreed that Iraq had to be invaded for example.
Next, the ruling elite will need to convince the public that the measure needs to be carried out.
They don't need to reach 80%.
They don't even need to reach a majority.
After all, without direct democracy, you can carry out whatever you want.
The overwhelming majority of Dutch people do not セントルイスミズーリ州のカジノ troops to be send to Kunduz, a province in Afghanistan, but it's going to happen anyway.
Unless an overwhelming majority, about 90% or more, of people are against your plan, read article can just ignore them and do what you want.
If an enormous majority of the people in a country don't want to invade another country, the country won't invade the other country.
Instead, some other country will take over their role in the invasion.
Perhaps a country may be secretly involved in the occupation or the war even.
And people will be angry about it.
Let the people release their anger.
You want them to go out into the streets サムスンのゲームオンラインダウンロードのタッチスクリーン protest.
You even want them to burn down some stores.
Let them release their frustration and anger now, so they have forgotten about it by the time the elections take place.
And there you are, the activist.
You brought your signs out, you had the biggest anti-war demonstrations the world has ever seen, the vast majority of people around the world opposed the war, and nonetheless Iraq was attacked.
Why did you fail?
The answer is simple.
You're predictable and irrelevant.
You're a statistic that is part of the calculations when policy is made.
Some anarchists have figured this out, and responded by separating themselves from the rest of the radical left.
In the words of Nadia C.
They know that your antiquated styles of protest—your marches, hand held signs, and gatherings—are now powerless to effect real change because they have become such a predictable part of the status quo.
They know that your post-Marxist jargon is off-putting because it really is a language of mere academic dispute, not a weapon capable of undermining systems of control.
They know that your infighting, your splinter groups and endless quarrels over ephemeral theories can never effect any real change in the world they experience from day to day.
They know that no matter who is in office, what laws are on the books, what "ism"s the intellectuals march under, the content of their lives will remain the same.
Part of the reason is that your anger is managed and steered.
You are all upset about something.
Perhaps you want the war in Afghanistan to end.
Policy makers will responds by carrying something out that directly affects you more, and is hardly essential to their agenda.
An example may be the mandatory fondling of your daughter when she goes to the airport.
This will awaken your tribal and dominating instincts, and you will for a moment be too busy being outraged over issue number 2 to be outraged over issue number 1.
They may even raise the idea of attacking Iran or some other nation.
For a moment you feel forced to stop a new war, and thus you are distracted from your old objective.
Of course, also important is that you continually have the illusion of choice.
You can just vote in a new candidate after all, since you live in a democracy.
The oligarchy of rich people that really rule will just manipulate your politicians.
The only reason you even know the names of the men who are your politicians is because the oligarchs allow these men to be seen on TV.
The only politicians who ever reach your attention are ones that are easily bribed and manipulated, and will change their opinions when under pressure from the oligarchs.
These politicians are not supposed to be too intelligent.
It is fundamental article source they should not be aware of the existence of many issues.
They should not be against water カジノデータベースアナリスト給与イギリス />They should not even be for it.
No, they should just not occupy themselves with it.
They have to have no opinion on it.
They should not have an opinion on the necessity of a standing army, a central bank or an income tax either, because they are issues that are fundamental to the continuation of the status quo.
It should never occur to them that you could just scrap a standing army altogether.
They shouldn't just be against it, they shouldn't think about it.
Instead, they should be occupied by another issue invented by the media.
For example, your politicians should be outraged by something that is indeed outraging, but hardly relevant on the greater scheme of things.
Your politician should be outraged by Israel building houses in Jerusalem, which in the greater scheme of things hardly matters.
Your politicians should be outraged by a political commentator making a homophobic comment on TV.
They should be outraged by sport stars using drugs, because this "gives a bad example to our children".
If you click here people's outrage out over enough issues, preferably irrelevant to the greater scheme of things, it becomes too weak to effect things.
As Carroll Quigley explained: "The National parties and their presidential candidates, with the Eastern Establishment assiduously fostering the process behind the scenes, moved closer together and nearly met in the center with almost identical candidates and platforms, although the process was concealed as much as possible, by the revival of obsolescent or meaningless war cries and slogans often going back to the Civil War.
Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party, which will be none of these things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies.
What can you do to effect change?
First of all, you must limit your actions to those actions that do not require support or involvement of a majority of the population for them to be effective.
You will never convince more than 50% of the population to support your cause.
Government conspiracies have come, one more blatantly obvious than the other.
The JFK assassination was a government conspiracy.
The forgery of WMD evidence to invade Iraq was a blatantly obvious government conspiracy.
Most people are aware that invasion of Click at this page was based on a government conspiracy.
However, despite the fact that most people are aware of this, things do not change.
People have a bad memory, and there will be more wars, and they will be based on lies, and people will believe those lies.
Instead, you should carry out actions that require a limited number of people to have a measurable positive effect.
An example is writing, and creating new ideas.
This is what I try to do myself.
Thanks to the Internet, ideas become infectious.
I create a large number of ideas, some better than the other.
Because ideas are viral in nature, good ones will generally spread, and bad ones will generally not.
I do not just spread ideas as David Rothscum.
I spread them anonymously and under different names as well.
If you come up with a good idea, it will automatically spread and possibly have a positive impact on multiple people.
Protesting and voting on the other hand has no effect, unless the majority of people agree with you.
If the majority of people are not on your side, you should not involve yourself in the democratic process.
You should also begin by looking at your personal life, and what you do as a job.
First of all, because our economy is fundamentally unethical and corrupt, it is a good thing if you do not work but are unemployed instead.
It is also a good thing to spend as little money as possible.
Your ideas, if they are in your head, hardly matter when they do not manifest themselves in your daily life.
However, I understand that unemployment is not an option for everyone.
For those of you in relatively ethical jobs working as a garbage-man as opposed to a stock broker for exampleyou must simply work as little as you can afford to, and only spend your money on things you absolutely require.
If you spend your money on brand シーザー3オンライン無料プレイ or on make-up or an expensive car, you are part of the problem, not part of the solution!
If you have income that you do not require or will not require anytime soon, you should instead use it to help people around article source />I would encourage you to donate money to the Cancer and Birth Defects Foundation for example.
Now there are those of you who work in unethical jobs.
You may be unwilling or unable to give up your job, I am fully aware of that.
The answer to this is as following: You are in a perfect position to damage the operation that you are part of.
If you are part of the military, sabotage your equipment, waste money, give things away to people who need them give food away to hungry children for exampleand just generally be what you are not supposed to be.
Tell your fellow soldiers that you are all being poisoned with depleted uranium and experimental vaccines.
If you work in marketing and are expected to trick people into buying something they don't need, do a bad job.
Design horrible marketing campaigns that won't work.
Recruit people for interviews that you expect will tell you they would never buy the product you are investigating market potential for.
For example, you may be expected to find out the market potential of cell phones with video options.
Recruit old people or nerds like me who don't use cell phones anyway.
This is just an example.
I am sure you are better capable of figuring out how to sabotage the operation you are part of than I am.
However, the best thing you can do to sabotage evil operations is to follow the example of Bradley Manning.
Bring all the information out to the public.
You must make sure however that you are not caught, unless you are prepared to sacrifice yourself for your goal.
Bradley Manning is the prime example of how you are supposed to operate to improve the world.
I can not think of anything more effective than what Bradley Manning has done.
However, you don't necessarily need to send your documents to Wikileaks.
I'll leave opinion ポーカースターズフリーロールチケット think up to you to decide more info yourself how you want to leak the information.
Direct action is the only thing that will change our world for the better.
Is something in your environment making you sick?
I'm not telling any of you to go out to kill people.
I'm telling you to be a nuisance, a net-cost to the system, instead of a net-gain.
When the net-cost of a policy begins to exceed the net-gain, the policy will end.
Don't you like what some politician or CEO is doing?
Ask him to stop it.
If he will not stop, just bother him everyday.
Show up in front of his door and hold up signs or pictures.
Yell at him, annoy him.
Stand in front of his car.
Point him out to pedestrians and be a nuisance.
The guy in Chili who brought a camera when he went to annoy David Rockefeller while Rockefeller came to relax did a wonderful thing.
You probably don't want to go to jail.
But being annoying is not illegal.
Another way to be a net-cost to the system is to simply expose the effects of something.
Does your local municipality want to put fluoride in the water?
Tell your officials not to.
But, before they start doing it, tell them you will use the opportunity to investigate the health effects of water fluoridation.
You will measure various blood values before water fluoridation begins in a lot of people, and you will continue to do so after the program has started.
Perhaps the levels of cortisol in the blood begin to increase, or measures of oxidative stress increase.
Perhaps blood-levels of anti-oxidants like glutathione will decrease.
Just a credible threat of you doing a scientific study can prevent them from introducing it.
This is not something I came up with myself.
Chris Busby threatened to do an epidemiological survey in a town where a Telecom company wanted to put up a mobile phone transmitter.
The Telecom company decided not to put up the transmitter!
The potential costs for the company now exceeded the direct gains of the new transmitter, and thus they were more info to stop.
You have to be unpredictable, and annoying.
Do you dislike a certain company?
Tell a homeless man you will buy him a hamburger if he will go and stand in front of it.
The entire day will be a financial loss for them.
Do something that they don't expect, and don't know how to deal with.
If you see ads for a product, put graffiti on the ad about whatever it is the company does that you don't like.
You see a Diet Coke ad?
Write about the fact that Diet Coke makes people fat on the ad.
Make a tinyurl link, something like "tinyurl.
Why focus on the fact that it makes you fat?
People are generally more afraid of getting fat than getting cancer.
Do you see an army recruiter?
Well, get some pictures from Iraq, and make a sign with a title saying "Depleted Uranium, used in our weapons, will cause you to have deformed children".
Go and stand next to him.
Put a link on the sign or hand out papers showing your sources.
If you see an ad for cell phones, put a list of studies about the link to cancer on it.
It's fun to cause damage and be bothersome and mischievous.
Advertising is only done because it has a net benefit.
When it has no net benefit, it ends.
What about GMO crops?
When fields of GMO crops have a habit to sprout cannabis plants, it becomes rather costly.
In general, when you plant cannabis seeds, it will cost the government money to come and remove those plants.
I would fully support you if you began to give away cannabis as opposed to making money from it to people, whether you do it for the recreational purposes or for health benefits.
Growing cannabis or enjoying it with friends it is a revolutionary act.
Cannabis and other psychedelic read more are illegal because they make people uncompetitive, non-violent, anti-consumerist and not egoistic.
I have looked at scientific evidence for this here.
It's one of the best things you can do.
Killing an animal to eat it is unethical by and of itself.
Meat is after all an inefficient way of feeding people, when it comes to land use.
You should preferably grow as much food yourself as possible.
Everything that you don't buy is a victory.
However, everything that others don't buy is a victory for us as well.
There's a reason there are laws against feeding the homeless.
Feeding the homeless is a revolutionary act.
Share with your neighbors.
Do not buy anything, no matter how little or insignificant, that you could create yourself or get for free.
Share with the people around you, because sharing behaviour is contagious.
If someone offers you something there are situations where you should take it even though you don't need it, simply to stimulate the sharing behavior.
Information is on file in the Rockefeller Institute, if it's ever decided that it should be released.
But consider - if people stop dying of cancer, how rapidly we would become overpopulated.
You may as well die of cancer as something else.
In 2005, Snow had his colon removed and underwent six months of chemotherapy after being diagnosed with colon cancer.
Two years later 2007Snow underwent surgery to remove a growth in his abdominal area, near the site of the original cancer.
Allyson Ocean, a gastrointestinal oncologist at Weill Cornell Medical College.
Anyone who looks at this as a death sentence is wrong.
Ocean source dead wrong.
The media headlines proclaimed Snow died from colon cancer, although they knew he didn't have a colon anymore.
Apparently, the malignant cancer had "returned" from where?
In actual fact, the colon surgery severely restricted his normal eliminative functions, thereby overburdening the liver and tissue fluids with toxic waste.
The previous series of chemo-treatments inflamed and irreversibly damaged a large number of cells in his body, and also impaired his immune system -- a perfect recipe for growing new cancers.
Now unable to heal the causes of the original cancer in addition to the newly created onesSnow's body developed new cancers in the liver and other parts of the body.
The mainstream media, of course, still insist Snow died from colon agree, 8ローダー無料ダウンロードを獲得 have, thus perpetuating the myth that it is only the cancer that kills people, not the treatment.
Nobody seems to raise the important point that it is extremely difficult for a cancer patient to actually heal from this condition while being subjected to the systemic poisons of chemotherapy and deadly radiation.
If you are bitten by a poisonous snake and don't get an antidote for it, isn't it likely that your body becomes overwhelmed by the poison and, therefore, cannot function anymore?
Before Tony Snow began his chemo-treatments for his second colon cancer, he still looked healthy and strong.
But after a few weeks into his treatment, he started to develop a coarse voice, looked frail, turned gray and lost his hair.
Did the cancer do all this to him?
Cancer doesn't do such a thing, but chemical poisoning does.
He actually looked more ill than someone who has been bitten by a poisonous snake.
Does the mainstream media ever report about the overwhelming scientific evidence that shows chemotherapy has zero benefits in the five-year survival rate of colon cancer patients?
Or how many oncologists stand up for their cancer patients and protect them against chemotherapy treatment which they very well know can cause them to あなたが無料でダウンロードできるゲーム far more quickly than if they received no treatment at all?
Can you trustingly place your life into their hands when you know that most of them would not even consider chemotherapy for themselves if they were diagnosed with cancer?
What do they know that you don't?
The news is spreading fast that in the United States physician-caused fatalities now exceed 750,000 each year.
Perhaps, many doctors no longer trust in what they practice, for good reasons.
Chemotherapy does not eliminate breast, colon or lung cancers.
This fact has been documented for over a decade.
Yet doctors still use chemotherapy for these tumors.
Women with breast cancer are likely to die faster with chemo than without it.
An investigation by the Department of Radiation Oncology, Northern Sydney Cancer Centre, Australia, into the contribution of chemotherapy to 5-year survival in 22 major adult malignancies, showed startling results: The overall contribution of curative and adjuvant cytotoxic chemotherapy to 5-year survival in adults was estimated to be 2.
The current 5-year relative adult survival rate for cancer in Australia is over 60%, and no less than that in the USA.
By comparison, a mere 2.
With a meager success rate of 2.
It's no surprise that the medical establishment tries to keep this scam alive for as long as possible.
In 1990, the highly respected German epidemiologist, Dr.
Ulrich Abel from the Tumor Clinic of the University of Heidelberg, conducted the most comprehensive investigation of every major clinical study on chemotherapy drugs ever done.
Abel contacted 350 medical centers and asked them to send him anything they had ever published on chemotherapy.
He also reviewed and analyzed thousands of scientific articles published in the most prestigious medical journals.
It took Abel several years to collect and evaluate the data.
Abel's epidemiological study, which was published on August カジノデータベースアナリスト給与イギリス, 1991 in The Lancet, should have alerted every doctor and cancer patient about the risks of one of the most common treatments used for cancer and other diseases.
In his paper, Abel came to the conclusion that the overall success rate of chemotherapy was "appalling.
He describes chemotherapy as "a scientific wasteland" and states that even though there is no scientific evidence that chemotherapy works, neither doctor nor patient is willing to give up on it.
The mainstream media has never reported on this hugely important study, which is hardly surprising, given the enormous vested interests of the groups that sponsor the media, that is, the pharmaceutical companies.
A recent search turned up exactly zero reviews of Abel's work in American journals, even though it was published in 1990.
I believe this is not because his work was unimportant -- but because it is irrefutable.
The truth of the matter would be far too costly for the pharmaceutical industry to bear, thus making it unacceptable.
If the mass media reported the truth that medical drugs, including chemotherapy drugs, are used to practically commit genocide in the U.
But neither group wants to go bankrupt.
Many doctors go as far as prescribing chemotherapy drugs to patients for malignancies that are far too advanced for surgery, with the full knowledge that there are no benefits at all.
Yet they claim chemotherapy to be an effective cancer treatment, and their unsuspecting patients believe that "effective" equals "cure.
They neglect to tell their patients that there is no correlation whatsoever between shrinking tumors for 28 days and curing the cancer or extending life.
Temporary tumor shrinkage through chemotherapy has never been shown to cure cancer or to extend life.
In other words, you can live with an untreated tumor for just as long as you would with one that has been shrunken or been eliminated by chemotherapy or radiation.
Chemotherapy has never been shown to have curative effects for cancer.
By contrast, the body can still cure itself, which it actually tries to do by developing cancer.
Cancer is more a healing response than it is a disease.
The "disease" is the body's attempt to cure itself of an existing imbalance.
Unfortunately, as カンフーパンダゲームティグレスジャンプ previously mentioned research has demonstrated, the chances for a real cure are greatly reduced when patients are treated with chemotherapy drugs.
The side effects of the treatment can be horrendous and heartbreaking for both patients and their loved ones, all in the name of trustworthy medical treatment.
Although the drug treatment comes with the promise to improve the patient's quality of life, it is just common sense that a drug that makes them throw up and lose their hair, while wrecking their immune system, is doing the exact opposite.
Chemo-therapy can give the patient life-threatening mouth sores.
It attacks the immune system by destroying billions of immune cells white blood cells.
Its deadly poisons inflame every part of the body.
The drugs can slough off the entire lining of their intestines.
The most common side effect experienced among chemo patients is their complete lack of energy.
The new additional drugs now given to many chemo patients may prevent the patient from noticing some of the side effects, but they hardly reduce the immensely destructive and suppressive effect of the chemotherapy itself.
Remember, the ポルトガルのカジノの歴史 chemotherapy can shrink some tumors is because it causes massive destruction in the body.
If you have cancer, you may think https://money-money.site/1/595.html feeling tired is just part of the disease.
This rarely is the case.
Feeling unusually tired is more likely due to anemia, a common side effect of most chemotherapy drugs.
Chemo drugs can dramatically decrease your red blood cell levels, and this reduces oxygen availability to the 60-100 trillion cells of your body.
You can literally feel the energy being zapped from every cell of your body -- a physical death without dying.
Chemo-caused fatigue has a negative impact on day-to-day activities in カジノデータベースアナリスト給与イギリス of all patients.
With no energy, there can be no joy and no opinion 最高のブラックジャックのオンラインゲーム commit, and all bodily functions become subdued.
One long-term side effect is that these patients' bodies can no longer respond to nutritional or immune-strengthening approaches to cancerous tumors.
All of this may explain why cancer patients who do not receive any treatment at all, have an up to four times higher remission rate than those who receive treatment.
The sad thing is that chemotherapy does not cure 96% to 98% of all cancers anyway.
Conclusive evidence for the majority of cancers that chemotherapy has any positive influence on https://money-money.site/1/584.html or quality of life does not exist.
To promote chemotherapy as a treatment for cancer is misleading, to say the least.
By permanently damaging the body's immune system and other important parts, chemo-therapy has become a leading cause of treatment-caused diseases such as heart disease, liver disease, intestinal diseases, diseases of the immune system, infections, brain diseases, pain disorders, and rapid aging.
Before committing themselves to being poisoned, cancer patients need to question their doctors and ask them to produce the research or evidence that shrinking a tumor actually translates to any increase in survival.
If they tell you that chemotherapy is your best chance of surviving, you will know they are lying or are simply misinformed.
As Abel's research clearly demonstrated, there is no such evidence anywhere to be found in the medical literature.
Subjecting patients to chemotherapy robs them of a fair chance of finding or responding to a real cure and deserves criminal prosecution.
イギリスの秘密情報部（MI6）の長官であるアレックス・ヤンガー氏が、母校であるセントアンドールズ大学で講演した際に語ったこと... 顔認識ソフトウエアと監視カメラのデータがデータベースに集約され、その情報に基づいてウイグル人が逮捕されたり、収容されたりしている」. 国際NGOフリーダム・ハウスの上級アナリストであるサラ・クックは、欧米の投資家が投資ファンドを通じて、知らず知らずの.. どのみち改装もするみたいだし、今の給与の保証もなく、下がる上に社会保険とかで更に減ったら困る。
It is delightful
Bravo, what words..., an excellent idea
It is remarkable, it is the amusing answer
What touching words :)
What nice message
I congratulate, the remarkable answer...
What necessary words... super, a magnificent phrase
I think, that you are mistaken. I can defend the position.
I can recommend to visit to you a site, with an information large quantity on a theme interesting you.