And check out this article over at Blacklisted News:
UNESCO is the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. It’s so wide-ranging that it allows the UN to get its hands on everything everywhere. You may have heard that it’s taken control of some of our national parks.
What’s with the ankh, an Egyptian religious symbol? The photo is from an article at sodahead.com, which lists 21 sites the US has handed over to the UN.
However, in this post I want to inform you about UNESCO’s “working philosophy”, which was written by its first director, Julian Huxley, elder brother of Aldous Huxley.
According to Wikipedia, Huxley was an evolutionary biologist, an internationalist, and a eugenicist. The UN knew who he was and what he believed when they chose him to develop a philosophy that represents the UN’s goals. His paper, “UNESCO its purpose and its philosophy”, is in the UNESCO archives.
Although it was written in 1946, the paper helped me to better understand what’s happening in the world today. Therefore, I offer these excerpts:
Unesco—the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation—is by its title committed to two sets of aims. In the first place, it is international, and must serve the ends and objects of the United Nations, which in the long perspective are world ends, ends for humanity as a whole. And secondly it must foster and promote all aspects of education, science, and culture, in the widest sense of those words (p.5).
He quotes from UNESCO’s constitution:
‘Since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defenses of peace must be constructed…peace must…be founded…upon the intellectual and moral solidarity of mankind’ (p.5).
In the forefront is set Unesco’s collaboration in ‘the work of advancing the mutual knowledge and understanding of peoples, through all means of mass communications,’ and in the obtaining of international agreements ‘necessary to promote the free flow of ideas by word and image’ (p.6).
And finally we have the enormous scope of the third head, to ‘maintain, increase and diffuse knowledge.’ The methods here listed are, first ‘the conservation and protection of the world’s inheritance of books, works of art and monuments of history and science’; secondly ‘co-operation among the nations in all branches of intellectual activity,’ which is to include ‘the international exchange of persons active in the fields of education, science and culture,’ and also ‘the exchange of publications, objects of artistic and scientific interest, and other materials of information’; and thirdly the initiation of ‘methods of international co-operation calculated to give the peoples of all countries access to the printed and published materials produced by any of them (p.6).
For all TPP countries, an ambitious, comprehensive and high-standard agreement that achieves the goals established in Honolulu in 2011 is critical for creating jobs and promoting growth, providing opportunity for our citizens and contributing to regional integration and the strengthening of the multilateral trading system.
They always make it sound like it’s for our own good, but it always ends up in restricting our freedom.
Back to Huxley:
The general philosophy of Unesco should, it seems, be a scientific world humanism, global in extent and evolutionary in background (p.8).
The philosophy of Unesco must have an evolutionary background, and…the concept of progress cannot but occupy a central position in that philosophy (p.12).
Unesco must constantly be testing its policies against the touchstone of evolutionary progress (p.13).
It always comes down to reducing the population:
The analysis of evolutionary progress gives us certain criteria for judging the rightness or wrongness of our aims and activities, and the desirability or otherwise of the tendencies to be noted in contemporary history—tendencies of which Unesco must take account. The mere increase of our control over nature is not to be valued for itself, yet appears to be a necessary foundation for future progress. Put in a way more closely affecting Unesco’s programme, research may be perverted and its material applications may be over-valued…Thus the application of medical science may increase the number of human beings in a given area but lower their quality or their opportunities for enjoyment of life (p.12).
And one world government:
The more united man’s tradition becomes, the more rapid will be the possibility of progress…And secondly, that the best and only certain way of securing this will be through political unification (p.13).
The moral for Unesco is clear. The task laid upon it of promoting peace and security can never be wholly realized 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, as the only certain means for avoiding war (p.13).
According to Huxley, UNESCO’s role in global unification is education, “to lay the foundations on which world political unity can later be built.” That’s done through eliminating nationalism and controlling media:
[UNESCO] is expressly charged to concern itself also with the spread of information through all media (p.25).
However, as you read through Huxley’s paper, it’s clear that his main concern is eugenics. That’s very important for us to remember. These are the words of the man the UN chose to develop UNESCO’s working philosophy:
There is one other general implication of the fact of evolutionary progress, which Unesco must take into account—the importance of quality as against quantity (p.14).
There is…an optimum range of size for every human organization, as for every type of organism…there is an optimum range of human population density, and of total population in the world (p.15).
The encouragement of variety of genius, of quality in general, however incomprehensible to the multitude, must be one of the major aims of Unesco (p.15).
He further states:
The evolution of man…is quite a different process, operating by the essentially social method of cumulative tradition, and manifesting itself primarily in the development of societies, instead of in the genetic nature of the individuals composing them. And this at once makes it equally obvious that the opposed thesis of unrestricted individualism is equally erroneous (p.16).
The human individual is, quite strictly, meaningless in isolation; he only acquires significance in relation to some form of society (p.16).
Did you catch that? “The human individual is…meaningless in isolation.” He subsequently states:
Accordingly, although political unification in some sort of world government will be required for the definitive attainment of this stage, unification in the things of the mind is not only also necessary but can pave the way for other types of unification (p.17).
This is why Phil Robertson is not allowed to state his beliefs on homosexuality – because in the minds of the elite, human evolution is only possible if we all think the same. It’s also why Oprah said old racists ‘just have to die’ to further racial progress.
Huxley on human evolution:
Social mechanisms must be constructed in the right way if they are to provide the basis for realizing the right values (p.18).
Special attention should consequently be given by Unesco to the problem of constructing a unified pool of tradition for the human species as a whole. This…must include the unity-in-variety of the world’s art and culture as well as the promotion of a single pool of scientific knowledge. But it must also eventually include a unified common outlook and a common set of purposes. This will be the latest part of the task of unifying the world mind (p.17).
It will be impossible for humanity to acquire a common outlook if large sections of it are the illiterate inhabitants of a mental world entirely different from that in which a fully educated man can have his being, a world of superstition and petty tribalism in place of one of scientific advance and possible unity (p.17).
Above all else, Huxley is a eugenicist:
Concretely, genetic human inequality is of two types. First, there is the inequality of mere differences. Some people are fair, others dark…Secondly, there is difference in quality or level. Human beings are not equal in respect of various desirable qualities. Some are strong, others weak…It is therefore of the greatest importance to preserve human variety (p.19).
Every encouragement should be given to the study of distinct psycho-physical types…they will be of great value in job selection…we shall then be enabled to lay down that certain types of men should be debarred from holding certain types of positions (p.20).
Already considerable progress has been made…in fitting the right man to the right job—notably by the Selection Boards for officers which were set up during the late war (p.20).
Whereas variety is in itself desirable, the existence of weaklings, fools, and moral deficients cannot but be bad. It is also much harder to reconcile politically with the current democratic doctrine of equality. In fact of it, indeed, the principle of equality of opportunity must be amended to read ‘equality of opportunity within the limits of aptitude’ (p.20).
According to the philosophy UNESCO chose to adopt, there is inequality in difference of skin color and their goal is to have their people choose jobs for others. However, to what jobs will “weaklings, fools, and moral deficients” be assigned? Would it not be easier to eliminate them and therefore not have to deal with inequality?
It seems likely that the dead weight of genetic stupidity, physical weakness, mental instability, and disease-proneness, which already exist in the human species, will prove too great a burden for real progress to be achieved (p.21).
Thus even though it is quite true that any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for Unesco to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable (p.21).
Was it easier to for them to just go ahead and eliminate us without our consent, or even our knowledge? Is that what chemtrails, vaccinations, and GMO foods are all about?
As I stated at the beginning of this post, UNESCO’s reach is over everything:
Science not in the sense of mathematical and natural sciences, ‘but as broadly as possible, to cover all the primarily intellectual activities of man, the whole range of knowledge and learning’ (pp.25-6).
[Culture] can be employed in the broadest sense of all, the anthropological or sociological one, as denoting the entire material and mental apparatus characteristic of a particular society (p.26).
No other United Nations agency deals with the important question of seeing that the arts are properly and fully applied, or that provision is made for satisfying man’s need for aesthetic enjoyment, whether of scenery and natural beauty, of the everyday furniture of life, of buildings and cities, or of great works of art and music and literature. Nor is any other agency concerning itself with such important applications of the sciences as the disciplining of the mind to produce so-called mystical experience and other high degrees of spiritual satisfaction; or with the application of psychology to the technique of government, or to preventing the abuse or the exploitation of democracy (p.28).
They even want control of our spiritual experiences!
Have you wondered why Common Core has been pushed on us?
Since the world to-day is in process of becoming one, and since a major aim of Unesco must be to help in the speedy and satisfactory realization of this process, that Unesco must pay special attention to international education—to education as a function of world society, in addition to its functions in relation to national societies, to regional or religious or intellectual groups, or to local communities (p.29-30).
Again, if you want equality, is it easier to raise standards or lower them?
More of Huxley on education:
Those who can profit by working for a university degree of the present type constitute only a proportion of the population…for the remainder to attempt it is waste of their own youth, of the time and talents of university teachers, and of public money (p.32).
In addition, he states, “It will obviously be for Unesco to help in working out the requirements, both in content and methods, of this new type of higher education” – in which higher education will be different for those with higher and lower IQs. He also envisions using “deep psychology” in education, which would mean “an extension of education backwards from the nursery school to the nursery itself” (p.33).
Does God and/or religion have a role in UNESCO’s plans?
The scientific method has firmly established itself as the only reliable means by which we can increase both our knowledge of and our control over objective natural phenomena (p.34).
Science in Unesco’s programme…must be taken to include all aspects of the pursuit and application of organized knowledge of phenomena…this implies the rejection of purely dogmatic authority, whether of tradition or revelation, and the cessation of reliance primarily on erudition or pure reason, let alone hearsay or anecdote (p.34).
Science…is by its nature opposed to dogmatic orthodoxies and to the claims of authority (p.35).
[Science] produces an ever-increasing body of tested knowledge which is permanent and irrefutable (p.36).
Unesco…cannot and must not tolerate the blocking of research or the hampering of its application by superstition or theological prejudice. It must disregard or, if necessary, oppose unscientific or anti-scientific movements, such as anti-vivisectionism, fundamentalism, belief in miracles, crude spiritualism, etc (p.37).
On the other hand:
[UNESCO] should pay special attention to seeing that borderline fields, especially those neglected by orthodox or organized science, are properly explored. As one example, we may take what is not generally called parapsychology—the study of unusual and at the moment, scientifically inexplicable properties of the mind, such as extra-sensory perception of various kinds. The painstaking researches of one or two recent workers in this unpopular field seem to have established the reality of some degree not only of extra-sensory knowledge, but of pre-cognition. It is urgent that these phenomena should be thoroughly investigated so that a new and more comprehensive framework of knowledge may be erected (p.37).
Is a “conspiracy theory” to believe that governments are studying these sorts of things when the UN suggests that they should?
Huxley then focuses on his favorite subject, eugenics:
It is, however, essential that eugenics should be brought entirely within the borders of science, for, as already indicated, in the not very remote future the problem of improving the average quality of human beings is likely to become urgent; and this can only be accomplished by applying the findings of a truly scientific eugenics (pp.37-8).
The application of genetics in eugenics immediately raises the question of values—what qualities should we desire to encourage in the human beings of the future? (p.38).
With this in mind, he turns to ethics:
Unesco cannot be neutral in the face of competing values [but] will be guided by the philosophy of evolutionary humanism (p.39).
It will accordingly relate its ethical values to the discernible direction of evolution, using the fact of biological progress as their foundation, and shaping the superstructure to fit the principles of social advance (p.40).
There is nothing immutable and eternal about ethics, yet there are still ethical values which are general and lasting—namely those which promote a social organization which will allow individuals the fullest opportunity for development and self-expression consonant with the persistence and the progress of society (p. 40).
Our ethical systems to-day are still largely predicated on a pre-scientific and nationally fragmented world (p.40).
Their values and ethics are good, general and lasting. Ours, especially if we are Christians, are outdated and bad.
Remember the take-over of our national parks?
The recognition of the fact that the wild life of the world is irreplaceable, but that it is being rapidly destroyed, is necessary if we are to realize in time that areas must be set aside where, in the ultimate interest of mankind as a whole, the spread of man must take second place to the conservation of other species (p.45).
They accomplished that. Have you been to a traveling museum exhibit? That was their idea, as are the more naturalistic settings of modern zoos (p.56). Do you think they’ll accomplish the following?
The recognition of the idea of an optimum population-size (of course relative to technological and social conditions) is an indispensable first step towards that planned control of populations which is necessary if man’s blind reproductive urges are not to wreck his ideals and his plans for material and spiritual betterment (p.45).
Huxley then compares government to a body’s central nervous system and calls for a study of the “machinery of government” to…what? We can only infer that Huxley believes that government should control every aspect of society, down to the equivalent of the smallest cell.
He then made this statement:
Art has important social functions. It can serve to express, as no other medium can do, the spirit of a society, its ideas and purposes, its traditions and its hopes (p.49).
What does that tell us about the Denver airport?
He further stated:
We must also study the problem of the young artist—first how he is to be made to feel not only a vital part of his community, but in some degree its mouthpiece (p.54).
Every country has not woken up to the need, in our complex modern world, of public relations, which is but a new name for propaganda (p.54).
Art is necessary as part of the technique, since for most people art alone can effectively express the intangibles, and add the driving force of emotion to the cold facts of information (p.54).
Taking the techniques of persuasion and information and true propaganda that we have learnt to apply nationally in war, and deliberately bending them to the international tasks of peace, if necessary utilising them, as Lenin envisaged, to ‘overcome the resistance of millions’ to desirable change. Using drama to reveal reality and art as the method by which, in Sir Stephen Tallent’s words, ‘truth becomes impressive and a living principle of action,’ and aiming to produce that concerted effort which, to quote Grierson once more, needs a background of faith and a sense of destiny. This must be a mass philosophy, a mass creed, and it can never be achieved without the use of the media of mass communication (p.60).
Just think of our popular media. What are they indoctrinating us with? Violence, sex, vulgarity – it’s pure evil.
Finally, here is his summation of UNESCO’s goals:
The task before Unesco is necessary, is opportune, and, in spite of all multiplicity of detail, is single.
That task is to help the emergence of a single world culture, with its own philosophy and background of ideas, and with its own broad purpose. This is opportune, since this is the first time in history that the scaffolding and the mechanisms for world unification have become available, and also the first time that man has had the means (in the shape of scientific discovery and its applications) of laying a world-wide foundation for the minimum physical welfare of the entire human species (p.61).
Huxley warns of the dangers of “uncompromising and intolerant” dogmas and suggests that differences
can be reconciled along the lines of some such evolutionary humanism…in which, though the full development of the individual is recognized as the central aim and criterion of further evolutionary progress, the proper organization of society is recognized as the indispensable mechanism of that progress (p.62).
Put another way, society as such embodies no values comparable to those embodied in individuals; but individuals are meaningless except in relation to the community (though that community transcends the nation in space and in time) and can only achieve fullest self-development by self-transcendence, by interpenetration of the self with other reality, including other selves (p.62).
There you have it. This is the philosophy of the new world order, just as “conspiracy theorists” have said, but here it is in their own words.
The video is at the bottom of this post. If you’re not interested in my post on “traffic calming”, please scroll past it to watch the video. I think you’ll be glad you saw it, as it’s very informative. It was found on “The Future We Want” website, funded by the Rockefeller Institute, and produced by America 2050. Pretty creepy.
How I found the video
While searching my city’s website for instructions on how to report a street light outage (it was too complicated, just like everything run by the government) I came across a FAQ on how to request a “traffic calming” evaluation. Traffic calming? Sounds like a red flag for Agenda 21. Here’s what I found:
On the one hand, traffic calming has to do with creating physical and psychological barriers to manipulate traffic, such as slowing it down. Speed bumps are added, streets are narrowed, and cognitive load is increased.
On the other hand, it has Agenda 21 written all over it. From Wikipedia:
…car traffic severely impairs the social and recreational functions that streets are now recognized to have. The Livable Streets study by Donald Appleyard (1981) found that residents of streets with light traffic had, on average, three more friends and twice as many acquaintances as the people on streets with heavy traffic which were otherwise similar in dimensions, income, etc.
People who live on quiet streets have more friends? Since that discovery, streets are no longer designed simply to get us from here to there, but engineers must now consider the social implications of roadways. From a website called the Project for Public Spaces:
The tools of traffic calming take a different approach from treating the street only as a conduit for vehicles passing through at the greatest possible speed…
Developed in Europe, traffic calming (a direct translation of the German “vekehrsberuhigung”) is a system of design and management strategies that aim to balance traffic on streets with other uses. It is founded on the idea that streets should help create and preserve a sense of place, that their purpose is for people to walk, stroll, look, gaze, meet, play, shop and even work alongside cars – but not dominated by them.
According to Wikipedia, the term “traffic calming” was first used in an English publication in 1985 by Carmen Hass-Klau. He was part of a study which determined that reducing road space results in “disappearing traffic“. In other words, decreased road capacity didn’t result in traffic congestion, but in behavior modification. People began to carpool, walk, etc. Or, they just stopped going to certain places.
The Project for Public Spaces prominently displays this quote:
“In almost all U.S. cities, the bulk of the right-of-way is given to the roadway for vehicles, the least to the sidewalk for pedestrians… just suppose that Americans were to extend their walking radius by only a few hundred feet. The result could be an emancipation… –William H. Whyte (CITY: Rediscovering the Center)
Emancipation from what? Most Americans like driving their cars, particularly because it offers personal independence. From an article, “Cars, Individualism, and the Paradox of Freedom in a Mass Society”:
A car owner need not worry about train schedules, or of taking a predetermined route through various out of the way locations to get to his destination. He could leave at 10 am, or he could leave at 10:15 am. He was master of his time. He could take one route to work on Monday and then choose a more scenic route on Tuesday. To Americans at mid-century, the car, perhaps more than any other object, represented freedom—the freedom of the individual.
The connection of privately-owned transportation and personal freedom was not unique to the previous century. Agenda 21 is about controlling the masses. It’s packaged in the prettiest of terms, but it’s all about restricting personal freedom.
My search for “traffic calming” brought me to the following websites.
Here’s the video. It was funded by the Rockefeller Foundation and produced by America 2050. You can also view it on The Future We Want website. This is what they’re pushing us toward, the future “they” want for the rest of us:
July 8th, from B.K. Hyland, offthegridnews:
There have been multiple civilian sightings of strange planes landing at American Air Force bases, all carrying UN troops and/or having UN markings (or none).
It seems the author’s husband has seen these planes landing at Barksdale Air Force Base, “one of the most secure Strategic Air Command (SAC) bases in the nation.” They have “had unusual C-130s or C-136s fly into Barksdale AFB and land at all hours. The interstate runs in front of the side and front of the base and is clearly visible with no restraints.”
These flights have been reported by other citizens and several of the military men who work inside the base have reported that the UN troops are given US military clothing and name tags. When our servicemen question this, the soldiers are told they did NOT see what they just saw. Base operations refused to confirm or deny or discuss these sightings.
As Mrs. Hyland states:
Lately, rumors and reports regarding the presence of foreign troops in the US working with our armed forces have been hitting public awareness. Originally government sources denied these reports, but now official reports are confirming what eye witnesses had been reporting…Russia herself confirms that the Obama administration has requested 15,000 Russian troops to train with FEMA in the event of a SHTF scenario, particularly in the Washington D.C., Maryland, and Virginia area.
Also of interest are her statements on “terrorists”:
…the definition of “terrorism” belongs to new world order advocates. According to the definition used by the NWO, a terrorist is anyone who opposes a takeover of their nation. That would make all NWO resistors and/or anyone who disagrees with the new world order plans potential terrorists.
This is what I’ve been writing about. Many people seem to think it’s okay that the government is spying on us and collecting the data. They believe there’s nothing to worry about because they’ve done nothing wrong. However, as Mrs. Hyland states:
Do you believe in our national sovereignty and national Constitution? Do you believe in religious liberty and freedom of speech? Do you believe in the right to own guns and bear arms?
…Then by UN/NWO definition, you are a terrorist!
I would add that you’re also considered a terrorist if you oppose the elitist global agenda being executed on Wall Street. Again, Right or Left, “they” don’t care. If you don’t serve their purpose, they don’t need you. And if you’re trying to wake up the sleeping masses, you may just be in their way.
From the article:
The problem with these foreign troops being trained to intervene on American soil in SHTF scenarios which might occur here is that they have no loyalty to our Constitution, they have no loyalty to the inherent rights that have always been ours as American citizens, and they have no basis for restraint in any action they might perceive as necessary, regardless of our laws. They have no constitutional right to interfere in the internal events of our country.
NATO and the UN have the same goal, mission, and function: to subvert the sovereignty of the United States and the rest of the world, turning us all into a fascist worldwide state. Our government officials have proven time and again here lately that they are not to be trusted. Congress is nothing more than a rubber stamp for what the administration wants, not the representative body of the citizenry as it should be.
This is the truth about the time in which we live. “They” are preparing for the New World Order, a One World Order. It’s an ancient plan that the seers of the Bible predicted long ago. I’m not saying we roll over and take it. However, if enough of us wake up, we may be able to delay the inevitable. For some reason, “they” back off when the outcry is great against them. We need to awaken more people to the truth of what’s going on.
A fast-paced summary of encroaching tyranny since 9/11. From StormCloudsGathering:
The timing of government leaks is always suspicious. They’re used to turn media and thus public attention toward a more manageable scandal. However, the types of leaks we’ve been seeing seem to point to something more. They appear to be threats.
For example, what is the reason for recent leaks about the government illegally obtaining reporters’ phone records? As reported in slate.com:
The AP incident involved the DoJ obtaining two months of reporters’ phone records, which listed outgoing calls for the work and personal phone numbers of AP journalists and editors…
Typically, phone records obtained by the feds will show date, time, and duration of incoming and outgoing calls and/or text messages, according to the ACLU. While the data do not reveal the actual content of a call, they can be used to show a network of contacts and reveal relationships between people…
But obtaining phone records of journalists is an extreme course of action that has serious ramifications. There are special rules in place in the United States that authorities are supposed to adhere to when obtaining journalists’ communication records…Federal regulations instruct investigators that they can obtain journalists’ phone records only as a last resort, and the decision to seek the records should receive the “express authorization of the Attorney General.”
In recent years, however, the FBI has flagrantly disregarded these rules on multiple occasions. A scathing 2010 review by the DoJ’s inspector general criticized how the feds had spied on Washington Post and New York Times reporters in a leaks investigation carried out in 2004. The feds obtained 22 months of reporters’ phone records “without any legal process or Attorney General approval,”
The Washington Post reports that James Rosen, the chief Washington correspondent for Fox News, was subjected to intense government monitoring as part of an investigation into possible leaks of classified information about North Korea in 2009. The intrusion on Rosen was more severe than that of the AP reporters, whose phone call records were grabbed as part of a separate national security leaks investigation. According to court documents, two days’ worth of Rosen’s personal e-mails, documents, and attachments stored in a Gmail account were seized as were all his historic emails to a Yahoo account used by the alleged source, State Dept. security adviser Stephen Jin-Woo Kim. The feds obtained authorization to seize information showing Rosen’s communication with “any other source” related to the leak and also demanded Google turn over IP addresses and other metadata stored by the reporter’s Gmail account. In addition, investigators tracked Rosen’s movements to and from the State Department using security badge access records, and the timings of his calls with Jin-Woo Kim were traced…
The Post notes that a federal judge approved a search warrant to seize the content of Rosen’s private emails on the basis that there was “probable cause” that the journalist was a “co-conspirator.” Google was ordered not to disclose the existence of the warrant, and it is not clear whether the company lodged any legal objections. (A spokesman for Google had not responded for comment at the time of publication.)
Is the government threatening whistleblowers? It brings up the suspicious deaths of Vince Foster, Ron Brown, John Wheeler, and those are just the ones that immediately come to mind.
It’s interesting that, as the slate.com report mentions, phone records “can be used to show a network of contacts and reveal relationships between people.” Isn’t that what Facebook and Yahoo! Mail can also reveal? According to naturalnews, former NSA Technical Director William Binney
disclosed that the federal government is basically collecting whatever data it possibly can on every single American. This is made even easier, of course, by social networking sites like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Foursquare, Path, and many others that actively monitor and track people’s every action.
“Domestically, they’re pulling together all the data about virtually every U.S. citizen in the country and assembling that information, building communities that you have relationships with, and knowledge about you; what your activities are; what you’re doing,” said Binney.
Why would the government want to do that? Is it because an individual might be brave in the face of government threats but not so much when the threat is against, say, a niece or nephew? Will an individual back off for a promise of, perhaps, an organ transplant for a friend’s terminally ill child? How about for a spot in one of the government’s underground bunkers?
Here is our Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, testifying before Congress:
Poor guy. There have to be good reasons why normally honest folks would lie like this. Again, I think they’re threatened and I think that every suspicious death, every report about spying, and perhaps every manmade disaster is a general threat to those in the know. The leaks that the government is using technology to spy on us and the IRS to harass us are threats to anyone else who might be paying attention.
You can find the latest news about government spying in these reports posted on Blacklisted News:
See also my recent blog on Yahoo! Mail and my very long post on the Mormons (who, as masters of PR and secrecy, have a role in government spying). In that post, I mentioned that the NSA chose northern Utah as the site for its super spy warehouse. Here are a few photos of it from Real Clear Politics (there are more photos on their website):
Let me end with this, from slate.com:
It’s worth noting that the debacle [of the AP spy scandal] comes amid an unprecedented wider crackdown on leaks instigated by the Obama administration’s DoJ, which has so far prosecuted more whistleblowers under the Espionage Act than all previous administrations combined. The targeting of AP journalists’ phone records to reveal confidential sources, like the ongoing criminal investigation into WikiLeaks for its publishing work, will stand as another egregious example of disproportionate action taken by a government attempting to assert its authority over state secrets like a high school bully on steroids.
It recently came to my attention that Robbie Parker’s interview, the one in which he is seen preparing for the role of grieving father, was conducted outside a Mormon church. This is not surprising, if Robbie is who he claims to be. After all, if he and his family moved to Newtown from Ogden, Utah, chances are fairly good that he is a Mormon. According to the Salt Lake Tribune, Utah is 62.1 percent Mormon, or members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS). On the other hand, if he is a government operative, then the LDS connections are worth looking into.
Here are a few webpages with some interesting information about the Mormons:
According to the CNN Religion article, “The LDS Church says there are 13,000 active members within a 10-mile radius of Washington [DC].” In addition:
Congress now counts 15 Mormon members, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, according to the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. That means the 2% of the country that’s Mormon is slightly overrepresented on Capitol Hill…Even many Latter-day Saints joke about Washington’s “Mormon mafia” – referring to the number of well-placed LDS Church members across town – though they cringe at the thought of being seen as part of some cabal.
The article also mentions the LDS temple in DC, which opened in 1974, “shortly after another high-profile Mormon – George Romney, Mitt’s father – left his post as Richard Nixon’s secretary of Housing and Urban Development.” Apparently, the temple is “the first monument many Washington visitors see…the massive Mormon temple, its Georgian marble towers and gold-leafed spires looming above the trees on the Washington Beltway like an otherworldly castle.” This is what it looks like:
The angel with the horn is Moroni (pronounced more-oh’-nye – emphasis on the second syllable and the “i” is “eye” and not a long “ee” as in “macaroni”). This is the “angel” that supposedly told Joseph Smith, founder of the church, where to find golden plates containing the history of two native American peoples, i.e., the Book of Mormon.
The LDS often fail to mention they have two other holy books: Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price. They also acknowledge the King James Bible, “as long as it’s translated correctly.” According to a 1992 official LDS statement,
The most reliable way to measure the accuracy of any biblical passage is not by comparing different texts, but by comparison with the Book of Mormon and modern-day revelations.
The church always has a living prophet, who is also president of the church, whose pronouncements change LDS belief. For example, Wilford Woodruff ended polygamy, a former pillar of LDS doctrine. Doctrine and Covenants has a number of revelations received by Joseph Smith commanding LDS wives to let their husbands take more wives. For example, through Smith, “god” said:
“And let mine handmaid, Emma Smith, receive all those that have been given unto my servant Joseph…And I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith, to abide and cleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else. But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord; for I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my law.”
Section 132 of D&C also includes the foundation for the LDS belief that only men “sealed” to a wife in an LDS temple ceremony will become gods in the hereafter and have their own “earth” to populate. Women sealed in the temple will become spirit wives, eternally producing babies, but those not sealed in the temple will “be as the angels in heaven.” They won’t get to make spirit babies and will spend eternity as the servants of the LDS faithful.
Another prophetic pronouncement, this one in 1978, was that men of African descent would finally be allowed into the LDS priesthood. Here is just one example of early LDS bigotry against Blacks:
“And it came to pass that Enoch continued to call upon all people, SAVE IT WERE THE PEOPLE OF CANAAN, to repent.” LDS Pearl of Great Price, Moses 7:12, emphasis added. Note: Mormonism long considered blacks unworthy of its missionary efforts, essentially unworthy of the Gospel message.
Since the church’s inception in 1830, LDS prophets have proclaimed some interesting doctrine. For example, that Adam, the one in Genesis, is the god of this world. [The Bible says the god of this world is Satan, see 2 Corinthians 4:4.] The LDS god lives on the planet Kolob with his wives. As an LDS prophet declared in 1840, “As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become.”
The Mormons also believe that Jesus and Lucifer are brothers, as they are spirit-children of the LDS god, just like the rest of us. If I am not mistaken, the belief that Jesus and Lucifer are brothers is a Luciferian belief. Perhaps it entered Mormonism through its Masonic connections.
By most accounts, LDS temple rituals are based on Masonic rites. Joseph Smith was a Mason. He and his brother, Hyrum, were killed while in prison for destroying a printing press. In the official account, his last words were, “Oh Lord, my God,” which just happens to be the first part of the Masonic distress call. The latter part is, “is there no help for the widow’s son?”
Although the church considers them martyrs, Joseph and Hyrum were armed and fired their weapons during the assault on the jail. I personally read that account in an official LDS textbook. (I do not know how widespread this is and if it is still the case, but at least some Utah public schools at one time allowed an hour off for students to go to LDS school, which is housed in its own building on the public school grounds. Why is it that the ACLU or a similar organization has not exposed this and closed them down?)
Smith was a seer, a professional water-dowser, and had a well-known ability to spin a yarn. Although the Book of Mormon bears a remarkable resemblance to a novel of Smith’s day, View of the Hebrews or the tribes of Israel in America by Ethan Smith (no relation to Joseph), Smith claims he translated the book by peering into a hat that contained seer stones. He always sat behind a curtain while dictating what he saw.
Quite interesting about the LDS church is its ability to keep secrets. Not only are the LDS masters at PR, but they are exceptionally good at hiding historical and theological facts they find embarrassing. Is it because of this skill that the FBI and CIA actively recruit Mormons to work for them? Or are they good at keeping secrets because so many of them have backgrounds in intelligence? As the above listed articles state, there is a disproportionately large number of Mormons within the CIA and FBI.
Their ruthlessness may also serve them well in the intelligence community. Most people don’t become successful in business and politics by being nice and godly and, as already mentioned, there are plenty of Mormons in big business and politics. Consider, also the Mountain Meadows massacre of 1857:
After leaving Arkansas, the Fancher party traveled west through Kansas and Nebraska territories before entering Utah territory. In Utah, the party passed Fort Bridger and Salt Lake City, traveling south west until reaching Cedar City. Cedar City was the last stop before California. In Cedar City, the Fancher party attempted to buy grain and supplies but was refused by the local Mormons due to the Mormons’ suspicion of aiding potential enemies.
After the Fancher party left Cedar City, frustrated with the refusal of local Mormons to sell them needed goods, they continued southwest through the mountain pass called Mountain Meadows. There they were attacked by Mormon assailants, some of them killed. The remaining emigrants pulled their wagons into a tight circle for protection. Over the next five days, the emigrants were held at siege in their wagon circle. During this period they were attacked two more times.
On September 11, 1857, John D. Lee entered the wagon circle with a white flag, convincing the emigrants to surrender peacefully. Required to put down their guns, the women and children were escorted out first, then the men and boys. Each man and boy was escorted by an armed militiaman.
They walked about a mile when, upon a predetermined signal, the militiamen turned and fired on each man and boy. Indians who had been convinced to participate in the massacre came out from their hiding places to attack the women and children.
Here is what appears to be a non-Mormon version:
When the escorted men had fallen a quarter mile or so behind the women and children, who had just crested a small hill, Higbee yelled, “Halt! Do your duty!” Each of the Mormon men shot and killed the emigrant at his side. Meanwhile, on the other side of the hill, Nelphi Johnson shouted the order to begin the slaughter of the women and older children. Men rushed at the defenseless emigrants from both sides, and the killing went on amidst “hideous, demon-like yells.” Nancy Huff, four years old at the time of the massacre, later remembered the horror: “I saw my mother shot in the forehead and fall dead. The women and children screamed and clung together. Some of the young women begged the assassins after they run out on us not to kill them, but they had no mercy on them, clubbing their guns and beating out their brains.” It was over in just a few minutes. 120 members of the Fancher party were dead. The youngest children, seventeen or eighteen in all, were gathered up, to later be placed in Mormon homes. None of the survivors was over seven years old.
The next day, Colonel Dame and Lt. Colonel Haight visited the site of the massacre with John Lee and Philip Klingensmith. Lee, in his confession, described the field on that day: “The bodies of men, women and children had been stripped entirely naked, making the scene one of the most loathsome and ghastly that can be imagined.” Dame appeared shocked by what he found. “I did not think there were so many of them [women and children], or I would not have had anything to do with,[sic] Dame reportedly said. Haight, angered by Dame’s remark, expressed concern that Dame might try to blame him for an action that Dame had ordered. The men agreed on one thing, however: Mormon participation in the massacre had to be kept secret.
You can also read about LDS forger, Mark Hofmann, who stated before the Utah Board of Pardons that he thought planting the bomb that killed Kathy Sheets was “almost a game… at the time I made the bomb, my thoughts were that it didn’t matter if it was Mrs. Sheets, a child, a dog… whoever” was killed. You can find an interesting account of the story in A Gathering of Saints. Another disturbing book is Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith.
Am I Mormon-bashing? No. I’m telling it like I see it, as an outsider who’s been studying this religion for a very long time. Are there good Mormons? Surely, there are. I’ve met some, although even they would rather not bother with a non-LDS who will not convert. In my experience, the more dedicated they are to their faith, the less interested they are in non-LDS interaction, if they don’t believe the person can be converted. Marginal LDS don’t seem to have much of a problem interacting socially with non-Mormons. A hyper-devotion and tendency to clannishness are aspects to keep in mind when considering the activities of the LDS in public service.
My point in this long post is to provide information about the Mormon church. It is not what it portrays itself to be. Rather, it is based upon the “visions” of a story-telling, water-dowsing Mason. The entire organization is exceptionally secretive and run by a group of old, white men who believe they will be gods. Individuals from this religious group, some scholars call it an ethnic group, are disproportionately represented in the FBI, the CIA, and throughout the federal government. Make of it what you will.
There is more to say about the Mormons. You can read more in the articles linked at the beginning of this post. In them, you will discover some of the many corporations the church owns and which the prophet/president oversees. The LDS church is wealthy and powerful and therefore potentially more dangerous than most secret societies.
As for the connection to Sandy Hook, here are some photos of Robbie Parker’s interview, which was conducted outside the Newtown LDS church:
At least one initial report said Robbie’s father was deceased.
The location of the Newtown LDS church (in LDS terminology it would be a “ward” or “branch”):
From a December 20th article in the Mormon-owned Deseret news:
OGDEN — Speaking a few words in Portuguese, including the words that translated meant “for hope,” Robbie Parker released a flying lantern representing his daughter into the dark sky…
Robbie and Alissa Parker met at and graduated from Ben Lomond. For the past several years, they had been moving to different states and recently had found a home in Newtown…
Parker said he recently drove past the first house he and his wife Alissa lived in on 23rd Street — the house where they lived with Emilie. He remembered their first Christmas, how they were so broke that year they could only afford homemade gifts, and how he badly attempted to knit a scarf and hat.
The Salt Lake Tribune used this photo in their tribute to Emilie:
Here’s an interesting early report of the Sandy Hook event by a close family friend, from ABC in Ogden.
And, in April, from the UK Daily Mail:
Why were there no photographs taken of the Parkers visiting Adam Lanza’s father? You’d think the paparazzi would have tried to at least get a photo of them driving up to the meeting place.
There has also been recent reporting that the Parker family home in Newtown was renovated by AmeriCares, which supposedly has CIA connections.
As I’ve said before, I don’t believe anyone died in the Sandy Hook event. Rather, it was merely a drill, which, for their own reasons, “they” are trying to pass off as real. I also believe that some Mormons were somehow involved. Obviously, Robbie Parker was heavily involved in the charade that is Sandy Hook. He may be a link to larger LDS involvement. Is he a government agent? Is the wife? What about his family? Does the LDS church use its wealth and influence to aid the work of members who are with the CIA and FBI? Speaking of wealth, Mormons are expected to donate 10% of their earnings to the church. If they don’t, they cannot perform their temple duties and therefore cannot become gods. Think of the many LDS in big business and imagine the church’s income.
Let’s not forget that the NSA decided to build its super spy center in northern Utah. The Skinwalker ranch is also in that area.
Studying the church’s associations and monitoring their media outlets may provide some insight into the craziness that’s happening in the world today. Corporations and businesses based in Utah are suspect, as are those owned by Mormons; for example, Utah-based web hosting services. Imagine the important data to which they have access. Even worse, most genealogical services are based in Utah. Ancestry.com is pushing cheap DNA testing. Plenty of personal data at someone’s fingertips.
The LDS church seems to have some role in what’s coming down the pike at us. We must continue to research and expose the lies.
This afternoon, Megyn Kelly, conducting an interview on the Cleveland kidnapping case, asks her guest expert:
“How did they not knock on these doors? How did they [the police] not go into basements? I know we’ve got a fourth amendment in this country (smile), but is that overcomable [sic]? Should they have done more?”
Is the 4th amendment “overcomable”? Here is the 4th amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
TSA anyone? Perhaps it is “overcomable” after all. Nevertheless, here are more excerpts from Megyn’s interview:
Megyn: “But just knowing three girls have gone missing in a couple of years period in the same area…that doesn’t justify going house-to-house and saying, ‘I’d like to come in and see your basement’?”
Guest: “You know, you can say that, that doesn’t mean the person’s gonna let you in.”
Megyn: “And if they say ‘no’ forget it.”
Guest: “You need probable cause, you need a warrant, or you need exigent circumstances. You know, that’s just the way it is.”
Megyn: “You’re not gonna get it in this country the way we are right now (chuckle) because of our Bill of Rights.”
Megyn: “It’s amazing because you see a situation like this and you want more but then you think, oh wait, I don’t want, you know, the police to be able to just charge into my house whenever there’s been a crime in the neighborhood.”
The police charged into houses around the Boston area. The second “expert” on the show called such events “dramatic entries.” Now I’m chuckling. It seems a bit more than a “dramatic entry” when a SWAT team knocks on your door, assault weapons drawn. If you don’t let them in, as per your constitutional rights, you become a suspect. It’s a form of terrorism, a method of breaking down the collective will. Is this what we expect in America, land of the free? Is freedom having a TSA agent rummage through your things? Been to an amusement park lately? They also rummage through your bag (and they’ll confiscate your water and sandwich).
The captivity of the kidnapped Cleveland girls is a good analogy of what the ruling powers are trying to do to us. They want to break the will of the people and enslave us for their own purposes, whatever those may be. Why else would they humiliate us with naked body scanners and intimate pat-down searches? Why else would they perform such obviously useless searches at so many public places and events? And why do they want to spy on us everywhere we go? A statement in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy regarding French philosopher Michel Foucault’s ideas on prisons says:
To a great extent, control over people (power) can be achieved merely by observing them.
Megyn Kelly is carrying out the Fox News agenda, which is brainwashing for conservatives. Fox News obviously serves the larger agenda, which is whatever the global elites have in mind for the rest of us. Perhaps more disturbing than what the elites are doing is that so many of us are falling for it.
An article in the Palm Beach Post states that the Florida House and Senate awarded Sheriff Ric Bradshaw $1 million “for a new violence prevention unit aimed at preventing tragedies like those in Newtown, Conn., and Aurora, Colo., from occurring on his turf.” What is he going to do with the money?
Bradshaw plans to use the extra $1 million to launch “prevention intervention” units featuring specially trained deputies, mental health professionals and caseworkers. The teams will respond to citizen phone calls to a 24-hour hotline with a knock on the door and a referral to services, if needed.
It gets worse:
Bradshaw is readying a hotline and is planning public service announcements to encourage local citizens to report their neighbors, friends or family members if they fear they could harm themselves or others.
The goal won’t be to arrest troubled people but to get them help before there’s violence, Bradshaw said. As a side benefit, law enforcement will have needed information to keep a close eye on things.
“We want people to call us if the guy down the street says he hates the government, hates the mayor and he’s gonna shoot him,” Bradshaw said. “What does it hurt to have somebody knock on a door and ask, ‘Hey, is everything OK?’ ”
Sounds like an opportunity for abuse by disgruntled friends, neighbors, acquaintances and, well, the list is endless. Will a new word be coined for having a friendly government agent knock on your door asking if you’re really going to shoot the mayor? After all, we now have the term “swatting“, which refers to “an attempt to trick any emergency service (such as a 9-1-1 dispatcher) into dispatching any emergency response based on a false reporting of an incident.” But, never fear because all-knowing, completely objective, “trained” and “professional” government workers are going to watch over you and take care of you. Of course they would never overreact to a hotline call and dispatch a SWAT team to your house.
Bradshaw acknowledged the risk that anyone in a messy divorce or in a dispute with a neighbor could abuse the hotline. But, he said, he’s confident that his trained professionals will know how to sort out fact from fiction.
“We know how to sift through frivolous complaints,” he said.
Who is he kidding? This is an opportunity for domestic terrorism initiated by fellow citizens and perpetrated by government officials. Is this how we want to live? Do we want to live with the constant threat that a police unit might break down the front door because of a phony report? Even if you’re one of the few people who has never offended anyone, SWAT units sometimes break into the wrong house, and wouldn’t it be terrifying enough to have them swarming your neighborhood while targeting the neighbor’s place? Here are three examples of what has been happening:
A California couple with a 2-year-old daughter is awakened late at night by heavily armed police storming their home after a false report of a shooting.
A Texas family is stunned when officers with automatic weapons respond to their house expecting a drug-fueled murderer who is demanding $50,000 in exchange for hostages.
And a Wyckoff neighborhood is put on lockdown as the Bergen County SWAT team shoots tear gas into what proves to be a home occupied only by a cat.
Spending $1 million on a program that is so obviously open to abuse is a bad idea, to say the least. Not only will it provide a hotline for those who want their enemies “swatted”, but having citizens spy on fellow citizens is the tactic of oppressive governments. Through his research on the Gestapo, Dr. Robert Gellately of FSU discovered:
There were relatively few secret police, and most were just processing the information coming in. I had found a shocking fact. It wasn’t the secret police who were doing this wide-scale surveillance and hiding on every street corner. It was the ordinary German people who were informing on their neighbors…
He found cases of partners in business turning in associates to gain full ownership; jealous boyfriends informing on rival suitors; neighbors betraying entire families who chronically left shared bathrooms unclean or who occupied desirable apartments.
And then there were those who informed because for the first time in their lives someone in authority would listen to them and value what they said.
Dr. Gellately goes on to state that the German people indeed knew about the Nazi concentration camps.:
“I tested the assumption that ‘Germans didn’t know about the camps’ by looking at their daily newspapers. This research project checked a small sample of newspapers, collecting only those articles with literal references in the headlines to ‘concentration camps’ and other related terms,” he explains. “Even within that limited sample we found enough articles to fill a large carton.”
Just as it happened in Nazi Germany, our nation’s descent into complete tyranny is happening right before our eyes. It’s in the open and can be found in both mainstream and alternative media outlets. How can so many of us see it and yet remain so blind?
This is how we are searching for a 19 year old. Have we ever gone to such extremes to search for anyone, even someone with explosives? Is all this really necessary? Or is there another agenda?
These photos are from Off the Grid Survival:
Authorities have asked residents not to leave their homes. They call it “shelter in place.” Doesn’t that sound cozy? Just don’t look out your window.
Are they practicing for Marshall Law?
I had wondered why they cleared the skies over these neighborhoods. They didn’t want other aircraft crashing into their black helicopters.
What if this was happening in your neighborhood? What would you tell your kids? Prepare, because it looks like it’s on the way.