Monday, December 8, 2008
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Hip Hop & Freemasonry: The New Age & Military Agenda
A recent work of mine; A three part series which examines the military and new age agenda's CURRENTLY being pushed in hip-hop.
Friday, October 24, 2008
Macrobiotic Diet & One World Government
Oh my goodness, what have we here? --To my slight suprise i came across this while reading Ron Schmids "Native Nutrition" (1987,1994).
"By the early 1900's, refined foods were widely used in many Japanese cities. Yukikazu Sakurazawa became ill eating these foods; he recovered eating brown rice, miso soup, vegetables, fish and other traditional Japanese foods. He later developed a philosophy of living and healing based on his understanding of traditional foods and teachings. While living in Paris he adopted the pen name George Ohsawa and called his teachings Macrobiotics [macro; long or great, Bios; life]
For forty years, his pupil Michio Kushi has been the leader of the world wide macrobiotics movement. The author of books on the subject, he has done a great deal to popularize the use of whole and natural foods. ...
An expressed concern of the macrobiotic movement is world peace; Michio Kushi has written of the desirability of one world government. Whole grains as the staple food for mankind is seen as an important means of promoting this end, for more people may then be fed and more equal distribution of wealth achieved. Food plays a role in personality; people eating a grains-based diet may exhibit more passive and less aggressive tendencies that those eating a diet based in animal-source foods.
Macrobiotic leaders ... are aware that the acceptance of a macrobiotic diet by large segments of the Western world's population would have sociological as well as physiological effects." --p.93 - 96
"By the early 1900's, refined foods were widely used in many Japanese cities. Yukikazu Sakurazawa became ill eating these foods; he recovered eating brown rice, miso soup, vegetables, fish and other traditional Japanese foods. He later developed a philosophy of living and healing based on his understanding of traditional foods and teachings. While living in Paris he adopted the pen name George Ohsawa and called his teachings Macrobiotics [macro; long or great, Bios; life]
For forty years, his pupil Michio Kushi has been the leader of the world wide macrobiotics movement. The author of books on the subject, he has done a great deal to popularize the use of whole and natural foods. ...
An expressed concern of the macrobiotic movement is world peace; Michio Kushi has written of the desirability of one world government. Whole grains as the staple food for mankind is seen as an important means of promoting this end, for more people may then be fed and more equal distribution of wealth achieved. Food plays a role in personality; people eating a grains-based diet may exhibit more passive and less aggressive tendencies that those eating a diet based in animal-source foods.
Macrobiotic leaders ... are aware that the acceptance of a macrobiotic diet by large segments of the Western world's population would have sociological as well as physiological effects." --p.93 - 96
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Vaccines: depopulation, mind control, and general debilitation of populations
Jon Rappoport's interview with an Ex-vaccine Researcher, from 2001.
Full transcript: http://www.whale.to/v/rapp.html
Excerpts & Highlights:
Q: Are some vaccines more dangerous than others?
A: Yes. The DPT shot, for example. The MMR. But some lots of a vaccine are more dangerous than other lots of the same vaccine. As far as I'm concerned, all vaccines are dangerous.
Q: Why?
A: Several reasons. They involve the human immune system in a process that tends to compromise immunity. They can actually cause the disease they are supposed to prevent. They can cause other diseases than the ones they are supposed to prevent.
Q: Why are we quoted statistics which seem to prove that vaccines have been tremendously successful at wiping out diseases?
A: Why? To give the illusion that these vaccines are useful. If a vaccine suppresses visible symptoms of a disease like measles, everyone assumes that the vaccine is a success. But, under the surface, the vaccine can harm the immune system itself. And if it causes other diseases -- say, meningitis -- that fact is masked, because no one believes that the vaccine can do that. The connection is overlooked.
...
Q: ... What contaminants did you find in your many years of work with vaccines?
A: All right. I'll give you some of what I came across, and I'll also give you what colleagues of mine found. Here's a partial list. In the Rimavex measles vaccine, we found various chicken viruses. In polio vaccine, we found acanthamoeba, which is a so-called "brain-eating" amoeba.
Simian cytomegalovirus in polio vaccine. Simian foamy virus in the rotavirus vaccine. Bird-cancer viruses in the MMR vaccine. Various micro-organisms in the anthrax vaccine. I've found potentially dangerous enzyme inhibitors in several vaccines. Duck, dog, and rabbit viruses in the rubella vaccine. Avian leucosis virus in the flu vaccine. Pestivirus in the MMR vaccine.
Q: Let me get this straight. These are all contaminants which don't belong in the vaccines.
A: That's right. And if you try to calculate what damage these contaminants can cause, well, we don't really know, because no testing has been done, or very little testing. It's a game of roulette. You take your chances. Also, most people don't know that some polio vaccines, adenovirus vaccines, rubella and hep A and measles vaccines have been made with aborted human fetal tissue. I have found what I believed were bacterial fragments and poliovirus in these vaccines from time to time -- which may have come from that fetal tissue. When you look for contaminants in vaccines, you can come up with material that IS puzzling. You know it shouldn't be there, but you don't know exactly what you've got. I have found what I believed was a very small "fragment" of human hair and also human mucus. I have found what can only be called "foreign protein," which could mean almost anything. It could mean protein from viruses.
Q: Alarm bells are ringing all over the place.
A: How do you think I felt? Remember, this material is going into the bloodstream without passing through some of the ordinary immune defenses.
...
Q: This information is pretty staggering.
A: Yes. And I'm just mentioning some of the biological contaminants. Who knows how many others there are? Others we don't find because we don't think to look for them. If tissue from, say, a bird is used to make a vaccine, how many possible germs can be in that tissue? We have no idea.We have no idea what they might be, or what effects they could have on humans.
Q: And beyond the purity issue?
A: You are dealing with the basic faulty premise about vaccines. That they intricately stimulate the immune system to create the conditions for immunity from disease. That is the bad premise. It doesn't work that way. A vaccine is supposed to "create" antibodies which, indirectly, offer protection against disease. However, the immune system is much larger and more involved than antibodies and their related "killer cells."
Q: The immune system is?
A: The entire body, really. Plus the mind. It's all immune system, you might say. That is why you can have, in the middle of an epidemic, those individuals who remain healthy.
Q: So the level of general health is important.
A: More than important. Vital.
Q: How are vaccine statistics falsely presented?
A: There are many ways. For example, suppose that 25 people who have received the hepatitis B vaccine come down with hepatitis. Well, hep B is a liver disease. But you can call liver disease many things. You can change the diagnosis. Then, you've concealed the root cause of the problem.
Q: And that happens?
A: All the time. It HAS to happen, if the doctors automatically assume that people who get vaccines DO NOT come down with the diseases they are now supposed to be protected from. And that is exactly what doctors assume. You see, it's circular reasoning. It's a closed system. It admits no fault. No possible fault. If a person who gets a vaccine against hepatitis gets hepatitis, or gets some other disease, the automatic assumption is, this had nothing to do with the vaccine.
Full transcript: http://www.whale.to/v/rapp.html
Excerpts & Highlights:
Q: Are some vaccines more dangerous than others?
A: Yes. The DPT shot, for example. The MMR. But some lots of a vaccine are more dangerous than other lots of the same vaccine. As far as I'm concerned, all vaccines are dangerous.
Q: Why?
A: Several reasons. They involve the human immune system in a process that tends to compromise immunity. They can actually cause the disease they are supposed to prevent. They can cause other diseases than the ones they are supposed to prevent.
Q: Why are we quoted statistics which seem to prove that vaccines have been tremendously successful at wiping out diseases?
A: Why? To give the illusion that these vaccines are useful. If a vaccine suppresses visible symptoms of a disease like measles, everyone assumes that the vaccine is a success. But, under the surface, the vaccine can harm the immune system itself. And if it causes other diseases -- say, meningitis -- that fact is masked, because no one believes that the vaccine can do that. The connection is overlooked.
...
Q: ... What contaminants did you find in your many years of work with vaccines?
A: All right. I'll give you some of what I came across, and I'll also give you what colleagues of mine found. Here's a partial list. In the Rimavex measles vaccine, we found various chicken viruses. In polio vaccine, we found acanthamoeba, which is a so-called "brain-eating" amoeba.
Simian cytomegalovirus in polio vaccine. Simian foamy virus in the rotavirus vaccine. Bird-cancer viruses in the MMR vaccine. Various micro-organisms in the anthrax vaccine. I've found potentially dangerous enzyme inhibitors in several vaccines. Duck, dog, and rabbit viruses in the rubella vaccine. Avian leucosis virus in the flu vaccine. Pestivirus in the MMR vaccine.
Q: Let me get this straight. These are all contaminants which don't belong in the vaccines.
A: That's right. And if you try to calculate what damage these contaminants can cause, well, we don't really know, because no testing has been done, or very little testing. It's a game of roulette. You take your chances. Also, most people don't know that some polio vaccines, adenovirus vaccines, rubella and hep A and measles vaccines have been made with aborted human fetal tissue. I have found what I believed were bacterial fragments and poliovirus in these vaccines from time to time -- which may have come from that fetal tissue. When you look for contaminants in vaccines, you can come up with material that IS puzzling. You know it shouldn't be there, but you don't know exactly what you've got. I have found what I believed was a very small "fragment" of human hair and also human mucus. I have found what can only be called "foreign protein," which could mean almost anything. It could mean protein from viruses.
Q: Alarm bells are ringing all over the place.
A: How do you think I felt? Remember, this material is going into the bloodstream without passing through some of the ordinary immune defenses.
...
Q: This information is pretty staggering.
A: Yes. And I'm just mentioning some of the biological contaminants. Who knows how many others there are? Others we don't find because we don't think to look for them. If tissue from, say, a bird is used to make a vaccine, how many possible germs can be in that tissue? We have no idea.We have no idea what they might be, or what effects they could have on humans.
Q: And beyond the purity issue?
A: You are dealing with the basic faulty premise about vaccines. That they intricately stimulate the immune system to create the conditions for immunity from disease. That is the bad premise. It doesn't work that way. A vaccine is supposed to "create" antibodies which, indirectly, offer protection against disease. However, the immune system is much larger and more involved than antibodies and their related "killer cells."
Q: The immune system is?
A: The entire body, really. Plus the mind. It's all immune system, you might say. That is why you can have, in the middle of an epidemic, those individuals who remain healthy.
Q: So the level of general health is important.
A: More than important. Vital.
Q: How are vaccine statistics falsely presented?
A: There are many ways. For example, suppose that 25 people who have received the hepatitis B vaccine come down with hepatitis. Well, hep B is a liver disease. But you can call liver disease many things. You can change the diagnosis. Then, you've concealed the root cause of the problem.
Q: And that happens?
A: All the time. It HAS to happen, if the doctors automatically assume that people who get vaccines DO NOT come down with the diseases they are now supposed to be protected from. And that is exactly what doctors assume. You see, it's circular reasoning. It's a closed system. It admits no fault. No possible fault. If a person who gets a vaccine against hepatitis gets hepatitis, or gets some other disease, the automatic assumption is, this had nothing to do with the vaccine.
Saturday, September 13, 2008
What Really Causes Disease?
I am posting this information here on the germ theory from, "The Untold Story of Milk" By Ron Schmid, ND, so that others may consider; is the germ theory, which we take on assumption as factual, incorrect? Or a gross distortion of reality?
---Do Germs really cause disease?
I ask this because, having read accounts of primitive cultures, their diet and superb (I repeat, superb!) state of health and their eventual deterioration after long-term consumption of 'civilized' food, as documented in the works of Price ["Nutrition and Physical Degneration"] and Steffanson ["Cancer: Disease of Civilization"], it becomes clear that their disease was not brought on by germs.
If the germ theory is false, then why is it upheld? --Is it because, under the guise of protecting us from the threat of invading-microbes Government (in conjunction with big-pharma) is able to take away our rights and freedoms, experiment on us with vaccines and still be looked upon as our saviour?
After all, if disease is not caused by an external barrage of microbes, but as the paper below asserts, is due to our Milieu Interieur (Internal Environment), then our health is our responsibility and not the Government/Big-Pharmas, their reason for unmerited power becomes nullified.
On a final note, ponder on this: "Pasteur's mechanistic understanding of disease took away the individual's power to prevent it, and placed the mandate to cure squarely in the hands of the medical professionals. In the years since, continually greater controll over the lives of individuals has also been the dominant theme of governments the world over. Professional medical associations have allied with the drug companies and with governments, contenting themselves with growing rich while ignoring the fundamental cause of disease."
Chapter 4: Microbes Versus Milieu: What Really Causes Disease?
Most people believe that acute disease are caused by infectious microbes--viruses, bacteria and parasites. The germ theory states that every infectious disease has a causative agent that attacks the individual and results in illness, with little consideration given to the reasons why some people are susceptible to attack while others are not.
During the last thirty years, an explosion of knowledge about the immune system has contributed to a growing understanding that a strong immune system can protect us against infectious disease. Still, the generally accepted view is that microbes are the cause of acute illness. ...
----------Claude Bernaard and The Milieu Interieur
What we now recognize as the immune system may be thought of as the milieu interieur, a phrase coined in the 1860s by the great French physiologist Claude Bernard. The milieu interieur refers to the internal environment the individual brings to the battleground for infectious disease --that which creates resistance, inner strength and for some, complete immunity.
The great debate in science and medicine during the latter half of the nineteenth century was about microbes versus milieu in etiology of infectious disease. At the centre stage stood Bernard and Louis Pasteur.
Scientists understood very little about the infectious diseases that caused most of the deaths during those years. By the 1880s, sophisticated microscopes and the bacteriological techniques developed by Robert Koch and his associates would allow discovery of the organisms associated with tuberculosis, cholera, diphtheria, scarlet fever and a host of other diseases.
Those discoveries led to a growing acceptance of Pasteur's germ theory. But in the years prior to Koch's discovery of the tubercle bacillus in 1882, the ideas of Claude Bernard held sway.
Born in 1813, Bernard became one of the most respected and influential scientists of his time. A professor of physiology at the Sorbonne, he had his own laboratory at France's famous Museum of Natural History in the Jardin des Plantes.
He came to understand that the blood and lymph that bathe the cells of the body make up the interior environment, the milieu interieur. Upon the self-regulating ability of that environment to maintain constancy or equilibrium rested the body's ability to function.
A corollary that emerged was that the balanced equilibrium that resulted from a fully healthy body was not easily upset by organisms that caused disease in a less healthy body. Thus did bernard's work reinforce the ancient concept of empirical healers since Hippocrates, that the cause of all disease ultimately lay in the life and habits of the individual. Vis medicatrix naturae, "nature cure," is another corollarry--when the body is ailing, it will cure itself if we provide the proper conditions.
----------Louis Pasteur andd The Germ Theory
Bernard's contemporary Louis Pasteur was born in 1822. ... Pasteur was a chemist and bacteriologist, a prolific writer adept at self-promotion... Popular for his germ theory his early work involved fermentation and wine. ... But long before that, Pateur's discoveries met with widespread commercial success, for he worked primarily on probblems of immediate economic, industrial and medical application. ...
But it was with RObert Koch's brilliant series of discoveries involving the isolation of the organisms causing tuberculosis and cholera in the 1880s that Pasteur's germ theory gained broad acceptance with both medical professionals and the public.
The ascendance and century-long domination of the germ theory in modern medical thinking is primarily a reflection of the political and economic scene that has evolved. Pasteur's star began to rise when Emperor Napoleon III, an admirer of his work, created a laboratory of physiological science for him at the Sorbonne in 1867.
Pasteur's mechanistic understanding of disease took away the individual's power to prevent it, and placed the mandate to cure squarely in the hands of the medical professionals. In the years since, continually greater controll over the lives of individuals has also been the dominant theme of governments the world over. Professional medical associations have allied with the drug companies and with governments, contenting themselves with growing rich while ignoring the fundamental cause of disease. ...
That science and medicine went down the path of pasteur's germ theory was not inevitable. The germ theory led to the assumption that disease germs could be overwhelmed and eliminated only by drugs.
But ample evidence existed for Bernard's alternative theory of the milieu interieur, or internal terrain as the dominant element in determining the outcome of the battle between humans and pathogenic microbes. Bernard contributed mightily to the understanding of the workings of human physiology, elucidating the beginings of our understanding of the complex interaction between individuals and the environment that regulates every aspect of metabolism. The French government held Bernard in such high regard that they honored him with a public funeral in 1878--an honor denied to Pasteur upon his death seventeen years later.
Pasteur himself by one account declared on his deathbed, "Claude Bernard was right...the microbe is nothing, the terrain is everything."
---Do Germs really cause disease?
I ask this because, having read accounts of primitive cultures, their diet and superb (I repeat, superb!) state of health and their eventual deterioration after long-term consumption of 'civilized' food, as documented in the works of Price ["Nutrition and Physical Degneration"] and Steffanson ["Cancer: Disease of Civilization"], it becomes clear that their disease was not brought on by germs.
If the germ theory is false, then why is it upheld? --Is it because, under the guise of protecting us from the threat of invading-microbes Government (in conjunction with big-pharma) is able to take away our rights and freedoms, experiment on us with vaccines and still be looked upon as our saviour?
After all, if disease is not caused by an external barrage of microbes, but as the paper below asserts, is due to our Milieu Interieur (Internal Environment), then our health is our responsibility and not the Government/Big-Pharmas, their reason for unmerited power becomes nullified.
On a final note, ponder on this: "Pasteur's mechanistic understanding of disease took away the individual's power to prevent it, and placed the mandate to cure squarely in the hands of the medical professionals. In the years since, continually greater controll over the lives of individuals has also been the dominant theme of governments the world over. Professional medical associations have allied with the drug companies and with governments, contenting themselves with growing rich while ignoring the fundamental cause of disease."
Chapter 4: Microbes Versus Milieu: What Really Causes Disease?
Most people believe that acute disease are caused by infectious microbes--viruses, bacteria and parasites. The germ theory states that every infectious disease has a causative agent that attacks the individual and results in illness, with little consideration given to the reasons why some people are susceptible to attack while others are not.
During the last thirty years, an explosion of knowledge about the immune system has contributed to a growing understanding that a strong immune system can protect us against infectious disease. Still, the generally accepted view is that microbes are the cause of acute illness. ...
----------Claude Bernaard and The Milieu Interieur
What we now recognize as the immune system may be thought of as the milieu interieur, a phrase coined in the 1860s by the great French physiologist Claude Bernard. The milieu interieur refers to the internal environment the individual brings to the battleground for infectious disease --that which creates resistance, inner strength and for some, complete immunity.
The great debate in science and medicine during the latter half of the nineteenth century was about microbes versus milieu in etiology of infectious disease. At the centre stage stood Bernard and Louis Pasteur.
Scientists understood very little about the infectious diseases that caused most of the deaths during those years. By the 1880s, sophisticated microscopes and the bacteriological techniques developed by Robert Koch and his associates would allow discovery of the organisms associated with tuberculosis, cholera, diphtheria, scarlet fever and a host of other diseases.
Those discoveries led to a growing acceptance of Pasteur's germ theory. But in the years prior to Koch's discovery of the tubercle bacillus in 1882, the ideas of Claude Bernard held sway.
Born in 1813, Bernard became one of the most respected and influential scientists of his time. A professor of physiology at the Sorbonne, he had his own laboratory at France's famous Museum of Natural History in the Jardin des Plantes.
He came to understand that the blood and lymph that bathe the cells of the body make up the interior environment, the milieu interieur. Upon the self-regulating ability of that environment to maintain constancy or equilibrium rested the body's ability to function.
A corollary that emerged was that the balanced equilibrium that resulted from a fully healthy body was not easily upset by organisms that caused disease in a less healthy body. Thus did bernard's work reinforce the ancient concept of empirical healers since Hippocrates, that the cause of all disease ultimately lay in the life and habits of the individual. Vis medicatrix naturae, "nature cure," is another corollarry--when the body is ailing, it will cure itself if we provide the proper conditions.
----------Louis Pasteur andd The Germ Theory
Bernard's contemporary Louis Pasteur was born in 1822. ... Pasteur was a chemist and bacteriologist, a prolific writer adept at self-promotion... Popular for his germ theory his early work involved fermentation and wine. ... But long before that, Pateur's discoveries met with widespread commercial success, for he worked primarily on probblems of immediate economic, industrial and medical application. ...
But it was with RObert Koch's brilliant series of discoveries involving the isolation of the organisms causing tuberculosis and cholera in the 1880s that Pasteur's germ theory gained broad acceptance with both medical professionals and the public.
The ascendance and century-long domination of the germ theory in modern medical thinking is primarily a reflection of the political and economic scene that has evolved. Pasteur's star began to rise when Emperor Napoleon III, an admirer of his work, created a laboratory of physiological science for him at the Sorbonne in 1867.
Pasteur's mechanistic understanding of disease took away the individual's power to prevent it, and placed the mandate to cure squarely in the hands of the medical professionals. In the years since, continually greater controll over the lives of individuals has also been the dominant theme of governments the world over. Professional medical associations have allied with the drug companies and with governments, contenting themselves with growing rich while ignoring the fundamental cause of disease. ...
That science and medicine went down the path of pasteur's germ theory was not inevitable. The germ theory led to the assumption that disease germs could be overwhelmed and eliminated only by drugs.
But ample evidence existed for Bernard's alternative theory of the milieu interieur, or internal terrain as the dominant element in determining the outcome of the battle between humans and pathogenic microbes. Bernard contributed mightily to the understanding of the workings of human physiology, elucidating the beginings of our understanding of the complex interaction between individuals and the environment that regulates every aspect of metabolism. The French government held Bernard in such high regard that they honored him with a public funeral in 1878--an honor denied to Pasteur upon his death seventeen years later.
Pasteur himself by one account declared on his deathbed, "Claude Bernard was right...the microbe is nothing, the terrain is everything."
Monday, August 25, 2008
Diet, Injections and Injunctions
A quote from Bertrand Russell that's well worth reading. An admission that vaccines will be administered along-side diet and injunctions (commands) to create an easily dominated 'citizen' --that is after-all, the kind of character that "the authorities consider desirable."
Scientific societies are as yet in their infancy. . . . It is to be expected that advances in physiology and psychology will give governments much more control over individual mentality than they now have even in totalitarian countries.
Fitche laid it down that education should aim at destroying free will, so that, after pupils have left school, they shall be incapable, throughout the rest of their lives, of thinking or acting otherwise than as their schoolmasters would have wished. . . .
Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible. . . .
----Bertrand Russell,1953
Scientific societies are as yet in their infancy. . . . It is to be expected that advances in physiology and psychology will give governments much more control over individual mentality than they now have even in totalitarian countries.
Fitche laid it down that education should aim at destroying free will, so that, after pupils have left school, they shall be incapable, throughout the rest of their lives, of thinking or acting otherwise than as their schoolmasters would have wished. . . .
Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible. . . .
----Bertrand Russell,1953
Why I Made This Page
This page is for my research and studies, which I want to make available to others.
I have spent/and being spending alot of time researching Vaccines and the Germ Theory (see: "Pasteur or Bechamp: A Lost Chapter in Biology and The Dream and Lie of Louis Pasteur), amongst other subjects. I intend, as time goes on, to make all that I have learned available on this page.
I also do video-work, which is availble on my youtube page,
http://www.youtube.com/user/foreverand2day
and art work as well, available on
http://www.ParableofKhalil.Deviantart.com
I have spent/and being spending alot of time researching Vaccines and the Germ Theory (see: "Pasteur or Bechamp: A Lost Chapter in Biology and The Dream and Lie of Louis Pasteur), amongst other subjects. I intend, as time goes on, to make all that I have learned available on this page.
I also do video-work, which is availble on my youtube page,
http://www.youtube.com/user/foreverand2day
and art work as well, available on
http://www.ParableofKhalil.Deviantart.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
