By Peter A. Kirby

Modern telecommunications usually involves devices that can both send and receive wireless signals. These devices are also almost invariably capable of producing and receiving signals that affect our moods, thoughts, and bodily functions. Your cell phone is a psychotronic weapon. That means that your cell phone CAN read and control and probably IS reading and controlling your mind. People should care more about that than whomever is currently on TV.

Most of the fields of man-made electromagnetic energy we experience on a routine, daily basis are byproducts of modern industry: electrical power grids, telecommunications, and all electrically powered devices produce them. As generally opposed to naturally occurring fields of the Earth’s magnetic energy, man-made fields of electromagnetic energy have been found to be generally bad for Humans. A preponderance of the best evidence suggests that they cause cancer. If this wasn’t bad enough for city dwellers, electromagnetic energy can also be weaponized and may be used against us routinely.

Psychotronic weaponry is being used from near and afar to mind control us on a routine, daily basis. Evidence suggests that these mind control activities are part of a larger effort the author calls The New Manhattan Project.

Psychotronic weaponry

Electromagnetic energy can be produced and directed to influence Human moods, thoughts, and bodily functions. Devices that do this are known as ‘psychotronic weaponry’ or ‘psychotronics.’ Psychotronic weaponry utilizes electromagnetic energy frequencies primarily in the Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) range (3-30 Hz) because ELF is primarily the frequency range of the electromagnetic energy the Human brain naturally sends and receives. Electromagnetic fields in the Very Low Frequency (VLF / 3-30 kHz) and Super Low Frequency (SLF / 30-300 Hz) ranges can also have psychotronic effects.

Man-made electromagnetic energy (EM) signals produced and applied in the ELF range can be synchronized to Human brain waves so that the brain becomes ‘entrained.’ The targeted individual’s brain waves are firstly scanned to determine the frequency of the EM his or her brain is currently producing. Then, that same frequency produced by the targeted individual’s brain is produced by the psychotronic weapon and directed at the targeted individual. Once the targeted individual’s brain waves have been synchronized with the EM produced by the psychotronic weapon, the frequency produced by the psychotronic weapon is then gradually altered. Due to this synchronization, as the EM produced by the psychotronic weapon is gradually altered to produce any desired effects, the targeted individual’s brain waves will follow. This is the process of brain entrainment which is fundamental to psychotronic weaponry. Learn more: https://www.activistpost.com/2018/01/your-cell-phone-is-a-psychotronic-weapon-of-mass-mind-control.html

As We Have Been Warning For Years… Mass Individual And Group Psycho-Electronic Mind Control Has Been Revealed

By Sputnik News

A journalist doing routine Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, a way for US citizens to petition the government for information, was sent something he didn’t exactly ask for and probably could not have dreamed of – documents on mind control – and a few other gems.

The documents show a human diagram with descriptors of the weapon capabilities that correspond to each part of our anatomy.

The psycho-electronic weapon supposedly can effectuate “forced memory blanking and induced erroneous actions,” the reading and broadcasting of thoughts, “forced manipulation of airways, including externally controlled forced speech,” itching in “hard-to-reach areas” and dream control. 

The document also claims the weapon can induce a “forced orgasm.” But with great power comes great responsibility, as it can apparently also be used to cause itching and “intense pain” in the genital area.

Other pages in the document depict supposed forms of the technology, including “mass and individual remote mind control via the mobile phone network and mobile phones,” as well as “individual and group remote mind control via ‘black’ helicopter carrying psychotronic weapons.”Read entire article here: https://sputniknews.com/us/201804211063771092-FOIA-Request-Docs-Psycho-Electronic-Weapons/

By Alex Pietrowski,

Trying to kick psychiatric medications is one of those rarely discussed problems with the modern psychiatric business. For all the informative and sleek television commercials and all the simplified explanations by doctors, when someone decides to get off these meds, the experience can be an utter nightmare.

Writing for The New York Times in 2015, Diana Spechler spelled out her hellish process in an article entitled, 10 Things I’d Tell My Former (Medicated) Self. As she describes, there is very little support for people who wish to quit the meds and return to feeling like themselves again. One of her comments gets at the complexity and craziness of trying to quit.

“You might need to taper more gradually than your doctor thinks. Reduce one medication at a time, just a sliver, every couple of weeks at the most. Be gentle. For example, if you’re planning to cut your benzo on a Friday night, but you’re still having withdrawal symptoms from your last cut, or you see the aftermath of yet another shooting on the news, take your usual dose. You can always cut on Monday. Or next Monday. Or the next. It will take you seven months to get off of three drugs. That’s fine. That’s good. You got this. Mid-taper, you can always go back to your previous dose. Medicate if that’s what helps you make it through a day without hiding in the bathroom. The goal is to feel O.K., not to prove that you are O.K. without meds.” [Source]

This is the truth for most people. They simply have to find some inner strength and work out some plan for themselves and do the best they can.

Consultant Chaya Grossberg has been offering non-medical consultations on to people in the process of coming off of psychiatric drugs. In a recent piece for Mad in America, she notes 10 things she commonly sees in her clients.

Of particular note is her opinion that the pharmacaeutical industry should be held accountable for the financial and personal consequences of getting people hooked on psych meds. She considers it an issue of informed consent.

“No one gets on psychiatric drugs with informed consent. No one is given lots of accessible, safe options and honesty about where their diagnosis came from and how arbitrary it is, with a good serving of social criticism mixed in, and still chooses to take psychiatric drugs. People take them out of desperation. It’s an inherently manipulative process that doesn’t offer alternatives that are accessible and socially acceptable.”

In short, she describes a typically long and arduous process, where forces outside of one’s control often take over. In this, she notes that psychiatric medications have a tendency to dampen or obstruct will power, making it ever more difficult to quit.

It’s still possible for those with the decks seemingly stacked against them, and having a strong conviction can make the difference. “Where there’s a will, there’s a way.” This does not mean that if someone is struggling it is their fault or due to a lack of will. Unfortunately psychiatric drugs have a way of dampening the will. The will for some has to come from something beyond themselves, like a higher calling. Sometimes things like destiny and mystery are at play and we can’t claim to always understand or scientifically evaluate why one person can get off and another can’t. We all have different life paths and to deny the mystery in that or try to define everything in linear cause and effect terms is a modern day control mechanism similar to psychiatry itself. Like life itself, there are disparities and unfair things we can’t always explain.

What she is describing is a process pretty much exactly like that of trying to quit any hardcore street drug like cocaine or even heroin. Some people simply cannot do it on their own, while others are fortunate to experience some kind of divine intervention on their behalf.

“For those who come through to the other side, there can be a sense of death and rebirth of a whole new self.” ~Chaya Grossberg

http://www.wakingtimes.com/2018/04/04/therapist-explains-what-happens-when-people-try-to-quit-psychiatric-meds/

By Jon Rappoport

First, two quotes to give a bit of background.

5G speed, for people who must download a whole season of their favorite show in two seconds:

“It’s the next (fifth) generation of cellular technology which promises to greatly enhance the speed, coverage and responsiveness of wireless networks. How fast are we talking about? Think 10 to 100 times speedier than your typical cellular connection, and even faster than anything you can get with a physical fiber-optic cable going into your house. (You’ll be able to download a season’s worth of ‘Stranger Things’ in seconds.)” [CNET.com]

Lunatic 5G installation of small transmitters packed close together every few hundred feet:

“The next big thing in cellular technology, 5G, will bring lightning-fast wireless Internet — and thousands of antenna-topped poles to many neighborhoods where cell towers have long been banned.”

“Wireless companies are asking Congress and state lawmakers to make it easier to install the poles by preempting local zoning laws that often restrict them, particularly near homes. The lobbying efforts have alarmed local officials across the country. They say they need to ensure that their communities do not end up with unsightly poles cluttering sidewalks, roadsides and the edges of front yards.”

“They also are hearing from residents worried about possible long-term health risks. Until now, much of the cell equipment that emits radio-frequency energy has been housed on large towers typically kept hundreds of feet from homes [also harmful to health]. The new ‘small cell’ technology uses far more antennas and transmitters that are smaller and lower-powered, but clustered closer together and lower to the ground.” [The Washington Post]

I keep hammering on this 5G issue, because it contains the blueprint of a future only elite madmen want.

For the rest of us, it’s a catastrophe in the making.

Learn more: https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2018/04/03/5g-wireless-a-ridiculous-front-for-global-control/

By Edward Griffin

Austria: Susanne Weisinger, who has been teaching for 25 years, explains the impossibility of trying to integrate Muslims from a widely different culture and language. They believe their culture is superior, and children refuse to learn many subjects on religious grounds, including music and dance.  She says that teachers are afraid to speak out because political parties and the media support migrants over native Austrians. Half the students in Vienna come from a migration background, and Austrian schools offer classes in Islam. Meanwhile, the government pretends that everything is great.

Learn more: https://needtoknow.news/2018/03/austrian-teachers-overwhelmed-child-migrants-refuse-assimilate/

By Jon Rappoport

Every television newscast: staged reality. The news is all about manipulating the context of stories. The thinner the context, the thinner the mind must become to accept it.

If you want to visualize this, imagine a rectangular solid. The news covers the top surface. Therefore, the viewer’s mind is trained to work in only two dimensions. Then it can’t fathom depth, and it certainly can’t appreciate the fact that the whole rectangular solid moves through time, the fourth dimension.

Focus on the network evening news. This is where the staging is done well—until recently.

First, we have the studio image itself, the colors in foreground and background, the blend of restful and charged hues. The anchor and his/her smooth style.

Then we have the shifting of venue from the studio to reporters in the field, demonstrating the reach of coverage: the planet. As if this equals authenticity.

Actually, those reporters in the field rarely dig up information on location. A correspondent standing on a rooftop in Cairo could just as well be positioned in a bathroom in a Las Vegas McDonald’s. His report would be identical.

The managing editor, usually the elite news anchor, chooses the stories to cover and has the final word on their sequence.

The anchor goes on the air: “Our top story tonight, more signs of gridlock today on Capitol Hill, as legislators walked out of a session on federal budget negotiations…”

The viewer fills in the context for the story: “Oh yes, the government. Gridlock is bad. Just like traffic on the I-5. A bad thing. We want the government to get something done, but they aren’t. These people are always arguing with each other. They don’t agree. They’re in conflict. Yes, conflict, just like on the cop shows.”

The anchor: “The Chinese government reports the new flu epidemic has spread to three provinces. Forty-two people have already died, and nearly a hundred are hospitalized…”

The viewer again supplies context, such as it is: “Flu. Dangerous. Epidemic. Could it arrive here? Get my flu shot.”

The anchor: “A new university study states that gun owners often stock up on weapons and ammunition…”

The viewer: “People with guns. Why do they need a dozen weapons? I don’t need a gun. The police have guns. Could I kill somebody if he broke into the house?”

The anchor: “Doctors at Yale University have made a discovery that could lead to new treatments in the battle against autism…”

Viewer: “That would be good. More research. Laboratory. The brain.”

If, at the end of the newscast, the viewer bothered to review the stories and his own reactions to them, he would realize he’d learned nothing. But reflection is not the game. In fact, the flow of the news stories has washed over him and created very little except a sense of (false) continuity.

Therefore, every story on the news broadcast achieves the goal of keeping the context thin—night after night, year after year. The overall effect of this staging is: small viewer’s mind, small viewer’s understanding.

Learn more: https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2018/04/05/fake-news-and-the-programmed-viewer/

Written By: Sayer Ji, Founder

”The delivery of good medical care is to do as much nothing as possible”~ Samuel Shem, The House of God

Medicine is undergoing an existential crisis today. Its core value proposition – to help and not hurt — is failing to manifest. Patients are suffering. Doctors are suffering. The only exuberant party on the battlefield against disease is the pharmaceutical industry. An industry whose annual casualties far exceed the death total from our two decade long involvement in the Vietnam war.

The entire system is on the precipice of a collapse, if not for economic reasons alone, then certainly for ethical and intellectual ones. The irony is that the system has become so ineffective and dangerous that avoiding medical treatment (excluding perhaps emergency care) has become one of if not the best healthcare strategy you can implement to protect your health and well-being.

Nowhere is this clearer than in the realm of cancer. Over the past few decades, billions have been spent on screening asymptomatic populations to “prevent cancer,” with the result that millions have been assigned with questionable diagnoses (e.g.,”early stage-” or “stage zero-cancers”) and then shepherded into chemo, radiation and surgery treatments as if watchful waiting, or better yet, making significant nutritional and lifestyle modifications, would be a suicidal approach vis-à-vis the inexorability and presumed lethality of genetically-determined cancer.

We needn’t detail the misery this approach has produced, but suffice it to say that despite the industry’s claims of thousands of “lives saved” from the detection of “early cancers,” breast and prostate cancer specific mortality has at best stayed the same, and may have actually increased in some cases. In light of the fact that the financial costs of misapplied treatment in some cases is so high that the uninsured, their families, and society as a whole, face bankruptcy, the situation is dire indeed.

Even after the cat was let out of the bag in 2013, and a National Cancer Institute commissioned expert panel concluded that labeling screening detected lesions known as ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and high-grade intraepithelial neoplastic hyperplasia (HG-PIN) (colloquially labeled as “breast cancer” and “prostate cancer,” respectively) as carcinomas (“cancer”) is no longer justified. Instead they opted for redefining what were previously considered potentially lethal cancers as “benign or indolent lesions of epithelial origin.” Yet, you hear virtually no mention of this change anywhere. Tens of thousands are still being diagnosed with the same “cancers” and being cut, poisoned and burned, without informed consent.

The lack of acknowledgment and discussion about these tremendous diagnostic “errors” is less surprising when you consider that about 1.3 million U.S. women were wrongly treated for breast cancer in the past 30 years, with prostate and lung cancer representing two additional icebergs upon which the Titanic cancer industry is presently running itself aground upon, regardless of whether the medical establishment will accept responsibility. Ignoring the truth that millions suffered needlessly, it would seem, is less painful than admitting wrong, and dealing with the psychological and financial fallout that inevitably follows. But is it possible to stem the tide much longer against the inevitable transformations brewing?

If you check the pubmed.gov statistics, interest in “overtreatment” and “overdiagnosis” has grown exponentially from only a few decades ago, when the terms were rarely mentioned. A new editorial, titled,  “It Is Overtreatment, Not Overdiagnosis,” points out the real issue behind the epidemic of cancer overdiagnoses:

The most widely accepted definition of ”overdiagnosis” is ”diagnosing a person without symptoms with a disease that will (ultimately) never cause symptoms or death during the person’s lifetime” (2). It should not be confused with misdiagnosis or false-positive findings, which are completely different entities and outside the scope of this commentary. As the generally accepted definition encapsulates downstream effects (ie, ”would otherwise not go on to cause symptoms or death”, the real issue lies with ”overtreatment” of these accurate diagnoses rather than overdiagnosis itself.

Overtreament does not happen in a vacuum. The very industries that produce the treatments also create and supports the “awareness campaigns” that not only use fear to corral the population into screening, but also “pinkwash” away their true causes, i.e. breast cancer awareness month talks about needing a cure but not the causes right under our noses (i.e. carcinogens). Therefore, the more diagnoses that are generated, the more treatments will be “recommended,” resulting in greater revenue and profit – an economic growth model that itself can only be described as a malignant process at least as violent, if not more, than the disease it is claiming to treat and manage.

The editorial concluded:

“The effects of treating inconsequential lesions, rather than their diagnosis per se, result in increased morbidity and cost without added benefit. Society as a whole should strive to treat individuals who should be treated and not those who would not benefit. The 13th law of Shem, true in 1978, remains true today.”

Essentially, modern medicine has become our most Orwellian institution, with “detecting cancer early” the biomedical equivalent of the Thought Police detecting crime before it happens. The prognosticating itself,  is a highly toxic process (nocebo: e.g., “You have cancer and 6 months to live.”) that can contribute to evoking cancer-promoting physiological reactions, as well as inflicting real psychospiritual wounds that have been determined to dramatically increase the risk of heart-related deaths and suicides. Medicine has also adopted the metaphorics of another powerful global force: the military industrial complex, with the cancer “prevention” being equated to “striking first,” eerily similar to the Bush doctrine of preemptive war to secure peace. Here, the precautionary principle is co-opted and inverted from its true meaning. Instead of “doing no harm,” unnecessary medical intervention is considered the only non-violent solution even when the collateral damage is so great that the patient often dies from the violence of “treatment” with weapons-of-mass-destruction grade radioisotopes and chemicals and not the condition.

Learn more: http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/good-medicine-do-much-nothing-possible

By Luis Miranda

Fake news are not new and neither is its progenitor, Yellow Journalism. Mainstream media have been, for a long time, the largest purveyors of fake news. No one can debate such a reality.

Indeed, fake news go a longer way and spread faster than real news. It is just a matter of watching CNN for a few minutes to realize how easily fake news are put out and broadcast to thousands in 30 seconds.

In the last 30 years, wars have been promoted and advertised by the most recognised news outlets around the world. From the BBC to CNN, from FOX News to PBS, from MSNBC to ABC, from EL PAÍSto TVE, most mainstream megaphones have played a significant role in spreading “official” versions of reality, which in most cases were just fake news.

Somehow, however, fake news is now attached to alternative media, who are key in providing an alternative source of information to the corporate-controlled fake news.

Alternative media have given corporate media such a run for their money that corporate news sources are now openly attacking alternative media.

Censorship is the most common way of banning real news from being internationally discussed. All Facebook, Twitter, Youtube and Google impose bans on alternative media on a daily basis.

Video channels and accounts are blacked out without previous warnings or without showing valid reasons. Explanations for the attacks are as simple as “you have violated our publishing policies”, whatever that means.

Today, the mainstream media and governments who control them, label fake news anything that does not support the official story, no matter how extraordinarily fake that official story is. The latest example of fake news are so-called lone wolf mass shootings in the US.

Local and federal law enforcement, as well as mainstream media, push versions of reality that are difficult to believe. According to them, lone shooters are responsible for killing dozens of people in churches and schools, though witnesses always explain that several shooters were seen in military or police gear riddling unarmed children and parishioners.

Learn more: http://www.thesleuthjournal.com/mainstream-media-purveyors-fake-news/

Learn how to “grow half of your own food” with sustainable, organic methods that can be practiced anywhere

By Florence Garrington

Is there anything better than chowing down on food grown in your own backyard? Homegrown produce has distinct flavors that simply can’t be beaten by the fruits and vegetables sold in the grocery. That isn’t just satisfaction you’re tasting—you’re also savoring unmatched food safety and security.

When you grow your own food, you control what does and doesn’t go into it. This means that you’re sure that your produce has no harmful pesticides and dangerous chemicals. If you love potatoes, peppers, or tomatoes, then you should definitely consider raising your own since these tend to have the highest pesticide loads.

Do you know that growing your own gardens saves you money as well? After all, you won’t have to spend a lot of time or money shopping for your favorite greens when you can just step outside. Nor will you have to worry about the risk of your fruits or vegetables containing disease-spreading bacteria.

The only downside to this that you’ll have to pour in a lot of time and effort into high-quality homegrown produce.

Or so it seems.

You can grow half of what you eat in less than an hour every day — and you don’t even need a lot of space for it.

Learn more: https://www.naturalnews.com/2018-03-14-food-freedom-learn-how-to-grow-half-of-your-own-food.html

By Jon Rappoport

Television viewers are inundated with drug ads from Big Pharma. It’s a flood.

Have you ever heard of these drugs? Otezla, Xeljanz, Namzaric, Keytruda, Breo, Cosentyz? Not likely. If you have, do you know what conditions they treat? Highly unlikely. But there they are, splashed in commercials.

Why? Who is going to remember to ask their doctor whether these and other obscure meds are right for them? What’s going on here?

The answer is: IT DOESN’T MATTER WHAT DRUGS ARE BEING ADVERTISED.

If Pharma can pay enough TOTAL money for ads, for ALL drugs, and dominate the allotted TV time for commercials, it can control the news—and that is exactly what it wants to do.

Pharmaceutical scandals are everywhere. Reporting on them, wall to wall, isn’t good for the drug business. However, as an industry ponying up billions of dollars for TV ads, Pharma can limit exposure and negative publicity. It can (and does) say to television networks: If you give us a hard time on the news, we’ll take our ad money and go somewhere else. Boom. End of problem.

Face it, the billions of dollars Pharma is paying for TV ads are a drop in the bucket, compared with its profits gained from selling the drugs. The ads are a good investment. As a bribe. Control the news.

There is another reason for the insane flood of TV drug ads: By their sheer number, they convince viewers that medical drugs (no matter what they are) are absolutely necessary.

Hour by hour, viewers numbly watch drug commercial after commercial. The overall message is: To keep illness from your door, to cure illness, to alleviate illness, you must take these medicines. THIS IS LIFE IN THE 21ST CENTURY. You’re all sick, and you need help, and this is the ONLY kind of help there is.

The drug companies could invent names of fake drugs that don’t even exist, advertise them in a cascade on television, with the same intent. DRUGS ARE AS VITAL TO LIFE AS WATER OR AIR.

Learn more: https://www.naturalblaze.com/2018/03/deeper-reason-drug-ads-television.html?