WikiLeaks has released a John Podesta email that sheds light on the artificial sweetener aspartamethat is anything but sweet. Besides pointing out how gravely dangerous NutraSweet is, the leaked email also shows the treachery involved in getting the adulterant approved as a food ingredient. According to Wise Mind Healthy Body, an email chain was forwarded to Podesta by a Wendy Abrams, in which she writes, “I also have a friend who worked for the researchers at University of Chicago (which has a top rated neurology dept) and the doctors there said when they gave nutrasweet to lab mice, it literally blew holes in their brains. They said they will tell a pregnant woman to drink any amount of alcohol before touching a sip of nutrasweet, it is that bad.”
In back and forth emails between Abrams and a man named Don Kennedy, the latter explains how aspartame came to be legalized:
“He explains that the day after Ronald Reagan’s inauguration, January 21, 1981, Searle – the original developer of aspartame – applied to the FDA for approval to use aspartame in food sweetener for a second time [aspartame was previously banned]. Arthur Hayes Hull, Jr., Reagan’s newly appointed FDA commissioner, proceeded to appoint a 5-person scientific commission to review the board of inquiry’s decision. When it became clear that the panel was going to uphold the ban with a 3–2 decision, Hull placed a sixth member on the commission so the vote would become deadlocked. Then Hull personally broke the tie in aspartame’s favor.”
If aspartame is unfit for human consumption, why is it added to thousands of products?
Mission Possible World Health International is a comprehensive resource on the subject of aspartame. Its founder, Dr. Betty Martini, has dedicated many years to exposing the dangers of this ubiquitous chemical. Here is a sample of the information available on the website:
1. An FDA report lists 92 documented symptoms of aspartame ingestion, including depression, anxiety, memory loss, fatigue, headaches, vertigo, irritability, insomnia, weight gain, palpitations, sexual dysfunction, loss of taste, weakness, joint pain, numbness, dizziness, tinnitus, blurry vision, rashes, seizures and blindness.
2. Conditions associated with aspartame use include multiple sclerosis, fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome, Gulf War syndrome, Alzheimer’s disease, Grave’s disease, Lou Gehrig’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, diabetes, mental retardation, lymphoma, lupus, DNA damage, birth defects and even death.
Life is not all ‘rainbows and moonbeams,’ and bad people do bad things
It is easy to understand that greed and corruption are sufficient to explain why our food supply is loaded with poisons like aspartame. Collusion between Big Government and Big Pharma is a fact of life. A case in point: Donald Rumsfeld, who has held high posts in successive administrations, was chairman of Searle at the time the FDA approved NutraSweet. But is there a deeper, more sinister layer to the controversy? After all, if the powers that be can get us to gladly and willingly pay for chemical-laden foodstuffs that ruin our health and damage our brains, our source of reasoning power, would that not be a way to more easily control the populace to comply with a globalist agenda? A sick and weakened people dependent on external support is what we have become, but a healthy and robust people that is self-reliant and can forge their own path, a people that can resist the pressures of collectivism, is a people to be respected and feared. There is no doubt of that. After viewing the documentary, Sweet Misery: A Poisoned World, hopefully you will swear off aspartame for good.
Swedish newspaper Friatider says a large amount of data from the Criminal Data System was secretly provided to a far-right nationalist group called “Nordfront”. Together with sex crime website “Gang Rape Sweden” they decided to publish the leaked judicial database on Friday.
The leaked data discloses: Decision date, name, social security number, court, destination number, date of judgment, period of imprisonment, region and place of investigation for the prosecution of suspects.
Files of 168,000 sentences that were given between 10 May 2004 and 8 January 2015 were published. Of the 83,656 individuals involved, 37,735 (or 45 per cent) were foreign born, Nordfront writes. Of the people sentenced to 9 and 10 years in prison, 70 per cent and 68.8 per cent were foreign born.
Among gang rape cases, 118 of the perpetrators, or 82 per cent, are immigrants. The overrepresentation for immigrants is 18.2. The investigation also claims that the direct costs of immigrants’ crime is well above SEK 20 billion (2 billion euros) a year.
According to Swedish journalist Peter Imanuelsen the data is probably reliable:
“I’m very certain it is legit. See the article on Friatider. Since they are being sued for publishing this info, it must mean it is correct.”
The Swedish police are certainly not happy with the data transparency. According to them it is a serious breach of the Personal Data Act (PUL).
Swedish mainstream media seemed not happy as well: For example newspaper SVT published an article about the fact that this is one of Sweden’s biggest data crimes.
The incident is another proof that Sweden rather keeps its migrant crime data away from the public eye: Publishing migrant crimes is a ‘bigger problem’ than the crimes themselves. While a lot of people all over the world already know what is really happening in the country, its politicians prefer to avoid reality.
We’ve talked with a representative of “Gang Rape Sweden”, here’s their short reply:
“Yes, it’s verified information sentencing decisions by the prison system basically.”
While watching one of the original News stories LIVE.. a News anchor confirms through his “police source” that there were in fact 2 shooters and 2 suspects. Did he slip up? Or did his source slip up? False information?
One of the most steadfast beliefs regarding the United States is that it is a democracy. Whenever this conviction waivers slightly, it is almost always to point out detrimental exceptions to core American values or foundational principles. For instance, aspiring critics frequently bemoan a “loss of democracy” due to the election of clownish autocrats, draconian measures on the part of the state, the revelation of extraordinary malfeasance or corruption, deadly foreign interventions, or other such activities that are considered undemocratic exceptions. The same is true for those whose critical framework consists in always juxtaposing the actions of the U.S. government to its founding principles, highlighting the contradiction between the two and clearly placing hope in its potential resolution.
The problem, however, is that there is no contradiction or supposed loss of democracy because the United States simply never was one. This is a difficult reality for many people to confront, and they are likely more inclined to immediately dismiss such a claim as preposterous rather than take the time to scrutinize the material historical record in order to see for themselves. Such a dismissive reaction is due in large part to what is perhaps the most successful public relations campaign in modern history.
What will be seen, however, if this record is soberly and methodically inspected, is that a country founded on elite, colonial rule based on the power of wealth—a plutocratic colonial oligarchy, in short—has succeeded not only in buying the label of “democracy” to market itself to the masses, but in having its citizenry, and many others, so socially and psychologically invested in its nationalist origin myth that they refuse to hear lucid and well-documented arguments to the contrary.
To begin to peel the scales from our eyes, let us outline in the restricted space of this article, five patent reasons why the United States has never been a democracy (a more sustained and developed argument is available in my book, Counter-History of the Present).
To begin with, British colonial expansion into the Americas did not occur in the name of the freedom and equality of the general population, or the conferral of power to the people. Those who settled on the shores of the “new world,” with few exceptions, did not respect the fact that it was a very old world indeed, and that a vast indigenous population had been living there for centuries. As soon as Columbus set foot, Europeans began robbing, enslaving and killing the native inhabitants. The trans-Atlantic slave trade commenced almost immediately thereafter, adding a countless number of Africans to the ongoing genocidal assault against the indigenous population. Moreover, it is estimated that over half of the colonists who came to North America from Europe during the colonial period were poor indentured servants, and women were generally trapped in roles of domestic servitude. Rather than the land of the free and equal, then, European colonial expansion to the Americas imposed a land of the colonizer and the colonized, the master and the slave, the rich and the poor, the free and the un-free. The former constituted, moreover, an infinitesimally small minority of the population, whereas the overwhelming majority, meaning “the people,” was subjected to death, slavery, servitude, and unremitting socio-economic oppression.
Second, when the elite colonial ruling class decided to sever ties from their homeland and establish an independent state for themselves, they did not found it as a democracy. On the contrary, they were fervently and explicitly opposed to democracy, like the vast majority of European Enlightenment thinkers. They understood it to be a dangerous and chaotic form of uneducated mob rule. For the so-called “founding fathers,” the masses were not only incapable of ruling, but they were considered a threat to the hierarchical social structures purportedly necessary for good governance. In the words of John Adams, to take but one telling example, if the majority were given real power, they would redistribute wealth and dissolve the “subordination” so necessary for politics. When the eminent members of the landowning class met in 1787 to draw up a constitution, they regularly insisted in their debates on the need to establish a republic that kept at bay vile democracy, which was judged worse than “the filth of the common sewers” by the pro-Federalist editor William Cobbett. The new constitution provided for popular elections only in the House of Representatives, but in most states the right to vote was based on being a property owner, and women, the indigenous and slaves—meaning the overwhelming majority of the population—were simply excluded from the franchise. Senators were elected by state legislators, the President by electors chosen by the state legislators, and the Supreme Court was appointed by the President. It is in this context that Patrick Henry flatly proclaimed the most lucid of judgments: “it is not a democracy.” George Mason further clarified the situation by describing the newly independent country as “a despotic aristocracy.”
When the American republic slowly came to be relabeled as a “democracy,” there were no significant institutional modifications to justify the change in name. In other words, and this is the third point, the use of the term “democracy” to refer to an oligarchic republic simply meant that a different word was being used to describe the same basic phenomenon. This began around the time of “Indian killer” Andrew Jackson’s presidential campaign in the 1830s. Presenting himself as a ‘democrat,’ he put forth an image of himself as an average man of the people who was going to put a halt to the long reign of patricians from Virginia and Massachusetts. Slowly but surely, the term “democracy” came to be used as a public relations term to re-brand a plutocratic oligarchy as an electoral regime that serves the interest of the people or demos. Meanwhile, the American holocaust continued unabated, along with chattel slavery, colonial expansion and top-down class warfare.
In spite of certain minor changes over time, the U.S. republic has doggedly preserved its oligarchic structure, and this is readily apparent in the two major selling points of its contemporary “democratic” publicity campaign. The Establishment and its propagandists regularly insist that a structural aristocracy is a “democracy” because the latter is defined by the guarantee of certain fundamental rights (legal definition) and the holding of regular elections (procedural definition). This is, of course, a purely formal, abstract and largely negative understanding of democracy, which says nothing whatsoever about people having real, sustained power over the governing of their lives. However, even this hollow definition dissimulates the extent to which, to begin with, the supposed equality before the law in the United States presupposes an inequality before the law by excluding major sectors of the population: those judged not to have the right to rights, and those considered to have lost their right to rights (Native Americans, African-Americans and women for most of the country’s history, and still today in certain aspects, as well as immigrants, “criminals,” minors, the “clinically insane,” political dissidents, and so forth). Regarding elections, they are run in the United States as long, multi-million dollar advertising campaigns in which the candidates and issues are pre-selected by the corporate and party elite. The general population, the majority of whom do not have the right to vote or decide not to exercise it, are given the “choice”—overseen by an undemocratic electoral college and embedded in a non-proportional representation scheme—regarding which member of the aristocratic elite they would like to have rule over and oppress them for the next four years. “Multivariate analysis indicates,” according to an important recent study by Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page, “that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination […], but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy.”
To take but a final example of the myriad ways in which the U.S. is not, and has never been, a democracy, it is worth highlighting its consistent assault on movements of people power. Since WWII, it has endeavored to overthrow some 50 foreign governments, most of which were democratically elected. It has also, according the meticulous calculations by William Blum in America’s Deadliest Export: Democracy, grossly interfered in the elections of at least 30 countries, attempted to assassinate more than 50 foreign leaders, dropped bombs on more than 30 countries, and attempted to suppress populist movements in 20 countries. The record on the home front is just as brutal. To take but one significant parallel example, there is ample evidence that the FBI has been invested in a covert war against democracy. Beginning at least in the 1960s, and likely continuing up to the present, the Bureau “extended its earlier clandestine operations against the Communist party, committing its resources to undermining the Puerto Rico independence movement, the Socialist Workers party, the civil rights movement, Black nationalist movements, the Ku Klux Klan, segments of the peace movement, the student movement, and the ‘New Left’ in general” (Cointelpro: The FBI’s Secret War on Political Freedom, p. 22-23). Consider, for instance, Judi Bari’s summary of its assault on the Socialist Workers Party: “From 1943-63, the federal civil rights case Socialist Workers Party v. Attorney General documents decades of illegal FBI break-ins and 10 million pages of surveillance records. The FBI paid an estimated 1,600 informants $1,680,592 and used 20,000 days of wiretaps to undermine legitimate political organizing.” In the case of the Black Panther Party and the American Indian Movement (AIM)—which were both important attempts to mobilize people power to dismantle the structural oppression of white supremacy and top-down class warfare—the FBI not only infiltrated them and launched hideous smear and destabilization campaigns against them, but they assassinated 27 Black Panthers and 69 members of AIM (and subjected countless others to the slow death of incarceration). If it be abroad or on the home front, the American secret police has been extremely proactive in beating down the movements of people rising up, thereby protecting and preserving the main pillars of white supremacist, capitalist aristocracy.
Rather than blindly believing in a golden age of democracy in order to remain at all costs within the gilded cage of an ideology produced specifically for us by the well-paid spin-doctors of a plutocratic oligarchy, we should unlock the gates of history and meticulously scrutinize the founding and evolution of the American imperial republic. This will not only allow us to take leave of its jingoist and self-congratulatory origin myths, but it will also provide us with the opportunity to resuscitate and reactivate so much of what they have sought to obliterate. In particular, there is a radical America just below the surface of these nationalist narratives, an America in which the population autonomously organizes itself in indigenous and ecological activism, black radical resistance, anti-capitalist mobilization, anti-patriarchal struggles, and so forth. It is this America that the corporate republic has sought to eradicate, while simultaneously investing in an expansive public relations campaign to cover over its crimes with the fig leaf of “democracy” (which has sometimes required integrating a few token individuals, who appear to be from below, into the elite ruling class in order to perpetuate the all-powerful myth of meritocracy). If we are astute and perspicacious enough to recognize that the U.S. is undemocratic today, let us not be so indolent or ill-informed that we let ourselves be lulled to sleep by lullabies praising its halcyon past. Indeed, if the United States is not a democracy today, it is in large part due to the fact that it never was one.
Far from being a pessimistic conclusion, however, it is precisely by cracking open the hard shell of ideological encasement that we can tap into the radical forces that have been suppressed by it. These forces—not those that have been deployed to destroy them—should be the ultimate source of our pride in the power of the people.
While the thought of adding livestock to a traditional backyard can seem daunting, even a beginner can raise several animals. But before you decide which animal(s) you want to raise, ensure that your backyard is spacious enough so your livestock will have room to roam in. Since these animals will be a source of greener food options, the least you can do is give them a clean and healthy environment to live in.
We’ve listed five animals that are relatively easy to raise. Remember to start small before you decide on raising all five animals at once.
Chickens —Chickens are a homesteader favorite because they provide eggs and are also great for keeping your backyard bug- and pest-free. Depending on the breed, chickens can lay a lot of eggs. However, it can take at least four to eight months before chickens reach the laying age. They also require enough space to roam around during the day. Give your chickens at least four square feet of living space. If you want to raise chickens for meat, keep in mind that this can be challenging since it’ll take several months before they’re ready. Chickens raised for meat can stink up your backyard, so make sure you’re ready to deal with this. Most hens will lay eggs for three years. Any longer than that and you will need to plan for their eventual retirement. (Related: Feed your backyard chickens for free with garden produce, common weeds.)
Ducks – Muscovy ducks are the perfect breed to raise in a traditional backyard. These ducks don’t quack, so you’ll only hear them make “quiet hissing and pipping noises” unlike other duck breeds. While they don’t require a big pond, Muscovy ducks do require water that has been cleaned regularly. These ducks are a good source of eggs and meat, but they may forage in your garden, so take measures to protect your produce. Ducks are also good for pest control because they eat flies, mosquitoes, and snails. Keep Muscovy ducks in pairs, and clip their wings if you wish to keep their flying in control. Don’t forget to provide them with a roost since ducks need more space than chickens typically require. If you want to let these ducks loose, keep in mind that their droppings can run “loose,” which is good for your garden but not for your porch.
Goats – If you’re interested in raising goats, consider the Nigerian Dwarf goat. This breed is suitable for traditional backyards, and the milk it provides is nutritious. Goat milk can also be used to make delicious cheese, and these animals can help keep your bushes under control. This smaller goat breed only requires at least one-fourth of the space a full-sized dairy goat needs, but give them at least 16 square feet per goat. Keep at least two goats since they need to be in a herd to stay happy. Sturdy fencing and housing will keep the goats warm and dry. Do check with your neighbors and zoning before getting some goats because they are noisy animals.
Quail – Quail is another great option for backyard livestock due to their small size, which gives you many options when it comes to housing. Quails need a minimum of one square foot per bird. When it comes to egg laying, quails can start producing eggs after six weeks. They’re also fully grown after eight weeks. Even though quail eggs are smaller than chicken eggs, the former are creamier. Keep in mind that quails can also be noisy, so only keeping hens might be a better option, especially if you have neighbors that aren’t fond of noisy animals. Quail meat is darker and has a flavor similar to turkey, although you might need a couple before you feel full. When raising quail for meat, a 4:5 hen to rooster is ideal. Quails are low maintenance as long as you give them a high protein feed. Without enough protein, they can resort to cannibalism.
Rabbits – If you’re looking for quieter livestock, get some rabbits. They’re easy to raise, and they require a cage that only measures at least 3×2 feet. But if your space is big enough, consider getting them a bigger cage. Start with three rabbits made up of two does and a buck. Rabbit meat tastes like chicken meat, and it’s mostly white meat and very lean. Do keep in mind that rabbits must be kept cool, and they don’t breed during the hot summer months. Give them shade and some frozen water bottles, fans, and misters to keep them comfortable.
Choose your livestock well – Consider the pros and cons before you decide on the kind of animal you want to raise.
Think of the end game – Choose the animal based on what you and your family need. Is it eggs, meat, or milk?
Expenses – Make sure you have the funds to care for these animals well so your efforts don’t go to waste.
Time investment – Livestock require a lot of time and attention, so don’t bother planning if you can’t commit to taking care of the animals properly.
Emotional investment – Remember that your chickens or goats are not kept as pets. While you feed and nurture them, livestock are primarily a food source. Don’t get attached, and if you have children, raising livestock is a good way to teach them about natural food sources.
You can read more articles about raising livestock and other homesteading tips at Homesteading.news.
The Beatles had it right: “pools of sorrow, waves of joy” do influence the universe you create — be that for the better or worse. Researchers of a new study emphasize what we’ve been told millions of times before. Abusing either alcohol or marijuana as a teenager or young adult increases the likelihood of having a more difficult adult life. You may want to reconsider your life choices right now, especially if you’re still very young.
In the study, researchers at the University of Connecticutinvestigated the records of more than 1,100 individuals in the United States whose ages ranged from 19 to 35 years old, most of whom had an alcoholic relative. The habits of these individuals were first evaluated at age 12 and then every two years until they were between the ages of 25 to 34. They looked at the data from the Collaborative Study on the Genetics of Alcoholism, which was funded by the National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA), to observe the impact alcohol and marijuana usage in teens had on adult success (defined as educational accomplishment, full time employment, marriage, and social economic potential).
The findings of the study, presented at the American Public Health Association 2017 Annual Meeting & Expo, revealed that the participants who abused either alcohol or marijuana when they were teenagers attained lower levels of education and had lower social economic potential. Moreover, they also had a lower chance of working a full-time job and were more likely to remain single.
“This study found that chronic marijuana use in adolescence was negatively associated with achieving important developmental milestones in young adulthood,” said Elizabeth Harari, an author of the study.
Results also revealed that dependent young men were more severely affected by the abuse of either alcohol or marijuana compared to dependent young women. This is because dependent young men were less successful in all four aspects of success in comparison to women. Women who depended on alcohol or marijuana were less likely to get a degree in college and had lower social economic potential compared to women who did not abuse alcohol or marijuana. However, dependent and non-dependent women were equally able to get married or get a full time job.
“Awareness of marijuana’s potentially deleterious effects will be important moving forward, given the current move in the U.S. toward marijuana legalization for medicinal and possibly recreational use,” Harari explained.
Marijuana as a medicine
Marijuana is not entirely bad for you. In fact, it is used for medical purposes. Studies have shown that marijuana can benefit people with depression, social anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder. Cannabis is also used for relieving chronic pain and nausea and for benefiting people with epilepsy. In addition, research had suggested that it may be a safer alternative to opioids. It may also have anti-cancer effects.
However, you should be cautious if you use marijuana. Avoid using marijuana products before driving or operating other heavy or dangerous equipment. If you have a heart or lung condition, or are concerned about the potential addictive effect of marijuana, consult your doctor first about the safety or continued use of it. Pregnant women should also not use marijuana products. Moreover, do not use products that are packed as candy or other edibles if there are children in your house. Since the risks are specifically high among young people, talking to your kids about the possible side effects of marijuana is a must.
If you weren’t already convinced of God’s impending judgment for the utterly perverse planet earth in 2017, the newfangled “Objectum Sexual” movement is sure to solidify your personal awakening. This latest extension of LGBTQ-et. al. represents a group of deranged people who claim that they are sexually attracted to inanimate objects like chandeliers and car tailpipes, with which they desire to have sexual relations.
It’s cringeworthy to even have to type all of this out, but perverts who belong to the sect of “Objectum Sexual” actually believe that their attraction to lifeless matter is an indicator of their sexual identity, which is completely detached from anything that’s actually alive. These LGBTQ-OSs insist that it’s completely normal for them to want to procreate with random objects in whatever specific form that feels appealing at the time.
In the case of 33-year-old Amanda “Liberty” from Leeds, England, her preference centers around hanging light fixtures and large metal objects, which is why she’s planning to get married to a 90-year-old chandelier that she refers to as “Lumiere.” Liberty, who assigned herself this fake surname based on her love affair with the Statue of Liberty (whom she refers to as “Libby”), says she “proposed” to her Lumiere chandelier last Valentine’s Day, claiming that she’s completely in love with it.
“As soon as I saw Lumiere on eBay, I knew immediately that she was the one for me and it was love at first sight,” Liberty is quoted as saying to PJ Media. “She was based in Germany and although I knew it would be tricky to get her home, I knew I needed to find a way to make her mine.”
“I couldn’t stop thinking about her and how beautiful she was. She has such a beautiful shape, and I could feel really amazing energy coming from her.”
But how will LGBTQ-OS folk get their ‘spouses’ to march in pride parades?
Liberty is hardly alone in her delusional state of existence, as there now exists a support group called Objectum-Sexuality Internationale that affirms many other mental cases just like her who believe that it’s possible to have romantic relationships with random objects made in factories. The group’s description of itself states that those with OS inclinations “love objects on a very significant level,” and that many in “an intimate way.”
“Objectùm-sexual love comes for most in a similar awakening as other sexualities at the start of puberty,” the group’s website states. “This is often followed by an acute awareness that we do not relate to peers due to the source of projected feelings. Often objectùm-sexual people feel outcast or pressured by mainstream sexuality with a helpless feeling that we cannot change what comes so naturally to us.”
This form of mental illness has apparently been around for quite some time, as reports from back in 1979 claim that a woman named Eija-Riitta Eklöf fell in love with and married the Berlin Wall in Germany. Eklöf reportedly changed her surname to “Berliner-Mauer” as a reflection of this, and later on, in 1999 launched the first internet group for other people like her who require some serious counseling or exorcism-like reprogramming.
Berliner-Mauer’s favorite objects of affection are red fences, however, which she adores more than anything else because one can look over them to see what’s on the other side. The fact that this allows her to decide whether or not the grass is greener apparently turns her on – which as Megan Fox from PJ Media correctly points out probably won’t go over very well for the rest of the LGBTQ mafia, seeing as how fences and walls are kind of the thing of their arch-enemy, President Donald Trump.
It’s fairly obvious to most intelligent people that modern society is going insane. It’s especially true among today’s hyper-connected youth who seem to be truly deranged and mentally ill, hyperventilating over every issue imaginable such as “net neutrality” or the election of Donald Trump. The lunacy of modern society has never been more extreme, and many of us who observe all this are wondering is there a common cause behind the insanity?
As it turns out, the mass poisoning of human brains with cellphone radiation has only been going on for a generation or so. It may be the common cause behind the insanity, and California health authorities have just confirmed this possibility by issuing new warnings about the adverse brain effects of cellphone radiation exposure.
“The research suggests cellphones could increase our risk for brain cancer and tumors, low sperm count, headaches, as well as impaired memory, hearing, and sleep,” reports CBS News / San Francisco. In other words, cellphone radiation has been found to directly interfere with normal brain function, leading people to demonstrate abnormal cognitive function. This, combined with the brain-warping harmful effects of social media, seems to have driven our society to the brink of runaway mental illness across the masses.
Just as the Romans destroyed their civilization with the help of lead poisoning in the water aqueducts, we may be destroying our own civilization by frying all our brains with cellphone radiation (and thereby driving our people insane).
Cellphone radiation brain damage explains how snowflakes and crybullies came into existence
According to the article linked above, 95 percent of Americans are now using cellphones on a regular basis. This is even true among today’s youth who seem to be addicted to the devices (as portals for social media chats, photo sharing and the like). But is all this device time frying young brains and interfering with neurological development?
Could cellphone radiation exposure, in other words, be responsible for the “snowflake generation” of fragile crybullies and emotional wrecks that now seem to dominate college campuses across our nation? A new documentary called “Generation Zapped” looks at the stunning health risks associated with wireless technology and mobile devices. Found at GenerationZapped.com, the new documentary dares to examine the medical and health implications of prolonged cellphone radiation exposure. See the trailer here:
The documentary also covers smart meters and how they expose entire buildings full of people to electromagnetic radiation pollution.
The wireless industry is the new “Big Tobacco”
Inherent in the film is coverage of the massive scientific cover-up being waged by the industry. We’re talking about a “Big Tobacco-style” cover-up of scientific evidence of harm. Powerful corporations that are deeply invested in wireless technology spend billions of dollars each year lobbying lawmakers and regulators to bury the truth about electropollution and the risk of EMF exposure.
That’s why this film and its producers will, of course, be maliciously attacked by the wireless industry in exactly the same way big tobacco whistleblowers were attacked by the cigarette companies throughout the 1970s, 80s and 90s. (It’s also why the vaccine industry viciously attacks anyone who points out how vaccines contain brain-damaging aluminum and mercury.) When the truth threatens a multi-billion-dollar industry, the truth is always attacked and suppressed, and such suppression of truth is always dressed up in the name of “science.”
But it’s all fake science, of course. Or, better stated, “industry science” … which isn’t actually science at all. It’s just propaganda.
Have we allowed an entire generation to be brain damaged by cellphones?
The bigger question here, however, is what I’m posing today: By ignoring the very real health risks of brain damage caused by cellphone radiation exposure, have we allowed an entire generation to become brain damaged? It’s hard to look at “snowflakes” today and not conclude they are mentally deranged lunatics. See the videos below for some examples:
As these videos demonstrate, a shocking number of today’s youthful people are nothing short of raging lunatics. This is especially evident in the LGBT / trans community, which is now expanding its “tolerance” acronyms to include men who enjoy having intercourse with the tailpipes of automobiles. Every freakish, deranged sexual deviancy is now claimed to be a “protected” victim group, and there’s no question the deranged Left will soon demand special protection for bestiality, pedophilia and those who engage in sexual acts with corpses. (Love wins! Um… dude, maybe that isn’t the kind of love you should be looking for…)
The political Left in America, in other words, is now trying to normalize mass mental illness for the simple reason that it has become so widespread that it almost seems common. But “common” doesn’t make it normal or healthy. If an entire generation is mass poisoned, that doesn’t make them all sane. It just means that the brain damage is extremely widespread (and therefore extremely dangerous to the long-term sustainability of society as a whole because no society that goes collectively insane has much of a future). The lunatic fringe of America’s culture, in other words, has found strength in numbers as more and more of our youth are becoming brain damaged by exposure to neurological poisons. These poisons no doubt also include pesticides in the food supply, but EMF pollution is rapidly emerging as perhaps the most damaging factor of all.
Is it time to ban mobile devices for young people?
Modern society has long agreed that cigarettes should be banned for young people because of the harm they cause young, developing bodies and brains. Today nobody argues that children should be able to buy a pack of Camels (although this was, of course, the big push by the tobacco industry decades ago).
Now that science has confirmed cellphones pose a very real risk to the brains of young people, is it time to debate banning such devices from being habitually used by young people? The libertarian argument, of course, is, “No way!” Government has no role banning people from using cellphones at any age, they say. But what if cellphone use is proven to cause brain damage and mental illness?
Then the argument becomes the same argument as the Big Tobacco scenario. At what point should the freedom of individuals be curtailed in the interests of protecting young people from severe brain damage caused by the use of certain products? Meth is currently illegal, by the way, for precisely this reason: It is widely known to be extremely damaging to human biology (and neurology). If harmful cellphones are legal for children to use, why don’t the freedom argument people argue the same reasoning for meth use by children, too? Granted, there is a huge disparity between the severity of harm caused by meth vs. cellphones, but there’s no question they both cause some degree of harm. How much harm are we as a society going to say is “okay” for children when there’s a better option of causing no harm at all?
This article isn’t the right place to debate this issue, which is why I’m primarily just raising the question here for future debate. Personally, I think parents who allow their children to acquire and use cellphones at any age under 12 years old are extremely irresponsible and causing serious long-term damage to their children. But the social pressure for all children to acquire such devices and use them for social conformity behaviors (i.e. snapchatting all their friends every 25 seconds to “fit in”) is overwhelming, so it’s easy to see why so many parents cave in and give their children mobile devices at increasingly young ages.
It’s time, I think, to start questioning the wisdom of such tolerance. Now that we know cellphones definitely cause long-term brain damage, we must debate this issue for the sake of all future children who may be unknowingly harming themselves with lifelong brain damage.
It’s a sad day in Florida: Property rights for homeowners have taken a huge blow as courts confirm that growing edible plants in your own front yard is, in fact, a crime. Out of all the terrible things a person can do these days, gardening is the last thing you may have suspected would become a punishable offense. To no one’s surprise, Big Government continues to use strong-arm tactics against innocent people looking to engage in some basic self-sufficiency. If they can’t take your guns, they’ll take your garden.
This display of obvious government overreach first began back in 2013, when Hermine Ricketts and her husband Tom Carroll were faced with fines of up to $50 per day — for the crime of growing edible plants like tomatoes and Asian cabbage in their front yard — after city ordinances were changed. While they didn’t face any jail time, the couple had to dig up their prosperous garden. Due to their north-facing backyard that gets little sun, they’ve not been able to resume gardening.
The couple has been fighting against the Village of Miami Shores and their outrageous ordinance ever since — along with help from the Institute of Justice (IJ), a non-profit law firm. IJ lawyer Ari Bargil, contended, “This decision gives local governments tremendous leeway to regulate harmless activities in the name of aesthetics. It gives government the power to prohibit homeowners from growing plants in their front yards simply because they intend to eat them.”
Despite the recent ruling by the 3rd District Court of Appeal, which favored Miami Shores’ absurdity, Ricketts and Carroll are now looking to take their case all the way up to the state of Florida’s Supreme Court.
According to the most recent ruling, Miami Shores has the right to brandish authority over design and landscaping criteria to maintain “property values and the enjoyment of property rights by minimizing and reducing conflicts among various land uses,” as well as for “protecting” the look of the village.
Is a well-maintained vegetable garden really an eyesore that would damage property values?
Richard Sarafan, attorney for the Village of Miami Shores, essentially argued that allowing the couple to keep their front-yard garden would somehow pave the way for total pandemonium. Sarafan complained that the couple’s yard was “filled with pots” that “should have” been placed in the backyard. But yet, had those pots been filled with flowers instead of vegetables — the city would have had no legs to stand on with their arbitrary complaint.
There is no shortage of reasons to object to the 3rd District Court’s ruling, but perhaps the most inane explanation for their decision was the attempt at rationalizing why it’s okay for the government to legislate against edible plants but not ornamental ones. IJ attorney Ari Bargil objected to the court’s claim that “it is rational for government to ban the cultivation of plants to be eaten as part of a meal, as opposed to the cultivation of plants for ornamental reasons,” — and it’s easy to see why. How can the government tell citizens what kinds of plants they can grow?
Government overreach regarding the cultivation of edible plants and other healthy living choices is a growing problem in the United States. Where will we draw the line? Food and health freedom are already under attack — this ruling is proof of that. [Related: Read more stories like this at Tyranny.news.]
At least 3,000 adults in the U.K. suffer from Takotsubo cardiomyopathy, colloquially termed as the “broken heart syndrome,” each year. It is caused by bereavement and severe emotional distress, which stuns and weakens the heart. This causes the left ventricle – one of the main chambers of the heart – to change shape.
The deformed heart looks similar to an octopus pot, or “takotsubo” in Japanese, which gave the condition its name. Doctors have long presumed that the damage was temporary and would eventually heal over time. (Related: Broken hearts may actually be able to cause death.)
Researchers at the University of Aberdeen have discovered that the condition may cause permanent damage to the heart, similar to a heart attack. Following 37 patients with Takotsubo for two years, they found that the heart damage remained long after the event that first triggered the condition. This was seen through regular ultrasound and MRI scans.
Many of the patients reported becoming tired very easily and were thus unable to do much exercise. The researchers suggest that patients should be offered the same drugs as those whose hearts have been damaged by a heart attack.
Lead researcher Dr. Dana Dawson said that Takotsubo is more common than they initially thought, and that it may actually cause permanent damage to the hearts of the patients. Moreover, the condition is affecting the patients’ everyday lives with frequent exhaustion and lack of physical activity.
“Our research shows that Takotsubo needs to be treated with same urgency as any other heart problem, and that patients may need ongoing treatment for these long-term effects,” said Dr. Dawson.
Furthermore, the study suggests that women are more prone to developing this condition than men.
According to Professor Jeremy Pearson, Associate Medical Director at the British Heart Foundation, Takotsubo is a disease that can affect even healthy people. He added that there is currently no long-term treatment for the condition. This is because medical science has long presumed that patients would make a full recovery.
“We once thought the effects of this life-threatening disease were temporary, but now we can see they can continue to affect people for the rest of their lives,” said Pearson. “This new research shows there are long-term effects on heart health, and suggests we should be treating patients in a similar way to those who are at risk of heart failure.”
Scientists are still trying to understand exactly how it occurs and why it can affect some people more than others.
Heal a broken heart with herbs
Herbs have been a natural source of remedy for many ailments. It’s no surprise that some herbs are capable of relieving a broken heart. Treat your heart to some of these healing herbs:
Hawthorn (Crataegus spp.) – This helps strengthen the cardiovascular system, lower your cholesterol levels, and maintain a healthy blood pressure. One way to prepare it is to crush its (dried) berries and add a teaspoon of it with some sweetener in a cup of hot water, to sip as tea.
Lemon balm (Melissa officinalis) – This herb is most helpful in relieving insomnia and restlessness, that may be caused by intense emotional stress like heartbreak. Add two teaspoons of dried lemon balm, a little bit of sweetener, and lemon juice to a cup of hot water for a flavorful tea.
Rose petals (Rosa rugosa) – The rose has long been a symbol of love, whether romantic (red rose) or platonic (yellow rose). Roses can calm the nerves and soothe physical fatigue. A tablespoon of rose petals and some light-flavored honey mixed in hot water is the perfect mood-lifter.