Category: Future


by Christina Sarich, Guest, Waking Times

It isn’t clear if Bill Gates was veiling a threat to help depopulate the planet by 30 million people, if he was simply scare-mongering, or warning of a true cataclysmic-level bioterrorism event, but at the recently held Munich Security Conference the man who has been kicked out of India said that, “a genetically engineered virus such as small pox could wipe out up to 30 million people in less than a year.”

Gates is a multi-billionaire, and the founder of Microsoft, but he has also been a vocal supporter of questionable investments that have a profound impact on people’s lives. At one point, Gates owned 500,000 shares of Monsanto stock, and his Foundation, with an endowment larger than all but four of the world’s largest hedge funds, is known to have its tentacles in many programs meant to sterilize, and force toxic vaccinations on unsuspecting and indigent populations.

The Gates Foundation is also heavily invested in companies that contribute to obesity, and a number of other chronic health issues, including McDonald’s, Pepsi-Co, Coca-Cola, Burger King, and Walmart.

The Foundation is additionally invested in Dynacorp, one of the biggest military industrial contractors on earth, whose clients include the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency, the Department of Defense, Department of State, Department of Justice, Internal Revenue Service, Securities and Exchange Commission, FBI, CIA, and HUD — all government agencies notorious for rampant, unchecked and egregious fraud, along with Geo, a private prison group.

Then there’s the Foundation’s monetary support of the entire oil industry including: Exxon Mobile, BP, Shell, ConocoPhillips, and Chevron, just to name a few.

Additionally, and perhaps most interestingly considering Gates’ warning of ‘highly deadly,’ genetically engineered strains of viruses that could wipe out a large swath of people, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is also heavily financing Big Pharma and Big Biotech.

Gates helps fund institutions like the GAVI Alliance, the Global Health Innovative Technology Fund, and the Program for Appropriate Technology in Health (PATH) – public-private partnerships purportedly devoted to saving Third World lives. These organizations are supposedly independent, but so heavily funded by Gates as to function as virtual arms of the Foundation, these organizations began to conduct large-scale clinical trials in Africa and South Asia in the mid-2000s for a number of vaccines meant to prevent the very type of mass bioterrorism he is now warning about.

These investments are important background information to have considering the implications of Bill Gates’ recent statement in Munich:

“We also face a new threat. The next epidemic has a good chance of origination on a computer screen [no surprise here since Silicon Valley has spent over a decade researching bioweapons created by genetic modification of viruses and bacteria] on a terrorist intent of using genetic engineering to create a synthetic version of the small pox virus, or a contagious and highly deadly strain of flu.”

Gates goes on to blame lacking international security for the possible epidemic of a new rogue virus, ignoring the fact that his own well-funded institutions are helping to create bio-terrorism weapons, otherwise known as germ warfare.

Just in case we weren’t sufficiently terrorized, Gates reminded the audience of the scale of the 1918 flu pandemic which infected around 500 million people and claimed between 50-100 million lives.

Gates asked our government to step up militaristic action against bio terrorism, yet this seems odd considering that our own Navy sprayed people off the coast of Los Angeles out of a massive hose, with a virus created in a lab as part of an experiment in the 1950s, affecting possibly 800,000 people without their knowledge or consent.

Then there’s the incidence of government researchers studying the effects of syphilis on black Americans without informing the men that they had the disease — they were told they had “bad blood.”

And the Army has droves of challenged medical reports questioning the “harmless stimulants” used in numerous different biological weapons, released on native populations.

In recent history, the military has tested the following pathogens on the public, often without their consent, and many more which likely have not been not revealed due to their highly classified nature:

  • Bacillus anthracis (anthrax)
  • Francisella tularensis (tularemia)
  • Brucella (brucellosis)
  • Staphylococcal enterotoxin B
  • Botulinum toxin (botulism)
  • Coxiella burnetti (Q fever)
  • Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus (VEE)

For those who don’t believe sterilization and depopulation may be part of the agenda behind Gates’ statements, consider the U.S. Army Biological Warfare Laboratories (USBWL) existed as a suite of research laboratories and pilot plant centers located at Camp Detrick, Maryland from 1943 under the control of the U.S. Army Chemical Corp Research and Development Command, which undertook “pioneering” research and development into biocontainment, decontamination, and gaseous sterilization of germ warfare.

Exactly how has our military failed to address bioweapons terrorism?

Gates continued in his statement,

“Whether it occurs by the quirk of nature or the hand of a terrorist, epidemiologists show through their models, a respiratory spread pathogen would kill more than 30 million people in less than a year.”

Silicon Valley has been talking about the bioterrorism battle and its price tag for years now. Tesla’s latest Model X will even have its own counter-bioterrorism system. It makes you wonder. Is Gates feeding us fear porn, as many did with Zika, Bird Flu, and other ‘probable’ epidemics that were pumped and dumped by mainstream media, or is he disclosing his next method of depopulation?

About the Author
Christina Sarich is a staff writer for Waking Times. She is a writer, musician, yogi, and humanitarian with an expansive repertoire. Her thousands of articles can be found all over the Internet, and her insights also appear in magazines as diverse as Weston A. Price, NexusAtlantis Rising, and the Cuyamungue Institute, among others. She was recently a featured author in the Journal, “Wise Traditions in Food, Farming, and Healing Arts,” and her commentary on healing, ascension, and human potential inform a large body of the alternative news lexicon. She has been invited to appear on numerous radio shows, including Health Conspiracy Radio, Dr. Gregory Smith’s Show, and dozens more. The second edition of her book, Pharma Sutra, will be released soon.
This article (Bill Gates, Admitted Eugenicist Warns Bioterrorism Could Kill 30 Million) was originally created and published by The Mind Unleashed and is re-posted here with permission. 

http://www.wakingtimes.com/2017/02/23/bill-gates-admitted-eugenicist-warns-bioterrorism-kill-30-million/

WIKK WEB GURU

WIKK WEB GURU

Resultado de imagem para Intelligent assumptions? At the Oxford Union, 1950.

Intelligent assumptions? At the Oxford Union, 1950. From the Picture Post feature, Eternal Oxford. Photo by John Chillingworth/Getty

Intelligence has always been used as fig-leaf to justify domination and destruction. No wonder we fear super-smart robots

Stephen Cave is executive director and senior research fellow of the Leverhulme Centre for the Future of Intelligence at the University of Cambridge. A philosopher by training, he has also served as a British diplomat, and written widely on philosophical and scientific subjects, including for The New York Times, The Atlantic, Guardian and others.

As I was growing up in England in the latter half of the 20th century, the concept of intelligence loomed large. It was aspired to, debated and – most important of all – measured. At the age of 11, tens of thousands of us all around the country were ushered into desk-lined halls to take an IQ test known as the 11-Plus. The results of those few short hours would determine who would go to grammar school, to be prepared for university and the professions; who was destined for technical school and thence skilled work; and who would head to secondary modern school, to be drilled in the basics then sent out to a life of low-status manual labour.

The idea that intelligence could be quantified, like blood pressure or shoe size, was barely a century old when I took the test that would decide my place in the world. But the notion that intelligence could determine one’s station in life was already much older. It runs like a red thread through Western thought, from the philosophy of Plato to the policies of UK prime minister Theresa May. To say that someone is or is not intelligent has never been merely a comment on their mental faculties. It is always also a judgment on what they are permitted to do. Intelligence, in other words, is political.

Sometimes, this sort of ranking is sensible: we want doctors, engineers and rulers who are not stupid. But it has a dark side. As well as determining what a person can do, their intelligence – or putative lack of it – has been used to decide what others can do to them. Throughout Western history, those deemed less intelligent have, as a consequence of that judgment, been colonised, enslaved, sterilised and murdered (and indeed eaten, if we include non-human animals in our reckoning).

It’s an old, indeed an ancient, story. But the problem has taken an interesting 21st-century twist with the rise of Artificial Intelligence (AI). In recent years, the progress being made in AI research has picked up significantly, and many experts believe that these breakthroughs will soon lead to more. Pundits are by turn terrified and excited, sprinkling their Twitter feeds with Terminator references. To understand why we care and what we fear, we must understand intelligence as a political concept – and, in particular, its long history as a rationale for domination.

The term ‘intelligence’ itself has never been popular with English-language philosophers. Nor does it have a direct translation into German or ancient Greek, two of the other great languages in the Western philosophical tradition. But that doesn’t mean philosophers weren’t interested in it. Indeed, they were obsessed with it, or more precisely a part of it: reason or rationality. The term ‘intelligence’ managed to eclipse its more old-fashioned relative in popular and political discourse only with the rise of the relatively new-fangled discipline of psychology, which claimed intelligence for itself. Although today many scholars advocate a much broader understanding of intelligence, reason remains a core part of it. So when I talk about the role that intelligence has played historically, I mean to include this forebear.

The story of intelligence begins with Plato. In all his writings, he ascribes a very high value to thinking, declaring (through the mouth of Socrates) that the unexamined life is not worth living. Plato emerged from a world steeped in myth and mysticism to claim something new: that the truth about reality could be established through reason, or what we might consider today to be the application of intelligence. This led him to conclude, in The Republic, that the ideal ruler is ‘the philosopher king’, as only a philosopher can work out the proper order of things. And so he launched the idea that the cleverest should rule over the rest – an intellectual meritocracy.

This idea was revolutionary at the time. Athens had already experimented with democracy, the rule of the people – but to count as one of those ‘people’ you just had to be a male citizen, not necessarily intelligent. Elsewhere, the governing classes were made up of inherited elites (aristocracy), or by those who believed they had received divine instruction (theocracy), or simply by the strongest (tyranny)…

more…

https://aeon.co/essays/on-the-dark-history-of-intelligence-as-domination

WIKK WEB GURU

WIKK WEB GURU

Fitzgerald_art-BR

ILLUSTRATION BY DAVID PLUNKERT

Big data meets history to forecast the rise and fall of religion.

In the United States, the nones have it. The nones being people with no organized religion and increasingly no belief in God or a universal spiritual power. They have the momentum, attention, and an expectation that in the future they will become a majority of the population, just as they currently are in western Europe, Japan, and China.

Or so says the Pew Research Religious Landscape Study, which in 2015 found that almost a quarter of Americans profess no religious affiliation. Within that group, a third do not believe in God or a higher power of any sort (“nothing in particular,” as the study termed it). Both numbers are up from a similar study in 2007, when 16 percent of the country professed no religious affiliation, and 22 percent of these did not believe in God. Driving the growth are Millennials, those born between 1980 and 2000. As they come of age, 70 percent of them say they do not believe in a higher power.

Pew expects the percent of religious Americans will continue to fall. It suggests older generations will die off and take their belief with them. Outside the U.S., a WIN/Gallup International poll found that more than half of Vietnamese, Koreans, and French people say they are atheists or not affiliated with a religion. For the Japanese and Germans, it’s more than 60 percent, and for the Dutch and British, two-thirds. Certainly, belief in nothing has market momentum.

The rise of the nones presents a compelling backdrop to the Modeling Religion Project, led by Boston University philosopher and theologian Wesley Wildman, and his counterpart at Norway’s University of Agder, LeRon Shults. The project, begun in 2015, is unique in the breadth of its effort to simulate religious trends. It’s based on computer models that incorporate anthropological, archeological, psychological, and modern demographic data related to religion. Its goal is to draw conclusions about how and why religions have formed through history, what impact they have on individual and group behavior, and how they might develop in the future. Given the ascent of non-believers in the recent past, what might the Modern Religion Project say about the future of atheism? Will we one day live in a world of nones?

The Modeling Religion Project got its start when Wildman started asking whether he could replicate proto-civilizations to see for himself why religion seems to emerge. Theories have abounded for ages. Plato’s philosopher-kings saw religion as a political tool, as did the proletarian Karl Marx. Max Weber thought Protestantism was better for economic growth than Catholicism. Sociologist Rodney Stark has theorized Christian practices such as a willingness to care for the sick are what caused Christianity to outstrip the Roman pantheon. Evolutionary biologists debate whether religion is adaptive, a useful evolutionary tool, or a byproduct of our over-large brains. Stephen Jay Gould dubbed byproducts that become useful “spandrels,” after the curved spaces on arch supports that don’t have a structural purpose but are often given beautiful decorations. Religion was a spandrel of consciousness, he argued—consciousness being essential for survival, but also leading to an awareness of mortality, then succor through religion, not essential to survival.

Certainly, belief in nothing has market momentum.

In 2012, Wildman and Shults were at a conference of the Çatalhöyük Research Project in Çatalhöyük, Turkey, the biggest Neolithic archaeological site yet found, and a source of intense interest for what it tells us about early human culture, including religion. They sat around their hotel for a week arguing about what things they’d need to include for a model that could test the role religion played in Çatalhöyük’s development. They debated whether models could test various theories about religion. Shults says the two wanted to see what it would take for a group of humans in early hunter-gatherer groups to become townspeople. Research in cognitive psychology over the last decade had marked different aspects of human interaction on moral, social, and ritual biases. They thought there was now the chance to model a system and see how social cohesion emerged.

Wildman knew he could develop crude models, but he wanted to get access to better computers than exist in the Boston University School of Theology (where all the good PCs have gone to heaven). He and Shults connected with the Virginia Modeling and Simulation Center, or VMASC, at Old Dominion University. It typically works on models for use in maritime research and alternative energy, fields with complex interactions…

more…

http://nautil.us/issue/45/power/atheism-the-computer-model

WIKK WEB GURU

WIKK WEB GURU

PRIVACY
Photo Illustration: Vocativ

Taser has started its own in-house AI unit, laying the groundwork for police body cameras that record fully-searchable video evidence

Last week, Taser, the stun gun company that has recently become an industry leader in body-mounted cameras, announced the creation of its own in-house artificial intelligence division. The new unit will utilize the company’s acquisition of two AI-focused firms: Dextro, a New York-based computer vision startup, and Misfit, another computer vision company previously owned by the watch manufacturer Fossil. Taser says the newly formed division will develop AI-powered tech specifically aimed at law enforcement, using automation and machine learning algorithms to let cops search for people and objects in video footage captured by on-body camera systems.

Moreover, the move suggests that body-worn cameras, which are already being used by police departments in many major cities, could soon become powerful surveillance tools capable of identifying different objects, events, and people encountered by officers on the street — both retroactively and in real time.

The idea is to use machine learning algorithms to streamline the process of combing through and redacting hours of video footage captured by police body cameras. Dextro has trained algorithms to scan video footage for different types of objects, like guns or toilets, as well as recognize events, like a foot chase or traffic stop. The result of all this tagging and classifying is that police will be able use keywords to search through video footage just like they’d search for news articles on Google, allowing them to quickly redact footage and zoom in on the relevant elements. Taser predicts that in a year’s time, their automation technology will reduce the total amount of time needed to redact faces from one hour of video footage from eight to 1.5 hours.

Screen Shot 2017 02 15 at 1.14.40 PM

A Dextro demonstration shows real-time classification of people and objects in video

Taser
Searchable video will also have major implications for civilian privacy, especially since there are no federal laws preventing police from trawling through databases to track people en masse.

Taser has previously expressed interest in adding face recognition capabilities to its body camera systems. A Department of Justice study published last year also found that at least nine different body camera manufacturers either currently support face recognition in their products or have the ability to add it later. And according to a recent Georgetown University Law report, roughly half of all American adults have been entered into a law enforcement face recognition database, meaning there’s decent chance that any random person walking down the street can be identified and tracked in secret by a camera-equipped cop.

A Taser representative told Vocativ that while Dextro’s computer vision technology will allow Taser’s law enforcement customers to detect faces for the purpose of redacting them from videos, it does not currently support face recognition…

more…

http://www.vocativ.com/402771/ai-body-cams-cops-google/

WIKK WEB GURU

WIKK WEB GURU

Map of Europe

With the serious economic and political crisis showing no signs of abating in Europe, both geographical and moral boundaries are being erased in the name of globalization, Sputnik Italy quoted participants of a round table discussion in Rome as saying.

© SPUTNIK/ ALEXEY VITVITSKY

Now that Europe is going through a severe economic and political crisis, its geographical and moral barriers are being erased for the sake of globalization, the participants of a round table discussion in Rome were quoted by Sputnik Italy as saying.

They claimed that Europe have already entered an era of uncertainty where cultural differences had blurred.

Italian journalist Marcello Veneziani, for his part, noted that the process of erasing all boundaries across Europe had come amid stark differences between the EU member states in terms of economic vitality and political sovereignty.

In this regard, Veneziani underscored the importance of boundaries being preserved.

“Without boundaries-related restrictions, any society can increase to immeasurable dimensions,” he said, calling for the creation of a governing class who would be able to not only win elections, but also to manage the affairs of state.

In an interview with Sputnik Italy, Italian economics expert Alberto Bagnai, in turn, focused on the economic crisis in Europe and how it had spelled disaster for Italy, which had earlier been hit by the 2008 economic meltdown.

Bagnai specifically critiqued the court of popular opinion, where anyone who would champion his or her country’s national interests, identity or ability to control its borders is denounced as a populist.

“This is happening because we live in a historical period when only multinational companies possess sovereignty. It’s clear that the media’s dismissive reaction to the idea that people can also possess sovereignty and identities is playing into someone’s hands,” he said.

Additionally, Bagnai commented on the fact that there are 90 NATO and US thermonuclear bombs on Italian soil, something that he said calls into question whether Italy is, in fact, a sovereign country.

“Italy possessing sovereignty is out of the question, and the problem is that it is time to understand that we should take advantage of the situation to negotiate the best terms for our country now, [and address] the relationship between the boss and his local representative, Germany,” he said.

Bagnai added that “Rome is very unlikely to become the capital of the Empire again in the coming years.”

“Given that we are a dependent country, we can either move towards a European Union which has, in fact, become the Fourth Reich which is opposed by the United States, or we can gain a little autonomy, negotiating with Russia and Washington,” he said.

“In this vein, mutual rapprochement is not necessarily a negative thing. It is much better than dropping atomic bombs on each other,” he concluded.

Meanwhile, Freedom Party of Austria member and former presidential candidate Norbert Hofer told Sputnik late last month that the European Union needs to cut taxes and slash bureaucracy in order to overcome economic stagnation.

“The EU crisis is much deeper, as many EU members have huge debts and high unemployment rates; the economies of some EU countries are very weak. Therefore, we should focus on economics, strengthening the EU economy through reasonable tax cuts and reducing bureaucracy,” Hofer said.

https://sputniknews.com/europe/201702141050653385-europe-italy-economic-crisis-globalization/

WIKK WEB GURU

WIKK WEB GURU

Nuclear Danger Sign - Public Domain

Resultado de imagem para The great cryptocurrency heist

image edited by Web Invesigator

Blockchain enthusiasts crave a world without bankers, lawyers or fat-cat executives. There’s just one problem: trust

E J Spode writes on topics at the intersection of science, politics and popular culture. He has been published by 3:AM Magazine, which is currently serialising his novel The Oddity.

On 20 July 2016, something happened that was arguably the most philosophically interesting event to take place in your lifetime or mine. On that day, after much deliberation and hand-wringing, in the aftermath of a multimillion-dollar swindle from his automated, algorithm-driven, supposedly foolproof corporation, Vitalik Buterin, then 22 years old, announced the ‘hard fork’ of the cryptocurrency Ethereum. By making that announcement, Buterin shattered certain tightly held assumptions about the future of trust and the nature of many vital institutions that make modern life possible. He also really pissed off a lot of people.

How? Well, to understand all that, first we need to talk about trust and its place in the fabric of our lives. Trust seems to be in short supply these days, although we have no choice but to rely on it. We trust schools and babysitters to look after our children. We trust banks to hold our money and to transfer it safely for us. We trust insurance companies to pay us should we meet with some disaster. When we make a large purchase – such as a house – we trust our solicitors or an escrow company to hold the funds until the transaction is complete. We trust regulators and governments to make sure these institutions are doing what they are supposed to be doing.

Sometimes, however, our system of trust fails us. There are runs on banks. People lose faith in currencies issued by nation-states. People stop trusting their political institutions because of the chicanery, short-sightedness and general incompetence of the self-interested clowns running the show. The response to this widespread erosion of trust has been varied, ranging from Donald Trump’s (hypocritical) pledge to ‘drain the swamp’, to the promise of so-called ‘blockchain technology’ and its associated cryptocurrencies.

The blockchain is the key to understanding Buterin’s project. A good way to wrap our minds around the concept is to think of its most famous application: Bitcoin. And the best way to think about Bitcoin is not in terms of coins at all but rather as a giant ledger.

Imagine a world in which we didn’t exchange currency, but kept track of who had what on a huge public spreadsheet, distributed across the internet. Every 10 minutes, all the transactions that took place in that slice of time are fused together into a single block. Each block includes a chain linking it to previous blocks, hence the term ‘blockchain’. The end result is a universal record book that reliably logs everything that’s ever happened via a (theoretically) tamper-proof algorithm. We don’t need to trust human bankers to tell us who owns what, because we can all see what’s written in the mathematically verified blockchain.

But Bitcoin is just one version of the blockchain. The fundamental technology has the potential to replace a much wider range of human institutions in which we use trust to reach a consensus about a state of affairs. It could provide a definitive record for property transfers, from diamonds to Porsches to original Picassos. It could be used to record contracts, to certify the authenticity of valuable goods, or to securely store your health records (and keep track of anyone who’s ever accessed them).

But there’s a catch: what about the faithful ‘execution’ of a contract? Doesn’t that require trust as well? What good is an agreement, after all, if the text is there but people don’t respect it, and don’t follow through on their obligations? Which brings us back to the crucial matter of how Buterin managed to piss off so many people.

In the beginning, Buterin was a hero to the crusaders against trust. In late 2013, at the age of 19, he wrote a document, known as the ‘Ethereum White Paper’. In it, he observed that you could hypothetically use the blockchain to store and execute computer programs – hypothetically, any computer program. This gave rise to Ethereum: a blockchain-based platform that supported self-executing contracts. The commands to execute the contract were built into the contract itself, and the contract was sealed into the (supposedly) immutable and universally visible blockchain. No trust necessary. Or so the story went.

This had extraordinary implications – one of which was that entire corporations could be encoded in the blockchain in the form of ‘decentralised autonomous organisations’ (DAOs). None of the usual trusted business partners would be required: employees, managers, human resources officers, CFOs and CEOs would be rendered otiose. No longer would shareholders need to pay massive bonuses to hedge-fund executives ‘trusted’ to make decisions about our money. In theory, at least, those executives could be replaced by a bundle of transparent, pre-set instructions stored in the blockchain.

About 11,000 people ponied up a total of $150 million to take part. What had they purchased, exactly?

On the back of a wave of excitement, Ethereum’s currency, known as ‘ethers’, went up for pre-sale in the summer of 2014. Ethers would serve a dual function as both the ‘fuel’ that powered the computations on the network, and as a medium of exchange, like bitcoins. In short order, the value of ethers started to climb, and the platform reached a ‘market capitalisation’ of around $1 billion after the pre-sale. (Full disclosure: I participated as an investor at this initial stage but have since liquidated my holdings.)…

more…

https://aeon.co/essays/trust-the-inside-story-of-the-rise-and-fall-of-ethereum

WIKK WEB GURU

WIKK WEB GURU

 

 

 

by Makia Freeman, Contributor, Waking Times

War with Iran is on the cards as the administration of US President Donald Trump takes an overly aggressive stance against the Islamic Republic. Without doubt, the 2016 US presidential election left the nation deeply divided and polarized. Trump has been in office for around 3 weeks and there are still many people protesting against him. His brash style and EOs (Executive Orders) have some horrible unintended consequences, such as his 90-day immigration order (called a “Muslim ban” by some) resulting in a 5 year old getting handcuffed and separated from his parents. Amidst all of this engineered disorder, there is a serious danger lurking: Trump is taking the US on a sure course to war with Iran. Trump said on numerous occasions throughout his campaign that he would not rule out the use of nuclear weapons, and on Feb. 2nd 2017 he warned Tehran that “nothing is off the table.”

Why Iran?

Before we get to the all the signs indicating that war with Iran is on the books, it is important to remember why the US and its masters are targeting Iran. Firstly, Iran has become the arch-enemy of the Saudi-Israeli alliance because it is the one country militarily and economically strong enough to challenge their dominance of the Middle Eastern region. There is no love lost between Israel and Iran, who have traded insults and threats for decades; meanwhile, Saudi Arabia and Iran are home to the 2 sides of the Sunni-Shia conflict within the Muslim world (Saudi Arabia – Sunni, Iran – Shia). Trump is a Zionist down to his very bone marrow and DNA, and evidently also afraid to take on the Saudis who were conspicuously omitted from EO immigration ban of 7 nations.

Secondly, Iran has been openly supportive of the fight against Zionism (by funding Hezbollah in Lebanon) and against the Sunni extremist group ISIS (the pet Frankenstein of the US). The US now under Trump has accused Iran as being the biggest sponsor of terrorism in the world, but this is completely untrue. Iran has been a counterweight to radical Sunni Islam, extremism and violence.

Thirdly, Iran has forged a tight alliance with Russia and China in defiance of the Zionist-Anglo-American New World Order which seeks to impose a unipolar One World Government on the world, with the international bankers at the helm. Iran remains one the few countries in the world without a Rothschild-owned central bank. It refuses to bow to the will of the US or to allow the US to place its imperial military bases within its territory.

 

 

The following 11 signs below show that war with Iran is, unfortunately, shaping up to fast become a reality unless people quickly wake to to the game plan:

War with Iran Sign #1: Which Path to Persia? US follows the Zionist Think Tank Plan

The Brookings Institution is another PNAC-neocon-Zionist (and with links to Zbigniew Brzezinski) think tank which drives US foreign policy. In its 2009 analysis paper Which Path to Persia? Options for a New American Strategy toward Iran, it advocated the US make a deal with Iran, then renege on the deal (making it look like Iran was refusing something very reasonable), and then attack Iran with support from the international community:

” … any military operation against Iran will likely be very unpopular around the world and require the proper international context — both to ensure the logistical support the operation would require and to minimize the blowback from it. The best way to minimize international opprobrium and maximize support (however, grudging or covert) is to strike only when there is a widespread conviction that the Iranians were given but then rejected a superb offer — one so good that only a regime determined to acquire nuclear weapons and acquire them for the wrong reasons would turn it down. Under those circumstances, the United States (or Israel) could portray its operations as taken in sorrow, not anger, and at least some in the international community would conclude that the Iranians “brought it on themselves” by refusing a very good deal.” – pg. 39

(Hat tip to Tony Cartalucci for alerting people to this years ago.)

War with Iran Sign #2: Iran on the “Muslim Ban” List but Saudi Arabia Not

I have talked about the so-called “Muslim ban” in an earlier article where I made the point that technically it’s not a Muslim ban. However, here I want to emphasize that if the real point of the travel ban were to stop terrorists, then why on Earth is Saudi Arabia not on the list? Trump referenced 9/11 when talking about this travel ban, and even according to the official 9/11 narrative (a fairy tale no doubt, but this is what some people believe), Saudi Arabia was the source of 15 of the 19 alleged hijackers! However, the US and Saudi Arabia have many deals involving weapons, oil, petrodollars, US military bases, funding and training of ISIS and more, so I guess it’s a little too truthful and inconvenient to put them on the list. Ditto for Israel. Saudi Arabia and Israel export the most terrorism, but it’s Iran that makes it on the list …

more…

About the Author
Makia Freeman is the editor of The Freedom Articles and senior researcher at ToolsForFreedom.com (FaceBook here), writing on many aspects of truth and freedom, from exposing aspects of the worldwide conspiracy to suggesting solutions for how humanity can create a new system of peace and abundance
**Sources embedded throughout article.
Like Waking Times on Facebook. Follow Waking Times on Twitter.
This article (11 Signs War with Iran is Imminent) was originally created and published by The Freedom Articles and is re-posted here with permission. 

http://www.wakingtimes.com/2017/02/08/11-signs-war-iran-imminent/

WIKK WEB GURU

WIKK WEB GURU

Imagem relacionada

image edited by Web Investigator

Scientists have weaponized human skin to fight a deadly form of brain cancer (in mice)

Human skin can be morphed into genetically modified, cancer-killing brain stem cells, according to a new study. This latest advance has only been tested in mice — but eventually, it’s possible that it could be translated into a personalized treatment for people with a deadly form of brain cancer.

The study builds on an earlier discovery that brain stem cells have a weird affinity for cancers. So researchers, led by Shawn Hingtgen, a professor at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, created genetically engineered brain stem cells out of human skin. Then they armed the stem cells with drugs to squirt directly onto the tumors of mice that had been given a human form of brain cancer. The treatment shrank the tumors and extended survival of the mice, according to results recently published in the journal Science Translational Medicine.

Usually we think about stem cell therapy in the context of rebuilding or regrowing a broken body part — like a spinal cord. But if they could be modified to become cancer-fighting homing missiles, it would give patients with a deadly and incurable brain cancer called glioblastoma a better chance at survival. Glioblastomas typically affect adults, and are highly fatal because they send out a web of cancerous threads. Even when the main mass is removed, those threads remain despite chemotherapy and radiation treatment. This cancer has caused a number of high-profile deaths including Senator Edward (Ted) Kennedy in 2009, and possibly Beau Biden more recently. Approximately 12,000 new cases of glioblastoma are estimated to be diagnosed in 2017.

“We really have no drugs, no new treatment options in years to even decades,” Hingtgen says. “[We] just really want to create new therapy that can stand a chance against this disease.”

But there’s a problem: brain stem cells aren’t exactly easy to get. Brain stem cells, more properly known as neural stem cells, hang out in the walls of the brain’s irrigation canals — areas filled with cerebrospinal fluid, called ventricles. They generate the cells of the nervous system, like neurons and glial cells, throughout our lives.

A research group at the City of Hope in California conducted a clinical trial to make sure it was safe to treat glioblastoma patients with genetically engineered neural stem cells. But they used a neural stem cell line that they’d obtained from fetal tissue. Since the stem cells weren’t the patients’ own, people who were genetically more likely to reject the cells couldn’t receive the treatment at all. For the people who could, treatment with the neural stem cells turned out to be relatively safe — although at this phase of clinical trials, it hasn’t been particularly effective.

More personalized treatments have been held up by the challenge of getting enough stem cells out of the patients’ own brains, which is “virtually impossible,” says stem cell scientist Frank Marini at the Wake Forest School of Medicine, who was not involved in this study. “You can’t really generate a bank of neural stem cells from anybody because you have to go in and resect the brain.”

So instead, Hingtgen and his colleagues figured out a way to generate neural stem cells from skin — which in the future, could let them make neural stem cells personalized to each patient. For this study, though, Hingtgen and his colleagues extracted the skin cells from chunks of human flesh leftover as surgical waste. “That really is the magic piece here,” Marini says. “Now, all of a sudden we have a neural stem cell that can be used as a tumor-homing vehicle.”…

more…

http://www.theverge.com/2017/2/6/14525164/stem-cells-human-skin-brain-cancer-tumors-glioblastoma

WIKK WEB GURU

WIKK WEB GURU

by John W. Whitehead, Guest, Waking Times

“We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force.”—Ayn Rand

The torch has been passed to a new president.

All of the imperial powers amassed by Barack Obama and George W. Bush—to kill American citizens without due process, to detain suspects indefinitely, to strip Americans of their citizenship rights, to carry out mass surveillance on Americans without probable cause, to suspend laws during wartime, to disregard laws with which he might disagree, to conduct secret wars and convene secret courts, to sanction torture, to sidestep the legislatures and courts with executive orders and signing statements, to direct the military to operate beyond the reach of the law, to act as a dictator and a tyrant, above the law and beyond any real accountability—have been inherited by Donald Trump.

Whatever kind of president Trump chooses to be, he now has the power to completely alter the landscape of this country for good or for ill.

He has this power because every successive occupant of the Oval Office has been allowed to expand the reach and power of the presidency through the use of executive orders, decrees, memorandums, proclamations, national security directives and legislative signing statements that can be activated by any sitting president.

Those of us who saw this eventuality coming have been warning for years about the growing danger of the Executive Branch with its presidential toolbox of terror that could be used—and abused—by future presidents.

The groundwork, we warned, was being laid for a new kind of government where it won’t matter if you’re innocent or guilty, whether you’re a threat to the nation or even if you’re a citizen. What will matter is what the president—or whoever happens to be occupying the Oval Office at the time—thinks. And if he or she thinks you’re a threat to the nation and should be locked up, then you’ll be locked up with no access to the protections our Constitution provides. In effect, you will disappear.

Our warnings went largely unheeded.

First, we sounded the alarm over George W. Bush’s attempts to gut the Constitution, suspend habeas corpus, carry out warrantless surveillance on Americans, and generally undermine the Fourth Amendment, but the Republicans didn’t want to listen because Bush was a Republican.

Then we sounded the alarm over Barack Obama’s prosecution of whistleblowers, targeted drone killings, assassinations of American citizens, mass surveillance, and militarization of the police, but the Democrats didn’t want to listen because Obama was a Democrat and he talked a really good game.

It well may be that by the time Americans­—Republicans and Democrats alike—stop playing partisan games and start putting some safeguards in place, it will be too late.

Already, Donald Trump has indicated that he will pick up where his predecessors left off: he will continue to wage war, he will continue to federalize the police, and he will operate as if the Constitution does not apply to him.

Still, as tempting as it may be, don’t blame Donald Trump for what is to come.

If this nation eventually locks down… If Americans are rounded up and detained based on the color of their skin, their religious beliefs, or their political views… If law-and-order takes precedence over constitutional principles…

If martial law is eventually declared… If we find that there really is nowhere to run and nowhere to hide from the surveillance state’s prying eyes and ears… And if our constitutional republic finally plunges headlong over the cliff and leaves us in the iron grip of totalitarianism…

Please, resist the urge to lay all the blame at Trump’s feet.

After all, President Trump didn’t create the police state.

He merely inherited it.

Frankly, there’s more than enough blame to go around.

So blame Obama. Blame Bush. Blame Bill Clinton.

Blame the Republicans and Democrats who justified every power grab, every expansion of presidential powers, and every attack on the Constitution as long as it was a member of their own party leading the charge.

Blame Congress for being a weak, inept body that spends more time running for office and pandering to the interests of the monied elite than representing the citizenry.

Blame the courts for caring more about order than justice, and for failing to hold government officials accountable to the rule of law.

Blame Corporate America for taking control of the government and calling the shots behind the scenes.

Most of all, blame the American people for not having objected louder, sooner and more vehemently when Barack Obama, George W. Bush and their predecessors laid the groundwork for this state of tyranny.

But wait, you say.

Americans are mobilizing. They are engaged. They are actively expressing their discontent with the government. They are demanding change. They are marching in the streets, picketing, protesting and engaging in acts of civil disobedience.

This is a good development, right? Isn’t this what we’ve been calling on Americans to do for so long: stand up and push back and say “enough is enough”?

Perhaps you’re right…

more…

About the Author
Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute, where this article first appeared. He is the author of A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State and The Change Manifesto.

 

WIKK WEB GURU

WIKK WEB GURU

 

 

%d bloggers like this: