A totalitarian society has totalitarian science

A totalitarian society has totalitarian science

by Jon Rappoport

April 30, 2015


And vice versa.

Totalitarian science lets you know you’re living in a totalitarian society.

The government, the press, the mega-corporations, the prestigious foundations, the academic institutions, the “humanitarian” organizations say:

“This is the disease. This is its name. This is what causes it. This is the drug that treats it. This is the vaccine that prevents it.

“This is how accurate diagnosis is done. These are the tests. These are the possible results and what they mean.

“Here are the genes. This is what they do. This is how they can be changed and substituted and manipulated. These are the outcomes.

“These are the data and the statistics. They are correct. There can be no argument about them.

“This is life. These are the components of life. All change and improvement result from our management of the components.

“This is the path. It is governed by truth which science reveals. Walk the path. We will inform you when you stray. We will report new improvements.

“This is the end. You can go no farther. You must give up the ghost. We will remember you.”

We are now witnessing the acceleration of Official Science. Of course, that term is an internal contradiction. But the State shrugs and moves forward.

The notion that the State can put its seal on favored science, enforce it, and punish its competitors, is anathema to a free society.

For example: declaring that psychiatrists can appear in court as expert witnesses, when none of the so-called mental disorders listed in the psychiatric literature are diagnosed by laboratory tests.

For example: stating that vaccination is mandatory, in order to protect the vaccinated (who are supposed to be immune) from the unvaccinated. An absurdity on its face.

For example: announcing that the science of climate change is “settled,” when there are, in fact, huge numbers of researchers who disagree. —And then, drafting legislation and issuing executive orders based on the decidedly unsettled science.

For example: officially approving the release and sale of medical drugs (“safe and effective”) which go on to kill, at a conservative estimate, 100,000 Americans every year. And then refusing to investigate or punish the purveyors of these drug approvals (the FDA).

For example: permitting the widespread use of genetically modified food crops, based on no long-term studies of their impact on human health. And then, arbitrarily announcing that the herbicide, Roundup, for which many of these crops are specifically designed, is non-toxic.

For example: declaring and promoting the existence of various epidemics, when the viruses purportedly causing them are not proven to exist and/or not proven to cause human illness (Ebola, SARS, West Nile, Swine Flu, etc.)

The Matrix Revealed

A few of you reading this have been with me since 1988, when I published my first book, AIDS INC., Scandal of the Century. Among other conclusions, I pointed out that HIV had never been shown to cause human illness; the front-line drug given to AIDS patients, AZT, was overwhelmingly toxic; and what was being called AIDS was actually a diverse number immune-suppressing conditions.

Others of you have found my work more recently, since I started this site in 2001. I always return to the subject of false science, because it is the most powerful long-term instrument for repression, political control, and destruction of human life.

I thank you for your support and interest.

As I’ve stated on many occasions, medical science is ideal for mounting and launching covert ops aimed at populations—because it appears to be politically neutral, without any allegiance to State interests.

Unfortunately, medical science, on many fronts, has been hijacked and taken over. The profit motive is one objective, but beyond that, there is a more embracing goal:

Totalitarian control.

It aims to replace your freedom, consciousness, and intelligence with its own synthetic versions.


Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.

73 comments on “A totalitarian society has totalitarian science

  1. Daniel Noel says:

    “Here is the final story of Building 7’s destruction: a unique collapse due to normal office fires. Since science has not been corrupted in the areas of metallurgy, thermodynamics and motion, if it was a fraud, some professor of civil engineering, somewhere in the world, would forcefully denounce it. So it has to be true and all allegations of controlled demolition necessarily come from nutty conspiracy theorists.”


    • Dan says:

      Can you say, “Dr. Judy Wood?”

      • Daniel Noel says:

        In sociology, most rules have exceptions. Besides, Wood is not a professor of civil engineering, is she? No disrespect meant to her contention that it took much more than Osama bin Laden’s airplanes to destroy the World Trade Center.


  2. swo8 says:

    You have that one right!

  3. babylovett says:


    “…announcing that the science of climate change is “settled,” when there are, in fact, huge numbers of researchers who disagree.”

    There are not “huge numbers of researchers” who disagree with the general objective measurable and readily verifiable reality that the planet is warming and that the insertion of huge amounts of carbon into the atmosphere through the vector of industrialization and burning of carbon based fuels is a primary cause.

    In fact “global warming” is an understatement; “roasting” would be more accurate.

    (Please see http://www.weatherwar101.com for the “real deal”.)

    • bdbinc says:

      And people read the psalms in the modern religion of pseudo science,
      and some are paid shills to promote the idea of global warming ( for the carbon trading hedge funds & carbon industry which was the motivator $ behind this” real lie”).

    • Maybe not in YOUR reality,

      But THE reality says you are wrong, and PROVES it.

      Hmmm. I have the tendency to listen to the thirty-or-so thousand scientists who wanted their names removed from the IPCC Final Report, over those of the six-hundred sycophants looking to make names for themselves by supporting a completely, politically-driven agenda. (Like AGENDA-21.)

      If you took the opportunity to read through the entirety of AGENDA-21, and see WHO are the ones who ultimately profit from it, while the rest of us are driven further into abject slavery – THAN you may see WHY the lies continue. This “anthropogenic global-warming” game has been effectively killed – by REAL Science, not by conjecture – nor this make-believe tying in of “petro-dollars”. Not to also mention that it was British Petroleum-Amoco-Royal Dutch Shell conglomerate that gave the 25-million-dollar “gift” to the beginnings of the “global-warming movement”, NOT the other way around. Hmmm! Now WHY would these “big oil” companies go and fund a movement that supposedly targets them ? ? ? = = Because it was all a lie, dressed up as “science”, so that the “biggest polluters” could continue to profit handsomely by doing what they do best: Influence Political Systems, and pollute with even deadlier chemicals.

      But, you would not see any credibility in all that, now would you?!?!? – All because very few of us are so-called “scientists” with any establishment-honored degrees and any other “official” credentials!

      Enjoy your life of “freedom”, because – there will soon be no such thing as “freedom” for anybody. – There again, that probably does not bother you too much.

      • Jason Bricco says:

        I have an open mind. I have been a big fan of Jon’s, but also quite a believer in climate change. Seeing this comment threw me off. I have an open mind and would love to hear an article from Jon dedicated to this matter.

        What I’ve been taught is that 97% of scientists agree that the planet is warming. I’ve also been taught that it’s quite probable (but of course we can’t prove it) that at least one other mass extinction in Earth’s history was caused by greenhouse gases flooding the atmosphere.

        Given I understand the chemistry of carbon dioxide and methane and why they act as greenhouse gases, I can’t understand what logic would drive one to say that flooding massive amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere wouldn’t have an adverse effect on the life on Earth. I’m speaking regardless of whatever events happened regarding oil companies and money. I understand that plants can retrieve carbon dioxide back from the atmosphere, but also that they have their limits and that we’re cutting them down. We’re lowering the amount of total plants on the planet and replacing them with cities.

        I understand that oceans are becoming more acidic. In fact, we have pictures showing the bleaching effect and dissolving calcium carbonate shells. Can this be explained in another way? And it really isn’t too hard to take the temperature of the planet and record it, not to mention the actual greenhouse gas concentrations. All the charts show a sharp increase as of the industrial revolution.

        The above claim seems to make statements without much support. When making a claim against climate change being an issue, one must also address these things I mentioned above. We know that the climate is warming and the ocean is becoming more acidic, and that the frequency of especially violent storms is increasing. We can easily explain this with greenhouse gases, but if you say that climate change isn’t a problem you must explain this differently.

        To me, this is a tricky problem. I live with a mindset that Earth should be respected. Pollution should end. We should stop wildly destroying the planet for our selfish interests and our economy. Regardless of how important our economy is to us, having a home we can live in should be even more important.

        In my mind, the oil companies want to banish the idea of climate change because it allows them to freely pollute the atmosphere wildly. And to say we shouldn’t act on climate change is to support those oil companies and support their disrespect for humanity and the Earth, and to support their selfish greed. I’m not sure why supporting this greed should ever be a positive thing.

        Furthermore, I tend to take a ‘better safe than sorry’ stance. What if we wait until science can fully prove that climate change is a real issue (assuming that it actually is)? Will it be too late at that point? Is it worth assuming that it is a problem and toning down human destruction of the Earth? This is especially true given that we are perfectly capable of embracing green energy such as solar and wind for powering our systems. Why aren’t we? Why should we even be having this debate?

        You say that real science has proven climate change to be a non-issue. Where is this science? I’ve searched hard and haven’t found it.

        • babylovett says:

          You are correct on all counts and very well stated as well.

          The interests which try to discredit the abundant science — and really just common sense — which point to the effects of huge incursions of carbon into the atmosphere and the elimination or overrunning of the natural carbon sinks which nature has to absorb same are the ones which want to perpetuate the status quo economic setup from which they benefit.

          Are there other factors affecting climate, natural cycles and so forth? Of course, the living planet is in dynamic flux!

          But it’s even more extreme than “global warming” since there appears to be no natural weather cycle left and what moisture there is now is mostly driven not by the normal flow of moisture from the ocean but rather by fossil fuel driven power plants, vectored by NEXRAD radar installations, to make a longer story short.

          Outlandish notion I know and that’s why I recommend people to check out:

          weatherwar101.com and its associated youtube channel.

          That’s all I will say about this except to note that rationalwiki.org also has a good page on “global warming denialism”:


        • * * You say that real science has proven climate change to be a non-issue. Where is this science? I’ve searched hard and haven’t found it. * *

          Then you may have not looked hard enough. It is out everywhere. The Sun has the greatest effect on the Earth’s climate, far more so than the 0.0023% CO2 concentration in our atmosphere. At roughly 400 ppm, our green plants are actually starving because they are at their best at 1500 ppm CO2 concentrations. This is as observed by the founder of Greenpeace (who just also happens to have a Phd. in science – and is also well versed in the Earth’s climate patterns.) Let’s not also forget the lawsuit against Albert Arnold Gore, Jr. (Mr Man-Bear-Pig “Global Warming”) by the founder of the Weather Channel – who himself is a degreed meteorologist who also is very well versed and knowledgeable of the Earth’s climate patterns. Let’s not also forget that it was the original chairman of the first IPCC report on Climate Change who stepped down because the IPCC chose to publish only part of the report (the part of the omitted portions which stated that there was no conclusive proof that CO2 was all to blame for climate change).

          Hmmm. Shall I give more examples??? – They are all out there in plain view, and backed by degreed, experienced, and well-educated scientists.

          • Jason Bricco says:

            My research has led me to believe that plants cannot simply infinitely take more and more CO2 without consequences. When doing so, they require more of other resources, such as water and nitrogen. If you increase CO2 without increasing the other nutrients the plant needs, the plant doesn’t benefit as it should. I’ve referenced one of these articles in another response I posted. I’ve also learned that more CO2 is not necessarily a positive thing for all types of plants; for some, it can lower their photosynthesis efficiency. I haven’t seen the source that says that plants thrive best at 1500 ppm yet, so I can’t confirm this.

            I find it hard to believe, though, that plants would evolve over the hundreds of millions of years to prefer a CO2 level that has (never?) existed. I’d like to see where this came from.

            I’ve also learned that the tiny bit of CO2 in our atmosphere makes roughly a 40 degree difference in the planet’s temperature. On Earth, the smallest changes in the system can have drastic consequences… it’s a very intricate, complex system.

            Bear in mind that I’m not trying to be religious about it. If I can get a solid reason to believe that climate change is not actually a problem, I’ll dump it without hesitation. However, as of this point, I’ve not found sufficient information.

            I see the information about plants, but many sources around the web tell me that it’s not so simple. I’ve seen the information about the sun, which is correct – but I know that there’s a reason our Earth is different from, say, Mars or Venus. I’ll tell you that the differences on these planets cannot be explained by the sun. There’s far more to the climate than the sun.

            One thing I am very careful of here is the oil companies. In my mind, these companies wish to banish the idea of climate change and drive it into the ground. Jon’s articles have pointed out this idea of corrupt, broken science. There is a such a thing as science paid for by these oil companies. Which science are YOU looking at? Are you looking at science funded by the oil companies themselves, or independent science?

        • Shannon says:

          I was also taken aback by Jon’s comments that the science of climate change is far from settled. Based on the available information, I also came to the conclusion that it is very much settled! And this science tells us that immediate action is required to prevent further global warming, and in extension, to prevent avoidable suffering by masses of humans, as well as other species who share this planet with us.

          I wonder if Jon is cautioning about holding on to the belief that our understanding about climate change is comprehensive and all-inclusive — or, total. So while there may be strong indications about human activity and its effect on the climate, Jon reminds us to remain open to new information that may shed additional light on the issue. Perhaps this is not to discredit what has been proven or identified, but simply to maintain a healthy willingness to allow for further revelations.

          I do believe it is our responsibility to act in ways that promote the health and well-being of this planet, and of all the other residents of this planet. My conscience would not allow me to remain inactive on this issue, simply because the information we have may not be total and comprehensive. However, with a threat of this magnitude, isn’t it wise for all of us to try to maintain an open mind to some degree? Is this maybe what Jon is cautioning us about?

          • Jason Bricco says:

            Yes, absolutely. If that’s what Jon is saying then I fully agree. The Earth’s systems are very complex and there are likely many things we don’t fully understand yet. We should be very open to new information and consider all sides. That’s what I’ve tried to do here. I try to take a logical stance. Any belief or idea that I have I recognize could potentially be incorrect or different from what I think. Therefore, it’s best to always consider all information and all sides, and then use logic to determine which side is more probable. So I read all the information against climate change and weigh it with all the information supporting climate change, factoring in of course who is funding the studies and how the studies were carried out, and try to come up with a conclusion based on that.

          • CantBelieveTheIgnorance says:

            Hi Shannon:
            If it’s settled, can you tell me why every planet in the solar system is warming up. Are there SUVs and factories on Saturn or Pluto ? The Sun is the major factor here, not humanity. This is just another way for politicians to take your money. Please do some of your own research instead of happily swallowing the party line.

          • OhZone says:

            If governments of the world really believed that this “global warming” was immanent why haven’t they put a moratorium on new babies? Where is the propaganda influencing people to have fewer or no children? There isn’t any is there? Therefore I call BS to the whole “warming” notion.

        • JA says:

          Well let’s also make sure not to forget these man-made beauties, which you didn’t mention; the well-documented persistent jet contrails program going on in NATO countries and abroad, HAARP abuse, torsion physics-longitudinal waves and the N.American NEXRAD radar grid, the widespread adoption of ionospheric heaters technology by scientifically savvy countries like the USA, Norway, France, China and others, house shaking earthquakes induced by shale gas operations aka fracking, and my own personal nightmare for living on the NA west coast receiving irradiated tsunami debris on our shores. That is of course after traveling across the open ocean for 3-4 years. That could have a major climate effect, like, say that ‘blob’ being reported in the Pacific. Perhaps the cause of billions of dead sea animals to wash up on our shores in just 2015 already. This is not a pretty show over here folks. And so I say IMO make no mistake about it; man is making some climate alterations it’s just not you or your neighbor or even that one lazy ass in-law we all complain about. Somebody thought it would be a good idea to build a large type nuclear power plant on the shores of a life sustaining body of water and in a known seismically active area. It is hard to believe that General Electric didn’t object to the location from the very beginning. I mean, how flunking stupid does one have to be to get a job at GE or Tepco? Incredibly, Fukushima was also the largest storage facility in the world for spent nuclear fuel at the time of the tsunami.
          Let’s make sure that we’re picking the right battles with the right people. I hate to reference Hollywood at this moment but think Hunger Games II when Catnis gets told to “remember who the real enemy is” Do not spite your neighbor because he drives a truck, remember that it’s the family owners of the company that sold it to him in the first place that insist on employing a polluting technology to power the product. And we should be clear that this is not a phenomenon unique to America, cars run on gas all over the world. Having said that, do not hate on somebody in another country who drives a truck also for they too are only being sold polluting technologies. When you start to think of the so-called global problem in a true-realized global mindset, then it is simply that 90% of us need to have a sit down with the 0.0001% who own every single patent for every single polluting science and technology application ever registered. Everyone knows or strongly suspects that the PTB have life sustaining and perhaps even life-giving patent applications locked away in bank vaults. There are numerous alternative media types who are constantly using their platforms to reach out to these 0.0001% elitist families and want them to engage in open dialogue and ostensibly talk reconciliation. Support these people who dare to question those who literally ‘own’ it all. Do they really want this beautiful place to be eroded so badly by our bad behavior? Tesla must be rolling in his grave!
          This is a situation where I would prefer to have a 100% effort from the 0.0001% rather than a 0.0001% effort from 6 billion of us.

          And yes, I do think CLIMATEGATE changed things, yes the documentary GLOBAL WARMING OR GLOBAL GOVERNANCE did change things, it does appear that various pieces of key IPCC data WAS massaged or outright FAKED, YES Al Gore OWNS a mansion hugging the California coastline. Real skeptics will go with the keywords.

          Trolls need to go home or be counted with the enemy.

    • The sun drives climate here on planet earth and at present we are on the backside of a small double peak in solar cycle 24. The coldest sun, with the least amount of sun spots and solar flaring since 1755. In fact we are more than likely according to the data heading into another Dalton minimum; and this data does not come from computer modelling. I would advise that you educate yourself, on solar dynamics and climate.

      There is a massive military industry which manipulates global weather, and Solar radiation management.


      You might start with these.

      If Al Gore is correct as far as ocean rising why did he build an enormous house at the very edge of the pacific. And why has he made an enormous fortune since leaving office after Clinton on the selling of carbon tickets.

      There is a failsafe built into nature that protects the atmosphere from carbon dioxide…it is called vegetation. The process of photosynthesis extracts carbon dioxide and give out oxygen. The more carbon dioxide in the air. The greater the intake by plants, trees and Phytoplankton.
      Global warming is a great hoax. Carbon dioxide follows heat, it does not preceed it.
      Incidently there has been no rise on global temperature since the early nineties which was a warmer sun and solar cycle 23.

      • S James says:

        1) It is true that surface temperatures have only risen slowly since the late 90s, though the rise appears to be picking up again. But over 90% of the extra heat from global warming goes into the oceans – and they have been warming steadily without pause. Overall the planet has been warming and continues to warm, steadily.

        2) Yes – the sun has been unusually quiet in the last decade or two.The sun is indeed one of the big drivers of climate. If it were the *only* one, we would have expected to see the globe being unusually *cold* recently. (Note: globe. US coldsnaps notwithstanding).

        3) However, it has been warming, and we know this is due to the greenhouse effect for several reasons: Firstly,warming due to extra solar activity would produce a warmer upper and lower atmosphere; greenhouse warming traps heat in the lower levels and produces warming in the lower atmosphere but cooling in the upper atmosphere. This is what we are observing. Second, we have satellite data about the amount of infra red escaping to space. Third, CO2 levels have risen considerably, to about the 400ppm mark. We have known about Co2’s role as a greenhouse gas for well over a century.

        4) We can tell the extra CO2 come from the burning of fossil fuels by the different amounts of the isotopes of carbon in fossil fuels as opposed to other sources. We can also make a pretty good estimate of the total amount of CO2 we have released by burning fossil fuels. It turns out that yes, the total we have released is more than has remained in the air. Some of it has indeed been soaked up by vegetation. But a lot has also gone into the oceans,leading to noticeable acidification.

        Furthermore, photosynthesis is only part of the story with vegetation. When a plant dies and rots, the carbon it has stored is released into the air again. What matters is the total amount of biomass. If that increases, you get net uptake of CO2. If it decreases, you get net release of CO2. If it stays the same, no difference. In any case, CO2 levels have risen to the highest levels we have seen in the last 800,000 years – and are continuing to rise. So much for the failsafe.

        5) You are right. Educating oneself is important. And by all means round it out with sceptical blogs. but for heavens sake dont make those your starting point. Read a text book. Take an online course. Even look on youtube for heavens sake. But acquaint oneself with the actual science before diving into Wattsup etc. Good starting sources for finding out about actual climate science include the courses at edx and coursera; skepticalscience.com and the youtube videos by the user potholer54. And dont pay too much attention to where Al Gore buys a house.

        • Textbooks….ahahaha ahahaha. Are you serious.
          Is carbon dioxide a greenhouse because it has a infrared refractory rate of 1 to 1.1?
          Or is it proof of spent fuel consumption?
          Or should we look at the greater greenhouse factors like water vapor. Clouds. We should ban them.
          We are at the end of an interglacial. Climate is change, relentless continuous change.
          Oceans warm or cool, you realize that the there are massive amounts of heat entering the oceans from unwater vulcanized and subduction zones at the edges of tectonic plates. Massive amounts of water under pressures greater than 1000 times atmospheric produce heat because of that pressure.
          Computer data on climate can not be trusted. Modelling does not work. Nor does pedictive programming. How about gathering stations which are in a greater state of malfunction that American infrastructure.
          Temperature gathering in the middle of a tarmac, next to a restaurant fan belching kitchen heat at the gathering devise. In a study gathering stations were notoriously found to unreliable. With a great many malfunctioning and returning ambient temperatures five degree above the actual.
          400 ppm is nothing. Is absolutely negligible compared to say to Pinatubo which expelled more carbon dioxide in the last eruption than man has produced in his whole history of mankind.
          We are not warming, we are cooling. But there is a false sense of it with American cities having a fairly constant blanket of Chem cloud.

          • Jason Bricco says:

            I wouldn’t argue that water vapor and clouds don’t have greenhouse properties, or that any other gas doesn’t have greenhouse properties (I don’t actually know such information about other gases). But what does that matter? It’s the CO2 that we’re pumping extreme amounts of into the Earth. The water vapor goes on its normal cycle and isn’t changed all that much by humans. The CO2 cycle we’re interfering with greatly. Greenhouse gases are essential for life on Earth; without them, our climate would not be very suitable for life. So it’s not to say that they should be banned. It is to say that we shouldn’t be pumping as much as we currently are into the atmosphere.

            I still find it exceptionally odd that we’re fighting so hard to support these destructive corporations. And, well, I still have all these questions that I posted below that you haven’t responded to… answering them would certainly be helpful to me.

          • My reply is too large for this space Jason.
            I will leave you with this…

          • theodorewesson says:

            the link is 404ing.

          • Jason Bricco says:

            I have posted a (ridiculously long) response. If you have enough free time, feel free to read it. If you don’t want to read it, though, then don’t respond further to me.

            I do understand your reasoning, but I don’t necessarily agree with your conclusion. It makes assumptions that don’t make sense to me. Assumptions, for example, include that creating the idea of climate change would help them and hurt us, rather than hurt them. That’s a tough assumption to make.

            I’ve gone into much more detail in my post, and provided some supporting information.

          • S James says:

            Michael: You could answer all the points you’ve raised here with a textbook or two, so don’t knock them.

            CO2 is a greenhouse gas because it absorbs IR and re emits it in a random direction, whilst allowing visible and UV to pass through.

            Water vapour is indeed a stronger greenhouse gas. But the amount the atmosphere holds is dependent on the temperature, and any excess doesn’t stick around very long – a few days for water vapour and hundreds of years for CO2. The result of this is that water vapour acts as an amplifying feedback. Warming caused by other factors means that there will be more water vapour in the air and hence more warming. But water vapour itself is not a climate driver.

            White clouds on the other hand reflect sunlight back to space and produce a cooling effect. Cloud behaviour is currently one of the less well understood factors, So no, dont ban clouds.

            End of interglacial. Yes, we know that. But we have more information than that on the rates of change and the reasons for these changes.

            There is a geothermal input to the climate system. It is negligible compared to the sun’s input. Google it or read a text book.

            It is a silly oversimplification to say “models dont work”. They work reasonably well, but they have their limits. Climate science is based on far more than the models. We would know AGW exists without having run a single model. But the models do have their uses and climate scientists understand both their usefulness and their limitations far better than you do.

            We have multiple means of gauging the earths temperature. You don’t even have to google this one; here’s a relevant article: http://www.skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements.htm

            You are wrong about volcano emissions. Volcanos world wide emit about 0.3 billion tonnes of CO2 per year. Humans are currently emitting nearly 100 times that (about 29 billion tonnes/year). Pinatubo emitted 42 million tonnes (thats million with an “m”) in 1991; that’s about 0.2% of the 23 Billion (with a “b”) tonnes humans emitted that year. But the emissions themselves over the course of a single year are small compared to the total amount of CO2 in the air (about 3000 billion tonnes). The problem is, we have had a lot of years emitting.

            And no, we are warming, not cooling. Individual parts of the globe may cool for a while (eg changing wind patterns causing the vicious polar vortex effects the US has suffered recently.) Surface temperatures fluctuate a bit on the scale of a few years. The oceans are steadily warming. And overall the globe is warming and the trend is relentlessly upwards.

      • Jason Bricco says:

        Let’s assume that you’re correct and that climate change is a hoax. I ask you to answer a few questions for me, just to help me understand. Because great confusion has been caused within my brain.

        1. Is this fake? http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif

        2. Is this fake? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png
        (Mind you, every graph I’ve seen has looked much like that one, it’s the first one I came to in my quick search).

        3. How can we explain the acidification of the ocean, the bleaching of the corals, and the dissolving of the calcium carbonate shells of sea creatures?

        4. Are these massive droughts/floods/hurricanes and tornadoes unrelated to climate change?

        5. Is this fake? http://www.skepticalscience.com/Increasing-Carbon-Dioxide-is-not-good-for-plants.html

        This article speaks against your claim about vegetation and resonates with all I’ve learned about the Earth.

        6. Are the glaciers not actually melting more than ever? Are the satellite images all photoshopped?

        7. Why would the oil companies fund something that would cause people to ask them to stop doing what has made them the billions and billions of dollars they have today? Isn’t that quite a gamble?

        8. Following from 7, what motivation would the government and/or corporations have for creating this lie in general? Is it about the geoengineering? I can imagine that oil companies would want to take advantage of climate change by suggesting the idea of geoengineering, in order to become even richer off the problem.

        But would they wish to sacrifice what has made them all their money so far for it? Would they want to turn people against that factor? I’d be more willing to believe that they’re just taking advantage of a problem that does exist to become even richer off it.

        9. Why isn’t it all over the mainstream media? They refuse to even use the word climate change. If it were all part of the plan, don’t you think we would have it drilled into our heads by the media to no end?

        Having answers to these questions would certainly help me understand what is going on out there…

        I appreciate your time.

        • From Québec says:

          Glaciers are growing around the world,
          including the United States

          Jason, the pictures of glaciers melting that the MSM feeds you with, are all taken in the summer. That is the hoax.

          • Jason Bricco says:

            This article seems to say the opposite:


            What makes your article more credible than mine?

            Even if your article is correct (despite practically every other article I can find saying that in general, the overall ice volume is decreasing even if a glacier here or there is growing), you’ve still failed to address most of the questions I’ve asked.

            And I still have this huge issue with these people attacking climate change. It actually is mind boggling to me. In general, I expect this type of response from the people out there who are brainwashed by the mainstream media and the oil companies. But it shocks me that people who follow Jon’s articles, people who should be logical… why, perhaps even Jon himself (unless I misunderstood), takes on this stance.

            I know that we are either perfectly capable of completely embracing green energy to power our systems (solar, wind, water, etc.) or we are darn close. And imagine if we put all that money into researching how to go about such a thing.

            Why are people fighting so strongly to support the destruction of the oil companies? Let’s assume climate change is a hoax. You still have the oil spills, the explosions, the chemicals pumped into the environment during the fracking process used to extract fossil fuels from shale, and the damage caused by drilling – especially offshore drilling. Are these good things? Shouldn’t these companies be changing their ways regardless of whether climate change is a hoax or not?

            I see an intense contradiction here. We’re talking about these corporations who care only about one thing: their own pockets. And they’ll pump mercury into humanity, they’ll feed them their drugs and toxic additives instead of actual nutrients the body needs. They’ll go as far as to attack the actual nutrients we need. We’re talking about the corporations who genetically engineer food and make it even more resistant to pesticides and other chemicals, so that we can consume even more of it when we eat it. We’re talking about the corporations who want us to be zombies. We should all be the same. No one should be different or stand out. Difference is a threat. If you’re different, you’re ‘disordered’, you’re ill, you must be treated. We must think all is okay and not worry about a thing, and we should just get lost in our entertainment and be happy.

            That’s what we’re talking about. And yet, apparently these oil companies are some exemption to this. They’re the good guys. They care very much about us and it’s not just about money. And some evil scientists out there are the real bad guys. They’re making up this hoax that attacks those poor, innocent oil companies. I don’t know why they made up this hoax, but it’s clearly a bad thing to believe it.

            Somehow, it isn’t plausible that the oil companies could fund any science that supports their case, in self defense. Apparently, all science that speaks against climate change is legit science, not funded by them.

            Apparently, the oil companies themselves funded the very movement that attacks what made them hundreds of billions of dollars! Because, you know what? That’s just logical! If I were an oil company CEO, I’d absolutely be sitting here thinking: it’s just a wonderful idea to attack what has made us our wealth, even despite the fact that we have so much money currently invested in fossil fuels buried under the ground. And if we weren’t able to get those out, we would lose a huge amount of money. It’s a great idea to get everyone against us and risk the government actually doing something. And what do we get from it? Geoengineering! Which… is risky. We’ve never done it and don’t really know how it will turn out or whether it will pay off… but we’re just geniuses like that, so we’ll do that!

            What is going on? Is it just that we all want to believe that all is well and don’t want to think about there being any problems? Why are people so willing to attack this idea?

            Please, someone, help me understand.

      • From Québec says:

        Holly Toledo! ONE sane man here. Bravo Michael.
        You said it all, so I have nothing else to add .

        Unbelievable that some humans still believe in the propaganda of the greatest hoax on earth: “Global Warming”… oopst… sorry… I forgot that these idiots had changed the name to “Climate Change ” so they wouldn’t look so stupid…lol

        Like if no one had never noticed that the climate always changes and always will,. Good try Al Gore, but we don’t buy it, we are not as stupid as you think we are.!

    • Sue says:

      Here is a good dissertation on this subject:


      And yes, there are huge numbers of scientists who disagree with the global warming model. Not all scientists have PhDs or industry positions or political connections. They just know something about the way things work.


      • Jason Bricco says:

        If ALL gases are greenhouse gases and not just CO2 or methane, then what does that change? That only tells me that it doesn’t matter which gas we pump into the atmosphere. If we pump any gas in high concentration, we’re going to cause climate change. It just so happens that CO2 is the gas we’re pumping extreme amounts of into the atmosphere.

        Or is it saying that the greenhouse effect itself isn’t correct? Then we have to explain the temperature differences between Venus, Earth, and Mars in some way. And it isn’t the sun – that wouldn’t explain why Earth has such a stable temperature through day and night while a planet such as Venus or Mercury does not. And that’s not the only problem.

      • S James says:

        spinonthat gets all sorts of things wrong. Early in the first vid he tells us that he has warmed a bottle by 4 degrees just by holding it briefly. That may be true of a little bit of the plastic surface, but not for the contents! it just goes downhill from there.

        We have very precise data on how different gasses absorb and re emit electromagnetic radiation at various wavelengths. If you google you can find pages and pages of precise numbers and graphs..This is simple physical science, and was investigated independently of climate science. We even know WHY various gasses are better at absorbing some spectra rather than others.

        spinonthat amusingly ends his blog with the capitalised line “THERE IS NO SUBSTANCE THAT TRAPS IN HEAT!”. Presumably he sees no point putting on a coat when it gets chilly.

  4. Sherlock says:

    “For example: declaring that psychiatrists can appear in court as expert witnesses, when none of the so-called mental disorders listed in the psychiatric literature are diagnosed by laboratory tests.”

    Add this one to the list for a total judicial mess: “An elite FBI forensic unit giving flawed forensic hair testimony in almost all trials in which they offered evidence against criminal defendants over more than a two-decade period before 2000.”


    It’s unbelievable all the suffering distributed under the guise of science: Vaccines, herbicide, Roundup, GMOs, psychiatric drugs. The toxic drug AZT reminds me the movie “Dallas Buyers Club”. It’s quite surprising that a movie showing some truth could have won so many awards, because I don’t think Big Pharna and the FDA would have approved that movie.

  5. bdbinc says:

    …and it replaces knowledge with unquestioning trust and belief.
    It is the modern religion.

  6. middleway says:

    With the lifting of the veil we find ourselves standing before the gate that leads us into a land called ‘Nothing Left to Lose’. Throughout my life there has always been an anxiety associated with making the definitive decision to pass through that portal and unconditionally embrace the grand reunification.

  7. Resist. Reset.

    The reality machine must come to a complete halt.

    Nature must regain relevence, and regain the love of Her children.

    Their “science”, and then there is Real Science. Nature is all about Real Science.

  8. From Québec says:

    “I thank you for your support and interest.” (Jon)

    Well you are doing such a great job! Your previous article, that was posted on infowars.com yesterday. has now reached: 327 comments.
    Educating the public, is our only way out of a totalitarian society.

    There was a good interview yesterday with David Breckler

    Star listening at: 1:30:17

    The Alex Jones Show (VIDEO Commercial Free) Wed. April 29 2015: Baltimore Report, David Breckler

  9. jim says:

    It is obvious that we live in a 3-dim(ensional) physical world, yet so called “modern physics” has insisted that the basic constituents of this 3-dim world, the electron and proton, are 0-dim or point particles. The pinnacle of modern physics, the Grand Unified Theory (GUT) has 29 magical constants used to make calculations agree with experiments, subtracts pesky infinities from their equations, rearranges terms in perturbation expansions, and has computers sort through collision data to selectively pick out data that comes close to what they predict. They invent unobservable Dark Matter and Energy when equations do not match data at all, invent the Higg’s Boson or God particle when there physics needs more band aids, produce nonsense too absurd for a comic book called String Theory that has no solution, etc… .

    If you come up with anything that makes more sense than their fecal matter, which any four year old could, then they refuse to publish you and call you a loon when you make noise. All that matters is the billions of dollars to build more colliders, provide more grants for fantasy research, and the egoistic glory of being able to parrot the same garbage without breaking down and laughing at yourself. If anyone out there would like to see “real” physics, then please visit http://www.commonsensescience.org.

  10. Steve says:

    Totalitarian history also lets you know you’re living in a totalitarian society.

  11. ozziethinker says:

    A problem you have overlooked (if that is the right word), as I take great pains to regularly reinforce on http:/ozziethinker.wordpress.com, is we live in a perception-based world and that is why measurement is linear. However, existence is one tiny fragment of giant frequency bandwidths. They say 2 + 2 = 4. Yes, that’s mathematically “theoretically” correct. It reinforces our perception. But if I take any two “physical” things, each is made of so many parts they are beyond calculation. Very, very, very small, strange things happen. Our 2 + 2 = 4 can fade in and out of “existence” and one is not quite sure where the divide between existence and non-existence lies.

    By way of simplistic analogy, I whole heartedly agree with you. Draconian order intends to stifle consciousness using unqualified, credential-backed “science” as the justification.

    The Draco (mythical Ciakars) are arguably the hidden power behind draconian order.


  12. Rex says:

    Jon, thank you for writing provocative material on a nearly daily basis. Official government sponsored and approved science needs to be seen as highly suspect in my opinion. The burden of proof must rest with those who would circumvent nature as it has existed since before people became an infestation sufficient in numbers to disrupt the natural world. I do not know if people are responsible for a warming world, or if it is in fact warming, or if it may be cooling. However, I am 100% in favor of rolling back the climate conditions about 12,000 years to a time when there were only about 10,000,000 of us rather than the 7,200,000,000 that currently exist. To have that many people available as potential consumers is much too inviting to the greedy sociopaths who could profit from centralizing the food supply, the medical delivery system, and the financial system.

    Keep up the good work and thank you again for all you do.

  13. Bala Chandar says:

    – Government promoting vaccines that sicken and kill children
    – Fluoridating drinking water that leads to sterility and cancer
    – Chemtrails that damage health and destroy crops
    – Genetically modified food that leads to long term ill health and sterility
    – Extensive use of psychotropic drugs that weaken and kill children
    – Widespread use of cholesterol lowering agents that lead to Alzheimer’s
    – Cancer treatments that give rise to new cancers

    These and other related criminal activities have one thing in common. That is, Depopulation. There is an enormous amount of money to be made in poisoning and killing people slowly. Depopulation agenda is centuries old and the different approaches to reduce the world population to half billion have been planned many decades ago. What we witness today is the systematic execution of those plans.

    • OhZone says:

      Don’t you wonder why they go thru all this when they could simply mandate a one child policy?
      It seems to be a taboo subject to suggest that all this “global warming” etc is the result of too many people.
      If there is an increase in atmospheric CO2 then there must be a corresponding decrease in free carbon and free oxygen.

      • mothman777 says:

        Exactly, any decent politician could simply go on national television, have a heart to heart chat with everyone, say the truth that Earth will not be able to support so many children, and require everyone to limit their families.

        I am in favour of a benevolent form of eugenics myself, whereby those with greater beauty, health, intelligence, physical dexterity, strength, longevity, skills, kind personality, spiritual sensitivity and any other desirable and beneficial qualities could have more children, and even foster some of them if necessary to people who are not able to have any, to those who have lost children through disease, crime, accident, war or disaster, or to those whose own genomes are not able to produce any babies themselves that would provide good enough vehicles for the indwelling souls, for that is what the body is, a dead vehicle and nothing more, not sacred life itself, except for the indwelling soul, and every soul deserves a good vehicle, not a poor vehicle for the sake of some foolish material egoist who simply wants a pet who looks a bit like himself or herself, or someone to proudly call his own genetic line, no matter how ugly or even dysfunctional or sometimes even disabled they might be in some way or other, as the vast majority of spiritually ignorant people presently do under the influence of material maya.

        If foolish people continue to prevaricate, choosing rather to endlessly quibble over the ‘morality’ of that, or over the choice of criteria and who is chosen to apply those criteria, never having the guts to actually make the right decision, thermonuclear weapons will certainly make the choice for them in completely indiscriminate manner, accompanied by complete devastation of the planet, and incalculable suffering and misery for all surviving, but badly damaged generations, when the lunatic cowardly politicians get their way and speak to people on that issue of overpopulation the way they want to, the way of the violently insane.

        There is no ‘line of souls’, and people need to adopt vastly clearer spiritual thinking on this issue, so that they do not go crazy and each have excessive numbers of what they deludedly think are their own ‘special’, uniquely vital and not necessarily vital breed in too great a number. They might breed a line of empty bodies, but the souls coming to live in them actually come from all over the cosmos, and those souls are the actual consciousness in those bodies, so in truth, the better the bodily vehicle, the better the progress the indwelling soul in each of them will be in all walks of life, and that is the truly relevant issue, not whether or not some fool has a genetic ‘heir’, or a ‘son’ or ‘daughter’. Most people are still so uneducated that they think the body is the conscious entity, and that a soul is not necessary, as taught by today’s demonic materialistic ‘scientists’, and so they think they must produce many genetic copies of their own genome to preserve what they falsely think is ‘life’, as they mistakenly value the material body as being.

        People will have to draw that line someday, so why do these effective materialists continue to make it all that much more difficult for future generations; it is all so unspiritual and faithless of them, when they mistakenly think that this is the only life there is, and that they might as well use the planet all up right now, because they think there might not necessarily be any reincarnation, any God, or even any future for the Earth, as maybe a global war or an asteroid might finish everyone tomorrow.

        Politicians are too gutless to ask people to put their peckers back in their pants, as that might cost them votes. I sometimes wish I could speak just like that on that very issue to people on television if ever I was fortunate enough to be in the position to reach out to people like that.

        This world is only a 3 dimensional holographic dream-like reality, provided to usher souls towards their highest degree of spiritual self-cognizance in the true reality, the beginingless transcendental spiritual world, which is part of Lord Krishna Himself. The true world and the true nature of the eternal individual self of each person is only revealed by the light of the eternal Supersoul Godhead Krishna.

        • OhZone says:

          So well said that I copied it and saved it. Thank you

          • ozziethinker says:

            According to Mothman777’s argument, there is no spirit, soul [or mind] as character/emotional traits are defined by material genetics. we are NOT “God’s natural robots” and gene selection will NEVER identify these traits. Energy fields are attracted to akin energy signatures. Parents are the “common ground” for offspring.

            All in my book!

          • mothman777 says:

            Each and every spirit soul, incarnate in even the microbes, plants, aquatics, avian, and all land- based species, reassume their uniquely individual and eternally perfect personalities when reawakened by the light of the Communal Supersoul Godhead.

            All material bodies and the senses which perceive them and this entire world are just a vision, a holographic movie, provided by the material maya potency of the Godhead Soul, and all material action and even material thought is actually performed by that potency, in an approximate reflection of the inner desires of their souls that the eternally indwelling Supersoul, or Godhead Soul can see, fallen though they are in this world. That includes all telepathic and psychological influence from others, microwave weapon influence, the lot, all those phenomena beyond the apparently individual mental will actually being concomitant factors inherent upon choosing to incarnate in this world, all part of the show, all direct consequences and in fact somehow or other, however distantly, part and parcel of the reactions to our own personal will, so we experience various types of communal karma that we think we should not suffer. The Bhagavad Gita states that even if a man thinks he dies, or if he thinks he has killed, he is under illusion, and though that means that the soul is immortal and can never be killed, an additional meaning is that God’s material maya potency is in truth the only actor on the stage in any case.

            In the spiritual world, all will is perfect, and becomes instantly manifest. However, here in this material world, because the greater part of our intellect and good common sense and sensitivity that resides within our constitutional connection with the Godhead Soul is largely absent, then when we are here, our will is imperfect, as we are no longer twinned with the divine will or intellect, nor can we see on a cosmic scale any longer, so our will here is very faulty, so a damping factor called time is introduced to act as a buffer against total chaos. For instance, many fallen souls on this Earth would, in an instant wish countless millions to die in an instant, so the manifestation of that will is withheld from them. People are not these bodies anyway, and this is all a dream anyway, it being the dream of Vishnu in His Yoga Nidra, and all material action takes place within what is ultimately His Soul in fact, and not ours, so He manifests this material creation and all material action that occurs within it as He wishes, as is His prerogative, and not ours.

            The instance of material substance means that God has demanifest any area of His soul that we are at risk of encroaching on, in terms of starting to develop any tendency towards mistakenly assuming His position or substance as our own, so He hides that area, making it appear as this material cosmos, so as to encourage us to let go of that, making it appear as lifeless material elements that will not be so attractive to us. The Godhead Soul is actually the substance of all the spiritual planets and spiritual sky, those being fully conscious.

            Each soul is beginningless, eternal, and cannot be destroyed anyway, and God manifests this reality around each soul as a multidimensional film show, within which they are merely the viewers, all the souls here not actually acting in any way, but merely remaining under the illusion that they do, yet because they still believe that they are the immediate and direct authors of all material action of their bodies, then they do have a kind of karma from that, in that they remain addicted to that reality, and continue to reincarnate in it, until they realize that they do not in fact need to have anything to do with it at all, but only to turn their attention back to the Godhead Soul with the proper understanding, to once again wake back up in the spiritual world.

            When any of the souls in the spiritual world turn away from God to some degree, they momentarily lose the greater part of their spiritual self-cognitive ability, and momentarily enter into a flickering daydream of what life is like in the absence of the Godhead, whose light sustains us all normally.

            No souls ever actually leave the spiritual world, but merely temporarily enter a dream that they have left the spiritual world. In truth, it is just like when we go to bed in this world, and enter the dream state, where we think we are somewhere else, yet we still wake up again in bed in the morning. So it is in the spiritual world, when we turn our full attention once again to the light of the Godhead Soul, our normal spiritual full self-cognition reawakens, and we are fully conscious once again of being in the spiritual world when we leave this material body afer ‘death’.

            Krishna states that the entire duration of this material cosmos is just like a flash of lightning for Him, and even though it may appear to take millions of years in ‘reincarnations’ in the mayic perception of each one of us, when we re-awake once again, we will see that the whole thing, millions of years, was really taking place in a very brief span of time, a very tiny portion of our normal span of timeless consciousness in the spiritual dimension.

            In the spiritual world, our constitutional position which is dovetailed with the Godhead Soul means that the Godhead Soul gives a state of cosmic consciousnes called ‘sarshti’ to each and every soul there, so that all souls have cosmic consciousness, with the infinite consciousness of the Godhead Soul overlaying theirs, expanding the scope of their consciousness on a cosmic scale, also sharing 100% of the bliss that He Himself experiences with each of them also.

            If we can envisage that our consciousness of the eternal moment normally covers a truly vast area, when we compare that experience even with millions of incarnations in different species on different material planets, then the duration of all those material incarnations will all seem very small and insignificant indeed, just like a brief daydream perhaps, and the sadness of it will easily be dismissed with the understanding that the material cosmos was all created to prompt us not to turn away from our proper relationship with our constitutional Godhead Soul, Who alone enables our full spiritual consciousness.

            Without the sun, all creatures in this world would live in darkness, blind, and without the spiritual connection of the Godhead Soul, there is not even any indvidual consciousness, no white light tunnels, no rolling astral plains, nothing, as I have ‘experinced’ when I have lost consciousness, and experienced complete and total shut- down of all consciousness, having no awareness even of darkness, not even knowing any longer that I exist, totally losing all consciousness of anything and everything, as if I had been totally annihilated, yet I have been brought back to consciousness, but only by the effect of another Soul, the Godhead Soul. This is because all souls only function together via the nexus of the the cosmic Supersoul, or Godhead Soul, the central spiritual sun Who links all souls together. He is so vast that He does not require us to remain conscious Himself, but we all need Him to remain conscious, our perception of infinity being in truth perception afforded to us by Him consciously extending our consiousness within and throughout the vast expanse of His Soul. No other soul can give us this, as no other soul is so vast.

          • ozziethinker says:


            Again, you are trying to materialise and cannot break free of linear thought. The sun acts at a catalytic DNA activator, except (theoretically) it does not exist. Indeed the famous “Philadelphia Experiment” was a Zeta-Draco attempt to disconnect the Earth’s EMF from the [black] sun’s [negative influences]. Our inner sun (which causes our EMF – contrary to popular science-fantasy) is enough to maintain genetic progression.

            As for “shaping identities” we travel through [potentially] numerous light and dark filters to become what we are and there are connectors at the quantum level that would equate to “souls”. Clearly you are only interested in insulting me with your simplifications and inaccuracies and have no intention of learning through guided research. If you investigated what I had to say (free of woolly emotional sentiment) about this subject IN FULL, you would have every right to come back with feedback/questions.

          • mothman777 says:

            I replied to you because you obliged me to do so by deliberately having chosen to totally misrepresent what I had said earlier, as is your usual constantly hostile trollish style, yet I expressed my views in a gentle manner. How could I have possibly have ‘insulted’ you in what I wrote in my previous comment?

            I do genuinely feel that your real purpose in addressing me is simply to attempt to destroy the good by creating problems where there are none, to introduce a sour note.

            In the spiritual philosophy that I accept, there is no eternal hell, no eternal separation from God, and no soul that is either not from God, or unable to return to the spiritual dimension, and I believe that every soul can come, once again, to share an equal level of spiritual bliss with God, and I think that that philosophy and knowledge is not unpleasant in the slightest, compared to what the vast majority of humanity are mind-numbingly pushed into believing by the highly malevolent PTB.

            I have done yoga and studied philosophy with various schools for several decades, also gaining my own direct knowledge through experience, and I have also drawn knowledge from many authors, from a number of different religions and mystical viewpoints. The spiritual philosophy I put forward here was not negative in the slightest, and I do not see any benefit in your trying to either misrepresent it or undermine it in other ways, especially as you do not present here anything better to replace it. You merely attempt to tear apart, but have nothing good to put in it’s place.

            I had hoped that you might have changed a little by now, but you have not. I have now reviewed some of our earlier ‘conversations’, where you mindlessly and compulsively attacked every single thing I ever said, entirely misrepresenting my statements, not merely through failing to comprehend them, as you still do today, exactly like a very destructive machine working for some dark agenda. Not only that, you did then as you still do now, in entirely confabulating things, and writing pretentious and incomprehensible crap, doing that in a very grandiose style.

            Your approach is not good, and what is your ‘guided research’? Is that a ‘paint by numbers’ type thing?

            You might try to stop acting so condescendingly smart, and actually attempt to discuss matters with people, and try to present your understandings in more easily understood language for us ‘simple folk’, as you don’t actually come across as someone who really wants to communicate effectively with others.

            I did try to respond to your earlier comment, rather than to write to you about some other issue from somewhere else, but you could not even understand that. Ease up a ‘little’.

  14. seamlessone says:

    Great summary Jon. Nailed all the major points.

    I would just add that not only is ‘totalitarian science’ untrustworthy, but so is nearly all other science as well, including most of the ‘alternative science’ and ‘new age science’. The alternative media has become just as pathetic in their sale of pseudo science, fear porn, fragmentation, and propaganda.

    Beyond the mainstream and the ‘alternative’ there is the individual who is free from all of it, and thus able to see clearly, wholly.

  15. evidencer says:

    Recently, Dr. David Healy’s editorial about the persistence of the serotonin theory of depression ran in the BMJ. A scientism-talking-points thinktank, Science Media Centre, in England brought in some experts to write their reactions to his editorial.

    They experts were a disgrace! Made little sense, seemed not have read the article.

    This blog entry is a response to the Science media group. It contains links to Healy’s editorial and the SMC reactions.


  16. They have cut us off from live satellite feeds, the USGS is hiding quakes……..the politicians wont answer questions, pretty much totalitarian for sure.

  17. FP says:

    From an “oldie goldie” link left at Jon’s Twitter Feed by someone else:

    Scientists+Engineers are “Welfare Queens in White Lab Coats” who think the Fed Govt. owes them a living (via funding).
    –Roy Rustum, Penn State “Material Scientist,” 1991.

    Quote Source:
    2/24/1991: “Science Funding Problem // Is It Real … or Just Imagined?” – Archives_TulsaWorld:

    No wonder I’ve never been too impressed by “science”! Even more annoying are the lock-step brain-dead chanters who demand “published scientific studies” for any point or observation you may make based on Plain Common Sense (personal observation, analyzation, etc.). One guy rightly described such haters of Common Sense as “Lovers of the Science of Denial”! 🙂 Perfect!

  18. B.M. says:

    It’s called Technocracy. Patrick Wood just wrote a book on the whole subject called, “Technocracy Rising”. Might want to check it out. Sums up who, what, how, why the world is the way it is today, and where we’re headed.

    • theodorewesson says:

      Just to add…

      Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse Of Global Transformation Paperback – December 29, 2014
      by Patrick M. Wood (Author)

      The dark horse of the New World Order is not Communism, Socialism or Fascism. It is Technocracy.

      With meticulous detail and an abundance of original research, Patrick M. Wood uses Technocracy Rising to connect the dots of modern globalization in a way that has never been seen before so that the reader can clearly understand the globalization plan, its perpetrators and its intended endgame.

      In the heat of the Great Depression during the 1930s, prominent scientists and engineers proposed a utopian energy-based economic system called Technocracy that would be run by those same scientists and engineers instead of elected politicians. Although this radical movement lost momentum by 1940, it regained status when it was conceptually adopted by the elitist Trilateral Commission (co-founded by Zbigniew Brzezinski and David Rockefeller) in 1973 to be become its so-called “New International Economic Order.”

      In the ensuing 41 years, the modern expression of Technocracy and the New International Economic Order is clearly seen in global programs such as Agenda 21, Sustainable Development, Green Economy, Councils of Governments, Smart Growth, Smart Grid, Total Awareness surveillance initiatives and more.

      Wood contends that the only logical outcome of Technocracy is Scientific Dictatorship, as already seen in dystopian literature such as Brave New World by Aldous Huxley (1932) and Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell (1948), both of whom looked straight into the face of Technocracy when it was still in its infancy.

      With over 250 footnotes, an extensive bibliography and clarity of writing style, Wood challenges the reader to new levels of insight and understanding into the clear and present danger of Technocracy, and how Americans might be able to reject it once again.

  19. Jon, I have a radio show called “Health begins at home” and was wondering if I could interview you on this topic. It is near and dear to my heart. I am a registered nurse who left mainstream nursing when I saw what a sham our medical system is.Perhaps a 20-30 minute interview on this topic?
    Let me know via email or my blog- healthbeginsathome.com or […].
    Thank you for putting into words what I have felt for years.

  20. OhZone says:

    Proven science is shown to be wrong many times. See this website on Abhorrent and Vindicated scientific ideas.

  21. obrienn11 says:

    What a lot of rot. There is only one factor to consider in the climate change scam. The scripted media is pushing it. Jon, I also enjoyed the phrase “give up the ghost.” my grandmother use to say that.

  22. From Québec says:

    Pseudo scientific tyranny. That’s all it is!

  23. From Québec says:

    Worth repeating that quote:

    ” I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks.

    Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

    There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”
    ― Michael Crichton

  24. bdbinc says:

    Consensus science is pseudo science is the modern religion for the masses.
    Masses that are so mentally dulled down by a system of belief in authority they have lost the ability to think for themselves.

    This is why science is the religion now . Once a very long time ago science meant knowledge, but we have been so “dumbed down” that we desperately seek the intelligence we have lost.
    The masses buy smart phones (that spy on them) and allow the multinationals to install (unsafe) smart meters near their homes.
    High priests of this modern religion are corrupt “scientists” are used to push any NWO agenda as the people believe and trust scientists as they are the most intelligent/smartest being in a reputable (authoritarian) occupation that use to be “knowledge based”.

  25. bdbinc says:

    “In the April 15, 2015 edition of Lancet, the UKs leading medical journal, editor-in-chief Richard Horton stated: “The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue.”He ominously went on to say “…science has taken a turn toward darkness.””

  26. Jamie says:

    It seems to me that the sheep who have decided that humans are mostly responsible for the non existent global warming have been so well indoctrinated that they will not see the truth if they tripped over it. So, in my opinion it is a waste of time to argue with these sheep.

    They will maybe one day understand what we were talking about when they are forced to live in a 100 square foot apartment with 24/7 survalance, are forced to ride a bike, have no access to a car, have nothing but gmo food to eat, are forced to take all manner of vaccines, are forcibly medicated for their own good, are limited to one child or worse, forced sterilized and have zero Constitutional Rights!

    Even then these sheep may not get it because they will have been so dumbed down and drugged down so as not even to care.

    Oh wait! That has already happened!

  27. rmcl says:

    Don’t you just love the obvious: “Why are they trying to cool the planet down?” This is the sine qua non question of our social-media-driven, science void of logic era of our societal mob-rule sub-existence.

    They are mapping/engineering the upper atmosphere via aerosol spraying to “adjust” the “upper climate” so that the up-coming (mini) Ice Age (and, as you conjecture, a full blown Ice Age) will affect the largest populations of useless eaters. “What good is an Ice Age if it’s wasted on Siberia or the Asian deserts? We’ve gotta get the ice to the lower latitudes…”

    This is pernicious environmental eugenics. This isn’t simple state policy (like the Nazi final solution beta), this is total psychopathic omnicide (with the “superior races” surviving of course).

    The doctrines of State Science will become more and more odious. The pseudo science of “Climate Change” will have its Spanish Inquisition, not with conquistadors, or Brown Shirts. Today, we have ISIS (with all of its subliminal triggers), taking over countries in Toyota pickups, wearing really cool Ninja outfits. At some point this Frankenstein monster will take a stance against global warming, demanding that all disbelievers be beheaded.

    They won’t be able to sew enough costumes in the Asian sweatshops to fill all the new orders.

  28. Kevin Diggs says:

    Push back! Sign a petition demanding Governor Jerry Brown VETO California bill SB277!


  29. JMartin says:

    I think I have discovered one of the root causes of the ‘people becoming sheep’ problem. For the past 80 years, by Congressional mandate passed in the mid-1930s, every baby born in a U.S. hospital has to have its eyesight messed with, first with caustic silver nitrate (1935?-1957?) then with less-caustic antibiotics (1957?-present):

    What hasn’t changed is the procedure – treatment within one hour after birth, one eye treated at a time, second eye forced open for treatment, no follow-up or longitudinal studies to determine any possible side-effects such as increased risk of nearsightedness.

    Of the three dozen myopes I have asked or read about, including myself and my five siblings, those of us born during the silver nitrate era do not remember ever having had clear distance eyesight, but didn’t realize that fact until we got our first lenses. Those born during the antibiotic era, including my two sons, do remember having had clear distance eyesight which went uncontrollably blurry in middle school, high school or college.

    The mandated procedure correlates with a gradual steady rise in childhood nearsightedness, which continues unabated to this day:

    If the binocular visual system begins to self-calibrate as soon as it is exposed to light, then this procedure interferes with the calibration. Any miscalibrated system will eventually go awry if undetected and/or uncorrected.

    Smart people didn’t used to be nearsighted. Nearsightedness had been rare throughout history prior to the 1950s.

    • mothman777 says:

      Interesting. I have used silver nitrate on my skin, and it left a dark tattoo where I used it, which I have had to grind out . So that would leave grey silver ions in the retina also, altering eyesight as you say.

      Fusidic acid eye drops are nasty too, and when I used those for conjunctivitis once, my eyesight was left somewhat blurred permanently afterwards, through the acid having slightly damaged my eyesight, and that possibility is, or at least was, actually noted on the instruction sheet, though one never thinks to read the small print at the time before starting using these so-called medicines, all calculated to inflict some degree of harm of course.

      Weak silver sol, containing just silver ions in distilled water would have been non-caustic as an alternative (though silver sol will damage the skin a little if used excessively as it kills single-celled organisms, and skin cells too are vulnerable anywhere, as I have experienced, though just a few drops of silver sol (misnomered colloidal silver) once or twice or three times a day of just a few PPM strength in the eyes is perfectly safe), and makes a far better job, though in India, human urine instead is used, being highly effective in curing eye infections, and is still used in some hospitals there, though of course, the donor must not have the clap, the baby’s urine probably being the most appropriate for that as it would likely be the healthiest, containing natural penicillin.

      I have used a weak silver sol for that purpose myself on occasion and experienced no ill-effect from that, but a speedy cure for ‘red -eye’ conjunctivitis. but if you try soaking a bandage in silver sol that is attached to your skin for a day or two, say on your wrist, and you will see that when you remove the bandage, the top layers of skin have been killed off, though of course, that is totally superficial on the outer epidermis of the human body, and the skin produces new layers of skin faster than the sol kills it, and silver sol actually reduces scar tissue and speeds up tissue regeneration in burns victims, whilst also keeping the burn safe from MRSA, necrotizing Fasciitis, Staph and Strep for example. Such an experiment will not produce any burn or scar by the way, If you do try using silver sol in your eyes for conjunctivitis, bear this in mind, and be very gentle gentle with it’s use. Eyes regenerate every 2 or 3 weeks anyway, but so does any pattern of damaged tissue to some extent. Perhaps in light of that, when treating babies’ eyes, clean human urine is a much better option, sure not to cause any harm to their more delicate tissue, and I know several yogis who use urine for that purpose, including Indian hospital doctors who work in India.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *