Tag Archives: media

Chemtrails, Southeast Asia, 2017, the NY Times and a reality check

It appears that 2017 will bring not only a continuation, but a ramping-up of the chemtrail assault on our atmosphere. According to many skywatchers in the United States, the skies there are being sprayed in every state, nearly 24/7. Citizens of the great nation of the U.S.A. can no longer gaze upon a blue sky. The daily reality is now a horizon-to-horizon mass of whitish chemtrail goop. The chemtrail haze blocks out a significant percentage of sunlight reaching Earth and the effects of this will continue to be felt for humans as well as plant and animal life. These effects include, but are not limited to:  a decrease in vitamin d absorption for humans, decreased photosynthesis, stunted plant growth, tree death, increased rates of depression and fatigue, and a decrease in pineal gland activation in humans. 

The current situation in Southeast is only marginally better. We still occasionally get a chemtrail-free day with a blue sky. However, on a recent trip I had occasion to witness one horrific spraying episode above my head. I was able to snap some pretty good photographs of the aerial drone assault, complete with checkerboard patterns. The reptilian elites really love to laugh at us, don’t they?

I have in front of me the April 22nd edition of the New York Times, International Edition. The Times has been deconstructed and eviscerated by numerous intellectuals  for many decades, so it’s hardly worth commenting on. However, this copy literally fell onto my lap while I was eating lunch yesterday, so I gave it a glance. On the front page, there is an article with the headline ‘Is it O.K. to tweak nature to fight climate change?‘ The article is written by some corporate hack  named ‘Jon Gertner’, a Cornell boy who gets his articles and books published by Jew-owned N.Y. Times, Jew-owned Penguin, and Jew-owned Random House.

When the controllers wish to tell us, the people, what they are going to do in the near future, they typically will insert an obvious hint in television or movies. In conspiracy circles, we call this ‘predictive programming.’ But we haven’t yet invented a word or phrase to describe the action of telling us what they have been doing. Such is the case with articles like this.

I encourage my readers to juxtapose the photos below with the article to get a clear idea of the lengths that these people will go to in order to mock us. Gertner, along with the Harvard ‘scientist’ he interviews, David Keith, wants us to believe that geoengineering is just a ‘theory’, something that they ‘are studying’, and might put into application many years into the future. In fact, as anyone who bothers to look at the sky knows, geoengineering, aka chemtrailing, has been an ongoing project for at least the last 20 years, and possibly much longer. Either Gertner and Keith have never looked up from their desks at the sky, or they a just writing this piece out of boredom. The NY TImes is run out of Langley, and we know the CIA loves to have a laugh at our expense.

The article is also bizarre on another level. Gertner quotes Keith as saying that geoengineering is a crazy idea that could easily spin out of control and do more harm than good. Nevertheless, Keith is going to  research it anyway. Even if we take the entire article at face value, that  line of reasoning would qualify Keith as a sociopath, at the very least. As most scientists today fit into that category, that’s hardly news, but it’s worth noting.

 


Joe Rogan exposed

Joe Rogan has become something of a celebrity in the alternative media world as the host of the Joe Rogan Experience which, according to Wikipedia, was downloaded 16 million times a month in October 2015. What I will attempt to show here is that Rogan is, among other things, an agent of intelligence whose shtick is to get young rebellious types to experiment with drugs, engage in idle conspiracy talk, and ultimately spin them back to the mainstream.

Rogan’s bio is so convoluted and contradictory that it’s difficult to know where to begin to dissect this guy. Let’s begin with his birth date: August 11, 1967. 8-11. We know that 8 is the favorite number of intelligence, with 11 a close second. Note how many famous people have supposedly been born on variants of 8. That right there is enough to set off alarm bells in my mind regarding this guy.

His life from birth to high school graduation is covered in one brief paragraph on wikipedia. We learn only that his mother was ‘a free spirit’ and his father was a cop who beat his wife. The rest of the early life bio is taken up with accounts of his martial arts training. He dropped out of college.

While Rogan was doing stand-up comedy in Boston, he was ‘discovered’ by a Jew talent agent, Jeff SussMAN. Stories that involve people with surnames ending in MAN usually indicate a hoax. This is another red flag.

In 1994 Rogan moved to L.A., no doubt at the behest of his intelligence handlers, to enhance his ‘career opportunities.’ This Boston kid, with neither talent nor looks, who had only performed at some comedy clubs in Boston immediately landed a gig on MTV. That doesn’t happen in the real world unless you are a Jew with Hollywood connections and/or under the guidance of Intelligence. MTV is a subsidiary of Viacom, one of the largest media companies in the world. Rogan was immediately offered a  three-year exclusive contract. Isn’t it nice how these people never have to go through the normal rigors of climbing up the corporate ladder or working their way upward? They are just conveniently and smoothly moved along to get more and more exposure.

I tried to find a clip of Rogan performing on MTV but was unable to locate one. It would be interesting to watch that clip because, according to wiki, his performance blew away top studio execs who engaged in a bidding war for his talents. Again, this doesn’t happen in real life. After jumping ship at MTV, Rogan got in bed with the Disney Corporation (Walt Disney- 33rd Degree Freemason) and FOX (numerology:666). All of these Forbes 500 corporate and Zionist connections will be important to remember later as we analyze Rogan in his role as an independent voice and counterculture icon.

Joe Rogan performed at the Comedy Store in L.A. for 13 years- another spook numerology indicator. From 1995-1999, Rogan moved over to NBC where he played a role on a sitcom. Are you keeping track of all of the corporate connections? So far, we have MTV, FOX, Disney, and NBC , and we’re just getting started. It’s incredible to think that this guy who has fashioned this persona of being smart and interesting is a college dropout who worked in tv sitcoms, the lowest of the low in terms of ‘popular entertainment.’

After the sitcom era, Rogan began working for UFC. I can’t untangle how exactly he landed that gig, but Wiki admits that it was through the influence of SussMAN. Rogan’s role here seems to be to keep young, testosterone-fueled men glued to the tv watching cage fighting instead of getting involved in politics, grassroots organizing, etc.

During this time, Rogan also hosted the NBC shoe ‘Fear Factor.’ I’ve never seen the show as I don’t own a television, but I know it involves paying people to do stupid and gross things like eating spiders and the like. It’s basically the Jews in Hollywood throwing a few shekels at the goyim to make fools of themselves and then laughing about it.

Taking a break from the cesspool  of sitcoms and gross-out television  shows, Rogan starred in his own show, ‘Joe Rogan questions everything’ in which he attempted to flip the entire notion of an open-minded investigator by belittling and mocking not the establishment, but the independent media itself. Watch the program where he attempts to debunk chemtrails to see a blatant example of this.

And finally we arrive at Rogan’s current acting gig, The Joe Rogan podcast. “But wait,” you say, “that’s not an acting job. It’s just Joe giving his thoughts on the world.” No, it isn’t. Rogan has always been an actor. His bio admits as much, in great detail. He performed a role in his sitcoms, his ‘reality shows’, in UFC fights, at his comedy routines, and everywhere else. If you are a listener of Rogan’s podcast, it’s impossible to know what he really believes and what he’s being told to say by his Zionist handlers. One day Rogan stated steadfastly that humans never traveled to the moon and the next day he said the opposite (as he hosted the NWO puppet Neil DeGrasse TySON. (MAN and SON surnames= hoaxers.)

When normal people want to do a podcast, they just set it up at their computer in their living room or bedroom with a simple microphone, wifi connection and go at it. But when JOE ROGAN wants to do a podcast, he rents out an entire building with a sophisticated studio, huge radio microphones, wall-mounted cameras and the like. This tells us that either Rogan is a huge megalomaniac with an inflated ego (and a fat bank account) , or his handlers set the entire operation up.

Rogan admits that he smokes pot before each podcast and that’s he’s stoned throughout the entirety of the show, showing you that he thinks the whole thing is a joke. His listeners apparently haven’t caught on to this. College dropout Rogan includes variants of ‘fuck’ in almost every sentence he utters. His limited vocabulary limits his use of the English language, so that he is rendered to speaking sentences like this: ‘That was just stupid as fuck!’

Note the photos on the wall behind Rogan during is podcast. There are pictures of Elvis Presley and Jimi Hendrix. Why do you think Rogan chose those two particular people to place in the viewer’s eyes? Could it be that Intelligence put them as a marker? Remember, the Intelligence community loves to place these markers as inside jokes, and since Presley and Hendrix were both Intelligence projects, we can connect some dots.

I’ve always thought it was funny to watch Rogan talk with his co-hosts, friends, and guests in the studio. They’re separated by huge consoles , boom mikes, and earphones even though they’re just a few feet from each other. The whole podcast appears to be an operation, and I’m sure it is.

In October of 2015, Rolling Stone magazine published an extensive piece on Rogan. Since RS is owned and run by Intelligence, it makes sense that they would publicize one of their own. Right off the bat, take note of the photo of Rogan RS uses to headline the piece. It’s in black and white, covers half of his face in shadow, and features him frowning malevolently with his bald head and tattooed forearms. Why do you think RS wanted to show him like that? Who instructed the photographer to shoot him in such a way?

The headline proclaims Rogan as a ’21st Century Timothy Leary.’ Just as the MSM will call any enemy of the Anglo-Israeli-American Axis ‘the new Adolf Hitler’, anyone who speaks about psychedelics and gets airtime is called the ‘the new Timothy Leary.’ The problem with that comparison is that it’s nonsense. The only thing Leary and Rogan have in common is that both worked for the CIA.

The article itself, written by some sniveling ‘journalist’ named Eric Hedegaard is painful to read. Before we move on to the article, we should note that Hedegaard is probably a fake name, and Hedegaard  himself probably a fake person altogether. Two ‘e’s in the surname clue us in the hoax, and the double ‘a’ nails it.

The first sentence in the article tells us how awful this piece will be. Here it is: Maybe never in your life do you meet an individual like Joe Rogan. Are there no longer editors working at prominent magazines and newspapers who have even a basic grasp of the English language? From that sentence, it’s not clear at all what the hell the writer is trying to say. He’s probably saying, “I have never met anyone like Joe Rogan.” Or maybe he’s trying to say, “You will never meet a guy like Joe Rogan.” Instead, he mangles the English language. I guess this is the kind of writing RS is looking for these days. The next sentence, incredibly, is just as bad. He’s that singular, in a multivariate kind of way. I had to consult my dictionary to find the definition of multivariate. It relates to statistics and is completely inappropriate to the meaning the writer is searching for. Again, where are the editors? It seems that Hedegaard, whoever and whatever he is, is trying to scramble the readers’ brains, much like what Rogan does in his podcasts.

The grammar and sentence structure in the rest of the article is just as horrific, but I won’t torture you with any more examples. We are told that Rogan is short. It’s a minor detail, but one worth noting. Remember, the vast majority of major stars in Hollywood are short, Jewish, and gay. For the record, Rogan is 5’8″.

Hedegaard  speaks glowingly of Rogan’s use of DMT and other drugs to enhance his consciousness. Nonsense. Rogan doesn’t want people expanding their consciousness. It’s not even Rogan speaking. It’s our governors speaking through him. They want people doing drugs-any drugs. As long as people are sitting at home stoned, stupefied, or navel-gazing, they will pose no threat to the establishment.

Hedegaard tells his readers that Rogan’s podcast ‘is one of the greatest things going.’ Wow. Really? I guess we’re all supposed to become more enlightened when Rogan interviews former porn stars. We’re also told that Rogan ‘shoots himself up with testosterone on a weekly basis’ and that his podcast topics have no rhyme or reason. However, instead of criticizing this lack of focus or even coherence, Hedegaard thinks it’s cool.

Joe Rogan is a huckster of the worst sort. He’s an A-list con man, a guy who has never really had a real job, and a pretender tough guy. Joe Rogan, you are exposed.

 

 

 

 

Is John Oliver a shill? Yes, and much more.

John Oliver is a comedian, television host and political commentator.    Born and raised in England, Oliver is now a permanent resident of the United States and has his own HBO program titled, Last Week Tonight with John Oliver. He honed his comedic skills and earned a reputation working with John Leibovitz and Stephen Colbert on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart (Leibovitz). Oliver even guest-hosted The Daily Show for eight weeks. While Oliver can occasionally be mildly funny when he pokes fun  at establishment figures, he is clearly a paid shill and an establishment tool. Like all the other shills who have recently been uncovered, Oliver has removed his mask and is now blatantly showing Americans, and the world, what he is.

It always surprises me when Americans aren’t suspicious of English nationals coming to America and getting high-profile positions in the media. Don’t we know our history? The British have been invading us and meddling in our affairs for well over 200 years, and yet we give them the benefit of the doubt.

Recently, I thought we had learned a lesson with the Piers Morgan debacle, but now  we have this little weasel  Oliver, who lacks comedic talent, is ugly and obnoxious, shills for Hillary Clinton and mocks the truth community. His fan base, unsurprisingly, is heavily skewed toward urban lefties and hipsters, the same demographic group which propelled Leibovitz and Colbert to their heights of stardom.

Oliver’s wikipedia entry gives very little information on Oliver’s life before his comedic career. However, we are told that his paternal great-great grandfather was a bishop and court chaplain to Queen Victoria, so we know that his family is connected to royal bloodlines. Furthermore, we read that Oliver attended Christ’s College, Cambridge where John Milton and Charles Darwin studied.  Only 450 undergraduates attend Christ’s College; I think that fits the definition of ‘exclusive.’

John Oliver, scion of elites in England going back at least 200 years, a  graduate of an elitist college connected to Cambridge, and all-around liberal wanker who has probably never held a real job in his entire life, now postures as a wise-cracking ‘commentator’ who ‘speaks truth to power.’

What else do we know about Oliver? He has stated  that he is not Jewish,  but in a stand-up routine told his audience that he has always ‘tried to look Jewish.’ Indeed, his facial features  and nose do have a certain Hebraic appearance. My guess is that he is a crypto-Jew like many of his brethren in the mass media and Hollywood. Judge for yourself:

8482959_600x338

Being that Oliver has attained a high-profile position in the Jewish/Zionist media/Hollywood empire, we would also expect him to be gay. Officially, he is married, but this woman Kate Norley could just be his beard. They don’t appear very affectionate in the few photos I’ve seen of them together. And then we have this photo, straight from his wikipedia page:

john_oliver_wyatt_cenac_hug_shankbone

Let’s take a closer look at what Oliver says and does on his HBO show. First, he sits behind his desk and yells. His whole monologue is presented with him screaming at the camera and talking very rapidly. I can only watch him for a minute or two before I have to turn him off. His entire presentation is incredibly irritating to watch. But even more important than what he says is what he does, specifically with his hands. Now that we have nearly every big name Hollywood, music, and athletic celebrity flashing the ‘666’ and Baphomet  signs, Oliver has decided to join the club! I have watched a number of his videos, both his stand-up routines and his HBO program, and he usually flashes the ‘666’ sign within the first ten seconds. He then makes the gesture at least a half-dozen more times during the monologue. Remember, the elite occultists who run this world communicate through SYMBOLS, NUMBERS, AND COLORS. Once you learn this simple fact, decoding what these people are doing becomes child’s play. Turn off the sound and pay attention to the numbers flashing across the screen, the colors in the background and what gestures and symbols are being thrown in your face. They’re  always Freemasonic and Satanic. When Oliver isn’t throwing up the ‘666’ with his right hand,  he is subtly making  the Baphomet horns with left hand. This is all to cue people in to who he is really working for, the Synagogue of Satan.

maxresdefault

Supposing you can actually look at and listen to the weasel, what does he say about the important issues of your day? He came out against Brexit, of course. So anti-establishment! I guess people didn’t hear enough anti-Brexit propaganda from the BBC, the British government and every mouthpiece in the mainstream press. They needed even more propaganda spewing from the mouth of elitist John Oliver. While his pieces on  Trump were, relatively speaking, on point, why weren’t those satirical arrows directed at Hillary Clinton as well? Could it be because of Oliver’s connections to the Clinton Foundation?

His transparent hit piece against so-called ‘conspiracy theorists’ on youtube was a new low for Prince Oliver. He stooped to mocking conspiracy researchers, when a good portion of his listening audience most likely watch many of the mentioned videos. Again, with the mainstream press already producing hundreds, if not thousands, of hit pieces on conspiracy researchers, why did Oliver find it necessary to jump on the pile.? The elitists, through their mouthpiece and talking head John Oliver, are trying to discredit truth seekers. It’s not working.

The first conspiracy Oliver tried to mock was the Denver Airport/Illuminati connection. He yelled and laughed as if the very idea was so silly it wasn’t worth discussing. Hmm, really? Actually, the Denver Airport is, without a doubt, the creepiest airport in the United States, and possibly the world. It is stuffed to the gills with illuminst symbology and anyone who takes five minutes to research this can verify it. Yet, Oliver thinks this is all made up by wacko ‘conspiracy researchers.’  You can tell he is just reading from a script, but it’s a sad and pathetic sight.

Naturally, his show uses a laugh track. It has to. As I stated, Oliver is not funny in the least. I watched a full 30 minutes of his routines while researching this article, and I never chuckled. Not even once. Yet, the laugh track produced huge belly laughs for every single line he uttered. This is Monarch mind control, brought to you by the CIA. You laugh when we tell you to laugh!

 

Some thoughts on The Mandela Effect

The first exposure I had to the Mandela Effect was watching a video about The  Berenstein Bears. Various people were commenting that the books that they grew up reading were called The BerenSTEIN Bears, but now the books were titled The BerenSTAIN  Bears. It wasn’t just the new copies that were being printed either. Google searches revealed nothing except the A spelling, including the Wikipedia entry. I had never read these books as a kid; indeed, I had never even heard of them. So, I didn’t think too much about the issue.

However, it wasn’t long before I came across more videos being posted on YouTube about this phenomenon. Vloggers started posting videos about all sorts of things- books, movies, product names, celebrity names, the map of the world- that had suddenly and inexplicably changed. The Mandela Effect had quickly gone well beyond the Berenstein Bears. After watching a number of these videos, I did my own research, both online and on the street, to verify the veracity of the claims presented. What I quickly found was that the Mandela Effect is real, verifiable, mind-blowing, and frightening. If there is anything else happening on Earth at this moment that remotely compares to this, I’d like to know what it is.

What exactly is The Mandela Effect? It is a phenomenon whereby people notice numerous aspects of our physical reality that are different from their memory of those things. These things can be lines from a movie, a book title, the name of a shampoo, or the map of Asia. People have known something to be a certain way for their whole life, perhaps many decades, and then suddenly they wake up, look around them, and see it is different. This awareness is startling and unsettling.

There are now hundreds, perhaps thousands, of examples of the Mandela Effect that have been catalogued. Facebook groups and YouTube channels devoted exclusively to the cataloguing of effects have been established, as well as discussion groups. The following is a very brief list of some of the more obvious Mandela Effects.  New ones seem to appear almost daily now.

  1. The map of the world.

We humans are now, apparently, inhabiting a completely different planet from the one I grew up on. I say this as someone who has spent his entire life studying maps and atlases. I have a very good grasp of world geography. I know (knew) the shapes and sizes of the continents and countries and their relative placement. The maps that I now encounter when I open an atlas, a textbook, or google maps are nothing like the world as I remember it. South America has now shifted 2,000 miles to the east. Panama has become an East-West country instead of North-South country and the canal now cuts Northwest to Southeast. Cuba has doubled in size, moved a thousand miles to the west, and now practically touches the Yucatan. Florida has shrunk. Denmark now juts up between Norway and Sweden and is much, much further north than it was before. Spain has shifted westward. Italy now points  in a southeasterly direction, instead of southward. Sicily has moved northwestward about 500 km and now touches the tip of Italy.

Moving to Asia, Japan has moved westward and is now much closer to Korea and China. It is far less elongated than it used to be. Australia has moved at least 2,000 km northward to the point that it now almost touches Papua New Guinea and has become part of Asia. This is just a partial list of geographical Mandela Effects. Readers, feel free to investigate this for yourselves, especially if you had an interest in geography as a kid.

Before I move on to some other notable effects, it must be emphasized that this is not a matter of a mere handful of maps being changed, nor is it just the new maps. A search online of old maps, or even a glance into an old atlas printed 30, 40 or even 100 years ago, will show the same bizarre shifting of landmasses. In other words, it is reality itself that has shifted. I have gone into numerous libraries and bookstores since I began investigating the Mandela Effect and have verified this for myself.

2)  Lines from movies.

A) This list keeps growing all the time. Everyone over the age of 40 remembers the famous line from Forrest Gump, “Life is like a box of chocolates.” This has changed to become “Life WAS like a box of chocolates.” Again, this is not just evil google tinkering around with online versions of the movie. Your dusty old VCR copy will now have the updated version with “Was like a box of chocolates.”

B) The famous line from the film Field of Dreams, “If you build it, they will come,” has now become, “If you build it, HE will come.”

C) In the movie Jaws, Roy Scheider now says, “YOU’RE  going to need a bigger boat,” instead of “WE’RE  going to need a bigger boat.”

D) The evil queen in Snow White now says, “MAGIC mirror on the wall, who’s the fairest one of all?” instead of the famous incantation, “MIRROR, mirror, on the wall….”

E) From the 1984 movie Purple Rain, Prince now begins the film by gazing at at the audience and announcing, “Ladies and Gentlemen, we are gathered here tonight to GET THROUGH this thing called life.” WTF? The line was, of course, “Ladies and Gentlemen, we are gathered here tonight to CELEBRATE this thing called life.”

3) Book titles

A) The famous Anne Rice novel Interview with A Vampire has shifted to become Interview with THE Vampire. By now, hopefully you’ve noted that the new lines in movies and new book titles don’t sound quite right and are often nonsensical.

B) The Berenstein Bears have now become The Berenstain Bears.

C) Oscar Wilde’s famous novel The Portrait of Dorian Grey has now shifted in this reality to become The Picture of Dorian Grey. 

Let me take a short digression here to relate an experience I had six months ago when I traveled to Phnom Penh for a weekend. I had been doing a lot of online research about The Mandela Effect, but I wanted more physical evidence. To that end, I ventured into the biggest and best bookstore in the city to have a look around. I walked over to the fiction section and searched for Oscar Wilde. When I pulled the copy of The ‘Picture’ of Dorian Grey off the shelf, my hand was shaking and my heart was pounding in my chest. Here was the hard evidence and it was undeniable. I mean, c’mon! The ‘picture’ ? It doesn’t even make sense! The story revolves around the portrait, hence the title.

To continue with my research, I walked a couple of blocks to a used book store. The friendly owner informed me that he had a large selection of used children’s books. I found four old copies of the BerenSTAIN Bears. The owner was unfamiliar with the books, but when an elderly woman walked in, he introduced her to me and said, “She’s the one to ask about children’s books.”

Our conversation went something like this:

Me: “Hello, are you familiar with the Berenstein Bears books?”

Friendly woman (FW): “Well, I should be. I was a librarian for 40 years!”

Me: “Excellent! So, let me repeat the title, if I may. The books are properly called The BerenSTEIN  Bears, yes? ”

FW: “Yes, they are.”

Me: (Showing her the books that I was holding, with the alternative spelling) “Well then, what do you make of this?”

FW: “What….? Well…… I’ll be damed! (Laughing nervously)

Me: “How do you explain that?

FW: “Well, I guess I must have remembered incorrectly.”

At that point, I tried to impress upon her that it was not the fault of her memory that the title had changed. I suggested that something far more mysterious and creepy had happened and that she should investigate something called The Mandela Effect when she got home.

But here’s the rub when it comes to introducing people to this topic: It’s nearly impossible to discuss it without sounding like a loon to people who are unfamiliar with it. I’ve tried, tentatively, to broach the subject with a few of my close friends. What I try to do is find something they know well, whether it’s maps, movies, books or consumer products,and then point out anomalies. It they say, “Yeah, that doesn’t sound right,” or “Yeah, that’s not the way I remember it,” then I tell them they should do further research themselves.

4) Consumer products

There are now dozens, and perhaps hundreds, of Mandela changes with consumer products. The one that nailed it for me was  Bragg’s Apple Cider Vinegar. I’ve been using Bragg’s products for 30 years. I have read their books. Their names are Paul and Patricia Bragg. Their smiling faces adorn all of their products. I also used the Liquid Amino Acids. So, I’m quite familiar with who they are and their company. And then, whammo! The Mandela Effect struck. The company is now called ‘Bragg.’  Every week when I go to the Western and health food market, I see ‘Bragg’ Apple Cider Vinegar and it never fails to send a shiver down my spine.

5) The human body

According to many Mandela Effect researchers, the human body itself has undergone a transformation in this new reality. The heart has now shifted to the center of the chest and the stomach has moved a number of centimeters to the left. All anatomy charts now show this new configuration.

The preceding list was meant to only be a brief introduction to the Mandela Effect. The list of effects is long and continues to grow. The big question is WHAT IS THE MANDELA EFFECT?  There are a number of theories floating about, all purely speculative at this point.

The first theory is that a certain percentage of humans now alive have relocated, somehow,  to this new ‘Earth’ from an old Earth that was destroyed in a cataclysm. Our residual memories from the old Earth are what is causing the so-called Mandela Effect. Perhaps the old Earth was destroyed in an event in 2012.

Another theory holds that we are now in a parallel dimension, an idea that was postulated and expounded on by Nikola Tesla himself. Readers who might wish to research this further can search on ‘Nikola Tesla’s theories on parallel dimensions.’

Yet another theory postulates that we live in a literal Matrix, very similar to the reality presented in the famous sci-fi cult films. Some kind of Artificial Intelligence (AI) can, and does, manipulate reality at its whim.

John Lamb Lash speculates that the Great Mother Sophia, written about in the Gnostic Gospels, and known also as Mother Gaia, is showing her sense of humor by tweaking reality and having a little bit of fun with homo sapiens.

I am neither dismissing nor leaning toward any of these theories at this point. I surmise that in the near future, more effects will manifest, more people will take note of them, and more theories will be put forth to explain it all. However this all shakes out in the end, one thing is clear: Reality is not what we thought it was and things will never, ever be the same.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My problem(s) with British English

I don’t like British English. Only in the last couple of years did I realize this. I was born and raised in the United States and wasn’t exposed to much British English during my time there; besides watching the occasional Monty Python movie, BBC documentary or BBC newscast, I heard and read little of it.

However, my circumstances have changed. I am currently  teaching English as a second language in Southeast Asia, and my daily exposure to British English has caused me to form some strong opinions about it. This exposure comes in two forms: 1) the local media and 2) the British  ESL textbooks which most, if not all, language centers in Asia use.

The various print media in Asia , including newspapers and magazines, are always written using British spelling and the British lexicon. The ESL textbooks are often printed by Cambridge or Oxford University Presses. If not, they are  printed by  giant publishing houses such as MacMillan (British) and Pearson PLC (British).

Journalists and writers working in Asia use, presumbably, the Oxford Style Manual when composing their articles. They certainly are not using the Associated Press Stylebook or the New York Times Manual of Style and Usage. Hence, when I am perusing the daily newspapers in Saigon, Phnom Penh, or Bangkok, I always read about ‘labour’ disputes, ‘tonnes’ of rice, and ‘programmes.’

This, then,  is my first major complaint with British English: the spelling. Why do the Brits insist on doing stupid things like adding unnecessary letters to words? Program is just fine as it is. It does not require or need an extra m or e to make it more official sounding. It’s the same situation with ton. T-O-N. It’s simple, direct, and to-the-point. Yet, the Brits want to glop on an n and an e to this word as well. And what is with the equally irritating habit of inserting unnecessary u’s into otherwise functional words such as labor, color, neighbor, and favor? I once had a British colleague here tell me that the extra u ‘softened’ the words. Give me a break.

The list of British English words that are spelled nonsensically is too long to list here. However, it should be noted that it is, indeed, a long list. Why spell complection as complexion? That just looks wrong. Where else do we put an ‘x’ into the middle of a word like that?

The British take logically spelled words like center, fiber, theater and liter and insist on transposing the e and r which makes them look retarded. Last week, I came across one of those glossy travel mags that are often left lying around in 4- and 5-star resorts. It was titled ‘Traveller.’ I had to blink to make sure I was reading it correctly. My first thought was, “Is that possibly a typo?” I mean, that’s not how traveler is spelled. But then the idea hit me: “Is that some stupid alternative British spelling?” I looked it up online and sure enough, adding an extra ‘l’ to words like that is standard practice in the British Isles. Thanks, Oxford and Cambridge.

It gets worse. Words like maneuver and estrogen are bludgeoned  with extra o’s in Brit-land. Just look at this word: manoeuvre. Does that look correct? Yes, I know we stole that one from the French, but we are using English, so let’s use the spelling that makes the most sense and reflects how we pronounce it.

British slang words and phrases are equally tiresome. This too is a long list. Let’s begin with one of the worst- knickers. Does that word conjure an image of something colorful, silky, and sexy under a woman’s skirt? No, not at all. The word panty however does conjure that image. Score one for the Americans.

A Brit might say, “What about the word herb? You Americans, for no logical reason, don’t pronounce the h while we do. Now who’s the silly one?”   It’s a fair observation, but I’m inclined to think the hippies (American)  had a hand in this one. You see, hippies have for a long time used herb as a synonym for marijuana. Every day at 4:20 p.m., they sit down and say, “It’s time to smoke some herb (silent h).  Any hippie will tell you that word rolls off the tongue  so much more smoothly when the hard h is dropped. ‘Erb’ just sounds sexier than Herb. So even here, Americans have been on the right track.

If you live in a room, or group of rooms, inside a building, then you live in an apartment. It’s not a ‘flat.’ That word is properly used to mean ‘level.’ If I am interested in something, then I am, well, interested in it. I am most certainly not keen on it. If I am really interested, then I might say that I am excited about it.

When I was growing up, the word brilliant always meant ‘having or showing great intelligence.’ However, it seems that over the decades more and more meanings have been attached to this overused word, thanks to our British friends who love to use it like confetti: a brilliant goal, a brilliant show, etc. In these circumstances, there’s always a better, more precise word to use in the context, if they would but try.

The loathsome recent trend of saying ‘sorry’ whenever ‘excuse me’ used to suffice must have been started in Great Britain. There’s no way brusque and direct Americans would initiate such a tortured  assault on meaning. Hell, they’re even teaching this now in textbooks!  Seriously. Chapters that teach phone manners, social gatherings and such state that when you interrupt, ask directions, or bump into somebody, you should say ‘sorry’ instead of ‘excuse me.’

Hey Brits, percent is one word, not two. It’s a synonym for percentage, you know. I don’t care if the dictionary says that both spellings are acceptable. The American usage is better and more commonsensical, as usual. And finally, the woman who gave birth to you is your Mom, not your Mum.  Listen to a baby calling for his mama. It sounds like MOM-A, never like MUM-A.  Let’s keep the word Mum with its proper meaning- silent.

 

 

 

The Rise and Fall of Zen Gardner

People who follow the so-called ‘alternative media’ know Zen Gardner and his popular eponymous website. From the site’s beginning, it  attracted a loyal readership and fan base. When I first happened upon Zen’s site back in 2012, I was immediately drawn to it. I was impressed with the elegant design and  the articles.

The articles were drawn from a broad range of writers, bloggers, vloggers, and free thinkers. Most of them took an unconventional perspective on the issues facing our planet and species and were edgy enough so that the site couldn’t be dismissed as New Age escapism.

I really liked the streamlined design, with a bare minimum of advertising and  click bait. Many of the writers whose articles I read stretched my mind and enlarged my view on world events. During the first couple of years I visited the site, I wasn’t even aware that there was a person named ‘Zen Gardner.’  He didn’t post his own articles at that time and I thought the name of the website was just a homage to Zen Buddhism.

However, by late 2014 and into  2015, a noticeable shift began to occur. First, the website  underwent a dramatic redesign. The streamlined design was jettisoned in favor of one with far more advertising; furthermore, the advertising was sponsored by that evil Israeli-run company, Taboola,  After reading through the list of articles on the home page, readers were confronted with a TMZ-esque smorgasbord of celebrity gossip stories. To see this advertising on Zen’s site was jarring, and I was shocked to see that few of his readers objected to it in the forum section.

The next major shift to occur was the appearance of Zen Gardner himself from ‘out of the shadows,’ so to speak. Suddenly, his articles were at the top of the homepage, and he began to write prolifically. Although many of his supposed fans in the forum were effusive in their praise of his writing ability, I never thought much of it. All of the articles were a rehash of the same theme: ‘the shift of the ages is occurring, we are ‘riding the waves’ of seismic change, hold on to your hat, stay centered, blah, blah, blah. ‘The content was uninspiring, derivative, and repetitive. The writing itself was of poor quality, though again few, if any, of the readers seemed to notice. Zen also started doing dozens of interviews, all of which were of course posted on the top menu bar. When I first heard his voice, I had an uncomfortable feeling. His voice just didn’t resonate with me; it was high-pitched- almost feminine- and didn’t sound like an enlightened man in his late 60s.

Next, the content of the aggregated articles changed markedly. The hard, edgy content of the previous years was replaced by hundreds of gloppy, syrupy, new-agey fluff pieces. Most of the newer articles  focused on how to meditate and what foods to eat. Linked videos of George Carlin and Bill Hicks appeared almost daily, apparently to attract hipsters.

The appearance of in-your-face advertising and  new age writing, coupled with  the  deliberate cultivation of the cult around ‘Zen Gardner’ set off alarm bells in my mind. I sensed something very wrong was happening and surmised that perhaps the site, and its founder, had been co-opted by Intelligence. Here and there, a few thought-provoking articles still appeared, but the new direction was clear.

When I read Zen’s revelations last month about his time spent in a pedophile cult, I was shocked and disturbed, as was everyone. I read his utterly unconvincing explanations for this episode of his life. I also followed the subsequent articles he wrote where he attempted to douse the flames and claim that those who were exposing him were merely on a witch hunt  and should examine their own skeletons instead of lambasting him. To see so many of his groupie fans defending and coddling him, including Jon Rappaoport, was disheartening and disgusting.

There is much food for thought here in this sad drama and some hard lessons to be learned for everyone who participates in the alternative media, whether as a producer or consumer. Was ‘Zen Gardner’ , aka Don Ferguson, a CIA plant who was set up from the beginning to fail, and bring his followers down with him?  I think it’s quite possible. In fact, until I see a more plausible explanation, that is the one I am going with.

It’s also a possibility that he began with good intentions but was turned to the dark side by the powers-that-be. As I have shown above, it’s quite easy to trace the arc of the site’s downward spiral and see when and how it lost its way.

For those of us who wade daily into the realm of truth-seeking, we need to be ever on -guard. Those who at first glance appear to be on our side often turn out to be gatekeepers, shills, double agents, spooks, and monsters. We must use our intuition at all times and bring people to task when they fail to live up to their rhetoric. We have seen so many big names come crashing down in the last few years: Alex Jones, Joe Rogan, Mark Dice, Jesse Ventura, Gerald Celente, Jeff Rense, Jeff C, and many, many more have been exposed. Zen Gardner has now joined this infamous club of shame. We should have seen it coming.

 

 

 

The destruction of language

In December of 2014, I wrote an article about the destruction of language and grammar. Since that time, the trend has accelerated. Wherever we look- in newspapers, magazines, blogs, emails, textbooks, novels, and everyday conversation- we can observe the rapid disintegration of the ability to use the English language with any degree of facility, fluency, and grammatical correctness.

The English language is under attack from many directions. From the top, it is under assault from the ruling powers, commonly known as the NWO. Their agenda is clear: dumb down the masses by inverting and changing the meaning of words and muddle people’s brains by making a mishmash of all accepted grammatical rules. Since they control all of the media, their power and influence to carry out such an agenda is considerable. Hence, whenever you read a story from any large news organization,  it is quite easy to see the actual workings of this plan. The paragraph form has now almost completely disappeared from news articles, replaced by one and two sentence snippets. Any academic words above a third grade level have been excised, replaced with simple and easy-to-understand words and phrases which will require no one to consult a dictionary.

Academia has been thoroughly and definitively infiltrated and compromised by these same elites and interests. The written word, which formerly constituted 99 percent  of textbooks, now occupies, at best, only half of the course book. The  other 50 percent is now taken up with color photos, mostly of celebrities. What little text there is does nothing to challenge readers.

 

3e5b7a0a117441571b172474d3ce06c8

English is also being worn away from below. English is, for better or worse, the lingua franca of our time. All over the world, English is being learned by native speakers of hundreds of different languages. The vast majority of these students attain only an advanced beginner or intermediate level of speaking and writing. Before they have mastered the use of all of the verb tenses, the paragraph, cohesion, and coherency, they are using what they know in the real world. These non-native speakers combine their limited grasp of grammar with the slang, colloquialisms, and texting / internet lingo they pick up from the media and friends.

Though the attacks from above and below would probably be sufficient to complete the annihilation of English, there are other powerful forces  that we must contend with: tech gadgets such as smartphones and social media. It would be impossible to overstate the damage that has been inflicted upon language and grammar from smartphones, Facebook, twitter, and texting.

Smartphones, tablets, and all touchscreen devices by their very nature discourage not only academic and literary writing but also any coherent thinking whatsoever. How can one construct a detailed and persuasive letter or essay by typing with their thumbs on a flat screen? It simply can’t be done. The technology itself ensures that.

Facebook provided the initial impetus for people to jettison grammar rules and proper punctuation when posting comments. Everyone began to throw up quick comments on their friends’ walls without bothering to check if it looked or sounded correct. Twitter was the final nail in the coffin. Just as touch screen technology actively discourages long, careful, and disciplined writing, Twitter forbids it. Since only a limited number of characters are allowed, subjects, prepositions, adverbs and more must be thrown by the wayside. Pronoun  subjects  have  suffered a death blow from Twitter. Nowadays, instead of “I was elated at the news of his marriage,” we have “Elated. Great news.”  This TwitterEnglish has now  insidiously permeated into many other forms of written language.  More and more, I notice that when my friends and family send me emails, they omit the subject from the majority of their sentences. Typically, the emails  read like this: “Went to the store yesterday. Saw an old friend. Came home late. Considering a vacation out West this year. Worried about my friend…” etc.

 

zombies

Finally, we must also mention YouTube. If you want to see just how far down the destruction of language can go, simply spend a few minutes reading the comments of any popular YouTube video. Every time I think a nadir has been reached, the bottom falls out and it plunges down further still. Probably the most prevalent comment on YouTube is ‘U r an idiot. LOL.’  I’ve been wondering lately if all of the comments like that are from real flesh and blood readers and how many are produced by paid trolls at Langley, Virginia and computer programs. That may sound far-fetched, but it shouldn’t. The NWO wants to discourage, by all means possible, rational dialogue and real, honest discourse. Why wouldn’t they be active on YouTube, dropping millions of dopey and insulting comments, thereby dragging down the overall level of communication and discouraging people from talking to one another?

 

 

 

The fake stock market, irrational fear, and our manufactured reality

If you follow the news headlines, especially the business news, then you undoubtedly are aware of the recent activity in the markets, i.e. the stock markets of the U.S.A. and other industrialized countries. Various fear-inducing words and the typical hyperbole associated with newsroom headline writers have been employed liberally. The verbs  ‘plummeting’ and ‘plunging’  have appeared almost daily.

Oh, how I tire of this nonsense. Is there anyone out there still who takes this reporting seriously or who remains unaware that the markets are fake? The numbers are cooked; they are rigged. The Dow at 16,000? How is that possible? Under what conception of reality do they operate where the market could be valued so high?

Remember the financial crisis of 2008? Has the U.S. actually recovered from that? Have the root causes of that crisis been addressed and rectified and have the wounds healed? Is the U.S. now a healthy, vibrant economy with strong fundamentals?  The answer is, of course, no to all of the above. All of the fundamentals remain weak. The U.S. still runs a budget deficit and the debt remains astronomical. Unemployment remains high. The economy is supported by little more than consumer shopping which is propelled by the accumulation of yet more debt.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average has lost some of its value since the beginning of the year and people are hyperventilating. However, on Friday, the market ‘bounced back’ and ‘recovered’ some of its losses as ‘bargain hunters’ swooped in blah, blah, blah. This is the good old ‘plunge protection team’ at work. We have seen this invisible hand at work again and again over the last twenty years. Every time there is a hiccup in the market and the Dow  loses a few hundred points and everyone starts predicting that this is the beginning of the end,  it starts creeping back up and within a few days, the Dow is right back where it started! So, what about the cause of the original crash two weeks ago? Was that fixed so quickly? No. I have witnessed this cycle occur every couple of years and now it’s become stale. The Dow Jones and Wall Street is little more than a high-tech reality show meant to keep the masses mesmerized with lots of flashing screens and numbers and to convince them that the health of the banksters and the elite equates to their own health. Time to turn off the television.

The decline and fall of conversation:The smartphone’s effect on our ability to meet, greet, and speak

People are quickly losing the ability to talk to one another. A residual  capacity still exists, but it is evaporating so fast that I may witness its extinction in my lifetime. The roots of this problem can be traced back as far as the invention of the telegraph more than 180 years ago but the advent of the smartphone has now vastly accelerated the decline of face to face speaking skills. Oratory, rhetoric, public speaking, and clarity of speech have likewise suffered greatly.

When I was growing up in the time before cellphones, I recall the numerous opportunities I had to meet and converse with strangers. Luckily, my parents never discouraged me from interacting with strangers unlike today’s parents who are told by well-meaning but misguided ‘authorities’ that they should inform their kids to ‘never talk to strangers.’

Indeed, the chances to meet new people, chat, make small talk, and possibly make a new friend or acquaintance  were endless. However, all of those situations where formerly we were encouraged or at least allowed to chat up a stranger are now gone, thanks to the smartphone.

7-26-2012-4-57-30-PM-300x169

If you found yourself in an elevator with someone and you were both riding up to a high floor, you may not have had a lot of time, but perhaps it was just enough to offer a “It’s going to be a hot day, that’s for sure,” to the person standing next to you. And that may have led to a reply of “Oh, you got that right. And my air conditioner broke last night and I was miserable because my room was so hot.”  And then you could commiserate with this person. The next time you ran into him you might continue the conversation by asking about the air conditioner. See? It was so simple. Now, I notice that everyone, once they have boarded the elevator, immediately takes out their phone to text to avoid the uncomfortable feeling of standing next to a stranger for a few seconds.

The introduction of televisions into airplanes guaranteed that people would no longer speak to one another on long plane rides though they were a few hold-outs who stubbornly insisted on having conversations with the person sitting next to them. Nowadays, with everyone carrying a smartphone, tablet, or laptop, even those hold-outs have disappeared. Most people don’t even wait for take-off to get plugged into their cyber-world. They cast nary a glance at the person who they will be sitting mere inches from for the next 10 hours. You, the person sitting next to this new species of cyborg, are irrelevant; actually, you don’t even exist.

Buses, too, have now installed televisions and wi-fi, and predictably people now no longer talk there either. I recall riding the Greyhound Bus on long trips up and down the West Coast and making some wonderful friends in the pre-television and pre wi-fi days.

Coffeeshops, bars, and restaurants used to be places where one could meet a stranger and start up a conversation, especially if one of you was reading a book. A glance at the front cover of a book was always an easy introduction into a chat. “That book looks interesting. I’ve heard of that author but have never read anything by her. Is it good?” Your interest in the book, and literature in general, was usually sufficient to show that you were not a creep and could hold a reasonably decent intellectual conversation. These days, nobody brings books into cafes or restaurants. It’s all about the smartphone now and no one is going  to ask you what you are looking at on your phone. Furthermore, when people read books, although they were concentrating, they were still present in the here-and-now world. Not so with the smartphone. The iphone and its ilk draw people deep into a cyberworld, an alternate reality. People lose all awareness of the real world. They don’t know who is sitting in front of, next to, or behind them, and don’t care.

12425746-Beautiful-young-girl-reading-a-book-in-Parisian-street-cafe-Stock-Photo

Because of the addictive nature of the smartphone, people, especially the young, have an extremely difficult time putting it down for even a few minutes. Hence, even if you are able to punch through their psychic wall and begin a conversation, it will inevitably peter out in a short time. The phone being held tightly in the palm of the hand begs to be used. It is insistent. If the conversation lulls for any reason, the one holding the smartphone will start texting or browsing the web and the talk is done. Finished.

Look at people today waiting at a bus stop for the bus to arrive. Look at the poor, lonely souls waiting in the queue at the supermarket or at the bank. Are they talking? No. They are checking their facebook or instagram. Look at the friends and families sitting in cars at traffic lights. Talking to each other? No- all looking at their phones. I used to work at an office where everyone would take their lunch tray back to their desk to  eat while watching youtube. Nobody was interested in sitting at a table and eating with friends and engaging in that age-old ritual called ‘conversation.’

 

 

Dissecting more techno cheerleaders in the media. Case study: the iPad in classrooms

For writers, bloggers  and so-called journalists working in the media today, playing to the prejudices of their readers is part of their job. This is especially true for journalists and columnists who write about technology. When your readership consists of people who own a smartphone (or two), a tablet, and a laptop, reminding them that they are ‘cool,’  and ‘cutting edge’ will earn you a loyal following.

Let’s examine a recent article from the same glossy magazine which we looked at in my previous article. The author is a grade 2 homeroom teacher at a well-known international school in Ho Chi Minh City. The article is only six paragraphs long. The editors could have made it longer but chose to use one third of the page to post a color photo of a seven-year-old girl with a huge smile on her face holding an Ipad. We haven’t even gotten to the first sentence and already we know what direction the article is going to take. The upper right hand corner of the page has a professional photo of the author, an attractive woman in her 20s with perfect teeth who is smiling broadly. We, the readers, have been set up nicely to drink the  kool-aid which is being served.

The title of the article is “Techie Students- How tablets have enhanced learning.” The author wastes no time establishing her thesis which she posits clearly in the first sentence, stating…”using iPads in the classroom has been ideal for promoting new ways of learning.” Hmm,’promoting new ways of learning.’ That’s a big statement. She claims that the iPad is not just a tool which can be used in addition to books, but that it helps us learn in new ways.  If she means that all the lessons can now be given on the computer with bright flashing graphics, cartoon characters, and games, than I guess that qualifies.

The following sentence reads like an advertisement from Apple: “The iPad is a perfect digital tool for our young learners because it’s small, portable, visual, and hands-on..” Hey, this woman could be a sales rep. The author goes on to say that she avoids using it as a form of entertainment but rather as a way to empower her students to channel their interests and for ‘discovery, creation and collaborative learning.’ That’s wonderful, but can’t all of those things be done just as well without iPads or computers? Can’t you ‘discover’ things in books? Do you need a computer to create something beautiful and meaningful? All you need to create is a pencil and piece of paper. Or a canvas and paintbrushes. Or an instrument.

It gets worse. The author claims that ‘the tablets are excellent for developing research skills.’ No, they aren’t. Tablets do not develop research skills. I also work with ‘young learners’ and I can tell you that their research skills are generally very deficient, in spite of the fact that they spend hours per day on computers. Punching in a search term on google does not qualify as ‘research skills.’ Here’s how most students today do ‘research’ : They enter a term on google. They quickly choose either the first or second entry that appears on the screen, rarely even scrolling to the bottom of the page and practically never going beyond page one of search results. They don’t know how to distinguish between different sources and none of them understand that wikipedia is  fallible and biased.

Checking their Facebook in lecture hall:

amn-g2

I’m only on the third paragraph but the writer’s insipid line of reasoning and her ‘rah-rah’ cheerleading for the the techno-school has left me somewhere between complete boredom and frustration. Check out this line: “Less cumbersome and more effective than dictionaries, we often use google translate or google images when coming across unknown words or concepts.” Is she kidding? A dictionary is ‘cumbersome?’ Actually, looking up words in dictionaries utilizes ancillary skills and often will lead students to other unfamiliar words as they are flipping through the pages. Punching in a word on google requires you to use far less of your brain  than looking it up in a dictionary, but this clueless teacher is so caught up in her flashing lights of her screens that she can’t see that. And Google Translate? If this teacher has really  used it, then she must know that the translations between languages are often horribly wrong. She’s teaching her students that google is God. She claims that she is ’empowering’ them, when what she is really doing is making them into little robotic consumers of digital garbage.

The author claims her grade 2 students are becoming ‘independent in their learning.’ Wow. I’ve read somewhere that Mozart was independent in his learning when he was seven years old, but that’s the only example I can think of. What does this woman think her students are going to do when teacher is not around? Do research on the causes of the French Revolution? No. They will play computer games or go into Facebook. Surely she knows that and we the readers know that, but she thinks her audience is so stupid that she can throw out this drivel and nobody will call her on it.

Who needs books?

831718-ipads

Techno teacher then tells us that she has her students make movies during class time using iMovie. The students even made a zombie movie! Yippee! After hyping iMovie, she then goes on to hype another app, this one called ‘Comic Life.’ You can guess where this is all leading.

This article is about as one-sided as you can get. It, and so many similar articles in the media, pitch the argument that ‘technology is great.’ Also, ‘technology enhances learning.’ And most of all, ‘technology empowers people.’

Since most parents today buy their young children smart phones and tablets by the time they are able to walk, the author is simply cozying up to them and telling them that they are doing the right thing. Furthermore, the school is staying at the cutting edge by ‘utilizing the latest technology in the classroom.’  Digital content and techno learning has not made us any smarter and never will. I suggest the author obtain a copy of “The Dumbest Generation” by  Mark Bauerlein and carefully read it before she writes any more articles.