On conspiracy theories

The terms "conspiracy theories" and "conspiracy theorists" are thrown around a lot these days.
According to Wikipedia, "Conspiracy theory is a term that originally was a neutral descriptor for any claim of civil, criminal or political conspiracy. However, it has become largely pejorative and used almost exclusively to refer to any fringe theory which explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by conspirators of almost superhuman power and cunning."

Interestingly, Wikipedia nonetheless feels the need to use what it sees as a pejorative to describe the controlled demolition hypothesis of the WTC collapse. It gets even more hilarious when one visits the article on the Climategate scandal. The article is not named Climategate, but instead it is named the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident. Wikipedia justifies this by mentioning: "Article names are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality to satisfy Wikipedia's neutral point of view requirements. The use of "scandal" or "-gate" frequently implies wrongdoing or a particular point of view. Such terms are words to avoid and should not be used in article titles."

Climategate could perhaps best be described as the scandal that proved the conspiracy theorists were right. When a scientist upset about his works being cast in doubt writes that to his fellow climatologists that "we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal", or explains that he "can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report", and "will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!", he describes a conspiracy to prevent contrarian views from ever receiving wider attention. Of course, conspiracies have happened on plenty of occasions in the past.

Your history books consist mostly of stories of conspiracies. Not one war was fought without people who stood to gain from them, and expanding empires was a common motive for any war. However, those who started the war always lied to the people by coming up with a different reason the war had to be fought.

Some conspiracies were worse than just greed, but seem to have been motivated due to pure hatred. One of the most horrific conspiracies happened during World War II, when people coming from all branches of the German government conspired to round up Jewish people, homosexuals, gypsy's, and many others. Emaciated children and their families were shoved into chambers, where they were given the idea they would get a shower. Men repeatedly dropped pellets of lethal poisonous gas into these chambers as they listened to their screams. It should come as no surprise that many people aware of these facts have a general distrust for those in positions of power.

History books have wilder stories than most conspiracy theorists these days do. In fact, they will alert you to the fact that most of the world was run by a small group of people who were all related by blood or marriage. What were these people called? Rothschilds, Rockefellers, or perhaps Freemasons? No, they were simply called kings and queens.

However, something incredible has happened in the last few decades. Suddenly, not a single action powerful people take is part of a conspiracy anymore. When western nations invaded other nations, we called it colonialism, or before that crusades. But these days, western nations no longer engage in empire building, and nobody tries to make a profit anymore by seizing other people's land.

Better yet, somehow something changed, which causes the general population to rule the country they live in these days. For some reason, the powerful people decided they no longer feel the need to control a government, but now think it is a good idea to let the people they used to rule do this themselves.

That is, in the 1st world, and only according to people who live in the 1st world.
According to people who live in the 1st world, the 3rd world still seems to suffer from conspiracies on a daily basis. Tiny groups of rich people rule the 3rd world nations, and do not want to help the people in the nations they control. Instead, they are greedy, and only want to make money. In some cases they even conspire with other people, to secretly murder their opponents, and commit genocide on large groups of people. People in 1st world nations have plenty of conspiracy theories about 3rd world nations.

Of course, conspiracy theories do not necessarily have to be wrong. However, because these days we only use the term against people who say things that have the potential to make us lose sleep, it is generally meant to imply that the theory referred to is wrong. And the people who make us lose sleep, are the minority of people in 1st world nations who believe in conspiracy theories, not about 3rd world nations, but about the 1st world nations they live in themselves.

These are the type of people who dare to say that not much has changed in the past centuries, and that the type of conspiracies they read about in their history books still go on today. According to these people, who are most often meant when someone uses the term "conspiracy theorist", countries still try to create empires, wars are still fought for profit, and the population of a country still does not decide who rules the place they live in. Instead, according to the conspiracy theorists, the people who rule their country do not want to appear with their face on television, and come up with excuses why we have to fight the wars they start.

And indeed, not only people in 1st world nations are shocked to hear that they are not governed by people who want to take good care of them. A friend who lives in China recently explained to me how the government in China "sometimes does things wrong but means well".

Interestingly enough, the people in the 3rd world have plenty of conspiracy theories about 1st world countries as well. They may very well find themselves agreeing with the "conspiracy theorists" in 1st world nations. For example, most people in Egypt believe that Israel carried out the terrorist attacks on 9/11.1 In many other 3rd world nations, the majority of people say that they do not know who was responsible.

Some of the conspiracy theories that people have about 3rd world nations have turned out to be wrong, despite most people in the 1st world believing them. For example, most people believe that Saddam Hussein and his government conspired to murder the Kurdish people who lived in Halabja using chemical weapons. However the Iraqi government could not be responsible for this, due to the fact that the victims mouths and extremities were blue2, which indicates exposure to cyanide.3

Iran had chemical weapons back then based on cyanide, Iraq however, did not. Thus, a far more likely explanation is that Iran used the chemical weapons on this Kurdish village, in an attempt to murder the Iraqi forces who had only recently left this village. This means there was not an Iraqi conspiracy, but instead Iranian actions that resulted in an act of mass murder that killed innocent Kurdish civilians.

Interestingly, conspiracy theories that a minority of people in the 1st world, and many in the 3rd world have about the 1st world governments and elites, are often proved to be accurate. A recent example includes the Climategate scandal I mentioned earlier. Conspiracy theorists claimed that global warming was a scientific fraud, meant for a nefarious purpose. The leaked e-mails proved them right. Many conspiracy theorists believed one of the goals of the conspiracy was to prevent Africa from developing. James Shikiwati for example claims that:
"there's somebody keen to kill the African dream. And the African dream is to develop."

He and others were proved to be right, when during the recent conference in Copenhagen, a leaked text revealed that the 1st world nations had planned a new proposal that would increase their power, and allow the 1st world nations to emit far more CO2 than the 3rd world nations.4
George Soros wanted the 3rd world nations to borrow money, to be allowed to emit CO2, thus saddling them with more debt.5

It is time for the term conspiracy theory to be reclaimed by those who adhere to alternative explanations of current world events. Most of historical world events have later been proved to have been the result of conspiracies that centered around struggles for money and power. The conspiracy theorist is gifted, in that he manages to recognize conspiracies as they unfold, without being affected by the propaganda as strongly as those around him are.

Obama's genocide: Forced starvation by destroying food

This article is a continuation of one of my previous articles, Starvation is used as a political weapon.
(On a side note, apologies for the recent lack of updates, this is due to an increased burden of work. More articles are underway.)

Malnutrition contributes to between 3.5 and 5 million annual deaths of children under 5 years of age.1 Meanwhile, in 2009, 107 million tons of grain were turned into fuel for American cars. This was enough to feed 330 million people for one year at average world consumption levels.2
In 2009 we reached a new record of more than 1 billion people who are undernourished.

The man we can thank for this is none other than Barack Hussein Obama. It was Obama who voted in favor of subsidies for ethanol fuel.3 Make no mistake, Obama is aware of what he has caused. In 2008 he said that "there’s no doubt that biofuels may be contributing" to falling food supplies and rising prices.4

However, under his presidency, the use of grain ethanol has only increased. Obama has done nothing for the hundreds of millions who can not even afford enough food to survive due to rising prices. Of course the United States is not the first nation to use food as a weapon. Nazi Germany did the same in Eastern Europe to the Jewish and Slavic people.5

There is no point in debating the issue, since ethanol is not even an efficient fuel. Ethanol fuel requires 6 times the amount of energy to be produced than it actually contains.6 Thus, it also causes more greenhouse gas emissions (a non-issue to begin with) than it prevents. In fact, it causes more greenhouse gas emissions than natural gas, diesel, and gasoline.7

Issues such as these have a tendency to be turned into a debate, something "controversial" with multiple supposed advantages and disadvantages to it, with of course every allegation of malicious intentions kept outside of the mainstream debate. This allows anyone involved to claim ignorance when the horrendous effects of his actions become apparent, and allows a policy to remain unchanged for years or even decades after it has been implemented.

An issue that would be more accurately described as "Destroying food to bring about an artificial malthusian catastrophe to satisfy the ever growing bloodlust of a criminal network of social darwinists and prevent the developing world from ever changing the current balance of power versus feeding the world's population and thus allowing the 3rd world to develop" is turned into "food vs fuel".

It does not take a genius to figure out that destroying decent food to produce fuel (the process of turning it into fuel serving as little more than the excuse needed to destroy decent food) will cause food shortages. Thus we have no reason to expect anything other than malicious intentions. Especially with the facts in the back of our minds that the United States had plans to poison Afghanistan's food supplies8, had a plan to destroy Japan's food supplies9, and developed weaponized stemrust10.

Nazi Germany had done none of these things, but nonetheless we manage to correctly identify it's policy of shipping food from Eastern Europe to Germany as an intentional form of population reduction in Eastern Europe. When it comes to the United States and it's policy of biofuel use however, our psychological immune system causes us to blame "incompetence", or at most "human greed" or "special interests". However, if the goal were anything other than the destruction of food supplies a source of ethanol other than corn or grain would be used.

To those of you who want to personally start helping to solve this problem, I have two suggestions. My first suggestion is to reduce your intake of animal products, if not, completely eliminate it. In other words, stop eating so much meat. It's not doing your body any good either. My second suggestion is to help promote the use of hemp. It is an excellent food source and it's "waste" products make an efficient biofuel. It is full of protein, healthy, and grows incredibly fast, from which it has earned it's reputation as a weed.

To maintain the current system of profit and power for a select few and suffering for the rest of humanity that is commonly described as capitalism or corporatism, it is essential to prevent widespread use of this plant. For now I encourage you to browse the internet for yourself, but expect more on both of these subjects in another article at some point in the future.

Coming soon: Chemotherapy drugs in your food

If there is any single neurotoxic additive out there that is worse than all others, it would have to be Monosodium Glutamate (MSG). It is used as a flavor enhancer, and due to the damage it causes, it is no longer allowed to be added to food intended for babies or young children. It used to be added to infant formula, but congressional hearing in which researchers spoke out against the dangers of MSG caused the companies to stop adding MSG to infant formula. Instead, they now add other ingredients, with a similar effect, these ingredients are: Free Glutamic Acid, and Free Aspartic Acid. Why are these ingredients so dangerous? The reason is, that our body uses Glutamic Acid and Aspartic Acid as neurotransmitters. Free Glutamic Acid is naturally found in low quantities in food high in protein. It is involved in the "reward system" of the brain. The human body needs protein, and the presence of free glutamic acid reveals (at least in nature) that food is high in protein. When the glutamic acid reaches the brain, it triggers a response from the neurons, which is meant to reward the person for the food he eats.

Of course, such a system is easily abused, by adding free glutamic acid to a person's food. Food manufacturers would stand to gain by adding glutamic acid to food low in protein, because it would make the food more attractive, and they could get away with adding less real protein. Of course, in a free market system in which the competition is murderous, this is exactly what happened. The problem here is however, that when the neurons are exposed to too much glutamic acid, this causes them to die. This process is called excitotoxicity. Sciencedaily.com explains:

"Excitotoxicity is the pathological process by which neurons are damaged and
killed by the overactivations of receptors for the excitatory neurotransmitter
glutamate, such as the NMDA receptor and AMPA receptor."

It needs no mentioning that the death of brain cells can cause a problem to human health. In fact excitotoxicity, plays a role in Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's, and even Autism. It needs to be said that it is not clear, that excitotoxicity causes these diseases. It could also be that excitotoxicity itself is the result of other causes, however, the fact of the matter is that excitotoxicity worsens these diseases, and scientists are looking for ways of treating them by stopping the excitotoxicity.

Monosodium Glutamate as a food ingredient plays a role in infertility and obesity as well. The best way to summarize the effects of MSG is by saying that like Fluoride, is attacks every gland of the body. A study that found kidney damage in rats exposed to MSG mentioned that it causes damage to the testicles as well. In studies in humans in China it was found that it causes Obesity, regardless of the level of food intake (the level of which is increased by higher MSG intake, because MSG increases hunger). What needs to be kept in mind with all animal studies however, is that humans are far more sensitive to the effects of free glutamic acid in food than other animals.

Because MSG damages the hypothalamus, it causes the body to release less growth hormone releasing factor, and thus those exposed grow op stunted. This is linked to the lower body size, and higher rate of obesity, in animals treated with MSG.
Scientists from Germany believe they have found the cause of the global obesity epidemic. They discovered that obese people, especially males, have on average a lower body height. They believe that Monosodium Glutamate is responsible for the global epidemic of obesity that is threatening to reverse the rise in life expectancy in the United States, and reduce it by up to 5 years.

It is reminiscent of claims that humanity is splitting into two species, with a tall lean highly intelligent upperclass, and a stunted obese goblin-like braindamaged underclass. It seems the ideal way to create such a split would be by feeding the underclass food filled with excitotoxins. It is not necesarily the case that it is done with this purpose in mind, but it is indeed having this effect.

Then there is the other excitotoxin, Aspartic acid. It is used in the production of Aspartame. The history of Aspartame is rooted in chemical warfare. It was developed by G.D. Searle in 1965.
G.D. Searle was owned by William L. Searle, a freemason of the Grand Island Lodge. William L. Searle began his career in the 1950's, when he worked in Korea in the Army Chemical Corps.
The Army Chemical Corps was involved in both chemical, and biological warfare.
Later, Donald Rumsfeld became the CEO of Searle, and used his political connections to get Aspartame approved. Because the FDA was not yet controlled by criminals it refused to support the approval of Aspartame, and in fact requested in 1977 for Searle to be criminally indicted for it's falsification of studies into the satefy of aspartame. He was also part of Reagan's transition team, while still CEO of Searle. This team hand-picked Dr. Arthur Hull Hayes, Jr., to be the new FDA commissioner. Hayes worked for the Army Medical Corps at Fort Detrick in the 60's.

In cancer patients, an enzyme produced by bacteria is used in chemotherapy, it is named asparaginase. The reason it is used is because cancer cells often produce less of an amino-acid named asparagine than normal healthy human cells, and thus they need a dietary source of asparagine. What asparaginase does is converting this amino acid named asparagine into aspartic acid, thus making sure that cancer cells do not get the asparagine they need. The problem here is that aspartic acid works like glutamic acid as I mentioned earlier, both are excitotoxins that damage the brain.

It should come as no surprise that 25 to 50% of adult patients who are given asparaginase suffer from side effect such as confusion, depression, hallucinations and personality changes. It is also thought to cause cancer, infertility, and harm to unborn children.
Whether it actually works against cancer or not is disputed, researchers claim they have seen no improvement in people given Asparaginase, and due to the side effects it has they recommend ending it's use.

However, a new use has now been found for asparaginase. Health Canada is asking Canadians if they would support using the enzyme asparaginase in baked and fright food. Canada is not the first nations to come up with this idea, it is following the lead of Singapore, the Netherlands, Australia, New Zealand, Switzerland, Denmark, Mexico and Russia.
The idea is that asparagine which occurs naturally in food leads to the formation of acrylamide at temperatures above 120 C. By using aspargine, there will be no asparagine left available to form acrylamide because asparagine will be turned into aspartic acid, and ammonia. Essentially this means that natural ingredients present in the food will be turned into excitotoxins. It means that more products will have to be added to the long list of food products that contain hidden sources of excitotoxins.

Interestingly enough, whether Acrylamide even causes cancer to begin with or not is still open to debate. Studies in humans have seen no increased cancer risk. In fact, some studies showed the opposite, with high levels of acrylamide intake protecting against some forms of cancer. Some effect on brain cells was found at levels 500 times higher than the average person is exposed to, and some effect on male fertility at levels 2000 times higher the the average person is exposed to.

The company that has begun using asparaginase to poison food is a Dutch company named DSM.
This is the same company that has been producing a large share of the aspartame used worldwide, until recently competition has made this an unprofitable business. But DSM has found a new innovative way to poison the peasants, and thus using asparaginase, it's profit will continue to increase. The question is, who is benefitting from this profitable business? It should come as no surprise that DSM is owned by the royal family of the Netherlands.
It's history of poisoning the population goes back centuries, since it had a monopoly on the sale of opium in Indonesia, and sold cocaine to soldiers during World War I.

The age of artificial human selection

1952 - 2009

Boyd E. Graves, J.D.

"Be here now for us, give us a chance to be there for you."

This article is dedicated to the memory of Boyd Graves. He will forever be remembered for his discovery of a covert genocide that has resulted in the deaths of millions and to this day continues unabated. Now that he is no longer here with us, we have to continue his work to the best of our abilities.

There is a growing group of people who envision a future in which humanity splits in two separate species. The first to raise this idea seem to have come from an incestuous circle of British eugenicists, as I explained before. In transhumanism, which grew out of eugenics through Julian Huxley, the idea is commonplace. Transhumanists receive attention for their ideas from billionaires like Bill Gates.

An article from Wired Magazine reports on the The Future of Human Nature symposium, in which bioethicists and scientists contemplating the future raised their fear that genetic engineering and other technologies are going to divide human beings into classes that may one day try to destroy one another. Futurist Paul Saffo recently came in the news with his predition that the super-rich may evolve into a new separate species in the future due to enhancements in biotechnology and robotic engineering. People will grow new organs, and take drugs specially tailored to their needs. The article also mentions prominent transhumanist Ray Kurzweil's claim that soon human immortality will be achieved. Another example important to mention is by evolutionary theorist Oliver Curry, who expects a genetic upper class and a dim-witted underclass to emerge.

How far away is all of this? The fact of the matter is that it is happening as we speak. Gene therapy is effectively being used to cure genetic problems in humans. HIV was genetically engineered to carry a gene that would cure two boys from a brain disease that could kill them in adolescence. Embryo's are now screened before they are implanted to make sure they do not contain a gene that can cause breast cancer. The British military predicts in DCDC strategic trends that within 20 years we may see human beings altering their genome to gain superhuman abilities (such as increased strength), and increased life expectancy. The idea of increased strength may appear like science fiction, but a single gene change in various animals and humans has been shown to give them increased strength with no negative side effects. This is caused by an impaired production of Myostatin.

The question in this case becomes how much people are willing to change. Humans may have a problem with "improving" their genome. It would involve acknowledging that they are imperfect in their present state. Perhaps this would change when people discover that they will be able to massively increase their life expectancy. Using gene therapy, scientists have managed to restore the ability of rats to produce vitamin C. It is expected that the ability to produce vitamin C can massively increase the life expectancy in humans by decades.

Through a single gene change in mice scientists have managed to increase their life expectancy by40%. Significant in all these developments is that the total number of years spend without chronic illness and in good health increases as well. The argument that there is no point in spending a longer time alive, only to be sick and thus unhappy is therefore refuted. Still, people will most likely be wary against changing their genes.

However, it has already become commonly accepted to eliminate what they see as defected. Eighty percent of children with Down Syndrome are aborted (although others claim it is more than 90%), and now even children diagnosed before birth with cleft palate are never born. Bioethicist Peter Singer goes further, and believes that humans should be allowed to euthanize their children up to 28 days after they are born. The argument raised by bioethicists is that the total happiness will increase if a healthy child gets to live instead of a child with down syndrome. I do not feel the need to determine for my readers what is ethical, and what is wrong (or as some instead refer to as "part of the evil illuminati agenda"). It needs to be mentioned though that wealth, intelligence and health aren't automatically equatable with more happiness. In studies done on gifted children in California, their suicide rate was found to be three times the national average. Even as the average IQ, wealth, and life expectancy has steadily increased, the suicide rate in Sweden has risen by 250 per cent in the past 40 years. Countries like Albania and Jamaica have suicide rates far below Japan and Germany.

It must also be said that as people feel superior over people with disabilities and feel authorized to end their lives, we can expect that those who feel superior over us will feel authorized to end our lives. To a genius geneticist, holding a conversation with a person of average intelligence feels like holding a conversation with a mentally disabled person does to him. People raise the argument that people with Down Syndrome will cost our society more than we benefit. A billionaire who pays millions in tax that the rest of us benefit from, will likely feel the same way about the rest of us. And it appears that this elite made the choice long ago, that they would decide over life and death the way that we now do over others ourselves.
Charles Darwin wrote:

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.

I am generally reluctant to quote Charles Darwin, because people tend to draw the conclusion that because they do not like the man himself or the consequences of his ideas, his theory of evolution must be wrong as well. However, this makes as much sense as saying that because we do not like eugenics, the standard deviation as discovered by Galton is wrong as well. In fact, most of the discoveries on evolution were done by people before Darwin, who did not believe in either eugenics or racism. An example is Alfred Russel Wallace.

The fact of the matter is, as the interest in eugenics and transhumanism has shown, we are surrounded by an elite that wants to change the human species in ways that it thinks is preferable. Another notable example is the geneticist James D. Watson, who wants to cure people who suffer from low intelligence through gene therapy. Watson also suggests that genes influencing beauty could also be engineered: "People say it would be terrible if we made all girls pretty. I think it would be great." As I will set out to prove, the international elite has already began to eliminate those that it sees as undesirable, and modify our bodies to create a state to achieve this goal. In this age of artificial human selection it has killed hundreds of millions, and will go on to kill billions more.

Some of the first eugenicists were found in the United States. Most notable of all are the Rockefellers, and the groups of scientists that they brought together in the organizations they founded. A prominent example is the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, founded in 1901, which was filled with eugenicists. Dr William Welch, founding president of the Board of Scientific Directors of the Institute has been quoted as saying: "Aren't we just keeping the unfit alive at the expense of the fit instead of letting nature do the weeding?"
Also working here were Alexis Carrel and Charles A. Lindbergh. These two men had a very remarkable goal for their research. They wanted to develop a way to achieve immortality, but only for a select chosen few. In their vision, the weak and the poor had to be eliminated.
Alexis Carrel argued for example in his book, Man, The Unknown, that an elite aristocracy composed of descendants from the Crusaders, the heroes of the Revolution, the great criminals, the financial and industrial magnates should use gas chambers to exterminate the lower class of society.

It may appear that this is not a healthy atmosphere to come to any developments that would benefit the general population in any significant way. In fact, it might seem that these people pose a danger to the vast majority of us. Unfortunately this is exactly the case. It is in this Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research that the virus oncogenic virus was developed, by Peyton Rous, in 1910. I have mentioned this story before, but as I have discovered further details, I want to elaborate on it further. The Rockefeller Institute encouraged people to bring in animals with a variety of illnesses, so it could study these. In 1910, someone presented the Institute a hen with a malignant growth. The scientist in charge was the young Peyton Rous, who began to try to isolate the virus from this chicken, and use it to cause cancer in other animals. Peyton's Rous report on his activities can be found here. At first the virus only worked in the particular breed of chickens that it was discovered in.
Rous wrote:

A feature of the transmissible tumors, which has largely drawn
the attention of cancer workers and has modified current theories
of cancer origin, is their striking dependence for a successful
transplantation on the character and condition of the individual
host. It is a dependence similar to that shown by transplanted
normal tissue, and apparently the same laws largely influence both.
This trait of tumors is illustrated exceptionally well by the chicken
sarcoma. During a considerable period, it could be propagated only
in fowls of precisely the sort in which the original growth occurred
(chart I ); and even now it succeeds best in these. It has never
been successfully transmitted to birds of other species, or to mammals.
Young fowls are the most favorable hosts; and healthy,

With great effort Rous managed to increase the potency and spread the virus in other chickens as well:

With repeated transmission the rate of growth,
as well as the percentage of successful transplantations, has increased;
and the period which elapses between implantation and the
appearance of the new sarcoma as a palpable mass has been reduced
from about four weeks to four or five days. The tumor obtained
from the first inoculation required seventy-one days to reach a size
of 5.o by 3.3 centimeters, and to affect seriously the health of the
host. But in later generations, produced by a similar method of
inoculation, the appearance and development of the tumor have
become progressively more rapid.

This virus, that at first only occured in a specific chicken Rous had found and would grow in no other species, for some reason ended up in the first Yellow Fever vaccine this same Rockefeller Institute introduced in 1937. A study reported:

Removal of avian leukosis viruses (ALV), which have contaminated the yellow fever (YF) 17 D vaccine since its development in the middle 1940's, had no effect upon the antigenicity of this vaccine in rhesus monkeys.

The Rous Sarcoma virus (the name given to the cancer virus Rous discovered and strengthened) is a type of Avian Leukosis Virus.
It's disturbing that this virus turned up in the vaccines of the same institute that discovered it, since when they found this virus it only managed to infect a small group of purebred chickens. This wouldn't be such a problem though if this virus only caused cancer in these chickens, but it now causes cancer in all sorts of species. Rous already tried to use the virus to cause cancer in mammals himself, but failed. However, for the virus Rous discovered continued to increase in potency, and by 1963 it was proven that this virus that once infected only a small group of a specifc species of chickens could cause tumors in monkeys.
The problem with the theory of accidental contamination is that the same people who developed this vaccine were the people who found the virus years earlier in a tiny group of chickens, and took great effort to increase it's lethality and tried to use it to cause cancer in mammals.

It appears that the Rous Sarcoma Virus was also succesfully tranferred into sheep, where it became known as the Visna/Maedi Virus. A rare abstract of a study done in 1977 compared the Rous Sarcoma Virus to the Visna virus, and found that they are highly similar in appearance:

Visna virus RNA consists of a high molecular weight and low molecular weight species. The size, subunit composition, complexity, and secondary structure of high molecular weight RNA have been studied and compared with Rous sarcoma virus RNA. Visna high molecular weight RNA cosediments in 0.1 M sodium chloride wiih the 70S UNA of Rous sarcoma virus consistent with a molecular weight of 10–12 × 10 daltons. On dissociation with heat, subunit structures of 2.8 × 10⁶ daltons are released. Both the size and heterogeneity of the subunit RNA are identical with the subunit RNA of transforming Schmidt-Ruppin Rous sarcoma virus.

It needs to be remembered that the Rous Sarcoma Virus as a retrovirus mutates extremely fast when compared to other viruses. This is why retroviruses are capable of persisting in the body, while the body does not manage to create an efficient antibody response against it. By the time the body begins producing antibodies, the virus simply mutates, into a form against which the antibodies do not work.
The visna virus became an epidemic in Iceland. It is normally seen as caused by a number of sheep that were imported from Germany in 1933. Visna was a slow acting virus, and this meant that the sheep were kept in isolation at first, but where nonetheless infected with an illness that would mean a disaster for Iceland. Evidence suggests that this spread of disease was intentional. While visna decimated the population in Iceland, Germany seems to never have had the problem that Iceland suffered. Furthermore, the same Karakul sheep imported out of Germany that spread visna are also alleged to have been responsible for the spread of other diseases in sheep through Iceland, like pulmonary adenomatosis and paratuberculosis. It seems hard to believe that none of the sheep showed any signs of illness when they were send from Germany to Iceland. Thus, if these sheep indeed came from Germany, it would seem likely this was done intentionally.

Whatever may be the case, it is a matter of fact that we find great interest of Rockefeller scientists in this virus as well. In fact, the man who discovered the Visna virus in Iceland, Bjorn Sigurdsson, was a visiting fellow at the Rockefeller Institute in the United States between 1941 and 1943, where he experimented with viruses in chick embryo's. This is where Rockefeller scientists had been heavily experimenting with the Rous Sarcoma Virus since 1910. The Rockefellers build an institute in Iceland at request of the Icelandic govenrment that studied exclusively sheep diseases. This is where Sigurdsson discovered the Visna virus. It seems beyond coincidence that the man who discovered a virus so similar to the Rous Sarcoma Virus was only years earlier working with eugenicists at the Rockefeller Institute who discovered this Rous Sarcoma Virus and were attempting to transfer it into other animals.

However, Iceland had been having massive problems with it's sheep before Sigurdsson returned to Iceland, reportedly due to visna. However, the fact that other viruses are said to have infected the sheep that originated from Germany as well would make it possible that visna only came into the picture at a later point in time, and the massive die-out of sheep in the 30's was caused by the other viruses the sheep imported from Germany spread. But let's say that the sheep from Germany did spread Visna. An explanation would need to be given why the virus was never seen in Germany, but the epidemic happened in Iceland. To this day I have not seen an explanation for this, despite searching for it.

So far I have covered two retroviruses. Two other events that unfolded in this time period are important to mention as well however. The first of these is the Tuskeegee Syphilis Experiment.
The Tuskeegee Syphilis Experiment was a conspiracy that lasted from 1932 until 1972. It involved 399 black men in the late stages of syphilis. These men, for the most part illiterate sharecroppers from one of the poorest counties in Alabama, were never told what disease they were suffering from or of its seriousness. Informed that they were being treated for “bad blood,” their doctors had no intention of curing them of syphilis at all. Varying explanations are given for the goal of this experiment using a sexually transmittable disease that resulted it numerous deaths. What is clear is that the men continued to receive no treatment, even after medication had become available which meant that syphilis was no longer a public health concern. The syphilis experiment however, did show how an untreated sexually transmissable disease could spread in a certain population.

In the same time, we also witnessed the development of the first biological warfare program.
In 1943, the United States began it's biological warfare program in Fort Detrick. George W. Merck was a key member of the panel advising President Franklin D. Roosevelt and was charged with putting such an effort together. George Merck also owned the pharmaceutical firm that still bears his name. As we will see later, this pharmaceutical firm was responsible for spreading many of the terrible plagues humanity suffers from today.

The United States initially wanted to develop a race specific weapon that would work against the Japanese. World War II-era anthropologists when asked by the predecessor of the CIA, the Office of Strategic Services, recommended culture- and race-specific means of killing Japanese soldiers and civilians. Anthrax was planned to be used against the Japanese, and the food supplies would be destroyed by releasing funguses that destroy the rice production. This is not unlike the policies that Germany instituted in Poland, where people were given 900 calories a day, compared to the 4000 that the ethnic Germans received.

After World War II was over, the United States began to recruit large numbers of Nazi scientists in an operation that was codenamed Operation Paperclip.
The man responsible for bringing the scientists into the United States was named Allen Dulles.
Allen Dulles and his brother both worked for the Rockefeller family. Allan Dulles had been a director of the Council on Foreign Relations since 1927 for example. Through Dulles, the tentacles of the Rockefeller empire thus reached into the CIA.

What is however rarely talked about is that besides rocket scientists, the United States also recruited German biological warfare experts. Among these were Erich Traub, and his assistant Anne Burger, as can be found in a book by Linda Hunt on page 108 (Mirror available here).
Traub's area's of expertise were hoof and mouth disease, and influenza. What is essential to mention is that Erich Traub used to work at the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research in the 30's. Thus, Operation Paperclip can be seen as the Rockefeller empire bailing out it's own people.

After World War II, everything accelerated. In 1951, an American scientist succeeded in immortalizing a human cancer cell-line, of a black woman, named Henrietta Lacks, without her knowledge or permission. This cell line is now known as the HeLa cell line. What this means is that every time a virus is grown in this cell line, it adopts to the genome of a black woman.

In 1964 the Special Virus Cancer Program begins, with a budget of 10 million dollar. The main viruses that were looked at were herpes type viruses, and retroviruses. This is important to mention, because these are exactly the two types of viruses that we will later see spread throughout the human population with disastrous consequences.

The goal is to discover viruses that cause cancer in humans, to develop a cure against them. However, as studies show, various cancer causing viruses were used to infect different species with viruses that originate from other species of animal. Human-mouse hybrid cell lines were infected with oncogenic viruses like the murine leukemia virus. Systems were developed to produce breast cancer viruses in mice on a large scale. Successful attempts were made to infect human breast cancer cell lines with this virus. Successful attempts were made to increase the potency of this virus, and cause earlier and more severe cases of breast cancer in infected mice.
Nowadays, a human breast cancer virus that in 95% similar to the mouse mammary tumor virus is found in one third of human breast cancer cases.

Countless different types of cancer causing viruses were used in these experiments. Around the early seventies, interest in a virus that would target the immune system began to increase.
In 1971, Fort Detrick, which you may remember from the biological warfare program during WWII of George Merck, was transformed into a research facility on cancer. A private military contractor by the name of Litton Bionetics won a contract to run the operation. Litton Bionetics was part of Litton Industries, a giant defense contractor, which was owned by a man named Roy Ash. Roy Ash was part of the Ford Administration. The man who headed the program was named Robert E. Stevenson. This is the same Robert E. Stevenson who later delivered Anthrax to Iraqi scientists through the American Type Culture Collection that he was the chief executive of, and who was a member of the US Commerce Department's Technical Advisory Committee, that had to approve this shipment. The Fact that this article is indeed talking about Robert E. Stevenson, and not about another man also coincidentally named Robert Stevenson is confirmed by this link, which shows his involvement with the American Type Culture Collection.
Another series of articles on the fact that Iraq got it's Anthrax from the American Type Culture collection reveals that the American Type Culture Collection got the Anthrax from Fort Detrick, which is where Robert E. Stevenson headed the Special Virus Cancer Program just years earlier.

Also involved in the special virus cancer program as he himself admits was Peter Duesberg, a man who now spreads the erroneous ideas that HIV does not cause AIDS, and that cancer can't be caused by viruses.

At the time, a man by the name of Robert Gallo, now credited as the discoverer of HIV, worked for Litton Bionetics. Robert Gallo is credited with the discovery of three different human retroviruses, HTLV-I, HTLV-II and HTLV-III, the last of which we now know as HIV. HTLV-I is closely related to a virus named the Bovine Leukemia Virus. HTLV-II is so similar to HTLV-II that normal tests can't distinguish the two. The question is how the Bovine Leukemia Virus that had been discovered far earlier than HTLV-I could have such a close relationship to the Bovine Leukemia virus. An explanation can be found in the fact that since the mid 70's, scientists had been succesfully infecting human cells with this virus.

Around the early 70's, another important development can be seen. Interest shifts from just cancer, into viruses that destroy the immune system. A special Virus Cancer Program Report describes an attempt to create "immune paralysis"" using a virus. The date this particular research began is given as 1971. A 1972 Bulletin by the World Health Organization (an organization we will later see again) calls for the need to search for viruses that selectively target the immune system. It mentions:

"An attempt should be made to see if viruses can in fact exert selective effects on immune function. The possibility should be looked into that the immune response to the virus itself may be impaired if the inflicting virus damages, more or less selectively, the cell responding to the virus."

A document on the Internet named the 1970 Department of Defense Appropriations mentions a conversation about new developments in the biological field. The conversation was as following:

"There are two things about the biological field agent I would like to mention. One is the possibility of technical surprise. Molecular biology is a field that is advancing very rapidly and eminent biologists believe that within a period of five to ten years it would be possible to produce a synthetic biological agent, an agent that does not naturally exist and for which no natural immunity could have been acquired.
Mr. Sikes. Are we doing any work in that field?
Dr. MacArthur. We are not.
Mr. Sikes. Why not? Lack of money or lack of interest?
Dr. MacArthur. Certainly not lack of interest."

With all of these discoveries made in humans, it is easy to forget that other animals were infected with immunodeficiency viruses as well. For some reason, immunodeficiency viruses were suddenly crossing species around the planet in the second half of the 20th century. Besides the Human Immunodeficiency virus, there is the Bovine Immunodeficiency virus, an emerging disease in cattle. It was discovered in 1969, and it is highly similar to the Visna virus that I discussed earlier. There is the Feline Immunodefiency virus, a virus that was first discovered in 1986. It is most similar to the visna virus out of all lentiviruses.

It is often claimed that HIV has existed long before there was any such thing as the Special Virus Cancer Program. People were supposedly infected with the virus in the 60's, or even in the 50's. Many of these cases later turned out to be wrong however. The case of a boy identified as Robert R. is sometimes brought up. A closer look shows that this boy likely did not suffer from a HIV infection. Robert's grandfather had reportedly suffered from similar symptoms (suggesting a congenital immunodeficiency) and he may have been exposed to toxins in his childhood. Another "early case" in which HIV was identified later turned out to be a fraud, when another scientists discovered that the strain found was identical to strains found today. HIV contaminated the body, whether this was purposefully done or by accident remains to be seen, but it makes other cases highly doubtful as well.

When one looks at the structure of HIV, he finds it is similar to both HTLV-I, and the visna virus. A study done by Gallo showed the virus is most closely related to the visna virus in sheep.
Also, studies show that the virus has strong similarities to HTLV-I and II. Like HTLV-I, HIV infects T-cells, whereas visna does not. A hybrid virus could thus show elements of both, by infecting T-cells, while having the effect of visna on these cells.

The method by which HIV was spread is through an experimental Hepatitis vaccine for male homosexuals in the United States produced by Merck, and through the smallpox vaccination program by the World Health Organization in sub-Saharan Africa. Statistical analysis by Tom Keske has linked the Hepatitis B vaccine to the AIDS outbreak among homosexuals in the United States. Important to not among other things that Keske mentions is the far lower that expected number of cases found in male heterosexual intravenous drug users. Even among the intravenous drug users, more than half the HIV positive cases were in homosexuals. This links the vaccine that was exclusively given to homosexuals during the late 70's to the outbreak of AIDS. A study on the vaccine recipients revealed that half of them developed AIDS, which adds further strength Tom Keske's analysis:

Between 1978 and 1980, 359 hepatitis B seronegative homosexual and bisexual men were recruited from the San Francisco municipal sexually transmitted disease clinic for hepatitis B vaccine trials. Of the 359 participants, 320 (89%) consented to have their stored blood samples tested for human immunodeficiency virus antibodies. The prevalence of human immunodeficiency virus infection in these 320 vaccine trial participants rose from 0.3% in 1978 to 50.9% in 1988. The annual incidence of human immunodeficiency virus infection showed that seroconversion peaked in 1980-1982, dropped significantly in 1983, and has remained low. Men less than 30 years old on entry into the study seroconverted earlier in the epidemic and had higher incidence rates than men 30 years or older (p = 0.07). No statistical difference in seroconversion rates was found for other demographic variables. Using a Kaplan-Meier survival curve of the cumulative proportion of men without acquired immunodeficiency syndrome by duration of human immunodeficiency virus infection, an estimated 39% (95% confidence interval 27%-51%) will develop acquired immunodeficiency syndrome within 9.2 years of infection. Cox proportional hazard stepwise analysis showed no correlation between age at seroconversion, race, or year of seroconversion and progression to acquired immunodeficiency syndrome.

In Africa, the Smallpox vaccine is responsible for the outbreak. A London Times article from 1987 reports about the World Health Organization investigating whether it's smallpox vaccine caused the spread of HIV. It also shows a link between the number of people vaccinated against Smallpox in countries, and the prevalence of HIV.

Important to remember is a point that Dr. Alan Cantwell stresses: The fact that HIV was accompanied by another new virus that became epidemic in the same group that was hit by HIV, male homosexuals. This virus is the Human Herpes Virus 8, discovered in 1994. A study done shows that it is a new virus, and it is not just an opportunistic agent. This means that two different viruses were introduced into the gay population. What is important to remember here is that the Special Virus Cancer Program was mainly studying two types of viruses, retroviruses, and human herpes viruses. We now see both a new type of retrovirus, and a new type of herpes virus in predominantly male homosexual Americans.

Like Rockefeller scientist Alexis Carrel desired, an intellectual elite has decided it is authorized to decide who gets to live and reproduce, and who does not. Due to the AIDS epidemic it unleashed on the population, the life expectancy in sub-saharan africa has been cut by a quarter.
Annual population growth in South Africa has plummeted compared to what it would have been without AIDS. The United Nations expected the world to have 9.4 billion people by 2050, but it has revised this number to 8.9 billion. A third of this reduction is due to the AIDS epidemic.

The Western world is suffering from other vaccine induced illnesses. Examples include alzheimer's, diabetes, and cancer. Predictions are difficult to make. This slow progressive decline in health in Western nations means that humans will not recognize what happens to them. Living the last years slowly losing his memory has become a prospect that the Westerner has come to accept as a normal part of human life. Current expectations are that the number of cases of diabetes will double in 25 years. However, previous studies done underestimated what really happened. A 1991 study, for example, predicted that 11.6 million people would have diabetes in 2030. In 2009, there were already more than twice that many living with diabetes. A true solution to all of this does not exist. HIV will not go back into the vial out of itself. However, many of the other vaccine induced illnesses can be prevented.

As Boyd Graves stressed, the people responsible knew that if certain demographics were targeted, the general public would not be alarmed. And in fact, Graves seems to have been right. Compared to the victims of the terrorist attacks in London and New York for example, the tens of millions who have died due to AIDS receive disproportionally low amount of attention, from the general public, as well as from the people in the truth movement. In the words of Graves: "Be here now for us, give us a chance to be there for you."

The forbidden cures revealed

Anyone who reads David Rothscum Reports will come to the conclusion that his health is in danger. He has been injected with vaccines that spread oncogenic viruses, and lead to inflammation that causes Alzheimer's disease, autism, depression, diabetes and a variety of other problems.
For more information on this, please see The biochemical manipulation of humanity.

It is impossible for the pharmaceutical corporations to make money through most of these natural cures. Therefore, not a lot of interest and money needed to make these cures known to the public exists. However, thanks to the wealth of (largely unused) information the Internet has given all of us access to, we can find out what prevents and treats the new epidemics we face.

The first cure that needs to be mentioned is vitamin C. Most animals naturally produce vitamin C in their body. A few animals, including man, are unable to synthesize vitamin C due to a mutation that has rendered a gene dysfunctional. This gene produces an enzyme named L-gulonolactone oxidase. Because of this humans need to obtain vitamin C through their diet, like the other animals that lost their ability to produce vitamin C themselves. Other primates eat a diet that consists for about 90% out of plants. Their high intake of fruit means they receive far more vitamin C through their diet than we so. The current RDA for vitamin C is 70mg for a 70 kg adult human male. A gorilla however takes in more than 4 gram of vitamin C through it's diet (page 8) every day! The vitamin C foundation has listed studies showing the positive effect a larger than officially recommended dose of Vitamin C has on the body. They have done a better job on this than I could in this short article, and I hope all of you will read the numerous studies that have been done on this. High levels of vitamin C taking orally help maintain the health of our cardiovascular system, and help prevent cancer. However, as these studies show, absorption is not ideal, and to treat cancer, intravenous administration is required.

A lot can be said about Vitamin D3. The main point I want to make clear about Vitamin D3 is that it lowers inflammation in the body. Inflammation (mainly caused through vaccines) is responsible for diabetes, alzheimer's, autism, obesity, depression and a variety of other illnesses that are becoming epidemic. As studies point out, Vitamin D3 supplementation also helps prevent and/or cure diabetes (see also), alzheimer's (see also), autism, obesity, and depression.

The second point I want to make is it's effect on cancer. moderately high Vitamin D3 supplementation together with calcium was shown in a double-blind placebo controlled study to reduce women's risk of all forms of cancer (as opposed to a specific type of cancer) by 76%. An ideal dose seems to be 5000IU of vitamin D3 taken orally or higher according to experts, but positive effects start at 800 IU. Darker skinned people need higher doses of vitamin D3 than lighter skinned people. A double-blind placebo controlled study in African American women found that 800IU of vitamin D3 prevented the vast majority of them from experiencing common cold or influenza. In a group that took 2000IU, only one woman experienced any flu symptoms.

The cure that best fits the definition of being forbidden is called cannabis, and to be more specific, the cannabinoids it contains. In 1998 in the US, the DEA seized 133.6 million plants. Amazingly, 98% of plants the DEA seizes are wild cannabis plants, which contain such a low amount of THC that it is impossible to use them to become intoxicated. These are plants that provide all the health benefits (which I will elaborate on below) of high THC strains, but do not cause people to get the "high" that cannabis is commonly grown for. Amazingly, the DEA nonetheless is waging a war on these plants. It appears that this species of plant is not supposed to exist.

This is very unfortunate, because it contains some of the most healthy natural treatments to the new epidemics we face out there. Besides THC, cannabis has another for our purpose far more important cannabinoid, that is named Cannabidiol (CBD). Various factors make it harder every day to get access to this chemical. Hemp contains high levels of Cannabidiol, but for food only the seeds are used, which contain only trace amounts of CBD. Cannabis is generally grown to get a high amount of THC. Unfortunately this comes at the cost of CBD, and the result is plants that have next to no CBD, and high levels of THC. This is because the gene responsible for production of these two chemicals has two different versions, one that produces CBD, and another that results in the production of THC. Thus, by breeding the plants to have high levels of THC, the CBD is eliminated. Because CBD has a reputation of lessening the psychoactive effects of THC, breeders are further encouraged to breed for low CBD varieties.

However, CBD is effective at treating psychosis. Because it reduces inflammation, it is also highly effective at preventing diabetes. The effect of reducing inflammation also makes it an effective treatment of Alzheimer's disease. In fact, one scientist who studied the effects of cannabis found that because it can greatly reduce brain inflammation, people who smoked cannabis in the 60's may be protected against Alzheimer's due to this. CBD has also been shown to halt agressive breast cancer, and is not being studied as a cancer drug. The fact that CBD and other cannabinoids (including THC) treat brain inflammation may help explain why cannabis is used as an effective treatment for children with autism. As I mentioned, commercially grown strains have almost no CBD, due to the high THC, and the hemp seeds sold contain almost no CBD either. The best solution to this problem is for people to use the cannabis plants that grow in the wild. These can be used to produce hashish, that is very low in THC, but contains enough CBD to have the effect that is needed. Hashish in general has a high amount of CBD, because the leaves and stem used to produce hashish have higher amounts of CBD generally than the flowers that are normally smoked. Unfortunately this is not possible for people living in places where cannabis is illegal.

Did David de Rothschild say Mars, Jupiter and Saturn are closer to the sun than Earth?

It's somewhat ironic, but since I am concerned with uncovering the truth I feel the need to debunk a prevalent myth in the Truth movement about David Mayer de Rothschild. Certain people claim that David Mayer de Rothschild claimed on an episode of the Alex Jones show that Mars, Jupiter and Saturn are closer to the sun than the Earth, in response to a question asked by Jones about why these planets have melting polar icecaps.

This is not the case. David Rothschild did not say that these planets are closer to the sun than the Earth. I'm quite convinced that this man has elementary knowledge about our solar system. It's somewhat embarrassing all of us, that people do not have this knowledge to understand what Rothschild meant, and thus proceed to claim that de Rothschild either knows nothing about the solar system himself, or is willfully lying. However, the only thing that would make it more embarassing was if none of us dared to speak out about what de Rothschild really meant. The man himself laughed when he noticed that Jones had no idea what he meant. It does not appear to me that he feels the need to correct him, my guess is that he knows this says more about his opponents than about himself. These people in our own movement may miss some knowledge about our solar system themselves, and this article is written for them. For examples of this often repeated claim about de Rothschild, see these articles: 1. 2. 3. 4.
And, of course, the famous interview itself: (5:25)

Our planet travels around the sun. This circle takes just over 365 days, which is what we get our years from. As you know, our planet also has seasons. This has two reasons. The major reason is the fact that our Earth spins on a tilted axis.
But, the point I want to focus on here, is the other reason. The path our planet takes around the sun is not a perfect circle. It is in fact, an elipsoid. This means that our planet is not always equally far removed from the sun throughout the year. The effect of this on the weather of our planet is minor. It causes the amount of solar radiation received by the Earth to annually vary by about 6%.

However, not every planet in our solar system has the same cycle around the sun as our little blue rock. The ovals of some planets' cycles around the sun deviate more from a circle than our planet's. than our This is called the orbital eccentricity of a planet. The less the cycle resembles a circle, the higher the orbital eccentricity. Mars for example has the second highest orbital eccentricity of all planets in the solar system, beaten only by Mercury. What does this mean? It means that Mars is not always at the same distance from the sun, it varies a lot how far removed from the sun the Red planet is.

The same goes for Jupiter and Saturn. However, these planets are further removed from the sun. This means that they take longer over their cycle than Earth. Jupiter takes about 12 years, compared to 1 year for our planet. Saturn takes almost 30 years.
Their cycles are oval shaped as well. Thus, they (and the moons circling around them) are not always as close to the sun. I hope you see where I'm going with this (though you probably got the point halfway through the article, but I feel the need to make myself absolutely clear, to not be mistaken, the way that Rothschild was). And what happens when they're at their closest point to the sun? The amount of solar radiation that reaches the planets increases, and an increase in solar radiation causes an increase in temperature. Thus, what was the logical point for de Rothschild to raise when Jones claimed that the ice caps of Mars, and moons of Jupiter, and Saturn (remember, they're gas giants, they don't have any ice caps themselves) are melting? The fact that they are closer to the sun!

Let's assume for a second that de Rothschild did in fact claim Jupiter and Saturn are closer to the sun. For this to have an effect on their icecaps, they would have to suddenly change places with our planet, if they had always been that close to the sun, this wouldn't mean the icecaps of their moons would start melting now. When you think about it, it's very simple. Unfortunately, this myth has been circling around for 2 years now. The people who spread it do not feel the need to check it. On a side note, Mars really does seem to be warming, besides the obvious seasonal fluctuation. National Geographic mentioned in 2007 that the "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.

I hope this settles it. It won't stop people from spreading this hoax, so please feel free to link to this whenever someone repeats the claim that de Rothschild made such a bizarre statement. That should eventually help this myth die out.
And to debunk another claim while I'm at it. David Rothscum isn't Jewish. It's not a Jewish name either. I don't see why people believe this, or even care whether I'm Jewish or not. It's not even anyone's actual name. It was the silliest alias I could come up with, a pun on David de Rothschild. Sorry guys.

The problem of consensus

Many people may feel puzzled by the subtitle I have chosen for David Rothscum Reports. With "an Avant-Garde for the Truth movement" I am referring to my desire to see a group of people emerge who will help move us forward by recognizing the beauty of the Truth movement that was born out of the freedom to exchange opinions with people from varying backgrounds around the world we have gained through the internet, and taking this freedom in new directions. The only way to move forward is by expanding this freedom by encouraging people to openly discuss what is on their mind, and encouraging people to think about what they are part of, to help the Truth movement as a whole engage in self-reflection. One of the questions that needs to be asked is what unites us.

To me, it has to do with a different way of forming opinions. First of all, there is a tendency to listen to what people have to say, regardless of who they are, what group they belong to, or the background they are from. The strength of the evidence someone brings up ultimately decides whether his claim is accepted or rejected. Important to note is that everyone does this for himself on an individual basis. In the Truth-movement there are no people I refer to as "patriot messiah's", people whose opinion on an idea decides for a degree what their followers think on this issue as well. This is because the Truth-movement has no leaders or followers, but only free-thinking individuals who form their own opinion. This is one of the differences between two different groups, the Patriot movement with it's various leaders, and the Truth-movement characterized by it's lack of leaders. These two movements overlap, which is not a problem, but the reason for this is that both lie outside of the mainstream school of thought.

Although the word skeptic has been taken over by individuals who hang around on sites like scienceblogs.com that swallow whatever consensus is thrown at them, the real skeptics are found in the Truth-movement. The Truth-movement has created an environment that encourages people to question every claim made, and use evidence instead of status to determine whether someone is right or not. This has led to an important difference between these people and the majority of society. A video of a confrontation between the British Lord Monckton and a group of young climate-activists reveals what divides us. Monckton resembles the archetypal "truther", he has his arguments ready to explain why he rejects the the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming. His opinion is based on the information he has gathered himself. His opponents are representative of the mainstream public and their method of determining for themselves what to believe. They refuse to listen to a man who wants to educate them about his dissenting viewpoint, instead they attempt to silence him by declaring that if his claims are right, the scientific consensus on AGW would be closer to his views, and because it's not, there is no reason for them to listen to him. Their opinion is based on what they believe the biggest group of people with the highest status are saying.

The question is which of these two different approaches to finding out the truth is better. The second approach is comfortable. It means you will always have the majority behind you. The first approach is difficult. If you find yourself at odds with the majority you face ridicule, disgust, and abuse from society as a whole. If your opinion is seen as offensive enough, you even risk being thrown in jail in Western countries today. I must remind my readers that you should not react by assuming the opposite position, and declaring that the consensus always has to be wrong, and the people who are treated as less than human by society have to be right. It is less cowardly, but it is just as easy a way out of having to think for yourself, as siding with whatever the majority thinks. In fact, the majority might very well be right, on the majority of subjects. An example to me would be evolution.

The majority of expert scientists on a subject have changed their opinion before, as I will explain below. The point is not to convince my readers which opinion was right (in my opinion the new consensus is right, but I'll leave that for you to decide for yourself), but to show that expert scientists have held two different irreconcilable consensuses on a subject.
During much of the 20th century, American psychology, psychiatry, and psychoanalysis treated homosexuality as a form of psychopathology (mental illness). Until 1973 the American Psychiatric Association classified homosexuality as a mental disorder. Although the effects are not comparable in size to the millions of people who have so far died due to the consensus (within certain circles) on Global Warming, the effects were nonetheless terrible. Homosexuals in Britain underwent electroshock therapy, and males were even treated with female hormones like Estrogen. One of the men forced to undergo this treatment was the mathematician Alan Turing, his alternative was to be send to prison. The side effects to his treatment included growing breasts, and eventually, he committed suicide. The consensus has changed, and homosexuality is no longer seen as a mental illness by psychologists. The British government has recently apologized for it's treatment of Alan Turing.

Important to all of this is that there were dissenting psychologists. Many military psychologists had done studies on homosexuals and found that they functioned no different in society as heterosexuals. However, their reports were not widely publicized (likely because the consensus was threathened by these studies), and it took decades before these studies were rediscovered. In the 1950's there was no such thing as a Truth movement, unorganized freethinkers who were interested in any new information that questions what is commonly accepted as fact. The leaked e-mails of Climategate have shown how people who differ in opinion today are treated. When a sicentist with a dissenting opinion died, climatologists reacted in private e-mails by writing: “In an odd way this is cheering news.”

The climatologists attempted to prevent scientific studies that questioned their claims from receiving attention. In their e-mails they wrote:

“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”

“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice!”

This shows why you can not trust a consensus to be right. People manipulate the consensus by withholding information from the public. As the treatment of homosexuals by psychologists has shown, the attitude of society as a whole also influences what scientists think. Climategate has shown that the attitude of the Truth movement is preferable. The people in this movement form their own opinions based on the evidence they read. They take care to make sure that nothing is swept under the rug, even if they are not convinced of it's accuracy yet. And, most importantly; Even though they have their career destroyed, are ridiculed, threathened and abused, it does not stop them from making their dissenting voice heard.