Apparently a lot of people are tuned in to http://x22report.com/; I’m not yet one of them (there is a lot of this kind of thing out there on the Internet), but maybe I should be.
“… James Tracy speaks with Dave, an economic and political analyst, webmaster and host of the X22 Report. They discuss potential catastrophic events in coming months, Jade Helm, the increasingly desperate moves of central planners to prop up fiat currencies and related geopolitical developments attached to sustaining the petrodollar, including the assault on Syria. Dave also explains how broader political and economic concerns impact personal finances, and what one can do in terms of preparedness. He asserts that since 2008 major economic interests have been preparing themselves for further market turmoil, and the present economic paradigm is not feasible past 2016. Presently a struggle is on between China and Russia, and Western central banks that will likely seek to reintroduce similar fiscal programs once a major crisis has been endured. Dave has worked as a stockbroker and technical advisor for several prominent Wall Street firms. Now based in Florida, he is devoted to providing daily analyses of economic and political developments on the X22 Report’s website and two YouTube Channels, X22 Report and X22 Report Spotlight.”
[Ed.: Maybe this has something to do with Benjamin Fulford’s thesis; perhaps someone with the requisite audio tools and experience can convene what the late great Gabriel Garcia Marquez called a tertulliana, one involving Dave, Charles Hugh Smith, Benjamin Fulford and a small army of economics gurus and expert news watchers to see what can be sorted out for the common man. Serious consideration must be given to asking Catherine Austin Fitts for her participation, given the quality and depth of foresight seen here as well as her long-standing understanding of 9/11, narco-dollars, financial maping, etc.
Tertulliana were, as described in Love in The Time of Cholera [and below], late afternoon meetings of journalists who, having spent the day poring over the news of the world, met over coffee and more to discuss the implications of what they had gleaned.
“Some 50 years ago, there were no schools of journalism. One learned the trade in the newsroom, in the print shops, in the local cafe and in Friday-night hangouts. The entire newspaper was a factory where journalists were made and the news was printed without quibbles. We journalists always hung together, we had a life in common and were so passionate about our work that we didn’t talk about anything else. The work promoted strong friendships among the group, which left little room for a personal life.
There were no scheduled editorial meetings, but every afternoon at 5pm, the entire newspaper met for an unofficial coffee break somewhere in the newsroom, and took a breather from the daily tensions. It was an open discussion where we reviewed the hot themes of the day in each section of the newspaper and gave the final touches to the next day’s edition.
The newspaper was then divided into three large departments: news, features and editorial. The most prestigious and sensitive was the editorial department; a reporter was at the bottom of the heap, somewhere between an intern and a gopher. Time and the profession itself has proved that the nerve centre of journalism functions the other way. At the age of 19 I began a career as an editorial writer and slowly climbed the career ladder through hard work to the top position of cub reporter.
Then came schools of journalism and the arrival of technology. The graduates from the former arrived with little knowledge of grammar and syntax, difficulty in understanding concepts of any complexity and a dangerous misunderstanding of the profession in which the importance of a “scoop” at any price overrode all ethical considerations.
The profession, it seems, did not evolve as quickly as its instruments of work. Journalists were lost in a labyrinth of technology madly rushing the profession into the future without any control. In other words: the newspaper business has involved itself in furious competition for material modernisation, leaving behind the training of its foot soldiers, the reporters, and abandoning the old mechanisms of participation that strengthened the professional spirit. Newsrooms have become a sceptic laboratories for solitary travellers, where it seems easier to communicate with extraterrestrial phenomena than with readers’ hearts. The dehumanisation is galloping.
Before the teletype and the telex were invented, a man with a vocation for martyrdom would monitor the radio, capturing from the air the news of the world from what seemed little more than extraterrestrial whistles. A well-informed writer would piece the fragments together, adding background and other relevant details as if reconstructing the skeleton of a dinosaur from a single vertebra. Only editorialising was forbidden, because that was the sacred right of the newspaper’s publisher, whose editorials, everyone assumed, were written by him, even if they weren’t, and were always written in impenetrable and labyrinthine prose, which, so history relates, were then unravelled by the publisher’s personal typesetter often hired for that express purpose.
Today fact and opinion have become entangled: there is comment in news reporting; the editorial is enriched with facts. The end product is none the better for it and never before has the profession been more dangerous. Unwitting or deliberate mistakes, malign manipulations and poisonous distortions can turn a news item into a dangerous weapon.
Quotes from “informed sources” or “government officials” who ask to remain anonymous, or by observers who know everything and whom nobody knows, cover up all manner of violations that go unpunished. But the guilty party holds on to his right not to reveal his source, without asking himself whether he is a gullible tool of the source, manipulated into passing on the information in the form chosen by his source. I believe bad journalists cherish their source as their own life – especially if it is an official source – endow it with a mythical quality, protect it, nurture it and ultimately develop a dangerous complicity with it that leads them to reject the need for a second source.
At the risk of becoming anecdotal, I believe that another guilty party in this drama is the tape recorder. Before it was invented, the job was done well with only three elements ofwork: the notebook, foolproof ethics and a pair of ears with which we reporters listened to what the sources were telling us. The professional and ethical manual for the tape recorder has not been invented yet. Somebody needs to teach young reporters that the recorder is not a substitute for the memory, but a simple evolved version of the serviceable, old-fashioned notebook.
The tape recorder listens, repeats – like a digital parrot – but it does not think; it is loyal, but it does not have a heart; and, in the end, the literal version it will have captured will never be as trustworthy as that kept by the journalist who pays attention to the real words of the interlocutor and, at the same time, evaluates and qualifies them from his knowledge and experience.
The tape recorder is entirely to blame for the undue importance now attached to the interview. Given the nature of radio and television, it is only to be expected that it became their mainstay. Now even the print media seems to share the erroneous idea that the voice of truth is not that of the journalist but of the interviewee. Maybe the solution is to return to the lowly little notebook so the journalist can edit intelligently as he listens, and relegate the tape recorder to its real role as invaluable witness.
It is some comfort to believe that ethical transgressions and other problems that degrade and embarrass today’s journalism are not always the result of immorality, but also stem from the lack of professional skill. Perhaps the misfortune of schools of journalism is that while they do teach some useful tricks of the trade, they teach little about the profession itself. Any training in schools of journalism must be based on three fundamental principles: first and foremost, there must be aptitude and talent; then the knowledge that “investigative” journalism is not something special, but that all journalism must, by definition, be investigative; and, third, the awareness that ethics are not merely an occasional condition of the trade, but an integral part, as essentially a part of each other as the buzz and the horsefly.
The final objective of any journalism school should, nevertheless, be to return to basic training on the job and to restore journalism to its original public service function; to reinvent those passionate daily 5pm informal coffee-break seminars of the old newspaper office.”
Tricks you need to transform something which appears fantastic, unbelievable into something plausible, credible, those I learned from journalism. The key is to tell it straight. It is done by reporters and by country folk.
Gabriel Garcia Marquez
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/g/gabriel_garcia_marquez.html#wIZLjTfycHwhuWux.99
“… “I don’t know that there’ll ever be an apology. Maybe the two countries can find language that brings them together to say ‘you know we acknowledge that serious hurt was done on both sides and we own that and going forward we pledge not to do something like that’ but it doesn’t feel at this point that there will ever be a flat out apology from the US to Japan or the other way around,” he explained.
Harry Truman acted in good faith and believed he was saving many Americans’ lives, Daniel said. This was the prime consideration for the president, who had first-hand experience of battlefield during World War I and valued soldiers’ lives, he explained.
He admitted that controversy over Truman’s decision remains, as some people believe that the use of nuclear weapons was not necessary.
“The real question which we keep trying to answer but we can’t is did it in fact stop the war. Some people say no, Japan would have surrendered anyway; other people say they were not giving up, it stopped them cold,” Daniel said. “But we can’t know that because we did it and the war ended, so we don’t know how it would have gone.”
[Ed.: Harry Truman was grievously misled by advisors who were Skull&Bones (Stimson), others who were associated with Zionism, who were corrupt and corrupting and representing greed. He had been kept in the dark about the Manhattan Project and was handed an option. Stalin was better informed about its existence than Truman. Japan’s entreaties for peace were purposefully delayed for months by theoretically-independent neutral brokers who were tied into the same global financial octopus which drove the world in World War II and at that time was working overtime to steal the spoils of gold and and the secrets of human experimentation and bring them to the US.]
NSA Tried Stuxnet Cyber-Attack on North Korea Five Years Ago but Failed
August 6th, 2015 by Kevin
The US tried to deploy a version of the Stuxnet computer virus to attack North Korea’s nuclear weapons programme five years ago but ultimately failed, according to people familiar with the covert campaign.
The operation began in tandem with the now-famous Stuxnet attack that sabotaged Iran’s nuclear programme in 2009 and 2010 by destroying a thousand or more centrifuges that were enriching uranium. Reuters and others have reported that the Iran attack was a joint effort by US and Israeli forces.
According to one US intelligence source, Stuxnet’s developers produced a related virus that would be activated when it encountered Korean-language settings on an infected machine.
But US agents could not access the core machines that ran Pyongyang’s nuclear weapons programme, said another source, a former high-ranking intelligence official who was briefed on the programme.
Posted in Covert Operations, Technology, War
[Ed.: I have been a long-term user of HoloSync’s binaural-beats guided meditation systems — I had graduated to the third level when I was diagnosed in 2007 with moderate-to-severe aortic stenosis requiring replacement of the aortic valve via open-heart surgery; the cardiologist told me my heart wasn’t strong enough to undergo the procedure.
I skipped town and slipped down the backside of the mid-Atlantic Appalachian ridge into a holler on whose slopes I experienced the rapid onset of pleural edema; I applied the lessons of the book “Deep Survival”, slid downhill into a chemical stress test during which I flat-lined, and much much later read a book written by a scientist/engineer working on the technical side of cardiology and whose interest in consciousness led him to study the reverberations resonating the heartbeat through the aorta. In the appendix, his explanation suggested that I dumped all the stress in my life out through the aortic valve during the kundalini-like descent into brain wave states for healing and compassion.
His findings resulted in a “scientifically verifiable version of the kundalini concept”, according to Gurmukh Kaur Khalsa (2009). Kundalini Rising: Exploring the Energy of Awakening. Sounds True. p. 247. ISBN 978-1591797289.
But I’ve asked every doctor I’ve met and been treated by — since the psychopharmacologist who listened to the same CD I did (and who had the signatory tonic/clonic body twitch at the same moment on the tape as I experienced mine) said “this is better than crack”) — what they know about or can find out about this phenomenon, and I have never received any answer beyond an unknowing blankness.
Insights on continuing binaural beats-based audio meditation are hard to come by. Marketing materials are widely available; you can dial up a wide variety of these types of programs on YouTube or by direct mail order for CD’s.
But the problem is that, by whatever method you choose to use, you bypass your brain’s own filters and build a back door into your own subconscious mind through which you feed or place “affirmations” or deep subconscious suggestions to achieve whatever outcome you desire. This is what is taught to athletes and others in the form of auto-suggestion.
Purveyors of the audio forms, using proprietary and non-proprietary technical understanding and technology, create and build voice form subliminals (in non-audible frequencies) that are embedded in the binaural tones and audio. Holosync has you record the affirmations you wrote for yourself in your own voice and buries them subliminally.
It follows that you respond to your own voice most readily. The bones in your inner ear move when you talk to yourself silently; the sound of your barely-audible voice travels or resonates through your skull bones, jaw and into the rest of your body from there. Chanting, the kind used by monks for centuries or others in other spiritual traditions for millenia, resonate out of your throat and into your chest cavity. I was exposed forty years ago to scientific papers about acoustics in cathedrals and the development of chanting by a lapsed Maronite monk who was a student of composiiton at the Berkeley College of Music.
But the question – given what we read about hacking, mind control, and the domestic shenanignans of the security state — is “Who do you trust?”
DublinMick’s piece on the guru-student relationship suggests that ‘you can’t get there unless you have the right guru’ and, like many, I’ve spent a lifetime looking for the right guru.
I suspect I had been provided one but that the karmic gods threw me a curveball when she died five days after she gave birth to me, allegedly helped along by the violent tendencies of my father, a fact made evident to me just recently as I approach a major transition in my own life cycle, hence my interest in re-incarnation and related topics. The search for that guru probably explains in part the effort behind the collection on ‘how to use your mind…’, the summary of which is that you are your own guru; simply look within and harness what was given to you at birth.
But the kundalini aspects resonate with me for three reasons: 1) the OBE mutually experienced by me and my life-mate during lovemaking with a background of Richard Harris narrating Kahlil Gibran’s Prophet; 2) the epiphany I had on the rocks at Pemaquid; and 3) the book on the secret lessons taught to the disciples written by the 9/11 researcher Mark Gaffney.
I fully embrace the thought that we ought not to be quick to post the theolgical/life/journalistic insights of some fellow from across the chasms of the Internet, but when what you read resonates with what you have experienced in life, there is a certain vibration that sets up. That’s what happened the first time I read some of the passages in The Gospel According To Thomas. ]