It's not going to be OK

[peaceseeker]

Intolerable Beauty: Chris Jordan
http://www.nextworldtv.com/videos/what- ... ordan.html



Art Speaks

Artist and photographer Chris Jordan captures American consumption in powerful, haunting works of art.

The long range shots of the art look like one image, then we get the close-ups, and see that these were composed of thousands and thousands of ... soda cans or prison outfits or plastic bags or toothpicks!

The statistics that accompany the works are mind boggling:

- 60,000 plastic bags are used in the US every 5 seconds
- 2 million beverage bottles are used every 5 minutes
- 426,000 cell phones are retired in the US every day

"The immense scale of our consumption can appear desolate, macabre, oddly comical and ironic, and even darkly beautiful. For me, it's consistent feature is a staggering complexity." says the artist.

-- Bibi Farber

This video was produced by Eye Candy Custom Montages, and the music is Edgar Meyer and Yo-Yo Ma, titled Duet For Cello and Bass (Appalacian Journey, 2000)

[peaceseeker]

War Propaganda 101 - A review of the ABCs
https://www.brasscheck.com/video/war-pr ... mhide=true



WAR IS A RACKET

Professional liars

Remember when Trump expressed his anguish over the “sarin gas attacks” in Syria.

Well, the whole while his own on-the-ground military advisors were telling him the story was impossible baloney.

So what did he do?

He went with the pro-war propaganda instead.

Is he an idiot? Is he a liar? Or is he just (another) presidential lightweight in over his head just doing whatever the pro-war forces want.

[peaceseeker]

Selected Articles: Trump and Netanyahu Are on the Loose
https://www.globalresearch.ca/selected- ... se/5609901
By Global Research News
Global Research, September 20, 2017

[maryjane48]

Selected Articles: Trump and Netanyahu Are on the Loose
https://www.globalresearch.ca/selected- ... se/5609901
By Global Research News
Global Research, September 20, 2017

lol yea like godzilla times 2

[Queen K]

No matter what, you can't take it with it with you:

How the hell does one person become "worth" $36.9 Billion dollars? The poor top 1% Elite today lost one of their own. No doubt this person worked hard and long hours with almost 90,000 employees to the companies name.

https://www.castanet.net/news/World/207 ... iress-dies

[peaceseeker]

[peaceseeker]

An open letter to NFL players: you’re being used

Try being politically incorrect if you want some real answers

by Jon Rappoport
September 26, 2017
https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2017 ... eing-used/

Dear NFL Players:

In case you’ll only read a few worlds of this story, I’ll get right to the point.

You’re being used.

You’re being duped into focusing on the wrong issue: police brutality against black people.

If you actually want to solve what’s happening to black people in inner cities, police brutality is way down on the list.

By focusing only on brutality, you’re leading people AWAY FROM seeing what’s really going on in inner cities. You’re guaranteeing NO ANSWERS. You’re guaranteeing NO CHANGE.

“Let’s not solve the problem, whatever the problem is. Let’s just ramp up the conflict and the polarization between races.”

Let’s go back to the original protestor, ex-quarterback Colin Kaepernick, who made his original kneeling protest about police brutality directed at black people. I want to examine his premise.

Here are bare-bones statistics from New York City, perhaps the only big city in America that issues a detailed annual report of police “firearms discharges.” You may be shocked.

Population of NYC: 8.3 million.

Police officers: 35,000.

2013 incidents of “intentional [police weapon] discharges during an adversarial conflict”: 40.

In those discharges, number of people injured: 17.

Number of people killed: 8.

Source: NYPD 2013 Annual Firearms Discharge Report.

In that same year, according to the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, there were 7,462 “violent crimes by firearm” in New York City.

Who was the busier class of people in 2013? Cops or criminals? Which group caused, by far, the greater amount of human destruction of black people?

Philly.com has reported on several other American cities.

“Philadelphia’s rate of police shootings [2012], when compared against the number of violent crimes, was 2.90 per 1,000 incidents [of violent crime].”

“The rate of [police] shootings in Houston for 2012 was 1.25 [per 1000 violent crimes].”

“In 2012, the rate of police shootings in Dallas was 2.39 [per 1000 violent crimes].”

“In 2011, the rate of police shootings in Las Vegas stood at 1.66.”

“Baltimore’s rate [2011] was 1.58.”

Again, I ask: in those cities, who was the busier class of people? The cops or the criminals?

If facts don’t scare you, do a little research and discover who, by and large, is committing most of those violent crimes in US cities. By race.

Media outlets don’t ask and answer this simple question. They parse and evade and blow smoke. They trumpet small increases in the rate of police shootings and, therefore, obscure chronic inner-city conditions [e.g., violent crimes].

And as long as they keeping doing that, the public will continue to be distracted, and nothing will change.

As long as Colin Kaepernick and his supporters keep focusing only on police brutality, the problem of violent crime and poverty and other chronic devastations in inner cities won’t change at all.

Is that what you protestors want? No change at all?

What are the real devastations in inner cities populated by black people?

Violent crime.

Drugs.

Gangs, some of whom are low-level dealers for Mexican cartels.

Grinding poverty.

Jobs stolen by Globalists and sent to foreign lands.

Toxic chemicals (lead in water, landfills where corporate pollutants are dumped).

Absence of fathers in homes.

Unsafe neighborhoods—making education highly difficult.

Grossly sub-standard nutrition. Empty junk food.

These are the most real problems—police brutality is far down on the list.

In other articles, I’ve written about solutions to some of these problems. Here, I’ll simply say that if you NFL protestors want to make a difference, you need to stand up and do something harder than you’re doing now. Right now, you’re unwitting agents of NO CHANGE and racial divide-and-conquer.

YOU’RE FOCUSING ON POLICE BRUTALITY, AS IF THAT’S THE DEEPEST PROBLEM IN BLACK INNER CITIES. It isn’t. So you’re leading people away from recognizing and admitting what the real problems are.

What you’re doing now, men, isn’t going to work. You’re only going to sow more conflict.

And by the way, all those thinly disguised Leftist sports writers and columnists and broadcasters who are “resolutely coming to your defense?” They’re useless. They aren’t doing you any favors. They’re mainly interested in appearing virtuous. Some of them are scared not to appear virtuous.

But look, if you don’t want to solve the biggest problems in inner cities, if that doesn’t interest you, if that’s politically incorrect and you don’t want to touch that with a ten-foot pole, it’s understandable.

Just go out on the field and play football then.

Admit your protests are nothing more than polarizing distractions from the real issues.

Admit you’re galvanizing black people in the wrong direction, away from meaningful solutions. You’re adding to the problem.

By the way, if you think government is the ultimate answer to the conditions in inner cities, consider this: since 1966, when President Lyndon Johnson declared the mighty War on Poverty, it’s estimated that two trillion dollars have been poured into black neighborhoods, to “lift them up.”

How has that worked out? Where has all the money actually gone? Who stole how much of that money? How do those black neighborhoods look today? Where are the Congressmen who want that situation investigated?

Do you get the feeling that someone somewhere wants black inner cities to fail and keep on failing? And failure is part and parcel of a vicious agenda?

In which case, you’re actually on the side of promoting failure. Your protests are Pied Piper tunes leading the people of inner cities into deeper despair. And away from the truth, away from the most pressing problems.

You’re being used. You’re agents.

When you signed your NFL contracts, did you have any idea things would work out this way?

Well, they have.

You’re looking a simple formula here. Understand it. It’s been used all over the world for centuries. If there are 10 things people could really do to solve a horrendous chronic situation, highlight some other problem that won’t lead TO ANY SOLUTION. Focus on that. Enlist high-profile people to keep focusing on that.

Get it?

You’re those high-profile people. YOU.

And the black inner cities? They’re showcases for Globalists, who want to convince one and all that permanent economic and political dependence on higher authority is the only policy that counts.

People raising themselves up is out. Forget it.

End result?

Slavery.

The very thing you say you’re fighting against.

But through a clever twist, a long-term covert op, you’re fighting for it.

Wise up. Wake up.

Or keep fronting for elites and keep losing, no matter what the scoreboard says on Sunday.

Jon Rappoport

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Exit From The Matrix, click here.)

[maryjane48]

the nfl is for entertainment of the elite

[peaceseeker]

Yeah, that's the ticket...

Have we stepped off into the Twilight Zone or what? This is nuts. Unbelievable.

[Fancy]

I'd normally say "being discussed here" but obviously that's not happening.

viewtopic.php?f=52&t=75118

[peaceseeker]

Mueller and fake news charges against Manafort
https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2017 ... -manafort/
by Jon Rappoport
October 30, 2017

Here we go. Special counsel Mueller and his team have filed the first federal charges against Trump-campaign officials Paul Manafort and Rick Gates.

CNN is running the headline: MANAFORT, GATES CHARGED WITH CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE US.

Other press outlets are following suit, emphasizing the “conspiracy against the US.”

CNN writes: “The indictment against the Manafort and Gates contains 12 counts: conspiracy against the United States, conspiracy to launder money, unregistered agent of a foreign principal, false and misleading US Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) statements, false statements, and seven counts of failure to file reports of foreign bank and financial accounts.”

—But here is the real takeaway, and of course MSM outlets are ignoring it: the conspiracy charge is a piece of federal boilerplate. Alongside the basket of other charges mentioned above, conspiracy is a general category that is tacked on. It isn’t a specific singular charge. It definitely isn’t “these two men conspired with Russia to hand Trump the election.”

In fact, CNN adds: “The charges do not cover any activities related to the campaign, though it’s possible Mueller could add additional charges.”

But when MSM outlets blare “conspiracy against the United States,” most readers and viewers will assume this does mean a charge of working with Russia to make Trump president.

It’s a nice little devious trick.

Of course, the Mueller indictments are also being used to blot out the Clinton Uranium One scandal and the Trump dirty dossier scandal, both of which involve the Clintons, and Mueller as well, since he was the head of the FBI when the Bureau discovered all sorts of corruption and bribery involving Russia’s nuclear industry, during Uranium One negotiations, and either failed to disclose the findings, or failed to use them to make an impact on Obama.

Today, it’s all about “conspiracy against the United States,” and the mainstream news audience who thinks and comprehends and talks in terms of vague generalities—like thirsty travelers in the desert spotting the mirage of an oasis.

“OH, CONSPIRACY AGAINST AMERICA, WELL THAT’S IT THEN, THEY NAILED THEM.”

That and $2.75 will get you a ride on the New York Subway.

In case you haven’t read my piece on the Clintons and the Uranium One scandal—which most definitely DOES connect Bill and Hillary to corrupt dealings with the Russians, and which hasn’t been “debunked,” as MSM outlets keep insisting, here it is:

—Cue the dawn sunrise and violins for the beautiful first couple of American politics (the Clintons).

But what about the uranium scandal?

The what?

Before I quote a NY Times piece on this—suppose, just suppose the beautiful first couple, Bill and Hillary, have been running a parallel operation to the government, in the form of a Foundation that is taking in major chunks of cash from people who want (and get) serious political favors.

Well, current news stories confirm that. We already know that.

But uranium?

Consider this plot line. Follow the bouncing ball.

Putin wants 20% of uranium on US soil. That 20% is already owned by a Canadian mining company.

The Canadian executives want to sell it to Putin.

But because uranium is a US “national security” product, various US federal agencies have to OK the deal. One of those agencies is the US State Department.

The State Department is headed up by Hillary Clinton. Her Department says yes to the uranium deal.

The kicker? Those Canadian mining executives, who wanted the sale to Putin to go through, donated millions to the Clinton Foundation.

Getting the picture?

On April 23, 2015, the NY Times ran a story under the headline: Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal.

The bare bones of the story: a Canadian company called Uranium One controlled a great deal of uranium production in the US. It was sold to Russia (meaning Putin and his minions). So Putin now controls 20% of US uranium production.

From the Times: “…the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States.”

The Times: “The [Pravda] article, in January 2013, detailed how the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, had taken over a Canadian company [Uranium One] with uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West. The deal made Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers and brought Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain.”

“But the untold story behind that story is one that involves not just the Russian president, but also a former American president and a woman who would like to be the next one.”

“At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One.”

“Frank Giustra…a mining financier, has donated $31.3 million to the foundation run by former President Bill Clinton…”

“Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal [to sell Uranium One to Putin] had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.”

“As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.”

“And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.”

If you’re Putin and you’re sitting in Moscow, and the uranium deal has just dropped this bonanza into your lap, what’s your reaction—after you stop laughing and popping champagne corks? Or maybe you never really stop laughing. Maybe this is a joke that keeps on giving. You wake up in the middle of the night with a big grin plastered on your face, and you can’t figure out why…and then you remember, oh yeah, the uranium deal. The US uranium. Who’s running the show in America? Ha-ha-ha. Some egregious dolt? Maybe he’s a sleeper agent we forgot about and he reactivated himself. And this Clinton Foundation—how can the beautiful couple get away with that? Can we give Hillary a medal? Can we put up a statue of her in a park? Does Bill need any more hookers?

You shake your head and go back to sleep. You see a parade of little boats carrying uranium from the US to Russia. A pretty line of putt-putt boats. You chuckle. Row, row, row your boat…merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily…life is but a dream.

Good times.

Final note: there is a great deal of difference between a major outlet like the NY Times running their Clinton/uranium piece for one day—and pounding on it for weeks and months. In the latter case, they would let loose the hounds, who would probe and push and interview relevant people and get confessions and parlay those confessions up the food chain—blowing the story into an enormous scandal—which it is.

The Times had its hands on a volcanic piece…and they let it drop. Because the ceiling and the limit had been reached. The Times basically executed what’s called a limited hangout, a partial exposure of a story that was getting too hot to suppress entirely.

The limited hangout allows the venting of steam—and then nothing more. In this case, the Clinton camp denies there was any quid pro quo, they assert Hillary had nothing to do with the uranium deal, and the curtain falls.

Thus you have the reality which the major media did expose, vs. the reality they could have exposed. The “could have” part would have changed current history—but it was squelched, and put under wraps.

Tossed on the junk heap.

—end of my 2016 article—

Now, the Senate Judiciary Committee and Chairman Chuck Grassley are looking into these crimes, because new reports of corruption are surfacing:

FOX News: “The Hill reported that the FBI had evidence as early as 2009 that Russian operatives used bribes, kickbacks and other dirty tactics to expand Moscow’s atomic energy footprint in the U.S. — but the Obama administration approved the uranium deal benefiting Moscow anyway.”

“Grassley on Wednesday [raised]…the question of whether the [US government] committee that approved the [uranium] transaction [in 2010] was aware of the FBI probe. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) [which approved the uranium deal] included then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.”

As Newsweek reports, that early FBI probe was launched under FBI Director Robert Mueller. Mueller is now trying to dig up (or invent) every tidbit he can about Russian collusion with…Trump in the 2016 presidential election. My, my.

Newsweek contacted the FBI a few days ago, asking whether Mueller had informed the Obama White House about his old FBI probe that uncovered Russian corruption relevant to the uranium deal that was being put together at the time.

Newsweek: “The FBI said it had no comment to Newsweek questions about whether Mueller alerted senior Obama administration officials, including Clinton, about the [FBI] investigation before they brokered the [uranium] deal.”

BOOM. Are you kidding? No comment? That’s tantamount to admitting, “Look, either way we answer that question, we’re screwed or the Obama White House is screwed, so we’re remaining mum. We’re protecting VERY IMPORTANT PEOPLE and the truth doesn’t matter.”

This should be the subject of screaming headlines from mainstream news around the world: FBI CLAMS UP ON URANIUM DEAL. FBI REFUSES TO SAY WHETHER BOSS MUELLER TOLD THE WHITE HOUSE ABOUT RUSSIAN CORRUPTION IN URANIUM DEAL. FBI COVERING UP CORRUPTION IN CLINTON OBAMA RUSSIAN URANIUM DEAL.

However, the FBI refusal is buried deep in mainstream stories.

But wait, it gets even better:

FOX: “[Grassley] is calling for the Justice Department to lift an apparent ‘gag order’ on an FBI informant who reportedly helped the U.S. uncover a [2009-10] corruption and bribery scheme by Russian nuclear officials but allegedly was ‘threatened’ by the Obama administration to stay quiet.”

“Victoria Toensing, a lawyer for the former FBI informant, told Fox News’ ‘America’s Newsroom’ that her client has ‘specific information about [Russian] contributions and bribes to various entities and people in the United States’.”

“She said she could not go further because her client has not been released from a nondisclosure agreement but suggested the gag order could be lifted soon. [It was lifted a few days ago.] Toensing also claimed that her client was ‘threatened by the Loretta Lynch Justice Department’ when he pursued a civil action in which he reportedly sought to disclose some information about the case.”

The gag order and the non-disclosure agreement are nonsense. They don’t apply when enforcing them would cover up a major crime.

I have suggestions for the FBI informant’s lawyer Toensing, if she’s playing it straight.

Hire at least four top-flight private security firms to guard your client around the clock, and hope these firms don’t have strong ties to government law-enforcement.

Issue a firm declaration from your client stating he is in good health and has no intention of committing suicide.

Do these things yesterday.

After all, it’s the Clintons we’re talking about, and Obama and the FBI.

And the Clintons.

And, of course, the Clintons.

Jon Rappoport

[peaceseeker]