COVID measures around the world have been a source for much debate around whether or not they are helpful in stopping the spread of COVID-19 and whether or not they are legal. Given the current state of our society, how it functions and how our economies work, lockdown measures essentially state that millions of everyday citizens in countries must forgo their wellbeing and financial standing to stop COVID all while huge corporations and banks make billions. Through the loss of rights and liberties we can see why COVID measures have been such a huge discussion with real implications for and against.
What Happened: A court in Brussels ruled that all COVID-19 measures put in place by the government must be lifted within 30 days or fines will begin. The ruling was based on the fact that there is no legal basis for these measures to be upheld.
The League for Human Rights had filed a lawsuit weeks prior, challenging Belgium’s way of implementing the COVID measures using what are called ‘Ministerial Decrees,’ which means they were put in place without any discussion from parliament.
“We believe that in view of the restrictions on fundamental freedoms imposed to fight the COVID-19 pandemic, a debate in Parliament was essential, […] While restrictions on these rights and freedoms may of course be made, given the importance of the issues at stake and the need to protect the rights to life and health of individuals, they must be fair and proportionate.” The League of Human Rights stated.
As I opened this piece with, the argument here is that a holistic view of society is not being taken into consideration here, as everyday citizens ability to live life is bulldozed while big corporations are rewarded, further fuelling the ongoing discussion that government does not serve people but instead corporate interests.
The Belgian State now has 30 days to provide what law they believe they are abiding by or they must lift the measures. If they fail to provide a law and do not lift measures, they face a penalty of €5,000 per day, up to a maximum of €200,000.
The laws involved here are rather nuanced and complex. As of now, measures will stay in place as they are until the Interior Ministers office completes their review of the case. The current measures are based on the Civil Safety Act of 2007, which allow the Belgian State to move quickly during “exceptional circumstances,” however, in this case the judge has ruled that the government cannot act from Ministerial Decrees while using these laws.
The State can appeal the decision, but an appeal would not suspend the execution of the judgment.
Belgium’s Chamber is set to debate pandemic law, hoping that they can come to some sort of agreement around a more permanent legal basis for these types of society restrictions in the future.
Why It Matters: As we’ve noted with other measures around the world, what happens in one country often creates a precedent or motivation for other countries to act as well. If the COVID-19 pandemic indeed is not as large a threat as being purported by mainstream dialogue, an idea that a great deal of science does align with, then the way to come to our societal senses here might be through grassroots legal action.
Then again, can we agree on how much of a threat COVID-19 really is? What would it take to do so? Are mainstream media and big tech, both who are censoring and ridiculing those with different perspectives, actually making coming to an agreement on the threat level of COVID-19 much worse? Are they welcoming a lack of trust in mainstream institutions by refusing to address science and perspectives that oppose the measures being taken?
The Takeaway: Society must have controversial conversations in a meaningful way. We are not getting anywhere by taking authoritarian actions that harm the well being of general society and our ability to stay connected as communities. Mainstream culture is expecting everyone to side with the idea that fringe ‘conspiracy theories’ are undermining truth in society, yet mainstream culture does not want to take responsibility for its role in this phenomenon via censorship and corporate favoritism.
People want to thrive, they are tired of being constantly handed the short end of the stick as the rich get richer. It does not take long to look with open eyes and see that government is not working to serve people as much as we’d like to think.
Deep State operative and former CIA director John Brennan has a new home at the Guantanamo Bay detention center in Cuba, Real Raw News has learned. A source familiar with Trump’s war on the Deep State and mission to invalidate a fraudulent presidential election told RRN that U.S. military assets loyal to Trump arrested Brennan …
On January 2, 2020 – while former President Donald J. Trump was vacationing on his estate in Palm Beach, Florida – Trump ordered a strike on Qasem Soleimani near Baghdad International Airport in Iraq. Soleimani – an Iranian Major General who led the elite Quds Force and was responsible for Iran’s military operations outside of Iran – was deeply revered within Iranian society. Soleimani’s assassination stunned many (both domestically and abroad) and signalled a heightened, dangerous escalation in the ratcheting up of U.S.-Iran tensions that Trump and his administration vigorously stoked throughout his tenure in Washington.
Trump’s administration was littered with NeoConservative war hawks who thirsted for war with Iran. Whether it was evangelical fundamentalist and former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo who contended that Trump was “sent by God to defend Israel from Iran” or the appointment of arguably the most degenerative figure in modern American foreign policy – John Bolton – who should be standing trial at the ICC (International Criminal Court) for war crimes, Trump’s tenure in Washington saw America once again engaged in endless cycles of war.
Enter Joe Biden – who campaigned on countering Trump’s destructive forever war policies with an emphasis on diplomacy and restoring dignity in our foreign relations – or so some thought. Just days into his presidency, Biden ordered a strike in Syria that killed 20+ people, targeting “Iranian-backed militias” in what many (including Rep. Ro Khanna) are calling an illegal strike on a sovereign nation without consulting Congress for authorization.
Rep. Ilhan Omar wasn’t alone in pointing out the hypocrisy of Biden Press Secretary Jen Psaki (who once lectured Trump on his lack of legal authority to strike Syria) who is now all of a sudden silent on the constitutional mandate to consult Congress prior to engaging in offensive military action. Senator Bernie Sanders issued his own statement citing his deep concern with Biden’s cavalier approach to striking Syria. Former Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard – who was ridiculed, maligned and slandered in the 2020 Democratic primary as a “Russian Asset” for calling out the bi-partisan hypocrisy in Syria – also reiterated her long-standing warning of meddling in the Middle-East and siding with extremist proxies for no legitimate reason as it pertains to U.S. security and stability in the region. Even moderates (from both parties) have lined up to critique Biden, introducing legislation to strip him of war powers in the aftermath of his recklessness in Syria.
Ironically, both President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris openly criticized Trump for his foolish actions in Syria (and rightfully so) – but now have replicated Trump’s foolishness, exposing an ugly truth about American politics vis-à-vis foreign policy: with few exceptions, Presidents from both parties have wilted mightily when it comes to challenging the bi-partisan consensus that has fueled the war machine for decades upon decades.
The president needs to lay out a comprehensive strategy in Syria in consultation with Congress — and he needs to do it now.
Trump’s erratic, impulsive actions are the last thing we need as Commander-in-Chief. No president should order a military strike without fully understanding the consequences. We don’t need another war in the Middle East, but Trump’s actions toward Iran only make that more likely.
Coincidentally, as Biden was continuing the bi-partisan trend of obsessively bombing the Middle-East and stoking war with Iran, he was simultaneously refusing to sanction or exact any punishment against Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman for his obvious complicity in the slaying of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. When asked about his decision to bomb Syria – Biden issued this warning to Iran: “You can’t act with impunity.” Apparently, that warning doesn’t apply if you’re a Crown Saudi Prince who fuels genocide in Yemen and orders the murder of journalists. Then, presumably, one can act with as much “impunity” as their heart desires.
Predictably, retaliatory action was taken in the wake of the strike in Syria – when rockets hit Al Asad air-base in Iraq (housing U.S. troops) on Wednesday (3/3/21) – signalling a continuation of the never-ending tit-for-tat that has typified the instability in the Middle East – bringing us ever closer to all-out war in the region.
When Trump took office in 2016 – he immediately moved to rip up the historic Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) – better known as the “Iran Nuclear Deal.” This was a toxic and inherently dangerous strategy by Trump designed to goad Iran into war, squandering the hard-fought gains from the Obama administration where exemplary diplomats (from both the U.S. & Iran) engaged in painstakingly difficult negotiations to both normalize relations with Iran and prevent further nuclear proliferation. Biden had a “slam-dunk” opportunity to enter office with an emphasis on restoring diplomatic relations with Iran. Iran was eager to re-enter the JCPOA as Biden took office (as it had complied with the terms of the agreement) prior to Trump’s reckless abandonment of the deal. Instead, Biden has chosen to erratically strike Syria, mirroring his predecessor, rendering it far more difficult to restore productive diplomacy with Iran.
Former President and abolitionist John Quincy Adams once warned us of the very predicament we find ourselves in today:
“She (America) goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force…. She might become the dictatress of the world.”
Unfortunately – not only have we searched abroad for monsters to destroy – but in many instances we have actually *created* those monsters – and continue to do so to this day.
The Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth announced on March 25th that the final report from researchers at the University of Alaska Fairbanks on the destruction of the 47-story World Trade Center Building 7 in New York City late in the afternoon of September 11, 2001 has been completed. And as expected, it debunks the official story:
The UAF team’s findings, which were the result of a four-year computer modeling study of the tower’s collapse, contradict those of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), which concluded in a 2008 report that WTC 7 was the first tall building ever to collapse primarily due to fire.
“Our study found that the fires in WTC 7 could not have caused the observed collapse,” said Professor Leroy Hulsey, the study’s principal investigator. “The only way it could have fallen in the observed manner is by the near-simultaneous failure of every column.”
The UAF team’s final report is the result of an extensive four-year computer modeling effort that was followed by a robust peer review process. The peer review included dozens of public comments as well as external review by two independent experts, Dr. Gregory Szuladzinski of Analytical Service Company, a leading expert in structural mechanics and finite element modeling, and Dr. Robert Korol, a professor emeritus of civil engineering at McMaster University and a fellow of the Canadian Society for Civil Engineering.
Richard Gage, president and founder of AE911Truth, said that “It is now incumbent upon the building community, the media, and government officials to reckon with the implications of these findings and launch a new full-scale investigation.”
Of course, asking for a new full-scale investigation has always been the mandate for AE911Truth. One would suspect that if an investigation has not been launched by now, when a majority of the public believe something is being hidden from them about 9/11, no amount of proof about the falsity of the official statement will be able to get the ball rolling.
Still, the work that continues to be done by AE911Truth and its allies among the 9/11 victims’ families keeps this issue in the spotlight, and reminds us that important facts about 9/11 have yet to be revealed, facts that question the very nature and motivations of our government and other powerful institutions. The 9/11 activists will now use the findings in the report as part of a formal “request for correction” that the group plans to submit to NIST in the coming days. Richard Gage noted,
“The indisputable errors documented in our request for correction will give NIST no way out of correcting its deeply flawed report and reversing its conclusion that fires were the cause of the collapse.”
An admission by NIST that their conclusions about the reasons for the WTC 7 collapse is tantamount to an admission that explosives had been pre-planted in this building for this event, so we shouldn’t hold our breath. It would bring down the entire house of cards that is the official 9/11 narrative.
Truth is coming, about 9/11, about JFK, about hidden technology, ETs and about a hundred other things. It seems to me that full disclosures of all of these have been held up, or are creeping along very slowly, as if they were being loaded into a cannon for one huge explosion of truth that is set to have a profound impact on our collective consciousness. Rather than being impatient for one particular disclosure or another, I believe it’s best to try to see a pattern that relates to the readiness of the collective mind, and do our part to prepare ourselves.
When a federal judge ordered the release of Chelsea Manning from prison on March 12th, the news was met with relatively little fanfare. There was a kind of muted, matter-of-factness about it in the mainstream press, with much of the print devoted to procedural aspects of the release, or the fact that Ms. Manning allegedly tried to kill herself the day before, based on her lawyers’ testimony.
The most important discussion, which seems to only be taking place in the remotest fringes of cyberspace, is acknowledging the incredible courage, conscience, and resilience that Chelsea Manning has displayed during the entire harrowing ordeal. Her principled efforts, as we will discuss further, serve as a model for the rest of us who are truly seeking to liberate the planet from tyranny and enslavement.
What Manning Actually Did
In 2010, then-Pfc. Bradley Manning, a 22-year old Army intelligence analyst in Iraq, sent hundreds of thousands of classified files to WikiLeaks. These files consisted of documents and videos, among the latter the famous “Collateral Murder” video, as well as State Department cables. Many of the items transmitted contained evidence of war crimes on the part of the U.S. military.
In an online chat attributed to Manning, she wrote the following regarding her decision to release the files:
If you had free reign over classified networks… and you saw incredible things, awful things… things that belonged in the public domain, and not on some server stored in a dark room in Washington DC… what would you do?
God knows what happens now. Hopefully worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms… I want people to see the truth… because without information, you cannot make informed decisions as a public. (source)
So let’s get absolutely clear on this. Manning witnessed multiple instances of war crimes on the part of her own military and government, a characterization, by the way, that is not disputed by the U. S. government. Manning sacrificed her own safety and well-being so that people could know the truth, and hoped the revelations would spark public outcry and lead the public to challenge the government and the U. S. military in terms of the kind of criminal activity that is usually hidden under the fog of war.
What Manning saw was a disregard for civilians and for human life in general. Although these releases seemed to significantly impact U. S. involvement in Iraq, this is not what Manning was after. What she was after was an awakening of the general public to the reality of war. In fact what Manning was doing was bringing more evidence to the notion, popularized by former Major General Smedley Butler, that modern ‘war’ is generally not engaged in to defend a nation and create greater security for its citizens, but rather serves the economic interests of a small elite group:
War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.–Major General Smedley Butler
Manning fulfilled her legal duty to report war crimes. Enshrined in the U.S. Army Subject Schedule No. 27-1 is “the obligation to report all violations of the law of war.” Manning went to her chain of command and asked them to investigate the Collateral Murder video and other “war porn,” but her superiors refused.
The Uniform Code of Military Justice sets forth the duty of a service member to obey lawful orders. But that duty includes the concomitant duty to disobey unlawful orders. For Manning, any order, explicit or implicit, not to reveal evidence of war crimes would be an unlawful order. Therefore Manning made the principled decision to expose the commission of war crimes to the public through Wikileaks.
The Court Martial
Now if the U. S. government was sincere in their rhetoric that they fight wars overseas in order to promote and secure human rights and democracy around the world, then these files published by Wikileaks would have sparked a tremendous amount of contrition and self-reflection on their part, and Chelsea Manning would have been hailed as a hero from the beginning for helping the U. S. military recognize and repair obvious inconsistencies and outright hypocrisy within their operations. None of this happened.
We celebrate the Remembrance Day holiday to commemorate the bravery of soldiers. While there is no doubt that many soldiers deserve regard for showing the courage to enter a war zone, should we not awaken more to the evidence that many if not most soldiers are simply unwittingly accomplices in highly immoral operations? What ‘commemoration’ was given to Chelsea Manning, whose actions, unlike those of most soldiers, are obviously of great benefit to U. S. citizens and the human population as a whole? Of course. A court-martial.
In her court-martial trial Chelsea Manning admitted sending the files to WikiLeaks. She also confessed to interacting online with someone who was probably Mr. Assange, but she said she had acted on principle and was not working for WikiLeaks. She was sentenced to 35 years in prison — the longest sentence by far in an American leak case. It was obviously commensurate with the level of embarrassment suffered by those who control military action. The initial conditions of her confinement were egregious. She somehow managed to survive.
President Barack Obama commuted most of the remainder of her sentence shortly before he left office, and Manning was released from jail on May 17th, 2017.
Refusal To Testify
When asked how the world and the U. S. appeared to her a year after her release, Manning’s own words in the video below indicate that things seemed to have gotten worse, and many of her fears about the direction the world was going were manifesting:
As much as she may have thought that after this incarceration was over she would retire and ride off into the sunset, she would end up having to make a principled stand yet again. In May of 2019, prosecutors investigating Julian Assange and Wikileaks subpoenaed her to testify before a grand jury about their interactions. Believing that the case against Julian Assange was an extension of the kind of criminality and abuse of power that she had already been fighting against, she refused the subpoena on ethical grounds.
As the court order describes below, Chelsea Manning chose to reject a guarantee of immunity from the Department of Justice and was willing to once again endure prison time, and financial ruin as well, in order to stand up to her principles:
By Order dated May 6 , 2019 [Doc. 2 ], the Court granted Chelsea Manning full use and derivative use immunity, pursuant to 18 U.S . C . 6002, and ordered Ms. Manning to testify and provide other information in the above-captioned grand jury proceeding (“Grand Jury”). Subsequently , on May 16 , 2019, after Ms. Manning stipulated that she would refuse to comply with the Court’s May 6, 2019 Order, the Court found Ms. Manning in civil contempt, determined that a coercive sanction against Ms. Manning was appropriate, and remanded Ms. Manning to the custody of the Attorney General until such time as she purges herself of contemptor for the life of the Grand Jury, but in no event longer than 18 months. [Doc. 9] In that May 16 , 2019 Order, the Court also ordered that, if Ms. Manning did not purge herself of contempt within thirty (30) days, she shall incur a conditional fine of $500 per day until such time as she purges herself of contempt; and if she did not purge herself of contempt within sixty (60) days after issuance of the Order, she shall incur a conditional fine of $ 1, 000 per day until such time as she purges herself of contempt or for the life of the grand jury, whichever occurs first.
It is a grim peculiarity of American law that a person who refuses to cooperate with a grand jury subpoena may be held in contempt of court and fined or imprisoned with the express purpose of coercing testimony, but when the coercive condition is absent, such incarceration becomes illegal. Wednesday’s motion directs Judge Anthony Trenga, who is presiding over the grand jury and Manning’s imprisonment, to accordingly recognize the illegality in this case.
“The key issue before Judge Trenga is whether continued incarceration could persuade Chelsea to testify,” said Manning’s attorney, Moira Meltzer-Cohen, on filing the Grumbles motion. “Judges have complained of the ‘perversity’ of this law: that a witness may win their freedom by persisting in their contempt of court. However, should Judge Trenga agree that Chelsea will never agree to testify, he will be compelled by the law to order her release.”
If the motion is successful, Manning will be freed for the very reason she has been caged: her silence. The judge can decide to recognize that Manning won’t speak as a consequence of more time in jail — or because she will continue to face unprecedented $1,000-per-day fines. Any other conclusion, after her months of steadfast and principled grand jury resistance, would fly in the face of all reason. The whistleblower’s actions and words make it plain.
“I have been separated from my loved ones, deprived of sunlight, and could not even attend my mother’s funeral,” Manning said in a statement Wednesday. “It is easier to endure these hardships now than to cooperate to win back some comfort, and live the rest of my life knowing that I acted out of self-interest and not principle.”
This is what another modern hero, whistleblower Edward Snowdon, had to say on the news that Chelsea Manning had been released from prison:
The government cast Manning into a dungeon for resisting a scheme to make publishers of news subject to the Espionage Act. They offered to let her out in exchange for collaboration, but she chose her principles instead.
Under these circumstances, Chelsea Manning’s release from prison on March 12th is a victory for humankind–if enough of us acknowledge its significance. If a ballot came out for the greatest hero so far in the 21st century, Chelsea Manning would get my vote.
Humanity is currently in a struggle against a small but extremely powerful group of people at the top of the political and economic pyramid. What needs to be understood, however, is that this group can only maintain its power if the majority of humanity continues to bow to its bribery, threats and coercion. This group considers humanity as mere cattle, to be pushed and swayed in whatever direction this group wants us to go. And who can blame them for their confidence? Who among us could say that they would have acted on their principles under the conditions that Chelsea Manning did? How many of us would have put our conscience to pasture and not even considered publicizing their own military’s war crimes, or would have chosen immunity in rationalizing that they ‘had to’ honor a Grand Jury subpoena?
When someone endures extreme retribution to stand up against a tyrannical authority on the basis of principle and what is in the best interests of humanity, then that person and their action should be celebrated in every corner of the world. Further, their actions should serve as a model to all of us, to stand up to our principles and values no matter the circumstances or consequences of those actions. If more people were willing to act in this fashion, we would have already liberated ourselves. But if the action of a brave person like Chelsea Manning has motivated at least some of us to be more courageous and principled when confronted with any form of tyranny or coercion in our lives, the great moment of emancipation may soon be upon us.
By now, many people have heard of the psychoactive brew ayahuasca. Native to the deep jungles of the Amazon, ayahuasca has been used for centuries by indigenous peoples of South America. Within the last several decades, however, the use of ayahuasca has extended to westernized cultures and has initiated profound healing for many, sparking recoveries from various mental health disorders such as depression, anxiety and addiction. Practices with this ‘plant teacher’ have been life-changing for millions, undoubtedly saving many lives.
That being said, “Psychedelics were used back in a time when the level of consciousness of the planet was not as high, which helped give insight to shamans so they could share it with their communities. It was meant for use in extreme cases where heavy trauma or addictions existed and people could not use other ways to work through their emotional challenges. Here in present time, we use them in a western fashion as THE GO TO for moving through all of our challenges. I’m here to remind you that you have so much power and ability as a being that in most cases, you don’t need any of these things to evolve. I’m not suggesting don’t do it, I’m simply saying truly ask your heart what you want, and don’t get caught up in the grand allure and peer pressure.” – Joe Martino (source)
Not everyone who is interested in working with this brew and learning from traditional knowledge holders are able to travel to the Amazon. Because of this, indigenous and non-indigenous practitioners with the best intentions have been bringing this medicine to western cultures in an effort to assist those who could benefit from taking it.
Ayahuasca and some other traditionally used psychoactive plants (such as San Pedro and Iboga) fall into a legal grey area in many countries. According to the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB), no plants or concoctions made from plants naturally containing alkaloids controlled under the 1971 United Nations Convention on Psychotropic Substances (e.g. mescaline or dimethyltryptamine (DMT)) are under international control. However, the INCB also states that governments at the national level can regulate these plants and preparations as they so choose.
The result is that there is a lot of legal uncertainty around ayahuasca, and most countries do not have specific laws regulating it. Some countries have some level of religious or cultural protection for practices with these plants such as Peru, Brazil, the US and Canada. However, the largely uncertain legal status of ayahuasca and other plants has led to prosecution of people working with them in dozens of countries.
Thankfully, there’s a dedicated international organization called ICEERS (The International Center for Ethnobotanical Education, Research and Service) that is dedicated to resolving these challenges that come with the globalization of ayahuasca and other plant practices, advocating for safe and responsible use, self-regulatory processes, and the respect of indigenous and cultural practices.
According to Benjamin De Loenen, ICEERS founder and executive director, “These plants have been held sacred by indigenous communities for decades and even millennia, and along with their globalization has come a clash with the drug control system. A system that only came into being only during the last century. The lens through which this system looks at these practices is highly reductionistic – literally extracting DMT out of complex cultural systems – and often does not understand the important role they have played historically and can play currently in the benefit of communities.”
Many of the people who facilitate experiences with plant teachers are taking a huge risk and they can fall victim to drug control that is not based in evidence and human rights. In some cases, law officials have raided, arrested, and charged people who are doing this work and risking their livelihoods to assist those who are suffering or those who have a religious practice involving plant medicines.
Meet the Ayahuasca Defense Fund (ADF)
The ADF is an ICEERS program that works directly with those who are facing prosecution worldwide to assure the best legal strategy and defense for their case. The program advocates for sensible and tolerant legislation and public policy and educates and protects the global community by providing reliable information and resources.
ADF coordinator and attorney Natalia Rebollo stresses the importance of communities staying informed about their local legal realities and to be aware of trends, changes in legislation and outcome of cases.
“ICEERS has been in service of the global plant medicine community for a decade. We elevated our legal support in 2016 in response to the community’s express desire for more support. In this role I have seen firsthand the harsh reality of legal prosecution of people who have dedicated their lives to helping people. We have seen though, that these cases can be turned into opportunities for educating the judge and authorities about the important value of these plants and establish positive legal precedents,” she said.
How Does The ADF Help?
In a nutshell, the aim of the ADF is to work with defendants and their legal representation to understand the peculiarities of the legal status of these plants at international and local levels. By providing scientific evidence alongside information about the history of the use of plants by indigenous people of the world, the ADF supports defendants in painting a broader picture of how these practices are legitimate.
“B” is someone who was helped by the ADF (she shared her experience but asked to remain anonymous) and faced charges in the US related to receiving a shipment of ayahuasca. She shared the following statement about her experience:
“The ADF walked me through a very challenging, terrifying and complex process of proving my innocence in the eyes of the law after I brought ayahuasca, the master teacher plant to the United States. The ADF’s expertise was the key to getting my freedom back. With the wealth of their expertise, their knowledge about ayahuasca, their understanding of the law governing each country and with my innocent heart, we are changing the course of how the sacred plants are being seen by the US government.”
The ADF will not help just anyone who is facing trouble with the law, but has strict criteria to ensure that those who are sincere and using these plants with the best intentions are supported. They will not provide assistance to those who do not meet eligibility criteria around ethical and responsible work with ayahuasca and other plants.
B goes on to say, “The ADF is an advocate for the responsible and honorable use of plants. Their work is essential to taking the sacred teacher plants and their humble human servants out of prison. This work is of the highest importance. It is fundamental to spiritually advance human civilization, to heal the wounds of the heart and mind and to move the earth from a place of scarcity to a place of love.”
The majority of those who have had experiences with various psychoactive plants — including ayahuasca, psilocybin mushrooms, and iboga — know the benefits that are potentially life-saving to many who are struggling, and know the positive impact these practices have in reconnecting us to ourselves, our communities and the planet.
Like many advocacy programs that challenge the status quo, ICEERS’s legal defense work relies on community support to operate. If you wish to support the ADF and its efforts, please consider donating to their campaign to ensure their ability to continue supporting those who are risking their lives to serve others.
The monumental withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union at 00:00:01 am on February 1st, 2020 finally allowed us to witness whether prognostications from the prophets of doom would come true. Amidst fears being pushed right up until the end that this move would result in absolute chaos and the weeping and gnashing of teeth, this event yielded the same results that other such events have produced: the realization that there was never anything to fear.
Of course those prophets of doom will never recant, they will just press forward with future predictions of how Brexiters will eventually rue the day they left the European Union, with some form of quasi-threat that the UK will never be able to establish the favorable economic ties they had with the rest of Europe under the ‘Union.’
Time will ultimately tell all, of course, but logic would dictate that if a nation is fully independent and free to accept or reject any terms offered, they are in a much better bargaining position than if they are already hamstrung by the rules and regulations dictated by their would-be trading partner.
If we can look at a particular geopolitical pattern of power unification that has long been rising and now has started to fall, we may view Brexit as not only a boon to the UK’s economic outlook, but indeed as the beginning of the end of a long sought-after endeavor to enslave humanity within a rigid centralized economic system.
The New World Order
The phrase ‘New World Order’ is often associated with the Latin phrase ‘Novus Ordo Seclorum’ which has adorned the American dollar bill the past 85 years, in terms of the plans of a global elite conspiring to create a totalitarian world government hidden in plain sight. While this link remains somewhat speculative, one thing that is true is that more than one president has employed the phrase in an attempt to inspire countries of the world to come together fully under a centralized economy and system of governance.
George H. W. Bush famously employed the phrase in a speech on September 11th, 1990, at a time when few people had suspicions about the true motives of global institutions like the United Nations or the perceived need for a new world political and economic order:
We have before us the opportunity to forge for ourselves and for future generations a new world order–a world where the rule of law, not the law of the jungle, governs the conduct of nations. When we are successful–and we will be–we have a real chance at this new world order, an order in which a credible United Nations can use its peacekeeping role to fulfill the promise and vision of the U.N.’s founders. (source)
Perhaps the prospects for the implementation of this new world order reached its apex early in the presidency of Barack Obama, who was so eloquently able to couch the concept of an unelected, totalitarian government running the planet within ‘pillars’ such as peace and security, environmental preservation and economic opportunity, as he explains to the UN General Assembly below.
Since this time, however, some of the true ‘pillars’ of a totalitarian system of enslavement have begun to impact human consciousness, especially in the European Union: the breakdown of national sovereignty and identity, untenable refugee and immigration policies, and backbreaking economic austerity measures.
Protests like the Yellow Vests movement in France and elsewhere in Europe where austerity measures under the EU have been foisted upon a nation rage on. These movements have gotten little coverage in the mainstream, except on occasions where they can characterize these movements as violent. As time goes on, there is only an increase in the clear and present resistance to the global elite telling everyday citizens that their standard of living can no longer be what it used to be. And such resistance is powering the geopolitical winds of change.
The Multipolar Vision
Born out of this growing global environment of discontent and dissatisfaction, an important precedent to Brexit was the election of Donald Trump, who ran on a platform of nationalism (critics repeatedly called it ‘outdated protectionism’) with the promise to ‘Make America Great Again’ by bringing jobs back home that had been shipped overseas and cancelling U.S. involvement in global economic schemes like the Paris Accord, while renegotiating trade deals with other countries.
Philosophically, Trump has found an ally in Vladamir Putin. One of the reasons that Putin has been demonized by the West is that he has always been the most powerful opponent of American hegemony, and has fought tirelessly to promote a multipolar vision in global politics and economics. If we look at recent history, we see that Russia has shown little evidence of wanting to establish global domination in the way that the American Empire has done through wars, regime building and permanent military presence all over the world.
In a speech in December 2019, Putin stated flatly that the new world order (‘unipolar world’) was dead, and signs in global economic relations reflected his fervent belief that a multipolar world, in which there are several points of power and sovereignty, Russia being one of them, is essential for a secure and prosperous world.
It [the multipolar world] has been established, a unipolar world does not exist anymore. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, there was an illusion that this world is possible and could exist for a long time. However, it was just an illusion. I have always said that, and recent events serve as a testament to this. (source)
The ongoing push for Brexit, finally realized a year after Putin’s speech, is surely one of those signs. And as other countries in the European Union start to see the impact of leaving on the UK’s economy, and perhaps more importantly on their autonomy, it may not be long before Grexit, Frexit, Spexit and other such colloquial terms start to take hold and put the nail in the coffin of Europe’s contribution to the globalist agenda.
Human beings have an innate desire for unity, and it is this very desire that globalists have long tried to manipulate in order to fulfill their plans for world domination. The fact is, though, if these leaders truly had the best interests of humanity at heart, and really wanted to bring the planet together, they would have long handled problems such as war, environmental destruction, starvation and slavery.
Our destiny is unity, but the process will require several waves of decentralization before the true unity of humanity can be achieved. We see the beginnings here with Brexit, where nations are beginning to reject the global centralization of power. From there, sovereign nations will need to cede power to their states and cities. Those in turn will have to cede power to their communities. And then, finally, the communities will need to restore the power and sovereignty of individuals by being fundamentally grounded in the principles of Natural Law, which protects the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of each individual.
When individuals become sovereign, through an awakening of their consciousness that enables them to become fully responsible for the state of their world, that is when the true unity of the planet becomes possible.
Sometimes the simplest things can have the most impact. In this case, it’s a billboard with a powerful message. Standing tall at the Southeast corner of Wells and James Lovell, across the street from the Milwaukee Public Museum for the month of February and again for the month of July, this billboard reads,
“3% Of U.S. Military Spending Could End Starvation On Earth.”
Sounds too good to be true, doesn’t it? Well, unfortunately it’s true and it really shows where the priorities of those in charge of America’s worldly affairs lie. A group of Milwaukeeans and other US citizens have chipped in to put up billboards such as this one in an effort to raise public awareness about this huge elephant in the room that no one seems to be talking about or addressing — the insane amount of funds allotted to the US military budget. These billboards are certainly giving people something to talk about.
Let’s Talk Stats
In 2008 the United Nations announced that $30 billion per year could end hunger on the planet. As of 2019, the annual Pentagon base budget, plus war budget, plus nuclear weapons, plus the Department of Energy, plus the Department of Homeland Security and all other military-related spending totaled around $1.25 TRILLION. So if you are wondering where the 3% statistic came from, 3% of $1.25 trillion = $30 billion.
Organizations World BEYOND War, Milwaukee Veterans For Peace and Progressive Democrats of America have all contributed to the making this billboard possible.
“As veterans, we know that endless wars and the Pentagon’s corporate handouts do nothing to make us safe. We waste hundreds of billions of dollars that would be better spent on pressing needs like education, health care, and averting catastrophic climate change. Educating and reminding people of the true costs of war is a primary mission of Veterans For Peace. We are happy to be a partner in this effort by World BEYOND War.”–Paul Moriarity, President of Milwaukee Veterans For Peace
There are billboards and other big ads going up in many cities across the world, including Limerick, Ireland, Alaska, Lansing, Michigan, Schenectady, NY, and Pittsburgh, PA. In the past ads were placed in Toronto, Canada, Syracuse, NY, Baltimore, ML, Charlottesville, VA and many other places. This incredible organization has also put out ads through Facebook advertising all in an effort to get the conversation started about the possibility of a world without war.
“World BEYOND War is a global nonviolent movement to end war and establish a just and sustainable peace.
We aim to create awareness of popular support for ending war and to further develop that support. We work to advance the idea of not just preventing any particular war, but abolishing the entire institution.
We strive to replace a culture of war with one of peace in which nonviolent means of conflict resolution take the place of bloodshed.
While public opinion has moved against war, we intend to seize this moment to crystallize that opinion into a movement that spreads awareness that war can be ended, that its ending is hugely popular, that war should be ended as it endangers rather than protects — and harms rather than benefits — and that there are steps we can and must take to move toward war’s reduction and abolition.
War is not ending on its own. It is being confronted by popular resistance. But too often that resistance takes the form of denouncing one war as unacceptable (in contrast to theoretical good wars), or opposing a war because it leaves a military ill-prepared for other wars, or rejecting a weapon or a tactic as less proper than others, or opposing wasteful military spending in favor of greater efficiency (as if the entire enterprise were not an economic waste and a moral abomination). Our goal is to support steps away from war and to spread understanding of them as just that — steps in the direction of war’s elimination.”
Is A World Without War Truly Possible?
Of course! Anything is possible and the fact of the matter is that most of us would much rather see a world without war, but we do not believe that there is anything we can do to stop it. Given the fact that over 50% of Americans believe that 9/11 was an inside job it certainly makes one wonder, how is it that the US is able to justify the ongoing wars that essentially started because of this event? Fear plays a huge role in this.
The way I see it, war is an absolutely archaic practice, and it blows my mind every time I think about it. Is killing one another with bombs, drones and guns really the best solution to solve the world’s problems? Of course it’s not! But unfortunately psychopaths run our world and convince us using fear tactics that war is happening to protect us. As long as we believe and buy into these lies and fear one another, the more these heinous acts of senseless violence will continue.
As the saying goes, “fighting for peace is like f@*king for virginity.”
Thankfully organizations such as World BEYOND War exist, to at least get the conversation started about war. Hopefully, enough fellow humans will eventually stand up for what’s really right, put down their weapons, cease fire, stop enlisting into the military, and stop supporting it. We have a lot more power than we realize.
If you’d like to support the World BEYOND War movement, or purchase a billboard please click HERE.
I’m about to take on one of great sacred cows that has endured throughout the history of our modern society: the notion that our ability to vote in our political elections symbolizes our freedom, and those unwilling to vote do not deserve a voice in the democratic process.
Indeed, there may be blood.
But if you are the type of reader that holds to the core values of open-mindedness and curiosity, then certainly you will be willing to read through this article to the end and reflect for a moment before casting a stone of harsh rebuke. And with that, let’s begin.
Not A Call For Inaction
First things first. When I exhort all those who believe in freedom to ‘stop voting’, I am not for a minute suggesting that we become apathetic or lazy about our responsibilities to impact the quality and nature of our own governance. Quite on the contrary, this is a call to action. But an action that is purposeful, in that it has the potential to eventually ensure rights and freedoms that are inherent to us as human beings.
I consider people who vote to be ‘people of action’—they believe that they have a role and a responsibility in preserving our democracy, and they are willing to take time and trouble to impact the way our country is run. My argument is that voting no longer serves as an expression of our power. It has been reduced to a tiresome exercise of taking sides in a never-ending struggle born out of a false dichotomy. This false dichotomy has been maintained both as a distraction and to provide us with the illusion of ‘choice.’
The basic mechanism being used by our governing authority has long been some form of the traditional Liberal/Conservative dichotomy. To participate in our democracy, one is prompted to self-identify as leaning towards one or the other polarity, and much of the ‘drive’ and ‘energy’ around political discourse gets reduced to bickering between two fundamental ideologies: one that would have us empower the brightest, richest and most successful among us to help them lead the entire society into prosperity; the other that would focus on empowering the less fortunate of the society so that they can experience a certain level of dignity and equality with all members of the collective.
Admittedly, it’s tempting to choose sides. That’s why this ruse has worked for so long. What should finally be dawning on us, though, is the obvious fact that these two ideologies need to work in balance to create the optimal level of harmony, prosperity, and fulfillment within a society.
House of Horrors
And getting these two ideologies to work in balance is supposed to be what our government legislatures were designed for. Serious, intelligent people coming together to engage in open-minded and open-hearted discourse, equipped with an understanding that there are multiple perspectives on any issue, each imbued with strengths and weaknesses that are to be respected. Their shared goal is to efficiently arrive at solutions to the nation’s most pressing problems in a way that is most beneficial to the common good. And this is exactly what the people in the US House of Representatives and the House of Commons in Canada are doing.
Have you been to a live session of our legislatures lately? An absolute farce and embarrassment of posturing, sarcasm, and petty bickering layered with a nauseating veneer of decorum. It has become a theatre of the absurd, a reality show to legitimize the enslavement of the majority of the citizens within a society.
It also provides a convenient distraction that prevents many of us from engaging in the real battle going on behind the scenes: the struggle between those who want to liberate humanity and those who would enslave them.
No Real Choice
These days, our choice of candidates seeking election is a choice between near and far left-leaning people who will maintain a system of enslavement for their masters, and near and far right-leaning people who will maintain a system of enslavement for their masters.
It’s no wonder that we are dealing with candidates that seem to have little character, that seem to be involved in some scandal or another, and that don’t really stand for anything that we believe in. Most of them have already sold themselves out to elite power just to get into the position they are in, and if not, they are soon co-opted into the fold to play out their mandates as puppets for the real controllers of society.
In our elections coming up here in Ontario, the choice of available candidates is bleak and uninspiring. None of the 3 main party leaders have the trust of more than 30% of residents of Ontario. Things are so bad that a mainstream news article was written entitled, “Ontarians who don’t like their options can decline to vote — here’s how,” wherein the following is explained:
It’s a form of protest that Ontario residents have the right to, according to Section 53 of the Ontario Election Act, which reads: “An elector who has received a ballot and returns it to the deputy returning officer declining to vote, forfeits the right to vote and the deputy returning officer shall immediately write the word ‘declined’ upon the back of the ballot and preserve it to be returned to the returning officer and shall cause an entry to be made in the poll record that the elector declined to vote.
Essentially, this puts on public record the number of people who went to the trouble of lining up at the polling station in order to voice their dissatisfaction with all of the candidates available. A record 29,442 people exercised this option in the 2014 Ontario elections. It’s a pretty good indication of how disgruntled and frustrated we are.
The Perils Of Working From Within
Some might think that this ‘protest vote’ is what I am advocating here. But it is not. To go through the trouble of registering such a protest is, in my mind, a waste of an hour that could have been spent doing something useful, like planting a tree. The problem with this ‘protest vote’ is that it is designed to quell our frustration and thus stop us from taking more purposeful action. Not only that, but by turning the candidates into scapegoats, the system continues to present itself as the arbiter of our grievances rather than the true and actual source from which our grievances originate.
I would say the same thing about the official doctrine of democratic participation—writing a letter to your minister of parliament, congressperson or senator—as though they have any power at all to sway the massive ship of state, or even care about your concerns to any degree beyond ensuring their own re-election.
Sure, there are a few renegades within the political systems of our societies that are actively fighting with fiery and perhaps even sincere rhetoric to highlight threats to our freedom and other examples of governmental overreach—Nigel Farage in England comes to mind—but there is no getting around the fact that they still work within the system and their livelihood rests in keeping the system intact. They still must wait their turn, politely limit their speeches to the time allotted, and usually appear to be talking to a half-empty room of representatives, most of whom are busy chatting on their computers or about to fall asleep.
Unless and until these renegades are able to get themselves out of the system and continue to have a platform from which to air their grievances, their words and actions will continue to legitimize the very institution they are criticizing.
Freedom–and real democracy for that matter–are in some ways very foreign to us. We were born into this system. So it’s natural that we don’t expect much more than has been presented to us–although it’s becoming obvious that even the little we once had has started to be taken away. What are some of the things we could expect if we created a real democracy, and had true freedom? The end of secrecy and suppression of those inventions and technologies that could truly help us thrive. The implementation of policy on the part of our governing councils that completely made sense to us, and was generally consistent with our wishes and desires. The elimination of all involuntary tax, and a standard of living for ALL citizens of a nation that would rival that currently enjoyed by the upper class.
But in order to get there, we need to become clear about how our government and our ‘democracy’ have essentially been a tool of manipulation and self-interest at the hands of our world’s powerful corporate and financial elite.
And so, I will reiterate that if we truly want freedom the first step is to the wake up to the fact that voting is an endorsement of this current system that helps it maintain power. Making a conscious effort to disengage as ‘voter’ and completely ignore the unending mainstream polarization that characterizes political coverage is necessary. It will free us up to take a serene, clear-minded look at how we want to live as a collective and talk about alternative possibilities to the way we govern ourselves.
You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete. –Buckminster Fuller
It’s not so difficult for many of us to see that our archaic political system has indeed become obsolete. The ‘how’ and ‘what’ of building a new model is difficult and subtle, and I will be writing about this in a companion article that is coming soon. Suffice it to say, though, that I believe the first step is for all of us to ‘exit stage left’ from the tiresome political drama we have been subjected to, so that we can refocus our time, energy, intelligence and creativity into building a system that works for us all.