Marijuana cannabinoids slow brain degradation and aging, reverse dementia.


Cannabis_01_bgiu

The human brain contains an extensive network of special receptor sites that modulate nervous system function only when activated by the appropriate cannabinoid compounds, many of which are found in abundance in the marijuana plant. And emerging research continues to uncover the unique role these cannabinoids play in protecting brain function, which in turn helps deter the aging process and even reverse the damaging effects of Alzheimer’s disease and other forms of dementia and cognitive abnormality.

One of the latest discoveries concerning cannabinoids involves their ability to act as antioxidants in the brain. Researchers from Germany found that the brain’s cannabinoid system is fully capable of not only cleansing damaged brain cells from the brain, but also triggering the production of new brain cells within the brain, a concept that contradicts years of conventional thinking about how the brain works. Cannabinoids also supercharge mitochondria in the brain, which are the powerhouses of energy that maintain proper cell function.

Published in the journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, these discoveries shed new insight on how natural marijuana cannabinoids hold the capacity to literally quell the brain inflammation responsible for causing cognitive decline, neural failure, and brain degeneration. By supplying these receptor sites with cannabinoids, patients may be able to overcome brain conditions like Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, Huntington’s disease, and many other conditions, not to mention premature brain aging, all conditions for which modern science has failed to find real solutions.

“I’ve been trying to find a drug that will reduce brain inflammation and restore cognitive function in rats for over 25 years; cannabinoids are the first and only class of drugs that have ever been effective,” said Gary Wenk, a professor of neuroscience, immunology and medical genetics at Ohio State University (OSU) who helped with the research. “I think that the perception about this drug is changing and in the future people will be less fearful,” he added, referencing the fact that marijuana is still viewed mostly negatively by many people.

Source: http://www.realfarmacy.com

Is your bottled water polluted with addictive chemicals?


bottled_water_bad

Does your Bottled Water Contain Nicotine?

How about Pharmaceuticals?

 

Research published last year determined that commercial bottled water in Spain had over 50 pharmaceutically-active chemicals in it, as well as the highly addictive drug nicotine. Is your (or your children’s) bottled water polluted ?

It looks like it very well may be. And we’re not talking about nicotine-supplemented water meant to help wean smokers off of nicotine. We’re talking the kind of bottled water people drink to avoid the pollutants found in municipal drinking water supplies.

Researchers from the School of Public Health, Immunology and Medical Microbiology of Spain’s Rey Juan Carlos University analyzed ten brand of commercially available bottled waters.

The researchers were surprised to learn that the bottled water contained 58 active pharmaceuticals, and five of the ten brands contained significant amounts of nicotine.

The nicotine content of these five brands ranged from 7 nanograms per liter to 15 ng/L. The researchers admitted that these levels were low. However, they added:

Despite the low nicotine concentration measured, the presence of this compound in bottled water still raises concern. Health risk assessment researchers have postulated that the risk to adult healthy humans from oral intake of nicotine at low levels is negligible. However, no studies have been conducted to assess the human health risk of vulnerable populations such as pregnant women and newborns. This population is the target of advertising on the purity and quality characteristics of bottled mineral water.

While this is the first study to document bottled waters containing these chemicals, there are other studies, even newer, confirming identifiable concentrations of nicotine, pharmaceuticals and pesticide chemicals in municipal drinking water.

In the UK for example, the British Geological Survey analyzed and tested ground water and drinking watersupplies and also found nicotine along with caffeine and a variety of pharmaceuticals – such as carbamazepine and triclosan.

And many bottled waters are merely municipal tap water, sometimes run through a filtration unit. However, these filtration systems are typically designed to remove macro-pollutants such as lead and arsenic, but they may not filter out micropollutants such as pharmaceuticals and nicotine.

Studies finding pharmaceuticals in drinking water began to be published in the last decade. These were no fluke, however. And newer studies are confirming a growing problem among the world’s drinking water supplies.

For example, this year research from the Czech Republic’s Department of Water Hygiene at the National Institute of Public Health collected samples from 92 drinking water supplies, feeding half of Czech population.

They found the highest levels of pharmaceuticals to be ibuprofen, carbamazepine, naproxen, and diclofenac. These concentrations ranged from 0.5 to 20.7 nanograms per liter.

Another recent study – from Serbia’s University of Novi Sad Medical School – found trace levels of several antibiotics among their drinking water supplies.

Most municipal water treatment facilities do not filter out pharmaceuticals or other microtoxin metabolites from pesticides and other chemicals. New oxidation-driven systems are being tested, but these are not online in most municipalities. Micro-filtration units are also a possibility.

A study last year from Germany’s Free University Berlin found that the psychoactive drugs primidone and phenobarbital were found in drinking water supplies. Oxazepam and others were found in wastewater streams – likely soon to be in the drinking water supplies.

Another study from Spain – this from the Pharmacy Department of the University of Valencia – found numerous pharmaceuticals among the region’s ground water and drinking water supplies. They found 94% of the sediment and 80% of farming soils were polluted with carbamazepine, acetaminophen and others. They also found much of the drinking water supplies, pharmaceuticals were present at levels as high as 112 nanograms per liter. Soils contained lower concentrations, 15 nanograms per liter.

The researchers also pointed out high levels of fluoroquinolones and ibuprofen are threatening fish and otherwise contaminating the environment.

Meanwhile, last fall Polish researchers found the presence of beta-blockers and beta-agonists among their waterways.

And researchers from Australia’s University of Queensland studied waterways and water supplies close by hospitals. They found 57 different pharmaceuticals among these waterways, including many antibiotics – which entered into the system from hospitals and residential areas alike.

Researchers from the Netherlands found 12 pharmaceuticals in the drinking water supplies, as well as seven transformation products (metabolites that form other toxins).

Swedish researchers tested four waterways in the Montreal, Canada region between 2007 and 2009. They found significant levels of caffeine and a number of pharmaceuticals drugs – including carbamazepine, naproxen, gemfibrozil, and trimethoprim. They also found progesterone, estrone, and estradiol, along with the herbicide triazine – with atrazine, deethylatrazine, deisopropylatrazine, simazine, and cyanazine.

Researchers from the U.S. Geological Survey’s California Water Science Center analyzed ground water supplies that feed numerous drinking water systems throughout California. They found pharmaceuticals affecting two to three percent of the 1231 ground water systems tested. However, in this study only 14 pharmaceutical compounds were tested for, out of hundreds possible. And out of these 14 tested, seven were found in concentrations that were equal or greater to detection limits. These seven included acetaminophen, caffeine, carbamazepine, the highly addictive codeine, the caffeine metabolite p-xanthine, and the antibiotics sulfamethoxazole and trimethoprim. The samples also contained various pesticides, VOCs (volatile organic compounds) and others.

The research found that ground water supplies in the Los Angeles area were much more likely to contain pharmaceuticals, and contain higher levels of them.

It should be noted that several brands of commercial bottled waters (and many other foods and beverages containing water) are packaged in the Los Angeles area.

Source: http://csglobe.com

Who Really Runs the World?


wlogger.com_the_world_1680x1050

Conspiracies, Hidden Agendas & the Plan for World Government

So, who runs the world? It’s a question that people have struggled with since people began to struggle. It’s certainly a question with many interpretations, and incites answers of many varied perspectives.

Often, it is relegated to the realm of “conspiracy theory,” in that, those who discuss this question or propose answers to it, are purveyors of a conspiratorial view of the world. However, it is my intention to discard the labels, which seek to disprove a position without actually proving anything to the contrary. One of these labels – “conspiracy theorist” – does just that: it’s very application to a particular perspective or viewpoint has the intention of “disproving without proof;” all that is needed is to simply apply the label.

What I intend to do is analyse the social structure of the transnational ruling class, the international elite, who together run the world. This is not a conspiratorial opinion piece, but is an examination of the socially constructed elite class of people; what is the nature of power, how does it get used, and who holds it?

A Historical Understanding of Power

In answering the question “Who Runs the World?” we must understand what positions within society hold the most power, and thus, the answer becomes clear. If we simply understand this as heads of state, the answer will be flawed and inaccurate. We must examine the globe as a whole, and the power structures of the global political economy.

The greatest position of power within the global capitalist system lies in the authority of money-creation: the central banking system. The central banking system, originating in 1694 in England, consists of an international network of central banks that are privately owned by wealthy shareholders and are granted governmental authority to print and issue a nation’s currency, and set interest rates, collecting revenue and making profit through the interest charged. Central banks give loans to both governments and industries, controlling both simultaneously. The ultimate centre of power in the central banking system is at the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), in Basle, Switzerland; which is the central bank to the world’s central banks, and is also a private bank owned by the world’s central banks.

As Georgetown University history professor Carroll Quigley wrote:

The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basle, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world’s central banks which were themselves private corporations.1

The central banks, and thus the central banking system as a whole, is a privately owned system in which the major shareholders are powerful international banking houses. These international banking houses emerged in tandem with the evolution of the central banking system. The central banking system first emerged in London, and expanded across Europe with time. With that expansion, the European banking houses also rose and expanded across the continent.

The French Revolution resulted with Napoleon coming to power, who granted the French bankers a central bank of France, which they privately controlled.2 It was also out of the French Revolution that one of the major banking houses of the world emerged, the Rothschilds. Emerging out of a European Jewish ghetto, the Rothschilds quickly rose to the forefront in banking, and established banking houses in London, Paris, Frankfurt, Vienna and Naples, allowing them to profit off of all sides in the Napoleonic wars.3

As Carroll Quigley wrote in his monumental Tragedy and Hope, “The merchant bankers of London had already at hand in 1810-1850 the Stock Exchange, the Bank of England, and the London money market,” and that:

In time they brought into their financial network the provincial banking centres, organised as commercial banks and savings banks, as well as insurance companies, to form all of these into a single financial system on an international scale which manipulated the quantity and flow of money so that they were able to influence, if not control, governments on one side and industries on the other.4

At the same time, in the United States, we saw the emergence of a powerful group of bankers and industrialists, such as the Morgans, Astors, Vanderbilts, Rockefellers, and Carnegies, and they created massive industrial monopolies and oligopolies throughout the 19th century.5 These banking interests were very close to and allied with the powerful European banking houses.

The European, and particularly the British elites of the time, were beginning to organise their power in an effort to properly exert their influence internationally. At this time, European empires were engaging in the Scramble for Africa, in which nearly the entire continent of Africa, save Ethiopia, was colonised and carved up by European nations. One notable imperialist was Cecil Rhodes who made his fortune from diamond and gold mining in Africa with financial support from the Rothschilds,6 and “at that time [had] the biggest concentration of financial capital in the world.”7

Cecil Rhodes was also known for his radical views regarding America, particularly in that he would “talk with total seriousness of ‘the ultimate recovery of the United States of America as an integral part of the British Empire’.”8 Rhodes saw himself not simply as a moneymaker, but primarily as an “empire builder.”

As Carroll Quigley explained, in 1891 three British elites met with the intent to create a secret society. The three men were Cecil Rhodes, William T. Stead, a prominent journalist of the day, and Reginald Baliol Brett, a “friend and confidant of Queen Victoria, and later to be the most influential adviser of King Edward VII and King George V.” Within this secret society, “real power was to be exercised by the leader, and a ‘Junta of Three.’ The leader was to be Rhodes, and the Junta was to be Stead, Brett, and Alfred Milner.”9

The purpose of this secret society, which was later headed by Alfred Milner, was: “The extension of British rule throughout the world, the perfecting of a system of emigration from the United Kingdom and of colonisation by British subjects of all lands wherein the means of livelihood are attainable by energy, labour, and enterprise… [with] the ultimate recovery of the United States of America as an integral part of a British Empire.” [Emphasis added]10 Essentially, it outlined a British-led cosmopolitical world order, one global system of governance under British hegemony. Among key players within this group were the Rothschilds and other banking interests.11

After the 1907 banking panic in the US, instigated by JP Morgan, pressure was placed upon the American political establishment to create a “stable” banking system. In 1910, a secret meeting of financiers was held on Jekyll Island, where they planned for the “creation of a National Reserve Association with fifteen major regions, controlled by a board of commercial bankers but empowered by the federal government to act like a central bank – creating money and lending reserves to private banks.”12

It was largely Paul M. Warburg, a Wall Street investment banker, who “had come up with a design for a single central bank [in 1910]. He called it the United Reserve Bank. From this and his later service on the first Federal Reserve Board, Warburg has, with some justice, been called the father of the System.”13President Woodrow Wilson followed the plan almost exactly as outlined by the Wall Street financiers, and added to it the creation of a Federal Reserve Board in Washington, which the President would appoint.14

Thus, true power in the world order was held by international banking houses, which privately owned the global central banking system, allowing them to control the credit of nations, and finance and control governments and industry.

However, though the economic system was firmly in their control, allowing them to establish influence over finance, they needed to shape elite ideology accordingly. In effect, what was required was to socially construct a ruling class, internationally, which would serve their interests. To do this, these bankers set out to undertake a project of establishing think tanks to organise elites from politics, economics, academia, media, and the military into a generally cohesive and controllable ideology.

Constructing a Ruling Class: Rise of the Think Tanks

During World War I, a group of American scholars were tasked with briefing “Woodrow Wilson about options for the postwar world once the Kaiser and imperial Germany fell to defeat.” This group was called, “The Inquiry.” The group advised Wilson mostly through his trusted aide, Col. Edward M. House, who was Wilson’s “unofficial envoy to Europe during the period between the outbreak of World War I in 1914 and the intervention by the United States in 1917,” and was the prime driving force in the Wilson administration behind the establishment of the Federal Reserve System.15

“The Inquiry” laid the foundations for the creation of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the most powerful think tank in the US and, “The scholars of the Inquiry helped draw the borders of post World War I central Europe.” On May 30, 1919, a group of scholars and diplomats from Britain and the US met at the Hotel Majestic, where they “proposed a permanent Anglo-American Institute of International Affairs, with one branch in London, the other in New York.” When the scholars returned from Paris, they were met with open arms by New York lawyers and financiers, and together they formed the Council on Foreign Relations in 1921. The “British diplomats returning from Paris had made great headway in founding their Royal Institute of International Affairs.” The Anglo-American Institute envisioned in Paris, with two branches and combined membership was not feasible, so both the British and American branches retained national membership, however, they would cooperate closely with one another.16 They were referred to, and still are, as “Sister Institutes.”17

The Milner Group, the secret society formed by Cecil Rhodes, “dominated the British delegation to the Peace Conference of 1919; it had a great deal to do with the formation and management of the League of Nations and of the system of mandates; it founded the Royal Institute of International Affairs in 1919 and still controls it.”18

There were other groups founded in many countries representing the same interests of the secret Milner Group, and they came to be known as the Round Table Groups, preeminent among them were the Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House), the Council on Foreign Relations in the United States, and parallel groups were set up in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and India.19

These were, in effect, the first international think tanks, which remain today, and are in their respective nations, among the top, if not the most prominent think tanks.

In 2008, a major study was done by the University of Philadelphia’s International Relations Program – the Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program – which sought to analyse and examine the most powerful and influential think tanks in the world. While it is a useful resource to understanding the influence of think tanks, there is a flaw in its analysis. It failed to take into account the international origins of the Round Table Group think tanks, particularly the Council on Foreign Relations in the United States; Chatham House or the Royal Institute of International Affairs in London; the Canadian Institute of International Affairs, now renamed the Canadian International Council; and their respective sister organisations in India, South Africa, New Zealand and Australia. Further nations have since added to this group of related think tanks, including Germany, and a recently established European Council on Foreign Relations. The report, while putting focus on the international nature of think tanks, analysed these ones as separate institutions without being related or affiliated. This has, in effect, skewed the results of the study. However, it is still useful to examine.

The top think tanks in the United States include the Council on Foreign Relations, (which was put at number 2, however, should be placed at the number 1 spot), the Brookings Institution, (which was inaccurately given the position of number one), the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, RAND Corporation, Heritage Foundation, Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and the American Enterprise Institute, among others.

The top think tanks in the world, outside of the United States, are Chatham House (sitting at number one), the International Institute for Strategic Studies in the UK, the German Council on Foreign Relations, the French Institute of International Relations, the Adam Smith Institute in the UK, the Fraser Institute in Canada, the European Council on Foreign Relations, the International Crisis Group in Belgium, and the Canadian Institute of International Affairs.20

In 1954, the Bilderberg Group was founded in the Netherlands. Every year since then the group holds a secretive meeting, drawing roughly 130 of the political-financial-military-academic-media elites from North America and Western Europe as “an informal network of influential people who could consult each other privately and confidentially.”21

Regular participants include the CEOs or Chairmen of some of the largest corporations in the world, oil companies such as Royal Dutch Shell, British Petroleum, and Total SA, as well as various European monarchs, international bankers such as David Rockefeller, major politicians, presidents, prime ministers, and central bankers of the world.22 The Bilderberg Group acts as a “secretive global think-tank,” with an original intent “to link governments and economies in Europe and North America amid the Cold War.”23

In 1970, David Rockefeller became Chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations, while also being Chairman and CEO of Chase Manhattan. In 1970, an academic who joined the Council on Foreign Relations in 1965 wrote a book called Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era. The author, Zbigniew Brzezinski, called for the formation of “A Community of the Developed Nations,” consisting of Western Europe, the United States and Japan. Brzezinski wrote about how “the traditional sovereignty of nation states is becoming increasingly unglued as transnational forces such as multinational corporations, banks, and international organisations play a larger and larger role in shaping global politics.”

So, in 1972, David Rockefeller and Brzezinski “presented the idea of a trilateral grouping at the annual Bilderberg meeting.” In July of 1972, seventeen powerful people met at David Rockefeller’s estate in New York to plan for the creation of another grouping. Also at the meeting was Brzezinski, McGeorge Bundy, the President of the Ford Foundation, (brother of William Bundy, editor of Foreign Affairs) and Bayless Manning, President of the Council on Foreign Relations.24 In 1973, these people formed the Trilateral Commission, which acted as a sister organisation to Bilderberg, linking the elites of Western Europe, North America, and Japan into a transnational ruling class.

These think tanks have effectively socially constructed an ideologically cohesive ruling class in each nation and fostered the expansion of international ideological alignment among national elites, allowing for the development of a transnational ruling class sharing a dominant ideology.

These same interests, controlled by the international banking houses, had to socially construct society itself. To do this, they created a massive network of tax-exempt foundations and non-profit organisations, which shaped civil society according to their designs. Among the most prominent of these are the Carnegie Corporation, the Ford Foundation, and the Rockefeller Foundation.

The “Foundations” of Civil Society

These foundations shaped civil society by financing research projects and initiatives into major social projects, creating both a dominant world-view for the elite classes, as well as managing the other classes.

These foundations, since their establishment, played a large part in the funding and organising of the eugenics movement, which helped facilitate this racist, elitist ideology to having enormous growth and influence, ultimately culminating in the Nazi Holocaust. From then, the word “eugenics” had to be dropped from the ideology and philanthropy of elites, and was replaced with new forms of eugenics policies and concepts. Among them, genetics, population control and environmentalism.

These foundations also funded seemingly progressive and alternative media sources in an effort to control the opposition, and manage the resistance to their world order, essentially making it ineffective and misguided.

The Rockefeller Foundation was established in 1912, and immediately began giving money to eugenics research organisations.25 Eugenics was a pseudo-scientific and social science movement that emerged in the late 19th century, and gained significant traction in the first half of the 20th century. One of the founding ideologues of eugenics, Sir Francis Galton, an anthropologist and cousin to Charles Darwin, wrote that eugenics “is the study of all agencies under social control which can improve or impair the racial quality of future generations.”26 Ultimately, it was about the “sound” breeding of people and maintaining “purity” and “superiority” of the blood. It was an inherently racist ideology, which saw all non-white racial categories of people as inherently and naturally inferior, and sought to ground these racist theories in “science.”

The vast wealth and fortunes of the major industrialists and bankers in the United States flowed heavily into the eugenics organisations, promoting and expanding this racist and elitist ideology. Money from the Harriman railroad fortune, with millions given by the Rockefeller and Carnegie family fortunes were subsequently “devoted to sterilisation of several hundred thousands of American ‘defectives’ annually, as a matter of eugenics.”27

In the United States, 27 states passed eugenics based sterilisation laws of the “unfit,” which ultimately led to the sterilisation of over 60,000 people. Throughout the 1920s and 30s, the Carnegie and especially the Rockefeller Foundation, funded eugenics research in Germany, directly financing the Nazi scientists who perpetrated some of the greatest crimes of the Holocaust.28

Following the Holocaust, the word “eugenics” was highly discredited. Thus, these elites who wanted to continue with the implementation of their racist and elitist ideology desperately needed a new name for it. In 1939, the Eugenics Records Office became known as the Genetics Record Office.29 However, tens of thousands of Americans continued to be sterilised throughout the 40s, 50s and 60s, the majority of which were women.30

Edwin Black analysed how the pseudoscience of eugenics transformed into what we know as the science of genetics. In a 1943 edition of Eugenical News, an article titled “Eugenics After the War,” cited Charles Davenport, a major founder of eugenics, in his vision of “a new mankind of biological castes with master races in control and slave races serving them.”31

A 1946 article in Eugenical News stated that, “Population, genetics, [and] psychology, are the three sciences to which the eugenicist must look for the factual material on which to build an acceptable philosophy of eugenics and to develop and defend practical eugenics proposals.” As Black explained, “the incremental effort to transform eugenics into human genetics forged an entire worldwide infrastructure,” with the founding of the Institute for Human Genetics in Copenhagen in 1938, led by Tage Kemp, a Rockefeller Foundation eugenicist, and was financed with money from the Rockefeller Foundation.32

Today, much of civil society and major social projects are a product of these foundations, and align with various new forms of eugenics. The areas of population control and environmentalism are closely aligned and span a broad range of intellectual avenues. The major population control organisations emerged with funding from these various foundations, particularly the Rockefeller foundations and philanthropies.

These organisations, such as the Rockefeller and Ford foundations, funded major civil society movements, such as the Civil Rights movement, in an effort to “create a wedge between social movement activists and their unpaid grassroots constituents, thereby facilitating professionalisation and institutionalisation within the movement,” ultimately facilitating a “narrowing and taming of the potential for broad dissent,” with an aim of limiting goals to “ameliorative rather than radical change.”33

Two major organisations in the development of the environmental movement were the Conservation Foundation and Resources for the Future, which were founded and funded with money from the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations, and helped “launch an explicitly pro-corporate approach to resource conservation.”34 Even the World Wildlife Fund was founded in the early 1960s by the former president of the British Eugenics Society, and its first President was Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, a founding member of the Bilderberg Group.

While the environmental movement positions people as the major problem for the earth, relating humanity to a cancer, population control becomes a significant factor in proposing environmental solutions.

In May of 2009, a secret meeting of billionaire philanthropists took place in which they sought to coordinate how to “address” the world’s environmental, social, and industrial threats. Each billionaire at the meeting was given 15 minutes to discuss their “preferred” cause, and then they deliberated to create an “umbrella” cause to harness all their interests. The end result was that the umbrella cause for which the billionaires would aim to “give to” was population control, which “would be tackled as a potentially disastrous environmental, social and industrial threat.” Among those present at the meeting were David Rockefeller, Jr., George Soros, Warren Buffet, Michael Bloomberg, Ted Turner, Bill Gates, and even Oprah Winfrey.35

Conclusion

At the top of the list of those who run the world, we have the major international banking houses, which control the global central banking system. From there, these dynastic banking families created an international network of think tanks, which socialised the ruling elites of each nation and the international community as a whole, into a cohesive transnational elite class. The foundations they established helped shape civil society both nationally and internationally, playing a major part in the funding – and thus coordinating and co-opting – of major social-political movements.

An excellent example of one member of the top of the hierarchy of the global elite is David Rockefeller, patriarch of the Rockefeller family. Long serving as Chairman and CEO of Chase Manhattan bank, he revolutionised the notion of building a truly global bank. He was also Chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations, a founding member of Bilderberg and the Trilateral Commission, heavily involved in the family philanthropies, and sits atop a vast number of boards and foundations. Even Alan Greenspan, in a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations, said that David Rockefeller and the CFR have, “in many respects, formulated the foreign policy of this country.”36

In another speech to the Council on Foreign Relations, then World Bank President James Wolfesohn, said in 2005, in honour of David Rockefeller’s 90th birthday, that, “the person who had perhaps the greatest influence on my life professionally in this country, and I’m very happy to say personally there afterwards, is David Rockefeller.” He then said, “In fact, it’s fair to say that there has been no other single family influence greater than the Rockefeller’s in the whole issue of globalisation and in the whole issue of addressing the questions which, in some ways, are still before us today. And for that David, we’re deeply grateful to you and for your own contribution in carrying these forward in the way that you did.”37

David Rockefeller, himself, wrote, “For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicised incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterising my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”38

 

Source: http://csglobe.com

 

 

How is Technology Changing our Society?


How-is-Technology-Changing-our-Society

The Digital Crossover: How is Technology Changing our Society?

The global elite are pushing the globe toward a dystopic future in which all aspects of life are in some way managed by their interests. Future urban development of computerized “U-cities” will reflect this goal. Mega coporations will provide advanced technology to their constituents and thus gain loyalty.

How will this technology impact our society?

How has it already impacted our lives?

The wider trends in the world will play a key role in how this situation develops. Technology itself can be used for good or evil. The political, economic and social atmosphere – intertwined with individual choices – will mold the outcome. Here’s a scenario:

The debt crisis, disintegrating society and broken economy force people to shrink their circle of travel out of necessity. The “sustainable development” agenda doubles this effect as it pushes for smaller living space –250 square foot apartments for example. Trips to the movie theater are cut. Traveling to physical stores is replaced by online shopping. Technology gives individuals a varied array of experiences that previously required real connection with human beings (social networking, netflix, adult material, etc) and enables isolation. When an individual does go out to conduct business, wearable technology in the form ofaugmented reality contact lenses go with him. Every person on earth is now connected to the internet. Every object is transmitting data.

 

Source: http://csglobe.com

Soda addiction: bad for your teeth.


new-study-claims-that-excessive-soda-consumption-can-damage-teeth-as-badly-as-meth-or-crack

Soda addiction as bad for your teeth as meth or crack

 

go-to-the-dentist

Bad news, diet coke junkies: gulping down excessive amounts of soda is no longer just bad for your teeth, now it’s as bad for your teeth as crystal meth or crack.

That’s according to one study, anyway, which found that excessive consumption of soda – even diet soda – can rot your choppers as badly as ingesting two of the most dangerous narcotics on earth.

The good news is it likely takes far more soda than the amount consumed by a normal human being to achieve the same dental devastation as crack or meth.

go-to-the-dentist-AND-you-use-crystal-meth

 

The study – conducted by Dr. Mohamed Bassiouny, a professor of restorative dentistry at the Temple University School of Dentistry in Philadelphia – references a woman in her 30s who drank two liters of soda a day for nearly five years. According to Bassiouny, she had the same amount of dental damage as a 29-year-old meth user and a 51-year-old crack addict.

 

The meth user, however, also consumed two or three cans of regular soda a day because the drugs made his mouth  dry, and the crack addict has been a regular crack user for 18 years, nearly four times as long as the soda drinker had been consuming excessive amounts of soda. Additionally, the soda drinker admitted that she has not seen a dentist in many years.

 

“None of the teeth affected by erosion were salvageable,” Bassiouny tells U.S. News and World Report, noting that all of the study participants had to have all of their teeth removed.

The study also finds that sugar-free soda is just as damaging to teeth as regular soda if they are consumed in the same quantity because of their acidic content – a high acidity level also is what makes crack and meth so bad for teeth.

 

But soda advocates say the study is flawed, and that comparing soda to illegal drugs is unfair and ‘irresponsible.’

‘The woman referenced in this article did not receive dental health services for more than 20 years — two-thirds of her life,’ the American Beverage Association said in a statement. ‘To single out diet soda consumption as the unique factor in her tooth decay and erosion — and to compare it to that from illicit drug use — is irresponsible.

 

Source: http://csglobe.com

The Mind-Created Self.


the_mind

 

The Mind: Who I am isn’t ‘myself’ – who I really am is what lies outside of myself. I’m not in me – I’moutside me! Or perhaps we could say – to be a little clearer on the matter – that who or what I am isn’t contained within the shell of what it conventionally regarded as ‘myself’ in the way that we think it is contained, but is just as much to be found outside of this shell as anywhere else.

The shell containing what is conventionally regarded as myself is of course the body, and so this being the case the body might quite reasonably be imagined to be a special type of container, just like a jam-jar is a container for jam, a snuff-box is a container for snuff and a pepper-pot is a container for pepper. Only in this case what is being contained is my awareness, my ‘self’ – whatever that is…!

Put like this, the idea sounds just a little bit strange. It seems strange to think that I might be compared to so much strawberry jam in a jar. Strange or not however this is how we implicitly understand our situation and so – in one way at least – it ought not to come as too much of a surprise when we come right out and say it like this. But then again maybe the reason it sounds peculiar to think of ourselves as being neatly contained in our bodies like this is because we know deep down that this is in no way true. To imagine that we are limited in space by our outer epidermis like this (to imagine that I am no more than ‘the skin-encapsulated ego’, as Alan Watts puts it) is plainly absurd. To say that what is within my skin is ‘me’ and what is on the other side is ‘not me’ is clearly a very arbitrary sort of a statement – why do I choose to draw the line here and not somewhere else? At what point exactly do I end and the external world begins?

It isn’t even correct to say that my fingers or toes ‘are me’, or my ears ‘are me,’ or my nose ‘is me’ – all of these I recognise as belonging to me but not being me. Most of us would probably say (if we had to say something on the subject) that we are, if anything, our brains. It is after all a medical fact that if something happens to my brain (like a stroke or some kind of ‘acquired brain injury’) then my personality may change as a result. But is this proof that I am my brain? Could it not equally well be the case that the brain is an instrument or conduit through which I express myself? The functionality of my brain may be compromised, but does this necessarily alter the sense that I would have of ‘being present’?

It is of course true that we don’t define ourselves in terms of ‘being present’ but in a much more concrete and down-to-earth manner – we define ourselves in terms of our memories, our history, what we like and what we don’t like, what our favourite colour is, what our job status is, our relationship status is, and all that sort of stuff. We identify ourselves with our habitual patterns of perceiving the world, thinking about the world, and behaving in the world. This positive identification necessarily brings about anxiety – the fact that we are generally pretty fond of pigeon-holing ourselves in this way means we stand to irrevocably lose what we have defined ourselves as being, and there is no way that this prospect can fail to create insecurity, even if we aren’t consciously aware of it. Defining ourselves provides us with security it is true, but at the same time it always brings the worrying threat of us losing what we have defined ourselves as being.

But then again I don’t have to narrowly define myself in this way – that’s a choice I make. I might not bother. I might just allow myself to be the way that I am without putting a name on it, without placing any arbitrary and limited meaning on what’s going on. This of course is highly unsatisfactory from the point of view of someone who wants to be able to have some sort of defined identity (someone who wants to be able to say “I am this but not that”) but on the ‘plus side’ it does feel vastly more spacious, vastly more free. And what is more, if I don’t define myself – if I don’t put myself in a box – then there is nothing to cling on to and therefore nothing to lose.

When I am this free-and-easy undefined way (which happens quite naturally when I’m genuinely happy and relaxed in myself and not caught up in any issues) it is readily apparent that my experience of ‘being here’ isn’t limited to being ‘just in my head’. I don’t experience myself as being specifically located within my information-processing brain; I don’t experience myself as being ‘contained’ within my body at all – after all, my awareness spreads outwards into the space around my body, and doesn’t actually seem any different from that space.

When I’m in the non-analyzing, non-categorizing, non-goal-orientated frame of mind I don’t perceive myself as being a ‘thing’ at all but as the awareness that is aware of things. When I’m totally relaxed in myself I don’t perceive myself to be ‘a self’ because a self is something that I cling to, something I name, something I arbitrarily create with my analyzing, reasoning, categorizing mind…

So if my attention is undistracted by whatever drama is going on (if it isn’t caught up in this or that trivial issue, this or that limited way of looking at things) then what happens is that I don’t see the world from any particular perspective. I have no specific ‘vantage point’ – I am equally everywhere, and therefore I am nowhere in particular. I am not one thing (called ‘myself’) which is relating to all the other things – I am the space which all these things exist in (including the thing I used to think of as myself). I am not ‘me’ – I’m the space around me, and this means that there isn’t any me…!

My thinking mind of course doesn’t like this kind of talk at all – it can’t take it seriously. The suggestion that awareness can just be ‘out there’, like the branch of a tree with no tree attached, with no visible means of support, without a proper authorized and denominated location to be in, doesn’t impress at all. If it doesn’t have a location, if it doesn’t have a classification, if it doesn’t come with the approval and validation of the system of logic, then I simply can’t agree that it exists. It fails at the first test. The fact that it might feel to me that I’m ‘out there’ – indeterminately existing out there in empty space rather than being neatly contained in my brain – is instantly and unceremoniously dismissed by the thinking mind as a mere ‘subjective impression’.

The conservative old logical mind dismisses a lot of stuff as being ‘subjective’ however. That is its favourite thing to do! Rationality is convinced – for example – that consciousness itself is some kind of a subjective side-effect. This is the ‘official explanation’ – that consciousness is not a primary reality but an epiphenomenon, the ‘side-effect’ of something else, a kind of a ‘brain-glow’. Rationality (which is exclusively concerned with the definable and the measurable) dismisses consciousness out of hand because it is quintessentially indefinable and immeasurable. Either that or it reduces it to something that it can define, and thereby makes it into nothing more than one of its own dry and lifeless formulations.

Logic cannot comprehend non-containment any more than it can comprehend delocalization. It cannot comprehend radical uncertainty. The reason for this is that all-inclusiveness is not its remit – this is not something which we can expect rationality to apply itself to. All-inclusiveness means that we don’t draw any boundaries and logic is all about drawing boundaries. Logic is made up of rules and a rule is where we say ‘THIS is allowed and THAT is not allowed’. By saying this we create a boundary.

But suppose we were simply to say, ‘EVERYTHING is allowed….’ There is no restriction to our allowing, no qualification to it. But if we allow everything equally something very strange indeed happens – this all-accepting attitude takes us right out of the world of the known into the world of the radically unknowable. After all, rules and boundaries are how we get to know stuff!

Abandoning EITHER/OR logic not only does away with the defined, knowable world at one stroke – which would be bad enough from the point of view of the logical mind – it does away at one stroke with the mind-created self, which is frankly unforgivable.

 

Source: http://csglobe.com

Biologists create ‘zombie’ cells.


r-130208_ZOMBIED_SILICA-large570

‘Zombie’ cells are created in lab… and they outperform their living counterparts

It may sound like something from a science fiction film, but scientists say they have created ‘zombie cells’ – that continue to work after they are dead.

But unlike the walking dead of Hollywood, these cells actually perform some functions better than when they were alive.

Scientists say by coating organic cells in silicic acid they are able to withstand far greater temperatures and pressures than flesh.

The zombie cells were created by biologists at Sandia National Laboratories and the University of New Mexico.

The process of cell zombification is relatively simple: scientists coat a living cell with silicon to replicate its structure to near perfection.

As it turns out, the silicon-coated cells perform tasks more efficiently after the living cell has died. A horde of billions of hard-working cell zombies would have many applications in commercial and research fields from the tiny to the huge. The process also allows scientists to create copies of cells accurate down to the groves in the DNA.

The living cell essentially serves as a mold for the silicon. The silicon zombie cells can withstand a much wider temperature and pressure range than flesh and it seems that they can perform certain functions better than the living originals.

“Take some free-floating mammalian cells, put them in a Petri dish and add silicic acid,” Michael Hess, Digital Communications Specialist for Office of Public Affairs of the United States Department of Energy, writes of the process. “The silicic acid, for reasons still partially unclear, enters without clogging and in effect embalms every organelle in the cell from the micro- to the nanometer scale.”

For those looking for a science fiction approximation, these silicon cell copies might be less zombie and more of a clone/robot blend.

“By heating the silica to relatively low heat (400 C), the organic material of the cell — its protein — evaporates and leaves the silica in a kind of three-dimensional Madame Tussauds wax replica of a formerly living being,” Hess writes. “The difference is that instead of modeling the face, say, of a famous criminal, the hardened silica-based cells display internal mineralized structures with intricate features ranging from nano- to millimeter-length scales.”

“King Tut was mummified,” said Sandia materials scientist Bryan Kaehr, the lead researcher of the project, “to approximately resemble his living self, but the process took place without mineralization. Our zombie cells bridge chemistry and biology to create forms that not only near-perfectly resemble their past selves, but can do future work.”

Screenwriting inspiration aside, there are important reasons the researchers experimented with copying cells. The hardworking silicon zombies could help out in industries dealing with fuel cells and decontamination.

 

Source: http://csglobe.com