The Economy and Success According to Zen Master Thich Nhat Hanh.


Nobel Peace Prize nominee and Zen Buddhist master, Thich Nhat Hanh has a very different theory about why our ecosystems are dying and our financial systems are crumbling. The Vietnamese monk credited with bringing mindfulness to the West believes that our desperation to succeed at all costs fuels our voracious economic system. An innumerable number of worldly ‘sicknesses’ come from this singular philosophical vice.

On one of Hanh’s Facebook posts he said, “Each one of us has to ask ourselves, What do I really want? Do I really want to be Number One? Or do I want to be happy? If you want success, you may sacrifice your happiness for it. You can become a victim of success, but you can never become a victim of happiness.”

Thay – as his followers call him, is no stranger to the ideology of the movers and shakers in our world economy. He was invited to speak in Silicon Valley by Steve Jobs once, and has met with the World Bank president Jim Yong Kim.  He has also met with senior Google engineers to discuss how they could develop technologies which could be more compassionate and bring about positive change, instead of increasing people’s stress and isolation, taking them away from nature, and one another.

He recently explained his concern with how people pin their happiness on success in an interview with the Guardian.

“If you know how to practice mindfulness you can generate peace and joy right here, right now. And you’ll appreciate that and it will change you. In the beginning, you believe that if you cannot become number one, you cannot be happy, but if you practice mindfulness you will readily release that kind of idea. We need not fear that mindfulness might become only a means and not an end because in mindfulness the means and the end are the same thing. There is no way to happiness; happiness is the way.”

Thay warns, however, that practicing mindfulness just to be more productive at work, or only to enjoy more material success will leave the practitioner with a pale shadow of awareness compared to what true mindfulness can provide. He suggests,

 thich-nhat-hanh-copy

“If you consider mindfulness as a means of having a lot of money, then you have not touched its true purpose. It may look like the practice of mindfulness but inside there’s no peace, no joy, no happiness produced. It’s just an imitation. If you don’t feel the energy of brotherhood, of sisterhood, radiating from your work, that is not mindfulness.”

As company executives in banking, oil production, agriculture, manufacturing, tech, and other fields strive to be successful, are they missing out on the true peace that might come from preserving an ecosystem, or helping to protect biodiversity? Are these titans of industry reflective of our social and political slant toward ever-increasing spending, a lack of accountability fiscally and environmentally, and the disassociation workers feel from their families and friends while constantly trying to work harder and earn more?

Thay says that all businesses should be conducted in such a way that all the employees can experience happiness. He says that helping to change society for the better can fill us with a sense of accomplishment that doesn’t come from focusing purely on profits.

When top CEOs make 300% more than their workers, and include stock incentives, luxury cars, and healthy expense accounts, how can balance truly be upheld?

When the world’s top 3,000 firms are responsible for over $2.2 trillion in environmental damage, how can we find joy from nature?

When even Facebook cofounder Dustin Moskovitz, who now heads up the software firm Asana calls out the tech industry for a lack of work-life balance, how can anyone find time to practice mindfulness or meditation?

Furthermore, even loss of life is acceptable in the name of profits. The ‘business’ of war has allowed the 100 largest contractors to sell more than $410 billion in arms and military services. Just 10 of those companies sold over $208 billion – while providing the means to kill millions.

Is it any wonder employees are broke, stressed out, and burned out from a lack of balance, no connection with other people, and an incessant work flow that promises very little reward, either financial or otherwise, from their toil?

Then there is the debt-based financial system of the Federal Reserve, propping up this entire show.

But the truth is that we don’t actually need the Federal Reserve.  In fact, the greatest period of economic growth in United States history happened during the decades before the Federal Reserve was created.

We also don’t need CEOs who make 300 times what their employees do, or ridiculous government policies which allow the notion of corporations as people, while ignoring the basic needs of real people.

Our courts have extended constitutional protections to the most unconscious among us, preserving a way of life that does not allow true happiness. Our constant aim for success has warped our original goal – to be happy. Isn’t that why people want more money, more power, and more ‘things.’ But as Thay says, this is a false way to attain happiness.

What this quiet Zen monk is trying to tell us is that our entire society is upside down. Our economic system protects mindlessness, not mindfulness.

He says that the primary affliction of our modern civilization is that we don’t know how to handle the suffering inside us and so we attempt to cover it up with all kinds of consumption.

Retailers peddle a host of devices to help us cover up the suffering inside. But unless and until we’re able to face our suffering, we can’t be present and available to life, and happiness will continue to elude us.

How do we change our economic policies so that all employees can be happy? It might help to look at our true goals. It might help to acknowledge the pain we’ve caused thousands of people by perpetuating war for the sake of profits. Success doesn’t automatically equal happiness, not if the definition of success only includes the bottom line.

We can measure success by our fulfillment in life, by the people we’ve been able to touch with our good deeds, or a mindful interaction, by having friends, experiencing love, being able to walk in a forest, or learn how to play a musical instrument.

Perhaps the true goal should be peacefulness instead of happiness, even. As Hanh has said,

 “If we are peaceful, if we are happy, we can smile and blossom like a flower, and everyone in our family, our entire society will benefit from our peace.” This could be our new definition of success.

 

Train Your Brain To Let Go Of Habits – 10 Methods For Creating New Neural Pathways


When you understand how neural pathways are created in the brain, you get a front row seat for truly comprehending how to let go of habits. Neural pathways are like superhighways of nerve cells that transmit messages. You travel over the superhighway many times, and the pathway becomes more and more solid. You may go to a specific food or cigarettes for comfort over and over, and that forms a brain pathway. The hopeful fact, however, is that the brain is always changing and you can forge new pathways and create new habits. That’s called the neuroplasticity of the brain.

I used to drive with one foot on the brake and the other on the accelerator, and I wanted to train myself to drive with one foot only. It took some time, as I had a strong neural pathway for two-footed driving. But because I had the will to do it, I built a new pathway, and I rewired or reprogrammed my brain. You can remove a behavior or thought or addictions directly from the brain.

Because of neuroplasticity, the brain’s ever-changing potentials, anything is possible. People who’ve had strokes can retrain their brains to function again by building new pathways. Smokers and overeaters and many others can learn new behaviors and attitudes and can transform their lives.

Whether you work with others on their habits or you work with your own (or both), you can apply these understandings to boost your success.

Some Powerful Ways to Retrain the Brain

1. Identity the habit you’d like to transform and set the intention.

You may remember the punch line “The light bulb has to want to change.”  You have to have a high intention to change as well. If there is this high intention, then creating new pathways in your brain is bound to happen.

 2. Observe what the old habit or pathway is doing in your life.

Look at feelings, thoughts, and how the body is responding to the habit, and see what results you’re creating in your life. Be the witness, and  be aware.

3. Shift your focus.

This is very important. To create a new neural pathway, you take the focus off the old habit, and then that old habit eventually falls away. Don’t pay attention to the donuts and cakes. Take your awareness and focus it on good, wholesome, healthy delicious foods.

4. Use your imagination.

You can build new neural pathways not only with new behaviors, but through the imagination. Just imagine the new behaviors over and over and over. Keep repeating that in your mind so you build new pathways. Focus your mind and retrain your brain.

5. Interrupt your thoughts and patterns when they arise.

Say “no” or “cancel” when an old thought or impulse comes in, and say, “I don’t have to do that anymore.” Then turn toward the new neural pathway you’re building and keep on going in the right direction.

6. Use aversion therapy.

This isn’t everyone’s cup of tea. It’s an optional path. I like to call it “the maggots on the chocolate cake technique.” I used to love candies and sweets, and when I stopped eating them, I still had to pass by them when I walked by the candy store in town. I used aversion to train my brain to walk on by: “That’s junk,” I said to myself. “It’s made in factories, sickeningly sweet, makes me feel bad. The company makes it so sweet just to addict buyers. I don’t want any of that.” So I talk myself out of it. I’ve use it with many clients (only those who say they want it) on smoking, junk food, cocaine and many other behaviors.

7.  Create a specific plan and choose what to do instead.

When you get specific, it’s easier to build new neural pathways. You “make it official.”  Decide if you want to exercise instead of overeating or if you want to eat fruit instead of candy. Just keep focused on the new choice.  You may want to create affirmations and anchors to reinforce your choices. This can be “I’m free or “I’m in control.” Reinforce this with energy therapies like EFT or other techniques.

8. Transform the obstacles.

Look at what’s in the way. Look at secondary gain – what you’ve been getting out of the old habits or pathways. Look at the stress in your life and how you can handle it differently. Get your mind in the place of possibility. Handle the emotions and thoughts and get on a new superhighway in your mind.

9. Connect with your Higher Source for inspiration and support.

Listen to our guidance. Know you have the Force within you, and therefore you have great power. Meditation creates new pathways and brain changes. Actual studies have been done on the brains of monks to show meditation’s effect on neural circuits of the brain.

10. Transform and make the shift.

Know that transformation is always possible and that you can create new brain pathways whenever you’re ready to make the shift. When you keep your mind in the “I can do it!” space, you get a clear sense that you’re done with the old and on a new beam now.

 Some people feel we’re being rewired spiritually for anew era. There’s great upheaval now in our world. And there’s a process of transformation happening on earth in which huge changes are taking place for all of humanity. You have to be present in the moment, overcome your fears, and get to know the Infinite source so you can be a vehicle for the light to predominate on the earth.

People With Higher IQ’s Are More Likely to Use Illegal Drugs… Why? 


Researchers have found that those with high childhood IQs are more prone to illegal drug use as adults. But what does this correlation really mean?

Two major papers have found a positive correlation between high childhood IQ and adult drug use.

The first was published in 2011 (Intelligence across childhood in relation to illegal drug use in adulthood: 1970 British Cohort Study). The second was published in 2012 (Intelligence quotient in childhood and the risk of illegal drug use in middle-age: the 1958 National Child Development Survey). Both were co-authored by James W. White PhD and all of the data for both research papers comes from The Centre for Longitudinal Studies (CLS), a research council operating from the Department for Quantitative Social Science, Institute of Education, at the University of London.

Perhaps it is the concept of intelligence that needs to be reconsidered in order to answer the question; IQ does not measure emotional intelligence or creativity.

Longitudinal studies observe variables over extended periods of time. Cohort studies are longitudinal studies of groups of people with shared characteristics or experiences; for example, the 1958 study follows the lives of 17,000 people born within the United Kingdom in a single week in 1958. The cohort is that group of 17,000 people. The CLS has done several such studies: in 1958, in 1970, another in 1989, and the Millennium Cohort Study of 2000-2001. All of these studies are, by definition, ongoing.

The CLS has provided data for publications on the most disparate topics: from the visual acuity of a national sample (Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology) to The Role of Breakfast Cereals in the Diets of 16-17-year-old Teenagers in Britain (Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics). Thus far, only the two aforementioned papers investigate a direct link between drug use and intelligence.

 The 1958 cohort consists of 3,509 males and 3,204 females. All of the participants underwent cognitive ability testing at age 11. The test consisted of 40 verbal and 40 nonverbal items, created by The National Foundation for Educational Research in England and Wales, and was tried against other testing methods for validity. Cognitive ability scores were then “transformed into IQ equivalents to give a cohort mean of 100 and standard deviation of 15.” At the age of 42, participants were asked to complete a drug questionnaire. The questionnaire inquired about the use of cannabis, cocaine, amphetamines, ecstasy, LSD, amyl nitrate, psilocybin mushrooms, temazepam, ketamine, crack, heroin, methadone, and the fictitious drug semeron to identify false claims. Adjustments were made for socioeconomic background, material disadvantage, and antisocial behavior, though the study claims that “associations between IQ and most drugs were materially unchanged after these adjustments.” For men and women, one standard deviation increase in IQ scores (15 points) was associated with an increased risk of using all drugs with the exception of cocaine, amphetamines, ecstasy, and temazepam in men; ecstasy and temazepam in women.

While the strengths of this study are the size of the sample and the length of participant contact, there is limited data on the actual patterns of drug use. The 1958 cohort study lists a number of other studies which claim a correlation between IQ and generally good health practices such as lower rates of smoking, greater levels of physical activity, and increased intake of fruits and vegetables, which makes the link between IQ and drug use very curious: “These findings suggest that, in contrast to most studies on the association between childhood IQ and later health, a high childhood IQ may prompt the adoption of behaviors that are potentially harmful to health (ie, excess alcohol consumption and drug use) in adulthood” (1958 Cohort Study).

The 1970 cohort study differs slightly from the 1958 study in methodology. The 1970 study is the largest to date to examine childhood IQ and drug use, with 3,818 male participants and 4,128 female. At the age of five, researchers went to the participants’ homes and administered four tests of cognitive function: the Human Figure Drawing Test, a Copying Designs Test, the English Picture Vocabulary Test and the Profile Test. Scores were calculated and transformed into the IQ distribution (mean=100, SD=15). Intelligence was assessed a second time, at the age of ten, using a modified version of the British Ability Scales, and transformed into the commonly used IQ distribution.

At 16, participants reported on their level of psychological distress using a 12-item General Health Questionnaire, as well as their drug use, by way of simple yes or no questions. For example, “Have you ever tried taking cannabis?” The drugs on the questionnaire, street names included, were cannabis, cocaine, uppers, downers, LSD, heroin, and the fictitious semeron.

At the age of 30, participants were tested again on psychological distress and drug use. They also answered questions on educational achievement, salary, occupation, and social class. As in the 1958 cohort study, adjustments were made to account for psychological distress and socioeconomic background. It was discovered at the ages of 16 and 30 that both male and female participants who reported using illicit drugs had significantly higher childhood IQ scores.

Men who had used cannabis by age 16 had a mean IQ score of 109.65, men who had not had a mean IQ of 103.86. Men at 30 who had used multiple drugs within the previous 12 months had a mean IQ score of 104.72, men who had not had a mean IQ score of 101.69.

Women consistently showed greater correlation between IQ score and drug use. Women who had tried cannabis by age 16 had a mean IQ score of 107.74, women who had not had a mean IQ score of 101.42. Women at 30 who had used multiple drugs within the previous 12 months had a mean IQ score of 108.85, women who had not had a mean IQ score of 100.31.

The study suggests that greater intelligence is associated with novelty seeking, “A possible pathway that emerges from the literature on personality is that high IQ individuals have also been shown to score highly on tests of stimulation seeking and openness to experience.”

Though no specific studies are cited linking intelligence and stimulation, it isn’t difficult to find literature that supports these claims. Stimulation Seeking and Intelligence: A Prospective Longitudinal Study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology in 2002, asserts that it is the first study to show a link between between stimulation seeking and intelligence, hypothesizing that stimulation seekers are looking to create an enriched environment for their cognitive development.

If it is true that higher intelligence correlates with stimulation seeking behaviors, the question that follows is why. Some evolutionary psychologists attempt to explain the motivation behind the desire to grow intelligence through stimulation and novelty, claiming that it was an evolutionary imperative to be able to solve new problems, and thus people with greater intelligence are drawn to the novel. One evolutionary psychologist has made a name for himself online making such claims.

Why Do Intelligent People Use More Drugs?

Satoshi Kanazawa is an author and evolutionary psychologist at London School of Economics. He is also the controversial character who was dismissed from Psychology Today for writing the insubstantially supported article Why are Black Women Less Physically Attractive than Other Women. He wrote Why Intelligent People Use More Drugs for the Psychology Today website, arguing The Savanna Principle, which he developed.

The principle is built upon the evolutionary psychology concept of EEA – environment of evolutionary adaptedness. EEA states that human evolution occurred mainly in the Pleistocene era, which ended about 12,000 years ago. The argument is that human brains are wired to deal with life as it would have been during the Pleistocene era. Kanazawa’s Savanna Principle asserts that human development evolved during the Pleistocene era on the African Savanna, and that any reasonable hypothesis about human behavior must incorporate the EEA. Although the link can be made between IQ and drug use, given the cohort studies; and the link can be made between IQ, drug use, and novelty given the cohort studies coupled with the longitudinal study published in 2002; the link cannot be reliably made between novelty seeking behaviors and evolutionary progress.

However popular Kanazawa’s theory that intelligent people use drugs because drugs are recent stimuli in respect to human evolution, it is unproven and according to critics of evolutionary psychology, untestable. While the EEA argument applied to novelty and drug use cannot be dispelled, it also cannot currently be proven, and seems somewhat dismissive of the myriad of socioeconomic and cultural variables, that, try as the researchers might, cannot be eliminated from intelligence testing, and/or the world in which people take illicit drugs.

Theories for the Correlation

Several other theories on why high childhood IQ can be linked to drug use in adolescent and adult life have been posited by both the authors of the cohort studies as well as those who report on their findings. Clinton B. McCracken’s emotional opinion pieceIntellectualizing Drug Abuse, details his very real experience as a high functioning professional whose life is undone by drug use. McCracken cites the high rates of drug use amongst healthcare professionals, first noting their access to illicit materials, second their ability to intellectualize their drug use. Intellectualization differs from rationalization and denial (the latter two are often regarded as common attitudes towards substance abuse, unaffected by education or training) in that it relies upon training and knowledge. McCracken was a biomedical scientist well aware of the criteria required to deem one an addict; careful to stay away from textbook examples of abuse and criminal behavior. This is how the intellectual maintains the illusion of control or mastery. He states:

“The transition from my drug use having no apparent negative consequences, to both my personal and professional life being damaged possibly beyond repair, was so fast as to be instantaneous, highlighting the fact that when it comes to drug use, the perception of control is really nothing more than illusion.”

While intellectualization of drug use seems reasonable, it too is just a theory. Perhaps something as simple as boredom and isolation could provide the answer. Studies have long since linked extremely high IQs and social maladjustment (Factors in the Social Adjustment and Social Acceptability of Extremely Gifted Children, Ohio Psychology Press, 1994). Is it possible that isolation makes one susceptible to substance abuse? If you’re a rat, it does. Researchers at the University of Texas found that isolated rats show greater preference for drug rewards and higher addiction rates than the non-isolated rats. The isolated animals are more sensitive to reward and become more malleable, and more easily addicted than their non-isolated counterparts. While it seems possible that the isolation of those with higher intelligence may create a more dependent mindset, two flaws in this argument arise when using it to explain drug use and high IQs. The loneliness and isolation apparent in gifted children generally appear in those with an IQ of 170+, which is so far outside of the mean that it hardly applies to the data of the British cohort study. Second, we aren’t rats.

Emotional Intelligence

If not overconfidence, if not isolation, what drives highly intelligent people towards drug use? Perhaps it is the concept of intelligence that needs to be reconsidered in order to answer the question. IQ does not measure emotional intelligence or creativity. Emotional intelligence was defined and popularized by Daniel Goleman in his book Emotional Intelligence – Why it can matter more than IQ (1995). It is said to encompass impulse control, perseverance, diligence, motivation, empathy and social skills; the ability, competence, and skill set to cope with challenges and achieve success. There is a significant amount of research linking low emotional intelligence with drug abuse (Low Emotional Intelligence as a Predictor of Substance-use Problems, Journal of Drug Education, 2003). Although there is a tendency to regard a high IQ as a precursor to success and achievement, nowhere within the IQ score is contained the assessment of the ability to make good decisions, or to use common sense. Although low emotional intelligence is linked with drug abuse, the British cohort studies contain no data regarding patterns of drug use and it would be difficult to make a definite link between high IQ, low emotional intelligence and drug use and/or abuse.

IQ does not measure emotional intelligence or creativity. Nor does it measure cultural impact on learning, adaptation, or identity. Critics of IQ testing note the lack of cultural variability within the tests. While the tests are meant to serve as a tool for assessing intelligence across all cultures, the disparity in scores between ethnic groups cannot be explained without adding the element of culture. We are complex organisms, we live in an interdependent world. To isolate intelligence from other factors is to alter reality. We learn holistically. Our intelligence is elastic and works when there is an environment for it to work within. While the data may be statistically significant, and those who score higher on standard ability tests are more likely to use drugs, perhaps we should consider the culture that these novelty seekers exist within. There has been some discussion on culture and drug use, though usually with such a macro lens on society, government policy, and social trends, that more subtle factors are missed.

“Most culturally distinct groups have used and abused alcohol and other drugs throughout the ages, and they have established codes of behavior in their approach to drugs and alcohol” (Culture and Substance Abuse: Impact of Culture Affects Approach to Treatment, Psychiatric Times, 2008).

A culturally distinct group can be a nation, or a culturally distinct group can be motorcycle gang, a rowing team, a gaggle of freaks. Each group has their own codes of behavior and the way to show loyalty to a group is to adhere to that behavior. It is intelligent to adapt. Drug culture of the 1960s would certainly have affected the participants of the 1958 cohort, just as rave culture in the 90s would have an impact on the attitudes of participants of the 1970 cohort. Surely social movements, their celebrities, and use of drugs in popular culture influence the intellectual drug user.

So, whether novelty, intellectualization, isolation, or aestheticization, something drives intelligent people to seek thrills, escape, or identity in illicit substances on a statistically significant basis.

Source:http://themindunleashed.com

NASA Studying How to Travel Faster than Light After Finding Trappist-1 ·


NASA recently reported finding a treasure trove of planets, all able to support life in a nearby solar system, called Trappist-1, according to a Harvard paper on the subject. Now, as if NASA hasn’t been using interstellar space travel for decades now, this arm of the military industrial system says it is beginning to study faster-than-light space travel.

Propulsion

Just over two years ago, NASA reported that a team may have unintentionally accelerated particles to faster-than-light speeds while using the EmDrive resonance chamber. This alone would result in faster than light travel by creating a warp bubble, something we’ve already seen depicted in episodes of Star Trek.

Then there are private companies which are said to be working on similar faster-than-light speed technologies.

Orbital ATK is working with NASA to create solar panels that can power up spaceship through its ion drives with collected sunlight, and Aerojet Rocketdyne is developing an ion thruster system, the Evolutionary Xenon Thruster-Commercial, or “NEXT-C” that would allow spaceships to travel in space three times faster than current interplanetary propulsion systems.

Meanwhile mainstream news outlets keep pumping us with the “information” that nothing can ever go faster than the speed of light, but in September of 2011, physicist Antonio Ereditato shocked the world by announcing that small particles called neutrinos had travelled faster than light, destroying Einstein’s theories of relativity.  This was supposedly discovered by compiling data from over 160 scientists working on the OPERA project.

 Of course, we have whistleblowers like Corey Goode, and William Tompkins who have been telling us that these technologies and many more have existed far longer than NASA is letting on.

Tompkins, a former employee of Douglas Aircraft has named dozens of unconventional propulsion programs that are listed within highly classified documents.

When Ben Rich, former director of Lockheed Skunkworks told us, “We already have the meansto travel among the stars but these technologies are locked up in Black Projects…and it would take an act of God to ever get them out to benefit humanity. Anything you can imagine, we already know how to do,” he wasn’t kidding, but apparently NASA still thinks we lemmings will believe that they are just now stumbling on ways to travel to Trappist-1 faster than the speed of light.

Source:http://themindunleashed.com

It’s Official: Sky Will Be Sprayed in Geoengineering “Experiment,” Blocking Sun for Climate Change ·


It’s official: the US government’s partners in academia are going to openly spray us. It’s a move toward a future where they openly spray the skies to supposedly fight climate change.

Harvard scientist David Keith and his partner are going to spray the sky with aluminum oxide and other chemicals to “experiment” with geoengineering: solar radiation management (SRM) as they call it, to block out the sun.

They want to block out the sun to supposedly combat climate change, but the well documented history of weather modification for military purposes suggests there are other motives.

According to MIT’s Technology Review:

“A pair of Harvard climate scientists are preparing small-scale atmospheric experiments that could offer insights into the feasibility and risks of deliberately altering the climate to ease global warming.

They would be among the earliest official geoengineering-related experiments conducted outside of a controlled laboratory or computer model, underscoring the growing sense of urgency among scientists to begin seriously studying the possibility as the threat of climate change mounts.

 Sometime next year, Harvard professors David Keith and Frank Keutsch hope to launch a high-altitude balloon, tethered to a gondola equipped with propellers and sensors, from a site in Tucson, Arizona. After initial engineering tests, the “StratoCruiser” would spray a fine mist of materials such as sulfur dioxide, alumina, or calcium carbonate into the stratosphere. The sensors would then measure the reflectivity of the particles, the degree to which they disperse or coalesce, and the way they interact with other compounds in the atmosphere.”

According to the Guardian:

“US scientists are set to send aerosol injections 20km up into the earth’s stratosphere in the world’s biggest solar geoengineering programme to date, to study the potential of a future tech-fix for global warming.

The $20m (£16m) Harvard University project will launch within weeks and aims to establish whether the technology can safely simulate the atmospheric cooling effects of a volcanic eruption, if a last ditch bid to halt climate change is one day needed.”

This comes after a United Nations “geoengineering governance initiative” was launched, and the Carnegie Council announced the launch of a “Carnegie Climate Geoengineering Governance Initiative.” This comes after CIA director John Brennan proposed they spray the skies and do “solar radiation management” (SRM) to fight climate change in 2016.

Some powerful forces are pushing very hard for the ability to spray the skies with aluminum, to modify the weather and set a precedent where they can spray anything on us.

This precedent where we can’t identify what is sprayed on us could usher in a new era of chemical or biowarfare against citizens.

As victims of the US’ long history with experimenting on citizens can attest to, this is a serious possibility. Just research the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiments, the spraying of San Fransisco inOperation Sea Spray, ect.

The forces pushing for spraying are not a mystery, and they’ve been at work on geoengineering for decades.

They are found at military industrial complex affiliated institutions such as MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology), Harvard, MITRE Corporation, Raytheon, and others. If you want to know what “the system” is, it’s MIT. They are an academic limb of the military industrial complex.

Half a century of progress toward modifying the weather for military purposes (and to create a global warming false alarm to justify it) coming out of MIT and similiar entities was well documented in Peter A. Kirby’s book “Chemtrails Exposed: A New Manhattan Project.” Or, you could read his even more recent article on the topic. Or, you could listen to an interview with Peter Kirby about all of this.

However, the truth is geoengineering is obviously already happening in the US and around the world: just look up at the sky. Those giant high altitude “chemtrails” that turn into haze in the sky and persist all day are active geoengineering efforts before they disclose it and take it to an even further level.

So what these people are really trying to do, is normalize geoengineering in the public’s perception.

David Keith is a pawn putting on a show of “experiments” for geoengineering, experiments that seem fairly redundant if you know how far the technology of geoengineering has been developed. Then they can say “we tested it and it’s safe,” and they will spray us much worse than they already are.

Speaking from experience being in every major region of the US and one region of Australia in 2016 and 2017, I can tell you California, particularly central and northern California has it possibly the worst right now.

In California, they spray heavy, and the dry air seems to let the material fall down on people so badly you can smell it, and in some areas (like Sacramento, California) the material they spray can make you instantly sick.

They sprayed Sacramento with a plastic smelling, sharp, irritating aerosol in late 2016. They seemed to use two distinct kinds of spray: the first from about January 2016- August 2016 smelled starchy, powdery, kind of ashy and metallic like aluminum. The smell fills the air and the house if windows are left open.

It’s unmistakable that the spraying is what you smell: the smell always comes right after they spray, and you can watch it fall down.

Then in August, the smell changed distinctly to a sharp, plastic, static electric type of smell and it was much worse.

The worse plasticky spray pierces through closed windows unlike the other kind, and is carried by the rain, as if they spray into rain clouds.

The rain used to wash away the smell of chemtrails in my experience, but it actually carries the new plastic smelling spray straight through the walls of your house when it rains. It makes you wonder about what we will be subject to in the future, experiencing that, trying to shut the chemtrails out of the house.

We just can’t let this go further. They are already spraying, and they want little opposition to spraying much harder. Who knows what other interests they have in spraying: it seems they want to set a precedent. The US would probably like to direct rain systems, give some areas drought (Iran) and give some areas water.

Some power players would probably like us to all be poisoned with aluminum. Nanoparticles of aluminum, what they have been known to spray, can make people docile and confused like someone with Alzheimer’s. Aluminum is detrimental to our health, comparable to mercury.

So we have to push back as hard as we can, no matter how exhausted we are, the people who see what’s happening and have the gall to stand up.

In conclusion, this is from an article about the Carnegie Council’s recent steps toward geoengineering:

“If we don’t protest their proposal to spray the skies now, in 20 years we’ll be living in an aluminum poisoned nightmare where questioning the health of geoengineering the weather, hazing out the sun to combat climate change, will be as taboo as being critical of vaccines.

 We cannot allow geoengineering to become normalized in the public consciousness.