The Venus Project is an organization that proposes a feasible plan of action for social change, one that works towards a peaceful and sustainable global civilization. It outlines an alternative to strive toward where human rights are no longer paper proclamations but a way of life.
We operate out of a 21.5-acre Research Center located in Venus, Florida.
When one considers the enormity of the challenges facing society today, we can safely conclude that the time is long overdue for us to re-examine our values and to reflect upon and evaluate some of the underlying issues and assumptions we have as a society. This self-analysis calls into question the very nature of what it means to be human, what it means to be a member of a "civilization," and what choices we can make today to ensure a prosperous future for all the world's people.
At present we are left with very few alternatives. The answers of yesterday are no longer relevant. Either we continue as we have been with our outmoded social customs and habits of thought, in which case our future will be threatened, or we can apply a more appropriate set of values that are relevant to an emergent society.
Experience tells us that human behavior can be modified, either toward constructive or destructive activity. This is what The Venus Project is all about - directing our technology and resources toward the positive, for the maximum benefit of people and planet, and seeking out new ways of thinking and living that emphasize and celebrate the vast potential of the human spirit. We have the tools at hand to design and build a future that is worthy of the human potential. The Venus Project presents a bold, new direction for humanity that entails nothing less than the total redesign of our culture. What follows is not an attempt to predict what will be done, only what could be done. The responsibility for our future is in our hands, and depends on the decisions that we make today. The greatest resource that is available today is our own ingenuity.
While social reformers and think tanks formulate strategies that treat only superficial symptoms, without touching the basic social operation, The Venus Project approaches these problems somewhat differently. We feel we cannot eliminate these problems within the framework of the present political and monetary establishment. It would take too many years to accomplish any significant change. Most likely they would be watered down and thinned out to such an extent that the changes would be indistinguishable.
The Venus Project advocates an alternative vision for a sustainable new world civilization unlike any social system that has gone before. Although this description is highly condensed, it is based upon years of study and experimental research by many, many people from many scientific disciplines.
Please check the calendars to the right for the Venus Project Tour/Seminar dates. During the tour, Jacque Fresco will speak for several hours, walk you around the grounds, show and describe the models, present a 15 minute DVD and take any questions you may have. This will give you a better understanding of yourself and the world around you. The cost of the lecture and tour is $200 for each person or household. For this price, you also receive a package of a book and 4 DVD's, valued at $100. As we are not sponsored by anyone currently, this helps to support the project and enables you to learn more about it.
Address of Venus Project Tour: 21 Valley Lane Venus, Florida 33960 USA
To confirm send an email with TOUR in the subject:
1) Let us know what day you would like to come
2) How many are coming
3) Where you are coming from that morning and we will send you directions to the door.
NOTE: Children under 14 are not appropriate to attend the Tour Seminars
Nuclear power produces nearly 20% of Germany's energy, but in July 2011 (only three months after Fukushima) the German government vowed to shut down its nuclear capability within 10 years. Not just that, but to replace it with renewable energy, cut greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions by 40% by 2020 and 80% by 2050, ensure renewables contribute 80% of Germany's energy by 2050, and ensure energy consumption drops 20% by 2020 and 50% by 2050. It even has its own word: 'Energiewende', or 'Energy Transformation'. And Angela Merkel, not known for hyperbole, has described it as a 'Herculean task'.
Energiewende: persuading the public
But Professor Dr Manfred Fischedick is not a casual observer. As vice president of the Wuppertal Institute, he is scientific adviser to both policy makers and industry. Energiewende, he says, didn't simply fall from the sky in 2011. "Discussions about Energiewende had started already in the 1980s", says Fischedick. "There is a long tradition here in talking about alternative energy transformation. We had a lot of good scientific background and a very good basis for the government to come to such decisions in a very short timeframe... Just three months' discussion for such an ambitious energy concept would not have been possible without that."
Discussions are one thing. The reality, however, is proving quite another. "Now we have to construct new power lines, now people will see new biomass facilities very close to their houses, they will see new wind farms... the [crucial] social challenge is really to get public acceptance for all these many new investments."
The sight of thousands of kilometres of power cables slicing through the German countryside, and the costs involved, are beginning to bite. A renewable energy surcharge has already seen the average family's energy bill increase by 47% in the past two years.
There are also question marks over the transportation and storage of intermittent wind energy. However Fischedick argues that, "90% of the technologies are already available... our analysis is we [will need] more long-term storage systems after 2030. That's not a short-term challenge it is more of mid-to-long term. The short-term challenge is how to realise appropriate infrastructure on the electricity grid side... the main question at the moment is how we will be able to construct and get public acceptance for new power lines."
The prosumer model
While a lot of the media attention has been focused on large-scale wind farms (and Fischedick expects wind power to contribute half of the 80% renewable energy target by 2050), one of the most fascinating aspects of Energiewende is how it embraces micro-generation and micro-ownership. Public acceptance is, says Fischedick, much easier to maintain if it is paralleled with levels of individual ownership. Also known as a 'prosumer' model, over 50% of renewable-energy capacity is owned by individuals or farmers in Germany; the Big Four energy companies own just 6.5% (according to 2010 figures). "This is PV, co-generation... really small facilities," says Fischedick. "The prosumer aspect is vitally important... if you only have the chance to look from outside at the changes then you are much more [likely to be] complaining about what is going on."
This in turn is causing the big utility companies to reassess their role. Rather than continuing to rely on business-as-usual, they are significantly ramping up investment in biomass plants, offshore wind and large-scale photovoltaic plants, informs Fischedick. "In addition we have some utility companies looking at becoming a sort of service provider for the prosumer; RWE for instance provide a new service for the typical house owner to help them construct their own PV system on the roof, and to combine it with a small-scale battery. They have really changed their business portfolio in the last two years, just to be part of the game."
Changing mindsets
Despite the vast scale of the infrastructure and investment challenge, it is perhaps smaller than the more abstract task of changing people's lifestyles – which, Fischedick argues, has so far been avoided by the government. Reducing energy consumption by half cannot be done without changing consumer behaviour. This, says Fischedick, involves individuals being "more motivated to look at their own consumption of energy, because many people are not really aware of that... we have to explain that it is not enough to only invest in new insulation of buildings, but to combine it with appropriate and smart behaviour. That's a little bit connected with education... But also you have to discuss new forms of incentive systems, such as ecological taxes. It has not been discussed so far but I think it will be on the table in the next couple of years."
The rising cost of energy – in a country that already has the second highest energy bills in Europe – need not be the insurmountable barrier to Energiewende that some have suggested, says Fischedick. "The final energy bill is the most important aspect, not the increase in a specific price of kilowatt hours or cubic meters of gas. In combination with more investment in energy-efficient technologies, it is not necessarily the case that the energy bill will increase. It is that context that we have to really teach consumers".
That message is currently failing to reach consumers by being too meekly conveyed, says Fischedick. If there is a barrier to Energiewende, he believes it is perversely the very politicians that initiated it. "In the context of the EU directive for energy efficiency, it was the German government who tried to make this directive weaker than it was proposed by the Commission... we have specific goals and a concept, but the real behaviour of the government is at the moment quite different."
Perhaps the politicians could be forgiven a little wobble. To describe Germany's energy transformation as Herculean also serves to highlight its potential heroism – doing with urgency what most of the rest of the world is only saying is urgent. This could well see other countries playing catch up once again to the economic powerhouse of Europe. But with only seven years left to decommission 17 nuclear power plants, cut GHG emissions by 40% and energy consumption by 20%, it has a lot to do. And fast.
Source: This content is brought to you by Guardian Sustainable Business in association with Accenture. Paid for by Accenture. All editorial controlled and overseen by the Guardian.co.uk .
It’s not surprising to see what made the list as they are all things that touch each of our lives as we struggle to pay attention to and make time for things that we truly love. Below is the list of each regret along with an excerpt from the book. At the bottom is also a link to the book for anyone interested in checking it out.
One thing on regret before we get to the list. It’s important to remember that whatever stage we are at in life, there is no need for regret. The process of regret is one that provides nothing but suffering for ourselves as we begin to allow the past to dictate how we should feel now. Instead, we can use the past as a reference point to understand what adjustments we would like to make moving forward. The adjustments do not have to come out of pain, sorrow, regret or judgment, but simply a choice to do things in a different way. We are learning all the time, we can very quickly slow that learning process down by getting stuck in the idea of regret. When it comes to making changes, be at peace with the past and remember that each moment is a new choice.
1. I wish I’d had the courage to live a life true to myself, not the life others expected of me.
“This was the most common regret of all. When people realise that their life is almost over and look back clearly on it, it is easy to see how many dreams have gone unfulfilled. Most people had not honoured even a half of their dreams and had to die knowing that it was due to choices they had made, or not made. Health brings a freedom very few realise, until they no longer have it.”
2. I wish I hadn’t worked so hard.
“This came from every male patient that I nursed. They missed their children’s youth and their partner’s companionship. Women also spoke of this regret, but as most were from an older generation, many of the female patients had not been breadwinners. All of the men I nursed deeply regretted spending so much of their lives on the treadmill of a work existence.”
3. I wish I’d had the courage to express my feelings.
“Many people suppressed their feelings in order to keep peace with others. As a result, they settled for a mediocre existence and never became who they were truly capable of becoming. Many developed illnesses relating to the bitterness and resentment they carried as a result.”
4. I wish I had stayed in touch with my friends.
“Often they would not truly realise the full benefits of old friends until their dying weeks and it was not always possible to track them down. Many had become so caught up in their own lives that they had let golden friendships slip by over the years. There were many deep regrets about not giving friendships the time and effort that they deserved. Everyone misses their friends when they are dying.”
5. I wish that I had let myself be happier.
”This is a surprisingly common one. Many did not realise until the end that happiness is a choice. They had stayed stuck in old patterns and habits. The so-called ‘comfort’ of familiarity overflowed into their emotions, as well as their physical lives. Fear of change had them pretending to others, and to their selves, that they were content, when deep within, they longed to laugh properly and have silliness in their life again.”
I am not going to talk about the corruption that is holding this plant´s medicinal use back. I am here today to simply speak about the healing power of the hemp plant that I have personally witnessed and what I think causes it.
From my experience all forms of disease and conditions are treatable and often curable with the use of high grade hemp oil as a treatment.
Due to its harmless nature as a medicine, hemp oil is in a class all by itself. Even something like aspirin tablets that is looked upon as being harmless by the public causes thousands of deaths worldwide each year.
If you are looking for a safe medication, look no further than what the hemp plant can provide. On top of all that it’s a medicine we can all grow and produce ourselves. Also there is no need for a doctor’s supervision with its use.
When the hemp plant is grown for medicinal use, you now have your own medical system that is much safer and effective than anything our current medical system provides. You still may require a doctor to set your broken leg, but you will no longer need the chemicals they have been pushing upon us.
Hemp is medicine for the masses and no one has the right to control its use. We are all different and we all have different tolerances for practically everything. So it is up to each and every one of us to determine for ourselves how much oil we require to maintain good health.
Over the years people have come to me who after years of treatment by the medical system did not even have a diagnosis for their conditions. But the oil exercised its amazing healing power and their medical problems were solved.
Another aspect of the use of hemp as medicine is its anti-aging properties. As we age, our vital organs deteriorate and of course this impairs the function of these organs.
Hemp oil rejuvenates vital organs even in small doses it is very common for people to report to me that they feel 20 to 30 years younger after only ingesting the oil for a short time.
Now let’s take it to the next level. What about people who ingest larger quantities of oil over a longer period of time like myself? After 9 years on the oil my body does not appear to be that of a 60 year old man. Instead, my body has the appearance of someone who is a great deal younger. When I have the oil at my disposal I like to take about a quarter of a gram a day. Of course, due to short supply, quite often I must go without so my own treatment has been erratic to say the least. From my own experience with the oil I cannot help but wonder what would happen if a person was to ingest larger quantities of oil over a longer period of time. If a person were to do this, can they actually reverse the aging process and grow younger instead of aging.
From the oils effect on my own body by all appearances this seems to be the case. Someday soon when I have enough oil I intend to start taking a gram a day for a year to see what effect it has on my body.
Many people who have taken the oil have stated that they thought it to be the fountain of youth. From my own experiences with the oil I believe this to be true.
Throughout our lives the system has told us they want preventative medicine. Now what greater preventative medicine could there possibly be than hemp oil? Judging from what I have seen, if children were given tiny doses of oil each day like a supplement, diseases like cancer diabetes MS and many other conditions could be eliminated entirely.
Now I am not talking about getting the kiddies high for once a person gets accustomed to this medication, they do not even feel or exhibit effects from the oil they are ingesting.
Hemp oil is a safe and harmless medication that all age groups can benefit from by ingesting it and that goes for our children too. So if the system truly wants preventative medicine, here it is now why are they refusing to use it.
I know the words cure all is a hard pill to swallow. When I worked in the medical system, such terms were thought of as a joke. But when you see for yourself what this oil can do like I did, what else could it be called?
What other medicine works on everything and in many cases can cure thought-to-be incurable conditions. What else can heal diabetic ulcers, skin cancers or heal third degree burns in no time leaving no scars?
I will tell you what other medicine – no other medicine. So why on god’s green earth is it not being used? As a medication to ease our suffering and to heal us. For there is nothing better. Myself and many others have gone through realms of so-called scientific studies which I found to be mostly double-talk and most of these studies were about synthetic THC which bears little resemblance to natural THC and its associated cannabinoids found in the hemp plant.
After studying all this scientific jargon, I had learned what amounted to nothing. But the oil continued to work the miracles so who was I to question it.
I had just about given up hope that we would ever find out why the oil worked so well for all these different medical conditions. But recently a lady named Batya Stark has provided me with what I think is all the missing pieces to the puzzle. She has sent me a great deal of information about melatonin and the pineal gland which produces it. It seems that the pineal gland is in the driver’s seat when it comes to healing our bodies.
The melatonin it produces is an essential part of healing. When the function of the pineal gland is impaired, it produces much less melatonin and therefore we become sick and diseased. Studies have been released that show people suffering from cancer have low levels of melatonin in their bodies. Also studies have shown that just smoking hemp can raise the melatonin levels in our bodies. So one can only imagine what the oil that is in a concentrated state can do to increase melatonin levels.
As we age we acidify and cancer thrives in an acidic environment. So bringing the body´s PH level up is very important when you are suffering from cancer and many other conditions. The oil works to do this but also other things can be of great benefit. Simple things like baking soda and lemon juice can raise the body´s PH very rapidly.
Tumors are simply the symptom of an underlying condition that is present in the bodies of people who are suffering from cancer. Indeed this underlying condition must be treated to cure the cancer and prevent it from returning.
Melatonin travels to every cell in our bodies and is the key to good health. And I am not just talking about treating cancer, it seems that melatonin levels are important to treat all conditions. Now all you have to do is connect the dots like Batya and I have; it all adds up.
Hemp oil promotes full body healing and raises melatonin levels thousands of times higher than normal. When the pineal gland produces vast amounts of melatonin, it causes no harm to the body but it is very hard on the condition you are suffering from and indeed can eliminate it. From what I can gather, all this along with your PH being raised while the oil is detoxifying your body we think causes the healing effect of this medication. Now myself and those around me are not doctors or scientists and I like you can only wonder at why it is not them bringing this to the public. But after years of research on our part, this is the only thing we have found that connects all the dots and explains in a simple way why this medicine can do what it does. Now we must look at what could be causing the function of our pineal gland to become impaired. Much of the time it is caused by our own lifestyles and things like cell phones that we come in contact with everyday.
Companies that produce cell phones do not like to talk about it and would prefer that we did the same. But our bodies run on electrical impulses. Now do you think it’s a good idea to put something against your head that produces an electromagnetic field which can interfere with the electrical impulses in our bodies that keep us healthy?
Cell phones are just one of the culprits. Look at studies of cancer rates of people who live near and around high tension power lines. I myself did not understand the importance of all this until a friend of mine cured his heart condition by having two electrical problems in his home repaired.
It´s frightening that so many things we come into contact with frequently can harm our health. But still there are a number of other things that do the same.
Can someone out there give me a rational explanation as to why fluoride seems to be in everything these days and please do not call me and try to tell me it’s to prevent tooth decay? Did Hitler not use fluoride in his death camps to keep the inmates calm so they would not try to escape or revolt?
I wonder what possible purpose it serves our system to be giving us so much fluoride. Does what´s going on currently not smell a little like a death camp to you? I can only wonder what effect all this fluoride is having on our brains and our pineal glands. What about the effects of all those chemicals the doctors have been feeding to us? Would these chemicals interfere with the function of our pineal glands and could they also acidify our bodies more quickly?
I will leave that one for all you medical experts out there to figure out.
Now what about our food supply. The meat that is sold to the public in Canada and some other countries cannot even be sold in Europe. It seems that Canadian beef is looked down upon by Europeans because it has too many contaminates like antibiotics and growth hormones. Do you not find it strange that our meat is deemed unhealthy in Europe? Yet it is freely sold to anyone that is dumb enough to eat it back in Canada.
Now what about fruits and vegetables and all the other fare we find in supermarkets in North America. Pesticides, additives, preservatives, genetic modification – does this not all sound just yummy and possibly somewhat deadly?
But of course no one in authority has stood up to do something about this situation, so I guess the food they are selling the public must be good for us. Trust your government because they would never allow anyone to sell us something that was not good for us would they.
So as you can plainly see, practically everything that we come into contact with can have an effect on our health and wellbeing. And of course many things I have just mentioned could have a devastating effect on the pineal gland´s ability to function properly.
It’s almost as if they knew that by interfering with the function of the pineal gland, they could cause us to become unhealthy and in need of their wonderful chemical medications. But of course only someone who is a conspiracy nut could think in such a way. Do you think the same as I do about all this? If so, then welcome to the asylum.
Well put. And quite accurate too. People have been misled into having a narrowly focused opinion as a measure of control over their behaviour and thoughts.
If the general public were given the truth about the effects, society would be quite different, and the control structures governing your behaviour would topple.
Saying drugs are responsible for societies ills and crime and misfortune is like saying the knife was responsible for its victims death instead of the person who thrust it into them.
Personal responsibility is everything and many people demonstrate a complete lack of it. The people who suffer negative effects of drugs are people who don't exercise caution, don't bother to research the pros and cons, don't think about what the ramifications may be, or let others pressure them into it and so on.
The folk who discover/ed many of these substances and their effects were or are most often scientists who in many cases test it carefully themselves. Alexander Shulgin is a prime example.
More to say in my next article on Turismo Associati blog. Danger
What many Americans, including many scientists, think they know about drugs is turning out to be totally wrong. For decades, drug war propaganda has brainwashed Americans into blaming drugs for problems ranging from crime to economic deprivation. In his new book High Price: A Neuroscientist's Journey of Self-Discovery That Challenges Everything You Know About Drugs and Society, Carl Hart blows apart the most common myths about drugs and their impact on society, drawing in part on his personal experience growing up in an impoverished Miami neighborhood. Hart has used marijuana and cocaine, carried guns, sold drugs, and participated in other petty crime, like shoplifting. A combination of what he calls choice and chance brought him to the Air Force and college, and finally made him the first black, tenured professor of sciences at Columbia University.
Intertwined with his story about the struggles of families and communities stressed by lack of capital and power over their surroundings is striking new research on substance use. Hart uses his life and work to reveal that drugs are not nearly as harmful as many think. For example, most people who use the most “addicting” drugs do not develop a problem. Rather, Hart says, drugs are scapegoated for problems related to poverty. The policies that result from this misconception are catastrophically misguided. AlterNet spoke with Hart about his life and research.
Kristen Gynne: What are some of the false conclusions about drugs you are challenging?
Carl Hart: There are multiple false conclusions. There is a belief, for example, that crack cocaine is so addictive it only took one hit to get hooked, and that it is impossible to use heroin without becoming addicted. There was another belief that methamphetamine users are cognitively impaired. All of these are myths that have been perpetuated primarily by law enforcement, and law enforcement deals with a limited, select group of people—people who are, in many cases, behaving badly. But to generalize that to all drug users is not only shortsighted and naive, it’s also irresponsible. The impact of that irresponsible behavior has been borne primarily by black communities. Nobody really cares about black communities, and that's why this irresponsible behavior has been allowed to continue.
It's also true that we've missed critical opportunities to challenge our basic assumptions about drugs. If drugs really were as damaging as we are led to believe, a respectable society should do something to address that problem. But the thing is, the very assumptions driving our drug policy are wrong, and must be questioned.
KG:How does the lack of people of color in academia or research affect our understanding of drugs?
CH: I'd just like to be clear, I don't say people of color, I say black people, because people of color can mean a number of other [races]. I'm talking about black people who, like me, when we go back to our communities and we ask about people who we grew up with, the response is, "Well, they got caught up with a drug charge, they're upstate. They're doing some time” or, “Oh, he's doing better now that he got out of jail. He can't really find a good job, but he's doing his best.”
It would be nice if we had black scientists, more black people in science, to incorporate these kinds of experiences as they think about the questions they investigate. The problem is it’s so homogenous that critical questions about our community are ignored because they're not seen as being important.
KG:And the result is that they don't comprehend environment, or the other variables that are affecting someone's decisions or behavior, and miss the mark?
CH: That's exactly right. It's that if you don't contextualize what is happening with drugs in the country you might get the impression that drugs are so bad they're causing all these people to go to jail: “Let's find out how drugs are exerting these awful effects.” Now, you have just completely disregarded context in which all of these things occur, and that is what has happened in science. If you don't fully appreciate the context, and you think that drug users are awful, then you don't think about how a person takes care of their kid, takes care of their family, goes to work, but they also use drugs. If you don't think about all of those contextual factors, you limit the picture and that's what we've done.
It's not that science lies. Science doesn't lie. But when you look at your research with a limited view, you may erroneously draw conclusions about drugs, when in fact other variables you might not understand are what's really at play.
KG:You talk about how people are always blaming problems on drugs, when those issues really spring from the stress of poverty. What are some examples?
CH: I think crack cocaine is the easiest example In the 1980s, as I was coming of age in my teens and my early 20s, people—black people, white folks, a number of people in the country—said crack was so awful it was causing women to give up their babies and neglect their children such that grandmothers had to raise another generation of children.
Now, if you look at the history in poor communities—my community, my family—long before crack ever hit the scene, that sort of thing happened in my house. We were raised by my grandmother. My mother went away because she and my father split up. She went away in search of better jobs and left the state, but it wasn't just her. This sort of thing, this pathology that is attributed to drugs, happened to immigrant communities like the Eastern European Jews when they came to the Lower East SIde, but people simply blamed crack in the 1980s and the 1990s.
Another example is that, since the crack era, multiple studies have found that the effects of crack cocaine use during pregnancy do not create an epidemic of doomed black "crack babies." Instead, crack-exposed children are growing up to lead normal lives, and studies have repeatedly found that the diferences between them and babies who were not exposed cannot be isolated from the health effects of growing up poor, without a stable, safe environment or access to healthcare.
KG:What about the idea that drugs can turn people into criminals?
CH: The pharmalogical effects of drugs rarely lead to crime, but the public conflates these issues regardless. If we were going to look at how pharmalogical drugs influence crime, we should probably look at alcohol. We know sometimes people get unruly when they drink, but the vast majority of people don't. Certainly, we have given thousands of doses of crack cocaine and methamphetamine to people in our lab, and never had any problems with violence or anything like that. That tells you it's not the pharmacology of the drug, but some interaction with the environment or environmental conditions, that would probably happen without the drug. Sure, new markets of illegal activity are often or sometimes associated with increased violence, or some other illegal activity, but it is not specific to drugs like people try to make it out to be.
Other than crime, you have myths that drugs cause cognitive impairment, make people unable to be productive members of society, or tear families apart. If the vast majority of people are using these drugs without problems—and a smaller proportion of users do have problems—what that tells you if you're thinking critically is it can't be only the drug, or mainly the drug. It tells you it is something about the individual situations, environmental conditions, a wide range of factors.
KG:What about addiction? Won't some people who use drugs inevitably become dependent on drugs?
CH: Given the large percentage of people who are not addicted and try these drugs, it's something other than the pharmacology of the drugs that's causing addiction. We find that 85% of the people, for example, who use cocaine are not addicted, even though they use the same cosmetological substance as those who are. Somebody could say there may be something biologically predisposing people who get addicted, but there is no evidence to support that position. Certainly, that idea should be investigated, but there is far more evidence to support the view that there are other things going in the lives of people who are predisposed to addiction, that can predict their addiction as well as other problems.
KG:What kinds of environmental factors matter?
CH: Well, let's think about drug use. Drug effects are predictable, and some drugs are really good at increasing euphoria and feelings of positive reinforcement. Now, if you don't have anything competing with drugs for pleasure and happiness, all you have is deprivation. Why wouldn't you get high?
If you have competing reinforcers or alternatives, like the ability to earn income, learn a skill, or receive some respect based on your performance in some sort of way, those things compete with potentially destructive behavior. And so as a psychologist, you just want to make sure people have a variety of potential reinforcers. If you don't have that, you increase the likelihood of people engaging in behaviors that society does not condone.
Skills that are employable or marketable, education, having a stake or meaningful role in society, not being marginalized—all of those things are very important. Instead of ensuring that all of our members have these things, our society has blamed drugs, said drugs are the reasons that people don't have a stake in society, and that's simply not true.
KG:So if drugs aren't the problem, why do we say they are?
CH: They’re just an easy scapegoat. You can imagine if so few people have engaged in an activity, you can make up some incredible stories about that activity, and be believed. And that's what's happened with drugs. Note that you can't make up those incredible stories about marijuana today, but there was a time when we could: the 1930s. That has passed because more people have tried marijuana, but you can make up those incredible stories about methamphetamine because so few people have used methamphetamine.
Well, I should say so few people actually know that they use methamphetamine. All those people who use Adderall and those kinds of drugs, they are using methamphetamine, basically. It is the amphetamine, not the "D" [like Adderall] or "meth" in front of it, that creates the effects.
KG:What is actually responsible for problems often linked to drugs?
CH: Poverty. And there are policies that have played a role, too. Policies like placing a large percentage of our law enforcment resources in those communities, so that when people get charged with some petty crime, they have a blemish on their record that further decreases their ability to join mainstream, get a job that's meaningful, and that sort of thing.
The policy decisions that we make play a far bigger role than the drugs themselves. When I turned 14, for example, there was a federal government program that, in order to keep kids like me out of the streets, gave us jobs. Under these federal government programs, we had money for the summer, for clothing—it was great. When we cut these types of programs and kids have nowhere to go what do you expect to happen? It doesn't take rocket scientists to figure this out.
Now, I have an 18-year-old who, this summer, won't have anything to do. I'm trying to find him some sort of work. Having a federal government program for underpriveleged children, that was great. That let kids know that the society might care about you. We teach them work skills, we teach them something about responsibility, we make sure they have money in their pockets. Now, you take away all of this, and you miss the chance to teach them about responsibility. You miss the opportunity to help them put food on the table, to put clothes on their backs.
KG:In your acknowledgements, you thank Aid to Families with Dependent Children, which you call "welfare as we once knew it."
CH: All of my childhood, we were on welfare. My mom received aid for families with dependent children—welfare. Without that, we wouldn't have had subsidized housing. Most of my childhood we had a two-bedroom apartment, but eventually we got into the projects, where we had four bedrooms. That was great.
We got food stamps that helped make sure we had something to eat, even though it was little. Without that program, I wouldn't have developed physically. There would have been a lot more stress in the household.
Now, the interesting thing about it is that all of my sibling were all on that program because of my mom, and all of my siblings now have jobs and they're responsible, taxpaying citizens. That's the typical story on that program, but the conservatives, under Reagan, they began to perpetuate this narrative of the welfare queen, when in fact, we know who the biggest welfare kings are: the people on Wall Street. The federal government gives far money to them than to poor families, but welfare became so villified that we essentially got rid of it.
KG:How does institutional racism affect policy? In your book, you talk about how crack, which is pharmacologically almost identical to cocaine, is punished with an 18-1 (and once 100-1) sentencing disparity because of racially coded language linking the "crack scourge" to bad behavior in poor, black communities. There was also a recent ACLU report, which found that blacks are an average of four times more likely to be arrested for pot than whites.
CH: I often testify as an expert witness to help women who have used marijuana while pregnant to keep their children. Case after case is a black woman. Security in the court is all black; the judges are all white; and the lawyers are young and white, building careers. It's just slavery all over again.
When you have a group that’s already identified as an “other,” or a villified group that is a minority, it's easier to associate a behavior with them. But people don't see black people as being fully human. That’s what happens in the US, although people won't tell you that.
Because when we think about Trayvon Martin, when we think about Ramarley Graham, Sean Bell, these black kids who were killed at the hands of some security or law enforcement person—that almost never happens with white kids. If it did, it would be a national crises. But it's not a national crises because we really don't value black men and boys in the same way we value white boys and men. We don't see them as being equal.
I look at how people behave, and it's clear. As long as you view this group that way, you can continue to put large percentage of law enforcement resources in those communities, but not so much to make them better. If you want to make it better, you give people jobs. Instead, we put police in those communities to pretend that they care, to pretend that you're doing something. But that's not helping.
Whereas drug reactions are predictable, interactions with police are not and too often become deadly. As a parent of a black youth, I'd much rather my kids interact with drugs than law enforcement. White people don't need to think about that. Police officers too often see young, black boys as less than human. It creates a mentality where black kids are supposed to "know your place," and it affects your psyche. Indignities become part of who you are.
KG:How is meth changing this conversation?
CH: Meth is the new crack. It is the same thing as Adderall, but we are told it causes people's faces and teeth to decay. There is no evidence to suggest meth alone, versus poor hygiene, makes people look ugly. At the same time, because most people who use or arrested for meth are white people—poor of course, people we don't like—it creates an opportunity to say the drug war is not racist.
In Montana, they have invested in sentencing alternatives, like a maximum one-year sentence and treatment, for meth users. Could you imagine that happening with crack cocaine? Hell no. It's interesting because, with meth, we are doing our job, trying to seek alternatives to help people. Still, in some places, like Oklahoma, they're still locking white people up.
KG:In your book, it seems as though you feel some guilt for being successful, as if you have abandoned your community. How has your life changed?
CH: In terms of where I'm at now, I have money and I don't have to worry about where my next meal is coming from, so that's a really good thing. Whereas, when I was an adolescent, it was a good day if I ate two meals. Now, I expect to eat three meals, and that sort of thing. But, on the other hand, when I think about family, friends andthat sort of thing, it was a lot better where I was previously because you knew where everyone stood, you knew everyone had your back, you didn't have to worry about people backstabbing you or trying to go after you for a variety of reasons. Mainly, you were just being who you are—that's one of the things I bring with me from the past.
Whether I am there or here, I have this sense of community responsibility and I hope that will always be with with me. When it's no longer with me, perhaps it's time to die.
KG:How do you navigate two different cultures?
CH: That's very difficult, because I deal in mainstream and my family, they don't as much. Not only do I deal in mainstream society, I deal in mainstream as a fucking professor at Columbia. Now, when I take that mask off to go home, and it takes me a few days to acclimate, to be like OK, I'm no longer in the shark pit, I can relax, and relax my vernacular. And then I have to leave again.
So, my family might see this Columbia personality, and they may take it as a personal affront. I feel like a fraud, oftentimes, at home, but it has nothing to do with how I feel about my family. It's just that I'm catching hell in the mainstream. In the mainstream, I’m suspect because I’m black, I have dreadlocks, I have a goatee. I mean, I'm just suspect. In my classroom and at Columbia, I'm not as suspect because it's clear I know what I'm doing, but I am still suspect. And people are curious; they don’t know that I have the same dreams and aspirations as they do. They think that I may be different somehow.
This sort of issue would be a fascinating topic for research, particularly when we think about physical health or mental health, and how it manifests. But that will never be approved by National Institute of Health, because it's not of interest to white researchers. These are just things that I have to live my life with.
KG:How does this book adress your experience in academia and black America?
CH: I speak the language of both. And as a result, I think it speaks to both. And I’m hoping in the process, maybe along the way, the people who are back home, whose stories I'm trying to share, will see themselves in my story. And the people in my mainstream—I'm trying to help them see themselves in my story.
At some point, I just hope that it merges, that they see we're not that different. We have the same hopes and dreams and aspirations. The expression of those hopes and dreams may be slightly different but we are very similar. That's what I'm hoping.
KG:What would policy that reflects reality look like, and how do we get there?
CH: That is complex, but quite simple to start. The first thing is we decriminalize all drugs. More than 80% of people arrested for drugs are arrested for simple possession. Wen you decriminalize, now you have that huge number of people—we're talking 1.5 million people arrested every year—that no longer have that blemish on their record. That increases the likelihood that they can get jobs, participate in the mainstream.
Number two is dramatically increase realistic education about drugs—none of this "this is your brain on drugs" stuff, but real education, which looks like making sure people understand effects of drugs they're using, particularly potentially medical affects. Don't use heroin with another sedative because it increases the likelihood of respiratory depression. Realistic education, telling people what to do, how to prevent negative effects associated with drugs. We do it with alcohol—you shouldn't binge drink, don't drink on an empty stomach—and could do it with other drugs.
If you put a plaster cast on a broken arm the skin starves for Vitamin D, the muscles weaken due to strangled range of motion, the nerve synapses depress to a whimper of their former joy. Twenty-first century hominids? We shroud our entire skin palette except for face, neck and hands - we obliterate symbiosis with the planet.
We hide in cocoons, when we could be free as butterflies.
History reveals many cultures that were not clothes-minded. Spartans were basically bare and their victories in pan-Hellenic sports competitions enticed all neighboring Greeks to exercise nude, creating the word “gymnasium” (Greek gymnos = naked). Romans mingled in magnificent bathhouses, enjoying dense communal nudity as they drank, dined, defecated, bathed, read books, argued politics, and watched theater. Adamists — naked heretics — performed stripped-down church services in North Africa, Bohemia, the Netherlands, and England. Pre-Hitler Germans were avid adherents of Freikorperkultur (“Free Body Culture”) with 70,000 attending co-ed Nacktkultur schools.
There’s naked Japanese in hot springs, naked Finns in saunas, “sky-clad” Jain monks in India, plus millions of nudists worldwide going to “Nakation” camps, beaches, and resorts. They’re still sporty as Spartans, eager to hike naked (“free bush rambling”), canoe naked (“canuding”), bicycle naked, ride horses naked, run naked, play volleyball, badminton, ping-pong and chess naked, swim naked, dance naked, do Naked Yoga, Naked Tai Chi, Naked Gardening, Naked Bowling, and of course, many of us, perhaps you and I, dear readers, are NIFOC — Naked In Front of Computers.
Many famous figures were bare-all aficionados; too many politicians to name, so I’ll just list sci-fi and scientists: Leonard Nimoy, Alexander Graham Bell, Robert Heinlein, and seismologist Charles Richter. Nudism is prominent in Philip Jose Farmer’s Riverworld books and John Varley’s Steel Beach. Celebrities? Many movie stars skinny-dip at the French Riviera, trying to elude paparazzi seeking pix of Bruce WIllis’ willy or Natalie Portman’s port side.
Here’s evidence suggesting that skin-only can be superior:
Born Free. Pediatricians agree that infants thrive with a daily dose of “naked time” because the unhampered range of motion aids brain development, stimulating neuron growth. Recent discoveries reveal that the “plastic” brain changes and develops throughout our entire lives. Neuroplasticity pioneer Michael M. Merzenich believes, “Everything that you can see happen in a young brain can happen in an older brain.” Doesn’t this imply that “naked time” is equally valuable for humans of any age, especially the elderly?
Weakened Bodies. A 2003 University of Reading study entitled “A Naked Ape Would Have Fewer Parasites” posits that “humans evolved hairlessness to reduce parasite loads, especially ectoparasites that may carry disease.” Unfortunately, the garments we wear can be a breeding ground for filthy fungi and bad bacterium, causing yeast infections, urinary tract infections, rotting toenails. Lyme Disease deer ticks can grab onto our sweaters and sea lice can sneak into our bathing suit crotches. Cinched-up belts, ties, and clothes impede breathing. Men’s snug pants raise testicle temperature, lowering sperm count and fertility.
Barefoot Medicine. Going shoeless is now recognized as an anti-Alzheimer’s, brain-boosting activity because the sole sensation entices your brain into growing extra, efficient neuron connections. Dr. Norman Doidge (author of The Brain That Changes Itself) believes skipping shoes increases brain flexibility and youthfulness, and many podiatrists now advise going barefoot as much as possible. Bare feet are today’s prescription. Will tomorrow’s elixir take the next step: Bare Body?
Superior Socialization. Self-actualization proponent Abraham Maslow believed “Nudism… is itself a kind of therapy.” Health benefits of social nudity include stress reduction, satiation of curiosity about the human body, reduction of porn addiction, a sense of full-body integration and developing a wholesome attitude about the opposite gender. Research at the University of Northern Iowa discovered that nudists have significantly higher body self-acceptance. Another study concluded that teens at a New York nudist camp were “extraordinarily well-adjusted, happy, and thoughtful.” It’s also excellent for children to grow up free of shame about the human body.
Tolerant Views. A University of Central Florida 2008 study of 384 participants concluded that pro-nudity students “were significantly more accepting of other religious groups and gays and lesbians” when compared to the anti-nudity students. They were also “less prejudiced towards ethnically dissimilar others.”
Soothe Away Your Crazies. Massage is recognized as a therapeutic treatment for mental health issues like depression, anxiety, schizophrenia, bipolarism, borderline personality disorder, learning difficulties, and low self-esteem. The skin stimulation of massage — improving blood flow and detoxifying the lymph system — is duplicated by the warmth, freedom, and improved circulation generated in nakedness.
Soak Up The Rays. Vitamin D deficiency is currently soaring, with up to 75% of USA teens and adults receiving insufficient amounts of the “sunshine vitamin.” Lack of this essential health aid is a factor in numerous ailments, including cancer, heart disease, osteoporosis and diabetes. Anyone who bares all outside as a “naturist” harvests larger amounts of Vitamin D in a quicker time span.
Financial Liberation. Clothes are a huge money and time-suck with shopping, laundry, closets, dressers, and gazillions of hours wasted wondering what so-and-so looks like with their garments removed. The global markets for swimsuits alone is expected to reach $17.6 billion annually by 2015; our carbon footprint would shrink like a wool sweater if fabric was no longer manufactured.
Longevity (just joking!). Have you noticed that the furry Norway Rat only lives 2-3 years, while the Naked Mole Rat survives to be 28?
So… is the future going to be full frontal? Will the post-Singularity planet be stripped? Will everyone in a climate-controlled tomorrow choose to be nude, strutting around like the Nuba dancers and boxers of Leni Reifenstahl?
Trends point to an era where there won’t be a stitch to worry about. Many resort areas are are now offering nudism to increase tourism, and American naturist clubs claim their enrollment is growing 20% annually. The German airline OssiUrlaub.de offered nude chartered flights to a Baltic sea resort, and today’s lengthy luggage searches at airports are steering travelers to destinations where they only need carry-on towels and sunblock. Twenty million Europeans already go to nude beaches and spas.
This may sound somewhat obvious, but I would argue that this is a fundamental sticking-point when discussing such matters, as it is difficult to link individuals to the antisocial and unethical actions they perpetrate [1:2] without a historically accurate point of reference.
For example, when discussing matters such as the proposal that 9/11 may have been initiated by our ‘leaders’ [3], I find that people quite often respond with the simple question ‘why?’, as it seems absurd to think that our ‘leaders’ would do something quite so inhuman and immoral for some sort of political gain. I will not attempt here to go into what their motives were, but rather into why it is that we, the general public, rarely remember the lessons of the past and continue to be misled about the circumstances leading to each and every conflict.
At this juncture I would suggest that the reader check out an article by John Pilger entitled ‘Our children are learning lies’ in which he clearly sets out several examples of how we are taught about an historic event at school and how this information will in turn have a direct effect on the formation of our future perceptions of the world [4]
Unfortunately, this information can all too often bear little or no relation to the actual event (Pilger uses Vietnam as a prime illustration of this), because the language and information used to teach us essentially pre-programs our comprehension of future warfare, automatically predisposing us to whichever side has been identified as the ‘goodies’ while creating a vested dislike or even hatred of the ‘baddies’.
Perhaps ‘baddie’ should be rephrased in Orwellian terms as ‘a figure of hate’. From what I remember of my own learning on Vietnam, I recall thinking that the Americans became involved in order to help protect the ‘Democratic South’ against the ‘Communist North’ — this is probably what most people believe. According to Pilger, this analysis of the Vietnam conflict is far from the truth; in fact, almost completely contrary to the reality of the situation. The excerpt below comes from his article referring to a school textbook written on the subject:
It says that under the 1954 Geneva Accord: ‘Vietnam was partitioned into communist north and democratic south.’ In one sentence, truth is dispatched. The final declaration of the Geneva conference divided Vietnam ‘temporarily’ until free national elections were held on 26 July 1956. There was little doubt that Ho Chi Minh would win and form Vietnam’s first democratically elected government. Certainly, President Eisenhower was in no doubt of this. ‘I have never talked with a person knowledgeable in Indo-Chinese affairs,’ he wrote, ‘who did not agree that . . . 80 per cent of the population would have voted for the communist Ho Chi Minh as their leader.’
Not only did the United States refuse to allow the UN to administer the agreed elections two years later, but the ‘democratic’ regime in the south was an invention. One of the inventors, the CIA official Ralph McGehee, describes in his masterly book Deadly Deceits how a brutal expatriate mandarin, Ngo Dinh Diem, was imported from New Jersey to be ‘president’ and a fake government was put in place. ‘The CIA,’ he wrote, ‘was ordered to sustain that illusion through propaganda [placed in the media].’
Phony elections were arranged, hailed in the west as ‘free and fair’, with American officials fabricating ‘an 83 per cent turnout despite Vietcong terror’. The GCSE guide alludes to none of this, nor that ‘the terrorists’, whom the Americans called the Vietcong, were also southern Vietnamese defending their homeland against the American invasion and whose resistance was popular. For Vietnam, read Iraq. –Extract from ‘Our children are learning lies’ by John Pilger [5]
What this essentially tells us is that, for all the democratic ideals that America and the West claims to espouse, as soon as someone who does not agree with their viewpoint is voted in they will do anything in their power to subvert and undermine them. This is rephrased and then becomes the ‘official’ history of events, finding its way into everything from textbooks to documentaries – George Orwell and 1984, eat your heart out!
You don’t have to look far to find similar examples of this subversive reinvention of recent history – simply look at how Hamas has been marginalized despite winning a clear majority in the Palestinian legislative election of 2006. [6]
Hamas was not ‘permitted’ to govern, despite winning the overall support of the Palestinian people, due to their not having the same agenda as the policy makers in Washington. That is not to say that we should agree with all Hamas policies (or anyone else’s, for that matter), but that we should at least respect the fact that the Palestinian people, through seemingly fair elections, have chosen their own government. The Americans evidently did not: they swiftly imposed sanctions and withheld aid from the Palestinian Authority in protest at the audacity of the Palestinians voting for an anti-American party [7]. The power sharing deal between Hamas and Fatah hammered out afterward under American influence is the equivalent of the Conservative Party in Britain winning over 50% of the seats in a general election and then being forced to govern in coalition with the previous losing Labour Administration — a ridiculous prospect but arguably a comparable scenario. [8]
According to the words of former Republican Presidential hopeful, Newt Gingrich, the Palestinians are an “invented people” and are merely part of the larger Arab community, despite the fact that each Middle Eastern country has its own form of Arabic language and customs [9].
It could be argued that these types of statement serve to de-legitimize any section of society. Looking at history, this stratagem has been used as an excuse for ethnic cleansing, whether it be the United States in their treatment of Native Americans in the 19th Century; or 1930s Germany rounding up of the mentally ill, homosexuals, Jews and any other so-called undesirables; or the genocides in Bosnia or Rwanda in the 1990s – all the way through to Australia’s expunging of aboriginal culture during the first half of the 20th Century.
To say that Palestinians are not a people is evidently to completely ignore the reality of their current political situation. Very few countries have the same boundaries as they did 200 years ago, so it can be reasonably argued that the Palestinians who reside in the “occupied territories” are on the land of their forefathers and have every right to be there. Claiming that they are part of the larger Arab community and not a people is to imply that no Arab country is sovereign unto itself; something that would certainly be disputed on talking to most Moroccans, Saudis or Jordanians.
Let us not forget that although the Israeli nation is intrinsically a modern construct, this doesn’t mean that the Israeli people don’t have a sense of nationhood or national culture; they evidently do. Are Walloon-Belgians to be considered as ‘French’ simply because they have the same language as France? Is Scotland, Wales or the United States to be classified as ‘English’ simply because they share similar customs? Unfortunately, this type of rhetoric is all too often put forward; and even if the effect is not immediate, it is likely to influence the thinking of a significant number of people over time as the corporate media repeatedly relays these words to the wider population.
For further examples of this duplicity, we could briefly consider the undermining of Daniel Ortega as leader of Nicaragua, and the deposition of Mohammad Mosaddegh as Prime Minister of Iran. Ortega led a movement to oust the previous brutal U.S.-backed regime under Somoza and had put in place massive public programs to increase the living standards of his countrymen [10: 11]. Despite being lauded as the most free elections ever conducted in Nicaragua’s history, the Western establishment media was falling over itself to imply they were in fact rigged. [12]. The illegal methods used by the U.S. and its agencies included the funding of an armed insurgency, later became known as the Iran-Contra affair – a huge topic in itself, well worth reading about as an illustration of the extent to which those in power will go in order to destabilize governments that do not agree with their policies. [13]
Democratically elected Mosaddegh had instituted changes to transfer control of Iranian oil from Anglo-American interests to Iran. This resulted in a U.S.-sponsored regime change which saw the brutal Shah being imposed on Iran for the next 25 years, until his overthrow by the Islamic revolution of 1979 [14]. This fact is little known or cared about by Western observers, but it is widely known and taught throughout Iran. As Robert Fisk mentioned in a recent article in The Independent, ‘It is a weird irony that Iranians know the history of Anglo-Persian relations better than the Brits’ [15] This is something worth thinking about when looking at current Western-Iranian relations.
My point here is that these three events (and there are many more), although in the public domain are not widely known about or understood by the general population. Moreover, I would argue that discussion of these events is actively suppressed by the Western-controlled media, as this in itself would show the collusion of Western agencies in these events.
However, it is my belief that the situation is more dangerous than this, as noted at the start of this article. It is precisely this lack of information that prevents the general public from making informed decisions on a whole range of current areas of controversy — be it Iran, Syria, Libya or Sudan. We are presented with dubious information from a young age through to adulthood via the public-education system and the corporate-owned media, and it is hard to filter it out and be objective. Grant Allen may have been onto something when he wrote that “No schooling was allowed to interfere with my education.” [16]
There is much that could be said on this topic, but my main point is that it is absolutely vital for those who have an interest in these matters to critically appreciate and understand the history of how public opinion has been manipulated, how perceptions have been altered, and how half-truths have been purposely put forward by the media. It can be argued that in this way the media support the “Military Industrial Complex’s” agenda [17].
George Santayana wrote ‘Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it’ [18]. If it is true that we are being deliberately misinformed and poorly educated about still-relevant historical events, shouldn’t we begin to at least question why this is the case? Might there be something more sinister at work in the world today?
All the information is still freely available and out there on the Web or in books for anyone who cares to know. It’s up to each one of us to find out everything we can so that we can understand the realities behind global and national policy making, thus enabling us to make informed and rational commentary and contributions to society.
This is where a revolution in thinking should start. This is where the morally “repugnant” elite control structure should end. [19]
Author: Andrew Fell lives in the Czech Republic and is a lecturer of English at a Social Work College in Prague. He has a keen interest in geo-politics, ethics, history, cooking and playing music. He can usually be found armed with a smile, sipping a cup of tea at a èajovna in Prague.
Chemtrails, Nanoaluminum, and Neurodegenerative and Neurodevelopmental Effects By Russell L. Blaylock, M.D. August 23, 2012
The internet is littered with stories of “chemtrails” and geoengineering to combat “global warming”; and, until recently, I took these stories with a grain of salt. One of the main reasons for my skepticism was that I rarely saw what they were describing in the skies. But over the past several years I have noticed a great number of these trails and I have to admit they are not like the contrails I grew up seeing in the skies. They are extensive, quite broad, are laid in a definite pattern, and slowly evolve into artificial clouds. Of particular concern is that there are now so many – dozens every day are littering the skies.
My major concern is that there is evidence that they are spraying tons of nanosized aluminum compounds. It has been demonstrated in the scientific and medical literature that nanosized particles are infinitely more reactive and induce intense inflammation in a number of tissues. Of special concern is the effect of these nanoparticles on the brain and spinal cord, as a growing list of neurodegenerative diseases, including Alzheimer’s dementia, Parkinson’s disease, and Lou Gehrig’s disease (ALS) are strongly related to exposure to environmental aluminum.
Nanoparticles of aluminum are not only infinitely more inflammatory, they also easily penetrate the brain by a number of routes, including the blood and olfactory nerves (the smell nerves in the nose). Studies have shown that these particles pass along the olfactory neural tracts, which connect directly to the area of the brain that is not only most affected by Alzheimer’s disease, but also the earliest affected in the course of the disease. It also has the highest level of brain aluminum in Alzheimer’s cases.
The intranasal route of exposure makes spraying of massive amounts of nanoaluminum into the skies especially hazardous, as it will be inhaled by people of all ages, including babies and small children for many hours. We know that older people have the greatest reaction to this airborne aluminum. Because of the nanosizing of the aluminum particles being used, home-filtering systems will not remove the aluminum, thus prolonging exposure, even indoors.
In addition to inhaling nanoaluminum, such spraying will saturate the ground, water, and vegetation with high levels of aluminum. Normally, aluminum is poorly absorbed from the GI tract; but nanoaluminum is absorbed in much higher amounts. This absorbed aluminum has been shown to be distributed to a number of organs and tissues including the brain and spinal cord. Inhaling this environmentally suspended nanoaluminum will also produce tremendous inflammatory reaction within the lungs, which will pose a significant hazard to children and adults with asthma and pulmonary diseases.
I pray that the pilots who are spraying this dangerous substance fully understand that they are destroying the lives and health of their families as well. This is also true of our political officials. Once the soil, plants, and water sources are heavily contaminated there will be no way to reverse the damage that has been done.
Steps need to be taken now to prevent an impending health disaster of enormous proportions if this project is not stopped immediately. Otherwise we will see an explosive increase in neurodegenerative diseases occurring in adults and the elderly in unprecedented rates as well as neurodevelopmental disorders in our children. We are already seeing a dramatic increase in these neurological disorders and it is occurring in younger people more than ever before.
________________________________________
Endnotes
1. Win-Shwe T-T, Fujimaki H, “Nanoparticles and Neurotoxicity,” In J Mol Sci 2011;12:6267-6280.
2. Krewski D et al., “The biological effects of nanoparticles. Risk assessment for aluminum, aluminum oxide, and aluminum hydroxide,” J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev 2007;10 (suppl 1): 1-269.
3. Blaylock RL, “Aluminum induced immunoexcitotoxicity in neurodevelopmental and neurodegenerative disorders,” Curr Inorg Chem 2012;2:46-53.
4. Tomljenovic L, “Aluminum and Alzheimer’s disease: after a century, is there a plausible link,” J Alzheimer’s Disease 2011;23:567-598.
5. Perl DP, Good PF, “Aluminum, Alzheimer’s Disease, and the olfactory system,” Ann NY Acad Sci 1991;640:8-13.
6. Shaw CA, Petrik MS, “Aluminum hydroxide injections lead to motor deficits and motor neuron degeneration,” J Inorg Biochem 2009;103:1555-1562.
8. Li XB et al., “Glia activation induced by peripheral administration of aluminum oxide nanoparticles in rat brains,” Nanomedicine 2009;5:473-479.
9. Exley C, House E, “Aluminum in the human brain,” Monatsh Chem 2011;142:357-363.
10.Nayak P, Chatterjee AK, “Effects of aluminum exposure on brain glutamate and GABA system: an experimental study in rats,” Food Chem Toxicol 2001;39:1285-1289.
11. Tsunoda M, Sharma RP, “Modulation of tumor necrosis factor alpha expression in mouse brain after exposure to aluminum in drinking water,” Arch Toxicol 1999;73:419-426.
12. Matyja E, “Aluminum changes glutamate –mediated neurotoxicity in organotypic cultures of rat hippocampus,” Folia Neuropathol 2000;38:47-53.
13. Walton JR, “Aluminum in hippocampal neurons from humans with Alzheimer’s disease,” Neurotoxicology 2006;27:385-394.
14. Walton JR, “An aluminum-based rat model for Alzheimer’s disease exhibits oxidative damage, inhibition of PP2A activity, hyperphosphorylated tau and granulovacuolar degeneration,” J Inorg Biochem 2007;101:1275-1284.
15. Becaria A et al., “Aluminum and copper in drinking water enhance inflammatory or oxidative events specifically in brain,” J Neuroimmunol 2006;176:16-23.
17. Exley C, “The pro-oxidant activity of aluminum,” Free Rad Biol Med 2004;36:380-387.
Recommended Reading
Dr. Blaylock’s brochures Bio Terrorism: How You Can Survive and Nuclear Sunrise.
Dr. Blaylock, an NHF member, is a World-renowned neurosurgeon who retired from Neurosurgery to devote his full attention to nutritional studies and research.
An in-demand guest for radio and TV programs, he lectures extensively to both lay audiences and physicians on nutrition-related subjects. He is the 2004 recipient of the Integrity in Science Award granted by the Weston A. Price Foundation and serves on the editorial staff of the Journal of the American Nutraceutical Association and is a member of the editorial board of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, the official publication of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. See http://www.blaylockwellnesscenter.com
This is "Big History": an enlightening, wide-angle look at complexity, life and humanity, set against our slim share of the cosmic timeline.
David Gilbert Christian (born 1946) is an Anglo-American historian and scholar of Russian history notable for creating and spearheading an interdisciplinary approach known as Big History.
He began teaching the first course in 1989 which examined history from the Big Bang to the present using a multidisciplinary approach with assistance from scholars in diverse specializations from the sciences, social sciences, and humanities.
The course frames human history in terms of cosmic, geological, and biological history.
He is credited with coining the term Big History and he serves as president of the International Big History Association.
TEDTalks is a daily video podcast of the best talks and performances from the TED Conference, where the world's leading thinkers and doers give the talk of their lives in 18 minutes. TED stands for Technology, Entertainment, Design, and TEDTalks cover these topics as well as science, business, development and the arts. Closed captions and translated subtitles in a variety of languages are now available.
According to researchers, “nepetalactone, the essential oil in catnip (pictured) that gives the plant its characteristic odor, is about ten times more effective at repelling mosquitoes than DEET — the compound used in most commercial insect repellents.” Problem is, catnip and a few other oil listed here are not recommended for pregnant or nursing mamas. For pregnant/nursing friendly options see recipe #2.
4 oz purified water 15 drops lemongrass essential oil (you can also use it to open up sinus and breathing passages, soothe torn or strained ligaments/tendons, heal ringworm, add shine and lustre to damaged hair, and as calming massage oil) 15 drops eucalyptus essential oil (get it for less by buying it with lemongrass, peppermint, orange, lavendar, tea tree) 15 drops lemon essential oil (use as a replacement to hand sanitize or mix with water in a spray bottle for bathroom air freshener. I’ve even heard you can add a couple drops to your dishwasher for spot free dishes) 15 drops citronella essential oil 15 drops catnip essential oils (“The active constituent in catnip, nepetalactone, has been found to be more effective than the insect repellent diethyl-meta-toluamide (DEET)”)
Recipe #2
4 oz purified water 60 drops lemon essential oil (avoid during first three months of pregnancy, fine after that. Also safe for breastfeeding)
(p)Link
Commenti
Storico
Stampa
Feed RSS 0.91
Feed Atom 0.3
