HIGHLY POTENT NEWS THAT MIGHT CHANGE YOUR VIEWS

consciousness

Richard Seed, Harvard Phd Says “We are going to become Gods, period” “if you are going to interfere…you’re going to have trouble” — video included

by Lucas Cort
Canadian Awareness Network
Aug 21, 2014

‘We are going to become Gods, period.  If you don’t like it, get off. You don’t have to contribute, you don’t have to participate, but if you are going to interfere with me becoming a God, you’re going to have trouble. There’ll be warfare.’

Richard Seed, a physicist with a Phd from Harvard University has had a life full of great achievements and controversy. In the 1970′s  he founded a company that put efforts towards the transference of  cow embryos. He later co-founded Fertility & Genetics Research Inc. with his brother  Randolph Seed, a surgeon based in Chicago. The goal of  Fertility & Genetics Research Inc. was similar to Richard’s former company, only this time the practice would take place  with a healthy inseminated woman (inseminated a few days prior) to a infertile surrogate woman, this resulted in a healthy child birth reported by The Journal of the American Medical Association (vol 251, p 889) . The practice soon hit the wayside as competing fertility treatments took  a superior role such as  In-vitro fertilization.

 In the 1990′s Richard declared to the world his goal to create human clones, mass hysteria and outrage followed sue, so much so that President Clinton acknowledged him and shorty after urged congress to impose a five-year moratorium on the practice. Richard reaffirmed his goals after shrugging off Clinton’s remarks, announcing that he would take the operation off shore to Tijuana if congress banned the practice. Richard later told the press that he had a support from infertile couples and that with in 2 years an operation would be underway. He claimed to have enough money to start the project but was in need of an extra 2 million to complete it. It was later reported that he had acquired a team of scientists to do the job before congress passed any laws banning the practice, Richard said that they had 8 volunteers ready for testing. No announcement has been made on the status of the purported claim.

In 1998 Seed made claims that he would clone himself saying that Gloria, his wife, agreed to carry an embryo of a donor egg that would be combined with the nucleus of one of his cells. Despite Gloria being  ”post-menopausal”, claimed by Seed, he refused to talk any further about how the pregnancy would take place.  “I have decided to clone myself first to defuse the criticism that I’m taking advantage of desperate women with a procedure that’s not proven” he claimed after widespread criticism after his statement on making baby clones for infertile couples.

In 2001, at a scientific forum in Rome guided discuss the ethical concerns of cloning, Seed made another controversial claim  saying that he wanted to clone his wife.

Here are some more quotes to understand where Mr. Seed is coming from:

1.  ”God intended for man to become one with God. Cloning, is the first serious step in becoming one with God.”

2. ”Man,” he said, “will develop the technology and the science and the capability to have an indefinite life span.”

Now with these quotes, combined with the one at the top of the article brings us to the question, how does human cloning bring you closer to becoming god?  In the context of the quotes, it seems the connotation of god to him is one which has an indefinite life span. How could cloning do this? Now, we could make the argument that certain genetic manipulation of clones could possibly enhance lifespan and deter atrophy in the body, but how would this work? Why clones? Could it also be done for the average un cloned human? Or does that raise too many ethical questions? Does being a clone open up the doors to genetic manipulation in legal systems in other parts of the world that a regular human would be closed off to?

Even if cloning were acceptable , how would this exactly lead to Mr. Seed becoming god? Does organ harvesting have something to do with this? Considering the questions mentioned in the above paragraph, it would only make sense that the organ harvesting question would fit the bill. The Human Cloning Foundation claims to have taken notes on Richard’s writings and summed up that “Human cloning can take a 65-year-old and turn the age of that person back to zero – to the one cell stage. It is not unreasonable to expect that in the future we can turn the age of the 65-year-old back to 25!
If this is what Richard actually meant is still a question I have yet to verify, but it doesn’t seem like a stretch considering the before mentioned information.

Follow us on Facebook

Follow Lucas Cort – facebook.com/LawOfIdentity
Youtube.com/LawOfIdentity
@LawOfIdentity
Instagram.com/lawofidentity1


VIDEO — The truth about the Michael Brown shooting & how to prevent the next one

Adam Kokesh
Aug 13, 2014

As tragic as the shooting of Michael Brown is, it is even more tragic to see people seeking justice through the system that causes police shootings.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/cr…

Get your precious metals from Amagi Metals! BTC accepted!
http://amagimetals.com

Send your love mail to adam@adamvstheman.com
Please support AVTM by liking this video, subscribing, and donating at:
http://adamvstheman.com/invest
Provoke some conversation with AVTM gear:
http://adamvstheman.com/gear
BTC: 15z6y1rc2C3J9FFk3yP6gPLKM65Skr3Ymu
LTC: LKeoQgbtHnbG1n3BW1SZgtq7kCzw915KVj


MUST WATCH — Mark Passio – New Age Bullshit Revisited – Asheville, NC

What On Earth Is Happening

This is part 1 of 2 of a seminar which Mark Passio presented in Asheville, NC on March 22, 2014.

In this seminar, Mark explains how the “New” Age Movement is a Religion that has been purposefully designed to stifle Right Action by manipulating people into believing that we change our reality by thought and emotion alone.  During the course of the seminar, Mark breaks down 15 “feel-good,” pseudo-spiritual “New” Age Deceptions which masquerade as spiritual teachings. After each deception is exposed, Mark balances each deception with a Correction which espouses a street-wise approach to true Spiritual Wisdom.

Download “New” Age Bullshit Revisited Presentation Slides (morning and afternoon sessions), Zip Archive, 24.4 MB.

This is part 2 of 2 of a seminar which Mark Passio presented in Asheville, NC on March 22, 2014.


VIDEO — Obama Says the “T” Word

The Eyeopener
Aug 13, 2014

Language is the great tool of the tyrants. It always has been, and always will be. Patriots are expected to abide by a PATRIOT Act that destroys their Bill of Rights, support “surgical strikes” against “enemy combatants” by the Department of “Defense,” and cheer the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to those who wage war.

Find out more about the doublespeak that underpins our political unreality on this week’s edition of The Eyeopener report.

SUPPORT BFP: http://ur1.ca/hi0ua
SHOW NOTES: http://www.corbettreport.com/?p=11789


The Music Industry Is Literally Brainwashing You to Like Bad Pop Songs — Here’s How — video included

Canadian Awareness Network
Aug 13, 2014

By Tom Barnes  August 4, 2014

Last summer it was “Blurred Lines.” This summer it’s “Fancy.” Every year, there’s a new song that we all hate until we don’t anymore (see: playcounts). And it turns out that’s because we were brainwashed to like them.

Research suggests that repeated exposure is a much more surefire way of getting the general public to like a song than writing one that suits their taste. Based on an fMRI study in 2011, we now know that the emotional centers of the brain — including the reward centers — are more active when people hear songs they’ve been played before. In fact, those brain areas are more active even than when people hear unfamiliar songs that are far better fits with their musical taste.

This happens more often than you might think. After a couple dozen unintentional listens, many of us may find ourselves changing our initial opinions about a song — eventually admitting that, really, Katy Perry’s “Dark Horse” isn’t as awful as it sounds. PBS’ Idea Channel‘s Mike Rugnetta explains, it’s akin to a musical “Stockholm syndrome,” a term used originally by criminologist Nils Bejerot to describe a phenomenon in which victims of kidnapping may begin to sympathize with their captors over time.

[…CONTINUE READING THIS ARTICLE and watch the video]


PODCAST / VIDEO — Interview 854 – James Corbett on Life, the Universe and Everything : The Corbett Report

The Corbett Report
04/05/2014

In this truly wide-ranging conversation Elissa Hawke (formerly of Wakey Wakey on TPV) interviews James Corbett about evolution of consciousness, free research vs programming, the catalysts of awakening, beards and the real terrorists, abuse of power, going through customs, Gandhi, ID cards and much much (much) more.


The elite television anchor: center of the psyop

 Jon Rappoport’s Blog

by Jon Rappoport

August 6, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

“In acting, sincerity is everything. If you can fake that, you’ve got it made.” (George Burns)

Reality is a psychological operation.

Socio-political reality basically means some group has force, money, and access to fawning media. They can define what exists.

A psyop depends on being able to engineer one story line.

A psyop depends on selling one centralized story.

If, magically, overnight, you found yourself in possession of overwhelming force and a direct pipeline to elite media anchors, you could tell your story about what exists, and you would find millions of people believing you.

What would happen if the three major networks, each with considerable power, had come up with three vastly different versions of the Boston massacre?

CBS: “FBI and local police killed one terrorist and captured the other in what observers are calling one of the bravest days in the history of law enforcement in America.”

NBC: “After a violent gun battle on the streets of a great American city, during which a suspect in the Boston massacre was killed, an FBI source stunningly revealed the Bureau had shifted the blame on to their own cooperating informants. The source put it this way: ‘The Tsarnaev brothers were recruited by a secret Bureau unit to plant the bombs. The plan was to blame the bombing on so-called patriots, but that fell through, so the Bureau exercised their only option. They put their own informants front and center and called them terrorists…’”

ABC: “Today, the tragic loss of life and wounding of more than 180 persons at the Boston Marathon were partially redeemed, when, amazingly, Boston police traced three pipe bombs to a CIA storage locker in Maryland…”

Suppose, in the midst of an uproar heard and echoed around the world, the networks stood by their contradictory versions of events and wouldn’t back down?

A massive blow would hit psyop-land. Centralized story? Poleaxed.

People wouldn’t know what to do. They expect one story line and they get three, from the highest hypnotic and influential media giants.

In a literal, though unconscious, sense, familiar time and space begin to fall apart.

But actually, it’s far more surreal for the three major television networks to agree on the substance of every significant event than to come to radically different conclusions.

Unfortunately, people don’t see it that way. They don’t see that three behemoths dispensing the same information are key elements in thought-police fascism. They don’t see that the consensus is arranged.

“Bargain price! We’ll shave down your perceptual field so you can fit in with eight billion androids. You’ll never miss what you can’t see. On a scale from 0 to 10, your creative impulse will be coming in at about .06. That’ll cement you right into the limited spectrum, where all the action is. Yes, folks, there really is a sense of family in this reality. People liking people. We’re all in this together. Remember, life is better when you see what we want you to see! It takes the pressure off. Do you really care about what you think? Don’t you want to be fixed, so you can think what everybody else thinks? Now that’s a real program. Once we lock you in and reshuffle your electromagnetic fields, you’ll emerge with our new Sameness system. You’ll see what your friends see with just a bit of difference, to make it interesting…”

In a country in which art has little or no perceived value, there’s a sucker born every millisecond. Why? Because when consciousness of art is nil, people accept official art, which is always present, as the guiding and only reality. And of course, they don’t see it as art.

“Things can’t be any other way. This is it.”

Nowhere is this truer than in television news.

It’s not only the content of news that is embraced, it’s the style, the manner of presentation—and in the long run, the presentation is far more corrosive, far more deadly than the content.

The imitations of life called anchors are the arbiters of style. How they speak, how they look, how they themselves experience emotion—all this is planted deep in the brains of the viewers.

Most of America can’t imagine the evening news could look and sound any other way.

That’s how solid the long-term brainwashing is.

The elite anchors, from John Daly, in the early days of television, all the way to Brian Williams and Scott Pelley, have set the tone. They define the genre.

The elite anchor is not a person filled with passion or curiosity. Therefore, the audience doesn’t have to be passionate or filled with curiosity, either.

The anchor is not a demanding voice on the air; therefore, the audience doesn’t have to be demanding.

The anchor isn’t hell-bent on uncovering the truth. For this he substitutes a false dignity. Therefore, the audience can surrender its need to wrestle with the truth and replace that with a false dignity of its own.

The anchor takes propriety to an extreme: it’s unmannerly to look below the surface of things. Therefore, the audience adopts those manners.

The anchor inserts an actor’s style into what should instead be a relentless reporter’s forward motion. Therefore, the audience can remain content in its own related role: watching the actor.

The anchor taps into, and mimics, that part of the audience’s psyche that wants smooth delivery of superficial cause and effect.

Night after night, the anchor, working from a long tradition, confirms that he is delivering the news as it should be delivered, in both style and substance. The audience bows before the tradition and before him.

From their perch, the elite television anchors can deign to allow a trickle of sympathy here, a slice of compassion there.

But they let the audience know that objectivity is their central mission. “We have to get the story right. You can rely on us for that.”

This is the great PR arch of national network news. “These facts are what’s really happening and we’re giving them to you.” The networks spend untold millions to convey that false assurance.

The elite anchor must pretend to believe the narrow parameters and boundaries of a story are all there is. There is no deeper meaning. There is no abyss waiting to swallow whole a major story and reveal it as a hoax. No. Never.

With this conviction in tow, the anchor can fiddle and diddle with details.

The network anchor is the wizard of Is. He keeps explaining what is. “Here’s something that is, and then over here we have something else that is, and now, just in, a new thing that is.” He lays down miles of “is-concrete” to pave over deeper, uncomfortable, unimaginable truth.

The anchor is quite satisfied to obtain all his information from “reputable sources.” This mainly means government and corporate spokespeople. Not a problem.

Every other source, for the anchor, is murky and unreliable. He doesn’t have to worry his pretty little head about whether his sources are, indeed, trustworthy. He calculates it this way: if government and corporations are releasing information, that means there is news to report.

What the FBI director has to say is news whether it’s true or false, because the director said it. So why not blur over the mile-wide distinction between “he spoke the truth” and “he spoke”?

On air, the anchor is neutral, a castratus, a eunuch.

This is a time-honored ancient tradition. The eunuch, by his diminished condition, has the trust of the ruler. He guards the emperor’s inner sanctum. He acts as a buffer between his master and the people. He applies the royal seal to official documents.

Essentially, the anchor is saying, “See, I’m ascetic in the service of truth. Why would I hamstring myself this way unless my mission is sincere objectivity?” And the public buys it.

All expressed shades of emotion occur and are managed within that persona of the dependable court eunuch. The anchor who can move the closest to the line of being human without actually arriving there is the champion. These days, it’s Brian Williams.

The vibrating string between eunuch and human is the frequency that makes an anchor great. Think Cronkite, Chet Huntley, Edward R Murrow. Huntley was a just a touch too masculine, so they teamed him up with David Brinkley, a medium-boiled egg. Brinkley supplied twinkles of comic relief.

The public expects to hear that vibrating string. It’s been conditioned by many hard nights at the tube, watching the news. When Diane Sawyer goes too far and begins dribbling (alcohol? tranqs?) on her collar, that’s soap opera, and the audience loves soap opera, too.

The cable news networks don’t really have anyone who qualifies as an elite anchor. Wolf Blitzer of CNN made his bones during the first Iraq war only because his name fit the bombing action so well. Brit Hume of FOX has more anchor authority than anyone now working in network television, but he’s semi-retired, content to play the role of contributor, because he knows the news is a scam on wheels.

There are other reasons for “voice-neutrality” of the anchor. Neutrality conveys a sense of science. “We did the experiment in the lab and this is how it turned out.”

Neutrality gives assurance that everything is under control. And neutrality implies: the nation is so powerful we don’t need to trumpet our facts; we don’t need to become excited; our strength is that secure.

Neutrality implies: this is a democracy; an anchor is no more important than the next person (and yet he is—another contradiction, swallowed).

Neutrality implies: we, the news division, don’t have to make money (a lie); we’re not like the cop shows; we’re on a higher plane; we’re performing a public service; we’re like a responsible charity.

The anchor is the answer to the age-old question about the people. Do the people really want to suck in superficial cause and effect and surface detail, or do they want deeper truth? Do the people want comfortable gigantic lies, or do they want to look behind the curtain?

The anchor, of course, goes for surface only.

The anchor is so accustomed to lying and so accustomed to pretending the lies are true that he wouldn’t know how to shift gears.

“Well, folks, our top story tonight…it turns out that IG Farben, a famous chemical and pharmaceutical octopus that put Hitler over the top in Germany, was instrumental in planning what became the EU, the European Union. In other words, today’s United Europe is World War Two by other means.”

I don’t think Williams, Pelley, or Sawyer could deliver that line without going into a terminal paroxysm.

At the end of the Roman Empire, when the whole structure was coming apart, a brilliant and devious decision was made at the top. The Empire would proceed according to a completely different plan. Instead of continuing to stretch its resources to the breaking point with military conquests, it would attack the mind.

It would establish the Roman Church and write new spiritual law. These laws and an overriding cosmology would be dispensed, in land after land, by official “eunuchs.” Men who, distanced from the usual human appetites, would automatically gain the trust of the people.

These priests would “deliver the news.” They would be the elite anchors, who would translate God’s orders and revelations to the public.

By edict, no one would be able to communicate with God, except through these “trusted ones.” Therefore, in a sense, the priest was actually higher on the ladder of power than God Himself.

In fact, it would fall to the new Church to reinterpret all of history, writing it as a series of symbolic clues that revealed and confirmed Church doctrine (story line).

Today, people are believers because the popular stories are delivered by contemporary castrati, every night on the evening news.

If these castrati say a virus is threatening the world, and if they are backed up by neutral castrati bishops, the medical scientists, and if those medical scientists are supported by public health bureaucrats, the cardinals, and if the cardinals are given a wink and a nod by the President, the Pope, and if the Pope has just issued a missive warning that anyone with a lung infection can be isolated and quarantined, the Program is working.

Reality is a psyop.

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com