Archive for the ‘Speaking Up-Speaking Out’ Category

via Philip K. Dick and the Fake Humans

Philip K. Dick and the Fake Humans
Posted By Luther Blissett-By Henry Farrell: Boston Review 03/02/18: https://desultoryheroics.com/2018/03/02/philip-k-dick-and-the-fake-humans/ Or https://wordpress.com/post/randrewohge.wordpress.com/3564

(Editor’s note: on this 36th anniversary of the passing of Philip K. Dick, it seems an appropriate time to note the relevance of his work to our current dystopia as Henry Farrell does in the following essay. Unfortunately the author is less astute regarding the ways in which the dystopias of Orwell and Huxley are equally relevant to our current milieu.)

This is not the dystopia we were promised.

We are not learning to love Big Brother, who lives, if he lives at all, on a cluster of server farms, cooled by environmentally friendly technologies.

Nor have we been lulled by Soma and subliminal brain programming into a hazy acquiescence to pervasive social hierarchies.

Dystopias tend toward fantasies of absolute control, in which the system sees all, knows all, and controls all. And our world is indeed one of ubiquitous surveillance.

Phones and household devices produce trails of data, like particles in a cloud chamber, indicating our wants and behaviors to companies such as Facebook, Amazon, and Google.

Yet the information thus produced is imperfect and classified by machine-learning algorithms that themselves make mistakes.

The efforts of these businesses to manipulate our wants leads to further complexity.

It is becoming ever harder for companies to distinguish the behavior which they want to analyze from their own and others’ manipulations.

This does not look like totalitarianism unless you squint very hard indeed.

As the sociologist Kieran Healy has suggested, sweeping political critiques of new technology often bear a strong family resemblance to the arguments of Silicon Valley boosters.

Both assume that the technology works as advertised, which is not necessarily true at all.

Standard utopias and standard dystopias are each perfect after their own particular fashion.

We live somewhere queasier—a world in which technology is developing in ways that make it increasingly hard to distinguish human beings from artificial things.

The world that the Internet and social media have created is less a system than an ecology, a proliferation of unexpected niches, and entities created and adapted to exploit them in deceptive ways.

Vast commercial architectures are being colonized by quasi-autonomous parasites.

Scammers have built algorithms to write fake books from scratch to sell on Amazon, compiling and modifying text from other books and online sources such as Wikipedia, to fool buyers or to take advantage of loopholes in Amazon’s compensation structure.

Much of the world’s financial system is made out of bots-automated systems designed to continually probe markets for fleeting arbitrage opportunities.

Less sophisticated programs plague online commerce systems such as eBay and Amazon, occasionally with extraordinary consequences, as when two warring bots bid the price of a biology book up to $23,698,655.93 (plus $3.99 shipping).

In other words, we live in Philip K. Dick’s future, not George Orwell’s or Aldous Huxley’s.

Dick was no better a prophet of technology than any science fiction writer, and was arguably worse than most.

His imagined worlds jam together odd bits of fifties’ and sixties’ California with rocket ships, drugs, and social speculation.

Dick usually wrote in a hurry and for money, and sometimes under the influence of drugs or a recent and urgent personal religious revelation.

Still, what he captured with genius was the ontological unease of a world in which the human and the abhuman, the real and the fake, blur together.

As Dick described his work (in the opening essay to his 1985 collection, I Hope I Shall Arrive Soon):

The two basic topics which fascinate me are “What is reality?” and “What constitutes the authentic human being?”

Over the twenty-seven years in which I have published novels and stories I have investigated these two interrelated topics over and over again.

These obsessions had some of their roots in Dick’s complex and ever-evolving personal mythology (in which it was perfectly plausible that the “real” world was a fake, and that we were all living in Palestine sometime in the first century AD).

Yet they were also based on a keen interest in the processes through which reality is socially constructed.

Dick believed that we all live in a world where “spurious realities are manufactured by the media, by governments, by big corporations, by religious groups, political groups—and the electronic hardware exists by which to deliver these pseudo-worlds right into heads of the reader.” He argued:

“The bombardment of pseudo-realities begins to produce inauthentic humans very quickly, spurious humans—as fake as the data pressing at them from all sides.

My two topics are really one topic; they unite at this point.

Fake realities will create fake humans.

Or, fake humans will generate fake realities and then sell them to other humans, turning them, eventually, into forgeries of themselves.

So we wind up with fake humans inventing fake realities and then peddling them to other fake humans.”

In Dick’s books, the real and the unreal infect each other, so that it becomes increasingly impossible to tell the difference between them.

The worlds of the dead and the living merge in Ubik (1969), the experiences of a disturbed child infect the world around him in Martian Time-Slip (1964), and consensual drug-based hallucinations become the vector for an invasive alien intelligence in The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch (1965).

Humans are impersonated by malign androids in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? (1968) and “Second Variety” (1953); by aliens in “The Hanging Stranger” (1953) and “The Father-Thing” (1954); and by mutants in “The Golden Man” (1954).

This concern with unreal worlds and unreal people led to a consequent worry about an increasing difficulty of distinguishing between them.

Factories pump out fake Americana in The Man in the High Castle (1962), mirroring the problem of living in a world that is not, in fact, the real one.

Entrepreneurs build increasingly human-like androids in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, reasoning that if they do not, then their competitors will.

Figuring out what is real and what is not is not easy.

Scientific tools such as the famous Voight-Kampff test in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? (and Blade Runner, Ridley Scott’s 1982 movie based loosely on it) do not work very well, leaving us with little more than hope in some mystical force—the I Ching, God in a spray can, a Martian water-witch—to guide us back toward the real.

We live in Dick’s world—but with little hope of divine intervention or invasion.

The world where we communicate and interact at a distance is increasingly filled with algorithms that appear human, but are not—fake people generated by fake realities.

When Ashley Madison, a dating site for people who want to cheat on their spouses, was hacked, it turned out that tens of thousands of the women on the site were fake “fembots” programmed to send millions of chatty messages to male customers, so as to delude them into thinking that they were surrounded by vast numbers of potential sexual partners.

These problems are only likely to get worse as the physical world and the world of information become increasingly interpenetrated in an Internet of (badly functioning) Things.

Many of the aspects of Joe Chip’s future world in Ubik look horrendously dated to modern eyes: the archaic role of women, the assumption that nearly everyone smokes.

Yet the door to Joe’s apartment—which argues with him and refuses to open because he has not paid it the obligatory tip—sounds ominously plausible.

Someone, somewhere, is pitching this as a viable business plan to Y Combinator or the venture capitalists in Menlo Park.

This invasion of the real by the unreal has had consequences for politics.

The hallucinatory realities in Dick’s worlds—the empathetic religion of Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, the drug-produced worlds of The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch, the quasi–Tibetan Buddhist death realm of Ubik—are usually experienced by many people, like the television shows of Dick’s America.

But as network television has given way to the Internet, it has become easy for people to create their own idiosyncratic mix of sources.

The imposed media consensus that Dick detested has shattered into a myriad of different realities, each with its own partially shared assumptions and facts. Sometimes this creates tragedy or near-tragedy.

The deluded gunman who stormed into Washington, D.C.’s Comet Ping Pong pizzeria had been convinced by online conspiracy sites that it was the coordinating center for Hillary Clinton’s child–sex trafficking ring [likewise, the masses may have been convinced by mainstream media that a real child-sex trafficking ring never existed].

Such fractured worlds are more vulnerable to invasion by the non-human.

Many Twitter accounts are bots, often with the names and stolen photographs of implausibly beautiful young women, looking to pitch this or that product (one recent academic study found that between 9 and 15 percent of all Twitter accounts are likely fake).

Twitterbots vary in sophistication from automated accounts that do no more than retweet what other bots have said, to sophisticated algorithms deploying so-called “Sybil attacks,” creating fake identities in peer-to-peer networks to invade specific organizations or degrade particular kinds of conversation.

Twitter has failed to become a true mass medium, but remains extraordinarily important to politics, since it is where many politicians, journalists, and other elites turn to get their news.

One research project suggests that around 20 percent of the measurable political discussion around the last presidential election came from bots.

Humans appear to be no better at detecting bots than we are, in Dick’s novel, at detecting replicant androids: people are about as likely to retweet a bot’s message as the message of another human being.

Most notoriously, the current U.S. president recently retweeted a flattering message that appears to have come from a bot densely connected to a network of other bots, which some believe to be controlled by the Russian government and used for propaganda purposes.

In his novels Dick was interested in seeing how people react when their reality starts to break down.

A world in which the real commingles with the fake, so that no one can tell where the one ends and the other begins, is ripe for paranoia.

The most toxic consequence of social media manipulation, whether by the Russian government or others, may have nothing to do with its success as propaganda.

Instead, it is that it sows an existential distrust.

People simply do not know what or who to believe anymore.

Rumors that are spread by Twitterbots merge into other rumors about the ubiquity of Twitterbots, and whether this or that trend is being driven by malign algorithms rather than real human beings.

Such widespread falsehood is especially explosive when combined with our fragmented politics.

Liberals’ favorite term for the right-wing propaganda machine, “fake news,” has been turned back on them by conservatives, who treat conventional news as propaganda, and hence ignore it.

On the obverse, it may be easier for many people on the liberal left to blame Russian propaganda for the last presidential election than to accept that many voters had a very different understanding of America than they do.

Dick had other obsessions—most notably the politics of Richard Nixon and the Cold War.

It is not hard to imagine him writing a novel combining an immature and predatory tycoon (half Arnie Kott, half Jory Miller) who becomes the president of the United States, secret Russian political manipulation, an invasion of empathy-free robotic intelligences masquerading as human beings, and a breakdown in our shared understanding of what is real and what is fake.

These different elements probably would not cohere particularly well, but as in Dick’s best novels, the whole might still work, somehow.

Indeed, it is in the incongruities of Dick’s novels that salvation is to be found (even at his battiest, he retains a sense of humor).

Obviously, it is less easy to see the joke when one is living through it. Dystopias may sometimes be grimly funny—but rarely from the inside.

Advertisements

via Freedom Is a Myth: We Are All Prisoners of the Police State’s Panopticon Village

Freedom Is a Myth: We Are All Prisoners of the Police State’s Panopticon Village [https://desultoryheroics.com/2018/02/16/freedom-is-a-myth-we-are-all-prisoners-of-the-police-states-panopticon-village/]
Posted By Luther Blissett By John W. Whitehead: The Rutherford Institute 02/16/18

“We’re run by the Pentagon, we’re run by Madison Avenue, we’re run by television, and as long as we accept those things and don’t revolt we’ll have to go along with the stream to the eventual avalanche…. As long as we go out and buy stuff, we’re at their mercy… We all live in a little Village. Your Village may be different from other people’s Villages, but we are all prisoners.”— Patrick McGoohan

First broadcast in Great Britain 50 years ago, The Prisoner—a dystopian television series described as “James Bond meets George Orwell filtered through Franz Kafka”—confronted societal themes that are still relevant today: the rise of a police state, the freedom of the individual, round-the-clock surveillance, the corruption of government, totalitarianism, weaponization, group think, mass marketing, and the tendency of humankind to meekly accept their lot in life as a prisoner in a prison of their own making.

Perhaps the best visual debate ever on individuality and freedom, The Prisoner (17 episodes in all) centers around a British secret agent who abruptly resigns only to find himself imprisoned, monitored by militarized drones, and interrogated in a mysterious, self-contained, cosmopolitan, seemingly tranquil retirement community known only as the Village.

The Village is an idyllic setting with parks and green fields, recreational activities and even a butler.

While luxurious and resort-like, the Village is a virtual prison disguised as a seaside paradise: its inhabitants have no true freedom, they cannot leave the Village, they are under constant surveillance, their movements are tracked by surveillance drones, and they are stripped of their individuality and identified only by numbers.

The series’ protagonist, played by Patrick McGoohan, is Number Six.

Number Two, the Village administrator, acts as an agent for the unseen and all-powerful Number One, whose identity is not revealed until the final episode.

“I am not a number. I am a free man,” was the mantra chanted on each episode of The Prisoner, which was largely written and directed by McGoohan.

In the opening episode (“The Arrival”), Number Six meets Number Two, who explains to him that he is in The Village because information stored “inside” his head has made him too valuable to be allowed to roam free “outside.”

Throughout the series, Number Six is subjected to interrogation tactics, torture, hallucinogenic drugs, identity theft, mind control, dream manipulation, and various forms of social indoctrination and physical coercion in order to “persuade” him to comply, give up, give in and subjugate himself to the will of the powers-that-be.

Number Six refuses to comply.

In every episode, Number Six resists the Village’s indoctrination methods, struggles to maintain his own identity, and attempts to escape his captors. “I will not make any deals with you,” he pointedly remarks to Number Two.

“I’ve resigned. I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.”

Yet no matter how far Number Six manages to get in his efforts to escape, it’s never far enough.

Watched by surveillance cameras and other devices, Number Six’s getaways are continuously thwarted by ominous white balloon-like spheres known as “rovers.”

Still, he refuses to give up.

“Unlike me,” he says to his fellow prisoners, “many of you have accepted the situation of your imprisonment, and will die here like rotten cabbages.”

Number Six’s escapes become a surreal exercise in futility, each episode an unfunny, unsettling Groundhog’s Day that builds to the same frustrating denouement: there is no escape.

As journalist Scott Thill concludes for Wired, “Rebellion always comes at a price. During the acclaimed run of The Prisoner, Number Six is tortured, battered and even body-snatched: In the episode ‘Do Not Forsake Me Oh My Darling,’ his mind is transplanted to another man’s body.

Number Six repeatedly escapes The Village only to be returned to it in the end, trapped like an animal, overcome by a restless energy he cannot expend, and betrayed by nearly everyone around him.”

The series is a chilling lesson about how difficult it is to gain one’s freedom in a society in which prison walls are disguised within the trappings of technological and scientific progress, national security and so-called democracy.

As Thill noted when McGoohan died in 2009, “The Prisoner was an allegory of the individual, aiming to find peace and freedom in a dystopia masquerading as a utopia.”

The Prisoner’s Village is also an apt allegory for the American Police State: it gives the illusion of freedom while functioning all the while like a prison: controlled, watchful, inflexible, punitive, deadly and inescapable.

The American Police State, much like The Prisoner’s Village, is a metaphorical panopticon, a circular prison in which the inmates are monitored by a single watchman situated in a central tower.

Because the inmates cannot see the watchman, they are unable to tell whether or not they are being watched at any given time and must proceed under the assumption that they are always being watched.

Eighteenth century social theorist Jeremy Bentham envisioned the panopticon prison to be a cheaper and more effective means of “obtaining power of mind over mind, in a quantity hitherto without example.”

Bentham’s panopticon, in which the prisoners are used as a source of cheap, menial labor, has become a model for the modern surveillance state in which the populace is constantly being watched, controlled and managed by the powers-that-be and funding its existence.

Nowhere to run and nowhere to hide: this is the new mantra of the architects of the police state and their corporate collaborators (Facebook, Amazon, Netflix, Google, Instagram, etc.).

Government eyes are watching you.

They see your every move: what you read, how much you spend, where you go, with whom you interact, when you wake up in the morning, what you’re watching on television and reading on the internet.

Every move you make is being monitored, mined for data, crunched, and tabulated in order to form a picture of who you are, what makes you tick, and how best to control you when and if it becomes necessary to bring you in line.

When the government sees all and knows all and has an abundance of laws to render even the most seemingly upstanding citizen a criminal and lawbreaker, then the old adage that you’ve got nothing to worry about if you’ve got nothing to hide no longer applies.

Apart from the obvious dangers posed by a government that feels justified and empowered to spy on its people and use its ever-expanding arsenal of weapons and technology to monitor and control them, we’re approaching a time in which we will be forced to choose between obeying the dictates of the government—i.e., the law, or whatever a government official deems the law to be—and maintaining our individuality, integrity and independence.

When people talk about privacy, they mistakenly assume it protects only that which is hidden behind a wall or under one’s clothing.

The courts have fostered this misunderstanding with their constantly shifting delineation of what constitutes an “expectation of privacy.”

And technology has furthered muddied the waters.

However, privacy is so much more than what you do or say behind locked doors.

It is a way of living one’s life firm in the belief that you are the master of your life, and barring any immediate danger to another person (which is far different from the carefully crafted threats to national security the government uses to justify its actions), it’s no one’s business what you read, what you say, where you go, whom you spend your time with, and how you spend your money.

Unfortunately, George Orwell’s 1984—where “you had to live—did live, from habit that became instinct—in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized”—has now become our reality.

We now find ourselves in the unenviable position of being monitored, managed and controlled by our technology, which answers not to us but to our government and corporate rulers.

Consider that on any given day, the average American going about his daily business will be monitored, surveilled, spied on and tracked in more than 20 different ways, by both government and corporate eyes and ears.

A byproduct of this new age in which we live, whether you’re walking through a store, driving your car, checking email, or talking to friends and family on the phone, you can be sure that some government agency, whether the NSA or some other entity, is listening in and tracking your behavior.

This doesn’t even begin to touch on the corporate trackers that monitor your purchases, web browsing, Facebook posts and other activities taking place in the cyber sphere.

Stingray devices mounted on police cars to warrantlessly track cell phones, Doppler radar devices that can detect human breathing and movement within in a home, license plate readers that can record up to 1800 license plates per minute, sidewalk and “public space” cameras coupled with facial recognition and behavior-sensing technology that lay the groundwork for police “pre-crime” programs, police body cameras that turn police officers into roving surveillance cameras, the internet of things: all of these technologies add up to a society in which there’s little room for indiscretions, imperfections, or acts of independence—especially not when the government can listen in on your phone calls, monitor your driving habits, track your movements, scrutinize your purchases and peer through the walls of your home.

As French philosopher Michel Foucault concluded in his 1975 book Discipline and Punish, “Visibility is a trap.”

This is the electronic concentration camp—the panopticon prison—the Village—in which we are now caged.

It is a prison from which there will be no escape if the government gets it way.

As Glenn Greenwald notes:

“The way things are supposed to work is that we’re supposed to know virtually everything about what [government officials] do: that’s why they’re called public servants.

They’re supposed to know virtually nothing about what we do: that’s why we’re called private individuals.

This dynamic – the hallmark of a healthy and free society – has been radically reversed.

Now, they know everything about what we do, and are constantly building systems to know more.

Meanwhile, we know less and less about what they do, as they build walls of secrecy behind which they function.

That’s the imbalance that needs to come to an end.

No democracy can be healthy and functional if the most consequential acts of those who wield political power are completely unknown to those to whom they are supposed to be accountable.”

Even now, the Trump Administration is working to make some of the National Security Agency’s vast spying powers permanent.

In fact, Attorney General Jeff Sessions is pushing for Congress to permanently renew Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which allows government snoops to warrantlessly comb through and harvest vast quantities of our communications.

And just like that, we’re back in the Village, our escape plans foiled, our future bleak.

Except this is no surprise ending: for those who haven’t been taking the escapist blue pill, who haven’t fallen for the Deep State’s phony rhetoric, who haven’t been lured in by the promise of a political savior, we never stopped being prisoners.

So how do we break out?

For starters, wake up.

Resist the urge to comply.

The struggle to remain “oneself in a society increasingly obsessed with conformity to mass consumerism,” writes Steven Paul Davies, means that superficiality and image trump truth and the individual.

The result is the group mind and the tyranny of mob-think.

Think for yourself.

Be an individual.

As McGoohan commented in 1968:

“At this moment individuals are being drained of their personalities and being brainwashed into slaves… As long as people feel something, that’s the great thing. It’s when they are walking around not thinking and not feeling, that’s tough. When you get a mob like that, you can turn them into the sort of gang that Hitler had.”

In a media-dominated age in which the lines between entertainment, politics and news reporting are blurred, it is extremely difficult to distinguish fact from fiction.

We are so bombarded with images, dictates, rules and punishments and stamped with numbers from the day we are born that it is a wonder we ever ponder a concept such as freedom.

As McGoohan declared, “Freedom is a myth.”

In the end, as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, we are all prisoners of our own mind.

In fact, it is in the mind that prisons are created for us.

And in the lockdown of political correctness, it becomes extremely difficult to speak or act individually without being ostracized.

Thus, so often we are forced to retreat inwardly into our minds, a prison without bars from which we cannot escape, and into the world of video games and television and the Internet.

We have come full circle from Bentham’s Panopticon to McGoohan’s Village to Huxley’s Brave New World.

As cultural theorist Neil Postman observed:

What Orwell feared were those who would ban books.

What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one.

Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information.

Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism.

Orwell feared we would become a captive audience.

Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance.

Orwell feared that we would become a captive culture.

Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumble-puppy.

As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny “failed to take into account man’s almost infinite appetite for distractions.”

In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure.

In short, Orwell feared that what we hate would ruin us.

Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us.

You want to be free?

Break out of the circle.

via Why Fear and Self-hatred Destroy Human Sharing and Solidarity

Why Fear and Self-hatred Destroy Human Sharing and Solidarity Posted By Luther Blissett – Photo by Adam Dean – By Robert J. Burrowes 01/31/18 [https://desultoryheroics.com/2018/01/31/why-fear-and-self-hatred-destroy-human-sharing-and-solidarity/]

Biodata: Robert J. Burrowes has a lifetime commitment to understanding and ending human violence.

He has done extensive research since 1966 in an effort to understand why human beings are violent and has been a nonviolent activist since 1981.

He is the author of ‘Why Violence?’

His email address is flametree@riseup.net and his website is here.

His Resource Websites:

Nonviolence Charter: http://thepeoplesnonviolencecharter.wordpress.com/
Flame Tree Project to Save Life on Earth: http://tinyurl.com/flametree
‘Why Violence?’: http://tinyurl.com/whyviolence
Feelings First: https://feelingsfirstblog.wordpress.com/%E2%80%9C
Nonviolent Campaign Strategy: https://nonviolentstrategy.wordpress.com/
Nonviolent Defense/Liberation Strategy: https://nonviolentliberationstrategy.wordpress.com/
Anita: Songs of Nonviolence: http://anitamckone.wordpress.com/
Robert Burrowes: http://robertjburrowes.wordpress.com/
Global Nonviolence Network: https://globalnonviolencenetwork.wordpress.com/

As our world spirals deeper into an abyss from which it is becoming increasingly difficult to extricate ourselves, some very prominent activists have lamented the lack of human solidarity in the face of the ongoing genocide of the Rohingya.

See ‘The Rohingya tragedy shows human solidarity is a lie’ and ‘Wrongs of rights activism around Rohingyas’.

While I share the genuine concern of the Yemeni Nobel peace laureate Tawakkol Karman and Burmese dissident and scholar Dr Maung Zarni, and have offered my own way forward for responding powerfully to the ongoing genocide of the Rohingya – see ‘A Nonviolent Strategy to Defeat Genocide’ – in my view the lack of solidarity they mention is utterly pervasive and readily evident in our lacklustre official and personal responses to the many ongoing crises in which humanity finds itself.

To mention just the most obvious: Every day governments spend $US2 billion on weapons and warfare while a billion people lack the basic resources to live a decent life (and more than 100,000 of these people starve to death).

Every day millions of people live under dictatorship, occupation or suffer the impacts of military invasion. Every day another 28,800 people are forcibly displaced from their home.

Every day another 200 species of life are driven to extinction.

And every day our biosphere is driven one step closer to making human life (and perhaps all life) on Earth impossible.

See ‘Killing the Biosphere to Fast-track Human Extinction’.

It is not as if any of this information is unavailable.

Just as many people and major international organizations are well aware of the plight of the Rohingya, it is also the case that many people and these organizations are well aware of the state of our world in other respects.

And still virtually nothing meaningful happens (although there are tokenistic responses to some of these crises).

Hence, it is a straightforward observation that human solidarity is notably absent in virtually any attempt to tackle the major issues of our time.

And the Rohingya are just one manifestation of this problem.

Given that I have long observed this phenomenon both personally and politically, and it concerns me as well, I would like to explain psychologically why the lack of sharing and solidarity is such a pervasive problem and suggest what we can do about it.

In order to feel concern for those who are suffering, and to want to act in solidarity to alleviate their suffering, it is necessary to experience certain feelings such as sympathy, empathy, compassion, love and (personal) power.

Moreover, it is necessary that these feelings are not suppressed or overwhelmed by fear and, equally importantly, not overwhelmed by a feeling of (unconscious) self-hatred.

If someone is scared and full of unconscious self-hatred, then they can have little interest in sharing their own resources or acting in solidarity with those who need help.

And this applies whether the adversely impacted individual is a close relative or friend, or someone on the other side of the world.

So why is fear in this context so important? Simply because fear grotesquely distorts perception and behaviour.

Let me explain why and how.

If an individual is (consciously or unconsciously) frightened that one or more of their vital needs will not be met, they will be unable to share resources or to act in solidarity with others, whatever the circumstances.

In virtually all cases where an individual experiences this fear, the needs that the individual fears will not be met are emotional ones (including the needs for listening, understanding and love).

However, the fearful individual is never aware of these deep emotional needs and of the functional ways of having these needs met which, admittedly, is not easy to do given that listening, understanding and love are not readily available from others who have themselves been denied these needs.

Moreover, because the emotional needs are ‘hidden’ from the individual, the individual (particularly one who lives in a materialist culture) often projects that the need they want met is, in fact, a material need.

This projection occurs because children who are crying, angry or frightened are often scared into not expressing their feelings and offered material items – such as a toy or food – to distract them instead.

The distractive items become addictive drugs.

This is why most violence is overtly directed at gaining control of material, rather than emotional, resources.

The material resource becomes a dysfunctional and quite inadequate replacement for satisfaction of the emotional need.

And, because the material resource cannot ‘work’ to meet an emotional need, the individual is most likely to keep using direct and/or structural violence to gain control of more material resources in an unconscious and utterly futile attempt to meet unidentified emotional needs.

This is the reason why people such as the Rothschild family, Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Amancio Ortega, Mark Zuckerberg, Carlos Slim, the Walton family and the Koch brothers as well as the world’s other billionaires and millionaires seek material wealth, and are willing to do so by taking advantage of structures of exploitation held in place by the US military.

They are certainly wealthy in the material sense; unfortunately, they are utterly terrified (and full of self-hatred) and each of them justly deserves the appellation ‘poor little rich boy’ (or girl).

If this was not the case, their conscience, their compassion, their empathy, their sympathy and, indeed, their love would compel them to use or disperse their wealth in ways that would alleviate world poverty and nurture restoration of the ancient, just and ecologically sustainable economy: local self-reliance.

See ‘The Flame Tree Project to Save Life on Earth’.

Of course, it is not just the billionaires and millionaires of the corporate elite who have suffered this fate.

Those intellectuals in universities and think tanks who accept payment to ‘justify’ (or simply participate in without question) the worldwide system of violence and exploitation, those politicians, bureaucrats and ordinary businesspeople who accept payment to manage it, those judges and lawyers who accept payment to act as its legal (but immoral) guardians, those media editors and journalists who accept payment to obscure the truth, as well as the many middle and working class people who accept payment to perform other roles to defend it (such as those in the military, police, prison and education systems), are either emotionally void or just too frightened to resist violence and exploitation, in one or more of its many manifestations.

Moreover, governments that use military violence to gain control of material resources are simply governments composed of many individuals with this dysfunctionality, which is very common in industrialized countries that promote materialism.

Thus, cultures that unconsciously allow and encourage this dysfunctional projection (that an emotional need is met by material acquisition) are the most violent both domestically and internationally.

This also explains why industrialized (material) countries use military violence to maintain political and economic structures that allow ongoing exploitation of non-industrialized countries in Africa, Asia and Central/South America.

But, equally importantly, many ‘ordinary’ people are just too scared to share (more than a token of) what they have and to act in solidarity with those who suffer whether through military or other violence, exploitation, persecution, oppression or occupation.

Of course, it takes courage to resist this violent world order.

But underlying courage is a sense of responsibility towards one’s fellow beings (human and otherwise) and the future.

As noted above, however, fear is not the only problem. Two primary outcomes of fear are self-hatred and powerlessness.

Here is how it happens.

When each of us is a child, if our parents, teachers and/or the other adults around us are frightened by a feeling – such as sadness, anger or fear – that we are expressing, then they will use a variety of techniques to stop us expressing this feeling.

They might, for example, comfort us to stop us crying, scare us out of expressing our anger (particularly at them) and reassure us so that we do not feel afraid.

Tragically, however, responses such as these have the outcome of scaring us into unconsciously suppressing our awareness of how we feel when, of course, evolutionary pressures generated emotional responses (some pleasant, some less so) to events in our life in order to help guide us into behaving appropriately at any given moment.

And this suppression of how we feel is disastrous if we want children to grow up behaving functionally.

This is more fully explained in ‘Why Violence?’ and ‘Fearless Psychology and Fearful Psychology: Principles and Practice’.

So where does self-hatred fit into all of this? Well, if a child is angry in response to some violence to which they are being subjected (usually, of course, in an attempt to control their behavior), then they will attempt to defend themselves against this violence in an effort to persevere with their original intention.

However, if the child is then terrorized into submission by a parent or other adult (by being threatened with or experiencing some form of violence, often given the inaccurate label of ‘punishment’) the child will be compelled to unconsciously suppress their awareness of the original feelings, including anger, that were generating their behavior.

Unfortunately, there is a heavy cost to this suppression because each child is genetically programmed to follow their own self-will (manifesting through such mental functions as thoughts, feelings and conscience) rather than to obey the will of another (whether it be parent, teacher, religious figure or anyone else).

Hence, if a child is successfully terrorized into not behaving in accordance with their own self-will, they will experience a strong feeling of self-hatred precisely because they have submitted, out of fear, to the will of another.

Conscious self-hatred is an intensely unpleasant feeling to experience, however, and because the child is systematically terrorized out of expressing and acting on most of their feelings (which is why 100% of children go to school wherever school is available and compulsory: children are not given freedom of choice) the feeling of self-hatred is suppressed along with these many other feelings.

Having learned to do this, subsequent opportunities for this self-hatred to be felt are progressively more easily suppressed.

An unconscious feeling does not ‘go away’ however; it is unconsciously projected elsewhere.

Suppressed self-hatred is always unconsciously projected as hatred of someone else, some other group (usually of another sex, race, religion or class) and/or something else, often in imitation of the violent parent/adult (because imitation will be given ‘permission’ by the violent parent/adult).

And this inevitably leads to destructive behaviors towards that individual, group and/or the ‘something else’ (including the Earth’s environment).

But, and this is important to recognize, this destructive behaviour might simply manifest as inaction: doing nothing in response to someone else’s (or the Earth’s) obvious need.

So the unconscious fear and self-hatred are projected as fear of and hatred for living beings as well as the Earth, and manifests as behavior that is destructive, often by inaction, of themselves, others and the planet.

The tragic reality is that it takes very little violence to terrorize a child and this is why a substantial proportion of the human population is consumed by their own fear and self-hatred, and feels powerless as a result.

Consider the people immediately around you: many spend most of their time, consciously or unconsciously, abusing themselves, others and/or the environment, and doing nothing in response to the plight of our world.

So what can we do?

Given existing parenting practice, fear and self-hatred are not easily avoided although they are not necessarily all-consuming.

But to be free of them completely requires just one thing: the fearlessness to love oneself truly. What does this mean?

To love yourself truly, you must always courageously act out your own self-will, whatever the consequences.

This requires you to feel all of your emotional responses – fear, sadness, anger, pain, joy, love … – to events, including impediments, in your life. See ‘Feelings First’.

It is only when you do this that you can behave with awareness: a synthesis of all of the feedback that your various mental functions give you and the judgments that arise, in an integrated way, from this feedback. See ‘Human Intelligence or Human Awareness?’

At first glance loving yourself and acting out your own self-will might sound selfish.

But it is not.

Self-love is true love.

The individual who does not truly love themselves cannot love another.

Nor will they feel such emotional responses as compassion, empathy and sympathy.

Hence, this individual will not seek mutually beneficial outcomes in tackling conflict, will not seek distributive justice in resource allocation, will not value ecological sustainability and will not act in solidarity with those who are suffering.

It is this individual, who is terrified, self-hating and powerless, who will act selfishly.

In addition to courageously acting out your own self-will, you might also consider making ‘My Promise to Children’.

And if you love yourself enough to be part of the struggle to end the violence and exploitation of those who are full of fear and self-hatred, you might like to consider signing the online pledge of ‘The People’s Charter to Create a Nonviolent World’ and/or using sound nonviolent strategy for your campaign or liberation struggle. See Nonviolent Campaign Strategy or Nonviolent Defense/Liberation Strategy.

Those who are terrified and self-hating never will.

By Ric /Rex 09/20/17

After seeing a new Bayer commercial with Mr. Bryan extolling the virtues of Farmers[WELL Deserved] AND Bayer [NOT So Much…], I looked it up stunned by the egregious pandering to Bayer, now the globe’s leading purveyor of GMO “Lease-Seeds” and all the POISON that goes with it.

WTF!?

Bryan had a successful tour in 2016, with another one going on now…not just to sell tickets and records, but to push up the credibility of the heir of the nefarious I.G. Farben, and more recently, Monsanto.

From the Bayer Website [http://www.bayer.us/en/article.php?id=123133]:

Bayer & Luke Bryan Toast #HeresToTheFarmer

1 week ago [09/13/2017

From The Corporate Press Release:

“I come from a farming background so I understand the hard work and passion it takes for farmers to feed America and feed the world,” Bryan said.  “That’s why I’m proud to join my friends at Bayer in thanking farmers for everything they do by saying, ‘Here’s To The Farmer.’ “

Bryan, the son of a peanut farmer from Georgia, launched his annual Farm Tour in 2009 as a way to highlight and celebrate the contributions of America’s farmers.  

Bayer, a world leader in innovation and agriculture, is the title sponsor of the tour for the third consecutive year and will highlight its Here’s To The Farmer campaign which asks fans to share #HeresToTheFarmer online to show their gratitude to America’s farmers.  For every share, Bayer will donate a meal* to someone in need through Feeding America®

“Last year, Bayer and Luke donated 500,000 meals.  With the help of Luke’s fans across the country sharing #HeresToTheFarmer, I know we’ll be able to reach our new goal of donating 1 million meals to fight hunger right here in America,” said Ray Kerins, Senior Vice President of Corporate Affairs for Bayer.

Bayer’s Here’s To The Farmer campaign will also help tackle hunger locally by donating more than $10,000 to area food banks, and by honoring a local farmer on stage with Bryan at each location.

“America’s farmers work tremendously hard to give all of us safe, affordable and nutritious food.  What better way to show our appreciation to them than by providing some great country music and raising a glass with Luke Bryan to say, ‘Here’s To The Farmer,’ ” Kerins said. 

To learn more about Bayer’s Here’s To The Farmer campaign visit www.herestothefarmer.com.

ANYONE who knows the damage Glyphosate and Neonicotinoids [the WHO declared Glyphosate ‘likely carcinogenic’, and nation after nation is banning neonicotinoids (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/mar/23/europe-poised-for-total-ban-on-bee-harming-pesticides0, as mounting research is turning Consumers AND Farmers away from Biotech Industrial Products.

It’s a matter of using the ultimate “Let’s ‘Good Old Boys’ Party & Celebrate Farming…(and of course, Bayer/Monsanto) to push back against the resistance to these dangerous products, especially NOW, as RNAi  and “Multi-Stack” Seeds are being deployed. 

Chemical resistance has required many Farmers to use MULTIPLE chemicals for weed control, escalating the level of danger.

Let Mr Bryan KNOW that “shilling for Global Poisoner” is NOT acceptable, “Old Boy Cool, and should NOT be personally profitable. Boycott his shows, records and merchandise until he “gets this”.

If he wishes to continue celebrating the American Farmer, the FarmAid Promoters would welcome him to the cause…Bayer/Monsanto?

NOT SO Much.

 

Opening By Rex/Ric – Aug 12, 2017

I looked at my latest YouTube “Recommendations”, and they were littered with Mass Media Corporatist Crap I HAVE seldom watched – GONE, most of the Alternative News AND Independent Artist Media I Did.

I Have Cancelled YouTube Red, and as soon as another variant emerges, I’m done with it…and I suspect I’ll be FAR from the only one.

Google+ seems to be heading the same way.

I notice even the “sheeple” are starting to suspect a “fix is in” on the media they came to both places to see – not to mention the declining market shares of the MSM.

So, this begs the question:

Why “toe a line” for the Oligarchy, if everyone sees through it, and the reputation you once had for being a champion of free speech and expression is damaged beyond reclamation?

Why…you end as just another tool that will be discarded when it no longer serves it’s master’s purposes.

Look at CNN – its now labelled as “Fake News”.

Trump is buying up news stations right and left to brand as HE sees fit. [We can HARDLY wait…**snerk**]

Remember, Google[and YouTube], Freedom of Speech, Independent News, Media and Arts WAS WHAT Made you the “mecca” for so many of us to come to.

WE are the people you should care about, because as you started, WE cared about YOU, and helped fuel your growth because “We The People” thought we had found an ally against corporatist lies.

The Truth of the matter is – we are YOU, and YOU are US – NOT them.

The oligarchy?

As Michael Jackson eloquently stated in a song:
“They Don’t Care About Us” 

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1pqi8vjTLY

And now the Article:

YouTube is Now Purging Evidence of War Crimes—Labeling it as ‘Extremist’ Content

YouTube is now labeling videos that show the United States conducting airstrikes and committing war crimes in the Middle East as “extremist” content.

By Rachel Blevins – August 13, 2017 [http://thefreethoughtproject.com/youtube-removing-evidence-war-crimes]

Just one month after YouTube deleted a video of the United States air-dropping weapons to ISIS and claimed that it contained “violent or graphic content,” the video platform is now being criticized for implementing a new artificial intelligence program to monitor “extremist” content that is deleting videos that document U.S. war crimes.

The monitoring organization Airwars.org [https://airwars.org/] recently reported that its YouTube account had been targeted, just one week after YouTube published a new blog post announcing that it is “developing and implementing cutting-edge machine learning technology designed to help us identify and remove violent extremism and terrorism-related content in a scalable way.” [https://youtube.googleblog.com/2017/08/an-update-on-our-commitment-to-fight.html]

Airwars raised the issue on Twitter, noting that after approving hundreds of their videos documenting U.S. airstrikes, YouTube has suddenly blocked three videos out of nowhere.  

The newly blocked videos showed U.S. coalition airstrikes that were reportedly targeting ISIS, and their dates ranged from August 2015 to March 2016.

View image on Twitter: [https://twitter.com/airwars/status/894833148403568640/photo/1]

Can you work out why @TeamYouTube has banned these three videos? We can’t. Of 100s we have archived since 2014, these 3 blocked this week. 4141 Replies – 427427 Retweets – 565565 likes

The 2nd is from March 2016, and is still on Pentagon’s media channel. A war act, though unclear how it breaches T&Cs https://t.co/CglVqcnDcA

3rd video also 2016. 

Again. unclear how this differs from 100s of military videos we’ve archived for public record https://t.co/zFVIkObiS6

Airwars later posted an update, which said that following the publicity around YouTube’s decision to block the videos, the platform had apparently chosen to remove the ban from the three videos, and it implemented an 18 years and over age restriction. 

“Adult-only war,” Airwars remarked, noting that “Archiving published Coalition videos creates permanent public record of conflict.”

Archiving published Coalition videos creates permanent public record of conflict (many vids since been removed by @CJTFOIR). Bans unhelpful.

Update: @YouTube appears to have lifted bans following today’s publicity – though has replaced with an age 18 restriction. Adult-only war.

Chris Woods, the head of Airwars, told Middle East Eye that he is still in negotiations with YouTube over a number of videos, but he sees this trend as one that risks “severely undermining work done by Syrian opposition activists.”

“I think what’s so troubling about this if we look at the Syrian accounts, this is video chronicling a six or seven-year war, and some of the most important parts of that war from the perspective of Syrians,”Woods said.

Middle East Eye also reported that it has had similar problems with YouTube after the platform removed a number of videos, “some of which were later given age restrictions, some of which remain removed.” [http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/youtube-criticised-after-middle-east-video-taken-down-over-extremist-content-1244893230]

“YouTube told MEE in an email that the video ‘Drone footage by Islamic State shows suicide car attacks on Iraqi forces inside Mosul’ was removed and that YouTube had ‘assigned a Community Guidelines strike, or temporary penalty’ to MEE’s account. 

The same occurred in the case of ‘Video appears to show Egyptian soldiers carrying out extra-judicial killings.’ 

MEE lodged an appeal with YouTube and received this response:

‘After further review of the content, we’ve determined that your video does violate our Community Guidelines and have upheld our original decision. We appreciate your understanding.’

Another video, documenting the destruction of Nimrud by IS, which is widely available across the internet, was removed from an MEE staff account, and all appeals were rejected.”

The report from Middle East Eye also claimed that Alexa O’Brien, an American journalist who covered the US prosecution of WikiLeaks’ whistleblower Chelsea Manning, reported on Twitter that the infamous videos released by Manning that showed the U.S. military blatantly committing war crimes were removed from YouTube. 

Her Twitter account is currently set to private. [https://twitter.com/carwinb?lang=en]

As The Free Thought Project has reported, alternative geopolitical analyst “Partisan Girl” revealed that YouTube removed her video showing the U.S. airdropping weapons to ISIS in July, claiming it contained “violent of graphic content” that violated the platform’s community guidelines. [http://thefreethoughtproject.com/youtube-censors-video-showing-us-airdropped-weapons-falling-into-isis-hands/]

“It documented US military airdrops falling into ISIS hands,” She wrote. “Truth is graphic content.”

View image on Twitter: [https://twitter.com/Partisangirl/status/884443773693865984/photo/1]

A video on my channel just got censored by @youtube It documented US military airdrops falling into #ISIS hands! Truth is graphic content. 138138 Replies – 993993 Retweets – 1,0631,063 likes

As YouTube continues to remove videos that document both the events of the Syrian War, and evidence of the United State committing war crimes, it is important to remember that the platform still hosts thousands of videos with millions of views that are disguised as child-friendly content, while they actually promote violence, sex and pedophilia. [http://thefreethoughtproject.com/public-service-announcement-parents-beware-pedophile-content-youtube/]

Disgusted yet, America?

URGENT  – READ & SHARE – IT’S A MATTER OF LIFE OR DEATH FOR SOME!! 

The Empire Strikes Back: DEA Quietly Announces “Schedule I” Status For CBD Extracts To Comply With United Nations Demands… CBD Prohibition? Hemp Industry Disputes – Dec 16, 2016 – By Mike Adams

[Ric/Rex Says: “When Did WE Vote For The DEA To Comply With ANYTHING That Globalist Shill Committee EVER Has To Say About Things SOVEREIGN To “WE THE PEOPLE”

The DEA Best Start Remembering WHO Pays Their BILLS – Anyone Else Tired Of The DYSFUNCTIONAL THRALL OUR Government SEEMS To Be Held In THRALL BY The U.N. & Their OLIGARCH Controllers?  

But This Affects Me & MANY Others Directly. 

I Have 4 Weeks To Gather Enough Money To Lay In A Supply Of CBD OIL Before I Can No Longer Buy It[Until The DEA Is STOPPED! 

My E-Mail: drrexdexter@gmail.com IS Also My PayPal I.D.

Send What You Can For Me-But Also Make Sure Those YOU Care For Aren’t Cut Off From This Life-Changing, Or As It IS In MY Case, LIFE-SAVING MEDICINE!”] 

In case you didn’t notice, the war against human freedom is now in full force across the entire establishment:

Big Media, Big Pharma, Big Government, Big Banks and Big Agriculture are assaulting our bodies and minds by the hour, it seems.

The latest salvo in that war happened just a day ago, as the DEA quietly added all cannabinoids (including CBD) to its “Schedule I” classification of controlled substances in a new ruling that goes into effect on January 13, 2017. 

(Be sure to also read the hemp industry’s response below, which confirms “The sky is not falling…”)

ACTION ITEM: Sign our petition that asks the incoming Trump administration to legalize CBD supplements nationwide: http://naturalnews.com/legalizecbd/

Via the Federal Register, Vol. 81, No. 240, published Wednesday, December 14, 2016, “Rules and Regulations” [https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-12-14/pdf/2016-29941.pdf]:

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

21 CFR Part 1308

[Docket No. DEA–342]

RIN 1117–AB33

Establishment of a New Drug Code for Marihuana Extract

AGENCY: Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice.

ACTION: Final rule.

PART 1308 — SCHEDULES OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES

The authority citation for part 1308 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 811, 812, 871(b), unless otherwise noted.

Section 1308.11 is amended by adding paragraph (d)(58) to read as
follows: § 1308.11    Schedule I.

(d)

(58) Marihuana Extract—(7350)

Meaning an extract containing one or more cannabinoids that has been derived from any plant of the genus Cannabis, other than the separated resin (whether crude or purified) obtained from the plant.

In effect, the DEA has, completely outside any act of Congress, created an entirely new “Schedule I” controlled substance it calls “Marihuana Extract” (note the spelling with an “h” rather than a “j”). This “Marihuana Extract” is, according to the DEA, any extract containing “one or more cannabinoids…”

CBD is, of course, a non-psychoactive cannabinoid. It’s just one of over a hundred cannabinoids found in hemp extracts, which also include CBD-A, CBG, CBC, CBN and so on.

Sign our petition at this link to ask the Trump administration to protect access to CBD products and keep the DEA’s hands off natural medicine from Cannabis. [http://naturalnews.com/legalizecbd/]

The sky is not falling! Hemp Industry Association responds…

From the Hemp Industry Association, here’s a thoughtful response on all this, which insists the DEA’s new classification is not a show-stopper [http://thehia.org/HIAhemppressreleases/4462247]:

Yesterday the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) issued a Final Rule on the coding of marijuana extracts.

Unfortunately some misleading media stories and social media postings lead quite a few people to panic at reports that CBD was being banned under this new rule.

The Sky is NOT Falling.

The Final Rule published by DEA did not change the legal status of CBD.

This can only be done by a scheduling action which has NOT occurred.

HIA has carefully reviewed this with our legal advisors and discussed it with industry experts.

While there are some differing opinions on the effect of the rule, there is general agreement that yesterday’s ruling did not change the status of CBD. Here are some important facts to know:

1. Cannabidiol is not listed on the federal schedule of controlled substances
2. Sec. 7606 of the Farm Bill defines hemp as distinct from marijuana and does not treat it as a controlled substance when grown under a compliant state program
3. Despite these facts, DEA has stated that CBD is a controlled substance previously
4. HIA strongly disagrees with the DEA position and is ready to take action to defend should DEA take any action to block the production, processing or sale of hemp under Sec. 7606
5. The Final Rule published on December 14th was not a scheduling action but rather an administrative action related to record keeping
6. The code assigned to “marihuana extract” in the rule is “Administration Controlled Substances Code Number” for the purposes of identification of substances on registration forms
7. The rule was originally published as a proposed rule in 2011 BEFORE the Farm Bill and didn’t mention CBD or hemp
8. DEA confirmed to a reporter from the Denver Post that this was an administrative action and did not change the status of CBD in federal law

So what does this all mean?

We believe the DEA rule on “marihuana extracts” was not directed at hemp derived CBD products and has been in the works for 5 years.

We also believe there is no imminent change in DEA policy regarding hemp derived CBD products.

For now, we want to urge everyone to calm down and continue with your businesses.

We also hope that in future, reporters will take the time to get the facts before posting misleading stories about hemp and CBD.

DEA Is Obedient To United Nations Globalists 

[Ric/Rex Adds: This MUST The End For The DEA-It Is Must Be Abolished And Replaced By An Entity Loyal To It’s Oaths To The ConstitutionNOT TO Globalist Political CABALS!]

This was all done, says the DEA, to comply with “Under international drug control treaties administered by the United Nations.”

According to the registry entry, the DEA needed to create a new Schedule I classification for CBD in order to “better account for these materials in accordance with treaty obligations.”

In other words, the DEA is claiming they are beholden to globalist treaties as the reason they need to criminalize CBD as a Schedule I Controlled Substance.

The move is described as an effort to “bring the US into compliance with international drug-control treaties,” reports Leafly.com.

Such action is an admission that the federal government is really just an obedient lapdog of the United Nations. [https://www.leafly.com/news/politics/new-dea-rule-says-cbd-oil-really-truly-no-joke-illegal]

That same article confirms that the DEA considers CBD to be a Schedule I substance that’s illegal to possess:

In the DEA comment on the entry, Rosenberg directly addressed the question:

What if it’s only cannabidiol (CBD) and no other cannabinoids?

The agency’s response: “For practical purposes, all extracts that contain CBD will also contain at least small amounts of other cannabinoids.

However, if it were possible to produce from the cannabis plant an extract that contained only CBD and no other cannabinoids, such an extract would fall within the new drug code” and therefore remain federally illegal.

In other words:

The DEA is confident that it can find enough traces of other cannabinoids in your CBD oil to arrest and prosecute.

And if they can’t, they still have the option of arresting and prosecuting based on the CBD oil itself.

By this same definition, grocery store-bought hemp seeds would also be illegal to possess, by the way, because even hemp seeds contain trace amounts of CBD.

Big Pharma Behind The Scenes

The DEA’s new ruling openly admits it was strongly influenced by Big Pharma, which asked the DEA to classify all cannabinoids as Schedule I drugs, not just CBD or any other isolated compound.

From the Federal Register:

Another comment from a pharmaceutical firm currently involved in cannabinoid research and product development praised DEA’s efforts to establish a new drug code for marihuana extracts as a means to more accurately reflect the activities of scientific research and provide more consistent adherence to the requirements of the Single Convention.

However, the comment expressed concerns that the proposed definition for the new drug code (i.e. ‘‘meaning extracts that have been derived from any plant of the genus Cannabis and which contain cannabinols and cannabidiols’’) is too narrow.

The comment suggested that the broader term ‘‘cannabinoids’’ be substituted for ‘‘cannabinols and cannabidiols.’’

The comment pointed out that other constituents of the marihuana plant may have therapeutic potential.

The comment further clarified that the broader term ‘‘cannabinoid’’ includes both cannabinol-type compounds and annabidiol-type compounds, as well as cannabichromene-type compounds, cannabigerol-type compounds, and other categories of compounds.

Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment Currently Protects CBD Consumers In 28 states… But It Could Vanish In April, 2017

Even under the DEA’s new Schedule I dictate, consumers of CBD products will enjoy state-level protections in at least 28 states thanks to the Rohrabacher-Farr amendment, passed in 2014.

That law essentially prohibits federal DEA agents from going after CBD consumers in states where medical marijuana is already legal.

That amendment, however, must be renewed every year.

It was just renewed a week ago, on December 9, 2016, “as part of the continuing House resolution known as HR 2028, which funds the federal government through April 28, 2017,” reports Leafly.

“When that resolution expires next April, so does the protections afforded by Rohrabacher-Farr. Unless it’s renewed once again.”

What this means is that CBD protections for consumers in 28 states will likely expire in April of 2017.

CONSUMERS IN THE OTHER, NON-MEDICAL STATES HAVE LESS THAN 30 DAYS TO ACQUIRE CBD PRODUCTS BEFORE INTERSTATE SALES ARE SHUT DOWN NATIONWIDE. 

[RIC/REX ADDS: BIG PHARMA IS LOSING “CUSTOMERS” AS MORE AND MORE PEOPLE GIVE UP ON THEIR “APPROVED” POISONS AND GET RELIEF AND COMPLETE CURES FROM THE CBD BASED PRODUCTS

AMERICA-ISN’T THIS ABOUT ENOUGH

AREN’T YOU TIRED OF BIG PHARMA PUTTING IT’S PROFITS AHEAD OF YOUR WELLNESS AND EVEN YOUR LIFE?]

The Industry Plans To Fight The Absurd DEA Classification With Lawsuits And Petitions

The CBD industry, naturally, is planning on waging a fierce battle to keep CBD products legal in all 50 states.

Via Leafly:

Robert Hoban, a Colorado cannabis attorney and adjunct professor of law at the University of Denver, raised the notion that the rule itself may not be lawful.

“This action is beyond the DEA’s authority,” Hoban told Leafly in an interview late this afternoon.

“The DEA can only carry out the law, they cannot create it. Here they’re purporting to create an entirely new category called ‘marijuana extracts,’ and by doing so wrest control over all cannabinoids. They want to call all cannabinoids illegal. But they don’t have the authority to do that.”

The CBD industry, in fact, has been looking for an opportunity to challenge the DEA in court, and it looks like that time has arrived.

SIGN OUR PETITION at this link, asking the Trump administration to protect consumers’ access to CBD products: http://naturalnews.com/legalizecbd/

Consumers in many states may have just 30 days to acquire CBD products before sales are halted by many companies.

One large CBD extract producer told Natural News, “We’ve been advised by our attorney to halt CBD sales outside our home state in 30 days.”

That company plans to announce to its customers that they have 30 days to purchase their products, after which they plan to pull all sales except for inside their home state.

Other CBD producers are poised to fight the DEA regulation with federal lawsuits. With the DEA’s enforcement of its cannabis regulations up in the air — and with lawsuits from private industry on the horizon — 2017 looks to be a year of unexpected twists and turns for hemp extract producers and consumers.

Natural News will continue to cover the news on all this, including publishing on HempScience.news: http://hempscience.news/

My personal analysis, by the way, is that the DEA’s ruling will not stand for long. 

It will be either narrowed through clarification or rescinded.

But you never know for sure, especially when the DEA wants to wage a large power grab just in time for the new incoming administration which may be rather hostile to medical marijuana.

http://www.naturalnews.com/2016-12-16-dea-quietly-announces-schedule-i-status-for-cbd-extracts-prohibition-begins-january-13-2017.html

Post: https://randrewohge.wordpress.com/2016/12/19/the-empire-strikes-back-dea-quietly-announces-schedule-i-status-for-cbd-extracts-to-comply-with-united-nations-demands
(via https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfqpZqEP6gg)

By Ben Swann |  Dec 3, 2013

Reporter Ben Swann Reveals He Has The CDC Whistleblower Documents

 

Today, in an interview with Age of Autism, Ben Swann, a journalist with CBS 46 in Atlanta, revealed that Congressman Bill Posey has released the #CDCwhistleblower documents to Swann, who will in turn be releasing them to the public. 

These are the CDC records given to Posey by Dr. William Thompson, which reportedly confirm that the CDC has been covering up evidence of vaccine induced autism since at least 2002.

Ben Swann met with the Canary Party for the first time more than two years ago. 

It was clear that he was a different kind of journalist right from the start.

He was a reporter that listened to the public, checked the facts, and was not afraid to report on stories that didn’t fit the establishment’s narrative.

Swann began reporting on the vaccine corruption story in 2013 in an interview with The Canary Party’s Chairman, Mark Blaxill. 

He covered the #CDCwhistleblower story in 2014 when we brought the new developments in the story to his attention. 

This fall, after moving from the Midwest to CBS in Atlanta, he reported on the CDC protests and Congressman Posey’s statement, which detailed that the CDC was throwing away data that showed links between vaccines and autism.

As a result of Ben Swann’s old world and honest journalism, he has become a trusted news source for hundreds of thousands of Americans who follow his online outlet, Truth In Media. 

Swann has now been given the CDC documents that the public has been so eager to read to sort out the details of the CDC cover-up of vaccine induced autism.

He told the Age of Autism today that he will be releasing the documents to the public after a detailed review.

[http://canaryparty.us2.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=b62698a50aececa2aded9f56b&id=2c7dbfd79c&e=abd57e0e7d]

We at the Canary Party believe it is a rare and valuable circumstance to have a reporter follow corruption stories no matter where they lead.
Ben Swann is currently raising funds for more of his independent news packages. 

He has a new project called Global Activist that investigates the truths that the mainstream media has abandoned.

All the claims that autism is caused by vaccines have been completely disproven, right? 

We have all heard that claim, maybe most famously by actress and model Jenny McCarthy.

But is the claim untrue? 

What if I told you that while HHS says there is no link between autism and vaccinations, the federal government has quietly awarded families of autistic children damages as a result of vaccine injuries?

The first step toward truth is to be informed.

The story we are talking about today is something that just doesn’t get attention from the mainstream media, and on the rare occasion when it does, the story is predictable. 

Scandal surrounding a doctor who claims autism and vaccines are linked. 

The bizarre parents who believe that their child has autism because of a vaccine, a claim clearly not based in science.

But is there more to this story than what the media has told you?

The real story behind vaccines begins in 1986.

That is because it was in 1986 when the U.S. Congress created National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act. 

Now that alone is worthy of a story, because what most Americans don’t know is that a family who has child injured by a vaccine, cannot simply sue the vaccine maker. 

Under this 1986 law, Congress took that power away from families and instead created a “vaccine court” if you will.

So what is the vaccine court? 

It is a Federal Claim’s court that deals specifically with vaccine cases where families can go for injury compensation if their child is injured by a vaccine.

The official name, the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“VICP”). 

Of course, this program is seen as necessary because virtually every child who attends a pre-school, daycare or public or private school is required to be vaccinated.

So what’s the problem?

In 1986 when the VICP was first created vaccine makers were protected from lawsuit by the public. 

The VICP insulates vaccine manufacturers from liability and requires that petitioners bring their petitions solely against HHS. 

They may not sue manufacturers or healthcare practitioners. 

The rationale for this industry and professional protection was to ensure a stable childhood vaccine supply and to keep prices affordable.

The 1986 Law also permits the vaccine makers the right to not disclose known risks to parents or guardians of those being vaccinated. 

Based on something called the “learned intermediary” doctrine, manufacturers bear no liability for giving, or failing to give, accurate or complete information to those vaccinated.

In exchange for being subject to the vaccine court, families of those injured would be compensated through an administrative process based on a table of presumptive vaccine injuries.

At its outset, 90% of claims were “on table.” 

 

But almost 30 years later, things are very different. 

Today, the vaccine schedule, meaning the list of vaccines offered to children has tripled, but the table of injuries has become much more restrictive, forcing 90% of petitioners into “off-table” litigation. 

And it gets worse. 

Because for families who believe that their children have been injured by vaccines, there are enormous roadblocks to overcome when seeking compensation for those injuries.

Mark Blaxill is the father of an autistic child – a child who he says has been injured by vaccines. 
Blaxill is part of a group called the Canary Party, a coalition of parents who are pushing for changes to the system through political means.

Blaxill: The Canary Party is a social movement that’s created to stand up for the victims of medical injuries, environmental toxins, industrial foods, the things that care causing these new health crises and epidemics that we are seeing.

Swann: Let’s talk about this issue of the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program because most Americans, I would guess have no idea that this even exists.

Blaxill: Well, the thing that people should know about the VICP is that it is unlike any other product liability circumstance that any of us deal with on a regular basis. 

In 1986, Congress passed a law that gave a blanket exemption to pharmaceutical companies from any liability at all for any injury that their products, in this case vaccines, may cause to consumers and especially to children and infants. 

And what that did, was that put in place a liability shield on the pharmaceutical industry unlike any other pharmaceutical product categories so that if anything wrong happens to any recipient of the vaccine, what the family has to do is to, instead of just going to regular civil court with all the normal checks and balances and procedures and protections we see in the American legal system, they are forced to petition of government to recognize the injury to their child and to decide on whether or not they deserve an compensation.

So for parents, like Blaxill, why does he believe the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program has failed?

That goes back to 2002 when nearly five thousand families filed petitions with the VICP claiming that vaccines had caused their children’s neurological disorder called “autism.”

According to the Pace Law Review, in an unprecedented proceeding, the VICP created and conducted the Omnibus Autism Proceeding that concluded in 2010. 

That means instead of taking the cases one at at time, they consolidated hearings for all these families. 

In the end, the VICP dismissed all the “test case” claims of vaccine-induced autism.

Blaxill: The original intent of the VICP was to provide a no fault, generous, rapid program of compensating victims. 

Now what we have a is a cover up. 

And a situation in which the government is trying to say, these things which people think they have observed, not only are we going to discount it, we are going to treat it with prejudice. 

We are going to say…

Swann: That this person is trying to get over on the system, that they are gaming the system.

Blaxill: That they are gaming the system, they are trying to blame, they are trying to get money from the government and that’s just wrong.

But there is more… A Review of Compensated Cases of Vaccine-Induced Brain Injury finds that The VICP has compensated approximately 2,500 claims of vaccine injury since the inception of the program in 1986.

Since that time, despite the official ruling that there is no link between vaccines and autism, there have been at least 83 cases of autism among those compensated for vaccine-induced brain damage.

Swann: The last thing that I would ask you is that in terms of outcomes what are you all hoping for? 

Because this is really a fight for other families, a fight for an entire generation of Americans, is it not?

Blaxill: We are asking for justice because you have many, many injured children and families that are struggling and they deserve support. 

We’re asking for awareness of this crisis in this health system. 

We have the worst outcomes in the entire industrial world here in America. 

We have the highest cost healthcare system, the most interventionist healthcare system in terms of medication and vaccination. 

We have a dramatic dysfunction and we need awareness of that, that we have a problem and we need to shine a light on that. 

And then we need change. 

We need fundamental renovation of our way of dealing with parental choice, with the rights of consumers, authority in the healthcare system. 

Who gets to choose and then we need to find ways to treat and heal all those injured children and now adults who are suffering from this system.

What you need to know
Is that on the Department of Health and Human services website is this statement:
“HHS has never concluded in any case that autism was caused by vaccination.”

Parents point out that while number and use of vaccines is skyrocketing, the number of autism cases is skyrocketing as well. But remember, correlation does not equal causation. 

Agencies like HHS will say that doctors and medical professionals are just better at recognizing autism than they used to be and that may be true. 

But as one parent told me, while public statements have been made that there is no research supporting the assertion that vaccines can cause autism, families point to dozens of studies that do find a link between vaccines and autism that public health officials do not share with the public. 
And that families would like to present in a civil court, before a jury, which believe is their right under the Constitution.

http://canaryparty.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=b62698a50aececa2aded9f56b&id=0830222a5f&e=abd57e0e7d