Are you under the spell of media hypnosis? Take this simple test and find out
Here’s a valuable self-test to find out whether you’ve been hypnotized (and controlled) by the mainstream media and its engineered false reality. After you take this test, watch the stage hypnosis videos I’ve selected for you, below, and you’ll be astonished to learn just how hypnotized most people really are.
Are you under the spell of media hypnosis? Take this simple test and find out Mike Adams Natural News February 17, 2013 Here’s a valuable self-test to find out whether you’ve been hypnotized (and controlled) by the mainstream media and its engineered false reality. After you take this test, watch the stage hypnosis videos I’ve selected for you, below, and you’ll be astonished to learn just how hypnotized most people really are. Test Question #1) Were the fires that burned up Christopher Dorner set by the LAPD? Minutes before fires broke out in the cabin where homicide suspect Chris Dorner was holed up, the LAPD ordered all media helicopters and video journalists to clear the area. The following conversation was then heard on police radios: “We’re gonna go forward with the plan with the burner.” “Like we talked about.” “Burners deployed, and we have a fire.” Repeated by dispatcher: “Burners deployed, and we have a fire.” “(unintelligible)…mission success.” “We have fire in the front. He might come out the back.” “Looks like it’s starting to collapse.” “We’re gonna start bringing fire in, about 200 yards out.” “Break 61 Lincon, 61 Charlie, you ready for fire?” All this starts around the 1:00 mark in the following video: Police Audio Reveals "Plan" to Burn Down Dorner's Cabin VIDEO BELOW http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0X-WoiJhVY8&feature=player_embedded Fire then breaks out, burning down the cabin along with Christopher Dorner, the homicide suspect. The San Bernadino sheriff’s department, which had authority on the scene, then declared that nobody set the fires and they have no idea how the fires happened. Those fires were spontaneous fires, they claim, which erupted on their own. So here’s the hypnosis test question: Do you believe the claim that law enforcement did not set the fires? If so, you are hypnotized by the media into a state of extreme gullibility. Please keep score and continue… Test Question #2: Why is the U.S. government buying 1.6 billion rounds of ammo? When Natural News and InfoWars first reported that the U.S. government was buying 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition to use domestically — that’s enough to wage at least a 7-year full-scale war with the American people — we were first called “conspiracy theorists” and it was widely claimed that our allegations were false. But now, since the media has been unable to suppress the truth about these huge ammo purchases by the U.S. government, the script it being flipped: Now we’re told these purchases are all about saving taxpayers money by “buying in bulk.” Yep, the government’s purchase of 1.6 billion rounds of ammo is all about saving YOU money! Well gee, how nice of them! But don’t forget that this is enough ammunition to shoot every person in America five times. If this is “bulk purchasing,” it’s the equivalent of you and I driving to Costco and buying 50,000 pounds of peanut butter and having it loaded onto railroad cars with the claim that we’re “saving money on peanut butter!” It’s no longer a conspiracy theory that the government is buying all these bullets; it’s now explained by the media as a “benefit” to the taxpayers. Question: Do you believe these ammo purchases are being done solely to SAVE taxpayers money? If so, you’ve been hypnotized yet again by the mainstream media into a state of total stupidity. By this logic, they could buy human incineration ovens in bulk and claim they’re saving taxpayers money by purchasing in bulk. What’s clear is that the U.S. government is engaged in an arms race, stockpiling and hoarding masses of ammunition to prepare for war with the American people. Test Question #3: Can guns be defensive weapons? An anti-gun California police boss named Ken James just told reporters, on camera, that “A gun is not a defensive weapon.” He goes on to explain, in his own twisted logic: “A gun is an offensive weapon used to intimidate and show power. Police officers don’t carry a gun as a defensive weapon to defend themselves or their other officers.” In other words, he’s claiming that cops carry guns to intimidate and show power, not to protect themselves defensively. He further implies, ridiculously, that guns are in no way a deterrent against violence — that a violent assailant is just as likely to attack an unarmed person as an armed person wielding a gun in self defense. Ken James, of course, just broadcast to the entire world that he has an IQ no higher than room temperature… on the Celsius scale! But the media plays it off as if his arguments somehow make sense: that ALL guns are offensive weapons and have no role in self defense. So here’s the question: Do you agree with Ken James that guns have no role as a defensive weapon, even for cops? That guns are only offensive weapons used to intimidate and show power? If so, you’ve been hypnotized by the media once again into believing something that’s off-the-wall stupid. Final question: Building 7 Now here’s the really big question on media hypnosis. Nearly everyone in the mainstream has been hypnotized into thinking that on 9/11/2001, building 7 of the World Trade Center was brought down after being hit by an airplane. Except building 7 wasn’t hit by any airplane at all. Only two buildings were hit by airplanes — the twin towers. Building 7 was hit by nothing except some falling debris. According to official reports — which of course require you suspend all belief in the laws of physics — building 7′s internal support structures all snapped at precisely to same moment due to a couple of office fires burning inside the building, causing it to miraculously collapse demolition-style into its own footprint. Although such a feat normally requires months of planning, engineering calculations and the careful placement of demolition charges on building support structures, we are told that none of this was needed in the case of building 7; that office fires melted concrete-and-steel structural columns simultaneously throughout the building. Never before in the recorded history of architecture has a fire ever brought down a concrete-and-steel building, but we’re supposed to believe it somehow happened with building 7 in a perfect pattern of symmetrical collapse. So here’s the question: Do you believe the official story on building 7? If so, you’ve been wildly hypnotized by the media into believing an obvious fiction that wholly violates the laws of physics and materials science. Concrete doesn’t burn, for starters, and getting a building like that to fall into its own footprint requires all the concrete and steel support columns to be severed almost simultaneously. And yet, amazingly, most Americans believe whatever the media tells them. They are easily hypnotized into imagining they are seeing things that really aren’t there. It’s no different than a person under the influence of a stage hypnosis expert running around thinking they have a glass of water in their hands because they were told to believe so. You are living in a hypnotized nation Hypnosis is the process of reshaping the mind’s interpretation of sensory data. Through hypnosis, a person could be holding a red toy fire truck in their hands but told the fire truck is actually green. When asked what color the fire truck is, they will answer, “Green!” The success of hypnosis relies on the suggestibility hard-wired into a person’s brain. Some people are far more suggestible than others. Those of us who are leaders in “alternative news” tend to be the least suggestible of all, while those who produce and consume mainstream media news are the most suggestible (and therefore gullible). Successful hypnosis on a national scale requires a masterful hypnotist. That’s Obama, one of the most brilliant hypnotists ever observed in the history of politics. Obama’s skill is so good that he can tell you he’s doing the exact opposite of what he’s actually doing, and most people listening will believe every word he says. Obama is creating jobs. Obama is protecting your rights. And the fire truck is green. If you are immune to hypnosis, then you share my frustrating in living in a nation of hypnotized people. I want to shout to people, “The fire truck is RED!” but of course this makes no sense to them, as they’ve been hypnotized into thinking it’s green. The hypnotized masses will viciously defend their false beliefs People who are hypnotized will persistently defend their hypnosis as if it were real. “It’s not RED!” they will shout, “The fire truck is GREEN, see?” And they’ll show it to you. It’s red, of course, but they think they’re showing you a green fire truck and they can’t understand why you don’t see it, too. You find precisely this kind of thing on issues like gun control. The claim that “Guns kill people” is the logical equivalent of saying the fire truck is green. The claim of the California cop that “Guns are not defensive weapons” is like saying the fire truck has no wheels. The claim that building 7 collapsed due to office fires is like saying the fire truck is actually a really quiet puppy dog. Importantly, a person who is sufficiently suggestible can be programmed to believe that a toy fire truck really is a puppy dog. They will pet it, talk to it, feed it and even take it for walks, believing it is a puppy dog. If you’ve never seen this kind of thing before, you need to see more examples of stage hypnosis. I’ve assembled a few examples of stage hypnosis videos below. As you watch these, remember that these are NOT actors. They literally believe in the artificial realities that have been constructed for them by the hypnotist. This first video is especially fascinating because, much like in the world today, the person who is hypnotized believes that hypnosis is FAKE and doesn’t work on him. He holds this belief even while he is deeply hypnotized himself! Watch from roughly 1:32 in the following video: Grant Boddington Master Stage Hypnotist VIDEO BELOW http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4e6SVy1PQOA&feature=player_embedded This next video shows an “R-rated stage hypnosis” where the hypnotist radically alters the perceptions of love and sexual attraction of the hypnosis subjects. (Warning, highly offensive language but it’s important for you to understand how radically hypnosis can alter beliefs and behavior.) Fraser the Hypnotist R rated video promo VIDEO BELOW http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-EB-SwnsIc&feature=player_embedded As an example of just how deeply hypnosis can alter people’s realities, take a look at this video (if you dare) of “X-rated hypnosis” where stage participants engage in mock deviant sex acts in front of a live audience simply because they are “programmed” to do so by the hypnotist. (For the record, I do not condone this application of hypnosis. I show this here as a shocking demonstration of the power of hypnosis to alter people’s realities.) Dave Curran: X-rated Hypnotist VIDEO BELOW http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8kJxaJ8ur8&feature=player_embedded Hypnotizing the nation is easier than you think Now understand this: If people can be hypnotized into doing all the things you see in the above videos, imagine how easy it is to hypnotize them into believing things like Obama is their savior, or guns are bad, or the economy is good, or even that government is your “daddy.” In truth, every Obama speech is a hypnosis ritual, and every broadcast on CNN is a hypnotic induction. From a linguistic perspective, Obama’s speeches are deeply engineered with things called “language patterns” that take advantage of cognitive shortcuts to literally embed ideas into your head while bypassing your critical thinking skills. I could explain to you how this works and give you examples, but you probably wouldn’t believe they’re so simple because you don’t believe you are “suggestible” to linguistic influence. Dissect any Obama speech and you’ll discover a plethora of hypnotic speech patterns, language patterns, reframes, logic binds, social agreement and other techniques used by hypnotists. If you really think about it, the real info war taking place today is a “war of hypnosis.” The government, the media and the corporations want to hypnotize everybody into believing falsehoods are true: Vaccines prevent disease, vitamins are dangerous, America is a free country, the police state keeps you safe, and so on. The Bush administration pulled off a real whopper of nationwide stage hypnosis by getting everyone to believe in a complete falsehood: the so-called “war on terror.” It was a complete fabrication. People who believed the USA was under assault by terrorists could also be hypnotized into believing little green fairies lived under their mattresses. My goal is to de-hypnotize you. People like myself and Alex Jones are de-hypnosis experts who use our skills and influence to “awaken” people and allow them to see reality, often for the first time. This is shocking to a lot of people. If you’ve been hypnotized into believing your toy fire truck is a puppy dog, then you might not be too happy to awaken and realize what a fool you’ve been all along. That’s one reason why there’s so much cognitive resistance to de-hypnosis: It requires the mind to admit it was wrong. Beyond de-hypnosis, we also attempt to get people to awaken to an even higher level of spiritual awareness and question reality itself. This is called moving up through “meta-levels” of reality. Because, ultimately, the toy fire truck isn’t even a physical object at all. It’s a vibrating probability wave that appears to be real in this simulated reality we call a universe. But that’s another article altogether. Psywar VIDEO BELOW http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSh6qtoQkmU Leading Geneticist: Human Intelligence is Slowly Declining Mike Barrett Natural Society February 17, 2013 Would you be surprised to hear that the human race is slowly becoming dumber, and dumber? Despite our advancements over the last tens or even hundreds of years, some ‘experts’ believe that humans are losing cognitive capabilities and becoming more emotionally unstable. One Stanford University researcher and geneticist, Dr. Gerald Crabtree, believes that our intellectual decline as a race has much to do with adverse genetic mutations. According to Crabtree, our cognitive and emotional capabilities are fueled and determined by the combined effort of thousands of genes. If a mutation occurred in any of of these genes, which is quite likely, then intelligence or emotional stability can be negatively impacted. “I would wager that if an average citizen from Athens of 1000 BC were to appear suddenly among us, he or she would be among the brightest and most intellectually alive of our colleagues and companions, with a good memory, a broad range of ideas, and a clear- sighted view of important issues. Furthermore, I would guess that he or she would be among the most emotionally stable of our friends and colleagues,” the geneticist began his article in the scientific journal Trends in Genetics. Further, the geneticist explains that people with specific adverse genetic mutations are more likely than ever to survive and live amongst the ‘strong.’ Darwin’s theory of ‘survival of the fittest’ is less applicable in today’s society, therefore those with better genes will not necessarily dominate in society as they would have in the past. While this hypothesis does have some merit: are genes really the primary reason for the overall cognitive decline of the human race? If humans really are lacking in intelligence more than before, it’s important to recognize other possible causes. Let’s take a look at how our food system plays a role in all of this. It’s sad, but true; our food system today is contributing to lower intelligence across the board. The Water Supply, Fluoride is Lowering Your IQ Researchers from Harvard have found that a substance rampant in the nation’s water supply, fluoride, is lowering IQ and dumbing down the population. The researchers, who had their findings published in the prominent journal Environmental Health Perspectives, a federal government medical journal stemming from the U.S National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, concluded that ”our results support the possibility of adverse effects of fluoride exposures on children’s neurodevelopment”. “In this study we found a significant dose- response relation between fluoride level in serum and children’s IQ…This is the 24th study that has found this association”. One attorney, Paul Beeber, NYSCOF President, weighs in on the research by saying: “It’s senseless to keep subjecting our children to this ongoing fluoridation experiment to satisfy the political agenda of special-interest groups. Even if fluoridation reduced cavities, is tooth health more important than brain health? It’s time to put politics aside and stop artificial fluoridation everywhere”. Pesticides are Diminishing Intelligence One study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that pesticides, which are rampant among the food supply, are creating lasting changes in overall brain structure — changes that have been linked to lower intelligence levels and decreased cognitive function. Specifically, the researchers found that a pesticide known as chlorpyrifos (CPF) has been linked to ”significant abnormalities”. Further, the negative impact was found to occur even at low levels of exposure. Lead researcher Virginia Rauh, a professor at the Mailman School of Public Health, summarized the findings: “Toxic exposure during this critical period can have far-reaching effects on brain development and behavioral functioning.” Processed Foods, High Fructose Corn Syrup Making People ‘Stupid’ Following 14,000 children, British researchers uncovered the connection between processed foods and reduced IQ. After recording the children’s’ diets and analyzing questionnaires submitting by the parents, the researchers found that if children were consuming a processed diet at age 3, IQ decline could begin over the next five years. The study found that by age 8, the children had suffered the IQ decline. On the contrary, children who ate a nutrient-rich diet including fruit and vegetables were found to increase their IQ over the 3 year period. The foods considered nutrient-rich by the researchers were most likely conventional fruits and vegetables. Interestingly, one particular ingredient ubiquitous in processed foods and sugary beverages across the globe -high fructose corn syrup – has been tied to reduced IQ. The UCLA researchers coming to these findings found that HFCS may be damaging the brain functions of consumers worldwide, sabotaging learning and memory. In fact, the official release goes as far to say that high- fructose corn syrup can make you ‘stupid’. Gene mutations may have something to do with our ongoing decline in intelligence, but let’s stop to think for a moment what we’re doing to ourselves to make this decline even more prominent. Can you trust a new brain with an IQ of 7000? Jon Rappoport Prison Planet.com February 17, 2013 I’ve been forcing myself to read gushing statements about the march of artificial intelligence (AI) and how, in the near future, we will have “the source code of the brain,” and computers will be able to do whatever the brain can do, except much, much faster. I’ve been reading about the day when we humans will somehow merge with the machines. I think the technocrats who promote these notions were raised on comic books, and they haven’t really moved on from that phase. What ever happened to the old phrase, “garbage in equals garbage out?” Was it too telling and real? Take the idea that some day, tiny nanobots will patrol the body making adjustments and normalizing errant functions. Forget for the moment all the damage these little scouts could cause. Just focus on the quality of the information by which they would make moment-to-moment decisions. Currently, by the most conservative mainstream estimate, the medical system in America kills 225,000 people a year. (See B. Starfield, JAMA, July 26, 2000, “Is US health really the best in the world?”). Of these deaths, 106,000 per year are directly caused by FDA-approved medical drugs. Each one of these drugs was studied, and the results of the studies were published in mainstream journals. This fact alone indicates massive fraud in the clinical trials of the drugs. Then consider that for all 297 officially certified mental disorders, there exist absolutely no physical diagnostic tests. No blood tests, no saliva tests, no urine tests, no genetic tests, no brain scans. The very definitions of these so-called disorders are adjudicated by sitting committees of psychiatrists, who consult menus of behaviors. Then consider that the major infectious diseases in the West were already on the decline before vaccines or antibiotics had been introduced, and yet vaccines were hailed as the overriding reason for that decline. These are just several general categories of fraud, misinformation, disinformation. So the question becomes: who exactly is going to program those wonderful little nanobots before they enter the human bloodstream in the near-future, and what medical information are they going to have access to? And what kind of moron would assume that, just because artificial intelligence will have the ability to process enormous amounts of data about the body, it will process the right and correct and truthful data? By extension, when it comes to AI solving political or economic or social problems on a massive scale, why should we assume the information AI is deploying will be correct and right and true, and why should we assume that these problems are stated and formulated, in the first place, according to underlying ethical values that we agree to or share? Just because a computer can be built that works faster than the brain, and on more platforms, why on earth should we then infer that it is operating from a storehouse of information that is relevant or useful? And as far as human brains “merging with machines,” why don’t we leave that mishmash idea to the Borg and the Star Trek crew? The famous Watson test proved that a computer could handle Jeopardy questions on television better than two humans dedicated to trivia. Deep Blue beat the world’s best chess player. A computer can analyze the poetry of an author and then generate its own poems in that style. Rather poorly. Do these feats imply something so significant that we want to put our future in the cores of computers? For that matter, if there is some holy-grail source code for the brain, why should we believe possessing it and using it, or even improving it, would qualitatively improve the solutions to our biggest problems as a species? There are simple and basic laws of logic involved here. You can compute from now until the end of time, but your deductions are always going to proceed from premises, and those premises are going to predetermine direction and ethical values that color the end results. Computers don’t do Right and Wrong in any absolute sense. Never have, never will. Even more important is the system or mechanism for allowing AI to dominate our decisions. Who is in charge? Who rules? Which humans hold the off-on switches on the machines? Who programs the machines’ premises? Who can, if necessary, use force to make the global population comply with what AI decides? And what are these humans’ motives? None of such matters are mitigated by “more intelligent machines.” The technocrats are actually playing a shell game with us. They’re showing us a vast array of quantitative and qualitative improvements in what computers can do, and they’re substituting that for wisdom. They’re redefining wisdom. They’re omitting the whole argument and debate about what kind of society we want to live in. They’re hucksters and hustlers and con men. When faced, for example, with the problem of how to feed the world, computers would already be biased in favor of certain outcomes, and they would also be biased toward the basic notion of universal distribution of resources. Who made that choice? The humans deploying the machines from behind the scenes. Is feeding the world an issue that should be solved top-down? Computers don’t answer that question. Humans do. And humans—specifically the ones in charge—make spectacularly wrong choices, according to the wishes and judgments of many people—many people who already know that placing a decision of that magnitude in the hands of a few oligarchs is a recipe for disaster. Who will decide how to program the basic assumptions of super-brain computers on the issue of climate change? With what “science” will these computers be initially infected? Who decides what the valid and the invalid science is? Any beginning student in a logic course quickly learns to distinguish between ethical values and data. Neither computers nor brains determine values based on information alone, no matter how quickly they think, no matter how much data they can access. A person or a machine with an IQ of 7000 can’t be trusted to install values for others. That’s why we have this troublesome thing called freedom. That’s why we have a fundamental principle that you are free to do anything you want to, as long as you don’t interfere with another person’s freedom. Any system that countermands this basic principle, simply because “it can think better,” is a tyrant, whether it is composed of flesh or metal or some synthetic. NBC news recently did a glowing feature on advanced cell phones that, in the hands of doctors, can carry out a huge array of medical tests on patients. The doctor was enthusiastic. The patient was enthusiastic. The reporter was enthusiastic. It was a virtual love fest. No one bothered to ask about the meaning, utility, or dangers of the tests themselves. That issue was swept off the table. Who cares? It’s technology. It has to be good. If the patient’s test results indicate he should be treated with a highly toxic drug, so what? That’s a minor blip on the screen. We should all celebrate the technological breakthrough. Pour the champagne. Forget about the patient. Some day, up the road, a human will be sleeping in his bed at night. The tiny bots circulating in his body will suddenly decide he needs a drug. They will either release the substance without his knowledge, or a robot sitting next to the bed will lean over and give him a quick shot. Done. What? He ended up in the hospital next afternoon? Well, whatever the reason, it couldn’t possibly have anything to do with the little bots or their programming or their method for accessing the vast clouds of data in virtual space. No, those functions are all brilliant and boggling and wondrous. It must have been something else. A person walking down the street will be picked up by a hundred cameras and other surveillance devices. It will be adjudicated, in a matter of a few seconds, that he’s missed his latest series of a dozen vaccine boosters. At the next corner, a mini-drone, barely visible to the naked eye, will descend on him and give him a quick jab. Or his next meal will magically contain food engineered specifically to deliver the mandated vaccines. Greatest good for the greatest number. Already decided and programmed. Is it better to have separate nations with their own armies, or should we have one giant planetary force? Let the AI decide. How? On what basis? There are always value judgments that underlie these questions, and computers don’t suddenly create values unless they’re told to do so. Only in comic books or pulp science fiction novels do advanced races with very high foreheads come down and demonstrate wisdom based on IQ. There is no evidence that, if you took a general like Julius Caesar and somehow shoved his IQ up off the charts, he would suddenly change his value judgments. Henry Kissinger hasn’t. If you built a machine that could access every single datum acquired in 100,000 years of human history and store them all on the head of a pin; and if that machine could rearrange all these data in a trillion different patterns in a few minutes; and if that machine could then generate decisions that answer any question put to it, what would you really have? You would have, at best, sheer opinion on the most important matters facing the human race. Technocracy is selling a myth of intelligence, a fairy tale. In this fairy tale, the smartest brains (coincidentally resembling those of the technocrats) would cross a threshold, beyond which intelligence would become something else, something very different: machines that have “higher access” to “the best moral values.” Perhaps the most avid and famous proponent of a technocratic future is Ray Kurzweil, acclaimed inventor, author, businessman. He describes the event he calls the Singularity: “Within a quarter century, nonbiological intelligence will match the range and subtlety of human intelligence. It will then soar past it because of the continuing acceleration of information-based technologies, as well as the ability of machines to instantly share their knowledge. Intelligent nanorobots will be deeply integrated…” Among the effects of this unprecedented development? “…the exponential rate of technical progress will create within 40 years an Internet that is a trillion times faster than today’s, a global media, a global education system, a global language, and a globally homogenized culture, thus establishing the prerequisites for the creation of a global democratic state, “Globa,” and ridding the world of war, the arms trade, ignorance, and poverty…Billions of people will be influenced by the ‘best’ ideas that the planet has to offer. People’s minds will be influenced powerfully, so that today’s nationalist mentalities will be gradually transformed into tomorrow’s globist mentalities…” And just what are these “best ideas” that billions of people will voluntarily accept? The ideas expressed in, say, Plato’s Republic? Or instantaneous 3-D holographic “you are there” porn? Small decentralized organic farms or some Monsanto plan to disseminate GMOs from the sky all over the planet? A three- branched government with rigorous checks and balances, or taking the points on the Jets vs. the Rams? A healthy clean diet or a hundred vaccines by the age of three? And the “global democratic state?” I’d like to see how the elections of a president and legislators work for the whole of Earth (including the recount after a charge of fraud is leveled by one citizen in southern Argentina). If presidential debates in the US, targeting the lowest possible common denominators among the voting public, are filled with vapid generalities, I can only imagine the global debates: a few smiles, a few grunts, a few assurances that “we’re all in this together.” One language for all the world? Sure, why not? Let’s wipe out the memory of what a few thousand years of hundreds of languages have produced. And don’t worry. All over the planet, “the people,” newly brilliant, will rise up and overthrow their dictators, just as they did during the vaunted Arab Spring, where the crucial presence of cell phones and Facebook was touted as the lever that forced democratic breakthroughs. You remember that Spring: a promoted hoax designed to hide yet one more elite power play. Greater insight into ethical values based purely on speed and range of information processing is really a quasi-religion. It uses the notion of IQ as the Prophet. It promises that, as the people have access to more and more data, they will naturally and inevitably choose the right values and the right data, because that’s what IQ does, once it passes through a certain upward level. You can forget about elite power players exerting control over the population of Earth from above because, as in the Marxist formulation, these Rockefellers and Warburgs of the past will simply wither away, no longer needed. I’m happy to learn that. I can relax now. We can all relax. The great day is coming. It will be brought to us by a multi-platformed brain, using its neuronal substrate to reach out and connect with nonbiological libraries of truth. What were we worried about? I’m sitting here talking to you and you’re talking to me, and you’re in Bombay and I’m in San Diego, and we’re seeing each other in high-res 3-D holographic brilliance, as if we’re in the same room. And as we talk and access skies full of clouds of relevant data in mere instants, we’re both coming to accept the best ideas and the best values and the best language and the best government, and we’re kicking the ass of the old world and rushing into the New, and life will be different forever, and I know it and you know it, so what else do we need? My molecularly enhanced IQ is 7000 and so is yours, so we’re on the same precise page. That’s all the human race was waiting for all this time. http://www.infowars.com/