Friends, if you are not aware of the information contained in this email, I do hate to be the one who introduces it to you. However this information needs to enter into our awareness in one way or another. First denial, then education, then outrage, then action.
Do you still believe those long trails of clouds going across our skies are natural? They are not! Have you noticed lately that a day can start off with a nice blue, clear sky, then after dozens of planes leave the trails across the sky, in a matter of hours the entire day is gloomy and cloudy? This happens all over this country and is happening in other countries across the world as well. These are chemtrail (chemical trails). When a normal plane goes across the sky, leaving a small trail that disappears rapidly, this is called a condensation trail (contrail). This is normal. When a plane, flying at very high altitudes, leaves a long trail across the entire sky and it does not dissipate, this is a chemtrail. There is a chemical spraying program going on across the world and people in many countries are becoming aware, alarmed and outraged about this issue.
The media and the government is of course not talking about any of this, nor will admit to any of this. However, people all over the world are getting sick (literally) and very angry. Independent researchers are finding out that these chemtrails contain substances the likes of which are horrifying and hard to actually believe. Independent researchers have the substances to contain aluminum and barium oxide, synthetic fibers, viruses and the list goes on.
From an archetypal and psychological perspective, it is really very simple. We the "children" are innocent and asleep. And the power hungry "abusive father" is raping his children and destroying the home (planet)moment by moment. We the "sleeping children of innocence" just want to sing, dance, be abundant, study tantra, make money, travel the world, be peaceful, swim with dolphins, and we think that God will take care of everything for us and the bad guys will just naturally disappear if we resonate with enough love.
Or we may even be under the extremely ignorant delusion that "evil" does not really exist! This kind of magical thinking only arises from within those who are not educated about the ancient and modern history on this planet. Evil does exist, it is real, and the sleeping children must wake up. First denial, then education, then outrage, then action. This is how the story goes. Where are you in this story?
For those of you who are coming out of the denial stages, please follow the links below and do your own research. For those of you still in the denial stages, then please do not follow these links. For those of you who do not know what "chemtrails" are....then start looking up into the sky. Many days will display a clear blue sky, then you will see the planes leaving trails across the sky and in hours you will have a gloomy, cloudy day, without even one "real cloud" in the sky.
Mark my words, rather than thinking I am a fanatic, "outrage is the next evolutionary stage"....then "action." Hear these words...The "sleeping abused children" must wake up out of their denial and finally face and say no to the "abusive father" (corrupt government and military industrial complex who is turning the earth and sky into a toxic dumpsite and a weapon of war and control).
I will state plainly, that I for one, do not know exactly what to do, or what can be done, or how to take action. But what I do know is this...that the children just want to play and sing while pretending that the "abusive father" does not exist. This is very basic family psycho-dynamics, and it is happening on a global level exactly like it happens in a single family.
Those with ears and hearts who can hear....it is time. First denial, then education, then outrage, then action. Our weapons are our actions. Our power is our sobriety and the avenues of activism we engage in and/or support. Swim with dolphins, play, dance, sing, and choose your avenues of activsm...it is time. Do not wait for some higher power to take care of things, the higher power is waiting for us to take action...it is time for all sleeping children to awaken.
Backfire: the movement’s mistakes have failed nonhuman animals
A recent poll has shown that the public is much more supportive of the use of nonhuman animals now than it used to be in the past (the survey was carried out by YouGov for the Daily Telegraph). Around 70% of those questioned claimed that testing new medical treatments on nonhumans before they were tested on humans is acceptable. This shows a shift on the view that the public used to have on this issue, since past polls had shown much closer to 50-50 results on the issue.
In light of these results, Colin Blakemore, chief executive of the Medical Research Council, has claimed that this was clearly showing what he called “a radical shift” in the British public opinion, and that, accordingly, “the tide has turned". The media have reported this with headings such as “Animal activist campaign backfires”, “Animal rights: backlash”, “Are animal rights activists terrorists?” and other similar ones.
What we are witnessing now, for the first time since the movement started in the sixties and seventies, is that the movement isn't advancing but going backwards.
This is the most worrying news that the movement could have received. But the saddest part of the story is that this poll’s results are not due to the movement being vigorously attacked from outside. Rather, the upsetting true is that it is due to ourselves, to animal rights activists, that we have ended up reaching a situation such as this. It is because of the strategies and campaigns that the animal rights movement has followed that we have got to this ruinous point.
How can this be so? We can point at two important reasons for it:
1) The animal rights movement has been trying to further its case by means that society strongly rejects.
2) The animal rights movement has not taken efforts in trying to explain to the public the arguments that ground its position.
The reason has not been, then, that animal right activists have not been properly devoted to their cause. Animal rights campaigners have worked hard and full heartedly, giving the best of themselves to the cause. In order to succeed we must nevertheless analyse the results of our actions.
Why violent actions have put the public against the movement
The poll results have been also conclusive in another point. 77% of the interviewed defended that it is correct to term animal right activists ‘terrorists’, and only 15% said it was not. This is not strange, according to the kind of activities that have been carried out in the name of the movement.
Most of the public condemn the use of violence, even when it’s carried out in support of causes that they will otherwise support. And, by violence, the public do not only understand the infliction of physical harm to individuals, but also things such as threatening attitudes or destruction of property. Maybe we can question such a view, perhaps we can certainly engage on philosophical discussions about what is or is not violence, but that isn’t the question at all. The problem is that, regardless of whether we consider that such attitudes are violent or not, the public do consider them violent, and do oppose it. It’s not that they have a certain dislike for them: rather they very firmly oppose them and consider them absolutely unacceptable. The poll has also shown this. Most of the people (93%) defended the right to hold peaceful demonstrations, but also the overwhelming majority opposed damaging property (95%) and harassing those who work in labs by calling them abusers (81%).
So we can understand how is it that by carrying out activities that are considered violent we are generating a profound opposition against the movement among the public. The numbers are clear as they could be: the majority see animal rights activists as terrorists. This is an extremely serious problem, since in today's climate being considered a terrorist is one of the worst things one can be if one would wish to have the slightest influence on society.
It could be claimed that this is due to a campaign aimed at criminalising animal rights activism. We can maybe try to blame “the media” or some other forces that support the use of animals for having spread such a view of animal rights activists. But it’s quite obvious that it hasn’t been difficult for them to do so. The kind of activism that has been carried out (involving threats, aggressions, destruction of facilities and the lot) is the kind of activism that many among the public would label as vandalism to say the least and terrorism if continued in an organised manner. So no wonder the media has depicted this kind of activism with such terms.
There has been no explanation to the public of the arguments against speciesism
Britain along with Sweden and maybe some other country, is possibly the place where activism for nonhumans is more developed. In spite of that, most of the public ignore the very reasons why we should reject discrimination against those who are not member of the human species. The very word speciesism is unknown to most of the public. This is startling, to say the least. How can it be that a movement that is so well known in the UK has not been able to explain its case?
Animal rights propaganda very seldom includes any explanation of why all those who are able to feel suffering and joy should have their interest equally considered. No reason is given as to why discrimination against someone based on mere group membership is wrong. The result of this is that the public don’t know these arguments. They often think that we defend nonhumans because we find them cute or because we are sentimental. So whenever animal rights claims mean that any human interest is set back (as it happens with the interest in wearing certain kind of clothes, tasting certain “foods”, and the like) this is seen as outlandish. It wouldn’t be so if they understood the basis for equality among all sentient beings.
Why we should focus on convincing the public
Sometimes public opinion is dismissed by some activists. The argument for doing so is that we should focus on winning a ‘war’ against ‘animal abusers’. This entails a deep confusion. Such assumption is based on the idea that there’s a small group of people (those who breed, experiment on or kill nonhumans themselves) who are abusing them because the rest of the society let them do so. And this is the most mistaken view of the problem that could be imagined. The actual truth is completely different from this.
Those who directly, physically harm the animals (those who work or own a farm, slaughterhouse, circus or animal experimentation lab) do so simple because the public demands that this is done. People eat the flesh of nonhuman animals, wear their skins, like watching shows in which they perform, and so on. The wants of the public means that some people are required to exploit nonhumans so that these wants can be met. If all the companies that use nonhuman animals were closed down by activists then new ones would be set up because the public want them to exist. Moreover, when we write “the public” we can read the overwhelming majority of humanity. So it’s most of humanity that, whether directly or indirectly, is to blame for the use of nonhumans. Those who buy meat or leather are those responsible for the exploitation of nonhuman animals. If no one bought these products then no animals would be killed for such purposes. So what trying to run a ‘war’ against ‘animal abusers’ would really imply is nothing short than running a war against the overwhelming majority of humanity. Such a war is obviously impossible to win. If we want to help nonhuman animals we need to convince people not to use them. Most of those who use nonhumans have never really reflected on whether they have a justification to discriminate against nonhumans. –one example of this can be found in the case of philosopher Tom Regan, a man well known for defending the recognition of rights for nonhumans, who previously and unquestioningly ate meat, went fishing and worked as a butcher–.
According to this, we can easily infer what goes on in the specific case of so-called “animal experimentation” (i.e., experimentation on nonhuman animals but not on human animals). Those who perform experiments on nonhumans do so because we live in a society in which there is a demand for such experimentation. The paradigm in current biomedicine research is based on such experiments and there are laws requiring it. The underlying idea is, as it has been said before by those who oppose speciesism, that we live in a society that discriminates against nonhumans simply because they aren’t members of the same species we are. This is why the claim that those who perform experiments on nonhuman animals are evil, sadistic people can’t be taken seriously by the public. The reason is simple: it’s not just a simplistic vision, it’s plain wrong. Those who perform ‘animal experimentation’ don’t do so because they are ‘sadistic animal abusers’: they do it because the public want them to do it. So if we want to bring an end to experiments of this sort we need, therefore, to convince people to oppose them. Unfortunately, there’s no other way. There are no shortcuts. The survey results have been crystal clear: violent tactics not only don’t further the cause: they make it much more difficult to defend. An example of all this can be found in another news item that has appeared in the media recently:
Blair’s support of experimentation on nonhumans
In a move without precedence, British Prime Minister Tony Blair has signed a manifesto in favour of animal experimentation. Nothing of the like had taken place before. It could be said that this means that a public representative, who is meant to stand on behalf of all the citizens of his nation, instead of being impartial gives his support to a particular position (the one defending animal experimentation). We must in any case reflect on what this is showing to us. Mr. Blair wouldn’t have given his support to animal experimentation if he wasn’t confident that this was a political stance worth taking. If animal experimentation was publicly questioned in a significant way, or if those who denounce it had the sympathies of the public, Blair would never have supported it. If he has done so, it’s because he has considered that the political costs that he would get from it are certainly less that the advantages he would get (especially in a situation such as the present one, in which his popularity has dropped to the minimum). As the poll we already commented on shows, this is the case, whether we like it or not. Certainly many of us will strongly reject a position such as Blair’s. But many among the public will not. The sad thing with this is that it could have been otherwise if they hadn’t been driven to see those opposing animal experiments as violent fanatics and instead they had been informed about the arguments opposing speciesism.
An antispeciesist, vegan movement is needed
The defence of nonhumans could have been carried out in a very different way. There are two areas in which there is a lot still to be done. One has been already commented upon: the arguments against speciesism should be communicated to the public, it’s necessary to create a public debate about them. The other has to do with what the public can more directly do against the use of nonhumans: veganism. Although the way in which people can more directly oppose the use of nonhumans is by stopping taking part in it, campaigns aimed at changing public minds regarding this have been substituted by those trying to introduce new ‘animal welfare’ laws or closing down certain companies. These do not mean a reduction in the number of nonhumans that are being used, but only some small changes concerning how they are treated or where they are exploited –if a lab is closed down, then the experiments that it performed will be done elsewhere–.
Veganism should occupy a central place in our agenda. And veganism can be promoted by many means which don’t imply putting the public against us.
This should affect in particular the practice that, by far kills more animals, which is, without any doubt, fishing. Not so-called “sport fishing”, or angling, but commercial fishing. The number of nonhumans that are used for ‘animal experimentation’ is certainly huge, but it’s rendered little if compared with the number of animals that are killed in slaughterhouses. But even the number of animals who die in slaughterhouses is also rendered little if compared with the number of those who die because they are fished for being eaten –we must remember that the number of, say, sardines or cods that are needed for getting the same amount of flesh to be eaten that can be obtained by killing, say, a cow, is certainly significant–. In contrast with this, very little has been done to convince the public to give up fish-eating, especially if compared with the efforts that have been spent to oppose other areas of animal slavery, such as, for instance, animal experimentation. All this, in spite of the clear figures brought by a comparison of the number of the animals that die due to both practices.
As we have commented, the movement is now in a very worrying situation not because we have been unlucky or because we have been strongly countered, but rather because of the kind of actions we’ve been doing ourselves. According to this, the good news is that we can change this situation by making a shift on the kind of activism that is carried out. An antispeciesist and strongly pro-veganism movement is necessary. We can make a change. And we need to do it. To be more exact: nonhuman animals need that we do it.
CM Punk is one of the hottest names in wrestling that isn't on WWE or TNA television. A majority of Ring of Honor fans feel the man can simply do no wrong. WWE on the other hand doesn't quite see him in that light. Regardless of what they think, Punk could be the man to save the company. This column will take a look at how to debut him in a way that will make the fans care and give WWE a new face it has desperately needed for some time.
Without changing his true to life gimmick of being straight edge, WWE could debut him in a way that will get the fans talking. It could be announced that Stone Cold Steve Austin, known to dabble in the art of beer-drinking, is returning to television. When he shows up, he can do a basic Stone Cold promo about raising hell and throwing back some beers. The next week, Austin can again come to the ring, and as he's ready to crack open a few Steveweisers, the debuting CM Punk could hit the ring and throttle him. Punk laying out a legend like Austin would open up the eyes of the fans.
Punk could lay into Austin about his disgusting habits, and how Punk is straight edge, and better than you. A hot feud would ensue, with Punk obviously getting the upper hand throughout. Austin would have to keep his ego out of the way and let Punk establish himself as a rising star and the future of the business. It wouldn't be like a debuting Gene Snitsky taking it to Kane. You would have a future main eventer in Punk, a stud in the ring, and arguably one of the better talkers out there.
Punk could target another superstar who goes against his straight edge ways. Edge and Lita have forced the crowd into watching them undress and have live sex in the middle of the ring, and Punk could take offense to that. No promiscuous sex is one of the rules of being straightedge, so Edge could either boast about it, and take offense to the "straighEdge" gimmick being a ripoff of his own name. This could be a longer feud than that of Austin/Punk simply because Edge is a regular performer. The promos during this time would be off the charts, with both men's talents being completely displayed. Punk and Edge have similar cocky charismatic traits, so they would certainly play off each other well.
With rumors of stars like Vince McMahon, Shawn Michaels, and Triple H being not so high on Punk, he could target one or all of them upon his debut. He could rip into McMahon himself, which clearly would show him off as being a star who people should take notice of. The matches that HBK and Triple H could have with Punk would be outstanding.
Punk could tell it how it is, saying they're scared he's going to take their spots, and that they should be. The possibilities are endless for how Punk could debut in a meaningful. Let's hope WWE finds the perfect way to do it.
telling myself the truth.
And honesty is telling
the truth to other
Many years ago, when I
was in high school
chemistry lab, I was
assigned to do a litmus
test to determin...
New Petition! Speak out
Merger with Comcast! Let
your opinion be know
before your bill goes up
and your programming
Urge DOJ and FCC to Not
Allow Merger of
Time-Warner and Comcast
New Petition! Speak out
Merger with Comcast! Let
your opinion be know
before your bill goes up
and your programming
Urge DOJ and FCC to Not
Allow Merger of
Time-Warner and Comcast
I have recently posted
some BlogSpot radio
interviews and YouTube
videos, publicizing my
two new books,
1) Deepening Your
Intimacy and Good
2) Psychological Healing
Coretta Scott King:
“We have done what
we can to reveal the
truth, and we now urge
you as members of the
media, and we call upon
elected officials, and
other persons of
influence to do what they
can to share the
revelation of this case
to the w...
author: Ralph Nader
An epidemic of
costs has afflicted our
country and grown to
Medical bills are bloated
with waste, redundancy,
profiteering, fraud and
Much is wrong with the
My two current books have
been published and are
available for sale
through Amazon, Barnes
and Noble, and the
Hammer. Reading these
books can be very helpful
for anyone seeking ...
A stainless steel tank
the size of a basketball
court lies buried in the
sandy soil of
state, an aging remnant
of U.S. efforts to win
World War II. The tank
holds enough radioactive
waste to fill an
The Olympic Peninsula is
d forests and many of our
iconic creatures. To keep
healthy, WEC and our
st and Olympic Forest