Anarchism and Radical Decentralization Are the Same Thing, by Ryan McMaken
McMaken has written a post that must be read more than once to be properly appreciated. While I find one or two sticking points (which may be more definitional than anything), he paints a wonderful portrait of the intersection of anarchy, decentralization, governance, and culture.
Let me get the sticking points out of the way. One nit I will pick, which I believe McMaken does not clarify: given today’s technology, a “territorial unit” could be as small as a household (I won’t go smaller).
The closer we reach a libertarian society the more possibilities for further decentralization will be developed (which is why I favor every attempt at decentralization). We just don’t know because we cannot know – we aren’t central planners, after all.
With that out of the way…it is easy to label the post as being a swipe at the possibility of anarchy as a political model; this seems to me a short-sighted read. Instead, McMaken offers nuanced considerations – nuance that is necessary if one is to consider how anarchy might be achieved and maintained in a world populated by humans.
McMaken offers several examples from the European Middle Ages; regular readers know my view on this period and time – not anarchy, but quite decentralized. There was a strong common culture, both across principalities and from king to serf. There was plenty of governance – driven by sacred oath.
I was initially going to comment on several sections of the post. I have decided against this. It is worth a read on its own. If you believe he has turned into some sort of statist, you might want to read it a second time.
When you do, consider voluntary associations and what these entail. Consider homeowner’s associations, private insurance and security services. Consider anarchy in a world populated by humans. How might this be achieved? How might it be maintained?
Reprinted with permission from Bionic Mosquito.
As well as being used an abbreviation of post, pulse, page, pence and (in some countries at least) peso, the letter P is also the chemical symbol for phosphorus, a symbol representingpressure, poise, power and momentum in different branches of science, a particular branch of the Celtic languages in a linguistics, an indication to play softly in a piece of classical music, a function in statistical mathematics, and a designation of the clarity of a video or television screen (in which case—as in the p of 1080p—it stands for “progressive scan”). Despite all of these uses, however, P is on average one of the least-used letters of the alphabet, accounting for roughly two percent of any page of English text. So why not push P’s profile, by partaking in a few of these perfectly passable P words?
Pabulum is a Latin word meaning “fodder” or “nourishment,” which can be used in English to refer to any foodstuff that supports or nourishes. Derived from the same root, pabulation is the proper name for the process of feeding yourself, and if something is pabular or pabulous, then it’s nourishing or wholesome.
The act of soothing or calming something, derived from the Latin word for “peace,” pax.
If you’re pantomnesic, then you seem to remember everything.
A 16th-century word for belching or vomiting.
Victorian journalists’ slang for throwaway, filler material.
Derived from paucus, a Latin word meaning “few”; if you’re pauciloquent, then you use very few words. Similarly, if you’re paucidentate then you don’t have many teeth.
To pedipulate something is to move or knead it with your feet.
The admission that the economy is so weak that it needs more QE is going to destroy the narrative that the U.S. economy is in great shape and it’s no longer going to be the safe haven for capital around the world…it’s going to prick the bubble in the dollar…and people are going to realize that we’ve never recovered from anything, the economy is sicker than ever, the Fed’s going to make it even sicker with more of its toxic monetary policy, the dollar’s going to tank and the price of gold is going to skyrocket – and people need to prepare for that now.
– Peter Schiff on the Shadow of Truth
When Mt. Vesuvius blew, no one knew when it would happen or how big the eruption would be. Everyone knew a volcanic event was going to occur and yet, the magnitude of the event caught a lot of people by surprise. The eruption destroyed two Roman cities and several surrounding settlements. It killed an estimated 16,000 people. The question is, how come more people didn’t leave the area surrounding Vesuvius when they knew that
It is strange what moves people to action, if signing a petition counts as action—which, given the sedentary nature of so much of the population, I suppose it might do. According to a newspaper article I have just read, 140,000 people in Britain signed a petition to have a man with the improbable name of Tyson Fury removed from the list of candidates for the BBC’s completely vacuous and unimportant title of Sports Personality of the Year.
Fury is a boxer who is 6 feet 9 inches tall and comes from a family of Irish Travellers (once known as tinkers), though he was born in England. His father was a bare-knuckle fighter who named his son after the boxer and all-around role model Mike Tyson, who distinguished himself by (inter alia) running through his $300 million earnings, being convicted of rape, and biting off part of an opponent’s ear in the ring. Fury is now heavyweight boxing champion of the world.
Again according to the article, “Fury provoked outrage when he equated homosexuality and abortion to paedophilia and saying a woman’s ‘best place is on her back.’” The article does not say who exactly was outraged by these remarks—who was furious at Fury, as it were—but I have noticed that in British newspapers such phenomena as anger, fury, and outrage seem often to subsist independently of anyone who feels them, and so are a kind of meteorological phenomenon, or resemble the pain described by Mrs. Gradgrind in Dickens’ Hard Times:
“I think there’s a pain somewhere in the room,” said Mrs. Gradgrind, “but I couldn’t positively say that I have got it.”
That guardian of public morals, the British Boxing Board of Control, called upon Mr. Fury to explain himself. The BBBoC later expressed itself satisfied that he, Fury, “expressed regret that he caused offence to others, which was never his intention.”
Originally published by AmmoLand.com.
Detroit, Michigan – It’s become a cliché to say that Chicago is a dangerous town.
Despite its strict gun controls, Chicago has often ranked as one of the most violent cities in the U.S., and one such violent incident made a very big impression on neighbors Adam Kennedy and Andy McIntosh.
When a young man they knew was shot to death on their block in 2014, they began to ponder ways to keep themselves and their families safe, and still keep a gun in their home, yet avoid anyone having to die in the process.
We “gun guys” and gals know the classic dilemma when children are in the home; a child will ultimately get into just about everything, yet an unloaded and/or locked up firearm will be useless if an intruder breaks into your home in the middle of the night. There are stopgap measures, such as rapid access safes, yet as I’ve written previously, a good many of them are useless in keeping kids out, and add a delay – a barrier – between you and your gun. oleoresin capsicum, naturally derived from ghost peppers and familiar to anyone who uses traditional pepper spray. Lastly, there’s even a bit of picatinny rail for mounting lights or lasers on the pistol.
ANTI, PRO OR NEITHER?
As I look over their website, it seems obvious that the two men have a genuine passion about personal protection while placing a premium on keeping everyone safe, including innocent children and family members, and yes, even the hapless bad guy who might barge in uninvited. In their FAQ section is the question: “Are you trying to take away the right to bear arms in this country”, to which they answer,
“No, we are not. The mission of SALT is to keep the people you love safe. If a traditional firearm is the best safety device for you and your family, then we support you. But we also want to support the 2/3rds of American households who do not feel like a traditional firearm is the right choice for them. So SALT was created to provide a new type of safety for those 76 million households left unprotected today.”
My only trepidation is a reference to an anti-gun study by Dr. Arthur Kellermann in their FAQ section under the question, “How dangerous is a traditional firearm anyway?”
I cannot decide if this is included in order to extoll the virtues of their safer gun (a.k.a. a marketing gimmick), or if this is something that they still believe, as I once did before checking into it. (I have written to them about this. I’ll post an update should a reply be forthcoming.) Yet overall, their stated support of those who choose traditional firearms and rejection of the whole “smart gun” idea, as well as referring to their creation as a “gun”, rather than some pithy metaphor to appease the hoplophobic reader leads me to think that what you see is what you get. Also good news: the SALT Pistol does not trip any “trigger laws” that will bar the sale of traditional firearms, which might account for the lack of any reaction on the part of the NRA and other gun rights groups.
So if you’re a parent, or have an unstable family member in your immediate household that makes having a readily accessible firearm difficult, perhaps the SALT Pistol could be a good option for you.
Reprinted with permission from AmmoLand.com.
The insidious nature of the war on cash derives not just from the hurdles governments place in the way of those who use cash, but also from the aura of suspicion that has begun to pervade private cash transactions. In a normal market economy, businesses would welcome taking cash. After all, what business would willingly turn down customers? But in the war on cash that has developed in the thirty years since money laundering was declared a federal crime, businesses have had to walk a fine line between serving customers and serving the government. And since only one of those two parties has the power to shut down a business and throw business owners and employees into prison, guess whose wishes the business owner is going to follow more often?
The assumption on the part of government today is that possession of large amounts of cash is indicative of involvement in illegal activity. If you’re traveling with thousands of dollars in cash and get pulled over by the police, don’t be surprised when your money gets seized as “suspicious.” And if you want your money back, prepare to get into a long, drawn-out court case requiring you to prove that you came by that money legitimately, just because the courts have decided that carrying or using large amounts of cash is reasonable suspicion that you are engaging in illegal activity. Because of that risk of confiscation, businesses want to have less and less to do with cash, as even their legitimately-earned cash is subject to seizure by the government.
Restrictions on the use of cash are just some of the many laws that pervert the actions of a market economy. Rather than serving consumers, businesses are forced to serve the government first and consumers last. Businesses act as unpaid tax agents, collecting sales taxes for state governments and paying excise taxes to the federal government, the costs of which they pass on to their customers. Businesses act as enforcers of vice laws, refusing tobacco sales to those under eighteen or alcohol to those under twenty-one. Financial institutions, which includes coin dealers, jewelers, and casinos, are required to report cash transactions above $10,000 as well as any activity the government might deem “suspicious.” Cash becomes such a hassle that it is almost radioactive, and many businesses would rather not deal with the burden. Using cash to buy a house is becoming impossible and it is probably only a matter of time before purchasing a car with cash will become incredibly difficult also.
Centuries-old legal protections have been turned on their head in the war on cash. Guilt is assumed, while the victims of the government’s depredations have to prove their innocence. Governments having far more time and money to devote to asset forfeiture cases than the citizenry, most victims of cash seizures decide to capitulate rather than attempt a Pyrrhic victory. Those fortunate enough to keep their cash away from the prying hands of government officials find it increasingly difficult to use for both business and personal purposes, as wads of cash always arouse suspicion of drug dealing or other black market activity. And so cash continues to be marginalized and pushed to the fringes. Stemming the anti-cash tide will require a societal attitudinal adjustment that views cash not as something associated with crime, but as a bastion of consumer freedom and a bulwark against overzealous governments.
Note: The views expressed on Mises.org are not necessarily those of the Mises Institute.
Having a little time on my hands lately, I had generously offered my Valuable Mogambo Time (VMT) to provide a little free economic education to neighbors and the media. Alas, as it turned out, my sweet disposition again mislead me to mistake their natural stupidity for mere ignorance and sloth.
In making the glorious announcement, I even took the time to happily go house to house, banging on doors and loudly proclaiming the glad tidings that “I’m back, you morons! Now, get out here! I want to tell you, right to your stupid faces, how stupid you are! Hup! Hup! Let’s go!”
Naturally, as I always do, I expected that they would happily fling open their doors, excitedly begging me to enlighten them as to their various stupidities, such as electing treacherous monetary and fiscal morons who allowed, and encouraged, an always-expanding fiat-money supply via the evil Federal Reserve always creating the wildly excessive dollars and debt.
And, since we are speaking about it, and because I am so angry about it that I seize on any opportunity to wail like a wounded banshee, get this: Now the Federal Reserve is even literally committing the unforgivable, supreme sin of creating credit with which to buy government debt and private equity FOR ITSELF, thus increasing the money supply and removing whole chunks of debt and equity from the markets, so as to make prices of the remaining debt and equity rise under the onslaught of all the new cash pouring into the market!
You can probably see the absolute fear in my eyes, and the way I actually seem to be gagging up blood, that this type of monetary insanity has, in 2,500 years of history, failed Every Freaking Time (EFT) it has been tried, and with horrendous consequences.
It’s insane, I tells ya, with emphasis cleverly indicated by the conspicuous use of three exclamation points!!! Which I now follow with four exclamation points to validate the three exclamation points, upping the ante, so to speak, using an ill-conceived poker metaphor that goes absolutely nowhere, just to show you how crazy things are!!!!
The Big Freaking Problem (BFP) is, of course, that We’re Freaking Doomed (WFD), a dismal fact undoubtedly noticed by Junior Mogambo Rangers (JMRs) around the world and through the cosmos, whose keen eyes doubtlessly noted two acronyms of the Bad New Variety (BNV) — now three! — in the same sentence, with significance perhaps akin to a Jedi knight sensing, ominously, “a disturbance in The Force.”
But one person who DID come out in response to my generous offer of a free education in economics was the old lady down the street who had actually followed my good advice to invest in gold, but who has lost money the last couple of years as a result, because gold, like all other markets these days, is now a rigged market in the grasp of a dying and desperate government and their horrible, heinous henchmen, the evil Federal Reserve.
So there I am, standing in the street, trying to explain all this to her, and how it is not my fault, and how nothing is ever my fault, regardless of what my vengeful wife (“I’ll get you for this, you bastard!) and kids (“We’ll be her alibi!”) say.
Anyway, old lady Simpson is hitting me in the head with a broom and yelling that I “don’t know squat” about gold, investing, economics, or anything, and that I am the most horrible and hateful man she has ever known, like I don’t get enough of that at home, thanks.
Worse, the neighbors are all leaning out of their windows, lustily cheering her on (“Hit him in the groin!”).
But I soon mollified them with by saying “Stop acting like morons and stop hitting me with that damned broom! Instead, I bring frabjous news, so take cheer! If you, and you, and you will accept economic solutions that are Completely Freaking Insane (CFI), then I am here to save you! And along those lines, I have devised a truly wondrous CFI plan! I call it Ultimate Keynesian Insanity Plan (UKIP), whereby all your economic problems can vanish in an instant!”
To wit: Consumers having inadequate income? Easy to fix! Do like Finland and Switzerland propose, which is to pay everybody a guaranteed minimum annual income! The evil Federal Reserve merely creates the cash and credit, and bingo! Thousands of dollars of new, gloriously spendable cash for everyone, every month! Problem solved!
And are you worried about the problems of incipient deflation in the market prices of stocks, bonds and houses, taking your retirement plan down with them? Easy, too! Just allow the Federal Reserve to create more cash and credit so it can buy up stocks, bonds and houses, literally removing them from the market, creating a shortage of equities and debt at the same time as trillions of new dollars pour into the markets looking for a home, every month! How clever!
Instantly, the stock markets, the bond markets, the housing markets and the whole consumerism-besotted, gimme-gimme-gimme economy would explode gloriously up, up, upward! Soaring to wondrously preposterous valuations under the deluge of all these new dollars! Dow 36,000 here we come! An economic miracle!
Insane? Yes. CFI-level insane? Oh, yes!
Oh, I can hear you saying “No, YOU’RE the one who is insane!” and I cleverly reply “No, YOU’RE insane!”, and then you dully riposte “No, you’re insane!” whereupon I again brilliantly disagree “No, YOU’RE insane!”, back and forth until our wives have to come out and make us come back into the house to “settle down” before the cops come.
So, being rudely distracted as I was, I never got to, firstly, educate anyone about the proven historical imperative to buy gold and silver at dangerous times like these. Look it up! For instance, it’s on practically every page of the classic book Economica Mogambo, along with plenty of friendly, helpful reminders about how stupid you are if you do NOT buy gold and silver.
Nor did I get to tell them the “good news” about how easily the government can, using a fiat currency and total command of the whole banking system, generate a rising stock market, debt market, housing market and boost consumer spending — an economic miracle of Biblical proportions! — anytime it wants to.
Anytime. It. Wants. To.
Of course, if the government tried such monetary stupidity on such a scale, prices of everything would go up, including the prices of food, shelter and energy. Then, for the resultant mobs of hungry, wet and/or cold people, it would be time for flaming torches and pitchforks, riots in the streets, starving hordes of angry peasants storming government buildings, revenge-of-the-sheep kind of thing.
So the lesson is NOT that flooding an economy with fiat currency will always generate economic activity, nor that it will end in total disaster, but that you should never underestimate how low a desperate, degenerate government can sink, especially when there is no way out, and this Ultimate Keynesian Insanity Plan (UKIP) stuff is the only thing they can still do.
And WILL do, when the political pressure is high enough (“Do something to save us, even if it is Completely Freaking Insane (CFI)!”)
Of course, the real lesson for you is to instantly (if not sooner!) convert fiat-money wealth into gold and silver, but without attracting any attention or showing any outward panic. Just act normal. Just an ordinary day, strolling along, maybe buying a little gold and, you know, picking up some milk on the way home kind of day.
But people don’t buy gold, and I can see you are getting pretty bored with it, too.
Oddly enough, this is good news for those who DO listen and heed this Excellent Mogambo Advice (EMA) to buy gold and silver bullion! Why? It temporarily keeps their prices down, sort of buckling under the onslaught of low demand. Hahaha!
Sorry about the bad joke, but to illustrate how low demand for gold (in dollars or ounces) can go, as a ratio to the monetary base it has never been lower in history! Ever! Or never! I mean ever! Wait! Never!
Either way, it’s good news because if everybody listened to Excellent Mogambo Advice (EMA), the prices of gold and silver would already be astronomical, and where’s the profit in that? And that’s the point of the whole investing thing, right?
So remember: The majority of investors being wrong makes it possible for the minority of investors to be right, over the long term. It’s an inviolable mathematical imperative.
And as regards gold and silver, the majority is wrong big-time. Big time. Big, BIG-time!
And when you put it all together, what can you say except “Whee! This investing stuff is easy!”?
By Dr. Mercola
Last year, a measles outbreak at Disneyland brought the vaccine safety and choice debate front and center in the media.
What should have been an intelligent discussion that weighed the potential risks versus the potential benefits of vaccination — and highlighted the very real need for more research into their safety — turned into an over-heated, often irrational argument.
Parents who dared to speak out in favor of vaccine choice were oftentimes attacked for their position, with some mandatory vaccination supporters going so far as to call for parents of unvaccinated children to be fined and imprisoned.
What we’re seeing is the result of heightened emotions based on fear. Fear of children getting sick and dying from either the complications of infectious disease or the complications of vaccination.
None of these fears are unfounded; each deserves due attention, including the attention of public health officials, who should be conducting the kind of scientific research that will yield answers to questions about vaccination that
At least 15 percent of young doctors recently polled admit that they’re starting to adopt a more individualized approach to vaccinations in direct response to the vaccine safety concerns of parents.
It is good news that there is a growing number of smart young doctors, who prefer to work as partners with parents in making personalized vaccine decisions for children, including delaying vaccinations or giving children fewer vaccines on the same day or continuing to provide medical care for those families, who decline use of one or more vaccines.
So take the time to locate a doctor, who treats you with compassion and respect, and is willing to work with you to do what is right for your child.
Sources and References
- National Vaccine Information Center January 10, 2016
- National Vaccine Information Center January 19, 2016
- 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 National Vaccine Information Center January 10, 2016
- 2 Scientific American May 19, 2015
In the following instances, officials in the government which carried out the attack (or seriously proposed an attack) admit to it, either orally, in writing, or through photographs or videos:
(1) Japanese troops set off a small explosion on a train track in 1931, and falsely blamed it on China in order to justify an invasion of Manchuria. This is known as the “Mukden Incident” or the “Manchurian Incident”. The Tokyo International Military Tribunal found: “Several of the participators in the plan, including Hashimoto [a high-ranking Japanese army officer], have on various occasions admitted their part in the plot and have stated that the object of the ‘Incident’ was to afford an excuse for the occupation of Manchuria by the Kwantung Army ….” And see this.
(2) A major with the Nazi SS admitted at the Nuremberg trials that – under orders from the chief of the Gestapo – he and some other Nazi operatives faked attacks on their own people and resources which they blamed on the Poles, to justify the invasion of Poland.
(3) Nazi general Franz Halder also testified at the Nuremberg trials that Nazi leader Hermann Goering admitted to setting fire to the German parliament building in 1933, and then falsely blaming the communists for the arson.
(4) Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev admitted in writing that the Soviet Union’s Red Army shelled the Russian village of Mainila in 1939 – while blaming the attack on Finland – as a basis for launching the “Winter War” against Finland. Russian president Boris Yeltsin agreed that Russia had been the aggressor in the Winter War.
(5) The Russian Parliament, current Russian president Putin and former Soviet leader Gorbachev all admit that Soviet leader Joseph Stalin ordered his secret police to execute 22,000 Polish army officers and civilians in 1940, and then falsely blamed it on the Nazis.
(6) The British government admits that – between 1946 and 1948 – it bombed 5 ships carrying Jews attempting to flee the Holocaust to seek safety in Palestine, set up a fake group called “Defenders of Arab Palestine”, and then had the psuedo-group falsely claim responsibility for the bombings (and see this,this and this).
(7) Israel admits that in 1954, an Israeli terrorist cell operating in Egypt planted bombs in several buildings, including U.S. diplomatic facilities, then left behind “evidence” implicating the Arabs as the culprits (one of the bombs detonated prematurely, allowing the Egyptians to identify the bombers, and several of the Israelis later confessed) (and see this and this).
(8) The CIA admits that it hired Iranians in the 1950′s to pose as Communists and stage bombings in Iran in order to turn the country against its democratically-elected prime minister.
(9) The Turkish Prime Minister admitted that the Turkish government carried out the 1955 bombing on a Turkish consulate in Greece – also damaging the nearby birthplace of the founder of modern Turkey – and blamed it on Greece, for the purpose of inciting and justifying anti-Greek violence.
(10) The British Prime Minister admitted to his defense secretary that he and American president Dwight Eisenhower approved a plan in 1957 to carry out attacks in Syria and blame it on the Syrian government as a way to effect regime change.
(11) The former Italian Prime Minister, an Italian judge, and the former head of Italian counterintelligence admit that NATO, with the help of the Pentagon and CIA, carried out terror bombings in Italy and other European countries in the 1950s and blamed the communists, in order to rally people’s support for their governments in Europe in their fight against communism. As one participant in this formerly-secret program stated: “You had to attack civilians, people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple. They were supposed to force these people, the Italian public, to turn to the state to ask for greater security” (and see this) (Italy and other European countries subject to the terror campaign had joined NATO before the bombings occurred). And watch this BBC special. They also allegedly carried out terror attacks in France, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Greece, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the UK, and other countries.
False flag attacks carried out pursuant to this program include – by way of example only:
- The murder of the Turkish Prime Minister (1960)
- Bombings in Portugal (1966)
- The Piazza Fontana massacre in Italy (1969)
- Terror attacks in Turkey (1971)
- The Peteano bombing in Italy (1972)
- The Atocha massacre in Madrid, Spain (1977)
(12) In 1960, American Senator George Smathers suggested that the U.S. launch “a false attack made on Guantanamo Bay which would give us the excuse of actually fomenting a fight which would then give us the excuse to go in and [overthrow Castro]“.
(13) Official State Department documents show that, in 1961, the head of the Joint Chiefs and other high-level officials discussed blowing up a consulate in the Dominican Republic in order to justify an invasion of that country. The plans were not carried out, but they were all discussed as serious proposals.
(14) As admitted by the U.S. government, recently declassified documents show that in 1962, the American Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on a plan to blow up AMERICAN airplanes (using an elaborate plan involving the switching of airplanes), and also to commit terrorist acts on American soil, and then to blame it on the Cubans in order to justify an invasion of Cuba. See the following ABC news report; the official documents; and watch this interview with the former Washington Investigative Producer for ABC’s World News Tonight with Peter Jennings.
(15) In 1963, the U.S. Department of Defense wrote a paper promoting attacks on nations within the Organization of American States – such as Trinidad-Tobago or Jamaica – and then falsely blaming them on Cuba.
This has not been a good week for Hillary Clinton. She prevailed over Sen. Bernie Sanders in the Iowa Democratic presidential caucuses by less than four-tenths of one percent of all votes cast, after having led him in polls in Iowa at one time by 40 percentage points. In her statement to supporters, standing in front of her gaunt and listless looking husband, she was not able to mouth the word “victory” or any of its standard variants. She could barely hide her contempt for the Iowa Democrats who disserted her.
Sanders isn’t even a Democrat. According to official Senate records, he is an “Independent Socialist” who votes to organize the Senate with the Democrats, and sits on the Senate floor with them. Clinton, of course, is the heiress to the mightiest Democratic political apparatus in the land. Hence the question: What do the Iowa Democrats know that caused thousands of them to flee from her?
They know she is a crook.
Sanders’ presence in the Democratic primaries will continue to give Democrats who mistrust Clinton a safe political haven. But he is not Clinton’s real worry. Her real worry is an FBI committed to the rule of law and determined to fortify national security by gathering the evidence of her mishandling state secrets.
Let’s be as blunt about this as the FBI will be: Causing state secrets to reside in a nonsecure, nongovernmental venue, whether done intentionally or negligently, constitutes the crime of espionage.
And there is more. When asked about the consequences of Clinton’s brazen exposure of state secrets to anyone who knows how to hack into a nonsecure computer, an intelligence operative winced as if in pain when he remarked that the nation’s then chief diplomat surely compromised the “sources, methods, and lives” of her colleagues.
Even Democrats who see Clinton as a symbol of their long-time wish for a progressive female in the Oval Office are beginning to recognize that anyone who has jeopardized American lives for political gain is unworthy of their votes, unworthy of their trust and unworthy of public office.
Reprinted with the author’s permission.
The good news for anti-interventionists out of Iowa is that Bernie Sanders has defied the conventional wisdom and effectively delayed the coronation of Hillary Rodham Clinton. In spite of a ramped up effort to isolate the Vermont socialist from the Democratic mainstream, Hillary is in for a bruising fight that will only get bloodier when Sanders smashes her in New Hampshire, as seems likely.
On the Republican side of the aisle, the news from Iowa is decidedly mixed. There are glad tidings in the fact that the two candidates not wholly-owned subsidiaries of the neocons came in first (Cruz) and second (Trump). Yet the unexpectedly strong third place finish by the War Twink Marco Rubio has the War Party celebrating. Not that we didn’t know Rubio was going to come in third all along: that’s what the polls told us, and they were right. Yet we were being primed in the run up to the actual balloting with the narrative that third place was actually a “victory” for the Cuban Bombshell. And we have the “mainstream” media chiming in with the usual neocon suspects when it comes to pushing this line.
Ideologically, Rubio is the perfect neocon vehicle. He is not only opposed to the Iran deal, he has also suggested war with Tehran is practically inevitable. He avers that we should’ve been arming the Syrian Islamist rebels from the very beginning, a view he shares with Hillary Clinton. He has run ads complaining that the US spies on Israel – but hasn’t said a word about extensive Israeli spying on the US. He wants to add $1trillion to the military budget: he wants to shoot down Russian aircraft over Syria and confront Moscow in Ukraine. And his dog whistle to the neocons is his campaign theme: he touts “a new American century,” limning the battle-flag of the old Project for a New American Century that did so much to give us the invasion of Iraq.
The Rubio campaign, in essence, is the GOP Establishment’s last stand against the roiling tides of populist backlash that threaten to bring it down. Which is why the donor class is rapidly moving into Rubio’s camp. The Cruz campaign is an attempt to straddle the fence: while the Canadian-born Senator has been critical of the neocons, he’s such a consummate opportunist that he isn’t above placating them as long as he gains some political benefit. And his foreign policy stance contains elements of neoconservatism, as well as a somewhat attenuated realism. Trump, as this perceptive piece on his foreign policy team makes clear, is an unambiguous realist, which is why the neocons have pulled out all the stops in their effort to derail the Trump Train.
Lost in the shuffle, unfortunately, is the long shot campaign of Sen. Rand Paul, who hoped to utilize the libertarian network in the GOP built up by his father. Having squandered that legacy by pandering to the neocons, coming up with a Cruz-esque “conservative realism” to stand in for libertarian anti-interventionism, and being a little too clever for his own good, Sen. Paul cut the ground out from under his own feet. Which just goes to show that “pragmatism” isn’t all that pragmatic. The Rand Paul campaign wound up being co-opted by Cruz, who made an open – and seemingly successful – bid for the Paulian base. The sort of snobbery and cultural leftism rife among libertarians who disdain populism as a matter of “principle” ensured that those former Ron Paul voters not scarfed up by Cruz would defect to Trump.
It’s theoretically possible that Paul, having learned his lesson and gone back to his “radical” roots, could rebound in New Hampshire – but I wouldn’t bet the farm on it.
The lesson to be learned here is identical to the one members of the Libertarian Party were taught in 1980, when LP candidate Ed Clark, backed by Koch money, announced that libertarianism is the equivalent of “low-tax liberalism.” As Murray Rothbard put it at the time: “And they didn’t even get the votes!”
By Dr. Mercola
Omega-3 fat is important for proper energy storage, oxygen transport, cell membrane function, and regulation of inflammation. It's also critical for healthy development in utero, especially for eye and brain development, and plays a role in the length of gestation.
Recent research has again confirmed the importance of omega-3 fats during pregnancy, and the danger of too much omega-6. The former you get primarily from fish, whereas processed vegetable and seed oils — staples in the standard American diet — are the primary sources of the latter.
The ideal ratio between these two essential fats ("essential" meaning your body cannot produce them, so you have to get them from your diet) is 1:1, but a processed food diet provides FAR more omega-6 than omega-3.
Unless you avoid vegetable oils and either eat plenty of fish or take a high quality omega-3 supplement, you may be getting around 16 times more omega-6 than omega-3 from your diet.
As one recent animal study1 shows, such a lopsided ratio during pregnancy can have severe health consequences for your baby.Another Major Concern With Your Oils
Another major factor that has contributed to a large percentage of the amount of chronic disease present in Western nations is the introduction of refined vegetable oils.
Prior to 1900, the average intake of vegetable oils was less than a pound a year and in 2000, that had increased to 75 pounds per year. We simply never had the ability to consume this much vegetable oil prior to food processing.
Refined oil contributed to the massive distortions in the omega 3:6 ratios. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with omega-6 oils if they are consumed in their native form, which is typically in unrefined seeds and nuts.
The key take-home point is to avoid virtually all refined vegetable oils. Not only do they allow you to overconsume them but they are also highly susceptible to oxidation and are typically damaged by the time you use them.
I personally consume about 10 to 15 grams of omega 6 oils a day but not one microgram is refined. They are all in the form of seeds and nuts that I eat raw, or freshly grind them immediately prior to eating.
I also eat about 4 ounces of clean fish a day in the form of wild Alaskan salmon, sardines, or anchovies. That and my seeds give me nearly 10 grams of omega-3 fat a day so my omega 6:3 ratio is about 1.5:1.Lopsided Omega-3 to Omega-6 Ratio Harms Brain Development
In the featured study,2 animals fed a diet in which the omega-6 to omega-3 ratio matched the standard American diet produced offspring whose brains were much smaller than those fed equal amounts of omega-3 and omega-6.
Once the offspring reached adulthood, they also developed emotional problems, exhibiting greater levels of anxiety. This despite eating a healthy diet from birth, onward. As reported by Medical News Today:3
"The team performed the first comprehensive measurement of lipid metabolites in the developing brain; they identified that metabolites of omega oils are vital regulators of neural stem cells — the cells that go on to develop into fully fledged brain cells.
In the rats with diets heavier on the omega-6 than 3, the neural stem cells developed more rapidly, to their detriment. The results ... show that increased levels of omega-6 produce an increase in omega-6 oxides. These omega offshoots cause premature aging of fetal neural stem cells.
The study's authors conclude: 'These findings provide compelling evidence that excess maternal consumption of omega-6 combined with insufficient intake of omega-3 causes abnormal brain development that can have long-lasting effects on the offspring's mental state.' [Emphasis mine]Fish Consumption in Pregnancy Linked to Better Brain Health
Here, the researchers looked at 2,000 pregnant women, who reported their seafood intake — including the specific species of fish — via food questionnaires, starting in their first trimester. On average, the women ate about three servings (500 grams) of fish per week during pregnancy.
At birth, the umbilical blood was assessed for omega-3 DHA, mercury, and PCBs. The children underwent cognitive tests and autistic spectrum disorder evaluation at the age of 14 months and again at age 5.
The results showed that:
- Higher fish consumption during pregnancy was associated with increased cognitive scores, and decreased risk of autistic symptoms in the children
- For every additional 10 grams of fish per week over 500 grams, there was a corresponding improvement in test scores
- Eating 600 grams (21 ounces, or about four servings) of fish per week was linked to a 2.8 point increase in IQ score. This link was particularly strong for large fatty fish, including tuna, even though tuna also has some of the highest levels of mercury
- Fish intake during the first trimester also had the strongest associations, compared to higher fish intake during the second through fourth trimester
- Above 600 grams of fish per week the cognitive benefits tapered off, suggesting this may be an ideal level, above which the risks of mercury exposure could begin to outweigh the benefits
I was not aware of these intriguing results but find it interesting in light of my transition to 4 ounces most days of either anchovies, sardines or Vital Choice Alaskan salmon. This is around 700 grams a week.
Additionally, many are concerned about Fukushima radiation contaminating fish. While I don't doubt it is an issue for some fish, I personally test the fish I consume from Vital Choice with a $1,000 Inspector Geiger counter and it has never measured anything higher than background radiation.Recommendations for Pregnant Women
While fish have always been an ideal, rich source of omega-3 fat, the presence of pollutants such as PCBs and mercury does make caution advisable. It's not a reason to ditch ALL fish from your diet though.
As detailed in a presentation by a leading expert from Harvard Medical School,7 it's important to understand both the risks of consuming high-mercury fish and the benefits that low-mercury fish provide.
Your total mercury exposure depends on two factors: which fish you eat and the amount of fish you eat. The challenge is to select fish that qualify as low or very low in mercury.
Fortunately, the U.S. government has finally seen the light and is now specifying that pregnant women should be careful to select low-mercury seafood.
The joint recommendation8 by the U.S Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regarding fish consumption for pregnant women, those who may become pregnant, breastfeeding mothers, and young children is 8 to 12 ounces of fish per week from choices that are lower in mercury.
In their estimation, this maximizes the benefits of omega-3 while minimizing the risk of mercury exposure. According to the study above, this may even be a conservative estimate.Resources for Identifying Fish Low in Mercury
So where can you find information about the mercury content of any given fish species? Here are three resources:
- The FDA has a Webpage9 listing and ranking seafood based on their mercury content
- For a list that you can print out for reference, please see the Mercury Policy Project's guide to mercury levels in fish and shellfish10
- The National Resources Defense Council has a mercury calculator you can use to give you an idea of how much mercury you're getting from any given fish species
On the up-side, several fish species that are low in mercury are also high in omega-3s. Wild-caught Alaskan salmon11 is one example. Just one 3.5-ounce serving provides around 2 grams of omega-3s,12 which is more than most Americans ingest in a week. Only walnuts and flaxseeds provide more.13 Another benefit is that it has a nicely balanced omega-3 to omega-6 ratio.
Other species with lower mercury content include pollock, tilapia, catfish, and cod, along with smaller fish like sardines and anchovies. There are some questions as to the sustainability of anchovies though.
According to Wild Planet,14 anchovies are an abundant and prolific fish stock, and a fine sustainable choice, but the Safina Center's Sustainable Seafood Program15 and The Environmental Defense Fund16 give Mediterranean and Black Sea anchovies a poor eco rating.
Avoid tilefish, shark, swordfish, and king mackerel, as these four have the highest mercury levels of any fish tested. The FDA/EPA also wisely recommends limiting white albacore tuna to 6 ounces per week due to its elevated mercury content. Tuna is by far the largest source of mercury exposure in our diet —especially for children — and anyone who wants to reduce their mercury intake should eat less tuna.
According to a 2012 report17 by the Mercury Policy Project, young children should eat light tuna no more than twice a month, and albacore tuna should be avoided entirely. The report also recommends that if your child eats tuna once per week or more, you should have their blood tested for mercury. If the result is over 5 micrograms per liter (ug/L), his or her consumption should be restricted.At What Level Does Mercury Become a Health Hazard?
Mercury is extremely toxic, so ideally, you don't want to be exposed to any. However, given the level of mercury pollution in the world today, this probably isn't feasible. You're bound to ingest or be exposed to some here and there, be it via air, water, of fish. Keep in mind that methylmercury harms a person's nervous system to differing degrees depending on how much mercury you've accumulated.
At above average doses, brain functions such as reaction time, judgment, and language can be impaired. At very high exposures, mercury can affect your ability to walk, speak, think, and see clearly.
One 2012 study18 that evaluated the effects of mercury on cognition in otherwise healthy adults found that those with blood mercury levels below 5 µg/L had the best cognitive functions. Mild impairment was evident at blood mercury levels of 5 to 15 µg/L and above 15 µg/L, cognition was significantly impaired.
When it comes to infants, studies have associated prenatal methylmercury exposure with impaired development of sensory, motor, and cognitive functions, resulting in learning difficulties, poor coordination, and inability to concentrate.
But bear in mind that the benefits of the omega-3 you get from fish can, and most likely does, outweigh the risk of methylmercury provided you don't overdo it, and stay away from fish known to be high in mercury. Again, the featured study found NO additional cognitive benefits for eating more than 600 grams/21 ounces of fish per week, which is about 4 servings.
A more cautious recommendation would be to limit your fish consumption to a maximum of 12 ounces of high omega-3/low-mercury varieties and take a high quality omega-3 supplement, such as krill.
If you believe your health problems may be related to mercury toxicity, get tested for heavy metals, and if need be, take appropriate action to detoxify. For more information, see my Revised Mercury Detox Protocol. That said, it's undoubtedly easier to avoid mercury exposure than it is to detoxify once it has built up. This is why it's so important to use discernment when selecting seafood.Beware of Farmed Fish
While the FDA/EPA recommends salmon, they do not specify the type of salmon. I strongly discourage consumption of farmed salmon due to their inferior nutritional profile, their environmental drawbacks, and potential health hazards, detailed in my previous article, "Norway Issues Warnings About Health Dangers of Farmed Salmon."
Unfortunately, recent investigations19 have shown that as much as 80 percent of the fish marked as "wild" may actually be farmed, and that includes salmon. In restaurants, 90 to 95 percent of salmon is farmed, yet often listed on the menu as "wild."
Given these inaccuracies, how can you tell whether a salmon really is wild or farmed? The flesh of the salmon will give you a clue. Wild sockeye salmon is bright red, courtesy of its natural astaxanthin content. Sockeye salmon actually has one of the highest concentrations of natural astaxanthin of any food.
Wild salmon is also very lean, so the fat marks — those white stripes you see in the meat — are quite thin. If a fish is pale pink with wide fat marks, the salmon is likely farmed. Avoid Atlantic salmon, as salmon bearing this label are almost always farmed.
The two designations you want to look for are: "Alaskan salmon" (or wild Alaskan salmon) and "sockeye salmon," as neither is allowed to be farmed. Canned salmon labeled "Alaskan salmon" is a good bet, and if you find sockeye, it too is assured to be wild (provided it's not mislabeled; again be sure to visibly inspect the fish and look for the telltale signs).
My favorite brand of wild Alaskan salmon is Vital Choice Wild Seafood and Organics, which offers a nice variety of high-quality salmon products that test high for omega-3 fats and low for contaminants.
In addition to PCBs and mercury, radiation from the leaking Fukushima power plant in Japan is another concern, and many have simply given up on eating fish for fear of radioactive contamination, or they opt for farmed fish, thinking it's a safer option. I disagree on the latter point. Instead, I would suggest contacting the distributor of whatever wild fish you may be interested in, and ask them whether or not they test for radiation.If You Choose Wisely, the Benefits of Fish May Still Outweigh Its Risks
As you can see, the situation is complex. You absolutely need omega-3 fats, as your body cannot make it, but it's not as easy as saying "eat more fish." You also need to take pollutants into account (including potentially radioactive contaminants).
This is particularly important for pregnant women and young children. Sustainability is yet another factor that is worthy of consideration. The good news is that even when all of these factors are taken into account, you have still have a number of good, viable options available.
To reiterate, wild-caught Alaskan (not Atlantic) salmon is very high in omega-3 and among the lowest in mercury. It's also still a sustainable choice, plus it's not allowed to be farmed — another benefit — and it has not been genetically engineered, so the likelihood of accidentally getting the now approved GMO salmon when buying wild Alaskan is limited. For other good options, see the three resources listed earlier.
Last but not least, even if you eat fish, you may benefit from taking a high-quality omega-3 supplement such as krill oil, which is a far more sustainable choice than fish oil. The best certification for sustainability my team has found is The Marine Stewardship Council.20 We spent quite a bit of time and expense working with them; it took over 5 years of observation, but they have certified our krill supply as one of the best managed resources in the world.21
If you avoid fish, an omega-3 supplement like krill oil becomes an absolute necessity. If you’re pregnant, I would highly recommend taking the “better safe than sorry” route, and limit fish to about 12 ounces per week, and supplement with krill oil, as there’s very little risk of krill being contaminated with heavy metals and other pollutants.
By Dr. Mercola
Can your mind heal your body? It may sound far-fetched that the power of your thoughts and emotions could exert physical, biological changes, but there are countless examples, both scientific and anecdotal, showing this possibility is very real.
Science journalist Jo Marchant shared numerous such examples, from Iraq war veterans and many others, in her book “Cure.” She told Scientific American:1
“There are now several lines of research suggesting that our mental perception of the world constantly informs and guides our immune system in a way that makes us better able to respond to future threats.
That was a sort of ‘aha’ moment for me — where the idea of an entwined mind and body suddenly made more scientific sense than an ephemeral consciousness that’s somehow separated from our physical selves.”Your State of Mind Influences the State of Your Immune System
Your mind wields incredible power over the health of your immune system, for good or for bad. Stress, for instance, has a major negative influence on the function of your immune system, which is why you've probably noticed you're more likely to catch a cold when you're under a lot of stress.
And, in the event you do get sick, emotional stressors can actually make your cold and flu symptoms worse. As lead author Sheldon Cohen, Ph.D. a professor of psychology at Carnegie Mellon University, noted:3
"Inflammation is partly regulated by the hormone cortisol and when cortisol is not allowed to serve this function, inflammation can get out of control …
The immune system's ability to regulate inflammation predicts who will develop a cold, but more importantly it provides an explanation of how stress can promote disease.
When under stress, cells of the immune system are unable to respond to hormonal control, and consequently, produce levels of inflammation that promote disease.
Because inflammation plays a role in many diseases such as cardiovascular, asthma and autoimmune disorders, this model suggests why stress impacts them as well."
The opposite also holds true in that positive thoughts and attitudes are able to prompt changes in your body that strengthen your immune system, boost positive emotions, decrease pain and chronic disease, and provide stress relief.
One study found, for instance, that happiness, optimism, life satisfaction, and other positive psychological attributes are associated with a lower risk of heart disease.4
It's even been scientifically shown that happiness can alter your genes! A team of researchers at UCLA showed that people with a deep sense of happiness and well-being had lower levels of inflammatory gene expression and stronger antiviral and antibody responses.5The Placebo Effect Once Again Proves ‘Mind Over Matter’
By definition, a placebo is an inert, innocuous substance that has no effect on your body. However, the placebo effect, in which a patient believes he or she is getting an actual drug and subsequently feels better, despite receiving no “active” treatment at all, has become a well-recognized phenomenon.
As Marchant noted, there are many examples of the placebo effect in action:6
“Placebo painkillers can trigger the release of natural pain-relieving chemicals called endorphins. Patients with Parkinson’s disease respond to placebos with a flood of dopamine.
Fake oxygen, given to someone at altitude, has been shown to cut levels of neurotransmitters called prostaglandins (which dilate blood vessels, among other things, and are responsible for many of the symptoms of altitude sickness).”
As she explained, “none of these biological effects are caused by placebos themselves … they are triggered by our psychological response to those fake treatments.”7 The placebo effect was even found to produce marked effects even when no deception was involved at all.
In one trial, nearly 60 percent of patients given a placebo pill, who were told they were receiving a placebo, reported adequate relief from irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) symptoms. Only 35 percent of those who received no treatment at all reported adequate relief.8
The exact mechanisms behind the placebo effect are still being explored, but there’s no denying that the effect is real. And, most likely, the placebo effect takes on many different forms, impacting brain mechanisms involved in expectation, anxiety and rewards.
In short, a placebo really does change your physical body, including your brain, in a number of different ways. Writing in the journal Neuropsychopharmacology, researchers noted:9
“First, as the placebo effect is basically a psychosocial context effect, these data indicate that different social stimuli, such as words and rituals of the therapeutic act, may change the chemistry and circuitry of the patient's brain.
Second, the mechanisms that are activated by placebos are the same as those activated by drugs, which suggests a cognitive/affective interference with drug action.
Third, if prefrontal functioning is impaired, placebo responses are reduced or totally lacking, as occurs in dementia of the Alzheimer's type.”Virtual Reality Games and Distraction Help Relieve Pain
Your pain pathways are plastic — they can be molded and transformed using a variety of approaches, because so many areas of your brain and nervous system are at play.
This is another avenue by which your mind has incredible power over your physical symptoms, as you may be able to drastically reduce your experience of pain by distracting your mind.
Researchers on the burn unit at Seattle's Harborview Medical Center, for instance, have capitalized on the fact that the brain's attention centers can be "distracted away" from a painful experience. Burn victims frequently undergo painful wound care procedures and debridement.
Since we all respond strongly to visual stimuli, even the mere sight of wound care instruments can amplify pain for burn victims. So researchers developed an action video game, called "Snow World," that burn patients could engage in during wound care.
The results have been astonishing — burn patients experienced more than 50 percent less pain during their burn treatments when playing Snow World. Your brain has limits to its processing power, so if you're highly engaged in an activity, your brain will not be able to process all of the pain signals.
The net result is that you experience less pain. Similar studies show that when your mind is encouraged to "wander" away from painful stimuli, an opiate-rich region of your brain is stimulated, resulting in pain suppression.10 Marchant told Scientific American:11
“This is just one of many lines of research telling us that the brain plays a big role in determining the level of pain we feel. Of course any physical damage is important, but it is neither sufficient nor necessary for us to feel pain. So I think we’ve got our approach to pain all wrong.
… Our focus is almost exclusively on trying to banish it with drugs, which is incredibly costly and causes huge problems with side effects and addiction.
Research like Snow World shows the potential of psychological approaches for treating pain: both to maximize the effectiveness of drugs and perhaps in some cases to replace them.”How to Heal a Broken Heart
Most people have suffered from a “broken heart” or two during their lifetime. This may occur after a romantic breakup, a death in your family or anytime an important relationship is cut short. The extreme emotional stress can lead to stress cardiomyopathy, which triggers symptoms that are very similar to those of a typical heart attack, including chest pain, shortness of breath, low blood pressure, and even congestive heart failure.
In most cases, a typical heart attack occurs due to blockages in the coronary arteries that stop blood flow and cause heart cells to die, leading to irreversible damage. But people with broken heart syndrome often have normal arteries without significant blockages.
The symptoms occur due to the emotional stress, so when the stress begins to die down, your heart is able to recover. In this case, your mind once again can play a powerful role in helping your broken heart to recover. Lifehack compiled several useful steps to employ toward this end:12
- Deal With Your Feelings Head-On: You may be tempted to run from your pain or hide from it (think overworking or substance abuse). A better option is to face your feelings, accept them and feel them. Only then will you be able to move past them.
- Let Go of Guilt. If you made mistakes in your past relationship, say your apologies, if necessary. Then, let go of the guilt and move on. The Emotional Freedom Techniques (EFT) can be very effective in helping you to do this.
- Be Easy on Yourself: Understand that going through a breakup or loss is hard. Allow yourself to fully experience all the emotions that come along with it and don’t judge yourself when you need extra time to process them.
- Immerse Yourself in Your Creative Passions: If you love to write, sing, dance or create in another way, allow yourself to become lost in the creative process. It will help you to express your thoughts and emotions in a healthy, productive way.
- Choose a Positive Mindset: Remaining negative won’t help you in the long run. Make a choice each day to look on the bright side and be open to positive new beginnings.
When your broken heart begins to mend, you can help yourself to further feel better by focusing on the following positive habits:13Lead a healthy lifestyle Focus on your ambitions and goals Surround yourself with positive, supportive people Forgive yourself and others Get in touch with your spiritual side via nature, meditation and/or prayer Continue going to the places you love, even if they remind you of your past; make new experiences there Open yourself to starting new relationships Do something completely for yourself, by yourself Break any harmful patterns (i.e., recognize if you tend to date the same type of person that is not right for you) Learn from your mistakes Uncontrolled Anger May Be Deadly
Anger is a universal emotion felt across all ages, genders and cultures. It’s not necessarily bad, as anger prepares your body to fight off a threat, which can be life-saving in the appropriate circumstances. However, if anger isn’t managed and expressed properly, it can lead to serious consequences to your health, relationships, work and more.
Letting your anger out explosively may be harmful because it triggers surges in stress hormones and injures blood vessel linings. One study from Washington State University found that people over the age of 50 who express their anger by lashing out are more likely to have calcium deposits in their coronary arteries — an indication that you’re at a high risk for a heart attack — than their mellower peers.14
A systematic review involving data on 5,000 heart attacks, 800 strokes and 300 cases of arrhythmia also revealed that anger increases your risk of heart attack, arrhythmia and stroke — and the risk increases with frequent anger episodes.15 So how do you know if your anger is crossing the line in terms of your health? The Epoch Times suggested:16
“If you begin to notice that you are on edge quite a lot, do things that you later regret, are quick to react instead of respond, and that you have people in your life who have told you that you tend to get angry, it might be helpful to do something about it.”Tips for Healthy Anger Management
Anger management can take on many forms, including cognitive behavior therapy or a newer technique called compassion-focused therapy. The latter helps you to self-soothe and deal with the negative feelings fueling your anger.17 To manage anger that comes along with everyday life, you can also try these tips from the Australian Psychological Society:18
- Identify your anger triggers (people, different environments, etc.)
- Notice the physical warning signs of anger (shoulder tightness, increased heart rate, hot face, etc.)
- Engage in an anger-management strategy that works for you (breathing techniques, changing your environment, relaxation strategies, EFT, etc.)
- Practice your anger-management strategies (imagine being in a situation that makes you angry and using one of your strategies to control your feelings)
If you have a short fuse when it comes to anger, I recommend using energy psychology techniques such as the Emotional Freedom Techniques (EFT). EFT can reprogram your body’s reactions to the unavoidable stressors of everyday life by stimulating different energy meridian points in your body. It’s done by tapping on specific key locations with your fingertips while custom-made verbal affirmations are said repeatedly.
This can be done alone or under the supervision of a qualified therapist. Making a point to be more mindful — focusing on what you’re doing and the sensations you’re experiencing right now — can also be helpful in improving your mental and emotional outlook. When you’re in the present moment, your mind will have less chance to wander and ruminate on stressful or anger-provoking incidents, which can help you to let go of your angry feelings.
For times when you do get angry, try to see a light at the end of the tunnel. Can you work out this misunderstanding with the other party? Will you learn more about yourself and your own faults? Be sure to also express the anger in a constructive manner, channeling your angry energy into exercise or cleaning your house, for instance.Work on Accepting Yourself for Increased Health and Happiness
Whether you’re facing health challenges, want to manifest healing or simply want to increase your well-being, channeling positive emotions is in your best interest. To a large extent, being happy is a choice you need to make, much like choosing to exercise or eat right. Happiness comes from within — it’s not dictated by circumstance alone. This is why, if you truly want to be happy, you need to work on yourself first.
And the health benefits mentioned above, like a significantly reduced risk of heart attack and other cardiac events or the ability to help your body heal, should provide ample motivation for doing so. Interestingly, self-acceptance appears to be one of the most important factors that can produce a more consistent sense of happiness.
In a survey of 5,000 people by the charity Action for Happiness, people were asked to rate themselves between 1 and 10 on 10 habits that are scientifically linked to happiness.19 While all 10 habits were strongly linked to overall life satisfaction, acceptance was the strongest predictor. In all, the survey resulted in the following “10 Keys to Happier Living,” which together spell out the acronym GREAT DREAM:
- Giving: do things for others
- Relating: connect with people
- Exercising: take care of your body
- Appreciating: notice the world around you
- Trying out: keep learning new things
- Direction: have goals to look forward to
- Resilience: find ways to bounce back
- Emotion: take a positive approach
- Acceptance: be comfortable with who you are
- Meaning: be part of something bigger
On the heels of the dollar plunging and gold surging, along with the mining shares, KWN asks that you take a quick look at this chart in the gold sector.
The post Please Take A Look At This Key Chart In The Gold Sector appeared first on King World News.
“This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military–industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together.”
- President Dwight D. Eisenhower
Dwight D. Eisenhower was a five-star general in charge of the Normandy Invasion and a popular two-term President of the United States. Today he would be called a “conspiracy theorist.”
Were Ike to be issuing his warning from the White House today, conservative Republicans like Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Marco Rubio (R-FL) would be screaming at Ike for impugning the motives of “the patriotic industry that protects our freedom.”
Neoconservatives such as William Kristol would be demanding to know why President Eisenhower was issuing warnings about our own military-industrial complex instead of warning about the threat presented by the Soviet military.
The presstitute media would be implying that Ike was going a bit senile in his old age, a tactic the presstitutes used against President Reagan as he struggled to end stagflation and the Cold War.
By January 17, 1961, when Eisenhower issued his warning in his farewell address to the American People, it was already too late. Cold Warriors had had their hooks into the American taxpayer for 15 years after the end of WW II, and the military-industrial complex had replaced “mom and apple pie” as the most venerated and entrenched US interest. The Dulles brothers ran the State Department and CIA and overthrew governments at will. (Read The Brothers)
The military-industrial complex had learned that regardless of the protestations of high-ranking military officers, no cost-overrun, no matter how egregious, went unpaid. Armaments industries and military bases were spread all over the country and were important considerations for every senator and many congressional districts. The chairmen of House and Senate military appropriations subcommittees and armed services committees were already dependent on campaign contributions from the military-industrial complex and for cushy jobs should they lose an election.
The Cold War was a profitable business that served many, and that is why it lasted so long.
There was never any threat of the Red Army invading Europe. Stalin declared “socialism in one country” and purged the Communist Party of the Trotskyist element that preached world revolution. An accommodation could have been reached, except that for the first time ever the military-industrial complex saw that it could keep the war business going for decades and perhaps forever.
George F. Kennan predicted that should the Soviet Union “sink tomorrow under the waters of the ocean,” another adversary would have to be invented. “Anything else would be an unacceptable shock to the American economy.”
When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, the “Soviet threat” was replaced with the “Muslim threat” and the “War on Terror” took over from the Cold War. Despite a succession of false flag attacks and warnings of a “thirty years war,” a few thousand lightly armed jihadists were an insufficient replacement for the Soviet Union and its thousands of nuclear ICBMs. It was an uncomfortable notion that the “world’s only superpower” could not dispose of a few terrorists.
So we are back to the Cold War with Russia. The propaganda is fast and furious. “Putin is the new Hitler.” “Russia invaded Ukraine.” Russia is about to invade the Baltics and Poland.” “Putin is a corrupt multi-billionaire.” “Putin is scheming to recreate the Soviet Union.” These accusations become headlines despite US military spending being a dozen or more times higher than Russian military spending and the Russian government expressing no hegemonic aspirations.
Eisenhower’s sucessor, John F. Kennedy, realized that the military-security complex was a threat, but he underestimated the threat and paid for it with his life when he stood up to the military-security complex. In stating this fact I have joined Eisenhower as a conspiracy theorist. (For a hair-raising account of the threat posed to President Kennedy by General Lyman Lemnitzer, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, read chapter three in Richard Cottrell’s book, Gladio, NATO’s Dagger at the Heart of Europe.)
Conspiracies are real. There are many more of them than people are aware. Many government conspiracies are heavily documented by governments themselves with the official records demonstrating the conspiracies openly available to the public. Just google, for example, Operation Gladio or the Northwoods Project. These conspiracies alone are sufficient to chastise those uninformed Western peoples who go around saying, “our government would never kill its own people.”
Perhaps Russian studies provided my introduction to government conspiracies against their own people. I learned that the Tsar’s secret police set off bombs and killed people in order to blame and arrest labor agitators. I was skeptical of this account and wondered if it was a reflection of left-wing bias against Tsarist Russia. Some years later I asked my colleague, Robert Conquest, at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University if the account was true. He replied that the story is true as is known from the released secret police files that are part of the Hoover Institution’s archives.
False flag attacks are used by governments in order to pursue secret agendas that they cannot publicly acknowledge. If President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney had said: “We are going to attack Iraq and a half dozen other countries in order to exercise hegemony over the Middle East, steal their oil, and clear the path for Israel to steal the entirety of the West Bank of Palestine, diverting taxpayers’ resources from serving the American people into the pockets of the armaments industries and spilling the blood of your parents, spouses, children, and siblings," even the American sheeple would have resisted.
Instead, following the famous advice of Hitler’s chief propagandist, they said: “Our country has been attacked!”
Generally speaking, an observant person with a bit of education can recognize a false flag attack. However, few people pay attention beyond what the official media says, and the media no longer investigates and questions but simply repeats the official story. Therefore, only a few realize what has really happened, and when these few open their mouths they are discredited as “conspiracy theorists.”
This method of control might be wearing thin. There have been so many false flag “terrorist attacks” in the 21st century that there are now thousands of experts labeled as “conspiracy theorist.” For example, the 9/11 Truth Movement consists of thousands of high rise architects, structural engineers, demolition experts, nano-chemists, physicists, firefighters and first responders, civilian and military pilots, and former high government officials. Collectively these experts represent far more knowledge and experience than the 9/11 Commission, which did nothing but write down whatever the government told the commission, NIST, a collection of people whose incomes and careers depend on the government, and the presstitutes who can barely manage arithemetic, much less the mathematics of controlled demolition.
The neoconservatives, who controlled the George W. Bush regime, called for a “New Pearl Harbor” so that they could begin their wars of conquest in the Middle East. A “New Pearl Harbor” is what 9/11 gave them. Was this a coincidence or a Gulf of Tonkin or a Reichstag fire or a Tzarist secret police or Operation Gladio bomb?
The charge, “conspiracy theory,” is used to prevent investigation.
9/11 was not investigated. Indeed, as many experts have pointed out, there was a conscious effort to remove and destroy the evidence before it could be investigated. The 9/11 families had to lobby and protest for a solid year before the Bush regime consented to the totally controlled 9/11 Commission.
The Boston Marathon Bombing was not investigated. A scripted story was issued and repeated by the media. The San Bernardino shootings were not investigated. Again, a pre-scripted story took the place of investigation.
The success of false flag attacks in the US led to their use in the UK and France. The Charlie Hebdo affair was not investigated and the official explanation makes no sense. The story has been closed with all the loose ends dangling. For example, why did a French police official investigating the crime allegedly commit suicide in his police office in the early hours of the morning, and why was his family denied the autopsy report? What happened to this disappeared story? Why did the police finger a third participant in the attack as the “getaway driver” who had an iron clad alibi? If the police were so totally wrong about this member of the gang, how do we know they are right about the two men they shot to death. How come alleged perpetrators of “terrorist attacks” are always killed before they can talk? How come the only story we ever get is what the government says? How can people be so gullible after the Gulf of Tonkin, Operation Gladio, etc.?
Apparently the Charlie Hebdo attack was insufficient for the purpose, and now France has had what is called “the Paris attack,” an even more unbelievable event, evidence for which is missing. This false flag attack was too much for Kevin Barrett who assembled a collection of skeptical essays from 26 people into a book, Another French False Flag: Bloody Tracks From Paris To San Bernardino.
Twenty-four of these contributors do not believe the official story. Does this make them “conspiracy theorists,” or does this make them brave souls who are concerned that Reichstag fire type events are replacing Western civil liberty with fascist police states?
Ask yourself, why are those trying to preserve liberty denounced?
What incentive does contributor A.K. Dewdney, Professor Emeritus at the University of Western Ontario, author of ten books about science and mathematics, have to be a conspiracy theorist?
What incentive does Philip Giraldi, former CIA case officer and Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, have to be a conspiracy theorist?
What incentive does Anthony Hall, Professor of Globalization Studies at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada, whose latest book has been endorsed by the American Library Association as “a scholarly tour de force,” have to be a conspiracy theorist?
What incentive does Mujahid Kamran, Vice Chancellor of Punjab University, Lahore, Pakistan, a Fulbright Scholar and recipient of numerous awards, have to be a conspiracy theorist?
What incentive does Stephen Lendman, syndicated columnist and host on the Progressive Radio News Hour, have to be a conspiracy theorist?
What incentive does James Petras, Bartle Professor of Sociology at Binghamton University, have to be a conspiracy theorist?
What incentive does Alain Soral, one of France’s public intellectuals, have to be a conspiracy theorist?
What incentive does Robert David Steele, former CIA Clandestine Services Officer, have to be a conspiracy theorist?
The neocons’ whores in the Western media who call these people “conspiracy theorists” are so stupid and unintelligent as to be unqualified to express any opinion.
Dear Western Peoples, if you wish to be able to walk down the streets of your cities without being accosted by police, demanded to present identity papers, searched, detained indefinitely or assassinated without due process of law, if you wish to be able to express your opinion about “your” government and its use of your tax payments, if you wish to be able to discuss current affairs or your personal affairs without being recorded by the NSA or the equivalent in your own country or by both, if you wish to be able to act on your moral conscience and to protest the violence the West applies to Muslims and others unfavored by powerful Western interests, such as Palestinians, if you wish to live in the freedom that was achieved in the West after centuries of struggle, wake up, find time from less meaningful pursuits to become aware of what is being stolen from you. It is late in the game. If you do not stand up for truth, you will have no freedom as there is no freedom without truth.
The video below depicting the expansion of ISIS controlled territory over time is especially interesting. After explosive expansion in 2013-2014, now it seems that when any territory is taken back from the Islamic State they just expand elsewhere.
Also of interest is just how little ground has been taken back from ISIS even after almost a year and a half of coalition combat operations against it. On the other hand, it must be noted that some of the wide areas shown on the map that ISIS supposedly controls is just empty desert, and the same can be said for much of the non-ISIS controlled areas highlighted in purple.
ISIS’s great recruitment tool is the vast territory they still control even after a year and a half of constant coalition airstrikes. By just holding on against what they deem as an imperial force of infidels they retain high-credibility within their twisted world. Unless the coalition gets serious about totally overhauling its strategy and aggressively reducing ISIS footprint via ground operations, and holding that ground after, don’t expect the Islamic State to be greatly weakened anytime soon.
A look into monetary history shows that people, when given freedom of choice, opted for precious metals as money. This doesn’t come as a surprise. Precious metals have the physical properties a medium must have to serve as legal tender: They are scarce, homogenous, durable, divisible, mintable, and transportable. They are held in high esteem and represent considerable value per unit of weight. Gold fulfills these requirements par excellence, and this is why it has always been peoples’ first choice in terms of money. Gold has proven its merits as money for millennia; it is the ultimate means of payment.
More recently, gold has been replaced by the state’s unredeemable fiat money — for reasons rather more political than economic. The state prefers money whose value can be altered at will — say, to influence overall demand, redistribute income, and to benefit some at the expense of the many. Gold money stands in the way of such machinations. Fiat money doesn’t. On the contrary, fiat money can simply be printed up; can be created out of thin air.
Fiat money has serious economic and ethical drawbacks, though. It is chronically inflationary, widens the gap between poor and rich, triggers boom-and-bust cycles, and compounds the economy’s debt burden. Most important, a fiat money regime allows the state to expand actually without limit, over time potentially transforming even a minimum state into a maximum state at the expense of individual liberty and freedom.
In the wake of the most recent financial and economic crisis of 2007–2008, many people have become concerned that their savings, mostly invested in fiat-denominated bank accounts and bonds, could be devaluated. This has prompted a search for “good” money.
Somewhat new to the mix are the digital currencies, most famous of which is the virtual unit “bitcoin.” It is a digital currency generated by decentralized, internet-based computers rather than a central authority.
Transactions through digital currencies such as bitcoin are confirmed, or validated, by a decentralized consensus system that uses a “blockchain.” The latter is essentially a public digital ledger, an account statement for transactions among computers. The blockchain is saved on many computers so that it is practically impossible to manipulate. In the case of bitcoin specifically, the blockchain ensures that only the bitcoin’s owner can make a transaction with his bitcoin, that the same bitcoin cannot be created manifold.
In this article, I’ll use bitcoin as my main example, although this technology can be applied to any number of similar digital currencies.
However, this technology has now been used to provide a new means of transferring assets among people: the “colored bitcoin.” A colored bitcoin — or something comparable using blockchain technology — represents a certain asset. For instance, physical gold can be made available for day-to-day transactions — for purchases and sales in supermarkets and on the internet — simply by transferring a gold-backed colored bitcoin from the bitcoin wallet of the buyer to the bitcoin wallet of the seller.
How could one obtain such a gold-backed bitcoin? You would buy, say, physical gold at a gold shop. The latter then issues a colored bitcoin, which represents the ownership of physical gold. The colored bitcoin is, economically speaking, a gold substitute (a money substitute, fully backed by physical gold). It can be used for making purchases and, upon the wish of its owner, it can be redeemed into physical gold at the gold shop at any time.
A colored bitcoin represents a physical thing or asset that exists outside the bitcoin network. It therefore carries with it a risk that the issuer will not live up to his promise. However, there are market solutions to this problem. For instance, the gold can be stored with a particularly trustworthy third party. Or, people hold colored bitcoins issued by various issuers. If the latter are seen to be of the same riskiness, they would trade at par to each other (after making allowance for possible storage and handling costs).
That said, the gold-on-the-blockchain technology appears to hold great potential when it comes to making possible a world of digital gold money transactions. So far, governments use regulation and taxation to inhibit and even prevent unencumbered competition among monies. However, the evolution of the blockchain largely circumvents many of the obstacles governments put in the way of a free market in money. Where it will lead is, of course, is impossible to predict with certainty.
In any case, when we’re comparing to government fiat money, digital currencies can offer attractive alternatives. The same goes for gold lovers, who may see blockchain technology as the means of conveying physical gold; and in the end digitized gold money could become a practical option.
With every Tom, Dick, and Harry hedge fund manager now taking on The People's Bank of China (in various ways), it is no surprise that the spread between offshore Yuan and onshore Yuan blew out to its widest in 3 weeks this morning.
They are not getting it all their way for now though.
Just as the last time the spread was this wide, The PBOC stepped in, so as we noted this morning, there was a clear and present short-squeezing danger in Yuan as The PBOC clearly intervened to snap the spread 450 pips tighter. As China opens tonight, selling pressure however is back on the Yuan...
The intervention is pretty clear...
But the battle continues, as Yuan is selling back off...
Bill Gross is right...
Gross: Hedgees are trying to break the Bank of England ... uh, I mean the Bank of China. It's 2016, not 1992.
— Janus Capital (@JanusCapital) February 3, 2016
8:54p ET Wednesday, February 3, 2016
Dear Friend of GATA and Gold:
Monetary metals advocate Hugo Salinas Price, president of the Mexican Civic Association for Silver, explains today in an interview with USA Watchdog's Greg Hunter why he expects a worldwide depression caused by excessive debt and then an official revaluation of gold to devalue debt. The interview, 24 minutes long, is especially nice because it's a video interview and you can see the two participants. It's posted at USA Watchdog's Internet site here:
CHRIS POWELL, Secretary/Treasurer
Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee Inc.
Buy precious metals free of value-added tax throughout Europe
Europe Silver Bullion is a fast-growing dealer sourcing its products from renowned mints, refiners, and distributors. Because of a legal loophole that will close soon, you can acquire the world's most popular bullion coins free of value-added tax throughout the European Union. You can collect your order in person at our headquarters in Tallinn, Estonia, or have it delivered in any of the 28 EU countries.
Europe Silver Bullion is owned and operated by North American and European experts in selling, storing, and transporting precious metals. We have an extensive product inventory of silver, gold, platinum, and palladium, and our network spans the world.
Visit us at www.europesilverbullion.com.
Support GATA by purchasing DVDs of GATA's London conference in August 2011 or GATA's Dawson City conference in August 2006:
Or by purchasing a colorful GATA T-shirt:
Or a colorful poster of GATA's full-page ad in The Wall Street Journal on January 31, 2009:
Help keep GATA going
GATA is a civil rights and educational organization based in the United States and tax-exempt under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code. Its e-mail dispatches are free, and you can subscribe at:
To contribute to GATA, please visit:
Shale Shock: Another Leg Lower In Oil Coming After Many Producers Found To Have Far Lower Breakevens
One of the great unknowns facing the US shale industry, and threatening the recurring rumors of its imminent demise, is how it is possible that despite the collapsing number of oil wells, and despite the plunge in crude prices which supposedly are well below all-in shale production costs, does production not only refuse to decline, but in fact has been largely increasing in the past 6 months, with just a modest decline in recent weeks.
The answer may come as a surprise not only to industry pundits, but certainly to Saudi Arabia, whose entire strategy has been to keep pressuring the price of oil low enough for long enough to put as many "marginal producers" in the US shale space out of business as possible.
According to a report by the Bloomberg Intelligence analysts William Foiles and Andrew Cosgrove, Saudi Arabia may have its work cut out for it as it will be far harder to kill many U.S. E&Ps than analysts originally thought.
The reason: a break-even model for the Permian Basin and Eagle Ford shows that oil production across five plays in Texas and New Mexico may remain profitable even when WTI prices fall below $30 a barrel, according to a 55-variable Bloomberg Intelligence model for horizontal oil wells.
The Eagle Ford's DeWitt County has the lowest break-even, at $22.52, followed by Reeves County wells targeting the Wolfcamp Formation, at $23.40. The diversity of breakevens highlights the hazard posed by looking for a single number, even within a play.
These counties together produced about 551,000 barrels of liquids a day in October. Taking into account drilled but uncompleted wells boosts the number of potential survivors to 19. The wide range of break-evens undermines efforts to come up with a single threshold for U.S. shale producers.
The full list of breakevens by county is shown below:
To corroborate its model of break-even levels for oil producers in the Permian and Eagle Ford, Bloomberg used a Baker Hughes' horizontal rig counts in the Spraberry play Permian and Eagle Ford. Howard County, Texas, has the lowest average break-even, at a WTI price of $29.19 a barrel. Its rig counts have doubled since oil prices began collapsing in mid-2014. In Midland County, at $30, rig counts are up 56%. Counts in Irion and Reagan counties, with two of the highest break-evens targeting the play, have fallen more than 70%.
None of this would be feasible if average breakeven prices were anywhere close to the $50-60 assumed by the consensus.
But where Bloomberg's analysis gets outright disturbing, if only for Riyadh, is that once wells are completed, breakeven costs tumble to Saudi-like sub-$20 prices in some countries.
Tapping drilled but uncompleted (DUC) horizontal oil wells drops break-even WTI oil prices to less than $20 a barrel in eight county-play combinations in the Permian and Eagle Ford. The analysis assumes that drilled wells are sunk costs and that drilling constitutes 30% of a well's total cost. The 55-variable model shows that the impact of removing drilling expenses varies significantly by county and play, with break-even reductions ranging from $7.24 to $21.51, or 28% to 42%.
Bloomberg proceeds to crown DeWitt County, Texas, as the King of Shale due to its lowest breakevens across the land:
DeWitt County, Texas, has on average the lowest break-even WTI price for its oil production among 29 county-play combinations in Texas and New Mexico, at $22.73 a barrel, according to a Bloomberg Intelligence model. Shifts in drilling in the Eagle Ford may reflect differing cost levels. Dimmit County, with a break-even of $58.21, led the Eagle Ford in 1Q15 with 226 new horizontal oil wells, four times as many as DeWitt's 56. Two quarters later, Dimmit's new wells fell 71% to 65, while DeWitt's surged 77%.
There is far more in the comprehensive analysis, but the punchline is simple: what many thought would be the "breaking" price point for virtually every shale play has just been lowered, and quite dramatically at that. It also means that algos and traders who had reflexively bought any dip below $30 on expectations this is close to the "sweet spot" and where the Saudis would relent, will have to drop their support levels by as much as a third!
Finally, it means that if Saudi Arabia truly means to put the marginal non-OPEC producers (read efficient U.S. shale) out of business, it will have to pump far more not less as many speculate, and worse, it will have to ramp up production very fast because as is well known by now, the Saudi Kingdom is itself hurting profusely as a result of low oil prices which are leading to budget crunches and domestic austerity such as soaring prices of gas and water.
Finally, since Saudi Arabia had expected that its FX reserve outflow would last only temporarily using $40-50 breakevens, it will have to sell many more US reserves (either TSYs or stocks) to fund the cash shortfall which will persist for far longer until oil catches down to the lowest cost US producers, which as of today's close are at least $10/barrel lower.
In short: the oil price war is about to enter its far more vicious, and far more lethal phase, and while it is unclear who ultimately wins, whether it is Shale or the Saudis, the loser is clear: anyone who bought into bets of an imminent oil bounce.