“Domestic Terrorists Of The Paper Kind”…

Back in November, I wrote a post about the unfolding legal situation of Kent Hovind, as the news of the new set of charges he is facing was first coming into my purview. I haven’t written anything else on it since, aside from a random comment thread here or there. I just didn’t feel the time was yet right. I had to let it sit. Percolate I suppose. During this period I have been able to observe a fairly wide cross-section of the various reactions and attitudes towards Kent’s case held by both fellow Christians and people with quite opposing world views. Then suddynly, this last week it would seem that I have suddenly found my convictions reignited as to the urgency of this whole matter, and the broader application it truly has to the Body of Christ as a whole…

The most stirring new piece of discussion I found was in a recent blog post by Peter J. Reilly, a tax pundit of sorts who has been following Kent’s case for several years. The interesting bits weren’t so much in the post itself, which is fixated on some new “revelation” of letters which basically are being used in an attempt to (once again) make Kent out to be guilty of either perjury, stupidity or both, but instead manifested in the comments. I believe the sentiments expressed in these comments really do go a long way in illuminating so much of what is truly at the heart of this issue on the whole.

Firstly, we read:

“Making examples of scofflaws is part of the legitimate ends of law enforcement. And if the regular media ever pick up on the story, this is an ideal time to give the tax cheatin’ sovereign citizen movement some “noise and light”; with emphasis on those domestic terrorists like Kent and his people who insist on using God to cover for their criminal antics. In case you haven’t heard, Kent’s crimes are pretty serious, despite your efforts to diminish them. They don’t all get caught and the Government hasn’t the resources to prosecute them all and has to pick and choose their cases carefully. One of the legitimate goals as to the use of such cases as are chosen is to discourage others from acting out like Kent has.

The current charges are not because Kent and Paul conspired to file lis pendens. The current charges are because Kent and Paul conspired in a scheme that would be a violation of a court order and such criminal contempt for a court order is a most serious matter and it doesn’t really matter if you want to opine that it is not so.” (emphasis mine)

And then further down:

Sovereign citizens are domestic terrorists of the paper kind and on up to the murderous kind; it’s a spectrum disorder and we might get a very good display of the spectrum depending on who shows up in Pensacola for Kent’s trial if it goes forward.

Fascinating.

The reason I would suggest that these kinds of statements are even worth noting is because they aren’t just coming from any random Joe on the internet. These are the words of a person who is without much question Kent’s most vociferous online detractor, and if you spend any time at all reading Peter J. Reilly’s material you are bound to be familiar with this fellow. It would be hard to overstate the significance of such diatribes, especially when compared to other instances where Kent is described as a “common tax cheat”. So which is it then? If Kent is in fact nothing more than a “common tax cheat”, then that would hardly be anything new, or unique, or by necessity tied to the so-called “sovereign citizen movement”, and it certainly wouldn’t rank up into the sphere of “domestic terrorism”! Yet there it is, and I really don’t believe this is just an application of hyperbole here, no, he truly means it. If that doesn’t raise an eyebrow or two, then hmmm, how so?

Ok. So those are some of the views expressed by an individual who vehemently dislikes Kent Hovind, prides himself on being a tax expert who fights the Constitutionality of tax benefits for pastors (something I’d actually agree with him on…) and as a staunch online apologist for Evolution holds a most visceral animosity towards Biblical Creationism. (Gee, no conflict of interest at all in his objectivity towards a man such as Kent, is there?) 😉

But what about other Christians? There are definitely a sort of “remnant” who are not afraid to voice their support, there is a large percentage who are largely agnostic or simply don’t quite know what to make of the whole affair (which is quite understandable really, as the convolutions are plentiful), and there are still yet a good many others who essentially come down on the side of completely throwing Kent under the “Romans 13 bus”. Another comment I read recently really summed this type of reaction up quite well:

I think scripture is quite clear in numerous locations regarding living under the authority of the government in which you are subject to – “render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar’s” also probably covers that angle, not just tithing. The Soveriegn Citizen movement is a bit of a sad, misguided lot and riddled with bad information and incredibly poor, naive interpretations of law. The fact that Kent has been even somewhat associated with their ideology is going to wreak havoc on his credibility if/when he decides to get back into the faith-debate realm – being associated with such a naive ideology takes him out of consideration [to many non-believers looking for legit answers] from the moment it is mentioned. Having a Social Security Number doesn’t mean you’ve taken “the mark”, nor does it mean you’re not subject to the laws of the land b/c of some back-woods, legal mumbo-jumbo you’ve heard that you thought sounded good. The Mark will be obvious, there will be a clear claim of allegiance required that is clearly anti-Christ. Is there the imprint of the beast-system being implaced throughout many parts of the world? Sure, the ground work is being laid, but there are many other countries that currently have it much worse than America now, particularly 8 years ago (unsure of conviction) or even farther back when he gave up his SSN (was it the 1970’s?). So not paying the proposer amount of taxes or reporting incomes and/or moving money around for the purpose of hiding/confusing does not make one a martyr in this current system. To get 8 years for a financial-related crime the evidence had to be substantial, recurrent and irrefutable.

So here again, we see Kent being tossed in with this “Sovereign Citizen movement”, and thus maligned for being rebellious, ignorant, paranoid, stubborn, disobedient to scripture, etc, while all kinds of blind (and in my opinion, very naïve) assumptions are being made, both about the evidence that “had to be substantial” in order to indict and convict Kent, and about matters of the “Beast system” as a whole and the eventual arrival of the Mark itself as well. (Ah, if only such faith was applied to God himself rather than fallen human systems…)

When you boil it all down, these are essentially the two basic criticisms of Kent Hovind as it applies to both his legal standing with courts, or his reputation amongst those who would call him their Brother in Christ. But is this really a true characterization of what it is truly at stake here? It is worthy of note that even Kent’s harshest opponents never go so far as to try and claim that he was trying to evade paying taxes for personal monetary gain (which is the typically assumed motive in most tax fraud cases, for obvious reasons!), and that is when and why allusions begin being made to the whole “sovereign citizen” movement, because in much the same way that the label “conspiracy theorist” has been gradually painted into being a very loaded and politically-charged term, “sovereign citizen” is now too a pejorative buzz word that conjures up all sorts of negative response. This is if course the intended reaction. You’re a “scofflaw”. A dangerous subversive, poisoning the minds of others with your insidious notions about the government just maybe not having the right to bureaucratize every aspect of your existence.

“Domestic terrorists of the paper kind”… Think about the significance of a concept like that being thrown around in the context of our modern “war on terror” cultural dialogue. This is not rare, inflammatory grandiloquence anymore. This is something people have been conditioned to actually buy into now…

But is Kent, and by extension his “Hovindicators” (as Reilly has now branded us), really a “sovereign citizen type”…?

I can’t speak for Kent, and Kent can’t very easily speak for himself, because Kent is still in prison. What I will say, is that as far as myself, I instead would have to call myself as being a part of the “Citizens of the Sovereign” movement. You might know it by a variety of other names. The Church. The followers of Jesus. The Bride of Christ. The true Israel…

In Christian circles and churches and pulpits, you will very often hear these familiar references to, and expansions upon, the “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s” quotation. What has occurred to me of late, in a most profound way, is that what you don’t hear much expounding on is the other half of that line, the “and give to God what is God’s” part.

And so, after much meandering (I apologize), I would simply offer that this is the crux of it all. This is the point at which we have to stop and rethink a lot of our long-held assumptions, in believing that we’ve always had it all figured out in terms of what it means to live out our faith in the environment of a secular world and ruling government (and honestly, that’s fine, that’s how it should be…)

It is one thing to acknowledge that yes “Caesar’s face is on the coin” (or in the case of our American currency, perhaps another ‘deity’ altogether, but that’s a whole other tangent!) and accept that yes, if we are called to pay taxes, then ok, we pay those taxes. We obey the laws. We submit to the governing authorities. (Romans 13, right?) But what about if the governing authorities are mandating something which goes against that which God Himself has decreed? Didn’t Peter say something about “we must obey God rather than men”? Didn’t a bunch of guys get wind up being the “guests of honor” at a barbeque many centuries ago, because they wouldn’t bow their knee to something, or someone, who was in fact not God…?

So I leave you with this, and perhaps we can all continue to hammer this out and discuss it further as the conversation continues to unfold.

What if the real question at the root of all this is the honest and legitimate question of “What is Caesar doesn’t just want that which belongs to Caesar, but in fact really wants what is supposed to belong to God as well”…?

In other words, is the tax-collection infrastructure limited to simply being a benign mechanism which collects funds to pay for services that we all use (as in the simplistic model that we all agree with and consent to in theory), or can it also possibly be used as highly-persuasive means by which to leverage control and influence over the affairs of people, groups, etc., far beyond the matters of mere financial transactions and percentages owed to the State?

Is Kent’s “crime” that he simply didn’t want to pay taxes, or was it perhaps that he was audacious enough to first seek out, and then attempt to act upon, tangible means through which to limit the degree to which the government itself has political sway and financial muscle over one’s endeavors in the name of the Gospel…? For the vast majority of folks out there still operating under the tranquil reassurances of their 501(c)3 statuses, this is the kind of practical question that never materializes in their minds in the first place. Why would it? If you’re “following the rules”, and filling out the right forms, and filing the correct paperwork, then you’re “obeying God”, right? Does it really matter if the net result of all these financial regulations and corporate-structuring requirements that have slowly been eased upon the backs of churches over this past century is that at the end of the day, your church is corporation, an entity whose legal existence is wholly dependent upon the dictates of the government? In China and other places, we call those “State Churches”. The true Body of Christ in China, however, doesn’t darken their doors. They went “underground”. They don’t file paperwork, or report the amounts of their offerings to the State, or share all the information they have about their congregants with the government officials..(!) And yet, we don’t hear too many Christians in America scolding them, and preaching “Romans 13” across the Pacific, now do we…?

“Well that Communist China, Strange!” you say. And yes, I know. Communist China, where for decades Christians found to be part of the “non-sanctioned” underground church were usually simply jailed and beaten, but nowadays face more “sophisticated and multi-dimensional types of persecution than in the past“. Remember, according to Chinese authorities, there is no “persecution” of Christians in China, and all such talk is nonsense and the stuff of laughable conspiracy theory…. 😉

But what you? Brother, or Sister, who claims to believe and adhere to the Word which tells us “Thou shalt have no other gods before Me”…? What are YOU prepared to face, to endure, if you found yourself in the position of realizing that “Caesar” really wasn’t just content to stay over on his ordained side of the aisle, collecting what God has stated is rightfully his, but has in has crept across a very sacred line, in a most subtle and beguiling way, and is in fact maneuvering to take “sovereignty” over that which is ONLY called to be subject to God alone…? How exactly does one go about re-delineating those arenas, whereby you strive to be obedient in terms of paying taxes on the one hand, but not inadvertently subjecting oneself to totalitarian control by the State in the process…? Many Christians are all too ready to completely disassociate themselves from Kent, because they’ve now seen the kind of concrete casualties that can result from trying to redraw that ever-blurring line, or even seeking to navigate backwards through a dizzying minefield of corporatocratic stanchions, while they themselves refuse to recognize that the minefield even exists in the first place, let alone venture a single toe into such uncharted and treacherous waters.

So what about you, would you risk being deemed a “terrorist of the paper kind”, because you ultimately gave more authority to the words printed on the paper pages of God’s Word than things printed on paper by man…?

The Power In Pink Hair

Found this blog yesterday and am already really liking it. This post actually helped answer something I had been wondering about for a while….

Gonz Shimura, Dan Duval and Carolyn Hamlett: A Podcast Trifecta!

Three of my all time favorite folks who talk about NWO from a Christ-centered perspective, all together in one interview. Booya.

This Is Exactly Why I Can’t Stomach Ol’ AJ Anymore…

This is almost comical, even by Alex Jones standards… At one point I thought one of the veins in his forehead might pop. You know what burns MY britches Alex? When guys like you dominate the internet making those who actually believe in the shadow government shenanigans look just the crazy, angry, unstable lunatics that the shadow government wants to portray them as. Way to go buddy, way to go…

Media admits vaccines cause more illness – Would you get a vaccine knowing this? | FLOW OF WISDOM

Brother Sean is speaking some more TRUTH on vaccines…..

FLOW OF WISDOM® | SEAN ANTHONY

Photo source: deesillustration.com

On this clip of Flow Of Wisdom radio, I discuss reports are now coming out that the recent Flu vaccine is not working.

“Canadian Flu Vaccine Paradox” Admits Vaccines Are Causing More Illness – (Activist Post)

Canadian mainstream media has taken a bold new step – admitting the problem that frequent vaccines are creating a cascade of more illnesses. And not just a greater number and frequency of illnesses but even lower protection against the very diseases the vaccines were supposed to protect against.

Infowars.com –

“As flu season kicks into high gear, the US’ foremost health authority, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, is coming clean about the current flu vaccine’s lack of efficacy.”

View original post

Dissolving Illusions: Disease, Vaccines and the Forgotten History – A Review

(The following is a review of the book “Dissolving Illusions: Disease, Vaccines and the Forgotten History” by Dr. Suzanne Humphries, (the review being written by Dr. Mercola), which overall I just found to be full of some very fascinating information. Dr. Humphries site for the book is at dissolvingillusions.com)

Vaccines are one of the most controversial medical therapies, and it’s impossible to make an informed decision unless you know both sides of the story. In the process of knowing both sides, the historical context is critical.

Dr. Suzanne Humphries, author of Dissolving Illusions: Disease, Vaccines, and the Forgotten History,1 is a nephrologist who has committed the latter part of her medical career to exposing the “lost history” of vaccinations.

Barbara Loe Fisher of NVIC commented that this is one of the rare books that conducted in-depth research documenting the medical history related to mass vaccination programs and infectious diseases.

I have read the book from cover to cover and would strongly recommend that you pick up a copy if you have even the remotest interest in this topic, especially if you believe in the safety and necessity of vaccines, as the comprehensive documentation will likely cause you to reevaluate your position.

It is an absolutely fascinating read, and in some ways demonstrates that enforcement of vaccine programs could be far worse today, when compared to historical standards when people were imprisoned and even killed when they refused to comply.

I will likely reread the book again so I can be well armed to articulately express my concerns on why one needs to have serious reservations on the validity of vaccines, based on historical precedents.

Why This Book Was Written

Dr. Humphries’ interest in this area began in 2009, when several of her patients told her that they’d been perfectly healthy until they got one vaccine or another. Prior to this, she’d been, as she says, “agnostic” about vaccination.

“I had vaccinated my dialysis patients; I, myself, was vaccinated; and I pretty much believed what I was taught in medical school,” she says.

Then she started noticing that her patients were being ordered to get vaccinated on their first day of admission into the hospital—often when they had serious diseases: inflammatory diseases, heart attacks, congestive heart failure, and one patient with cancer on chemotherapy.

“My patients were getting vaccinated on their first hospital day before I even saw them, and the order had my name on it,” she says. “This alerted me that there was something going on that I had not approved of.

I complained to the hospital administration about it. It was from resistance that I was met with that, ironically, led me into this path.”

Countering Vaccine Arguments Led to Startling Conclusions

The conventional paradigm states that vaccines are safe and effective, and can be given to virtually anybody regardless of how sick they are.

In order to address and counter the arguments she was given for this routine policy, she had to research vaccination, which led her to discover that there is absolutely nothing in the medical literature to support vaccinating an acutely ill person.

“At some point, they called in an expert to set me straight,” she says. “The arguments that I got from the experts still were not lining up with science.

My patients were acutely ill, they had inflammatory diseases, and I didn’t want them vaccinated. I was told that I was confusing the nursing staff by discontinuing vaccines in my patients. That was how it all started.”

Arguments often used by vaccine advocates include the oft-parroted sound byte that ‘diseases like smallpox and polio were eradicated by vaccination.’ Hence vaccines rank among the greatest medical interventions known.

As a result, she ended up researching smallpox and polio—even though it really had nothing to do with what was happening to her patients. Alas, this was when Dr. Humphries started coming to some really startling conclusions.

“In my research, I was startled [to realize] that what I found was completely counter to what I have been told and taught my entire life. I now don’t believe that smallpox vaccines eradicated smallpox. I now don’t believe that polio vaccines eradicated polio.

The stories are very twisted, long, and complicated, and the vaccines have changed over time. It’s really easy to kind of throw up smokescreens here and there and make whatever argument one might want to, because people are so ignorant and because the story is so complicated.”

The Story Behind the Smallpox Vaccine

Every vaccine has a story behind it, Dr. Humphries says. The smallpox vaccine, for example, was actually developed long before the medical establishment knew anything about the human immune system. The revelations on smallpox alone are fascinating enough to purchase this book, and is far more detailed than the summary in this article.

The vaccine was actually developed based on a rumor circulating among dairy maids. The rumor was that when a dairy maid had been infected with cowpox—which is a common infection on the udder of the cow—she would no longer be susceptible to smallpox.

The rumor was a persistent one, as rumors can be, despite the fact that there were plenty of dairy maids who developed smallpox after having cowpox. But this rumor is what led Edward Jenner to develop the first smallpox vaccine.

“Basically, it was made by scraping pus off the belly of a cow,” Dr. Humphries says. “Sometimes there was some goat genetic disease in there. There was horsepox mixed in there.

There was sometimes human pox mixed in and some glycerin. They would shake it up; they would take kind of a prong, and puncture the skin several times…

What I didn’t realize was that there were many people who developed serious smallpox disease and died after they were vaccinated. The severity of disease was often worse in the vaccinated than the unvaccinated.

There are statistics that show that the death rate was higher in the vaccinated than the unvaccinated.”

When the smallpox vaccine was developed, there was also no way to accurately diagnose the type of pox disease a person had. It may have been chickenpox, monkeypox, or smallpox, but back then, any kind of pox disease was considered smallpox—even though the vaccine didn’t actually have the human smallpox virus in it. Animal pox virus was always used. According to Dr. Humphries, it was the most contaminated vaccine that’s ever been on the market.

“If you look at a town like Leicester in England, that town was noticing that they had one of the highest vaccination rates in the vaccinated world and their smallpox breakout was higher than ever,” Dr. Humphries says. “The people in the town had a rally. The mayor and some of the health officials were there. They all agreed that they were going to stop vaccinating… The result was quite different from the predictions.

The predictions were that there was going to be a bonfire of disease set upon the planet and that these people in Leicester were risking the health of the world by not making vaccination mandatory. But once they stopped smallpox vaccines they had the lowest rate of smallpox infection and deaths.

What we show in our book – and we show the graphs of the disease rates and the death rates – was that both of them went down precipitously after the vaccinations were stopped. That story right there tells you that vaccines were not what made the disease go away; what made the disease go away was isolation and sanitation.”

Antibody Is the Wrong Way to Ascertain Immunity

One of the major arguments against vaccine-induced immunity is that it primarily stimulates the humoral immune system and not the cellular immune system. Antibodies are produced by the humoral immune system and then routinely measured to determine “immunity.” The problem with this approach is that you can have high antibody levels and still get the disease. It’s very difficult and expensive to measure the cellular immune response, and immunologists admit that they are still in the dark about a lot of the finer points of the overall immune response.

When you use antibody titers or blood levels to check for immunity, all you’re doing is getting a picture of what happened (you had an immune response); it doesn’t tell you whether you’re going to be immune in the future, because antibodies are only one aspect of the immune response, and in some cases are not even necessary to easily combat the sickness and become immune.

For example, those with agammaglobulinemia—a disease where you cannot make antibodies — can get infected with measles, recover uneventfully, and still respond to subsequent challenges of the virus in a normal healthy fashion and not get sick. These individuals will have lifelong immunity to measles, the same as someone without agammaglobulinemia.

Traditionally, the way immunity is determined is to do a test that measures antibodies, which is the humoral immune system. But there’s no good way to assess the cellular immune system. It’s a really imprecise science at best. As Dr. Humphries notes:

“It’s not only imprecise; sometimes it’s downright inaccurate. You can have very high antibody levels, like numerous case reports of people who have hugely high antibody levels for tetanus, or normal antibodies, and have gotten some of the worst cases of tetanus. I have papers that show that people without antibody for polio have actually been able to respond to the virus as if they were already immune. The antibody really is a real wrong roadmap to look at to tell what’s really going on. Sometimes there’s correlation, but it’s certainly not a given.”

The Story Behind the Polio Vaccine

The other prime argument for the justification and support of today’s highly aggressive vaccination program is the alleged success of the polio vaccine. But here again, the historical perspective fails to support the vaccination paradigm.

“The story behind polio is absolutely fascinating when you look at the politics that went on researching the vaccine, and how scientists were fired if they disagreed with the program going on through the National Foundation of Infantile Paralysis (NFIP) in the late 1940s and early 1950s. That was the vaccine that Jonas Salk developed,” Dr. Humphries says.

Before the Salk vaccine became available, if you were admitted to the hospital any doctor could diagnose you with polio based on two physical examinations within 24 hours, to check for paralysis in one or more muscle groups. We now know that a number of viruses can cause paralysis, but back then, all instances were thought to be due to polio virus. When the polio vaccine was developed, a problem emerged. Swedish scientists were trying to tell the US scientists that formaldehyde inactivation was not going to work as planned.

Their warning, however, fell on deaf ears. This was unfortunate, as they turned out to be correct. Live poliovirus, which was put in an injectable vaccine, would appear to be inactivated right after it was made, but sometimes it would “resurrect” in the vial… In essence, the formaldehyde did not kill off all the polioviruses in these vaccines, which led to live polio viruses being injected. As a result, more people developed paralysis from the vaccine in 1955 than would have developed it from a wild, normal natural poliovirus.

Something had to be done to make it appear as though the vaccine was working. So what they did was change the diagnostic criteria for polio. Sadly this is a very common practice in medicine. When the observations don’t fit your expectations, change or rig the system so that they do. With polio, the original criteria was two examinations within 24 hours. This was changed to two examinations within 60 days. This was helpful in cooking the books, because within 60 days, most people recover from their bout with poliomyelitis.

“All those people who were formerly called polio were no longer categorized as polio because they recovered from their paralysis within that time,” Dr. Humphries explains.

Then there was the issue of testing. Prior to the vaccine, there was no testing done on blood or stool samples. After the vaccine came along, there was an epidemic in Michigan around 1958. About 2,000 people were diagnosed with polio. In disbelief over the outbreak, serological testing was done, and they discovered that the polio virus was found in only a small minority—about one-quarter of those who displayed symptoms of infection. Interestingly, in the remainder they discovered a different virus or no virus at all! And, subsequently, those patients were no longer “counted” as having polio.

“So simply by doing the diagnostic testing and changing the diagnostic criteria, the rates of polio plummeted, whether or not there was ever a vaccine. These were the kind of things that were going on back then,” Dr. Humphries says.

Oral Polio Vaccine Propagates Transmission of Vaccine Virus

It’s important to realize that the injected polio vaccine does nothing to prevent transmission of the virus, and after an oral polio vaccine you become a reservoir of virus that can mutate or combine with other bowel viruses, creating new strains that are often more virulent to those around you. According to Dr. Humphries, the only thing the injectable vaccine theoretically does is give you some blood immunity, similar to tetanus. This means it is only going to be effective if your blood meets the virus before the virus meets your nervous system.

Once vaccine makers realized just how difficult it was to inactivate the polio virus, and many people ended up contracting polio from the vaccine, they decided to abandon the injectable polio vaccine and create an oral vaccine instead, which is more similar to the natural route of infection. Again, controversy ensued. The oral vaccine did interrupt transmission of the wild type virus, but it propagated transmission of the vaccine virus instead.

“The fact of the matter is that you can attenuate a virus all you want, which means that you pass it through different animals to make it mutate enough that it’s not quite as lethal or virulent at some point. But once you put that vaccine or that virus back into its natural host, it mutates back to the way it was,” Dr. Humphries explains.

“You can give a baby an oral polio vaccine and it can be attenuated. But even in the vial, before you give it to that baby, those viruses are starting to revert back to their former problematic state. And then once the baby swallows that, the baby will generate some immunity in the intestine. But what’s going to come out of that baby is going to be mutated vaccine virus. Oftentimes this is problematic, especially in people who are immunosuppressed.”

In the 1990s the US quit using the oral vaccine, and switched back to the injectable vaccine. To address the hazards of injecting improperly or inadequately inactivated polio virus, certain adjustments to the formulation were made. Modern polio vaccines are propagated and inactivated differently from earlier versions, and different countries also use different strains of the polio virus. Older polio viruses used to contain three strains of the virus. Today, some countries will only use one or two.

Polio Was ‘Eradicated’ NOT by the Vaccine But Through Redefinition

As noted by Dr. Humphries, it’s very easy to defeat the polio vaccine argument, as most incidences of polio disappeared because the disease was redefined—not because there was an actual change in disease prevalence. In fact, it could be argued that the vaccine did more harm than good, since some versions caused polio, and others propagated new mutated strains of the virus. According to Dr. Humphries, at one point, the only polio cases in the US were vaccine-induced. Yet even though there are no cases of wild polio being discovered, the polio vaccine remains part of the US vaccine program…

“Even today, you can just go on to the CDC website and the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR). You can see that cases of polio in this country by and large occur when people get the oral vaccine in another country and then come here. When they say that polio is only a plane ride away, the truth is that disease from polio vaccine is also a plane ride away… Like I said, the injected vaccines do not interrupt propagation of the virus. If somebody comes to this country who has recently had an oral polio vaccine and he’s shedding a highly virulent strain, people in this country can start passing it around.”

Polio Epidemic Historically Related to Increase in Sugar Consumption

Here’s another interesting tidbit that no one ever talks about: In the past, it has sometimes been suggested that a large part of the polio epidemic was related to increases in sugar consumption. Dr. Benjamin Sandler wrote an entire book about this, and Dr. Humphries refers to his work in her book as well. She explains the connection as follows:

“Polio’s an enterovirus [i.e. a virus that enters the body through the gastrointestinal tract and thrives there]. The integrity and the flora population in your bowel is extremely important when it comes to dealing with any kind of bowel infection. A diet that’s high in sugar is going to 1) impair your cell-mediated immune system and 2) trash your gut flora… [It was] shown that in populations who cut back on their sugar intake, the rates of polio plummeted… But it was so unbelievable that nobody really listened to him.

It was the same as when Dr. Frederick Klenner tried to say that he cured 100 percent of patients with intravenous vitamin C and [it] just didn’t register. The… low-sugar diet was very effective because of the effect it has on the immune system and on the bowel flora. The same with dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT); DDT really trashes the bowel, the intestinal walls, and the flora…. Not only can DDT give you all the symptoms of polio all by itself, it can also make the poliovirus much more virulent and active in the body for the same reason: it disturbs the normal function of the bowel.”

DDT exposure has also been linked to Alzheimer’s disease, and it’s worth noting that the contemporary equivalent of DDT, glyphosate, according to Dr. Don Huber, professor emeritus at Purdue University, is far more toxic than DDT. It definitely has been shown to decimate your microbiome, and glyphosate preferentially kills bacteria known to be beneficial for human health.

‘You Cannot Dabble in the Topic of Vaccination’

Dr. Humphries left a successful practice making $300,000 a year to be a poorly paid researcher. For her it was worth it, because her integrity wouldn’t allow her to turn a blind eye to what she knew to be wrong.

“If you want to make these [vaccine] arguments, we have to have information and we have to have knowledge. We have to understand the history, the medical literature, the biology, the chemistry, the physiology, and the immunology. That is not easy. You cannot dabble in the topic of vaccination. If you do, you’re likely going to be toppled by the pro-vaccine lobby because they’re doing their homework.

I felt it was more important to do my homework and make these arguments that I wanted to make… I do lectures if people invite me. I have toured through Scandinavia. Our book has been translated into two different languages [Spanish and German]… Right now I’m really immersed in the topic of infant immunity because there is so much information that has just come out in the past few years that, in my opinion, turns the vaccine paradigm for infants completely on its head.

Instead of arguing about any particular vaccine, if you understand the way the infant immune system is designed, you can automatically see that if you were going to toss any kind of a vaccine in there, you might give them some short-term immunity, but you’re also going to change their immune systems so that it can’t function the way it was designed to function… The arguments against vaccines when you really understand the infant immune system I think are irrefutable.”

Science of Epigenetics Changes Everything Yet Again…

Epigenetics is another field where biology is being turned on its head and all the old paradigms are being tossed out. Epigenetic science now tells us that our genes are NOT our destiny, and the problem is that once you start to epigenetically tinker with the infant immune system, you are basically depositing what Dr. Humphries refers to as “little cluster bombs” that will eventually “explode into a big problem.” As an example, she cites a study by Nikolaj Orntoft, in which African girls were injected with a tetanus vaccine to see which genes might be upregulated or downregulated. What they found is that there’s really no way to predict which genes will be affected.

So not only will each individual have a unique response to any given vaccine, based on their current health status, we’re also epigenetically predisposed to respond differently in terms of the side effects we might develop. This means that having a vaccine compensation table for reimbursement for vaccine damage is nonsensical as we’re bound to have different genes upregulated after vaccines are given.

“We can have cancer genes upregulated, or autoimmune diseases upregulated. This has been shown in modern literature that used these highly sophisticated gene techniques to actually watch what happens after the vaccine is injected. I think this is really powerful information to show that, when vaccines started, they knew nothing about the immune system. Then scientists knew something about the immune system, but now we know about the genetics of the immune system and the epigenetics of the immune system, and that’s got to be taken into account…”

Most Doctors Are Completely Uninformed, Which Means You Cannot Make an Informed Choice

Dr. Humphries stresses the importance of “thinking long and hard” about how much information you’ve been given before your child is given a vaccine.

“[Vaccines] can have tumorigenic kidney cells of a cocker spaniel in it. It can have human fetal cells with retroviruses. [It can have] aluminum, which is one of the most horrible things to inject into any sort of life form, especially into a muscle… Parents really need to know that their doctors are not informed and therefore they cannot give informed consent, and that they really need to think about it because you cannot unvaccinate.

The fear of, “Oh, what if my child gets a disease”—that’s where knowing the history is really important because what we’re talking about is under which conditions people become susceptible . That’s really more important than transmission. Because, yes, measles transmits very rapidly through the population, but it actually has a lot of benefits to the immune system—so much so that they’re using it to treat cancer today.”

We really need to understand each disease – what the risk of it is, how it’s transmitted, what the vaccine effectiveness is, and what the risks are. Dr. Humphries also notes that the human body is designed in such a perfect way that there is a system in place to handle just about anything that happens to it, provided we’ve treated our body properly.

“Babies who come into this world in a normal and natural way, who are breastfed for an appropriate amount of time, that’s the best protection you could ever give to your baby’s immune system or brain. Consider that when the fear starts to creep in. If you’re breastfeeding your baby, you’re already giving the most powerful thing on the planet that can be given to that baby,” she says.

More Information

People have been scared into believing vaccines are the answer to prevent disease, but when you look at the historical evidence, the arguments used simply fall apart. There’s just no question that improving your innate immune system—through reducing sugar and processed foods in your diet, improving your gut flora, leading a healthy lifestyle, and having adequate vitamin D levels, ideally through sensible sun exposure,—will provide a far more effective immune response and virtually eliminate any risk of developing a life threatening infection.

The key is to have the courage to trust in this truth—that your body is designed to maintain health. Its natural course and direction is to be healthy not sick. If you have a healthy lifestyle, exposure to nearly all of these infectious agents will ultimately make you healthy and stronger. This is similar to exercise, which actually tears your body down to make it stronger. Nature actually knows what it’s doing, whereas putting chemicals into your body based on human theories (or rumors!) that are oftentimes completely wrong, is unlikely to produce better results. As noted by Dr. Humphries:

“We have a highly profitable, lucrative religion that involves the government, industry, and academia. That religion is vaccination. People believe in vaccines. They’ll tell you, they believe in vaccines. But you ask them what they know about vaccines and it will be almost nothing. In fact the people who argue the loudest usually know the least when it comes to trying to convince you to take the vaccine. That’s been my experience.

Medical schools are bereft of information on the history of vaccination, on the contents of them, and the potential problems. We have the go-to doctors, like Dr. Paul Offit, teaching doctors how to talk to vaccine-refusing parents. We have doctors like Dr. Robert Jacobson putting out PowerPoint presentations to give to doctors, literally telling them to persuade the parents rather than to inform them…

Doctors are really being systematically brainwashed. Not only that, but if doctors do start to see problems… wake up to it; do their own research, and buck the system, they risk being treated the way I was. I was well respected through the entire state of Maine. People were referring their patients to me. My colleagues would come to me with their medical problems… But once I started to argue against the practice of vaccination, I was automatically tossed into the category of a quack…”

To learn more, I couldn’t more highly recommend Dr. Humphries excellent book, Dissolving Illusions: Disease, Vaccines, and the Forgotten History, available in paper back and Kindle on Amazon. You can also find more information on the book’s website, dissolvingillusions.com. I have read it cover to cover and plan on doing so again as there are loads of powerful information that helps combat the blindly foolish acceptance of nearly all media and professionals on the value of vaccinations.

(and here is a video interview of featuring Dr. Mercola with Dr. Suzanne Humphries…)

What is UP with these DNA strands on license plates anyhow?

This is just a weird, random thing that has been pickin at my brain for almost two years now. I started noticing this on certain NV license plates around town shortly after we moved to Vegas. They don’t all have it, but a lot of them do. Going online, I didn’t find much except for a couple of interesting little forum discussions about this very topic, here and here. Apparently, this little helix design, which looks almost unmistakably like a DNA strand, has been put on license plates from quite a few states, with no apparent official explanation as to why. It’s just such an odd thing to me, every time I see one, it just makes me cock my head a little, and wonder. If it’s just a type of “digital watermark”, or something put on there to prevent people from easily counterfeiting license plates, then why the choice of the helix shape? Just one of those things that makes you go, “Hmmmmmmmmm”.

The World Is Your Holographic Oyster…

I’m sure everyone has already heard of this by now, but it was just something I couldn’t write but write a little something on. It fits so chillingly perfect into previous treatments of the broader discussion on transhumanism, taking things to a level that even though I had sort of already imagined, even takes it to a level I had not totally conceived…

I can just see people totally embracing this whole concept, especially once this technology and computing capability eventually is merged with a viable form of digital contact lens technology, as has been under development by the likes of Babak Parviz, who has worked for the University of Washington, Google, and now has recently joined up with Amazon.

Let’s face it, once the cumbersome aspect of having to wear a big headset thing is gone, then what’s to stop the entire world from jumping on board the bandwagon of being able to “personalize” your entire world the way you decorate your computer’s desktop, or configure your smart phone. Is the weather outside looking gloomy and grey? Well just pick a nice tropical beach scene to play in the frame of your windowsill instead. Remember how amazed we all were to hear about Bill Gate’s techno-mansion when it was first built, and how he had them install digital picture frames that would show different artwork based on who was in the room? Well, that’s not just the stuff of eugenicist billionaires anymore, no! Now we can ALL enjoy such freedom of expression and artistic appreciation in our own humble little domiciles. What about things like skype and video conferencing? Instead of staring at a video screen of the person you’re talking to, perhaps a whole wall turns into a hologram that shows the other person in the room they’re sitting in, making it appear as if you’re both sitting face to face in the same building…

As the guy doing the presentation says, it’s the kind of thing where you have to admit that there’s probably all sorts of applications that will be thought of that we can’t even imagine just yet, and that, of course, is where the downfalls lie as well. When you start thinking of what this level of processing power and three-dimensional mapping, (essentially software that is able to constantly analyze the environment it is viewing, in a complex way, including people) in the context of say, government surveillance?

It’s one thing to imagine the “panopticon” having access to all computers and smart devices as they presently exist, with their built-in cameras and microphones that can be turned on remotely with or without any noticeable sign, but if people at some point are being “upgraded” to having their own “smart lenses”, which both project digital info and holograms all over the physical 3-D world, but are also constantly taking in and processing what they are looking at..? That is the point friends, when we truly have reached the point of “life imitating art”, as the scene in the Matrix becomes reality, when Morpheus is explaining to Neo,

“If you are not one of us, you are one of Them.” (Neo) “What are They?” ”
“Sentient programs. They can move in and out of any software still hardwired to their system. That means that anyone we haven’t unplugged, is potentially an agent. Inside the matrix, they are everyone, and they are no one…”

If you haven’t yet seen Gonzo Shimura’s documentary: Age of Deceit 2 – Alchemy and the Rise of the Beast Image, then seriously DO watch it. The more we see all this technology coming together in ways that the transhumanists proclaim will make all of our lives so incredibly awesome, the more we see the technology which will in actuality be that which allows the image of the Beast to finally manifest, not just in screens we look at, but in holograms which will seak to weave themselves into the natural world, blurring the lines between physical and digital realities, until the line disappears altoghether, and the “sentient beings” which police this all-encompassing matrix invade the very minds of those who have willingly embedded themselves in that system….

Isaac Luria and the ‘Seal of Solomon’…

Ok, so here’s a little taste of a rabbit trail I’ve been going down lately… It started when yesterday I was watching a couple of youtube vids on a blog (which now I can’t seem to find for the life of me) on the history of the “Star of David”, and towards the end it was talking about how Mayer Rothschild adopted this symbol as basically the logo of his ‘lending house’ in Frankfurt. “Rothschild” means “Red Shield”, as many people know, the “red shield” being a reference to the very symbol we now associate with the state of Israel and Jewish people worldwide. But then, it spoke about how the 16th century Kabbalist Isaac Luria was a key figure in bringing this symbol of the superimposed triangles into more prevalent use and acceptance with the Jewish community as a whole. So, reading further about Luria has been intriguing indeed. First of all, I had for a while been curious as to how the occult underpinnings of the Rothschilds traced back further into history, and Luria is a key piece in that puzzle. The video made a key point in mentioning that by hanging this symbol on the front of his business establishment, (and changing his very name as well), Rothschild was essentially declaring himself to be a master Kabbalist…

But what does that mean? Digging into the person of Luria helps shed light on that, and it is decidedly much easier to brouse through writings on the belief system and teachings of Luria then it is to read about those of the secretive Rothschilds, and Luria, having lived several hundred years before Mayer Amschel Bauer effectively conquered Europe through financial skull-duggery, proves to be every bit as much a key figure in revealing the inner nature of the shadowy machinations at work in the world right now.

From Jewish Virtual Library:

Luria was born in Jerusalem in 1534 to German parents. His father died when he was young, and Luria was brought up by his mother in the house of her brother, Mordecai Frances, a wealthy tax-farmer. In Egypt, Luria studied Jewish law and rabbinic literature under Rabbi David ben Solomon ibn Abi Zimra and Zimra’s successor, Bezalel Ashkenazi. Luria’s teachers considered him outstanding in non_mystical study and he collaborated with Ashkenazi on shitah mekubbetzet, a work on Jewish law based on Tractate Zevachim in the Talmud. In addition to study, Luria earned a living through commerce.

When Luria was 15 years old, he married his cousin. He spent approximately six years studying with Ashkenazi, then moved to Jazirat al-Rawda, a secluded island on the Nile that was owned by his father-in-law. He visited his family only on the Sabbath and the few words he spoke were always in Hebrew, directed solely to his wife. During this period, he concentrated his studies on the Zohar and the works of earlier Kabbalists. He was also particularly interested in his contemporary, Kabbalist Moses Cordovero. It was at this time that Luria wrote his commentary on the Sifra Di-Zenivta section of the Zohar. Luria believed that deceased teachers of the past spoke to him and that he had frequent interviews with Elijah the prophet.

In one of these “interviews,” Luria believed that Elijah instructed him to move to the land of Israel, so, in 1569, he moved to Safed where he studied Kabbalah with Cordovero until Cordovero’s death in 1570.

I found that last part particularly interesting. So the guy was having conversations with demons, thinking they were Old Testament prophets…(!) But yeah, this is basically what it all boils down to, the fundamental fact that Kabbalism, touted as “Jewish Mysticism”, is really just witchcraft at the end of the day, deep witchcraft in fact, a compilation of occultic practices stemming from Babylon and elsewhere, embalmed with a thick coating of Jewish cultural spin.

And this is where the “Star of David” specifically comes from, actual practice of Jewish sorcery, though it was never called as such, as even an article in Wikipedia admits, while also referencing Luria’s involvment in the popularization of this occultic symbol:

Medieval Kabbalistic grimoires show hexagrams among the tables of segulot, but without identifying them as “Shield of David”.

In the Renaissance Period, in the 16th-century Land of Israel, the book Ets Khayim conveys the Kabbalah of Ha-Ari (Rabbi Isaac Luria) who arranges the traditional items on the seder plate for Passover into two triangles, where they explicitly correspond to Jewish mystical concepts. The six sfirot of the masculine Zer Anpin correspond to the six items on the seder plate, while the seventh sfira being the feminine Malkhut corresponds to the plate itself.

Along with his teachings on the esoteric meanings of the hexagram (“Star of David”) as found in the “Seder” or Passover meal (talk about blasphemy!), Luria also ‘contributed’ a lot of ideas involving the more general ideas of “panentheism” in Kabbalsim, which deals with their concept of “eminations” of/from “God”, the “sefirot” from the “Ein-sof”. Luria came up with this concept of the “Tzimtzum”, which basically was his speculations on how “God” (though in Kabbalism, God is not the personal God we think of, but more the “creation force” or “source of everything”, etc.) made the universe, while being a part of his creation and his creation still being a part of him. From thetorah.com:

According to the first expositors of Tzimtzum shelo kepshuto, the original Lurianic doctrine of Tzimtzum should not be understood literally as a real displacement and the creation of an actual void within the Ein-sof, but rather as the establishment of a world of appearances, in which God’s infinity is represented in finite proportions capable of being grasped by finite minds. According to this understanding, God’s monolithic unity before creation and after creation remains exactly the same; ontologically nothing has changed. But as a result of the spontaneous activity of the divine life, there ensued a covering over or concealment of some aspect of God’s all-pervasive presence, thereby engendering an illusory realm of appearance. This so-called metaphoric “withdrawal” enables the epistemological distinction between subject and object, creator and created being, perceiver and perceived, and allows various elements of God’s infinity to view themselves as separate entities, despite the fact that ontologically they remain merged with the whole.

Essentially, it’s all a bunch of theological and mystical gobbledeegook which all goes toward the propping up of a singular, underlying tenet. You are god! Everything is god. Or to be more precise to their perspective, “God” is “in” everything. Pan-en-theism literally means “God in everything”, and this facet of Luria’s “legacy” was also of special interest to me, since this notion of “panentheism” is actually a term I have heard quite a bit in the past, in the context of several “Emergenty” Christian teachers, particularly a guy named Leonard Sweet, and his incredibly sympathetic-to-the-occult book, “Quantum Christianity“.

Panentheism is really a much more pervasive concept than one might think at first glance, and it can really be described and alluded to in a variety of ways. If you ever hear people talking about “the divine spark within all of us” and such, well, there ya go.

All in all, the more I study the various connections and histories of all these pieces, the more they all continue fitting together into a very cohesive matrix of global spiritual deception. Praise be to Jesus, the Son, who has conquered death and hell, opening our eyes to the schemes of the Fallen One and even giving us complete authority over all these demonic affronts to His true, eternal Kingdom…

Fool me once…

It is incredibly frustrating when the sun decides to shine in opposite directions. Makes chasing my own shadow that much more difficult… 🙂