Friday, November 25, 2011

DRUG (RX) MONEY: MAKING A KILLING

The current health care system took root around the turn of the century when the AMA, Rockefeller Foundation, and Carnegie Foundation forged a partnership. They put their money into drug-based research and made that the main focus of “healthcare”. Since then, the Rockefellers and other prominent banking elite have been able to control and profit enormously from the drug industry. The AMA – which is the largest association of physicians in the U.S. – enforces the drug-treatment paradigm by heavily lobbying Congress and publishing one of the most influential journals, JAMA, which is largely funded by pharmaceutical advertisers. It is also engaged in suppressing alternative health treatments, such as the Royal Rife cancer cure.
Here’s a timeline detailing the suppression of alternative cancer cures and the Rockefeller Foundation’s role in shaping the healthcare industry:


1901 – Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research Opens
Based out of New York, this became one of the most “richly endowed” research centers. By 1928, John D. Rockefeller had given it $65 million in endowment funds.[1] This later became Rockefeller University.


1910 – Flexner Report Published, Establishes New Standards For Medical Education

This highly influential report, sponsored by the Rockefeller’s and Carnegie Foundation, evaluated medical schools and restructured American medical education. It set up a new standard so that schools could only be accredited if they showed an emphasis in drug based research and treatment. Homeopathy and other alternative approaches to medicine were no longer recognized. Abraham Flexner, author of the report, was on the staff of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. In 1910, 161 medical schools existed. By 1919, there were only 81 left.[2]


1913 – Rockefeller Foundation Establishes the International Health Commission
This laid the foundation for how health and science research and development were to be conducted. Many of today’s health institutions were modeled on this commission’s practices, policies, and research processes such as the UN’s World Health Organization, the U.S. Government’s National Science Foundation, and the National Institute of Health.


1918 – Public Health Becomes Rockefeller Foundation’s Top Priority

“The Foundation identifies public health education as one of its principal areas of interest, and builds and endows the first school of public health at Johns Hopkins University.”


1921 – Rockefeller Foundation Contributes $357 million [3] to Medical Schools Around the World

This spreads the drug-based approach to the most prominent schools around the world.


1922 – Dr. Royal Raymond Rife Begins Cancer Research

In the 1920s, Dr. Rife – a brilliant bacteriologist and former student of John Hopkins University – began researching and developing an alternative cancer cure.


1924 – Morris Fishbein Becomes Primary Editor of JAMA

JAMA, the Journal of the American Medical Association, is one of the most influential medical journals in the world. As head of JAMA, Morris Fishbein, became one of most powerful, prominent men in medicine during the time. He transformed the industry into a money-making machine and used negative campaigns to squash competitors. He was one of the key figures to suppress Dr. Royal Rife’s cancer cure.


1924 – Harry Hoxsey Founds First Cancer Clinic in Taylorville, Illinois

Harry Hoxsey offers a natural herbal formula to cure cancer that thousands claim to have worked. This is the first of 17 clinics to eventually open.


1926 – JAMA Publishes First Tirade Against Hoxsey

The article scares doctors and researchers from being associated with Hoxsey.


1927 – John D. Rockefeller Jr. Gave the First of his Annual $60,000 Contribution to Memorial (Sloan-Kettering) Cancer Center


1932 – Dr. Rife Develops Cancer Cure

Dr. Rife developed a machine that could neutralize disease-causing micro-organisms, including cancer cells, with the use of frequencies.


1932 - Director of Rockefeller Institute, Dr. Thomas Rivers, Denies Success of Rife Cancer Treatment

In 1932, Dr. Arthur Kendall, director of Medical Research at Northwestern University, spoke before the Association of American Physicians at Johns Hopkins University about the preliminary successes with Rife's methods and treatments of cancer. Dr. Thomas Rivers, virologist and bacteriologist, director of the Rockefeller Institute (a primary source of funding for medical research) and Dr. Hans Zinsser, called Kendall a liar to his face in front of the assembled crowd.[4]


1934 - Rife’s Treatment Cures 16 Terminally Ill Cancer Patients

In 1934 at the Scripps Institute in La Jolla, Southern California, Rife conducted clinical trials on 16 terminally ill cancer patients, and successfully cured all of them. A team of medical specialists – including Dr. Milbank Johnson, Chairman of the Special Medical Research Committee of USC; George Fischer of the NY Children’s Hospital; and Dr. Wayland Morrison, the chief medical officer of the Santa Fe Railway – confirmed the findings.


1938 – The AMA Indicts Rife for Fraudulent Medical Practices


1939 – Philip Hoyland Files Suit Against Royal Rife’s Company, the Beam Ray Corporation

Philip Hoyland admitted to accepting a $10,000 bribe from Hahn Realty Group (AMA Agents) to sue the Beam Ray Corporation.


1939 – New Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center Opens – John D. Rockefeller donated the land and provided $3 million of funding


1940s – Rife’s Work Is Destroyed & Continues to be Suppressed


1949 – Hoxsey Sues JAMA and Editors for Libel and Slander – Hoxsey Wins


1949 – Morris Fishbein is Ousted from AMA


1956 – FDA Issues Public Warning About Hoxsey Cancer Treatment


1960 – Hoxsey Method Banned in U.S. by the FDA


1960 – Laurance Rockefeller Serves as Chairman of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York from 1960-1982

This center is one of the most influential cancer centers in the world. During WWII it performed some of the first experiments applying chemical warfare weapons to the “treatment of cancer”, which evolved into chemotherapy.


1963 – Bio-Medical (Hoxsey) Center Opens in Tijuana, Mexico

It continues to operate and claims an 80% success rate.


1971 – President Nixon Declares a “War on Cancer”

Signs $1.6 billion law.


1977 – Sloan-Kettering Rejects Laetrile (derived from Apricot Kernels) as Effective Cancer Treatment

This is despite positive results from Sloan-Kettering’s own famous researcher, Kanematsu Suguira. In November of 1977 Dr. Ralph Moss, Assistant Director of public affairs at Sloan-Kettering, held a press-conference about the success and potential of laetrile, despite the centers desire to cover it up. Ralph Moss was fired the next day for “failing to carry out the most basic job responsibilities.”


1991 – Rockefeller Foundation Helps Start Children’s Vaccine Initiative

The Foundation joins with the United Nations Development Programme, UNICEF, WHO and the World Bank to form the Children’s Vaccine Initiative (CVI).


2010 – More Than Half a Million Americans Die of Cancer



Related Links:


He Who Pays the Piper – Creation of the Modern Medical (Drug) Establishment by G. Edward Griffin


American Cancer Society: The World’s Wealthiest “Nonprofit” Institution by Samuel Epstein, M.D.


Cancer Studies Published in Respected Journals Biased by Medical Industry Money Natural News.



[1] Paul Starr, “The Social Transformation of American Medicine.”


[2] http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Health_Concerns/Pharmageddon/drugs_and_big_money.htm

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Medical_Association


[3] According to the Rockefeller Foundation, this was $357 million in “current dollars”: http://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/who-we-are/our-history/1920-1929/


[4] http://educate-yourself.org/cn/rifetimelinemay1998.shtml

Wednesday, February 2, 2011

What does YAHOO and GOOGLE stand for?

I found an interesting and humorous topic to blog about today.

What does GOOGLE stand for?

The name started as a jockey boast about the amount of information the search-engine would be able to search. It was originally named 'Googol', a word for the number represented by 1 followed by 100 zeros.
After founders - Stanford graduate students Sergey Brin and Larry Page presented their project to an angel investor, they received a cheque made out to 'Google'.

Sergey Brin - "We were thinking about very large numbers ... so we came up with the term "googol" which is the mathematical term for 10 to the hundredth (power). The correct spelling was g-o-o-g-o-l and I'm not sure that we realized that we had made a spelling error. But that was taken, anyway. There was this guy who'd already registered Googol.com, and I tried to buy it from him, but he was fond of it. So we went with Google."

What does YAHOO stand for?

There are unofficial explanations out there, so let me post one of the unofficial ones first, before I humor you with my opinion.

The word was invented by Jonathan Swift and used in his book Gulliver's Travels. It represents a person who is repulsive in appearance and action and is barely human.Yahoo! founders Jerry Yang and David Filo selected the name because they considered themselves yahoos.

The name Yahoo! is an acronym for "Yet Another Hierarchical Officious Oracle," but Filo and Yang insist they selected the name because they liked the general definition of a yahoo: "rude, unsophisticated, uncouth."

I think the above explanation is not true either. First, we know that yahoo is an expression used in Australia. There is even an artist Yahoo Serious, known for the movie "Einstein Junior". That's not it either. Here comes my crazy opinion and allegation towards Mr. Filo and Mr. Yang:

2011 years ago GOD, yes....the almighty GOD, told Abraham his real humanoid name. Which is spelled as YHAW and pronounced as "Yawheii". The Middle-Eastern at the time was ruled by Pharaohs and the once known Babilonians fled to a region, which is now known as Israel and Palastain. The Israelites, as they called themselves, changed the name of their GOD to YHA and this is pronounced as "YAHOO". So, there you go. Mr. Filo and Mr. Yang want to tell us, that THEY ARE GOD ! Perhaps...on the internet... until GOOGLE came along! LOL

Oh, now I have two more words for you: ELOHIM and JERIDOO. I will get into those to a later stage...but the second one Jeridoo I can explain with 100% certainty.

Cheers
Guido

Monday, August 16, 2010

The truth behind electric cars and their CO2 emission!


Dear fellow reader, before you throw your hands up in the air due to outrage what Guido has to say again....let me first say: SORRY. I didn't mean to burst your bubble. Matter of fact, I am a BIG supporter of electric cars, after all they are faster than regular gas powered cars and some of them, like the TESLA Roadster are pretty darn sexy!

I have a great supporting video http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=376826002719 posted on my fanpage "Guido's Garage" on Facebook.

On that show made by "Top Gear", which is probably the best car show on the planet, you can watch a test between the new Lotus Elise vs. the Tesla Roadster. GAS power vs. ELECTRIC power. In short: The Tesla (which is based on the Lotus Elise, built in England then shipped without an engine to the States...) is super fast, matter of fact, it beats even most Ferrari's and Lamborghini's. From Zero to 60 mph in just about 3.9 seconds. WOW... I WANT ONE!

The Lotus Elise, which is lighter because it doesn't have the lithium batteries, is much more nimble and outdoes the Tesla with it's handling. So, all you car nuts, including myself, are pretty blown away by both cars!

Having said that there are many good reasons to buy a Tesla or any other electric car currently on the market and if you look at the new upcoming Tesla Sedan (see picture), you can now buy GOOD looking affordable electric cars. But my reason for buying an electric car is not to save the planet and producing less CO2 emission, it is to stop the "oil crises" and the wars over oil, therefore taking the fuel out of terrorists hands.....


Matter of fact, if you are concerned about protecting mother nature you SHOULD NOT buy an electric car at the moment. Here are two good reasons why not:

Production of Batteries:

Did you know that the nickel for cadmium batteries, a.k.a. NiCd is mined all over the world, but that the batteries used in the Tesla or the Toyota Prius Hybrid for that matter come from Canada and the United States. Cadmium is HIGHLY TOXIC, in fact it is so toxic that during the process of mining it many miners die and lose their life.

Then, this cadmium is being shipped by boat to Poland and Hungary, where in sometime less than super-modern factories the people prepare the cadmium, containing this toxic metal to be put into a charging process, which is called electrochemistry procedure. Once they are done doing that, they ship it by trucks through Russia to China (I don't want to know how many accidents happen on that 3'000 miles trip)

In China, some 30 cents an hour workers and most likely without any proper protection manufacture the actual batteries, which are then shipped to Japan (in case of the Prius) or back to the United States (in case of the Tesla), where they are being put into the cars.

IN FACT: You could have driven a Toyota Corolla with a 2 lt, 4-banger engine for 280'000 miles and would have produced the same amount of CO2 emission as this toxic battery for the Prius/Tesla produced!!! That is a FACT.

And, don't get me started on the issue of DISPOSING old batteries, which are clogging our landfills and are highly toxic waste.

TESLA vs. ELISE CO2 output

What CO2 output you might say on the TESLA? I am not talking about the manufacturing process of the vehicle, which by now has produced 280'000 miles full of CO2 for their batteries. NO, I am talking about another pretty dyer fact. Except you live in Switzerland where 70% of it's power comes from hydro-plants, 20% from nuclear plants and 10% from alternative like wind mills, you are probably living in a country that produces it's electricity from COAL.

What do you think happens when you burn COAL? Exactly, it produces CO2, tons of it! Did you know that in 2008 the world's combined energy consumption was 474 exajoules with 80 to 90 percent derived by fossil fuels like oil and coal? That is right, in many countries they burn oil to produce electricity.

In the test video, they drove both cars in California. The range of the Tesla was about 250 miles per charge and the range of the Elise was about 250 miles per tank as well. Both cars are equal there. A tank full of unleaded premium costs around $45 for the Elise and a full charge of 9 hours on the Tesla (with those outrages high electricity prices in CA) almost the SAME.

And now comes the bummer: 2/3 of California's electricity production comes from....COAL! The production of this power produces the SAME AMOUNT of CO2 as the Elise emits from it's unleaded fuel!!!

Does it make sense now to buy an electric car? Besides the unstable world politics and wars over oil, it truly doesn't make sense to spend the extra dough on an electric car!

What are our options? I tell you one thing, keep a close eye on AIR POWERED cars like the ones invented in FRANCE by MTB. You can fully drive any car purely powered by AIR, compressed air that is. I will pick up on that topic soon once I finished my research on it...but AIR is the future and perhaps some other electrical devices, like the one Nikolai Tesla invented 100 years ago called electromagnetism. (Rumors say he got assassinated for that invention...). By the way, it came to my attention that the inventor of the TESLA cars calls them after Nikolai Tesla...perhaps the company is on to "something" ???

Anyway, I have spoken my mind again. I don't want to discourage you from buying a Tesla or other electric vehicle, just think about where you live and where the power comes from. Put a solar cell on your roof to charge up your Tesla please!!!




It is NOT your fault !!!


It's not bad enough that this whole Global Warming is a huge swindle. That we are being lied to my the governments who use the media to spread the lie to you...it comes even better: governments around the globe are forcing television networks to pull shows or threaten them that funding will dry up if certain shows will air. You want prove? Check out this interesting documentary which was made by British television ITV. It has been pulled off the air shortly after it aired. The producers have been sued and the scientists on the show have been cut off funding! And the producers were forced to call it a "mokumentary". Certain producers of the show are not producers anymore and are now cutting simple news somewhere in a rusty old outdated local television station! Speaking the truth will get you in trouble...."do not go against Goliath"...


If you see how politics, money and global dominance interact with each other, then you will understand why "they" don't want us to know that there is NOTHING, absolutely nothing we can do about or against global warming. That in fact, we are not the cause and that in fact we could continue to burn all our fuels and drive our Hummer's all the freakin' long without making the slightest, not even a Millisecond of change on this global impact with our actions. By now, I must have pissed off all green people reading this...be pissed off...but not at me for spreading the truth, be pissed off at your governments who are fully and totally controlled by corporations. These mass manufacturer decide what we eat, drink, work, spend our money on and BELIEVE. They control the governments - all of them, even yours and I don't give a rats-ass where you live.

More than 20 years ago a British television channel made a documentary called "Stopping the Ice Age". You can view the 59 minute documentary right here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGUMqBBbKqI

This documentary, just like the one above that aired ONE time in 2006 on ITV, has been shelved and just like so many other active challenged documentaries are faded away. Again, to prevent the viewers of learning the truth. You say...NO...the governments are trying to protect us of not letting us watch these harmful lying documentaries.

They are crab and they are not speaking the truth. So explain something to me please: How come both of the two documentaries have CREDITED scientists from America, England, Switzerland and other countries and how come they are explaining certain theories plausible and some not? How come we have found ample prove in our earth that these theories are true? All just a bunch of "humbug"? I don't think so!

How come these people are given a muzzle? They are being silenced. Let me explain a few major points our fellow scientists and journalists have known already more than 20 years ago.

- The CO2 that you are producing is doing VERY LITTLE to the global warming. I will get into that in a moment.

- The CO2 discussion is merely a HUGE PROPAGANDA, giving politicians the chance to build their career on it, because YOU ARE LISTENING.

- Media is merely a vehicle for large corporations and politicians to spread THEIR WORD, their believes and their propaganda. The Media is just passing it on to you without researching the FACTS of it. I can PROVE that, I work for several years for a leading media house!!! If they are being told that the sun shines BLUE now, they will pass that on to you without actually looking at the stars and the sun first...that's how bad it is!

What is going on on this planet? Have you noticed that it's not getting hotter anymore as of this and the last year? Let me tell you, the NEW ERA of the Ice Age HAS BEGUN. Here a little fact about our mother earth. Every 100'000 years the world goes into a deep, ice-cold ICE AGE. That is right, an ICE AGE. And it doesn't take thousands of years or even hundreds of years, no it takes about 30 years for the world to drop into the Ice Age.

After a cycle of of 90'000 years being stock in that wintry ice age era the world is starting to heat up, gradually heating up. Volcanoes are starting to erupt and release huge amounts of CO2. In fact our recent volcano EyJafijallajokull has released more CO2 in ONE DAY as all of Europe produced in the past 50 years. Therefore what makes you think really matters with out CO2 production? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. I do support a few (just a few and this is a different topic) alternative power methods. But the reason for that is simple. First, we will run out of fossil fuel soon and we need fossil fuel to produce plastics and other materials. We don't really need fossil fuels to run cars and planes on it, for that we can use solar power or even PURE AIR (see the air car from France's MTB company). And another point I am trying to make is that with fossil fuel we are fueling worldwide terrorism and that is a pretty good reason to stop using it. But I certainly don't care if your Range Rover, Hummer, Cayenne or Helicopter is producing CO2...let it blow that out...doesn't make a difference.

But getting back in explaining you the Ice Age situation...It takes 10'000 years for the the world to warm up...welcome to the "stone age". That is when primitive homoerectus (about 180'000 years ago) starting becoming homosapien and we built create cultures: Inka, Maya, Sum'aria, Greek, Roman, Barbarian...and some of you are still Barbarian's...(just cheering you up...) Anyway...we are living in the "stone age" right now and it is starting to PEAK right now.

What are the signs of an ending stone age and beginning of an Ice Age you might ask? First of all the volcano's are erupting more frequently and the ice caps are melting rapidly, so are the glaciers. All this water has to go somewhere and creates floods, horrible floods. The inner core of the planet is at high peak temperature which makes the 7 plates worldwide move at a higher pace, not just centimeters a year, not try 30 centimeter a DAY. This global movement causes earth quakes worldwide, creates climate problems and creates increasingly more hurricanes, typhoons and storms.

And the excessive CO2 creates like a shield around the globe, putting our world into a dry season. A worldwide drought, you may say. And then wildfires are starting to burn off the mineral depleted forest worldwide, again releasing more CO2, creating a stronger shield and therefore heating up more...

But we have all this already, to the most part, behind us. What the governments don't want you know is that we CANNOT do anything about it. And that it's not 5 minutes before 12, no it's 15 minutes past 12! The train has left the station....the boat sailed without you!

But instead of trying to find a way how to prepare the public to what it's coming they are hiding behind a mask of lies. They don't really have a solution, we are not powerful as we wish to be. We are not living in a movie where we can build arches and boats to avoid what's really coming. And what is coming? Never mind the coalition of the planets and the polar shift situation, which is overdue for 3000 years and is a whole different animal by itself and a pure coincidence that ICE AGE and Polar Shift are about to happen....no....all this water from the ice caps has to go somewhere...so it floods your cities and your countries. (Just take a look at Pakistan this month).

But all this water will not just stay. The sun will evaporate the water and build up MASSIVE storms (Hurricane Andrew and Katrina were like walks in a park)....and these MASSIVE storms will hit every country (just take a look at Switzerland in the last few years). They will release major amounts of water and the clouds will COOL OFF, yes - you are reading this right...COOL OFF the atmosphere and it will start to snow. And it will snow even more and more. The Ice Caps are coming back and with them the ICE AGE. We will have constant ICE and SNOW all the way to the Ecuador! And for the next 90'000 years we will live in this constant ICE AGE. Animals will die, Humans will die and it will be the largest genocide on mankind, right after the upcoming HUNGER GENOCIDE the world is facing.

I am full of sh&^%(t? I don't think so. These are PROVEN facts that we have this cycle. There is nothing we can do about. We can stretch it out by reducing CO2 output, but that will buy us maybe 10 years. Or we can re-mineralize the world (see video), but this was never done as it looked far fetched and not PROFITABLE enough to the corporations. We rather just hack down all trees!

More than 20 years ago the scientist in this old, banned and vanished video told us exactly this. They said, within the next 25 years this will start to shift. And look at what's going on? Wildfires in Russia, Volcanoes worldwide erupting, plates are moving causing earthquakes in Mexico, Turkey, Haiti just to mention a few, floods in Europe (France got majorly hit, Switzerland and Germany), earthquakes in Canada, East Coast, more tremors on the West Coast of America!, floods in Pakistan and ASIA...

DROUGHTS in Australia for 7 years now, Droughts in Africa, cooler summers (Europe is having the coolest summer in history right now). Increase of Hurricane's (I know what I am saying, had to live through 12 Hurricanes). Orcans in Europe and typhoons in West Australia (that's new...HELLO!!!). So...it is happening right now.

I am going to dig out my snow boots now and get ready for the big climate shift. Time to buy those Matracks and stack up on fire wood!

The Global Warming and CO2 Lobbying is a bunch of none sense. Instead of think about what we should have done and instead of tyring to invent things (electric cars and stuff) that will NOT CHANGE THE OUTCOME, we should be MORE PROACTIVE and find out how we can live with the upcoming ICE AGE. How do we need to build our homes, where do we need to build them. Is POLAR shift that imminent that we have to move to other continents? These are the questions we have to ask ourselves. Instead of fighting useless wars, which are funded by governments but fought for us by private armies like the one from Colonel Spicer, which has HQ in Basel Switzerland and has 20'000 mercenaries fighting "our wars" in Iraq and Afghanistan and breaking every rule coming from the Geneva Convention, we should use these BILLIONS of tax payers money and fund science to help us DEAL with the Ice Age.

One day, they will find a dusted old computer with my blog on it and say..."Shit...we should have listened and acted."

BOTH VIDEOS RIGHT HERE EMBEDDED:



Thursday, August 5, 2010

Wahr ist das Gegenteil - Medien Masse Manipulation

Wir leben, um es gleich zu Beginn und möglichst deutlich auszudrücken, seit dem Durchbruch des Neoliberalismus in einer Weltvoller falscher und verdrehter Bilder, die wir infolge ihrer stündigen Wiederholung als kollektive Wahrheiten akzeptiert haben. Fast pausenlos werden wir sowohl zur besten Sendezeit als auch in kurzen Nebensätzen mit Behauptungen eingedeckt, die wir - weil scheinbar alle mit ihnen einverstanden sind - gar nicht mehr als solche erkennen. Zum Beispiel:

* Konkurrenzkampf ist natürlich, bringt Fortschritt und erhöht die Effizienz.

Halbwahrheit. Richtig ist: Die Kooperation (von Zellen zu Organen, Organen zu Organismen, Organismen zu Gesellschaften) ist der Hauptmotor der Entwicklung in unserem Universum, Konkurrenz und Selektion fiir ein reibungsloses Laufen dieses Motors.

* Der Islam macht Menschen gefährlich und intolerant:

Krasse Verallgemeinerung, in etwa so wahr wie die Behauptung, alle Christen seien potenzielle Kreuzzügler.

* Geld arbeitet und vermehrt sich selbst:

So real wie das Rascheln in Banktresoren.

* Terrorismus ist real:

Verdrehte Wahrheit. Zum einen ist die Wahrscheinlichkeit, im Flugzeug einem Terroranschlag
zum Opfer zu fallen 21 mal geringer als von einem Blitz erschlagen zu werden (www.fivethirtyeight.com). Zum andern wachsen die Hinweise auf geheimdienstliche Unterstützung von Terrorgruppen langsam zur Sicherheit. Richtig wäre:
Terrorismus ist gewollt und gemacht.

* Demokratische Regierungen tun, was ihre Wähler wollen.

Stimmt höchstens vor Wahlen.

* Geld macht glücklich:

Verkürzte Halbwahrheit. Wahr ist: Erzwungene Armut macht unglücklich.

* Kontrolle erhöht Sicherheit.

Halbrichtig. Ganz richtig ist: Vertrauen erhöht Sicherheit.

* Privatisierung steigert die Effizienz.

Neoliberaler Nonsense, wie eine mittlerweile lange Reihe von Privatisierung von Bahnen,
Elektrizitätswerken, Wasserversorgungen etc. zeigt.

* Not ist selbst verschuldet:

Teilwahrheit. Richtig ist: Wir leben in einem System krasser Umverteilungvon Arbeitenden
zu Besitzenden.

* Die Wissenschaft hat Recht.

Manchmal ja, aber: Die Wissenschaft serviert aufgrund ihres mechanistischen Weltbildes
immer nur Teilerkenntnisse über Teilsysteme. Zudem ist der Wissenschaftsbetrieb, wie man immer zunehmend feststellen muss, extrem betrugs- und korruptionsanfällig.

* Wohlstand gibt es nur gegenharte Arbeit.

Biblischer Mythos...Richtig ist: In einem gerechten, zinsfreien Geldsystem
müssen wir für denselben Lebensstandard zwei bis drei Stunden täglich arbeiten.

Die Reihe liesse sich fast beliebig fortsetzen. In ihrer Summe erzeugen diese Bilder und Behauptungen einen irregeleiteten Menschen, eine konstruierte Wirklichkeit, eine Matrix, in der wir uns freiwillig so verhalten, wie es von uns gewünscht wird. Denn diese Bilder, da brauchen wir uns keinen Illusionen hinzugeben, sind mit grossen Umschichtungen von Macht und Werten verbunden. Jede einzelne der oben erwähnten Behauptungen nützt ganz bestimmten Personengruppen und schadet anderen. Es sind, wie Sie unschwer selber feststellen können, immer dieselben, die von ihnen profitieren. In ihrer letzten Konsequenz laufen diese Bilder darauf hinaus, dass wir das aufgeben, was uns Menschen vom Tier unterscheidet: den freien Willen. Damit ist ausdrücklich auch der demokratisch gebildete kollektive Wille gemeint. In den meisten Fällen werden diese Behauptungen nicht von den Massenmedien in die Welt gesetzt, aber von ihnen durch unkritische Wiederholung in unsere Köpfe verpflanzt. Was den Behauptungen widerspricht, wird entweder verschwiegen oder lächerlich gemacht. Natürlich lässt sich diese Hypothese anhand der genannten Beispiele nicht in einem Blog dieser Länge beweisen. Aber wir haben einen Kronzeugen der Medienmanipulation:

Der 11. September zeigt, wie weit die Konstruktion einer falschen Realität gehen kann... und wie unbegreiflich irrational sich die Medien verhalten. Die Beweise, dass die drei Türme gesprengt wurden und nicht einfach einer Terrorattacke zum Opfer fielen, sind heute überwältigend. Sie reichen von Funden von Spezialsprengstoff und geschmolzenem Stahl (brennendes Flugpetrol kann Stahl nicht schmelzen), über sauber getrennte Stahlträger (wie bei einer kontrollierten Sprengung) bis zu hunderten von Zeugen aus dem World Trade Center, die Explosionen direkt gehört haben. Eine halbe Stunde Internet-Recherche (von den zahlreichen Büchern und Filmen ganz zu schweigen) reicht aus, um sich mit Ersthand-Informationen einzudecken, die nur einen Schluss zulassen:

Die offizielle Erklärung mit der Verschwörung neunzehn islamischer Terroristen ist falsch. Und was tun die Medien in globaler Einhelligkeit? Wenn sie über Kritik an der offiziellen Erklärung überhaupt berichten, stellen sie diese als Phantasie von Verschwörungstheoretikern dar. Dabei hat dieses Ereignis und seine offizielle Darstellung den Gang der Geschichte stärker beeinflusst als jeder andere Vorfall seit dem Abwurf der Atombomben auf Hiroshima und Nagasaki. Der 11. September war der Auftakt zum Krieg gegen den Terror mit einer drastischen Einschränkung der Bürgerrechte in zahlreichen Ländern, mit den zwei Kriegen gegen Afghanistan und Irak und einem massiven Ausbau der Kontrolle auf zahlreichen Ebenen. Das Unvermögen der Massenmedien bei der Aufklärung des 11. September ist nicht einfach eine bedauerliche Fehlleistung, sondern ein kapitales Versagen, das ihre Existenzberechtigung in Frage stellt.

Anstatt die Öffentlichkeit im Bemühen um Wahrheit über alles Wichtige umfassend zu informieren, streuen uns die Massenmedien Sand in die Augen, verschweigen das Wesentliche, übertreiben nebensächliche Gefahren und lenken uns mit Seichtigkeiten ab. Der 11. September ist bei weitem nicht das einzige Thema, bei dem die Massenmedien in tragischer Konsequenz versagten, aber das deutlichste Beispiel. Unentschuldbare Fehlleistungen mit globalen Folgen leisteten sich die Massenmedien auch bei der Schweinegrippe oder der Finanzkrise.

Wer sich um die Details kümmerte, dem war schon im letzten Juni klar, dass die Ausrufung der höchsten Pandemie-Stufe ein Humbug war. Die Finanzkrise konnte nur <überwunden> werden, weil die Medien die Beruhigungspillen der Staatenlenker und der Bankenwelt bereitwillig weiterreichten und mit massiv geschonten Zahlen anrichteten.Daneben gibt es auch vitale Themen, über die die Massenmedien weder falsch, noch einseitig, sondern gar nicht berichten:

über die Geldschöpfung, von der Henry Ford sagte, es würde morgen eine Revolution ausbrechen, wenn die Leute wüssten, wie sie funktioniert

über die verheerende langfristige Wirkung des Zinses als Motor des Wachstumszwangs und der gigantischen Umverteilung von Arbeitenden und Besitzenden,

über geheime Treffen und Absprachen selbsternannter globaler Führer, den Bilderbergern zum Beispiel,

über die Kontrolle des internationalen Drogenhandels durch Geheimdienste, nach dem Erdöl der umsatzstärkste Rohstoff und eine gigantische Finanzierungsquelle für klandestine Vorhaben aller Art.

Ein derartiges Informations- und Meinungskartell hat sich nur aufbauen können, weil die globalen Nachrichtenagenturen, die grossen Verlage mit den weltweiten Leitmedien und die Konzerne mit den entscheidenden Werbeetats heute von ein paar Dutzend gut vernetzten Individuen kontrolliert werden. Es sind - kein Zufall - dieselben. die von der Verbreitung der neoliberalen Behauptungen am meisten profitieren. In ihren Think Tanks werden die eingängigen Begriffe geprägt, mit denen Kriege als "friendssicherenden Massnahmen" verkauft werden, von da aus wird die Erde mit Falschinformationen geflutet (wie die falsch übersetzten Zitate Achmadinedschad), die später nicht mehr aus der Welt zu schaffen sind. Da werden die Themen gesetzt, die die andern aufgreifen müssen. Wer ausschert, wird abgestraft. verliert Werbegelder und Zugang zu Informationsquellen. Kleine Medien dürfen weiterhin

Es gibt heute viel mehr PR-Leute, Spin-Doctors und Medienbeauftragte als Journalisten, die zudem den grössten Teil ihrer Zeit mit der Nachbearbeitung des Materials verbringen, das ihnen die PR-Industrie auf den Bildschirm liefert. Im Wesentlichen arbeiten sie für die Informationsindustrie und deren Interessen und nicht für die Leser.

Warum sind wir so leicht zu belügen und warum hat die Wahrheit in der Welt der Irrlehren einen so schweren Stand?

Um diese Fragen zu beantworten, müssen wir weit in die Geschichte zurückgehen. Die Menschen am Anfang unserer Zivilisation bezogen ihr Weltbild im Wesentlichen

aus den Primärerfahrungen, die sie selber erlebt, gesehen, gerochen oder sonstwie mit ihren Sinnen wahrgenommen hatten. Mit fortlaufender Geschichte und der Entwicklung

neuer Medien wuchs der Anteil der Sekundärerfahrungen gegenüber dem eigenen Erleben, und so besteht unser Bild der Welt heute grösstenteils aus Informationen, die wir über die Schule, aus Büchern, Filmen, Massenmedien und andere indirekte Kanälen aufgenommen haben.

Diese Bilder haben einen entscheidenden Einfluss auf die Art, wie wir die Welt wahrnehmen. Eine Reihe von Wahrnehmungsgesetzen regelt die Aufnahme und Einordnung der Sinnesreize, denn der Mensch hat ein überlebenswichtiges Interesse daran, jedem Reiz möglichst schnell einen übergeordneten Sinn zuzuordnen und allenfalls zu handeln: Brummen - Bär - Gefahr - Flucht.

Deshalb versuchen wir dauernd, uns auf alles einen Reim zu machen. Die falsche Interpretation der Signale wurde dabei von der Evolution viel weniger hart bestraft als der Verzicht auf eine Sinngebung: Zehnmal unnötigerweise wegen eines knackenden Astes im Wald davonzurennen ist gesünder, als es ein einziges entscheidendes Mal zu unterlassen und vom Bär verspiesen zu werden. Deshalb sind aus Sicht der Evolutionserfahrung falsche Bilder besser als gar keine.

Und noch etwas können wir an diesem Beispiel erkennen:

Bilder der Angst haben einen privilegierten Zugang, während Bilder der Sicherheit, ist das Urvertrauen einmal verloren, eine detaillierte Auseinandersetzung mit der Situation erfordern - zu viel für den gestressten Menschen von heute.

Bilder beeinflussen uns immer und überall, individuell und kollektiv. Wenn wir zum Beispiel vor einem Menschen gewarnt werden, treten wir ihm mit Misstrauen gegenüber und die Begegnung wird wahrscheinlich weniger erfreulich, als wenn wir unvoreingenommen oder gar mit freudiger Erwartung auf ihn zugegangen wären. Das vorgefertigte Bild beeinflusst aber auch unser Gegenüber:

Vielleicht legt es die finstere Miene ab, wenn wir ihm mit einem Lächeln begegnen. Der Mechanismus spielt ebenfalls auf kollektiver Ebene:

Wenn wir als Volk von der Schlechtigkeit eines anderen überzeugt sind, werden wir aggressiven Massnahmen leichter zustimmen, auch wenn die meisten das Land und seine Bewohner gar nicht kennen. Und umgekehrt wird dieses negative Bild das Verhalten des betreffenden Staates noch verschärfen. Der Konflikt eskaliert.


Unsere Bilder sind zudem nie komplett. Sie setzen sich aus ein paar entscheidenden Mosaiksteinen zusammen, denen wir neue Elemente und Informationen ohne lange Prüfung zuordnen. Die Stimme einer fürsorglichen Mutter signalisiert dem Baby , was immer sie sagen mag. Der entscheidende Punkt dabei: Ein paar Schlüsselreize reichen aus , um ein Bild nach einem plausiblen Muster zu vervollständigen. Und dann sehen wir, woran wir uns gewöhnt haben oder was wir sehen sollen - die Wirklichkeit dahinter bleibt verborgen. Trotzdem bestimmen diese verzerrten und zum Teil regelrecht falschen Bilder in einem entscheidenden Ausmass den Verlauf unseres Lebens und - auf der kollektiven Ebene - den Lauf der Geschichte.

Die Gesetze der Wahrnehmung sind auch denen bekannt, die auf Teufel komm raus wachsen, Profite erzielen und ihre Macht erweitern müssen. So haben wir als Kollektiv unter dem Einfluss des Neoliberalismus ein vollkommen verdrehtes Weltbild verinnerlicht, ein Bild des Mangels, des alles umfassenden Konkurrenzkampfes, des Konflikts zwischen Völkern und Religionen, der allgegenwärtigen Bedrohungen und - nicht zuletzt - Bilder von falschen Rettern. Wer Mangel befürchtet, wird raffen - und damit den Mangel verstärken. Völker mit eingebildeten Ängsten werden eingebildete Führer wählen - und schliesslich reale Kriege führen.

In ihrer Summe sind die Massenmedien nicht nur nutzlos, sondern schädlich. In ihrer Essenz entwerfen sie eine Welt, deren Gegenbild der Wahrheit näher ist. Wer schon einmal eine Mediendiät durchgeführt hat, weiss: Man lebt heute besser, wenn man weniger weiss, wenn die falschen Sekundär- und Tertiärerfahrungen durch unmittelbare Wahrnehmung und direktes Erleben ersetzt werden.

Der Mensch ist kein Einzelwesen, das für sich allein glücklich wird, schon gar nicht, wenn die Welt ringsum im Morast versinkt. Wir brauchen einander, nicht nur als Nachbarn, auch als Mitbürger im Staat und als Mitmenschen auf der Erde. Deshalb brauchen wir Medien, die uns verbinden. Nicht trennen.

Sunday, June 27, 2010

Nude/Art/Akt Photography vs. Erotic/Pornographic/Sexually Explicit Photography and youTube's weak policy!!!

Usually I don’t just go out and start writing about every issue, but this issue with youTube bothers me a little, as they deleted one of my videos....
This was the video they deleted:
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/video/video.php?v=402477212719&ref=mf

What happened? One of my little side-businesses is promoting Switzerland’s, strike that..., Europe’s most renowned photographer, Philipp Marfurt, who is best known for his AKT Photography. Akt Photography is also known in the States as “nude”, or “art” photography. I copied youTube’s Community Guidelines below for your reference.

There are two distinguished categories:

AKT/ART/NUDE Photography
and
EROTIC/NAKED/PORNOGRAPHIC Photography

Here is just ONE reference from wikipedia.org about nude/art/akt photography:

Nude photography

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A nude photograph by Félix-Jacques Moulin from the early 1850s


Nude photography is a style of art photography which depicts the nude human body as a study. Nude photography should be distinguished from erotic photography, which has a sexually suggestive component. Nude photography should also be distinguished from glamour photography, which places more emphasis on the model and her/his sexuality, and treats the model as the primary subject.

Many photographers consider an art nude photograph to be a one that studies the human body, rather than the person. A photograph of a person that is meant to be recognized is called a portrait, and nude photographs often do not show a face at all. Nude photography is generally not a snapshot, but a composed image of a person in a still position. As an art form, nude photography is a stylized depiction of the nude body with the line and form of the human figure as the primary objective. Photographers sometimes use extremes of light and shadow, oiled skin, and shadows falling across the body to show texture and structure of the body.

Now that we are all aware of the “official” terms of nude/akt/art photography I wonder why someone on youTube marked my video as “offensive” or “inappropriate”. Actually, beside the “red color flagged” email from youTube, I felt like screaming out load...”what a freakin’ idiot!” to this unknown person who flagged it.

There is absolutely nothing “sexually explicit” or “pornographic” on the art I posted. Let’s analyze what the world outside youTube’s weak guidelines explains:

nude/art/akt: Concentrates on showing the human naked body as a STUDY. A FORM. It concentrates on the art of the picture (shadows, light, concealment, study) and not onto the specific sexual emphasis on the model itself. In most cases, you cannot even see the models face. nude/art/akt photography also rarely shows ANY GENITALS, so you won’t see a Penis, erect or not erect or a woman’s vagina. You might see a woman’s bare breasts, again (look that one up too) breasts are NOT genitals, so they don’t qualify.

The fact that strippers in America put little stars on their breasts has nothing to do with “official” declaration of what portrays nude/nudity or erotic/sexually explicit / porn. Therefore, even under the form of NUDE/ART/AKT you should be able to show a models bare breasts. It is simply a custom to avoid being attacked on the net, as I was, to color-out the nipples or put little tiny stars on the nipples! Oh, last time I was sitting next to woman in the airplane (I had no other way to go then...) and she breast-fed her baby and, oh by gosh..., everybody was able to see her nipple!!! And...thinking of how far some Americans take that issue *** they might soon see this as pornographic, perhaps even as child-porn.
*** in 2003 some Floridian group tried to outlaw mothers breast nursing/feeding their children in public places!

I want to explain here, that non-prude Europeans don’t even see a non-erect man’s penis or even a woman’s vagina violating the nude/art/akt declaration. However, Philipp Marfurt never shows/showed in any of his art pictures genitals. Even if due to technique of the taking the picture said genitals would show up, they have been retouched and removed. So, you won’t see a vagina or penis, ever!

Here is an example of a NUDE/ART/AKT Photography:
Clearly you can see this as an artistic play, a stylized depiction of a nude art model.....

So, you may ask, what is (as stated below by youTube) sexually explicit and pornographic? Let’s take the later one first (it’s easier to distinguish)...pornographic: Do I really have to spell that one out for you? I guess not, but even a woman touching herself on her vagina, or a man doing the same...well I guess that is pornographic. Or a woman posing and EXPOSING her vagina clearly, that is boarder line pornographic. Of course, as explained on Wiki, any ACT of sexuality (I will refrain from spelling them out...) are pornographic. What about the Playboy Magazine? It is clearly EROTIC and SEXUALLY EXPLICIT material (see below) but also a hint of NUDE/ART. Let’s take a look at Hustler Magazine...well....EROTIC my friends, clearly! I guess you start understanding the two differences....I hope.

Now comes “Sexually Explicit”. That is PORTRAYING the ACT of sexuality. Being in an act alone or an act with another person...A couple kissing (lip-locked), two women or two men kissing...that is sexually explicit...anything beyond that might not just be EROTIC, it soon falls into pornographic...again...make your own picture...


What about this Philipp Marfurt Picture?

NO, this is not a sexually explicit picture!

What about this?


NO, AGAIN! Yes, it’s a nice pose, but it does not depict a sexual position, nor does it show the model’s sexuality in any form, it’s not a glamour photo either (you can’t tell who she is...) and not a portrait photo. It is clearly the photographer’s choice to show the LINES of the model’s body. Specifically in that case: Philipp Marfurt worked here with the black/white shadows, lights and forms of the human body! Clear cut case again....at least to someone with a normal brain!

I could show you tons of examples, but again, they are all NUDE/ART/AKT. Let me show the difference....

SEXUALLY EXPLICIT:

(This is a case to argue about: But, you can clearly tell/see the models face and the pose is a sexual explicit pose. Plus the model speaks directly to YOU, the viewer and this is clearly not considered a “study”....so stop studying the picture...LOL)

PORTRAIT (which stills falls under nude/art/akt as long as you can’t see more than that....)
Why is this considered PORTRAIT? Because the picture clearly emphasizes on the MODEL.

Nevertheless, all the pictures you have seen on this blog are NOT pornographic and only one is sexually explicit!

I must admit, that this is a tricky discussion and I would love to hear your take on it. I also respect everybodys own opinion and some people feel disturbed about certain things easier than others. Specially if we are talking about sex, nudity, erotic....

So, I posted a CLEAR CUT NUDE/ART video of Philipp’s work today. Check it out...



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0k7CQrOrqUE

This video shows beautiful model’s with their instruments. For now, I just hope nobody finds that PORNOGRAPHIC or SEXUALLY EXPLICIT, because if they do...then there is something seriously wrong with them !!!!

I am also frustrated about youTube’s WEAK policy. They claim, that they watch every video to make sure it is in violation with the guidelines, but I guess they don’t do that. Nor, can the owner of the video actually plea his case to youTube. That simply sucks. I am also frustrated about it, because I found other videos under “art photography” showing women with cut-open, bleeding heads, half-dead, being strangled, hung on their head, pushed under water to suficate....they are ALL o.k. to youTube...I guess as long as you don’t see their breasts hanging out...(it is sad...)

You can buy videogames where you kill hookers (oh, they are just hookers, never mind then...) and shot children.....again...as long as you cannot see a beautiful woman lying half naked on the beach...because that is sooooo unnatural and wrong!

Perhaps it’s just me who feels that some of our rules and ethics are weird...who knows...

YouTube Community Guidelines

(copied from youtube on the 27th of June 2010)

Respect the YouTube Community

We're not asking for the kind of respect reserved for nuns, the elderly, and brain surgeons. We mean don't abuse the site. Every cool new community feature on YouTube involves a certain level of trust. We trust you to be responsible, and millions of users respect that trust. Please be one of them.

Don't Cross the Line

Here are some common-sense rules that will help you steer clear of trouble:
  • YouTube is not for pornography or sexually explicit content. If this describes your video, even if it's a video of yourself, don't post it on YouTube. Also, be advised that we work closely with law enforcement and we report child exploitation. Please read our Safety Center and stay safe on YouTube.
  • Don't post videos showing bad stuff like animal abuse, drug abuse, under-age drinking and smoking, or bomb making.
  • Graphic or gratuitous violence is not allowed. If your video shows someone being physically hurt, attacked, or humiliated, don't post it.
  • YouTube is not a shock site. Don't post gross-out videos of accidents, dead bodies or similar things intended to shock or disgust.
  • Respect copyright. Only upload videos that you made or that you are authorized to use. This means don't upload videos you didn't make, or use content in your videos that someone else owns the copyright to, such as music tracks, snippets of copyrighted programs, or videos made by other users, without necessary authorizations. Read our Copyright Tips for more information.
  • We encourage free speech and defend everyone's right to express unpopular points of view. But we don't permit hate speech (speech which attacks or demeans a group based on race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, veteran status, and sexual orientation/gender identity).
  • Things like predatory behavior, stalking, threats, harassment, intimidation, invading privacy, revealing other people’s personal information, and inciting others to commit violent acts or to violate the Terms of Use are taken very seriously. Anyone caught doing these things may be permanently banned from YouTube.
  • Everyone hates spam. Don’t create misleading descriptions, tags, titles or thumbnails in order to increase views. It's not okay to post large amounts of untargeted, unwanted or repetitive content, including comments and private messages.

Please take these rules seriously and take them to heart. Don't try to look for loopholes or try to lawyer your way around the guidelines—just understand them and try to respect the spirit in which they were created. If you'd like more details, check out our Community Guideline Tips.

We Enforce These Guidelines

Okay, this one is more about us than you. YouTube staff review flagged videos 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate our Community Guidelines. When they do, we remove them. Sometimes a video doesn’t violate our Community Guidelines, but may not be appropriate for everyone. These videos may be age-restricted. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination. If your account is terminated, you won’t be allowed to create any new accounts. For more information about how the Community Guidelines are enforced and the consequences of violating them, please visit theHelp Center.