Four Horsemen – Scary but Must Watch Documentary … thanks Tarryn
Documentary which lifts the lid on how the world really works.
As we will never return to ‘business as usual’ 23 international thinkers, government advisors and Wall Street money-men break their silence and explain how to establish a moral and just society.
FOUR HORSEMEN is free from mainstream media propaganda — the film doesn’t bash bankers, criticise politicians or get involved in conspiracy theories. It ignites the debate about how to usher a new economic paradigm into the world which would dramatically improve the quality of life for billions.
“It’s Inside Job with bells on, and a frequently compelling thesis thanks to Ashcroft’s crack team of talking heads — economists, whistleblowers and Noam Chomsky, all talking with candour and clarity.” – Total Film
“Four Horsemen is a breathtakingly composed jeremiad against the folly of Neo-classical economics and the threats it represents to all we should hold dear.”
– Harold Crooks, The Corporation (Co-Director) Surviving Progress (Co-Director/Co-Writer)
Edward Snowden: Here’s how we take back the Internet
Appearing by telepresence robot, Edward Snowden speaks at TED2014 about surveillance and Internet freedom. The right to data privacy, he suggests, is not a partisan issue, but requires a fundamental rethink of the role of the internet in our lives — and the laws that protect it. “Your rights matter,” he say, “because you never know when you’re going to need them.” Chris Anderson interviews, with special guest Tim Berners-Lee.
You’ve probably heard of the “Pacific garbage patch,” also called the “trash vortex.” It’s a region of the North Pacific ocean where the northern jet stream and the southern trade winds, moving opposite directions, create a vast, gently circling region of water called the North Pacific Gyre — and at its center, there are tons of plastic garbage. You may even have seen this picture of the garbage patch, above — right? Wrong.
That image, widely mislabeled as a shot of the Pacific garbage patch, is actually from Manila harbor. And it’s just one of many misconceptions the public has about what’s really happening to plastics in the ocean. We talked with Scripps Institution marine biologist Miriam Goldstein, who has just completed a study of how plastic is changing the ecosystem in the North Pacific Gyre, about myths and realities of the Pacific garbage patch.
“That picture of the guy in the canoe has been following me around my whole career!” Goldstein laughed when I brought it up. “I think it’s an example of media telephone, where somebody wanted something dramatic to illustrate their story — and then through the magic of the internet, the picture got mislabeled.” Goldstein has gone on several research trips to the garbage patch, 1,000 miles off the coast of California, and has even swum in it. “We have never seen anything like that picture,” she asserted. “I’ve never seen it personally, and we’ve never seen it on satellite.”
MYTH: There is a giant island of solid garbage floating in the Pacific. FACT: There are millions of small and microscopic pieces of plastic, about .4 pieces per cubic meter, floating over a roughly 5000 square km area of the Pacific. This amount has increased significantly over the past 40 years.
In reality, Goldstein said, most pieces of garbage in the Pacific are “about the size of your pinkie fingernail.” Though she and her team have found some larger pieces of plastic, like buoys and tires, most are microscopic. What’s alarming about them isn’t their size, but the sheer amount of plastic. To figure out how much there really is, she and her team have trawled the surface of the ocean in random locations over a 1700 square mile region in the gyre. Once a day, they drag a very fine, specialized net behind the boat. On one such sampling trip, she and her team found plastic pieces in 117 out of 119 random samples. On another, they found plastic in all 28 samples they took.
This is a video of Goldstein in 2010, talking about some of the group’s earlier research trips to collect samples from the surface of the ocean in the North Pacific Gyre.
Since the 1970s, scientists have been using the same sampling methods — and the same kinds of trawling nets, invented by oceanographer Lanna Cheng — to measure the amount of plastic in the ocean. So Goldstein and her colleagues are able to make historical comparisons, and measure increases in plastic density. In a recent paper, they write, “Microplastic debris in the North Pacific increased by two orders of magnitude between 1972–1987 and 1999–2010 in both numerical and mass concentrations.”
MYTH: All this plastic is killing animals. FACT: Some animals are being harmed, but others are thriving. Here’s why that could be a problem.
Nobody who studies ocean ecosystems would ever argue that this plastic isn’t harmful. But many documentaries and articles about the garbage patch make it seem as if the main problem is that the garbage is killing animals. Birds and fish mistake the plastic for food, eat it, and then slowly starve to death. Goldstein points out that there is clear evidence that both birds and fish are eating the plastic, but it’s very hard to draw conclusions about whether eating it is killing them. Generally, scientists are only able to examine the stomachs of animals who are already dead. “Some studies of albatrosses show plastic correlating with poor nutrition — and you do see a lot of dead chicks with their stomachs absolutely stuffed with plastic,” Goldstein explained. The problem is that we don’t know whether there are also birds who eat the plastic and survive. “We’re not going to go around killing baby albatrosses to examine their stomach contents,” she added.
This is an even more difficult issue when it comes to fish, since she and many other researchers have found living fish with plastic in their stomachs. It’s not clear whether these fish are suffering malnutrition, or are unharmed by eating plastic because they can just pass it out in their excrement. Fish digestive systems are a lot different from those of birds, so it’s possible that what’s harmful to the albatrosses isn’t affecting the fish as much.
And finally, there is a class of creatures who are actually thriving as a result of the plastic influx. These are water skater insects, small crabs, barnacles, and invertebrates called bryozoans, who live on hard surfaces in the water. Some of them, like the barnacles and bryozoans, can do a lot of damage to ship hulls and have caused harm in other ecosystems they’ve invaded. Usually, these creatures lead a hardscrabble life, barely making it in the deep ocean where hard surfaces are limited to, as Goldstein put it, “the odd floating tree trunk, rare shells, feathers, or pieces of pumice.” But now, with all the plastic floating around, these once-rare creatures are enjoying a boom time.
In her recent paper, Goldstein and her colleagues offer persuasive evidence that water skaters are laying their eggs on pieces of plastic in much greater numbers than ever before. Does this mean a glut of water skaters? Not necessarily. Their eggs are large and yellow, which means they stand out in a world of clear blue water. Possibly what’s happening is that all these eggs are easy prey for fish and crabs who eat them. No matter what’s happening to these eggs, we’re going to see an imbalance in this ecosystem, where suddenly a lot more water skaters or crabs are competing with the locals for more food.
MYTH: The plastisphere is killing the ocean. FACT: The plastisphere is an ecosystem out of balance.
The “plastisphere” is a term coined by marine biologist Erik Zettler to describe the creatures — like water skaters — who thrive in an environment with hard surfaces in the water. They are similar to creatures who cling to piers or the hulls of ships. Before human-made hard surfaces were everywhere, they would have lived on rocks or flotsam. The problem with the plastisphere is that it’s radically changing the balance of a sea ecosystem that was once mostly just open ocean creatures.
“One thing that people worry about is that hard surfaces can transport invasive species,” Goldstein said. “Some animals are good at hitching a ride and they can be destructive. By adding big chunks of plastic these species can move around better, and could be introduced to places like the Northwest Pacific Islands, where there are some of the best coral reefs in the world.” In other words, the plastisphere isn’t destroying the ocean ecosystem — the creatures who ride on the plastic are. We’re witnessing an ecosystem that is slowly falling off balance.
For now, the open ocean is still mostly inhabited by lantern fish. “There’s one lantern fish for every cubic meter of ocean,” Goldstein explained, noting that these fish are probably more common than the pieces of plastic her team has sampled. But if trends continue, we’re going to see more plastic than fish. And with that plastic will come more invasive species, more water skaters, and more creatures to eat the water skaters’ eggs. The danger is that this could alter the open ocean forever — and destroy all the native life there that has kept the oceans healthy for thousands of years.
This article documents some of today’s well-known artists who have gone on record and spoken about the dark side of the entertainment industry. Some of the industry’s biggest stars, including Dave Chappelle, Michael Jackson and Bob Dylan, have hinted at the true nature of the business in their own words. Here are some of my findings.
Throughout my articles, I discuss many dark aspects of the entertainment industry. Some of these aspects are so awful and improbable to the average reader that they become hard to believe, especially when the information comes from an anonymous blogger such as myself. Some actual celebrities have however gone on record with some truths on the industry. Those rare outbreaks are rarely publicized but, they are available online. So, for this article, I’m letting the insiders do the talking. Who is better placed to talk about the entertainment business than the entertainers themselves, those who have experienced first hand all facets of the business?
Although most artists will not use the terms “mind control” or “occult initiation,” they are explaining, in their own words, the strange realities they are witnessing. These are some videos I’ve found. I hope they’ll work for everyone.
Warning: Some of these videos are disturbing or contain foul language.
This stand-up comedian, screenwriter, producer and actor is most famous for creating Chappelle’s Show, a ground-breaking sketch comedy television series which ran on Comedy Central until 2006. The DVD set is currently the all-time best-selling DVD for a television show, having sold more than three million copies. Its early success prompted Viacom (Comedy Central’s parent company) to offer Chappelle a $55 million contract for the production of two more seasons of Chappelle’s Show. The production of season 3 was extremely difficult, however, as Chappelle did not like the direction the show was taking. He even referred to it as being “socially irresponsible.” Chappelle also had troubles coping with the pressure coming from network executives to compromise and dumb-down his show.
On May 2005, Chappelle abruptly left the production of season 3 of the show and traveled to Africa. A media frenzy ensued, fueled by speculation and rumors of Chappelle “going crazy” and being on drugs. Upon his return, Chappelle was interviewed on Inside the Actors Studio in December 2005. He discussed many subjects, including his reasons for leaving for Africa. In this next portion of the interview, Chappelle describes in a very vivid matter the “sick” nature of Hollywood.
Keep in mind the portion of the interview where Chappelle talks about Mariah Carey and her losing her mind. She and her “handler” Tommy Mottola will again be mentioned by another fairly known celebrity later in this article.
In an interview with Oprah, Dave Chappelle shares his own theory concerning black comedians being forced to cross-dress at one point or another during their career. The following video compares Chappelle’s story with 2Pac during the filming of Poetic Justice.
Selling One’s Soul to the Devil
“Selling one’s soul” can be defined as allowing one’s integrity, values and moral code to be defiled in order to obtain riches and success. Considering the occult aspect of the industry, “selling one’s soul” can take a more literal meaning, as there exist actual ritualistic initiations and obscure secret societies working in the shadows. Some artists, who have been more or less in contact with that darker side of Hollywood, have spoken on the subject in their own words.
In the next video, model and actress Melyssa Ford discusses the price of fame in Hollywood.
In the next video, singing legend Bob Dylan explains on 60 Minutes the reason for his longevity in the music business.
What is Katy Perry referring to in this next video? Is “selling one’s soul to the Devil” the folksy way to say I’ve been initiated into the Illuminati industry?
Who better than the King of Pop to speak the truth about the music industry? I’ve been asked numerous times about Jackson’s involvement in the Illuminati industry and the causes of his death. I’ve never attempted to write an article on the subject, as his career was incredibly long and filled with astounding events and requires more than just a summary survey.
What is obvious, however, is that MJ, in his last years, was becoming increasingly outspoken on the shady dealings of the music industry. Indeed, it seems the man who was the ultimate Illuminati slave was attempting to break free. In June 2002, Michael Jackson, gave an unexpected speech about the dark side of the entertainment business.
Jackson directly points to Tommy Mottola, the ex-president of Sony Music and the ex-husband of Mariah Carey, who was less her husband than an actual mind control handler. Did “the Devil” get back at MJ for speaking the truth?
Is there a symbol of MJ’s ritual sacrifice on the omniously titled “This Is It” released by… Sony?
Monarch Programming Caught on Tape
Sometimes without even knowing it, celebrities expose the ugly side of the entertainment industry through their actions. I have discussed in numerous articles the existence of mind control in entertainment industry and its symbolism in popular art, and people have asked me if the artists I discuss are actual mind control victims or if they are just performing art that incorporates mind control symbolism. It is obviously difficult to determine which celebrities are actual victims of monarch programming but some rare footage has appeared showing some celebrities switching mind-control “alters” or personalities. Those videos are quite a disturbing display, but reflect the unfortunate reality of the mass entertainment industry.
ANNA NICOLE SMITH
In the next video, model and actress Anna Nicole Smith is filmed while one of her Monarch alters is switched on. In this disturbing home video, filmed by her handler Howard K. Stern, Anna-Nicole is completely dissociated and child-like. Media outlets claimed Anna Nicole was under the influence of drugs during the taping of the video, which was probably the case. Drugs alone cannot explain her state of mind, however, as there are obvious symptoms of profound psychological trauma.
Anna-Nicole Smith has clearly an “alter” personality switched on who firmly believe that a doll is actually a real baby. The clown makeup (probably ordered by Stern himself to give the video more impact), reinforces the concept of alter personality in a sick display of manipulation by a handler. Notice in this CNN report that Geraldo refers to Smith as being “in character,” another term to explain an alter personality.
This video only reports one of the many bizarre events toward the end of Anna Nicole Smith’s life. Her entourage and environment was totally foul. It is not a coincidence Smith often posed as Marilyn Monroe during her career: Monroe was the original “mind controlled” sex-symbol.
Looking at the circumstances surrounding the death of her 20-year-old son Daniel in 2006, we can find another example of the trauma-based mind control Anna Nicole was subjected to. The death indeed appears to be a ritual sacrifice. Daniel died in Anna Nicole’s hospital room, right in front of her, only three days after she gave birth to her third baby. Here’s how the authorities described Daniel’s death.
“It would appear from our report that the mother had gotten up, saw him in the chair and he appeared to be sound asleep. She tried to wake him up, he was unresponsive, and she sounded the alarm.” – Source
After witnessing the miracle of birth, Anna was forced to witness the death of her son in her own room. Daniel death was later attributed to the “presence of three types of prescription drugs in his system” and was considered “suspicious”. The event caused a violent trauma in Anna Nicole, and reports say she was then heavily sedated. She then dissociated from reality (the goal of Monarch mind control programming) and even lost memory of the event.
“The devastation and grief over Daniel’s sudden death coupled with the sedation has been so extreme that Anna Nicole experienced memory loss of the event,” attorney Michael Scott said.
This is just an example of the disturbing events surrounding Anna-Nicole Smith’s life. Many more details could be discussed in a later article perhaps.
In this 2003 interview with Diane Sawyer, Britney seems to momentarily switch alters in what seems to be a “mind control glitch”.
The episode of her breaking down and shaving her head might have been an attempt to break free from her mind control manipulation. Reality is indeed WAY stranger than fiction.
According to ancient history, a grouping of seven islands comprising Colaba, Mazagaon, Old Woman’s Island, Wadala, Mahim, Parel, and Matunga-Sion formed a part of the kingdom of Ashoka the Great of Magadh, ironically in North India.
The Bhaiyas and Biharis whom the Thackerays accuse of being outsiders in Mumbai, come from the region, which was a part of Ashoka the Great’s empire.. We judge everything according to history and the history of Mumbai proves that its earliest known ownership was with a North Indian.
The seven islands of Mumbai passed through many hands, the sultans of Gujarat, the Portuguese and the British. Every ruler left behind proof of residence in Mumbai.
The Mauryans left behind the Kanheri, Mahakali and the caves of Gharapuri more popularly called Elephanta.
The sultans of Gujarat built the Dargahs at Mahim and Haji Ali, the Portuguese built the two Portuguese churches, one at Prabhadevi and the other St Andrews at Bandra.
They built forts at Sion, Mahim, Bandra and Bassien. The Portuguese named the group of seven Islands ‘Bom Baia’, Good Bay. The British built a city out of the group of seven islands and called her Bombay.
The original settlers of the seven islands, the Koli fishermen, worshiped Mumbaidevi, her temple still stands at Babulnath near Chowpatty. The Kolis called the island Mumbai, ‘Mumba, Mother Goddess’.
In 1662, King Charles II of England married the Portuguese Princess Catherine of Braganza, and received the seven islands of Bom Baia as part of his dowry. Six years later, the British Crown leased the seven islands to the English East India Company for a sum of 10 pounds in gold per annum. It was under the English East India Company that the future megapolis began to take shape, after the first war for independence Bombay once again became a colony of the British Empire.
History has forgotten this but the first Parsi settler came to Bombay in 1640, he was Dorabji Nanabhoy Patel. In 1689-90, a severe plague epidemic broke out in Bombay and most of the European settlers succumbed to it. The Siddi of Janjira attacked in full force. Rustomji Dorabji Patel, a trader and the son of the city’s first Parsi settler, successfully defeated the Siddi with the help of the Kolis and saved Bombay.
Gerald Aungier, Governor of Bombay built the Bombay Castle, an area that is even today referred to as Fort. He also constituted the Courts of law. He brought Gujarati traders, Parsi shipbuilders, Muslim and Hindu manufacturers from the mainland and settled them in Bombay.
It was during a period of four decades that the city of Bombay took shape. Reclamation was done to plug the breach at Worli and Mahalakshmi, Hornby Vellard was built in 1784. The Sion Causeway connecting Bombay to Salsette was built in 1803. Colaba Causeway connecting Colaba island to Bombay was built in 1838. A causeway connecting Mahim and Bandra was built in 1845.
Lady Jamsetjee Jeejeebhoy, the wife of the First Baronet Jamsetjee Jeejeebhoy donated Rs 1, 57,000 to meet construction costs of the causeway. She donated Rs. 1,00,000 at first. When the project cost escalated and money ran out half way through she donated Rs 57,000 again to ensure that the vital causeway was completed. Lady Jamsetjee stipulated that no toll would ever be charged for those using the causeway. Today Mumbaikars have to pay Rs 75 to use the Bandra-Worli Sealink, connecting almost the same two islands. Sir J J Hospital was also built by Sir Jamsetjee Jeejeebhoy.
The shipbuilding Wadia family of Surat was brought to Bombay by the British. Jamshedji Wadia founded the Bombay Port Trust and built the Princess Dock in 1885 and the Victoria Dock and the Mereweather Dry Docks in 1891. Alexandra Dock was built in 1914.
A Gujarati civil engineer supervised the building of the Gateway of India. The Tatas made Bombay their headquarters and gave it the iconic Taj Mahal Hotel and India’s first civilian airlines, Air India. The Godrejs gave India its first vegetarian soap.
Cowasji Nanabhai Daver established Bombay’s first cotton mill, ‘The Bombay Spinning Mills’ in 1854. By 1915, there were 83 textile mills in Bombay largely owned by Indians.
This brought about a financial boom in Bombay. Although the mills were owned by Gujaratis, Kutchis, Parsis and Marwaris, the workforce was migrant Mahrashtrians from rural Maharashtra. Premchand Roychand, a prosperous Gujarati broker founded the Bombay Stock Exchange. Premchand Roychand donated Rs 2,00,000 to build the Rajabai Tower in 1878.
Muslim, Sindhi and Punjabi migrants have also contributed handsomely to Mumbai.
Mumbai is built on the blood and sweat of all Indians. That is why Bombay belongs to all Indians.
Apart from its original inhabitants, the Kolis, everyone else in Mumbai, including Thackeray’s ‘Marathi Manoos’, are immigrants.
The “Mumbai for Marathi Manoos” war cry has once again been raised to shore up the sagging political fortunes of the Thackeray family.
When the Shiv Sena-BJP combine came to power in 1993, under the guise of reverting to the original name they replaced Bombay with Mumbai.
I wonder when they will discard the anglicized Thackeray and revert back to their original Marathi surname Thakre?
This article was written on February 7, 2010 by Tushar Gandhi, founder/president, Mahatma Gandhi Foundation, and the grandson of Gandhiji.