In A Time Of Universal Deceit, Telling The Truth Becomes A Revolutionary Act. (Orwell)
ALL TRUTH PASSES THROUGH THREE STAGES; FIRST, IT IS RIDICULED, SECOND, IT IS VIOLENTLY OPPOSED, THIRD, IT IS ACCEPTED AS BEING SELF-EVIDENT.(Arthur Schopenhauer)
I WILL TELL YOU ONE THING FOR SURE. ONCE YOU GET TO THE POINT WHERE YOU ARE ACTUALLY DOING THINGS FOR TRUTH'S SAKE, THEN NOBODY CAN EVER TOUCH YOU AGAIN BECAUSE YOU ARE HARMONIZING WITH A GREATER POWER. (George Harrison)
THE WORLD ALWAYS INVISIBLY AND DANGEROUSLY REVOLVES AROUND PHILOSOPHERS.(Nietzsche)
Historic Dutch court case labels
COVID-19 mRNA shots as military bioweapons. Dr. Francis Boyle’s final
testimony shakes the global narrative.
THE CASE THEY NEVER WANTED TO HAPPEN
For
the first time, a European court is hearing arguments that the COVID-19
mRNA injections may qualify as military-grade biological weapons. This
unprecedented legal battle is now unfolding in the Netherlands, as
attorney Peter Stassen takes on the so-called “Architects of the Great Reset” in a lawsuit on behalf of citizens allegedly harmed by the COVID injections.
Stassen
cited testimony by the late Dr. Francis Boyle, a globally recognized
expert in biological weapons law. Boyle died unexpectedly after agreeing
to testify under oath in this case. Before his death, Boyle described
the COVID mRNA injection as:
“…a bioweapon… conceived by the Pentagon.”
These
words are no longer part of online speculation or alternative media —
they are now part of legal proceedings in an open court.
THE LEGAL ARGUMENT: ILLEGAL GENE RESEARCH, MILITARY FUNDING
Dr.
Boyle, author of the U.S. Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of
1989, argued that the mRNA technology in the COVID injections is
directly tied to unlawful gain-of-function research funded by the
Pentagon and DARPA.
According to testimony, the vaccine platform includes:
A synthetic spike protein payload, developed to infect human cells.
A nanolipid particle (NLP) delivery system, designed to insert mRNA into the body.
Together, these form what Boyle termed a “military biological weapon system.”
NOTE:
In legal terms, this means the technology may fall under international
prohibitions on bioweapons, regardless of its framing as “public
health.”
EVIDENCE FROM SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE
As part of the legal argument, a 2015 Nature Medicine study is central. The article, titled “A Cluster of Circulating Coronaviruses in Bats, Similar to SARS Shows Potential for Human Infection,” describes scientists creating a synthetic, infectious SARS-like virus.
The study stated:
“We have synthetically created an infectious SHC014 recombinant virus… with robust viral replication in vitro and in vivo.”
This research involved scientists from UNC Chapel Hill and the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Boyle argued that this constitutes gain-of-function research — banned under U.S. and international law.
NOTE: This suggests the pathogenic component of the COVID injection wasn’t discovered — it was built.
DELIVERY PLATFORM: MORE THAN “FAT GLOBULES”
One
key point of contention is how the mRNA is delivered. The term “fat
globules” has been used to downplay the role of nanolipid particles
(NLPs), but Boyle insisted this is misleading.
He described NLPs as a nanotechnology-enhanced weapons platform, designed by DARPA and the Pentagon to deliver biological payloads.
NOTE:
The NLP platform wasn’t a “side feature” — it was allegedly part of a
military-grade design to ensure intracellular delivery of genetic
material.
WHO IS ON TRIAL — AND WHO IS WATCHING?
The case features a panel of expert witnesses, including:
Dr. Joseph Sansone, medical researcher (who released the court video on March 14, 2026)
Catherine Austin Fitts, former Assistant Secretary of HUD
These
individuals argue the COVID program was coordinated between private
corporations and government agencies. They name figures such as Bill Gates and Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla as potentially culpable under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
NOTE: These claims have not yet been proven in court but form the foundation of this legal challenge.
THE DEATH OF DR. FRANCIS BOYLE
Dr.
Boyle’s death occurred shortly after he confirmed his willingness to
testify under oath. He was reportedly in good health prior to his
passing.
“He knew, like no other, that the COVID-19 mRNA injection is a bioweapon.”
His signed statement remains a key piece of evidence in the case, and his passing has raised questions among supporters.
NOTE: The court has not ruled on the cause or timing of his death in relation to the case.
CONCLUSION: COURTROOM, NOT CONSPIRACY
This
lawsuit marks the first known instance of a legal court considering the
COVID injection as a potential bioweapon. Whether or not it succeeds,
the case introduces evidence and arguments previously confined to
alternative media — now under legal review.
The claim:
“The mRNA injection is a bioweapon. And we now have the receipts.”
This
case may set a precedent. At minimum, it opens the door to broader
legal examination of the COVID program’s development, funding, and
global rollout.
NOTE: No verdict has been reached. The defendants have not yet responded in full, and the court proceedings are ongoing.
🔥🇺🇸
BOOOM! RFK JR. DROPS THE HEALTHCARE TRUTHBOMB — All Hospitals,
Insurers, and Doctors Must Now Publish Their Prices | March 15, 2026
[VIDEO]
🔥🇺🇸 BOOM: HHS Secretary RFK Jr. just
flipped the healthcare system — all hospitals, insurers, and doctors
must now show you prices upfront. No more secrets. No more scams.
Transparency begins now.
🔥🇺🇸 INSURANCE COMPANIES FORCED TO EXPOSE THEIR DEALS — GAME OVER FOR PRICE MANIPULATION
The Light Forces are clearing the Dark energy anomaly with full speed, and it will be completely gone in a few weeks.
The main obstacle to planetary liberation remains the Lurker. Although the Ascension Portal activation in August 2025 removed the vast majority of the Lurker from the multiverse, a tiny fraction of one percent still remaining is highly concentrated on the surface of this planet, quantumly entangled with the free will of the surface population.
In the time frame between now and July 9th, its power over the surface of the planet is expected to diminish greatly. When this happens, things will finally begin to look better.
The free will experiment which started millions of years ago with conscious decision of many beings to experience darkness one way or another, is finally reaching its conclusion:
The most important development in the last few weeks is the current push towards Disclosure:
The positive factions infiltrated into governments of major geopolitical powers are achieving some operational results in the surface and shallow subsurface domain:
As our Bogota workshop happens a few hours after Uranus enters Gemini on April 26th, it will be possible for the first time to release new intel about abundance manifestation process which is part of the key of New Earth, never before revealed on this planet. This intel could help anybody still struggling with money:
Then on May 23rd and 24th, we will have a very powerful activation with main focus on Bora Bora that will merge the keys of New Heaven and New Earth for the very first time in human history. There are still a few spaces left, and you can join us:
Tragic Death of David Wilcock adds to growing list of dead or missing scientists – My take on his bizarre death and personal recollections of a brilliant mind
On Tuesday afternoon, I heard the terrible news that David Wilcock had died under very bizarre circumstances on Monday, April 20. The local sheriff’s office released a report that many will find hard to believe. Apparently, David contacted the sheriff’s office and asked for help. Minutes after they showed up, he shot himself according to the official report. David had long reported cyberstalkers launching vicious personal attacks against him.
David’s work in promoting breakthrough aerospace technologies such as antigravity put him on the frontline of UFO researchers trying to revolutionize our planet. Consequently, David was a big target for covert efforts to discredit him or influence him to hurt himself in some way. Psychotronic technologies such as voice-to-skull do exist and have been used to influence individuals to engage in self-destructive behavior.
It’s very likely that David was targeted by such covert weapons over an extended period of time, which ultimately led to him behaving so contrary to everything he taught and believed. David therefore becomes the 12th scientist linked to UFO research who has died or is missing under mysterious circumstances.
I first met David in 2008 after he agreed to speak at the Earth Transformation Conference on the Big Island of Hawaii organized by my wife, Angelika Whitecliff and I. David had only recently decided to start public speaking again, and we were delighted that he chose our conference as the venue for his return. He arrived with his new girlfriend and he looked very happy. Strangely, we didn’t get to see them much at the conference, but years later he confided that they chose stay in their oceanfront hotel room enjoying the great views and getting to know each other better, if you know what I mean. David did a presentation and a workshop that awed the audience with his unique combination of humor and profound insights.
Later, in 2011, I read his first book, the Source Field Investigations, and honestly thought David deserved a Ph.D. for its penetrating insights and scholarship.
I got to work more closely with David in 2015 after the public emergence of Corey Goode. David and I collaborated in spreading Corey’s remarkable secret space program story, and we met again at Gaia TV and several UFO Disclosure events.
David was always a wealth of information and very popular with the audience who loved his zany humor and deep truths he shared. After Corey and I parted ways in 2021, I lost touch with David but I would occasionally watch one of his livestreams where he continued to share his wealth of information and humor. I was always impressed by David’s generous spirit in sharing hours of livestreams for free.
In honor of David, I’m happy to announce that we were able to recover an old DVD recording of Part 1 of his Hawaii workshop presentation. We are trying to find a working copy of Part 2 and will release that also if possible.
Please enjoy and see David at his stunning brilliant best in 2008.
A New Moon that has not occurred in any of our
lifetimes.
A Chiron conjunction that turns your deepest wound into your
most powerful beginning.
And a Galactic Federation transmission that
will permanently change how you understand why everything you’ve been
through had to happen exactly the way it did.
This isn’t another New
Moon video.
This is the transmission your soul has been waiting for.
The
Galactic Federation calls it: The Portal of Irreversible Becoming.
Once
you walk through it — there is no going back.
And if you miss it — the
next window is not in this lifetime.
“The powers of financial capitalism had another far reaching aim,
nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in
private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and
the economy of the world as a whole.” —Prof. Caroll Quigley, Georgetown University, Tragedy and Hope (1966)
In
February 2026, the United States and Israel launched surprise
airstrikes on Iran. The officially proffered reasons — preventing Iran’s
acquisition of a nuclear weapon and forestalling its aggression — have
not held up under scrutiny. As James Corbett documented in
recent Corbett Report episodes, the nuclear pretext appears to be
recycled propaganda, and the scale and timing of the strikes raise
deeper questions about motive.
The thesis that “All Wars Are Bankers’ Wars” was popularized by Michael Rivero in a 2013 documentary by that name. His accompanying article begins with a quote from Aristotle (384-322 BCE):
The
most hated sort [of moneymaking], and with the greatest reason, is
usury, which makes a gain out of money itself, and not from the natural
use of it. For money was intended to be used in exchange, but not to
increase at interest.
Rivero then traces how
private banking interests have financed and profited from conflicts on
both sides for centuries — from the founding of the Bank of England in
1694 to fund William III’s wars to modern regime-change wars.
Other commentators point to the report of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) titled “Rebuilding America’s Defenses”
(September 2000), which called for “full-spectrum” U.S. military forces
to achieve global preeminence. It postulated the need for a
“catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor” to
accelerate the military transformation the authors envisioned.
This was followed by a 2007 Democracy Now interview in which Gen. Wesley Clark revealed that
weeks after 9/11, he had been shown a classified Pentagon memo
outlining plans to “take out seven countries in five years”: Iraq,
Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and finishing off with Iran. The
first six have since been destabilized or regime-changed. Iran,
considered the ultimate prize for Middle East dominance and oil control,
remains the last one standing.
Why those seven, and why was Iran the ultimate prize? Greg Palast’s 2013 article titled “Larry Summers and the Secret ‘End-Game’ Memo”
supplied the missing financial logic. In 1999, the world was opened to
unregulated derivatives trading, so that sovereign bonds, oil flows,
shipping routes, and war-risk policies could all be collateralized,
rehypothecated (pledged multiple times over), and gambled upon. The
lynchpin was the 1997 WTO Financial Services Agreement (the Fifth
Protocol to GATS), which became operational in 1999.
None of the seven targeted countries joined the WTO, and they were also not members of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS).
That left them outside the long regulatory arm of the central bankers’
central bank in Switzerland. Other countries that were later identified
as “rogue states” were also not members of the BIS, including North Korea, Cuba, and Afghanistan.
As
for Iran, it is not only the largest and strongest of the Islamic
countries but operates the world’s only fully interest-free (riba-free)
banking regime. This stands in direct contrast to the conventional
Western model, which relies on interest as its primary revenue
mechanism. “Money making money out of itself” underpins the global
derivatives complex, which is built on rehypothecated, collateralized
debt-at-interest.
The last piece in the financial control grid was detailed in David Rogers Webb’s 2024 book The Great Taking.
The Everything Bubble, including what some commentators estimate to be
more than a quadrillion dollars in derivative bets, is just waiting for a
pin. When it bursts, it will trigger large institutional bankruptcies;
and under the legal machinery Webb documents, the derivative players
will take all.
The 2026 Hormuz insurance crisis triggered by Lloyd’s of London could be that pin. More on all that below.
For
more than three centuries, the City of London – the “Square Mile” that
is London’s financial center — has financed both sides of wars and sold
insurance against the destruction that would follow. Lloyd’s of London
is the insurance pillar of the City’s financial control grid. It is not actually an insurance company but
is a corporate body that “operates as a partially-mutualized
marketplace within which multiple financial backers, grouped in
syndicates, come together to pool and spread risk.”
Lloyd’s has
built its reputation on always performing, but it performs at a cost. In
1898, it formalized long-standing practice by introducing the “Free of
Capture and Seizure” clause, stripping war risks from standard policies
so it could charge extortionate premiums when conflict erupted. It
exercised that clause in both world wars and is exercising it in 2026.
After
the strikes on Iran, Lloyd’s Joint War Committee expanded its
“high-risk” zone in the Middle East. Several of its underwriters issued
72-hour cancellation notices effective March 5, and war-risk premiums for Hormuz transits jumped from
0.25% to 1–5% of hull value. Lloyd’s has stressed that coverage remains
available — at the right price. But for a $100 million oil tanker, that
means an extra $1–5 million per voyage, a premium the owners are
understandably reluctant to pay.
Meanwhile, other dark clouds are hovering over the market. Financial analyst Stephanie Pomboy warns that
the $1.5-3 trillion private credit market is in lockdown, forcing fire
sales of liquid assets; and the much larger $5 trillion BBB-rated
corporate bond market is teetering. Downgrades will force mass selling,
and pensions face a $4 trillion shortfall.
The Hormuz crisis
supplies the perfect accelerant to this collateral crisis: higher oil
prices create inflation, which raises bond yields (interest), collapsing
the value of collateral and triggering margin calls across the
derivatives game board. Margin calls then force private credit funds
into fire sales.
This is one reason some commentators point to the City of London as
the real architect of the Middle East chaos. The old war-insurance
machine and the new derivatives machine operate together. One creates
the chaos premium; the other harvests it through rehypothecation and
legal seizure.
Guaranteeing against shipping loss is one type of
insurance, but a much bigger insurance trap is the derivatives market.
Sold as a form of insurance against market risk, derivatives are a
speculative betting game that extracts rents from all major economic
flows.
In his 2013 article, Greg Palast presented evidence of a secret 1997 memo to Deputy Treasury Secretary Larry Summers from Timothy Geithner (then
U.S. Ambassador to the WTO acting for Summers) describing the
“End-Game” of the WTO Financial Services negotiations. Geithner wrote to
Summers,
“As we enter the end-game… I believe it would be a good idea for you to touch base with the CEOs ….”
The
memo then listed the private phone numbers of Goldman Sachs, Merrill
Lynch, Bank of America, Citibank, and Chase Manhattan, numbers which
Palast confirmed were real.
What was the end-game? Palast wrote:
US
Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin was pushing hard to de-regulate banks.
That required, first, repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act to dismantle the
barrier between commercial banks and investment banks. It was like
replacing bank vaults with roulette wheels.
Second,
the banks wanted the right to play a new high-risk game: “derivatives
trading.” … Deputy Treasury Secretary Summers (soon to replace Rubin as
Secretary) body-blocked any attempt to control derivatives.
But what was the use of turning U.S. banks into derivatives casinos if money would flee to nations with safer banking laws?
The answer conceived by the Big Bank Five: eliminate controls on banks in every nation on the planet – in one single move.… The
bankers’ and Summers’ game was to use the Financial Services Agreement,
an abstruse and benign addendum to the international trade agreements
policed by the World Trade Organization.
… The new
rules of the game would force every nation to open their markets to
Citibank, JP Morgan and their derivatives “products.”
And
all 156 nations in the WTO would have to smash down their own
Glass-Steagall divisions between commercial savings banks and the
investment banks that gamble with derivatives.
The
WTO Financial Services Agreement became the battering ram for opening
global markets to this derivative play. Every member nation was forced
to open its banking system or face sanctions. In 1999, the portion of
Glass-Steagall separating investment banking from depository banking in
the U.S. was repealed, leaving depositors’ money vulnerable to
speculative risk. Derivatives then exploded. Sovereign bonds, oil
contracts, shipping insurance policies, and war-risk premiums were all
sliced into credit-default swaps, hedges, and other derivative products.
Derivatives
trading has since become one of the most concentrated and profitable
businesses on the planet, and it is almost entirely controlled by a
handful of megabanks. According to data from
the Bank for International Settlements and the Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency, the top five U.S. banks alone hold roughly
90% of all U.S. bank derivatives, with JPMorgan, Citigroup, Goldman
Sachs, Bank of America, and Morgan Stanley dominating the global
over-the-counter market. These institutions capture the lion’s share of
derivative profits, especially during periods of volatility when the
“chaos premium” spikes.
In The Great Taking, David Rogers
Webb lays bare the final piece in this financial control grid:
virtually every security today is dematerialized (digitized) and pooled
in central depositories. Quiet changes to the Uniform Commercial Code
and equivalent E.U. rules have turned ordinary investors into mere
“entitlement holders” holding only a legal claim against their
brokerages.
As for bank depositors, they have for centuries been
categorized as mere “creditors” of their banks. Once the money is
deposited, legal title passes to the bank. The depositor holds only a contractual claim (a demand liability) that ranks as an unsecured creditor position in the event of insolvency.
In
any insolvency, stocks, bonds, and deposits are legally collateral for
the derivatives complex — collateral that has been rehypothecated
multiple times over. And when the derivative collateral fails, the
rehypothecated house of cards that has been built on it collapses.
Margin calls cascade, super-priority is triggered, and the Great Taking
begins. (For more on this quite complicated subject, see Webb’s book and
my earlier article here.)
So
what did it matter if Iran and a handful of other countries declined to
join in this lucrative bankers’ game? The risk was that when depositors
and shareholders realized that they did not actually own their funds,
they would move their assets to those safe zones. The holdout countries
were also safe from the sort of sanctions imposed by Western governments
(and enforced by Western banks and clearing houses) on Russian central
bank assets after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022.
Leading this band of holdouts was Iran, which since its 1983 Law for Usury-Free Banking Operations has run the world’s only fully interest-free (riba-free) banking regime. Its banks use Sharia-compliant contracts — profit-sharing (musharakah), cost-plus financing (murabaha), and leasing (ijara)
— instead of charging or paying interest. This banking model stands in
direct contrast to the conventional Western model, which relies on
interest as its primary revenue stream and underpins the global
derivatives complex with collateralized, rehypothecated debt.
Iran’s
system was designed to eliminate usury and align finance with real
economic activity and risk-sharing rather than speculative debt. It has
long been viewed as structurally incompatible with the interest-based,
collateral-heavy architecture of City of London and Wall Street finance —
an architecture that requires perpetual debt servicing and easily
rehypothecated assets to feed the derivatives machine.
By
rejecting interest at the national level, Iran has thus insulated itself
and its financial partners from the control grid that has made the
global “Great Taking” possible.
The Strait of Hormuz is not fully closed, but traffic remains severely reduced under
Iran’s selective, permission-based transit regime. Only vessels from
“friendly” or non-hostile nations are being cleared after prior
coordination with Iranian authorities. Significant backlogs persist,
with more than 1,000 vessels reported waiting or diverted and over
34,000 shipping routes rerouted in the first four weeks of disruption.
President Trump’s $20 billion reinsurance facility announced on March 6 is now operational and has been doubled to $40 billion.
Additional major U.S. insurers have joined, while Lloyd’s of London has
engaged in related discussions. The facility remains centered on
American carriers with U.S. government backing. But analysts doubt it
will restart widespread commercial traffic without broader liability
protection and safer conditions.
In short, the “insurance chaos”
trigger has eased but has not vanished. Premiums remain elevated,
uncertainty lingers, and the collateral and derivatives pressures Webb
described are still in play.
The 2007-08 Global Financial Crisis
(GFC) is now widely regarded as having been triggered by the unchecked
explosion of unregulated derivatives — especially credit default swaps
and collateralized debt obligations — which turned subprime mortgages
into a systemic time bomb. The damage was not confined to the United States: developing countries suffered heavily as well.
Today the risk of a crash is even greater than during the GFC. The global OTC derivatives market has officially ballooned to a notional value of $846 trillion, more than seven times the size of the entire world economy.
Long-range
political solutions are possible. Congress could restore Glass-Steagall
and impose a financial transaction tax. State governments could
withdraw their approval of relevant portions of the UCC and form public
banks that can protect against local bank bankruptcies. (See my earlier
articles here and here.)
But
the immediate need in the current context is to settle the conflict
with Iran, and settle it fast, before another black-swan shock ignites
the derivatives daisy chain and activates the final Great Taking on a
global scale.
Americans could soon learn more about what many have long suspected regarding unidentified flying objects.
UFO whistleblower Luis Elizondo, a former Pentagon official, said “We’ve been saying for the last eight years … that there have been dozens upon dozens of these near-air collisions that have occurred with military and civilian and commercial pilots.
This is not just happening with military aircraft.” The whistleblower believes the Trump administration’s actions are due to the existence of UFOs being the “worst-kept secret in American history.
The fascinating and well-informed Conspiracy Researcher, Author and Investigate Reporter, MAKIA FREEMAN is back on AGE OF TRUTH TV, about the recent release of the Epstein files and how Epstein was linked to the global cult, and he has just published a new eye-opening and controversial, dot-connecting book entitled "The Cult of the Chosen Ones - They Killed JFK, Did 9/11 and Threaten to Rule the World", where he outlines the ancient history of the Satanic Cult behind the Illuminati and the current ruling secret societies, and those who believe they are the chosen people.
Makia Freeman is Australian and joins Age Of Truth TV Presenter and Investigative Reporter, Lucas Alexander from his home in Hawaii.
For more on Makia Freeman and to get his latest book:
QUESTION: Do you think Trump will send in troops and what will be the result?Will Iran defeat the United States?
ZT
ANSWER: You’re asking the question that NOBODY in Washington wants to confront. Will the United States be defeated by Iran?
Based on my cyclical analysis, historical precedent, and current
trajectory, let me give you the answer that will make the neocons
furious:
YES. The United States will be defeated in Iran—not necessarily not just on the battlefield, but STRATEGICALLY, ECONOMICALLY, and POLITICALLY.
Sending in troops that end up with thousands in returning home in
body-bags will show the entire world that Iran can defeat the mighty
USA. That will send a smoke signal to Russia and China that the US
cannot possible deend both Europe and Taiwan while also tied up
defending Netanyahu.
Sending in troops will be a suicide mission. This is not going to be D-Day.
We do not have the troops to conquer Iran, and Netanyahu does not care
how many Americans will die for his personal vendetta. Iran has a major
army, and this is NOT going to be a cakewalk. The
advice being given to Trump is such a bald-faced lie that it is putting
the entire world at risk, all for the defense of the sadistic character
of Netanyahu. Sending in troops will be a suicide mission. We do NOT
have the personnel to wage this war, and my sources are screaming that
even the Marines are not renewing all because this is NOT a war that is
in the American interest, but is a religious war for Netanyahu.
The military strength of Iran is far superior and Trump may claim we
have already won by taking out their Navy and bombing their above ground
operations, but Iran has dozens of deep underground facilities that
nothing should of a nuke would possible reach. Aside from that, I would
be very concerned that Iran is now pushing for a nuclear weapon ASAP and
they have the missile capability. Once they announce that they now have
the nukes, this changes everything.
Israel is effectively out of defense. Trump is now taking resources
from Ukraine and sending them to Israel, which will not change the
outcome. Iran has strategically planned for the end game and has the
largest stockpile of ballistic missiles perhaps in the world, but
certainly in the region.
Now even Saudi Arabia is demanding the US wipe out Iran for now Epic Fury has risen the Epic Persian Lion. They have seriously underestimated Iran and Trump did not listen to American intelligence and took Netanyahu’s word instead.
I warned that the war cycle turned up in 2014 and that would begin in Ukraine. But I also warned that WWIII will NOT
be a single front, but we are looking at wars around the globe. The
computer is showing this is going to extend into 2028 and that it should
have turn higher exponentially here in 2026.
The half-cycle turning point was here in 2026. At the last WEC I also
warned that 2026 would be a Panic Cycle Year when it came to war,
markets, and the economy. It pains me deeply to see how the Neocons have
infiltrated the Trump Administration and that this insane arrogance
will lead to the defeat of the United States for the stated goals of
regime change, causing a revolution, destroying their ballistic misiles,
and ending their nuclear program have all failed.
At this point, if I
were Iran, I would be working night and day to finish that nuke for that
is the only way at this point to discredit Netanyahu. This was a stupid
move sold to Trump that just killing the Ayatolla would bring down the
government which was totally fictional. Now Trump risks the entire
stability of the world as a whole all for Netanyahu. Instead of securing
the future for Israel, Netanyahu may undermine its future as it can no
longer defend agains Iranian missiles and Russia is now sending drones
to Iran.
Bill Gates and Jeffrey Epstein were involved in black op
government experiments involving “disposable” orphan children and
aliens, according to bombshell footage recorded by John McAfee before he
was found dead.
In the final years of his life, McAfee was running a high-stakes
spying operation using viral spyware and drone surveillance. What he
uncovered — straight from the heart of the US government — was
staggering.
Alien-human hybrid breeding programs… using black orphans trafficked
from American cities. Sickening experiments that would make Dr. Josef
Mengele himself blush in horror. And evidence that suggests the Book of
Enoch… wasn’t just ancient mythology.
And at the center of it all… the man McAfee called the “world’s most deranged psychopath”, Bill Gates.
John McAfee uncovered solid evidence that government agencies were
running criminal enterprises — deeply entangled with Jeffrey Epstein —
and involved in breeding alien-human hybrids for purposes that are as
revolting as they are immoral and dystopian.
We’ve known for years the mainstream media knew about Jeffrey Epstein and chose not to report on the VIP pedophile ring.
Now we know the media chose to cover up the existence of alien hybrid
breeding farms, where Gates’ performed grotesque and cruel experiments,
and did things to children that even Wes Craven couldn’t dream up.
The mainstream media is terrified of the truth. They’re the nervous
PR department for the global elite — carefully shielding them from
scrutiny.
But we are not afraid. We’re here to bring you McAfee’s stunning 4K footage, no matter the cost.
They banned us from every platform. They raided our homes. They told you we were crazy.
Now we’re back with
the one story that ties every thread together. John McAfee’s final act
of defiance, salvaged from the ashes, ready to shock the world.
This is the evidence drop the elite have nightmares about.
Today, you will see
the evidence with your own eyes. You’ll hear from insiders who
experienced the horrors — and the bodyguards, and assistants who finally
decided to talk. Their testimonies. Their recordings. Their truth.
For 41 years, Darryl Anka has served as the channel for Bashar — a multidimensional, physical extraterrestrial hybrid being from a parallel reality…and what he’s revealing now may change EVERYTHING.
Is humanity heading for a massive reset? Is 2026 the true Year of Disclosure?
And will we experience OPEN CONTACT in 2027 — literally being introduced to extraterrestrials?
In this episode of Mayim Bialik's Breakdown, Darryl explains why he believes the next few decades will redefine humanity forever, and how disclosure, contact, and even artificial intelligence are part of a larger evolutionary leap. Darryl Anka breaks down:
Shocking story of how Darryl first began channeling Bashar after witnessing UAPs
What
it felt like the first time Bashar spoke through him in a meditation
class (and what happens in his body and brain during channeling)
Past-life agreement he says he made to become a channel in this lifetime
Who Bashar really is: a “First Contact Specialist” from a parallel civilization making telepathic contact
Why Bashar’s civilization is trying to help humanity evolve
Why Darryl says everyone is channeling, whether they realize it or not
Real requirements for believing he’s genuinely channeling (& what would disprove it)
Phases of “Open Contact” & what we should be doing right now to prepare
Why some humans experience alien abductions
His take on the “Zoo Hypothesis”
Are we living in a simulation? (Yes, but not how you think!)
How extraterrestrials travel through space & time
Why 2026 leads to disclosure & why 2027 could bring face-to-face contact
Is AI the beginning of human hybridization?
Telepathy, ESP, PSI, astral projection: How YOU can unlock them
Why following your passion literally raises your frequency
Why Earth is one of the most unique soul-learning environments in existence
What reincarnation truly allows your soul to experience
Guardian angels, spirit teams, & interventions from the other side
Spontaneous healing & why energy healing sometimes doesn’t work
How addiction keeps us spiritually stuck
Creativity as a direct spiritual connection
Why abundance isn’t just about money
Bashar’s message for navigating illness, death, & the intense times we’re living in
Explore the science and history behind the distant celestial bodies in the solar system.
National Geographic presents the first accurate non-stop voyage from Earth to the edge of the Universe using a single, unbroken shot through the use of spectacular CGI (Computer-Generated Imagery) technology.
Building on images taken from the Hubble telescope, 'Journey to the Edge of the Universe' explores the science and history behind the distant celestial bodies in the solar system.
This spectacular, epic voyage across the Cosmos, takes us from the Earth, past the Moon and our neighboring planets, out of our Solar System, to the nearest stars, nebulae and galaxies and beyond - right to the edge of the Universe itself...
When you finish this video, you will walk away from it with an awareness that you never had before, of the unseen astronomically massive universe that we float around on like a spec of dust in the ocean.
This video takes you on a journey through the universe as if you are watching a Sci Fi adventure.
Yet you constantly have to remind yourself that what you’re seeing is really out there...!
On January 8, 2014, at New York University in Brooklyn, there occurred a unique event in the annals of global warming: nearly eight hours of structured debate between three climate scientists supporting the consensus on manmade global warming and three climate scientists who dispute it, moderated by a team of six leading physicists from the American Physical Society (APS) led by Dr. Steven Koonin, a theoretical physicist at New York University.
The debate, hosted by the APS, revealed consensus-supporting climate scientists harboring doubts and uncertainties and admitting to holes in climate science - in marked contrast to the emphatic messaging of bodies such as Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). At one point, Koonin read an extract from the IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report released the previous year.
Computer model-simulated responses to forcings - the term used by climate scientists for changes of energy flows into and out of the climate system, such as changes in solar radiation, volcanic eruptions, and changes in the concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, "can be scaled up or down."
This scaling included greenhouse gas forcings. Some forcings in some computer models had to be scaled down to match computer simulations to actual climate observations. But when it came to making centennial projections on which governments rely and drive climate policy, the scaling factors were removed, probably resulting in a 25 to 30 percent over-prediction of the 2100 warming. The ensuing dialogue between Koonin and Dr. William Collins of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory - a lead author of the climate model evaluation chapter in the Fifth Assessment Report - revealed something more troubling and deliberate than holes in scientific knowledge:
Dr. Koonin: But if the model tells you that you got the response to the forcing wrong by 30 percent, you should use that same 30 percent factor when you project out a century. Dr. Collins: Yes. And one of the reasons we are not doing that is we are not using the models as [a] statistical projection tool. Dr. Koonin: What are you using them as?
Dr. Collins: Well, we took exactly the same models that got the forcing wrong and which got sort of the projections wrong up to 2100.
Dr. Koonin: So, why do we even show centennial-scale projections?
Dr. Collins: Well, I mean, it is part of the [IPCC] assessment process.
Koonin was uncommonly well-suited to lead the APS climate workshop.
He has a deep understanding of computer models, which have become the workhorses of climate science. As a young man, Koonin wrote a paper on computer modeling of nuclear reaction in stars and taught a course on computational physics at Caltech.
In the early 1990s, he was involved in a program using satellites to measure the Earth's albedo - that is, the reflection of incoming solar radiation back into space.
As a student at Caltech in the late 1960s, he was taught by Nobel physicist Richard Feynman and absorbed what Koonin calls Feynman's "absolute intellectual honesty." On becoming BP's chief scientist in 2004, Koonin became part of the wider climate change milieu.
Assignments included, explaining the physics of man-made global warming to Prince Philip at a dinner in Buckingham Palace.
In 2009, Koonin was appointed an under-secretary at the Department of Energy in the Obama administration. The APS climate debate was the turning point in Koonin's thinking about climate change and consensus climate science ("The Science").
"I came away from the APS workshop not only surprised, but shaken by the realization that climate science was far less mature than I had supposed."
"Unsettled" is an authoritative primer on the science of climate change that lifts the lid on The Science and finds plenty that isn't as it should be.
"As a scientist," writes Koonin, "I felt the scientific community was letting the public down by not telling the whole truth plainly."
Koonin's aim is to right that wrong. Koonin's indictment of The Science starts with its reliance on unreliable computer models.
Usefully describing the earth's climate, writes Koonin, is, "one of the most challenging scientific simulation problems."
Models divide the atmosphere into pancake-shaped boxes of around 100km wide and one kilometer deep.
But the upward flow of energy from tropical thunder clouds, which is more than thirty times larger than that from human influences, occurs over smaller scales than the programmed boxes.
This forces climate modellers to make assumptions about what happens inside those boxes.
As one modeller confesses, "it's a real challenge to model what we don't understand."
Inevitably, this leaves considerable scope for modelers' subjective views and preferences.
A key question climate models are meant to solve is estimating the equilibrium climate sensitivity of carbon dioxide (ECS), which aims to tell us by how much temperatures rise from a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Yet in 2020, climate modelers from Germany's Max Planck Institute admitted to tuning their model by targeting an ECS of about 3° Centigrade.
"Talk about cooking the books," Koonin comments.
The proof of the pudding, as they say, is in the eating.
Self-evidently, computer projections can't be tested against a future that's yet to happen, but they can be tested against climates present and past.
Climate models can't even agree on what the current global average temperature is.
"One particularly jarring feature is that the simulated average global surface temperature," Koonin notes, "varies among models by about 3°C, three times greater than the observed value of the twentieth century warming they're purporting to describe and explain."
Another embarrassing feature of climate models concerns the earlier of the two twentieth-century warmings from 1910 to 1940, when human influences were much smaller.
On average, models give a warming rate of about half of what was actually observed.
The failure of the latest models to warm fast enough in those decades suggest that it's possible, even likely, that internal climate variability is a significant contributor to the warming of recent decades, Koonin suggests.
"That the models can't reproduce the past is a big red flag - it erodes confidence in their projections of future climates."
Neither is it reassuring that for the years after 1960, the latest generation of climate models show a larger spread and greater uncertainty than earlier ones - implying that, far from advancing, The Science has been going backwards.
That is not how science is meant to work. The second part of Koonin's indictment concerns the distortion, misrepresentation, and mischaracterization of climate data to support a narrative of climate catastrophism based on increasing frequency of extreme weather events.
As an example, Koonin takes a "shockingly misleading" claim and associated graph in the United States government's 2017 Climate Science Special Report that the number of high-temperature records set in the past two decades far exceeds the number of low-temperature records across the 48 contiguous states.
Koonin demonstrates that the sharp uptick in highs over the last two decades is an artifact of a methodology chosen to mislead.
After re-running the data, record highs show a clear peak in the 1930s, but there is no significant trend over the 120 years of observations starting in 1895, or even since 1980, when human influences on the climate grew strongly.
In contrast, the number of record cold temperatures has declined over more than a century, with the trend accelerating after 1985. Notes Koonin, "temperature extremes in the contiguous U.S. have become less common and somewhat milder since the late nineteenth century."
Similarly, a key message in the 2014 National Climate Assessment of an upward trend in hurricane frequency and intensity, repeated in the 2017 assessment, is contradicted 728 pages later by a statement buried in an appendix stating that there has been no significant trend in the global number of tropical cyclones, "nor has any trend been identified in the number of U.S. land-falling hurricanes."
That might surprise many politicians.
"Over the past thirty years, the incidence of natural disasters has dramatically increased," Treasury secretary Janet Yellen falsely asserted last month in a pitch supporting the Biden administration's infrastructure package.
"We are now in a situation where climate change is an existential risk to our future economy and way of life," she claimed.
The sacrifice of scientific truth in the form of objective empirical data for the sake of a catastrophist climate narrative is plain to see.
As Koonin summarizes the case: "Even as human influences have increased fivefold since 1950 and the globe has warmed modestly, most severe weather phenomena remain within past variability.
Projections of future climate and weather events rely on models demonstrably unfit for the purpose."
Koonin also has sharp words for the policy side of the climate change consensus, which asserts that although climate change is an existential threat, solving it by totally decarbonizing society is straightforward and relatively painless.
"Two decades ago, when I was in the private sector," Koonin writes, "I learned to say that the goal of stabilizing human influences on the climate was 'a challenge,' while in government it was talked about as 'an opportunity.'
Now back in academia, I can forthrightly call it 'a practical impossibility'."
Unlike many scientists and most politicians, Koonin displays a sure grasp of the split between developed and developing nations, for whom decarbonization is a luxury good that they can't afford.
Indeed, it's why developing nations insisted on the U.N. route as opposed to an intergovernmental one that produced the 1987 Montreal Protocol on ozone-depleting substances.
"The economic betterment of most of humanity in the coming decades will drive energy demand even more strongly than population growth," Koonin says.
"Who will pay the developing world not to emit? I have been posing that simple question to many people for more than fifteen years and have yet to hear a convincing answer."
The most unsettling part of "Unsettled" concerns science and the role of scientists.
"Science is one of the very few human activities - perhaps the only one - in which errors are systematically criticized and fairly often, in time, corrected," Karl Popper wrote nearly six decades ago.
That condition does not pertain in climate science, where errors are embedded in a political narrative and criticism is suppressed.
In a recent essay, the philosopher Matthew B. Crawford observes that the pride of science as a way of generating knowledge - unlike religion - is to be falsifiable.
That changes when science is pressed into duty as authority in order to absolve politicians of responsibility for justifying their policy choices ("the science says," we're repeatedly told).
"Yet what sort of authority would it be that insists its own grasp of reality is merely provisional?" asks Crawford.
"For authority to be really authoritative, it must claim an epistemic monopoly of some kind, whether of priestly or scientific knowledge."
At the outset of "Unsettled," Feynman's axiom of absolute intellectual honesty is contrasted with climate scientist Stephen Schneider's "double ethical bind."
On the one hand, scientists are ethically bound by the scientific method to tell the truth. On the other, they are human beings who want to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change.
"Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest," Schneider said.
"Being effective" helps explain the pressure on climate scientists to conform to The Science and the emergence of a climate science knowledge monopoly.
Its function is, as Crawford puts it, the manufacture of a product - political legitimacy - which, in turn, requires that competing views be delegitimized and driven out of public discourse through enforcement of a, "moratorium on the asking of questions."
This sees climate scientist gatekeepers deciding who can and cannot opine on climate science.
"Please, save us from retired physicists who think they're smarter and wiser than everyone in climate science," tweeted Gavin Schmidt, NASA acting senior climate advisor, about Koonin and his book.
"I agree with pretty much everything you wrote," a chair of a university earth sciences department tells Koonin, "but I don't dare say that in public."
Another scientist criticizes Koonin for giving ammunition to "the deniers," and a third writes an op-ed urging New York University to reconsider Koonin's position there.
It goes wider than scientists...
Facebook has suppressed a "Wall Street Journal" review of "Unsettled."
Likewise, "Unsettled" remains unreviewed by the "New York Times," the "Washington Post" (though it carried an op-ed by Marc Thiessen based on an interview with Koonin) and other dailies, which would prefer to treat Koonin's reasoned climate dissent as though it doesn't exist.
The moratorium on the asking of questions represents the death of science as understood and described by Popper, a victim of the conflicting requirements of political utility and scientific integrity.
Many scientists take this lying down. Koonin won't...
