This place, philosophyofgoodnews.com published so many articles about non tested liquids insidiously forced upon us, about policies of social distancing promoted by imbeciles called professors of some well known schools and colleges, about irrational fines for walking down the streets, swiming at the sea, or just visting lakes and waterfalls, while those were secretly under curfew going to their girl friends and/ or making parties…

The same creatures that are the product of brain washing and social engineering institutions do not stop their policies as so many of us choose “happiness” over freedom. Happiness for them in those and in the coming days that are secretly prepared under the usual pretence for”common good”(again the same methods as they found out that most of us will follow) is,still, followed by the idea of having the right to travel, the right to have a good car and mistresses maybe, private swimming pool, plane and yacht, or to see the Pope of Rome. For this kind of possessions that take hold of the people at a low level of spiritual development, they willingly accept chains and this approaching the state of moron, further becoming a complete and irreversible imbeciles.

This is not about being stupid. Its about being tragically, utterly stupid.

You know, the kind of stupidity that is making it a fashion to discuss which type of the “new technology liquid” jab to get and not if those are safe to inject into the body! The stupidity continues with those imbeciles, but still our fellow human beings, who stated “Trust Science Not Morons” that was so successfully promoted by another deep state project, the fb.  To quote Helena Roerich:“When sufficient numbers of such entities are gathered, these “armies” are skilfully used by the evil forces, and if there are voluntary or involuntary executors of their “strategies” on the physical plane, then it is as if invisible near-earth battles “break-through” and find their reflection in the earthly world.”

If you can, recall all those faces you still can see everyday in public talking about policies, having the opinion about anything and everything, judging all who think, my God, think, just think differently. You can easily recognise them as long as you are not completely brainwashed.

And this process did not start with the recent so-called epidemic. Nooo. 

Let me say that in 1865 the USA secretary of treasury Mr. Hugh McCulloch made this statement: “The people are out of debt and consequently prosperous!” That was it! After a shirt time President Abraham Lincoln was assassinated and then the prosperity was thrown into the dustbin. From 1865 till 1892 the people of the USA were 32 billion US dollars in dept to reach 40 billion by 1897! Today the USA has, publicly announced, dept of 35,385,700,000,000 and counting. Not to forget to mention that Federal Reserve was established by the act of December 1913, awaiting useful idiot to provoke major war. It happened in July 1918.

The dept per citizen( here we do not know if the immigrants that can vote without the ID are counted) is 104,874 USD. That means when the child is born the chain containing 104,874 USD is added to him,her. I do not know if there is anything else at the time of birth. She or He are still standing, even that some try to dilute that and introduce the third gender at the birth!

Now you ask if there will be new World  War number III? Many events are shiwing us thatbthe path has been chosen and one is now completely certain! If those dark entities will be sure that they would stay alive, they would go for it employing all those people with low spiritual development, blinded by possessions to execute their orders! March towards ARMAGEDDON! Both economic and existential! Here is the link to the Mitch Daniels Washington Post article that is not only explaining all but warning all! https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/09/19/national-debt-disaster-plan-conference/ . Is that possible? Oh, yes it is! How did it happen?

Another quote from Helena Roerich book :

“The manifestation of mass possession was not something that occurred previously; it is incomprehensible that scientists have not paid attention to what is such a disaster( the book was published in 1935 so she somehow did not know of the plans of Foundations Trustees about which you can read below). People create millions of murders. Does it really not occur to anyone that this is a hotbed of possessions. Thus, these invisible possesors, demanding food in the form of energy or blood, attach themselves to those who are physically incarnate and feed on their energy, and it does not matter who it is: an ordinary person or the ruler of entire country. They instil in people thoughts of murder and suicide, which their victims assume to be their own and often carry out. Terrorist attacks, shootings in educational establishments, serial killings, bloody conflicts-all are the consequence of possession.” Not yet convinced?

Can you observe how those possessed act? Contrary to common sense vomiting evil! Observe! It happens every day in every segment of our life.

“It is important that we understand just how numerous are the atrocities committed to appease an invisible villain. People call them demons, but one may simply call them scum. It can not be assumed that possessions requires a powerful demon. Every earthly criminal undoubtedly strives to become a possessor and thereby feed their enduring hatred. Many historical events have taken place under the influence of possessions. Let us not forget this!

So, it is a fact that after special military operation started on February 24, 2022 somehow the so-called Epidemic have stopped! It looks like that Mr. Putin the President of Russia is the best epidemiologist knowing the exact cause of the disease that continues to take lives in the form of liquids forced upon us THE PEOPLE! Here is a part of his online Davos speech on January 27, 2021. Please read it as it is a serious, documented diagnosis of what are we passing through now and connect it with possessions and possessors… Can the result be WWIII? Very realistic scenario!

“The current forum is the first one in the beginning of the third decade of the 21st century and, naturally, the majority of its topics are devoted to the profound changes that are taking place in the world.

Indeed, it is difficult to overlook the fundamental changes in the global economy, politics, social life and technology. The coronavirus pandemic, which Klaus just mentioned, which became a serious challenge for humankind, only spurred and accelerated the structural changes, the conditions for which had been created long ago. The pandemic has exacerbated the problems and imbalances that built up in the world before. There is every reason to believe that differences are likely to grow stronger. These trends may appear practically in all areas.

Needless to say, there are no direct parallels in history. However, some experts – and I respect their opinion – compare the current situation to the 1930s. One can agree or disagree, but certain analogies are still suggested by many parameters, including the comprehensive, systemic nature of the challenges and potential threats.

We are seeing a crisis of the previous models and instruments of economic development. Social stratification is growing stronger both globally and in individual countries. We have spoken about this before as well. But this, in turn, is causing today a sharp polarisation of public views, provoking the growth of populism, right- and left-wing radicalism and other extremes, and the exacerbation of domestic political processes including in the leading countries.

All this is inevitably affecting the nature of international relations and is not making them more stable or predictable. International institutions are becoming weaker, regional conflicts are emerging one after another, and the system of global security is deteriorating.

Klaus has mentioned the conversation I had yesterday with the US President on extending the New START. This is, without a doubt, a step in the right direction. Nevertheless, the differences are leading to a downward spiral. As you are aware, the inability and unwillingness to find substantive solutions to problems like this in the 20th century led to the WWII catastrophe.

Of course, such a heated global conflict is impossible in principle, I hope. This is what I am pinning my hopes on, because this would be the end of humanity. However, as I have said, the situation could take an unexpected and uncontrollable turn – unless we do something to prevent this. There is a chance that we will face a formidable break-down in global development, which will be fraught with a war of all against all and attempts to deal with contradictions through the appointment of internal and external enemies and the destruction of not only traditional values such as the family, which we hold dear in Russia, but fundamental freedoms such as the right of choice and privacy.

I would like to point out the negative demographic consequences of the ongoing social crisis and the crisis of values, which could result in humanity losing entire civilisational and cultural continents.

We have a shared responsibility to prevent this scenario, which looks like a grim dystopia, and to ensure instead that our development takes a different trajectory – positive, harmonious and creative.

In this context, I would like to speak in more detail about the main challenges which, I believe, the international community is facing.

The first one is socioeconomic.

Indeed, judging by the statistics, even despite the deep crises in 2008 and 2020, the last 40 years can be referred to as successful or even super successful for the global economy. Starting from 1980, global per capita GDP has doubled in terms of real purchasing power parity. This is definitely a positive indicator.

Globalisation and domestic growth have led to strong growth in developing countries and lifted over a billion people out of poverty. So, if we take an income level of $5.50 per person per day (in terms of PPP) then, according to the World Bank, in China, for example, the number of people with lower incomes went from 1.1 billion in 1990 down to less than 300 million in recent years. This is definitely China’s success. In Russia, this number went from 64 million people in 1999 to about 5 million now. We believe this is also progress in our country, and in the most important area, by the way.

Still, the main question, the answer to which can, in many respects, provide a clue to today’s problems, is what was the nature of this global growth and who benefitted from it most.

Of course, as I mentioned earlier, developing countries benefitted a lot from the growing demand for their traditional and even new products. However, this integration into the global economy has resulted in more than just new jobs or greater export earnings. It also had its social costs, including a significant gap in individual incomes.

What about the developed economies where average incomes are much higher? It may sound ironic, but stratification in the developed countries is even deeper. According to the World Bank, 3.6 million people subsisted on incomes of under $5.50 per day in the United States in 2000, but in 2016 this number grew to 5.6 million people.

Meanwhile, globalisation led to a significant increase in the revenue of large multinational, primarily US and European, companies.

By the way, in terms of individual income, the developed economies in Europe show the same trend as the United States.

But then again, in terms of corporate profits, who got hold of the revenue? The answer is clear: one percent of the population.

And what has happened in the lives of other people? In the past 30 years, in a number of developed countries, the real incomes of over half of the citizens have been stagnating, not growing. Meanwhile, the cost of education and healthcare services has gone up. Do you know by how much? Three times.

In other words, millions of people even in wealthy countries have stopped hoping for an increase of their incomes. In the meantime, they are faced with the problem of how to keep themselves and their parents healthy and how to provide their children with a decent education.

There is no call for a huge mass of people and their number keeps growing. Thus, according to the International Labour Organisation (ILO), in 2019, 21 percent or 267 million young people in the world did not study or work anywhere. Even among those who had jobs (these are interesting figures) 30 percent had an income below $3.2 per day in terms of purchasing power parity.

These imbalances in global socioeconomic development are a direct result of the policy pursued in the 1980s, which was often vulgar or dogmatic. This policy rested on the so-called Washington Consensus with its unwritten rules, when the priority was given to the economic growth based on a private debt in conditions of deregulation and low taxes on the wealthy and the corporations.

As I have already mentioned, the coronavirus pandemic has only exacerbated these problems. In the last year, the global economy sustained its biggest decline since WWII. By July, the labour market had lost almost 500 million jobs. Yes, half of them were restored by the end of the year but still almost 250 million jobs were lost. This is a big and very alarming figure. In the first nine months of the past year alone, the losses of earnings amounted to $3.5 trillion. This figure is going up and, hence, social tension is on the rise.

At the same time, post-crisis recovery is not simple at all. If some 20 or 30 years ago, we would have solved the problem through stimulating macroeconomic policies (incidentally, this is still being done), today such mechanisms have reached their limits and are no longer effective. This resource has outlived its usefulness. This is not an unsubstantiated personal conclusion.

According to the IMF, the aggregate sovereign and private debt level has approached 200 percent of global GDP, and has even exceeded 300 percent of national GDP in some countries. At the same time, interest rates in developed market economies are kept at almost zero and are at a historic low in emerging market economies.

Taken together, this makes economic stimulation with traditional methods, through an increase in private loans virtually impossible. The so-called quantitative easing is only increasing the bubble of the value of financial assets and deepening the social divide. The widening gap between the real and virtual economies (incidentally, representatives of the real economy sector from many countries have told me about this on numerous occasions, and I believe that the business representatives attending this meeting will agree with me) presents a very real threat and is fraught with serious and unpredictable shocks.

Hopes that it will be possible to reboot the old growth model are connected with rapid technological development. Indeed, during the past 20 years we have created a foundation for the so-called Fourth Industrial Revolution based on the wide use of AI and automation and robotics. The coronavirus pandemic has greatly accelerated such projects and their implementation.

However, this process is leading to new structural changes, I am thinking in particular of the labour market. This means that very many people could lose their jobs unless the state takes effective measures to prevent this. Most of these people are from the so-called middle class, which is the basis of any modern society.

In this context, I would like to mention the second fundamental challenge of the forthcoming decade – the socio-political one. The rise of economic problems and inequality is splitting society, triggering social, racial and ethnic intolerance. Indicatively, these tensions are bursting out even in the countries with seemingly civil and democratic institutions that are designed to alleviate and stop such phenomena and excesses.

The systemic socioeconomic problems are evoking such social discontent that they require special attention and real solutions. The dangerous illusion that they may be ignored or pushed into the corner is fraught with serious consequences.

In this case, society will still be divided politically and socially. This is bound to happen because people are dissatisfied not by some abstract issues but by real problems that concern everyone regardless of the political views that people have or think they have. Meanwhile, real problems evoke discontent.

I would like to emphasise one more important point. Modern technological giants, especially digital companies, have started playing an increasing role in the life of society. Much is being said about this now, especially regarding the events that took place during the election campaign in the US. They are not just some economic giants. In some areas, they are de facto competing with states. Their audiences consist of billions of users that pass a considerable part of their lives in these eco systems.

In the opinion of these companies, their monopoly is optimal for organising technological and business processes. Maybe so but society is wondering whether such monopolism meets public interests. Where is the border between successful global business, in-demand services and big data consolidation and the attempts to manage society at one’s own discretion and in a tough manner, replace legal democratic institutions and essentially usurp or restrict the natural right of people to decide for themselves how to live, what to choose and what position to express freely? We have just seen all of these phenomena in the US and everyone understands what I am talking about now. I am confident that the overwhelming majority of people share this position, including the participants in the current event.

And finally, the third challenge, or rather, a clear threat that we may well run into in the coming decade is the further exacerbation of many international problems. After all, unresolved and mounting internal socioeconomic problems may push people to look for someone to blame for all their troubles and to redirect their irritation and discontent. We can already see this. We feel that the degree of foreign policy propaganda rhetoric is growing.

We can expect the nature of practical actions to also become more aggressive, including pressure on the countries that do not agree with a role of obedient controlled satellites, use of trade barriers, illegitimate sanctions and restrictions in the financial, technological and cyber spheres.

Such a game with no rules critically increases the risk of unilateral use of military force. The use of force under a far-fetched pretext is what this danger is all about. This multiplies the likelihood of new hot spots flaring up on our planet. This concerns us.

Colleagues, despite this tangle of differences and challenges, we certainly should keep a positive outlook on the future and remain committed to a constructive agenda. It would be naive to come up with universal miraculous recipes for resolving the above problems. But we certainly need to try to work out common approaches, bring our positions as close as possible and identify sources that generate global tensions.

Once again, I want to emphasise my thesis that accumulated socioeconomic problems are the fundamental reason for unstable global growth.

So, the key question today is how to build a programme of actions in order to not only quickly restore the global and national economies affected by the pandemic, but to ensure that this recovery is sustainable in the long run, relies on a high-quality structure and helps overcome the burden of social imbalances. Clearly, with the above restrictions and macroeconomic policy in mind, economic growth will largely rely on fiscal incentives with state budgets and central banks playing the key role.

Actually, we can see these kinds of trends in the developed countries and also in some developing economies as well. An increasing role of the state in the socioeconomic sphere at the national level obviously implies greater responsibility and close interstate interaction when it comes to issues on the global agenda.

Calls for inclusive growth and for creating decent standards of living for everyone are regularly made at various international forums. This is how it should be, and this is an absolutely correct view of our joint efforts.

It is clear that the world cannot continue creating an economy that will only benefit a million people, or even the golden billion. This is a destructive precept. This model is unbalanced by default. The recent developments, including migration crises, have reaffirmed this once again.

We must now proceed from stating facts to action, investing our efforts and resources into reducing social inequality in individual countries and into gradually balancing the economic development standards of different countries and regions in the world. This would put an end to migration crises.

The essence and focus of this policy aimed at ensuring sustainable and harmonious development are clear. They imply the creation of new opportunities for everyone, conditions under which everyone will be able to develop and realise their potential regardless of where they were born and are living.

I would like to point out four key priorities, as I see them. This might be old news, but since Klaus has allowed me to present Russia’s position, my position, I will certainly do so.

First, everyone must have comfortable living conditions, including housing and affordable transport, energy and public utility infrastructure. Plus environmental welfare, something that must not be overlooked.

Second, everyone must be sure that they will have a job that can ensure sustainable growth of income and, hence, decent standards of living. Everyone must have access to an effective system of lifelong education, which is absolutely indispensable now and which will allow people to develop, make a career and receive a decent pension and social benefits upon retirement.

Third, people must be confident that they will receive high-quality and effective medical care whenever necessary, and that the national healthcare system will guarantee access to modern medical services.

Fourth, regardless of the family income, children must be able to receive a decent education and realise their potential. Every child has potential.

This is the only way to guarantee the cost-effective development of the modern economy, in which people are perceived as the end, rather than the means. Only those countries capable of attaining progress in at least these four areas will facilitate their own sustainable and all-inclusive development. These areas are not exhaustive, and I have just mentioned the main aspects.

A strategy, also being implemented by my country, hinges on precisely these approaches. Our priorities revolve around people, their families, and they aim to ensure demographic development, to protect the people, to improve their well-being and to protect their health. We are now working to create favourable conditions for worthy and cost-effective work and successful entrepreneurship and to ensure digital transformation as the foundation of a high-tech future for the entire country, rather than that of a narrow group of companies.

We intend to focus the efforts of the state, the business community and civil society on these tasks and to implement a budgetary policy with the relevant incentives in the years ahead.

We are open to the broadest international cooperation, while achieving our national goals, and we are confident that cooperation on matters of the global socioeconomic agenda would have a positive influence on the overall atmosphere in global affairs, and that interdependence in addressing acute current problems would also increase mutual trust which is particularly important and particularly topical today.

Obviously, the era linked with attempts to build a centralised and unipolar world order has ended. To be honest, this era did not even begin. A mere attempt was made in this direction, but this, too, is now history. The essence of this monopoly ran counter to our civilisation’s cultural and historical diversity.…”

Here is the link of the whole speech: https://www.eurasiareview.com/27012021-vladimir-putin-at-davos-online-forum-transcript/

But long before Mr.Putin Davos speech there was an interview of Mr. Norman Dodd the Director of Research of the 1953 Reece Committee investigating the work of the USA foundations that explains methods and aims! Part of it is below:

Please read this as well and follow the link:

“We are now at the year nineteen hundred and eight, which was the year that the Carnegie Foundation began operations. And, in that year, the trustees meeting, for the first time, raised a specific question, which they discussed throughout the balance of the year, in a very learned fashion. And the question is this: Is there any means known more effective than war, assuming you wish to alter the life of an entire people? And they conclude that, no more effective means to that end is known to humanity, than war. So then, in 1909, they raise the second question, and discuss it, namely, how do we involve the United States in a war?

Well, I doubt, at that time, if there was any subject more removed from the thinking of most of the People of this country, than its involvement in a war. There were intermittent shows in the Balkans, but I doubt very much if many people even knew where the Balkans were. And finally, they answer that question as follows: we must control the State Department.

And then, that very naturally raises the question of how do we do that? They answer it by saying, we must take over and control the diplomatic machinery of this country and, finally, they resolve to aim at that as an objective. Then, time passes, and we are eventually in a war, which would be World War I. At that time, they record on their minutes a shocking report in which they dispatch to President Wilson a telegram cautioning him to see that the war does not end too quickly. And finally, of course, the war is over.

At that time, their interest shifts over to preventing what they call a reversion of life in the United States to what it was prior to 1914, when World War I broke out. At that point, they come to the conclusion that, to prevent a reversion, we must control education in the United States. And they realize that is a pretty big task. To them it is too big for them alone.

So they approach the Rockefeller Foundation with a suggestion: that portion of education which could be considered domestic should be handled by the Rockefeller Foundation, and that portion which is international should be handled by the Endowment.

They then decide that the key to the success of these two operations lay in the alteration of the teaching of American History. So, they approach four of the then most prominent teachers of American History in the country — people like Charles and Mary Byrd. Their suggestion to them is this, “Will they alter the manner in which they present their subject”” And, they get turned down, flatly.

So, they then decide that it is necessary for them to do as they say, i.e. “build our own stable of historians.” Then, they approach the Guggenheim Foundation, which specializes in fellowships, and say” “When we find young men in the process of studying for doctorates in the field of American History, and we feel that they are the right caliber, will you grant them fellowships on our say so? And the answer is, “Yes.”

So, under that condition, eventually they assemble twenty (20), and they take these twenty potential teachers of American History to London. There, they are briefed in what is expected of them — when, as, and if they secure appointments in keeping with the doctorates they will have earned.

That group of twenty historians ultimately becomes the nucleus of the American Historical Association. And then, toward the end of the 1920’s, the Endowment grants to the American Historical Association four hundred thousand dollars ($400,000) for a study of our history in a manner which points to what this country look forward to, in the future.

That culminates in a seven-volume study, the last volume of which is, of course, in essence, a summary of the contents of the other six. The essence of the last volume is this: the future of this country belongs to collectivism, administered with characteristic American efficiency.

That is the story that ultimately grew out of, and of course, was what could have been presented by the members of, this Congressional Committee, and the Congress as a whole, for just exactly what it said. But, they never got to that point!”

Here is the link to the transcript of full interview: https://www.supremelaw.org/authors/dodd/interview.htm

And please do not foget that originaly the foundations have been formed to help and advance the people of the USA and that they were then they were turned upside down by trustees consisting of bankers and lawyers!

“Griffin: How would you describe the motivation of the people who created the foundations — the big foundations — in the very beginning? What was their motivation?

Dodd: Their motivation was, well, let’s take Mr. Carnegie, as an example. His publicly declared and steadfast interest was to counteract the departure of the colonies from Great Britain. He was devoted just to putting the pieces back together again.

Griffin: Would that have required the collectivism to which they were dedicated?

Dodd: No. No. No. These policies are the foundations’ allegiance to these un-American concepts; these policies are all traceable to the transfer of the funds over into the hands of Trustees, Mr. Griffin. Those Trustees were not the men who had a hand in the creation of the wealth that led to the endowment, or the use of that wealth for what we would call public purposes.

Griffin: It was a subversion of the original intent, then?

Dodd: Oh, yes! Completely so. We got into the worlds, traditionally, of bankers and lawyers.“

That brings us at the WWII and the one British psychiatrist John Rawlings Rees and Sussex based Tavistock Institute, the “Aquarian Conspiracy” and 1974 Stanford Research Institute study-Changing Images of Man.

From Daniel Estulin Book “Tavistock Institute” about the 1980 book of Marilyn Ferguson “Aquarian Conspiracy”:

“This book was the first mass publication to promote teamwork, a concept
hailed as a paragon of virtue and readily promoted by business management
“gurus.” Teamwork, however, was a psychological technique the Tavistock
Institute introduced as a way to control brilliant individuals through peer
pressure. It was part of the experiment conducted by Brigadier-General and
Tavistock master John Rees in the field of group therapy. L. Marcus, writing for
The Campaigner magazine in April 1974, explains: “A skilled group leader can
use the group to create a powerful ‘family’ environment. Once this environment
is induced, it becomes possible for the therapist to manipulate a member of the
group, not by a direct attack, but by subtly manipulating through suggestions the
other members of the group. If the victim has been sucked into thinking of the
group as something warm and helpful, then, when that environment has been
manipulated to turn against him, it will tend to have the impact of deep motherly
rejection. Furthermore, if the victim is not completely aware of the therapist’s
chain of manipulation, he will tend to internalize their result, thinking that he
himself is responsible for this new awareness about himself.”

More from amazing analysis of l.marcus from the April 1974 Campaigner:

“The most frightening- and therefore most strongly resisted aspect of the report is the methodological basis for Rockefeller’s Reesian fascist plot in an associated one of the several principal theory and practice of interconnected “social control” within the U.S. itself, nearing and “brainwashing” technology. Since the system of process begun with the social control and brainwashing developed by that gifted Economic Opportunity reactionary psychopath, Brigadier Dr. John Rawlings Kennedy. Rees of the Tavistock Institute and World Federation of Mental Health, premises its fascist scheme on pathological features of the victims’ existing belief
system, it follows that the individual will refuse to assimilate the evidence on this point unless he is also principal domestic prepared to deal with those profound neurotic disorders which render him so vulnerable to Reesian forms fascist manipulation. Even after those objections have been confronted, wishful
skeptic will turn up ever new arguments for remaining just that until he has been shown that alternative exists. This represents the most important if implicit objection, with whose treatment we shall conclude this present article”…

If you by chance found yourself in those words, run! Run to save the soul, regain the wisdom and sharpen intuition! Then Talk and talk and talk to your fellow human beings having just one crucial thought in mind! THE EARTH IS OURS AND NOT THEIRS HOWEVER ORGANIZED AND SPREAD THEY ARE!

And for those that would like so much to become possessors and do not want to come back to humanity, compassion, wisdom and love for our familly, our coiuntry and our earth the suggestion should be to inject them, just, as they say, to protect others, by seven(7) indigenous liquids. Seven is a good number.

Seven is a great number.

Interested in becoming member of our DUSTY BOOK CLUB where we will be sending you abandoned, forgotten books that hide so many crucial informations about events and methods used? It is low priced and available now. We will send you by mail first 4 books. Try us and prepare for surprises!

Visit our Club page below:

https://philosophyofgoodnews.wordpress.com/dusty-book-club/

D.R.L.

September 19, 2024

Philosophyofgoodnews

Connect and Respect