DECACS, Inc. and all its Initiatives

Archive for the ‘Human rights’ Category

The Real Reason White People Say ‘All Lives Matter’

NB Commentary: Great article! Well written! Points well taken.

The Real Reason White People Say ‘All Lives Matter’
 07/25/2016 05:57 pm ET 
Editor-at-Large at HumanisticPaganism.com and editor of Godless Paganism: Voices of Non-Theistic Pagans
Why “Black” Makes Us Uncomfortable
Dear fellow white people, let’s have an honest talk about why we say “All Lives Matter.” First of all, notice that no one was saying “All Lives Matter” before people started saying “Black Lives Matter.” So “All Lives Matter” is a response to “Black Lives Matter.” Apparently, something about the statement “Black Lives Matter” makes us uncomfortable. Why is that?
Now some white people might say that singling out Black people’s lives as mattering somehow means that white lives don’t matter. Of course, that’s silly. If you went to a Breast Cancer Awareness event, you wouldn’t think that they were saying that other types of cancer don’t matter. And you’d be shocked if someone showed up with a sign saying “Colon Cancer Matters” or chanting “All Cancer Patients Matter.” So clearly, something else is prompting people to say “All Lives Matter” in response to “Black Lives Matter.”
Many of the people saying “All Lives Matter” also are fond of saying “Blue Lives Matter.” If you find that the statement “Black Lives Matter” bothers you, but not “Blue Lives Matter,” then the operative word is “Black”. That should tell us something. There’s something deeply discomfiting about the word “Black.” I think it’s because it reminds us of our whiteness and challenges our notion that race doesn’t matter.
The Problem With “Colorblindness”
If you’re like me, growing up, the word “Black” was always spoken of in whispers in your family. It was like we were saying something taboo. Why was that? Because itwas taboo. We might feel more comfortable saying “African-American,” but not “Black.” The reason is that we were raised to believe that “colorblindness” was the ideal for whites. We were taught that we shouldn’t “see color.” And saying the word “Black” was an acknowledgment of the fact that we did “see color.”
The problem with being “colorblind” — aside from the fact that we’re not really — is that it is really a white privilege to be able to ignore race. White people like me have the luxury of not paying attention to race — white or black. The reason is because whiteness is treated as the default in our society. Whiteness is not a problem for white people, because it blends into the cultural background.
Black people, on the other hand, don’t have the luxury of being “colorblind.” They live in a culture which constantly reminds them of their Black-ness, which tells them in a million large and small ways that they are not as important as white people, that their lives actually do not matter as much as white lives. Which is why saying “Black Lives Matter” is so important.
“Black Lives [Do Not] Matter”
“All Lives Matter” is a problem because it refocuses the issue away from systemic racism and Black lives. It distracts and diminishes the message that Black lives matter or that they should matter more than they do. “All Lives Matter” is really code for “White Lives Matter,” because when white people think about “all lives,” we automatically think about “all white lives.”
We need to say “Black Lives Matter,” because we’re not living it. No one is questioning whether white lives matter or whether police lives matter. But the question of whether Black lives really matter is an open question in this country. Our institutions act like Black lives do not matter. The police act like Black lives do not matter when they shoot unarmed Black people with their arms in the air and whenBlacks are shot at two and a half times the rate of whiteseven when whites are armed. The judicial system acts like Black lives don’t matter when Blacks are given more severe sentences than whites who commit the same crimes and are turned into chattel in a for-profit prison-industrial complex.
And white people act like Black lives do not matter when we fail to raise the appropriate level of outrage at unjustified killings of Blacks or when we respond with platitudes like “All Lives Matter.”
But we still say it. We say it because “All Lives Matter” lets us get back to feeling comfortable. “Black Lives Matter” makes us uncomfortable. Why? Because it reminds us that race exists. It reminds us that our experience as white people is very different from the experience of Black people in this country. It reminds us that racism is alive and well in the United States of America.
The New Face of Racism
Now, I just said the “R” word, so you’re probably feeling defensive at this point. You’re instinctively thinking to yourself that you are not a racist. You may be thinking that you have Black friends or that you don’t use the N-word or that you would never consciously discriminate against a Black person. But most racism today is more subtle than that. Sure, there is a lot of overt racism that still goes on. The KKK is still active and some white people do still say the N-word. But overt racism is really culturally unacceptable any more among whites today. The racism that we need to face today is much more insidious than white hoods and racial slurs. It is the racism of well-meaning people who are not consciously or intentionally racist.   
The racism that we need to face is the racism of average white middle-class Americans who would never think of saying the N-word and would vociferously condemn the KKK, but nevertheless unwittingly participate in institutionalized racism. We most often participate in racism by omission, rather than commission. We participate in racism when we fail to see it where it exists. We participate in racism when we continue to act like race is a problem that only Black people have. We participate in racism when we seek comfortable responses like “All Lives Matter.”
What We Can Do: Embrace the Discomfort
We white people need to embrace our discomfort. Here are some things we can do:
1. Recognize that we are not “colorblind.”
We can start by recognizing that we all have an “implicit bias” toward Blacks. Think you don’t have it? Consider how we mentally congratulate ourselves when we treat the random Black person the same way we treat white people. Here’s a tip, if you give yourself brownie points for treating Black people like you do white people, you’re not really treating Black people like white people.
Still don’t think you have unconscious bias, go to the Harvard implicit bias testing website and take the tests on race and skin-tone. Even white anti-racism activists like me have these biases. And they come out in all kinds of subtle ways, as well as not so subtle ways.
2. Work against unconscious bias by spending time with Black people in Black spaces.
Next, go out of your way to spend time with Black people in Black community settings. Many of us live segregated lives in which we have little to no interaction with Black people. Let’s face it, Black people make us white people uncomfortable. It’s because we’ve been socialized by a racist system to fear Black people.
Even if you feel comfortable around individual Black people, you most likely do not feel comfortable in a room full of Black people. You might have Black friends, but you probably socialize with them in white spaces. Have you ever been to a Black space and felt uncomfortable? Maybe you felt like no one wanted you there. Welcome to the everyday experience of Black people in white culture.
And when you go to a Black space, go to listen rather than lead. Learn to follow. Leading is a white privilege. Let go of it for a while and learn from those whose experience you will never have. Listen to Black people, and if what they are saying or how they are saying it makes you uncomfortable, so much the better.
3. Talk to white people about institutional racism and say “Black Lives Matter.”
It’s no good sitting around feeling guilty about white privilege. We need to do something about it. One thing we can do is to use our white privilege to dismantle it.
One white privilege we have is that other white people listen to us. We can go into white spaces and talk to white people about implicit bias and institutional racism. We can unapologetically proclaim that “Black Lives Matter.”
After the Orlando shooting, I went to an interfaith vigil in my small conservative town. Almost no one among the speakers said the words “queer,” “gay,” or “lesbian.” This was probably unconscious, but it revealed a lingering, but deep seated discomfort among heterosexuals with gayness and queerness, a discomfort that the popular use of the acronym “LGBT” obscures. Similarly, we whites are uncomfortable with Black-ness. We don’t even like like to say the word. It feels wrong in our mouths. We hide it by using code words like “inner city” or “urban,” terms which allow us to hide from our unconscious racism. We need to say “Black Lives Matter” because we need to overcome our discomfort with Blacks and face up to our unconscious bias.
Join the Second Civil Rights Movement
Dear fellow white people, we are in the middle of a second Civil Rights Movement. Most of us white people idealize Martin Luther King, Jr. and we like to think that we would have been on his side of things during the Civil Rights era. But the fact is thatthe majority of the American public did not support the Civil Rights movement while it was happening and only came to see King as a hero after he was killed.

The Civil Rights movement was unpopular among most whites when it was happening. It was unpopular because it made white people deeply uncomfortable. Today, the Black Lives Matter movement makes us uncomfortable, too. In forty years we will look back on this second Civil Rights movement and have to ask ourselves whether we were on the right side of history. If we want to be on the right side of history this time, we have to make ourselves uncomfortable. There is no comfortable way to change. And the change can start with saying this simple but powerful phrase: Black Lives Matter.


Let’s Take A Look at a Legend, Muammar Qaddafi

NB COMMENTARY: I am not sure why this thing about Qaddafi is coming up for me now. But when I opened my email I found an article about him and so I think I may have been called to it.

Libya: Ten Things About Gaddafi They Don’t Want You To Know
Posted by El-Bull on April 24, 2016

So I used this article as a sign that I should go ahead and write the rant, I have been thinking about writing ever since the take down of Connel Qaddafi.  I made a video playlist on YouTube and also a slideshow which was something else I wanted to do for some time now. I really liked the African Outfits he wore and the statement he was making by wearing them. He was eccentric, but being born on June 7, just like Prince Rogers Nelson and my very own son Mustafa Rashed, well, that seems to put it together, you have to be a bit eccentric to be a Gemini and particularly if you are born on June 7.

Gaddafi The Truth About Libya- Documentary

Below is a short discussion between myself and a YouTuber who said they were from Libya. It is their response to this video that was posted on YouTube.  This video is part of the playlist that I created to be added to this blog.

YOUTUBER RESPONSE: I’m Libyan and thanks for uploading such an amazing documentary about Libya. I agree about all the material in this video except two things which are: 1) when Qaddafi said all his people loved him ” in fact many people didn’t like him especially in the east part of Libya (Benghazi City) as Qaddafi didn’t like and ignored Benghazi. moreover, some people didn’t like his regime, as he made Libya centrally controlled by the Capital (Tripoli), while the capital didn’t manage to provide the basic stuff for the other cities and villages, consequently if you want to be happy in Libya you have to live in the capital . 2) Qaddafi never spent Libyan’s money to build and develop Libya’s infrastructure.
NB COMMENTARY: I don’t think this video is put up for the purpose of making folks believe that everybody loved Qaddafi, however, no country has the right to go into another country, infiltrate it with dissenters, arm them and then juice them up to kill t heir leaders. If that was done in any European country that would be the cause of world war III, and that’s all we are saying. No country has all its people loving its leadership. 
Leadership by its’ very nature can be, has been and continues to be corrupt. But that doesn’t give one country the right to overthrow another country and then put their puppets in power. History shows over and over again that this does not work. Perhaps that is the agenda to keep the area destabilized forever and ever and ever.
But I can guarantee you, the European countries and the US would not stand for it, no way, would they let that happen. Imagine that at the end of Bush’s presidency, folks really were not too happy with him at all.. Folks wanted to impeach him, but did you see foreign fighters coming into this country and fomenting a revolution? No, and you will never see that.
They only do that to little small countries that can’t fight back. And the beef with Qaddafi, been going on for decades. And they do that to keep their bank accounts full, and I think that is what this is about. Yet he tried to find some common ground with them, shaking hands and meeting with them to ease some of the tension, depositing funds and holding in western banks, which they seized.
The people don’t agree with this kind of tyranny, but our leaders do what they want. So yeah, no one is saying that everybody loved Gaddafi, but I tell you one thing,, as rich as these so call Western countries are, you ain’t gonna find free electricity and the other stuff you all had there.
And my last comment is, how are things now?????
Anybody who thinks that the Western powers care anything about the brown and black people of this world, are seriously delusional. They barely care about their own people. Anyone that would side with them against their own people are like folks wearing clothes drenched in gasoline and running into a fire. The West has shown over and over again, that it has hidden agenda. People need to stop being so mesmerized by the Western world and its lifestyle and hold on to their own cultures and traditions. 
YOUTUBER RESPONSE: you are right, the western countries penetrate our world to make us more miserable and poorer. About the situation in Libya now,,,, it is extremely horrible but I don’t lie to you to say we were living in paradise with Qaddafi he was making his won glory and greatness by Libyan’s money and no one was able to ask, I used to live with only 100$ a month whereas the cost of live in Libya needs at least 600$. Believe me Qaddafi destroyed Libya from 1969 after he kicked the King Edris out and collapsed the Libyan Kingdom.
NB RESPONSE: And that’s the point too. He didn’t become a bad guy until he wouldn’t do what the west wanted him to do. I feel your pain, my dear. We have a lot of poverty in this so called Greatest Country in the World too, you would be surprised how much. When we had the Hurricane Katrina to hit New Orleans, Cubans came over here to help us. They were like we know how it is and we can help you. 
We think we are better off than the rest of the world but we are not able to survive without our creature comforts however minimal.
Priorities are all messed up and folks are oblivious to the whole game that is being played.
All in all, it saddened me to see what happened to Qaddafi and his family. That should not happen to anyone. Thanks for your response, much appreciated.
    Libya: Ten Things About Gaddafi They Don’t Want You To Know
    Posted by El-Bull on April 24, 2016

    What do you think of when you hear the name Colonel Gaddafi? Tyrant? Dictator? Terrorist? Well, a national citizen of Libya may disagree but we want you to decide.
    For 41 years until his demise in October 2011, Muammar Gaddafi did some truly amazing things for his country and repeatedly tried to unite and empower the whole of Africa.
    So despite what you’ve heard on the radio, seen in the media or on the TV, Gaddafi did some powerful things that are not characteristic of a “vicious dictator” as portrayed by the western media.
  1. Here are ten things Gaddafi did for Libya that you may not know about…
  2. 1. In Libya a home is considered a natural human right 
    In Gaddafi’s Green Book it states: ”The house is a basic need of both the individual and the family, therefore it should not be owned by others”. Gaddafi’s Green Book is the formal leader’s political philosophy, it was first published in 1975 and was intended reading for all Libyans even being included in the national curriculum.
    2. Education and medical treatment were all free
    Under Gaddafi, Libya could boast one of the best healthcare services in the Middle East and Africa.  Also if a Libyan citizen could not access the desired educational course or correct medical treatment in Libya they were funded to go abroad.
    3. Gaddafi carried out the world’s largest irrigation project
    The largest irrigation system in the world also known as the great manmade river was designed to make water readily available to all Libyan’s across the entire country. It was funded by the Gaddafi government and it said that Gaddafi himself called it ”the eighth wonder of the world”.. 
    4. It was free to start a farming business
    If any Libyan wanted to start a farm they were given a house, farm land and live stock and seeds all free of charge.
  3. 5. A bursary was  given to mothers with newborn babies
  4. When a Libyan woman gave birth she was given 5000 (US dollars) for herself and the child.
    6. Electricity was free
    Electricity was free in Libya meaning absolutely no electric bills!
    7.  Cheap petrol
    During Gaddafi’s reign the price of petrol in Libya was as low as 0.14 (US dollars) per litre.
    8. Gaddafi raised the level of education
    Before Gaddafi only 25% of Libyans were literate. This figure was brought up to 87% with 25% earning university degrees.
    9. Libya had It’s own state bank
    Libya had its own State bank, which provided loans to citizens at zero percent interest by law and they had no external debt.
    10. The gold dinar
    Before the fall of Tripoli and his untimely demise, Gaddafi was trying to introduce a single African currency linked to gold. Following in the foot steps of the late great pioneer Marcus Garvey who first coined the term ”United States of Africa”. Gaddafi wanted to introduce and only trade in the African gold Dinar  – a move which would have thrown the world economy into chaos.
    The Dinar was widely opposed by the ‘elite’ of today’s society and who could blame them. African nations would have finally had the power to bring itself out of debt and poverty and only trade in this precious commodity. They would have been able to finally say ‘no’ to external exploitation and charge whatever they felt suitable for precious resources. It has been said that the gold Dinar was the real reason for the NATO led rebellion, in a bid to oust the outspoken leader.
FURTHER READING:
Smoking Gun: Gaddafi Was To Receive U.N. Human Rights Award
Before NATO and the U.S. started bombing Libya, the United Nations was preparing to bestow an award on Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, and the Libyan Jamahiriya, for its achievements in the area of human rights. That’s right–the same man, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, that NATO and the United States have been telling us for months is a “brutal dictator,” was set to be given an award for his human rights record in Libya. How strange it is that the United Nations was set to bestow a human rights award on a “brutal dictator,” at the end of March.
Gaddafi’s mother was born Jewish, his protocol chief says At 18 she married a Muslim man and converted, according to reports. http://www.timesofisrael.com/gadhafis-mother-was-jewish-his-protocol-chief-says/
Libya: Ten Things About Gaddafi They Don’t Want You to Know
Top 10 Interesting Facts About Muammar Gaddafi
African Union names Gaddafi as head
We and Our `Leaders` I Am Referring to Africa – African Leaders 
Will Gaddafi be missed in Africa?

Colonel Muammar Gaddafi is dead, a controversial leader who believed in revolution and to united Africa to a single government. Moreover, He funded and armed Black South African to fight against apartheid in South Africa. In 2008 Gaddafi was declared the King of Kings by the African traditional leaders, and one of those traditional leader after eard that Gaddafi was dead that what Philip Winyi said” Col Gaddafi was a “visionary” and would be missed. We saw the human side of him and not Gaddafi the colonel or the proverbial terrorist as the Americans and Europeans described him.” “In spite of what many see as his weaknesses, he has done quite a lot for Africa, contributing to the building of infrastructure.”http://mycontinent.co/Gaddafi.php

Gaddafi: Africa’s ‘king of kings’

A meeting of more than 200 African kings and traditional rulers has bestowed the title “king of kings” on Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.The rulers, wearing gold crowns, sequined capes and colourful robes met in the Libyan town of Benghazi in what was billed as a first of its kind.Col Gaddafi urged the royals to join his campaign for African unity.Africa’s political leaders are lukewarm about his vision of merging their powers to create a single government.”We want an African military to defend Africa, we want a single African currency, we want one African passport to travel within Africa,” Col Gaddafi told the assembled dignitaries, who come from countries such as Mozambique, South Africa, Ivory Coast and the Democratic Republic of Congo.The BBC’s Rana Jawad in the Mediterranean town of Benghazi says Libya’s leader wants them to create a grass-roots movement to press Africa’s political leaders to sign up to his vision. Sheikh Abdilmajid from Tanzania told the BBC that the traditional rulers could play an important role.”The people believe in the chiefs and kings more than they believe in their governments,” he said. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7588033.stm

Gaddafi’s female bodyguards (Uggg read this article with a grain of salt, look at what they ain’t saying.) http://www.ndtv.com/photos/news/gaddafis-female-bodyguards-11603#photo-149562
Gaddafi’s Greatest Outfits
Gaddafi’s Awesome Fashion Decisions Throughout The Ages
We and Our `Leaders` I Am Referring to Africa – African Leaders
by Alhaji Abdul-Rahman Harruna Attah  August 31, 2011

Just two years ago, a coterie of longtime Arab leaders posed for what seemed a routine photograph.

But today, the snapshot from the 2010 Arab-African summit is a relic from a different time. The former leaders of Tunisia, Yemen, Libya and Egypt, all deposed and one of them dead, appear untouchable as they smile for the camera.
The photo showcases just how much the Middle East has changed since the Arab Spring revolutions began sweeping through the Middle East last year and ousting its embattled leaders.
In the photo, Libya’s Moammar Gadhafi wears black sunglasses and distinctive robes, with his arms draped around Yemen’s Ali Abdullah Saleh and Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak, both of them grinning.
To one side is Tunisia’s Zine el Abidine Ben Ali, standing with his hands clasped, smiling and relaxed.
Today, Saleh is out of power, Ben Ali is in exile, Mubarak is on trial and Gadhafi is dead, killed by rebel fighters. Their countries are enduring often-painful transitions.  http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/arab-leaders-2010-photo-highlights-power-shakeup-1.1156487

Obama: Aftermath of Gaddafi overthrow, ‘worst mistake as president’
Gaddafi: the man who would be king of Africa by Adekeye Adebajo

Shocking Documentary: The Creation Of HIV/Aids. [FULL]

Shocking Documentary: The Creation Of HIV/Aids. [FULL]



NB Commentary: But they do know how it came about. they know who created it and why. It was bio-warfare, created in the laboratory. It has killed many in its wake and has filled the coffers of the pharmaceutical companies.

It was first experimented on white gay males who had Hepatitis and was believed to cure them of that disease. It did not and instead spread. Once they saw the impact of it spreading they decided to take it to Africa and blame it on the “Green Monkey”. It moved out of the realm of being a disease that only gay males would come down with as straight females, prostitutes, drug users, wives of preachers, political figures and entertainers became infected and died.

It became a death sentence for anyone who could not afford the expensive drugs to cure it. Thus many people in impoverished areas of Africa, China, India became infected and lost their lives.

HIV is the actual problem. So when folks decided to explore cures for it, and came up with viable immune strengthening programs, they were ostracized, called stupid, and black balled, pardon the pun. I personally know a woman who was curing folks in a hospice with green foods, juicing, fasting, etc. and she even wrote a pamphlet and she was pushed out of her job.

There was a Dr. Boyd Graves who went to the UN with his documentation on this infection and he received a horrendous response from the Powers that be who did not want his research to become public.

There have been African doctors from the continent who have been silence when they discovered cures. And there has been huge amounts of money made off the suppression of the true information and viable cures of this infection.
HIV-AIDS was a geopolitical economic ploy of subjugation, manipulation and assassination.

I want to watch this video, but after hearing that statement two minutes in, I had to stop it and write my comment. I will continue and I hope that it will redeem itself with more pertinent and factual information.

The Smoking Gun of AIDS: a 1971 Flowchart
by Boyd E. Graves, J.D.
December 6, 2000
In 1977, a secret federal virus program produced 15,000 gallons of AIDS. The record reveals the United States was represented by Dr. Robert Gallo and the USSR was represented by Dr. Novakhatsky of the diabolical Ivanosky Institute. On August 21, 1999, the world first saw the flowchart of the plot to thin the Black Population.

The 1971 AIDS flowchart coordinates over 20,000 scientific papers and fifteen years of progress reports of a secret federal virus development program. The epidemiology of AIDS is an identical match to the “research logic” identified in the five section foldout. The flowchart is page 61 of Progress Report #8 (1971) of the Special Virus program of the United States of America. We today, challenge world scientists to discussion of this document find.

We believe there is a daily, growing number of world experts who are all coming to the same conclusion regarding the significance of the flowchart. Dr. Garth Nicolson has examined the flowchart as well as other top experts from around the world. It is time for Dr. Michael Morrissey of Germany to examine the flowchart and report to the world. In addition, we have now examined the 1978 report. It is heresy to continue to further argue the program ended in 1977.  Read more: http://www.boydgraves.com/flowchart/

Dr. Boyd Ed Graves 7.7.52 – 6.18.09

Dr. Boyd Ed Graves International AIDS activist lawyer dies age 57
(San Diego, CA) – Human Rights activist and HIV/AIDS advocate American lawyer Dr. Boyd Ed Graves died Thursday at the University of California San Diego Medical Center. Dr. Graves was 57.
Dr. Graves’ two decades of human rights’ work, judicial activism and research on behalf of people living with HIV/AIDS, catapulted him into the world spotlight earning him both international acclaim for his bravery and dedication as well as criticisms for his controversial conclusions about the man-made origins and purpose of the HIV/AIDS virus. 
, U
Known by “Ed” to his friends and family, Dr. Graves was a dynamic and patriotic individual who dedicated his professional and personal life to the disabled, disenfranchised and the fair daily existence of men and women worldwide. Read More here: http://boydgraves.blogspot.com/
Proof The Unites State Created The HIV/AIDS Virus  

EXPOSED !
In 1969 the US government developed a biological agent [ AIDS ] that  would have a devastating effect on the human immune system and for which there would be no effective treatment at the time.  
Military biological warfare research became officially connected to VCP research on October 18, 1971, when President Richard Nixon permanently joined the Army’s biowarfare research laboratory at Fort Detrick, Maryland, with the National Cancer Institute. The army lab was renamed the Frederick Cancer Re-search Center. 
Scientists in the VCP wanted to learn how to use animal viruses to make cancer – and how to force “normal” human cells to become cancerous by subjecting them to various animal viruses one of which would be HIV/AIDS. A primary task was the large scale production of cancer-causing viruses and suspected cancer viruses to meet research VCP needs on a continuing basis. Special attention was given to primate viruses (the alleged African source of HIV and the KS virus). Another goal was the production of “human candidate viruses.” Candidate viruses were defined as animal or human viruses that might cause AIDS and KS cancer in humans. 
Biowarfare scientists had a keen interest in animal herpes “helper viruses” / AIDS (1978 VCP Re-port;p 54). Chimps (who purportedly carry the ancestor virus of HIV) were extensively used by the VCP because there would be no official testing of cancer viruses on humans. 
A 1972 VCP Report (p. 262) emphatically states: “Since man will not be used as an experimental recipient, it is necessary to gain proof of oncogenicity by other means.” How that “proof” would be obtained was never made clear. 
With its close ties to military biowarfare research it is conceivable that the VCP undertook covert human testing of suspected cancer-causing viruses. 
The U.S. military has a long history of secret human experimentation on unsuspecting citizens. (Google: secret human experimentation + military). It’s a proven fact that Gay men were used as guinea pigs to test the effects of these viruses? Read More here: http://www.silentcures.com/USA-Created-AIDS.html
Colloidal silver destroys all types of virus including the AIDS virus
Newspaper Article written by Marvin Robey
The Herald of Provo Utah, February 2, 1992, ran an article on page 1, D1, in which a member of the administrative staff of Brigham Young University by the name of Daryl Tichy has been successfully experimenting with colloidal silver in the treatment of AIDS, along with warts and parvo virus in a dog. “Tichy said he had the material [colloidal silver] tested at two different labs; results showed the solution killed a variety of pathogens, including the HIV virus.” Tichy then states, “I don’t have a doubt in my mind.” He says he has not been able to obtain funds to continue his research.
This should not be a surprise, considering what other researchers have been telling us. There is much more evidence to support Tichy’s conclusion. Extensive evidence points to the fact that colloidal silver destroys all types of virus including the AIDS virus and greatly enhances the immune system in general. Colloidal Silver supports the T-cells in their fight against foreign organisms in the blood. It virtually forms a second immune system, actually protecting and defending the T-cells, as well as doing their work for them. It is strongly suggested by research scientists such as Dr. Gary Smith and others that silver ions are essential to the immune system.
In “Use of Colloids in Health and Disease”, author Dr. Henry Crooks says colloidal silver is highly anti-viral. In laboratory tests he found that “all fungus, virus, bacterium, streptococcus, staphylococcus, and other pathogenic organisms are killed in three or four minutes. In fact, there is no microbe known that is not killed by colloidal silver in six minutes or less in a dilution as little as five parts per million.” Dr. Crooks tells us there are no serious side effects whatsoever from high concentrations. Research scientist Dr. Gary Smith reports that he has noticed a correlation between low silver levels, sickness and immune deficiency. He found people who have low silver levels tend to be frequently sick and to have innumerable colds, flu’s, fevers, and other illnesses. The research of Dr. Gary Smith would seem to support the belief that colloidal silver is an entirely natural healing agent. Read More Here: http://www.silentcures.com/USA-Created-AIDS.html


Uploaded on Nov 30, 2008
“World War AIDS: The Third World War,” is Dr. Graves’ second book on the issue of the true origins of HIV/AIDS and the patented cure, Tetrasil. The book begins with a compelling review of the 2002 U.S. General Accounting Office review into the formerly secret U.S. Special Virus Cancer Program (1962-1978), follows Dr. Graves’ experience with the U.S. Patented Cure for AIDS, Tetrasil; documents his 2007 journeys of hope in to AIDS ravaged African countries, and ends with Dr. Graves’ 2008 lawsuit appeal for “full AIDS disclosure’ now his second appearance before the United States Supreme Court. “World War AIDS” is a must read for any victim or survivor of the U.S. Special Virus Program, and all medical and policy professional working to treat the same. Dr. Graves says, “At long last, we have within our reach a world once again without HIV/AIDS!” Sourcehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFkoRlZYTRA

I’m confused, can anyone help me? — RT Op-Edge

I’m confused, can anyone help me? — RT Op-Edge

I’m confused, can anyone help me?

An anti-government protester waves a flag in front of the seized office of the SBU state security service in Luhansk, eastern Ukraine April 14, 2014. (Reuters / Shamil Zhumatov)

An anti-government protester waves a flag in front of the seized office of the SBU state security service in Luhansk, eastern Ukraine April 14, 2014. (Reuters / Shamil Zhumatov)

I’m confused. A few weeks ago wewere told in the West that people occupying government buildings in
Ukraine was a very good thing. These people, we were told by our political leaders and elite media commentators, were ‘pro-democracy protestors’.

The US government warned the Ukrainian authorities against using force against these ‘pro-democracy protestors’ even if, according to the pictures we saw, some of them were neo-Nazis who were throwing Molotov cocktails and other things at the police and smashing up statues and setting fire to buildings.

Now, just a few weeks later, we’re told that people occupying government buildings in Ukraine are not ‘pro-democracy protestors’ but ‘terrorists’ or ‘militants’.

Why was the occupation of government buildings in Ukraine a very good thing in January, but it is a very bad thing in April? Why was the use of force by the authorities against protestors completely unacceptable in January, but acceptable now? I repeat: I’m confused. Can anyone help me?

Pro-Russian activists gather outside the secret service building in the eastern Ukrainian city of Lugansk on April 14, 2014. (AFP Photo / Dimitar Dilkoff)
Pro-Russian activists gather outside the secret service building in the eastern Ukrainian city of Lugansk on April 14, 2014. (AFP Photo / DimitarDilkoff)

The anti-government protestors in Ukraine during the winter received visits from several prominent Western politicians, including US Senator John McCain, and Victoria Nuland, from the US State Department, who handed out cookies. But there have been very large anti-government protests in many Western European countries in recent weeks, which have received no such support, either from such figures or from elite Western media commentators. Nor have protestors received free cookies from officials at the US State Department.

Surely if they were so keen on anti-government street protests in Europe, and regarded them as the truest form of ‘democracy’, McCain and Nuland would also be showing solidarity with street protestors in Madrid, Rome, Athens and Paris? I’m confused. Can anyone help me?

A thousand people gather in front of fences blocking the street leading to the Spain's parliament (Las Cortes) during an anti-government demonstration in Madrid (AFP Photo / Javier Soriano)
A thousand people gather in front of fences blocking the street leading to the Spain’s parliament (Las Cortes) during an anti-government demonstration in Madrid (AFP Photo / Javier Soriano)A few weeks ago I saw an interview with the US Secretary of StateJohn Kerry who said, “You just don’t invade another country on phony pretexts in order to assert your interests.” But Iseem to recall the US doing just that on more than one occasionin the past 20 years or so.

Have I misremembered the ‘Iraq has WMDs claim’? Was I dreaming back in 2002 and early 2003 when politicians and neocon pundits came on TV every day to tell us plebs that we had to go to war with Iraq because of the threat posed by Saddam’s deadly arsenal? Why is having a democratic vote in Crimea on whether to rejoin Russia deemed worse than the brutal, murderous invasion of Iraq – an invasion which has led to the deaths of up to 1 million people? I’m confused. Can anyone help me?

AFP Photo / Pool / Mario Tama
AFP Photo / Pool / Mario TamaWe were also told by very serious-looking Western politicians and

media ‘experts’ that the Crimea referendum wasn’t valid because it was held under “military occupation.” But I’ve just been watching coverage of elections in Afghanistan, held under military occupation, which have been hailed by leading western figures, such as NATO chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen as a “historic moment for Afghanistan” and a great success for “democracy.” Why is the Crimean vote dismissed, but the Afghanistan vote celebrated? I’m confused. Can anyone help me?

An Afghan policeman keeps watch as Afghan voters line up to vote at a local polling station in Ghazni on April 5, 2014. (AFP Photo / Rahmatullah Alizadah)

An Afghan policeman keeps watch as Afghan voters line up to vote at a local polling station in Ghazni on April 5, 2014. (AFP Photo /Rahmatullah Alizadah)

Syria too is rather baffling. We were and are told that radical Islamic terror groups pose the greatest threat to our peace, security and our ‘way of life’ in the West. That Al-Qaeda and other such groups need to be destroyed: that we needed to have a relentless ‘War on Terror’ against them. Yet in Syria, our leaders have been siding with such radical groups in their war against a secular government which respects the rights of religious minorities, including Christians.

When the bombs of Al-Qaeda or their affiliates go off in Syria and innocent people are killed there is no condemnation from our leaders: their only condemnation has been of the secular Syrian government which is fighting radical Islamists and which our leaders and elite media commentators are desperate to have toppled. I’m confused. Can anyone help me?

AFP Photo / Amr Radwan Al-Homsi

AFP Photo / Amr Radwan Al-Homsi

Then there’s gay rights. We are told that Russia is a very bad and backward country because it has passed a law against promoting homosexuality to minors. Yet our leaders who boycotted the Winter Olympics in Sochi because of this law visit Gulf
states where homosexuals can be imprisoned or even executed, and warmly embrace the rulers there, making no mention of the issue of gay rights.

Surely the imprisonment or execution of gay people is far worse than a law which forbids promotion of homosexuality to minors? Why, if they are genuinely concerned about gay rights, do our leaders attack Russia and not countries that imprison or execute gay people? I’m confused. Can anyone help me?

US President Barack Obama shakes hands with King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz Al Saud of Saudi Arabia (AFP Photo / Saul Loeb)
US President Barack Obama shakes hands with King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz Al Saud of Saudi Arabia (AFP Photo / Saul Loeb)

We are told in lots of newspaper articles that the Hungarian ultra-nationalist party Jobbik is very bad and that its rise is a cause of great concern, even though it is not even in the government, or likely to be. But neo-Nazis and ultra-nationalists
do hold positions in the new government of Ukraine, which our leaders in the West enthusiastically support and neo-Nazis and the far-right played a key role in the overthrow of Ukraine’s democratically elected government in February, a ‘revolution’ cheered on by the West. Why are ultra-nationalists and far-right groups unacceptable in Hungary but very acceptable in Ukraine? I’m confused. Can anyone help me?

Chairman of the far-right parliamentary JOBBIK (Better) party Gabor Vona (C) reacts for the result of the parliamentary election with his party members at Budapest Congress Center in Budapest on April 6, 2014. (AFP Photo / Peter Kohalmi)
Chairman of the far-right parliamentary JOBBIK (Better) party Gabor Vona (C) reacts for the result of the parliamentary election with his party
members at Budapest Congress Center in Budapest on April 6, 2014. (AFP Photo / Peter Kohalmi)

We are told that Russia is an aggressive,  imperialist power and that NATO’s concerns are about opposing the Russian ‘threat’. But I looked at the map the other day and while I could see lots of countries close to (and bordering) Russia that were members of NATO, the US-led military alliance
whose members have bombed and attacked many countries in the last 15 years, I could not see any countries close to America that were part of a Russian-military alliance, or any Russian military
bases or missiles situated in foreign countries bordering or close to the US. Yet Russia, we are told, is the ‘aggressive one’. I’m confused. Can anyone help me?


Neil Clark is a journalist, writer and broadcaster. His award winning blog can be found at www.neilclark66.blogspot.com. Follow him on Twitter


Published time: April 15, 2014 10:06







Nana Baakan Connections

google-plus youtube facebook linkedin instagram





Tag Cloud