There's a War on For Your Mind

We are rapidly moving towards a "knowledge economy". In a normal economy, the major scarce resource would be saved and conserved, or "economised". However, knowledge is not a scarce resource. Copying information has little cost. Further, we do not live in a normal economy. We live in a central-bank dominated economy. So, instead of being saved and conserved, scarce resources are just centrally controlled. They are not necessarily conserved and, in fact, are more probably destroyed in this process.

So the "knowledge economy", which goes hand-in-hand with the "service economy", is ultimately about controlling and destroying knowledge -- making you dumb, dependent and subservient. Witness Silicon Valley as an extreme example of both.

Centrally-controlling all of the worlds knowledge is an impossibly large task. But there are weak points in the vast system of human knowledge creation and retention that can be centrally-controlled. Drugs are one of them. The human mind, in general, is another.

Humans tend to function at a reasonable level, without the use of drugs, vitamins or supplements. But many of the worlds top minds will openly admit that they only reach peak, useful levels of academic performance with the regular use of controversial drugs. I can't verify, from personal experience, that this is true. But I believe it. I certainly respond in mentally-beneficial ways to drugs such as tartrazine and alcohol. And I have found a suitable diet to be absolutely essential to mental performance, in my experience.

So, let's see if I can make a connection, here, to that.

Perhaps you have heard the phrase "mining our topsoil," in reference to farming. Well, mining topsoil occurs in other industrial processes as well. Soil can contain low levels of almost any mineral resource. All good soils contain iron and carbon. Most contain common elements such as magnesium, copper and zinc. Many contain economically-useful levels of certain minerals. And many crops will only grow on soils that contain these minerals.

Almost all crops require carbon. Carbon helps to retain the water that plants need to grow. Removing carbon, even just most of it, from the soil is an idiotic idea.

When an oil well has reached its end of normal production ability, that doesn't mean there is no more oil left. It just means that different, more complex extraction methods must be used if it is to continue to produce oil. One of the most common methods (because it is one of the cheapest) is hydraulic fracturing or "fracking".

But fracking is only cheap in terms of human labor and capital costs. It is expensive in terms of environmental cost. It requires a lot of water. And, once used, the waste water is likely polluted. If you are in an area that has a lot of water, and you can reasonably dispose of the polluted waste water, or perhaps there are no people around because no one would want to live there (Siberia, for instance), then fracking may be a reasonable option. Everywhere else, it's dubious at best.

Other methods are even more expensive. Cyanide leaching is used to extract gold from soils, in mines that have passed their prime. Mounds of soil are literally soaked in toxic chemicals. The waste is not something you would want to be around. Most of these operations occur in areas far away from population centers, and in environments where most people would never want to live -- places where it is barren, extremely arid and cold, for instance.

North Texas, however, is not one of those places. It is relatively warm, vegetated and receives decent rainfall. And yet, in North Texas, another ecologically-dubious method is common -- strip mining.

We will never reach an end (or even a tapering-off) of our need for energy, even if economic growth stops entirely. The economy uses energy the same way it uses grain. The demand for grain will never cease. Actual minerals, however, can be recycled. And they are. They will reach a peak in demand. Oil won't. Oil and carbon will only reach peak supply, because recycling carbon dioxide requires more energy than it produces. And it always will. That's just physics.

So we will never stop demanding oil, until we either run out or find a better alternative. And we know of no better alternative. Nothing that has as high of an energy density is as safe and easy to store and transport. It's like, perhaps in the distant future when we're all eating lab-grown beef, we'll probably just wish that we hadn't killed off all of the buffalo. The same thing will happen with oil, just maybe not for cars. But one day we will wish that we still had some oil left to launch our spaceships cheaply.

But please recognize the difference between fossil fuels and other minerals. Oil is actually more like grain or any other renewable resource, economically. At least, it should be treated that way. But it is being treated, legally, as a capital good -- as a mineral. This means that extracting carbon is given undue precedence over other renewable activities, such as farming. Oil is in the same category (legally) as iron and aluminum and silver, things that stick around and add to our capital stock once they've been dug up. Yet the vast majority of that oil is not retained or recycled, as plastic for instance. It is simply burnt.

So, we have to ask ourselves, are we as a society just stupid, or actually crazy? Or is the legal system just fundamentally retarded? If all of the gold, for instance, that we mined ended up loaded onto a rocketship and hurled into the sun, would we give gold extraction legal precedence over surface rights? No, of course not. That would be complete lunacy. So why do we do it with oil?

Let me make this more clear by way of example. Let's say you are growing two crops on your land. And let's also stipulate that you need both of these crops in order to survive. There are no substitutes for them. (If you believe that there are substitutes for oil, please see the section on 'The Price of Oil and Financial Collapse'.) One crop, let's call it "slow food", grows very slowly. The other, "fast food", grows quickly. And they both require the same inputs from the same land in order to grow. The legal reality in which we live says that the "slow food" must be harvested first, as often as possible, until it is completely depleted. If "fast food" competes with "slow food" for inputs or land, "slow food" must always be given precedence.

The end result, you can see very clearly, is that there will be no harvest of either within a short time. "Fast food" will first give way to growing "slow food". And then "slow food" will be depleted, because it doesn't grow fast enough. This is deliberate. It is a direct consequence of the central-bank dominated economy in which we live. The objective is not savings. The objective is control. And control is achieved through destruction.

In this case, there is an implicit assumption that destroying "fast food" (ie. grains) will result in a special kind of economic benefit -- demand destruction. That's a euphemism for death. Starving results in fewer people. And, theoretically, this would lead to a new and sustainable economic balance between the production of "fast food" and "slow food", somewhere at a much lower human population density. But we know that's simply not the case. Starving people just have more kids and end up obese, requiring more healthcare, more people and (ironically) more demand, not less. So, not only is centralized economic control morally-reprehensible, it doesn't even work as advertised.

The price of oil fluctuates, often wildly. It is especially sensitive to military force and to monetary inflation. The Federal Reserve expands and contracts the money supply, deliberately, on a regular seven-year (Jewish) cycle. When an oil well is forced out of production by price fluctuations, often it never returns. That's because the cost of keeping an oil well running is much less than the cost of re-starting it. If it does return, the production is degraded, and the cost is higher.

So, when you hear pundits say that we have "lots of shale oil" in places like Texas, what they mean is that there are lots of oil wells that have been forced out of normal production, in part, by central-bank monetary manipulation. Oil that is stuck in the ground with no easy way to remove it besides strip-mining is no longer just oil; it is "shale oil". It has been degraded. This is deliberate. It is part of the destruction of resources that facilitates central bank control. It is not something to trumpet.

And once those underground oil wells have been forced out of production and into centralized control, the next step is to either waste water fracking, or to strip-mine the soil in order to bring above-ground activities such as farming under control as well. Of course, that's not the stated reason. The stated reason is "energy production". The stated reason is that we need energy, obviously, and there's all this energy to be had if only we just destroy the soil in the process. But if energy production were the real reason, then that oil would still be flowing out of the ground via an economically-viable oil well. It wouldn't be stuck. It wouldn't have been deliberately stuck, by monetary manipulation.

Okay, with all of that said, that brings us to the crux of the matter. Once you strip away all of the pretext, all of the irrelevant details, and once you understand all of the mechanics of the system, you see what is really going on. You can see the direct cause and effect relationship. And you can see exactly what the Federal Reserve is doing. Specifically, you can see what the Jews who control the Federal Reserve are doing.

Oil is the lifeblood of the economy. We go to war over oil. There is no acceptable substitute. The people in charge of the Federal Reserve are not complete idiots. They know what they are doing. They know that they destroy easy access to oil every time they manipulate the money supply. They know that they destroy the environment when oil producers resort to fracking and strip-mining. They simply don't care. Like I said, it is deliberate. So, you can just look and see the obvious cause and effect. Jews print money. Topsoil is destroyed.

Now, the obvious question: why? Well, the obvious answer, what I've already alluded to, is that Jews want to control people, and controlling food production is an obvious method. It's one with a long history. Shortly after the creation of the Federal Reserve, for instance, during the first FED-created depression, America flooded vast areas of fertile bottom land to create lakes and managed irrigation systems. The land that was left is not as good. Today, if you want to farm in these areas, you need irrigation; and you need to get it from the government that controls the lakes. So it's no wonder that India and China have recently followed suit. "Poisoning the well" refers to media manipulation only recently. It was once literal. That's the easy answer.

But the actual answer is likely more complex. Judaism can be considered a breakaway civilization, a deliberate attempt at speciation, and a people in a symbiotic relationship with much of the rest of humanity. In fact, 'parasitic' may be a more appropriate term. But there are other organisms in symbiotic relationships with humans -- bacteria, fungi, mitochondria, even domesticated animals. Some of those represent competition. One definition of Judaism, in fact, is a particular line of mitochondrial DNA. So, in a way, they even admit to this competition. It is fundamental to how they view themselves, as a people.

(I just want to re-iterate, at this point, that when I say that this is a medical tyranny, I'm not joking.)

So when the Federal Reserve offers to print money to bankroll something like free healthcare, they aren't doing it out of the goodness of their hearts. They have an objective. When they print money and end up destroying topsoil as a result, they have a reason. And that reason may simply be 'eliminating the competition'.

It's been said that if fungi could walk, they would have taken over the planet by now. Terence McKenna sure had a high regard for "the mushroom," as he called it. And many others, including Steve Jobs, have considered their encounters with fungi, or the chemical products thereof, to be life-changing experiences.

So why, then, is LSD a schedule-one drug? Why is considered one of the most dangerous substances on the planet, according to the US government? Why has the CIA been handing out heroin (an obvious mind- and life-destroying drug) like candy in major US cities, since the 80s, and yet a drug known only to expand consciousness, touted by some of the smartest people on the planet, is considered toxic poison?

There is a war on for your mind. Out of the darkness, and into the light.

Last Updated on 12/23/16