How Will DHS Conduct Mass Roundups of American Citizens?

The Third Wave Of US Martial Law Mass Detentions

                   Eugenics & Depopulation, Government Control, Martial Law,NDAA, US News

This is a two part series which examines the extreme threat posed by President Obama’s Executive Order (EO) 13603.

How Will DHS Conduct Mass Roundups of American Citizens?

Thanks to the NDAA and EO 13603, there are now three distinct ways to conduct mass roundups of citizens and place them in detention camps.

Use of the Children As Bait to Lure In the Parents

In September of 2011, DHS and FEMA forcibly removed children from elementary schools, without properly notifying their parents, (i.e. Operation Mountain Guardian) and transported them to an NFL stadium. In Denver, DHS went so far as to hire “mock” parents to beg officials at the stadium to release their children in an effort to desensitize the guards to future parents pleas. It was obvious to most of us that children would be used to pull in their parents to a detention facility.

Use of the Hessians to Mass Arrest Americans

As I have alluded to before, it is likely that many Americans, in a time of martial law, will be forcibly removed from their homes, or snatched off the street without due process, through the NDAA, which was recently renewed by Congress.

I have painstakingly detailed, with the publication of eyewitness accounts (e.g. Dr. Susan Helman describing her experiences with Russians in Gatlinburg, TN. on my radio show and in print), the Amanda Mitchell account of her experiences with Russian soldiers in her town in Alaska, etc), I have cited newspaper accounts of the same, I have cited bilateral agreements between DHS/FEMA and Russian troops to train for a “disaster” on American soil (i.e. false flag attack and martial law), the participation of Russians and Chinese in Grid EX II and the Russian and Chinese future participation in the highly secure RIMPAC War Games, through emails, videos and pictures the presence of foreign troops from reporters such as Sherrie Wilcox, I have presented firsthand accounts of ex-CIA agents like Dr. Jim Garrow, former NSA operative, Vance Davis and the late NSA agent AC Griffith, related to the same topic, on my radio show and still there are those who will bury their heads in the sand and pretend that none of the evidence exists. To those people, who still doubt the presence of foreign troops on American soil, I would ask that you read the articles on my website dating back to its inception in September of 2012. One estimate places the number of articles in which I have cited and documented the presence of foreign troops on American soil at 27 in a period of 15 months.

I do realize that some people could be carried out of their house by the Russians, Chinese and Canadians soldiers and they still would deny their existence. Of course these same people would deny the same happening to Americans of Japanese extraction in 1942 by our own government.

The foreign troops are here and are training, along with a well-armed DHS to take you from your home when the administration feels the situation warrants mass roundups. The mere passage of the NDAA should have created unprecedented civil unrest because this act destroyed our Constitution and potentially places all of at risk at being casualties in some futuristic holocaust scenario.

In these first two scenarios, the “authorities” will likely assess each person’s threat to the state and act accordingly, because each and every martial law occupation force will seek to quickly remove any opposition. Certainly, one way that the occupation forces will get Americans to come to the camps will be to forcibly take them there. At that point, the new class of captives will be cataloged and their NSA threat matrix score will be researched, resulting from years of NSA illegal intelligence gathering on every American. The threat matrix score will determine the final disposition of many Americans. Wouldn’t this explain why the NSA is monitoring EVERY form of communication that we have in addition to monitoring every website that you visit?

However, even with the use of Chinese, Russian and Canadian troops, which will be brought in to roundup and subjugate America, there will not be enough troops to effectively garrison a country with 300 million handguns. Conventional wisdom states that it takes about one soldier for every 50 citizens to effectively garrison a country. However, when you mix in 300 million handguns in civilian hands, the number of occupation troops that will be needed will rise exponentially. Therefore, the occupation troops will need assistance in getting Americans to willingly report to the camps (e.g. sports facilities and malls). And that assistance will likely come in the form of food.

The Weaponizing of Food and Water

The procurement of food and water could become problematic for many Americans in a martial law setting. Most Americans only have an estimated three days worth of food on hand. Most supermarkets only have three days of food on hand. Any interruption in the supply of food will result in mass food shortages and riots in which millions of Americans could become desperate. Desperate and starving people will report to their nearest major mall or sports stadium in order to feed their families.

If the occupation forces desire to bring people to detention camps, the promise of food could lure many in a designed third wave of roundups. Artificial food shortages would certainly be enacted by cutting off the flow of food to supermarkets. It would take less than a week to get millions of Americans to report to detention camps to get food.

Creating An Artificial Food Shortage Through Executive Order 13603

Researchers used to be able to click on a link which took one to Whitehouse.gov and the provisions of EO 13603  were clearly elucidated. However, the federal government has made obtaining the same information a little more difficult. Today, if you want to read about the provisions of EO13603, you must first click on the Federal Registerand then scroll down and locate EO 13603 and then click on that particular hypertext link which takes you to a PDF. At the conclusion of part two in this series, I will copy and paste the entire 22 pages of the EO in the Appendix section of the article.

Stopping the transport of food to your local supermarket has already been accounted for in EO 13603. Please examine the following provision of  EO 13603 in Part VII, Section 801 which allows the President, in a time of self-declared emergency, to seize control of ALL transportation by stopping the transport of food to any and all selected areas.

All of the following references to EO 13603 are verbatim copy and paste of the referenced PDF file entitled, Executive Order 13603.

PART VIII—GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 801. Definitions. In addition to the definitions in section 702 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2152, the following definitions apply throughout this order:

(a) ‘‘Civil transportation’’ includes movement of persons and property by all modes of transportation in interstate, intrastate, or foreign commerce within the United States, its territories and possessions, and the District of Columbia, and related public storage and warehousing, ports, services, equipment and facilities, such as transportation carrier shop and repair facilities. ‘‘Civil transportation’’ also shall include direction, control, and coordination of civil transportation capacity regardless of ownership. ‘‘Civil transportation’’ shall not include transportation owned or controlled by the Department of Defense, use of petroleum and gas pipelines, and coal slurry and pipelines used only to supply energy production facilities directly.

Subsequently, Obama has given himself the authority to control all transportation in an emergency and he now has the authority to create food shortages in America because he is the sole judge of what constitutes an emergency.

Third world population control, using food as one of the primary weapons, has long been a matter of official covert US national policy and a portion of President Obama’s Executive Order (EO 13603) is a continuation of that policy. Only now, the intended targets are not the Lesser Developed Countries. Instead, the American people are the new targets for these novel starvation policies..

Can the administration do this?

With the stroke of his pen, Obama has total and absolute control over all food where his EO states:

c) ‘‘Farm equipment’’ means equipment, machinery, and repair parts manufactured for use on farms in connection with the production or preparation for market use of food resources.

e) “Food resources” means all commodities and products, (simple, mixed, or compound), or complements to such commodities or products, that are capable of being ingested by either human beings or animals, irrespective of other uses to which such commodities or products may be put, at all stages of processing from the raw commodity to the products thereof in vendible form for human or animal consumption. “Food resources” also means potable water packaged in commercially marketable containers, all starches, sugars, vegetable and animal or marine fats and oils, seed, cotton, hemp, and flax fiber, but does not mean any such material after it loses its identity as an agricultural commodity or agricultural product.

f) “Food resource facilities” means plants, machinery, vehicles (including on farm), and other facilities required for the production, processing, distribution, and storage (including cold storage) of food resources, and for the domestic distribution of farm equipment and fertilizer…”

Could the Intent of EO 13603 Be Any Clearer?

This unconstitutional EO is particularly disturbing in that it clearly states that the government has control over anything that is “capable of being ingested by either human beings or animals…” If you thought that you and Fido were going to get through coming food crisis by consuming dog food, think again.

How will farmers maintain the nation’s food supply when all fertilizer, their farm equipment and all of their vehicles are under the control of this sociopathic President?

The term “all food storage facilities” includes your refrigerator, your pantry and even the very food in your cabinets as well as what is on your kitchen table. In short, anywhere you keep food is now under the control of the government and can be redistributed.

Have you recently been scratching your head in bewilderment as you watch on the news as the Amish have had their farms raided, raw milk producers have been jailed and the kids running lemonade stands have been shut down and ticketed? Now you know why these abuses are being perpetrated by the government in that it represents a mere conditioning process designed to get all U.S. citizens used to the idea that the government owns all food and food production.

There are multiple examples of weaponizing food throughout history, but there is no better illustration than is contained in the following the historical account.

The Historical Precedent of Weaponizing Food

Josef Stalin engaged in his own Soviet style Holocaust when, in 1932 and 1933, an estimated six to 20 million people in the Ukraine died from starvation when Stalin implemented his prescription of “hope and change” policies in order to eliminate the Ukrainian’s desire for becoming their own nation-state.

Upon assuming power, the Stalinist Communist regime rapidly nationalized the food industry and forced all of the region’s farms into collectives. Thus, Stalin’s version of the Holocaust came to fruition in what history has dubbed, the “Holdomor,” in which millions perished in only a two year period when the Soviet government began to exterminate the Ukrainian population by taking control of food and food production. And why were the people of the Ukraine starved to death by the millions? They were starved because they wanted national independence and personal freedom.

The weaponizing of food is a popular tactic with dictators because it works.

Conclusion

Can anyone justify Obama’s granting himself this kind of authority if he was not planning on using this authority? Is this, in part, why he had to fire 200+ military command officers because they will not go along with starving millions of Americans to death?

I cannot help  prevent you from being taken into a detention camp by the lure of your captured children or if the Hessians show up at your door. However, it would seem prudent to begin to store food and water. Certainly EO 13603 grants the Obama minions the authority to seize your food and water, but they do not have the manpower to seize all of it. If you want to minimize your chances of being taken, get out of the city and begin to become self-sufficient.

The second part of this series is even more ominous in that this EO sanctions involuntary servitude (i.e. slave labor) and I am not just talking about the military draft which is also back on the table.

Dave Hodges is the host of the popular weekly talk show, The Common Sense Show, which airs on Sunday nights from 9pm – Midnight (central) on the Republic Broadcasting Network and its 29 affiliate stations. Dave also hosts a website (www.thecommonsenseshow.com) in which he writes daily articles on the geopolitical state of affairs both nationally and internationally. The theme of Dave’s show and website centers around exposing the corruption and treason which has invaded the presidency and Congress as well as their corporate and banking benefactors. Dave is an award winning psychology, sociology, statistics and research professor. He is also a former college basketball coach who retired as the winningest coach in his college’s history. A mental health therapist by training, Dave brings a broad based perspective in his fight against the corrupt central banking cartels which have hijacked the US government. Dave and his wife, Nora have one son and they presently reside in rural Arizona approximately 25 miles north of the greater Phoenix area. Dave was drawn to the fight for freedom when the globalist central banking forces, led by Senator John McCain, attempted to seize his home and property and that of 300 of his neighbors, without one dime being offered in compensation. This attempted public theft of private property was conducted for the purpose of securing cheap land in which the globalists intended on putting in an international highway through their area known as the Canamex Corridor. Dave’s community appointed him the spokesperson and eventually his community won their fight against the bankers and their front man, Senator McCain. This event launched Dave’s career as a broadcaster and an investigative journalist. Dave’s website presently enjoys over a half a million visitors every month.

Source

'Wolf of Wall Street' Scorsese and DiCaprio

 

 

 

Christina McDowell is a hell of a writer who has a hell of a story to tell. In a recent op-ed for the LAWeekly, McDowell tells about her very personal connection to the characters portrayed in "The Wolf of Wall Street," the just-released Martin Scorsese film starring Leonardo DiCaprio.

You see, McDowell is the daughter of a man who went to jail on the testimony of the real-life wolf of Wall Street, Jordan Belfort, who agreed to plead guilty to lesser charges in exchange for giving testimony against other crooked stock dealers. She begins her "open letter" like this:

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, dear Kings of Hollywood, but you have been conned.

And then goes on to explain her connection to the story:

Let me introduce myself. My name is Christina McDowell, formerly Christina Prousalis. I am the daughter of Tom Prousalis, a man the Washington Post described as "just some guy on trial for penny-stock fraud." (I had to change my name after my father stole my identity and then threatened to steal it again, but I'll get to that part later.) I was eighteen and a freshman in college when my father and his attorneys forced me to attend his trial at New York City's federal courthouse so that he "looked good" for the jury -- the consummate family man.

And you, Jordan Belfort, Wall Street's self-described Wolf: You remember my father, right? You were chosen to be the government's star witness in testifying against him. You had pleaded guilty to money laundering and securities fraud (it was the least you could do) and become a government witness in two dozen cases involving your former business associate, but my father's attorneys blocked your testimony because had you testified it would have revealed more than a half-dozen other corrupt stock offerings too. And, well, that would have been a disaster. It would have just been too many liars, and too many schemes for the jurors, attorneys or the judge to follow.

But the records shows you and my father were in cahoots together with MVSI Inc. of Vienna, e-Net Inc. of Germantown, Md., Octagon Corp. of Arlington, Va., and Czech Industries Inc. of Washington, D.C., and so on -- a list of seemingly innocuous, legitimate companies that stretches on. I'll spare you. Nobody cares. None of these companies actually existed, yet all of them were taken public by the one and only Wolf of Wall Street and his firm Stratton Oakmont Inc in order to defraud unwitting investors and enrich yourselves.

As an eighteen-year-old, I had no idea what was going on. But then again, did anyone? Certainly your investors didn't -- and they were left holding the bag when you cashed out your holdings and got rich off their money.

Clearly McDowell has much to work through in terms of her father's total betrayal of her and her family, but she also takes the filmmakers to task for making a movie that glorifies and glamorizes "the Wolf of Wall Street." Many many people were hurt by this glamorized characters, she points out. In fact, greedy actions like those portrayed in the film, and which take place in real life, leave widespread collateral damage and sometimes tank entire economies. She continues with her story:

So Marty and Leo, while you glide through press junkets and look forward to awards season, let me tell you the truth -- what happened to my mother, my two sisters, and me.

The day my father had to surrender to prison, I drove him. My mother had locked herself in the bathroom crying and throwing up, becoming nothing short of a more beautiful version of Cate Blanchett in Blue Jasmine. Ironically enough, Marty, she looks like a cross between Sharon Stone and Michelle Pfeiffer. Totally your leading ingénue type. Anyhow, after my father successfully laundered money in my name, hiding what was left of our assets from the government in a Wells Fargo bank account, I arrived home to discover multiple phone calls from creditors and attorneys threatening to sue me. He'd left me in nearly $100,000 worth of debt. He left and never told me.

After all of that liquidated money was gone from the Wells Fargo bank account, things got pretty bad. My younger sister ran away at seventeen. My older sister struggled to finish school in Texas. I couch surfed for two years, sometimes dressing out of my car and stealing pieces of salami out of my boyfriends' refrigerators in the middle of the night, because I was so hungry and so ashamed that I couldn't feed myself. Tips at the restaurant weren't cutting it. It's a pretty confusing experience to go from flying private with Dad to an evening where he's begging you for a piece of your paycheck so he can buy food for dinner.

Then she gets to her point about the film, addressing Scorsese and DiCaprio:

So here's the deal. You people are dangerous. Your film is a reckless attempt at continuing to pretend that these sorts of schemes are entertaining, even as the country is reeling from yet another round of Wall Street scandals. We want to get lost in what? These phony financiers' fun sexcapades and coke binges? Come on, we know the truth. This kind of behavior brought America to its knees.

And yet you're glorifying it -- you who call yourselves liberals. You were honored for career excellence and for your cultural influence by The Kennedy Center, Marty. You drive a Honda hybrid, Leo. Did you think about the cultural message you'd be sending when you decided to make this film? You have successfully aligned yourself with an accomplished criminal, a guy who still hasn't made full restitution to his victims, exacerbating our national obsession with wealth and status and glorifying greed and psychopathic behavior. And don't even get me started on the incomprehensible way in which your film degrades women, the misogynistic, ass-backwards message you endorse to younger generations of men.

But hey, listen boys, I get it. I was conned too. By. My. Own. Dad! I drove a white Range Rover in high school, snorted half of Colombia, and got any guy I ever wanted because my father would take them flying in his King Air.

Finally, she points out that the film will help Jordan Belfort and his business opportunities will no doubt multiply as a result, while his victims are left destitute, unable to pay medical bills, unable to send their kids to college, and elderly.

She ends by urging people not to see the film, and a little P.S.

Quick update on Dad: He is now doing business with the Albanian government and, rumor has it, married to a 30-year-old Albanian translator -- they always, always land on their feet.

Inequality is Getting Worse in America,here are 3 reasons why

The richest 1% have gained at least $6.1 trillion in the past five years.

Anyone reviewing the data is likely to conclude that there must be some mistake. It doesn't seem possible that one out of twenty American families could each have made a million dollars since Obama became President, while millions of American families' net worth has barely recovered. But the evidence comes from numerous reputable sources.

Some conservatives continue to claim that President Obama is unfriendly to business, but the facts show that the richest Americans and the biggest businesses have been the main beneficiaries of the massive wealth gain over the past five years.

1. $5 Million to Each of the 1%, and $1 Million to Each of the Next 4%

From the end of 2008 to the middle of 2013 total U.S. wealth increased from $47 trillion to $72 trillion. About $16 trillion of that is financial gain (stocks and other financial instruments).

The richest 1% own about 38 percent of stocks, and half of non-stock financial assets. So they've gained at least $6.1 trillion (38 percent of $16 trillion). That's over $5 million for each of 1.2 million households.

The next richest 4%, based on similar calculations, gained about $5.1 trillion. That's over a million dollars for each of their 4.8 million households.

The least wealthy 90% in our country own only 11 percent of all stocks excluding pensions (which are fast disappearing). The frantic recent surge in the stock market has largely bypassed these families.

2. Evidence of Our Growing Wealth Inequality

This first fact is nearly ungraspable: In 2009 the average wealth for almost half of American families was ZERO (their debt exceeded their assets).

In 1983 the families in America's poorer half owned an average of about $15,000. But from 1983 to 1989 median wealth fell from over $70,000 to about $60,000. From 1998 to 2009, fully 80% of American families LOST wealth. They had to borrow to stay afloat.

It seems the disparity couldn't get much worse, but after the recession it did. According to a Pew Research Center study, in the first two years of recovery the mean net worth of households in the upper 7% of the wealth distribution rose by an estimated 28%, while the mean net worth of households in the lower 93% dropped by 4%. And then, from 2011 to 2013, the stock market grew by almost 50 percent, with again the great majority of that gain going to the richest 5%.

Today our wealth gap is worse than that of the third world. Out of all developed and undeveloped countries with at least a quarter-million adults, the U.S. has the 4th-highest degree of wealth inequality in the world, trailing only Russia, Ukraine, and Lebanon.

3. Congress' Solution: Take from the Poor

Congress has responded by cutting unemployment benefits and food stamps, along with other 'sequester' targets like Meals on Wheels for seniors and Head Start for preschoolers. The more the super-rich make, the more they seem to believe in the cruel fantasy that the poor are to blame for their own struggles.

President Obama recently proclaimed that inequality "drives everything I do in this office." Indeed it may, but in the wrong direction.

Global Cooling is Here for The Next Three Decades

Despite no global warming in 10 years and recording setting cold in 2007-2008, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climatic Change (IPCC) and computer modelers who believe that CO2 is the cause of global warming still predict the Earth is in store for catastrophic warming in this century. IPCC computer models have predicted global warming of 1° F per decade and 5-6° C (10-11° F) by 2100 (Fig. 1), which would cause global catastrophe with ramifications for human life, natural habitat, energy and water resources, and food production. All of this is predicated on the assumption that global warming is caused by increasing atmospheric CO2 and that CO2 will continue to rise rapidly.

Figure 1. A. IPCC prediction of global warming early in the 21st century. B. IPCC prediction of global warming to 2100. (Sources: IPCC website)

However, records of past climate changes suggest an altogether different scenario for the 21st century. Rather than drastic global warming at a rate of 0.5 ° C (1° F) per decade, historic records of past natural cycles suggest global cooling for the first several decades of the 21st century to about 2030, followed by global warming from about 2030 to about 2060, and renewed global cooling from 2060 to 2090 (Easterbrook, D.J., 2005, 2006a, b, 2007, 2008a, b); Easterbrook and Kovanen, 2000, 2001). Climatic fluctuations over the past several hundred years suggest ~30 year climatic cycles of global warming and cooling, on a general rising trend from the Little Ice Age.

PREDICTIONS BASED ON PAST CLIMATE PATTERNS

Global climate changes have been far more intense (12 to 20 times as intense in some cases) than the global warming of the past century, and they took place in as little as 20–100 years. Global warming of the past century (0.8° C) is virtually insignificant when compared to the magnitude of at least 10 global climate changes in the past 15,000 years. None of these sudden global climate changes could possibly have been caused by human CO2 input to the atmosphere because they all took place long before anthropogenic CO2 emissions began. The cause of the ten earlier ‘natural’ climate changes was most likely the same as the cause of global warming from 1977 to 1998.

Figure 2. Climate changes in the past 17,000 years from the GISP2 Greenland ice core. Red = warming, blue = cooling. (Modified from Cuffy and Clow, 1997)

Climatic fluctuations over the past several hundred years suggest ~30 year climatic cycles of global warming and cooling (Figure 3) on a generally rising trend from the Little Ice Age about 500 years ago.

Figure 3. Alternating warm and cool cycles since 1470 AD. Blue = cool, red = warm. Based on oxygen isotope ratios from the GISP2 Greenland ice core.

Relationships between glacial fluctuations, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, and global climate change.

After several decades of studying alpine glacier fluctuations in the North Cascade Range, my research showed a distinct pattern of glacial advances and retreats (the Glacial Decadal Oscillation, GDO) that correlated well with climate records. In 1992, Mantua published the Pacific Decadal Oscillation curve showing warming and cooling of the Pacific Ocean that correlated remarkably well with glacial fluctuations. Both the GDA and the PDO matched global temperature records and were obviously related (Fig. 4). All but the latest 30 years of changes occurred prior to significant CO2 emissions so they were clearly unrelated to atmospheric CO2.

Figure 4. Correspondence of the GDO, PDO, and global temperature variations.

The significance of the correlation between the GDO, PDO, and global temperature is that once this connection has been made, climatic changes during the past century can be understood, and the pattern of glacial and climatic fluctuations over the past millennia can be reconstructed. These patterns can then be used to project climatic changes in the future.

Using the pattern established for the past several hundred years, in 1998 I projected the temperature curve for the past century into the next century and came up with curve ‘A’ in Figure 5 as an approximation of what might be in store for the world if the pattern of past climate changes continued. Ironically, that prediction was made in the warmest year of the past three decades and at the acme of the 1977-1998 warm period.

At that time, the projected curved indicated global cooling beginning about 2005 ± 3-5 years until about 2030, then renewed warming from about 2030 to about 2060 (unrelated to CO2—just continuation of the natural cycle), then another cool period from about 2060 to about 2090. This was admittedly an approximation, but it was radically different from the 1° F per decade warming called for by the IPCC. Because the prediction was so different from the IPCC prediction, time would obviously show which projection was ultimately correct.

Now a decade later, the global climate has not warmed 1° F as forecast by the IPCC but has cooled slightly until 2007-08 when global temperatures turned sharply downward. In 2008, NASA satellite imagery (Figure 6) confirmed that the Pacific Ocean had switched from the warm mode it had been in since 1977 to its cool mode, similar to that of the 1945-1977 global cooling period. The shift strongly suggests that the next several decades will be cooler, not warmer as predicted by the IPCC.

Figure 5.Global temperature projection for the coming century, based on warming/cooling cycles of the past several centuries. ‘A’ projection based on assuming next cool phase will be similar to the 1945-1977 cool phase. ‘B’ projection based on assuming next cool phase will be similar to the 1880-1915 cool phase. The predicted warm cycle from 2030 to 2060 is based on projection of the 1977 to 1998 warm phase and the cooling phase from 2060 to 2090 is based on projection of the 1945 to 1977 cool cycle.

Implications of PDO, NAO, GDO, and sun spot cycles for global climate in coming decades

The IPCC prediction of global temperatures, 1° F warmer by 2011 and 2° F by 2038 (Fig. 1), stand little chance of being correct. NASA’s imagery showing that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) has shifted to its cool phase is right on schedule as predicted by past climate and PDO changes (Easterbrook, 2001, 2006, 2007).

The PDO typically lasts 25-30 years and assures North America of cool, wetter climates during its cool phases and warmer, drier climates during its warm phases. The establishment of the cool PDO, together with similar cooling of the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), virtually assures several decades of global cooling and the end of the past 30-year warm phase. It also means that the IPCC predictions of catastrophic global warming this century were highly inaccurate.

The switch of PDO cool mode to warm mode in 1977 initiated several decades of global warming. The PDO has now switched from its warm mode (where it had been since 1977) into its cool mode. As shown on the graph above, each time this had happened in the past century, global temperature has followed. The upper map shows cool ocean temperatures in blue (note the North American west coast). The lower diagram shows how the PDO has switched back and forth from warm to cool modes in the past century, each time causing global temperature to follow. Comparisons of historic global climate warming and cooling over the past century with PDO and NAO oscillations, glacial fluctuations, and sun spot activity show strong correlations and provide a solid data base for future climate change projections.

The Pacific Ocean has a warm temperature mode and a cool temperature mode, and in the past century, has switched back forth between these two modes every 25-30 years (known as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation or PDO). In 1977 the Pacific abruptly shifted from its cool mode (where it had been since about 1945) into its warm mode, and this initiated global warming from 1977 to 1998. The correlation between the PDO and global climate is well established.

The announcement by NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) had shifted to its cool phase is right on schedule as predicted by past climate and PDO changes (Easterbrook, 2001, 2006, 2007). The PDO typically lasts 25-30 years and assures North America of cool, wetter climates during its cool phases and warmer, drier climates during its warm phases. The establishment of the cool PDO, together with similar cooling of the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), virtually assures several decades of global cooling and the end of the past 30-year warm phase.

Figure 6. Switch of PDO cool mode to warm mode in 1977 initiated several decades of global warming. The PDO has now switched from its warm mode (where it had been since 1977) into its cool mode. As shown on the graph above, each time this has happened in the past century, global temperature has followed. The upper map shows cool ocean temperatures in blue (note the North American west coast). The lower diagram shows how the PDO has switched back and forth from warm to cool modes in the past century, each time causing global temperature to follow. Projection of the past pattern (right end of graph) assures 30 yrs of global cooling

Comparisons of historic global climate warming and cooling over the past century with PDO and NAO oscillations, glacial fluctuations, and sun spot activity show strong correlations and provide a solid data base for future climate change projections. As shown by the historic pattern of GDOs and PDOs over the past century and by corresponding global warming and cooling, the pattern is part of ongoing warm/cool cycles that last 25-30 years. The global cooling phase from 1880 to 1910, characterized by advance of glaciers worldwide, was followed by a shift to the warm-phase PDO for 30 years, global warming and rapid glacier recession.

The cool-phase PDO returned in ~1945 accompanied by global cooling and glacial advance for 30 years. Shift to the warm-phase PDO in 1977 initiated global warming and recession of glaciers that persisted until 1998. Recent establishment of the PDO cool phase appeared right on target and assuming that its effect will be similar to past history, global climates can be expected to cool over the next 25-30 years. The global warming of this century is exactly in phase with the normal climatic pattern of cyclic warming and cooling and we have now switched from a warm phase to a cool phase right at the predicted time (Fig. 5)

The ramifications of the global cooling cycle for the next 30 years are far reaching―e.g., failure of crops in critical agricultural areas (it’s already happening this year), increasing energy demands, transportation difficulties, and habitat change. All this during which global population will increase from six billion to about nine billion. The real danger in spending trillions of dollars trying to reduce atmospheric CO2 is that little will be left to deal with the very real problems engendered by global cooling.

CONCLUSIONS

Global warming (i.e, the warming since 1977) is over. The minute increase of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere (0.008%) was not the cause of the warming—it was a continuation of natural cycles that occurred over the past 500 years.

The PDO cool mode has replaced the warm mode in the Pacific Ocean, virtually assuring us of about 30 years of global cooling, perhaps much deeper than the global cooling from about 1945 to 1977. Just how much cooler the global climate will be during this cool cycle is uncertain. Recent solar changes suggest that it could be fairly severe, perhaps more like the 1880 to 1915 cool cycle than the more moderate 1945-1977 cool cycle. A more drastic cooling, similar to that during the Dalton and Maunder minimums, could plunge the Earth into another Little Ice Age, but only time will tell if that is likely.

You Need to Read this If You Use Facebook,They Are Killing Free Information, Share This!

Recent changes made to Facebook’s algorithm now limits the amount of reach a single page has to 1%, if you are really lucky, 2%. What this means is, the freedom to share quality information is being limited to those who have money to pay Facebook to share their content. This is bad news for people who want to have an influential voice in the world.

The need for people to band together and work together is becoming greater with changes like this.

According to Facebook themselves:

“Your brand can fully benefit from having fans when most of your ads show social context, which increases advertising effectiveness and efficiency.”

“We expect organic distribution of an individual page’s posts to gradually decline over time as we continually work to make sure people have a meaningful experience on the site.”

“We’re getting to a place where because more people are sharing more things, the best way to get your stuff seen if you’re a business is to pay for it.”

What this means is if you have a meaningful message and you want to freely and organically share it across Facebook, you can’t anymore unless you want to pay for it. Perhaps it was FB realizing that anyone could reach a lot of people easily that made them see the potential for profit should those people still want to reach people, or maybe this is their way of trying to clean up Facebook. Either way, this is going to do nothing but cripple pages ability to reach their audience who they worked a long time to build.

What Does This Mean For Meaningful Content?

It means the days of using Facebook to create larger movements against corporations like Monsanto are going to be greatly limited. Protests, marches, awareness campaigns and the spread of life changing and meaningful content across Facebook is now going to be limited to a tiny portion of networks unless they are willing to pay a pretty coin to have it seen. It is likely now that businesses with big bucks are going to be appearing in news feeds more as they are going to be the few with enough advertising capital to handle Facebook’s new methods.

The Need For Backlash

Since this happened, bloggers and page admins all over the world have been creating a backlash about it and this needs to continue. Facebook needs its users to participate with the platform for FB to have any value, if they keep doing things like this it is going to force people to other social platforms, so if backlash is created, Facebook will have no choice but to adjust their numbers back to what they were.

Here’s what you can do:

1. When you find good content you want to see shared, ‘Like’ it, comment on it and share it. This helps get it out there and push it the extra mile.

2. Share this meme which speaks out about this problem. This way, we can all have a voice about the issue and work towards getting it changed. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152055088108908&set=a.10151198752138908.475684.131929868907&type=1&theater

If we want to continue to make an impact and join together easily as people in sharing a message to the world, we have to work together. Whether this means working around these adjustments or creating a new social media platform that a large part of the world uses, something needs to be done.

How to Choose Your Survival Retreat Location for every Prepper

Unfortunately, having a ‘Plan B’ just isn'’t the modern American way.  The great and diabolical misfortune of having two to three solid generations of assumed prosperity in one’s culture is the side-effect it has of lulling the populace into comfortable apathy.  “Prepping” becomes a kind of novelty; a lifestyle that people joke about while planning out their next vacation or their next suburban home purchase.  It’s something that others consider in that fleeting moment in front of the television while witnessing the news of a catastrophe on the other side of the world, only to be forgotten minutes after changing the channel.  Such things do not happen here.  Not in the United States…

I am a child of an age laden with illusory wealth, and have benefited (for a short time at least) from the financial faker y of our economic system, as have many Americans.  Most of us have not had to suffer through the unmitigated poverty, hopelessness, and relentless fear that are pervasive in harsher days.  All our problems could be cured with money, especially government money, and as long as the greenbacks were flowing, we didn't care where they came from.  Ultimately, though, the ease of our well-to-do welfare kingdom has set us up for a cultural failure of epic proportions.  Anytime a society allows itself to be conditioned with dependency, its fate is sealed.

We do not know what crisis really is.  Many Americans barely have an inkling of what it entails.  We imagine it, in films, in books, and in our own minds, but the fantasy is almost numbing.  We lose sight of the tangible grating salty rawness of the worst of things, while imagining ourselves to be “aware”.  Most people today are like newborns playing merrily in a pit of wolves.

Preppers, on the other hand, are those who seek to understand what the rest of the public goes out of its way to ignore.  They embrace the reality and inevitability of disaster, and suddenly, like magic, they are able to see its oncoming potential where others cannot (or will not).  The price they pay for this extended vision, however, is high…

I see the prepper generation as a generation of sacrifice; men and women who must endure the collapse of the façade for the sake of an honorable future society they may not live to experience.  Modern day Cassandras?  Hopefully not.  But, certainly a group of people who have lost much in the path to knowledge.  We lose our blissful naivety.  That which once easily entertained us becomes banal and meaningless.  We set aside many of our dreams to make room for the private and public battle we must wage for the truth.  And, in the early days of our awakening, we tend to lose sleep.

The primary advantage of this otherwise complex life is actually simple:  we have a ‘Plan B’.

Independence, self sustainability, true community, and redundancy in systems; it’s all in a day’s work for the prepper.  But, one thing tends to sit upon our minds above all else, and that subject is ‘home’.  Not necessarily the home where we are, but the home where we will shelter during darker days.  Call it a retreat, call it a bunker, call it whatever you like, but every prepper has to have that place set aside that gives him the utmost advantage while facing off against calamities that normally annihilate average people.

Choosing a retreat can be easy, or so difficult it explodes your brain depending on how you approach it.  The problem I see most often with those seeking a back-up location for a collapse scenario is that they engage the process as if they are still living in 2006, hunting for their McMansion with a view on the sunny hillsides of Colorado or California, instead of thinking in practical terms.  So, to help clarify a more fundamental approach to choosing a survival retreat, here is a list of priorities that cannot be overlooked:

Property Placement

You may be searching for a homestead property or a more discreet retreat area for only the most violent disasters.  In either case, property placement should be your number one concern.  Where is your subject property located?  What are the strengths and weaknesses, economically, socially, and legally, in the state you are considering.  What is the disposition of the government and law enforcement in the county your retreat resides in?  What kind of environment are you surrounding yourself with?  These are all very important issues to consider.

Even more important, though, are the dynamics of the land you are choosing.  Are you looking for a typical flat piece of developed farmland with easy access to roads and town amenities?  Then you are going about this all wrong.  Are you purchasing a cabin in the woods where you and your family will be isolated and alone?  Again, not very bright.

The ideal retreat location is a combination of rugged terrain and varied topography that is just accessible enough, and set in proximity to like minded neighbors who will aid each other in the advent of a social implosion.

It may feel strange to consider it at first, but try to think in terms of an aggressive party:  a looter, a criminal, or just a hungry refugee.  Now, take a second look at your retreat selection.  Is it easy to wander into?  Can a person stroll right up to the front door, or do they really have to spend a lot of time and energy to reach you?  Is it within sight of a major highway?  Is it in the middle of a funnel or valley which people would naturally take to get to a tempting destination?  Is it flat with little cover and concealment, or is it nestled in the midst of hills and crevices which can be used strategically?  How many routes in and out of the region are there?

Crops can be grown in any area with any climate if the correct methods are used.  Energy can be produced with a multitude of technologies and tools.  Structures can be built to adapt to the materials that are most abundant in the region.  However, once you commit to a particular environment and terrain type, you are stuck with it for good.  Choose wisely.

Community Network

As mentioned in the section above, isolation should NOT be the goal here.  The concept of the lone wolf survivalist waiting out the implosion with his family in a secret fortification is not realistic, or likely to work at all.  In the most volatile of collapses, such retreats only offer a tempting target for unsavory characters, from Bosnia to Argentina and beyond.  If you don’t have a community of preppers around you, you have nothing.

Ideally, choosing a retreat location, especially for a homestead in which you will be living on a day to day basis, should be done with multiple families involved.  The more preppers involved, the larger the perimeter of warning and defense, and the safer everyone will be.  It is not enough to have a friend or two on the other side of town, or to have a couple neighbors who are open to the subject of collapse but have made no efforts to prep.  A return to a true community foundation is the surest way to secure your retreat.  There WILL be people who will wish to take what you have in a crisis situation.  Your best bet is to surround yourself with people who already have what they need…

In Montana, I have used the idea of “Land Co-Op Groups”, expanding on the barter networking concept to include helping people of like-mind to meet and find property within proximity of each other, or to choose mutual retreat areas where there will be safety in numbers.  Explore real estate markets near family members who are on the same wavelength.  Talk with existing prepper communities and see if you might work well together.  Form your own group of land seekers and make purchases together, saving money for everyone.  Know who you will be weathering the storm with!

Defensibility

This has been mentioned in previous sections, but let’s establish what defensibility truly involves.  Do the natural features shelter you, or hinder you?  How many lanes of sight are near your retreat and will they work to your advantage, or someone else’s?  Is your homestead on the top of a wide open hill and visible for miles around?  Will attackers exhaust themselves attempting to reach you?  How much warning will you have if someone is approaching your location?

Make sure your surroundings work for you.  Folds in the land topography not only off greater surface area for your money, but also cover and concealment.  Forget about beautiful views, perfect soil, and room for a gazebo.  Is the retreat actually protecting you or not?  If this single issue is not considered and resolved, nothing else matters.

This is why I recommend starting from scratch with raw land if possible.  Many people dislike the notion of building their retreat or homestead from the ground up, claiming that there is not enough time, or that the project will be too costly.  This is not necessarily true, especially for those who plan the construction of their retreat around off-grid living strategies.  Raw land purchases, depending on the region, can be highly affordable.  Building using present materials, like native timber, reduces costs drastically.  And, as long as your house plans remain simple, construction can be started and finished within a matter of months.

When building from scratch on raw land you have chosen using the guidelines already discussed, you can place your living quarters in the most advantageous position for defense, while being able to reinforce the home itself as you go.  For those using an existing structure, the job becomes a bit more difficult.  Additional fortifications will have to be planned carefully to adapt to the framework of the building.  Weak areas of the property will have to be strengthened using fences, walls, or strategically placed vegetation that frustrates approach.  High points in the terrain should be used to establish observation posts.  At every moment of the day or night, someone must be awake to keep an eye on the surroundings.  Respect the realities of a collapse, instead of disregarding them, and your chances of success increase a hundred fold.

Water Availability

Many would place water resources at the very top of this list, and having an ample supply is certainly vital.  Digging a well is a must.  Building in proximity to a stream, river, or lake is even better.  That said, rainwater collection is a viable supplement to weaker indigenous water supply, along with water storage done in advance of any event.  The average adult human being needs approximately 2.5 liters of water per day to survive comfortably.  The common vegetable garden needs around 2” of watering overall per week.  Bathing and general hygiene requires several gallons per week depending on how conservative you are.  It is important to gauge the water production and storage capacity available at your retreat.  If the math does not add up, and if rain collection is not enough to fill the gap, then move on.  Find an area that will sustain you with water, but do not neglect the rest of the items on this list just to be near a roaring river…

Food Production

This is an area with far more flexibility than most people seem to realize.  With the right methods, a garden can be grown in almost any climate, and at any time of the year, even winter.  Every retreat should be fitted with a greenhouse, and this does not require much expense, or even energy to build.  Makeshift materials often work wonders and the cheapest greenhouses tend to supply as much produce throughout the year as expensive and professionally built models.

Raised bed gardening is efficient, requiring less water, and producing more food than typical gardens.  Small orchards are possible depending on the climate and elevation of the property.  Wild edibles in the area should be cataloged.  Find out where they grow in abundance, how to cook and prepare them, and which edibles you actually enjoy eating.

Animals require at least some acreage.  Two acres being the minimum if you plan to raise several species.  Goats, chickens, and rabbits are much easier to squeeze into a smaller parcel than cattle or horses, and draw much less attention to your retreat.  A single milk producing cow and a bull, however, have the ability to keep your family healthy and fed for a lifetime.  The trade-off is up to the individual prepper.  The bottom line is, the number of animals you plan to raise determines the amount of open field you will need to clear on your property to provide the grasses and feeding area they will require.

Proximity To National Forest

Another aspect to consider is how close your property is to national forest areas or unclaimed and unpurchased acreage.  Perhaps you are only buying 5 acres of land in a well placed area which borders thousands of acres of forest service.  Not only have you purchased the use of 5 acres, but the potential use of thousands of acres through attrition, while guaranteeing that no unpleasant or unaware neighbors will move in too snug next door.  Abundant resources will be at your fingertips in a post collapse scenario, including timber, wild game, possible minerals, caching sites, secondary retreat locations, etc.  The advantages are numerous…

Secondary Retreat Locations

Never put all your eggs in one basket.  We hear that warning all our lives but few take it to heart the way they should.  I have dealt with many a prepper who has become indignant at the idea of having to leave his home to escape danger, claiming that they would “rather die” than have to beat feet to a secondary location.  I personally don’t get it.  Fighting back is admirable, but fighting smart is better.  There is nothing wrong with living to die another day, and this is where the multiple retreats strategy comes into play.

Some survivalists live in the city, and have set up a retreat in an area distant but reachable.  Others have taken the plunge and uprooted to start a new life on the grounds of their new refuge, leaving behind the metropolis and sometimes even their high paying jobs.  In either case, they have done far more for their futures than the average American has even vaguely considered.  However, it is not quite enough…

Back-up retreat locations should be chosen in remote areas near your primary retreat, and very few if any people (even friends and associates) should be told about these places.  Keep in mind, these are last ditch survival spots.  They are not ideal for long term living arrangements.  Little if any infrastructure will be built in these places, and all shelter materials should be heavily concealed.  Caching sites should be set up well in advance and placed on at least two separate routes to the same location.  You should have no worries over whether you will be able to feed, clothe, and protect yourself on the way to the emergency site.  Hidden approaches to the area should be scouted ahead of time.  A viable water source should be present nearby.

Thinking Ahead:  It’s Pure Sanity

There are all kinds of excuses for not doing what needs to be done.  Americans have an ingenious knack for rationalizing their own laziness and inaction.  If you want to know how to get ahead in the world of prepping, or just the world in general, all you have to do is become a man or woman who makes a plan, and then follows through on it!  Welcome to the top ten percent!

One excuse that I do in some instances take seriously is the problem of the conflicting family.  We all know a prepper or two whose spouse or children are not on board, ridiculing or even obstructing their efforts.  When expenditures of cash (or large expenditures of cash in the case of a property purchase) are in debate, the tensions can be crippling.  In every disaster there are oblivious masses which make things hard on those who are aware.  From the Great Depression and Weimar Germany, to New Orleans after Katrina, it is not uncommon for people on the verge of starvation and death to still assume that government help is right around the corner and all will be right as rain.

All I can recommend to those struggling with the survival-impaired is that you educate friends and loved ones on the nature of recent events like Katrina, or the economic collapse in Greece and Spain, or the tsunami and subsequent reactor meltdown in Japan.  Show them that this is real life, not a cartoon.  Make them understand that they are not immune to the tides of catastrophe, and that preparation is not only practical, but essential.

Survivalism is not a product of insanity; it is merely a product of our precarious times.  A disaster is only a disaster for people who are not prepared for it.  The only madness I see before me in our country today is the madness of those who believe themselves immune to the fall of the curtain.  The true “insanity” rests in the minds of men who presume tomorrow will be exactly like today, and that the comfort of their existence is law, a foregone conclusion, set in stone, forever…