New Forever Chemicals Posing Threat

Posted on August 10, 2025 by marcia

Scientists Detect Unusual Airborne Toxin in the US for the First Time

scientists detect unusual airborne toxin us

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

Scientists detected airborne medium-chain chlorinated paraffins (MCCPs) in rural Oklahoma for the first time, showing these toxic chemicals are not limited to industrial zones
MCCPs are chemically similar to PFAS “forever chemicals,” building up in your fat, disrupting hormones, and increasing the risk of chronic illness
Levels of MCCPs in the air peaked during hot daylight hours, revealing that daily temperature swings directly control how much you breathe in
The study linked local farmland and biosolid fertilizer use to high MCCP levels, raising concerns about conventional produce and outdoor exposure near agricultural areas
Even small lifestyle changes — like switching to organic food, avoiding PVC products, using an indoor air purifier, and improving mitochondrial health — help your body reduce and resist toxic buildup

You’re surrounded by chemicals you’ve never heard of — and some of the most harmful ones are completely invisible. Medium-chain chlorinated paraffins, or MCCPs, are one of them. These compounds are used in industrial products like lubricants, sealants, and flame retardants, but they don’t stay put. They escape into the environment and hang in the air, where you inhale them without even realizing it.

What makes MCCPs especially concerning is how long they last. They resist breakdown, accumulate in your fat tissues, and interfere with systems that regulate hormones, metabolism, and brain health. Despite their widespread use, they’ve remained largely overlooked in public health conversations and unregulated by federal authorities.

Now, research has revealed that MCCPs are not only persistent but also mobile. They don’t just sit in products or soil — they move with the weather, rise with the heat, and follow air currents across rural and urban areas alike. If you’re breathing, you’re likely exposed. That’s why this matters. To protect your health and lower your risk, you need to know where these toxins come from, how they behave in the environment, and what to do to limit your exposure.

Scientists Track Dangerous Airborne Chemicals for the First Time

A study published in ACS Environmental AU used cutting-edge technology to monitor MCCPs as they floated through the air over farmland in Oklahoma.¹ These chemicals are used in industrial products like lubricants and plasticizers, but they don’t stay in one place. Unlike older testing methods that took weeks or months to collect data, this tool allowed researchers to track MCCPs minute by minute, revealing how they rise, fall, and shift depending on the time of day.

•Researchers found MCCPs in the air almost every day, at levels as high as polluted cities — The study ran for about a month and found MCCPs nearly every day, even in a rural area far from big factories. On average, levels hit 3,100 picograms per cubic meter, similar to what’s been found in major cities in China. That means even places that seem “clean” carry dangerous chemicals in the air without anyone realizing it.

•Air levels rose with daytime heat and dropped off again overnight — These chemicals became more airborne as temperatures rose during the day and settled back into the ground or dust when it cooled at night. So, if you’re outdoors in the middle of the day — working, exercising, or even just walking — your exposure is likely much higher than at night.

•The most common MCCPs were lighter-weight types more likely to turn into gas — The six main forms scientists found all had 14 or 15 carbon atoms and six or seven chlorine atoms. These versions are more likely to evaporate into the air, which means they’re the ones you’re most likely to breathe in. Knowing which versions are most common helps health experts focus on which ones pose the biggest risk.

•Nearby sources like farming and waste sites likely fed the pollution — MCCP levels went up on hot days with winds from the southwest, suggesting they were coming from local sources, including sludge-treated farm fields, wastewater, or industrial runoff. When the wind changed or temperatures dropped, the levels fell, pointing to short-range movement rather than distant pollution blowing in.

MCCPs are chemically similar to PFAS, also known as “forever chemicals,” which build up in your body over time and resist breakdown. In fact, their similarity led Oklahoma lawmakers to recently ban biosolid fertilizer statewide.

Heat Drives How Much MCCP You Breathe in Each Day

The study showed a direct link between temperature and MCCP levels. As the air got hotter, the chemicals quickly evaporated off surfaces like soil and dust. This happened in as little as five minutes, meaning you could suddenly be exposed just by being outside on a hot afternoon.

•Pollution peaked midday and dropped fast in the evening — MCCP levels spiked in the late morning and fell again by sunset. This pattern wasn’t caused by slow-moving weather or breakdown of the chemical — it was driven by heat. So, even spending one hour outside during that peak time raises how much of the toxin gets into your lungs and bloodstream.

•Lighter MCCPs evaporated and disappeared faster than heavier ones — Shorter-chain versions of the chemical rose faster during the day and dropped quicker at night. But the heavier forms hung around in soil and dust longer. That means you breathe in the lighter ones more easily, but the heavier ones may stick to your clothes, enter your home, and get into your food over time.

•Not all MCCPs react to heat in the same way — Some forms jumped sharply when temperatures rose while others barely moved. That difference matters, because it shows some forms are more likely to become airborne while others stay in the environment longer.

•Heavier forms stay longer in soil and dust, which raises different risks — The chemicals with more carbon and chlorine atoms don’t float into the air as easily, but they also don’t go away quickly. These build up in places like your carpets, furniture, or garden soil, creating long-term risks, especially for children and pets who come into contact with surfaces more often.

•MCCPs shift between air and surfaces all day long — These chemicals don’t just rise and fall once — they constantly move back and forth based on heat, humidity, and air particles. You could be exposed during your lunch break outside and not again that night, even if you’re in the same spot. That makes it hard to track exposure and even harder to regulate these chemicals without monitoring them constantly.

Sunlight and Air Pollution Turn MCCPs Into New, More Toxic Forms

The study also picked up MCCPs that had reacted with oxygen in the air, forming new versions called “oxidized MCCPs.” These changes likely happened because of sunlight, ozone, or other molecules floating in the atmosphere. Some of these byproducts are called hydroperoxides, which are known to damage cells once they get inside your body.

•Other MCCPs bonded with nitrogen, hinting at even more complex risks — Scientists also detected MCCPs with nitrogen in their structure. These probably formed by reacting with nitrogen-based pollution, like car exhaust or fertilizer runoff. The health effects of these altered forms aren’t well studied, but their presence means MCCPs don’t stay the same after release — they change, and those changes could make them more reactive or dangerous.

•These altered forms followed the same daily cycle as the originals — Like regular MCCPs, the altered ones spiked during hot daylight hours and dropped off at night. So, whatever your exposure is during the day, you’re not just inhaling the original chemicals — you’re also breathing in the altered versions created by sunlight and air pollution.

How to Lower Your Exposure to Airborne MCCPs and Protect Your Health

If you haven’t heard of MCCPs before now, you’re not alone. These chemicals don’t show up on ingredient labels, but they’re likely in your environment, especially if you live near agriculture, oil drilling, or industrial zones. Once they’re in the air, they’re hard to avoid completely. But you do have control over how much of them gets into your body and how well your body handles the exposure.

Your best protection starts with understanding where MCCPs come from and how to block the main ways they enter your system — mostly through your lungs, skin, and food. If you’re already dealing with hormone issues, chronic fatigue, or inflammatory conditions, lowering your chemical burden is even more important. Here’s how to help reduce your exposure and protect your health:

1.Avoid biosolid-contaminated food and soil — MCCPs are chemically similar to PFAS, or “forever chemicals,” which build up in your body and resist breakdown. They’re commonly used in PVC plastics, flame retardants, and metalworking fluids — and often wind up in wastewater. That wastewater gets turned into biosolid fertilizer and sprayed on conventional farms.

Once in the soil, MCCPs rise into the air during hot weather or end up in your food. Choosing certified organic produce helps you avoid this exposure, since organic standards ban biosolids. If you garden, live near fields, or buy from local markets, ask how the soil was treated and try to stay upwind of sprayed areas during the day, when airborne levels spike.

2.Run a high-quality indoor air filter that targets gas-phase pollutants — Most air purifiers only filter out particles, not gases. But MCCPs enter the air in gas form during the day. You want a system with activated carbon or other gas-phase filtration, especially if your windows are open or you live downwind from farmland or factories.

3.Shower immediately after outdoor exposure to reduce skin absorption — MCCPs are lipophilic, meaning they love fat. That makes your skin, scalp, and oils a prime target. If you’re working outside, walking in farmland areas, or commuting during the heat of the day, shower as soon as you get home. Use warm — not hot — water and a natural cleanser. Skip anything with “fragrance,” which often contains the same class of hormone-disrupting chemicals.

4.Reduce indoor exposure from plastics, furniture, and flame-retardant materials — MCCPs don’t just come from farmland — they’re also in household items like vinyl flooring, cables, older mattresses, and synthetic upholstery treated with flame retardants.

These materials slowly release MCCPs into indoor air and dust. If you’re renovating or replacing furniture, skip items made with PVC and synthetic foam. Choose solid wood, organic cotton, or wool. And vacuum with a HEPA filter weekly to reduce MCCP-laced dust that settles on floors and surfaces.

5.Support your mitochondria to better handle chemical stress — Airborne toxins like MCCPs increase oxidative stress, which puts pressure on your mitochondria, the tiny engines inside your cells that produce energy and regulate detoxification. The stronger and more resilient your mitochondria are, the better your body neutralizes and processes these exposures.

You can support mitochondrial health by getting daily sun exposure (avoid peak hours between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. until you’ve eliminated vegetable oils from your diet for at least six months), moving your body regularly, and making sure you’re eating enough healthy carbs to fuel energy production.

Every small change adds up. Even if MCCPs are in the air around you, you can take real steps to protect your health, especially if you focus on supporting your body’s ability to handle the load and reduce exposure where it counts most.

from: https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2025/08/06/scientists-detect-unusual-airborne-toxin-us.aspx?ui=f460707c057231d228aac22d51b97f2a8dcffa7b857ec065e5a5bfbcfab498ac&sd=20211017&cid_source=dnl&cid_medium=email&cid_content=art1ReadMore&cid=20250806Z1&foDate=true&mid=DM1786106&rid=357218642

“Safe, Effective” and Untested – Prescription Drugs!!

Posted on August 10, 2025 by marcia

FDA Exposed: Hundreds of Drugs Approved without Proof They Work

MARYANNE DEMASI JUNE 27,

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved hundreds of drugs without proof that they work—and in some cases, despite evidence that they cause harm.

That’s the finding of a blistering two-year investigation by medical journalists Jeanne Lenzer and Shannon Brownlee, published by The Lever.

Reviewing more than 400 drug approvals between 2013 and 2022, the authors found the agency repeatedly ignored its own scientific standards.

One expert put it bluntly—the FDA’s threshold for evidence “can’t go any lower because it’s already in the dirt.”

A System Built on Weak Evidence

The findings were damning—73% of drugs approved by the FDA during the study period failed to meet all four basic criteria for demonstrating “substantial evidence” of effectiveness.

Those four criteria—presence of a control group, replication in two well-conducted trials, blinding of participants and investigators, and the use of clinical endpoints like symptom relief or extended survival—are supposed to be the bedrock of drug evaluation.

Yet only 28% of drugs met all four criteria—40 drugs met none.

These aren’t obscure technicalities—they are the most basic safeguards to protect patients from ineffective or dangerous treatments.

But under political and industry pressure, the FDA has increasingly abandoned them in favour of speed and so-called “regulatory flexibility.”

Since the early 1990s, the agency has relied heavily on expedited pathways that fast-track drugs to market.

In theory, this balances urgency with scientific rigour. In practice, it has flipped the process. Companies can now get drugs approved before proving that they work, with the promise of follow-up trials later.

But, as Lenzer and Brownlee revealed, “Nearly half of the required follow-up studies are never completed—and those that are often fail to show the drugs work, even while they remain on the market.”

“This represents a seismic shift in FDA regulation that has been quietly accomplished with virtually no awareness by doctors or the public,” they added.

More than half the approvals examined relied on preliminary data—not solid evidence that patients lived longer, felt better, or functioned more effectively.

And even when follow-up studies are conducted, many rely on the same flawed surrogate measures rather than hard clinical outcomes.

The result: a regulatory system where the FDA no longer acts as a gatekeeper—but as a passive observer.

Cancer Drugs: High Stakes, Low Standards

Nowhere is this failure more visible than in oncology.

Only 3 out of 123 cancer drugs approved between 2013 and 2022 met all four of the FDA’s basic scientific standards.

Most—81%—were approved based on surrogate endpoints like tumour shrinkage, without any evidence that they improved survival or quality of life.

Take Copiktra, for example—a drug approved in 2018 for blood cancers. The FDA gave it the green light based on improved “progression-free survival,” a measure of how long a tumour stays stable.

But a review of post-marketing data showed that patients taking Copiktra died 11 months earlier than those on a comparator drug.

It took six years after those studies showed the drug reduced patients’ survival for the FDA to warn the public that Copiktra should not be used as a first- or second-line treatment for certain types of leukaemia and lymphoma, citing “an increased risk of treatment-related mortality.”

Elmiron: Ineffective, Dangerous—And Still on the Market

Another striking case is Elmiron, approved in 1996 for interstitial cystitis—a painful bladder condition.

The FDA authorised it based on “close to zero data,” on the condition that the company conduct a follow-up study to determine whether it actually worked.

That study wasn’t completed for 18 years—and when it was, it showed Elmiron was no better than placebo.

In the meantime, hundreds of patients suffered vision loss or blindness. Others were hospitalised with colitis. Some died.

Yet Elmiron is still on the market today. Doctors continue to prescribe it.

“Hundreds of thousands of patients have been exposed to the drug, and the American Urological Association lists it as the only FDA-approved medication for interstitial cystitis,” Lenzer and Brownlee reported.

“Dangling Approvals” and Regulatory Paralysis

The FDA even has a term—”dangling approvals”—for drugs that remain on the market despite failed or missing follow-up trials.

One notorious case is Avastin, approved in 2008 for metastatic breast cancer.

It was fast-tracked, again, based on ‘progression-free survival.’ But after five clinical trials showed no improvement in overall survival—and raised serious safety concerns—the FDA moved to revoke its approval for metastatic breast cancer.

The backlash was intense.

Drug companies and patient advocacy groups launched a campaign to keep Avastin on the market. FDA staff received violent threats. Police were posted outside the agency’s building.

The fallout was so severe that for more than two decades afterwards, the FDA did not initiate another involuntary drug withdrawal in the face of industry opposition.

Billions Wasted, Thousands Harmed

Between 2018 and 2021, US taxpayers—through Medicare and Medicaid—paid $18 billion for drugs approved under the condition that follow-up studies would be conducted. Many never were.

The cost in lives is even higher.

A 2015 study found that 86% of cancer drugs approved between 2008 and 2012 based on surrogate outcomes showed no evidence that they helped patients live longer.

An estimated 128,000 Americans die each year from the effects of properly prescribed medications—excluding opioid overdoses. That’s more than all deaths from illegal drugs combined.

A 2024 analysis by Danish physician Peter Gøtzsche found that adverse effects from prescription medicines now rank among the top three causes of death globally.

Doctors Misled by the Drug Labels

Despite the scale of the problem, most patients—and most doctors—have no idea.

A 2016 survey published in JAMA asked practising physicians a simple question—what does FDA approval actually mean?

Only 6% got it right.

The rest assumed that it meant the drug had shown clear, clinically meaningful benefits—such as helping patients live longer or feel better—and that the data was statistically sound.

But the FDA requires none of that.

Drugs can be approved based on a single small study, a surrogate endpoint, or marginal statistical findings. Labels are often based on limited data, yet many doctors take them at face value.

Harvard researcher Aaron Kesselheim, who led the survey, said the results were “disappointing, but not entirely surprising,” noting that few doctors are taught about how the FDA’s regulatory process actually works.

Instead, physicians often rely on labels, marketing, or assumptions—believing that if the FDA has authorised a drug, it must be both safe and effective.

But as The Lever investigation shows, that is not a safe assumption.

And without that knowledge, even well-meaning physicians may prescribe drugs that do little good—and cause real harm.

Who Is the FDA Working for?

In interviews with more than 100 experts, patients, and former regulators, Lenzer and Brownlee found widespread concern that the FDA has lost its way.

Many pointed to the agency’s dependence on industry money. A BMJ investigation in 2022 found that user fees now fund two-thirds of the FDA’s drug review budget—raising serious questions about independence.

Yale physician and regulatory expert Reshma Ramachandran said the system is in urgent need of reform.

“We need an agency that’s independent from the industry it regulates and that uses high-quality science to assess the safety and efficacy of new drugs,” she told The Lever. “Without that, we might as well go back to the days of snake oil and patent medicines.”

For now, patients remain unwitting participants in a vast, unspoken experiment—taking drugs that may never have been properly tested, trusting a regulator that too often fails to protect them.

And as Lenzer and Brownlee conclude, that trust is increasingly misplaced.

from: https://brownstone.org/articles/fda-exposed-hundreds-of-drugs-approved-without-proof-they-work/

The Fate of Gaza?

Posted on August 10, 2025 by marcia

Netanyahu Confirms He Plans Full Israeli Take Over of the Gaza Strip

August 8, 2025 Jimmy Dore and The Jewish Independent 4

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu confirmed in public comments that his goal for Israel’s next military offensive in Gaza is the takeover and full Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territory. Netanyahu’s plan has faced resistance from the military since heavy Israeli troop casualties are expected, and the Israeli captives in Gaza will likely be harmed or killed during the offensive.Israel’s offensive would end quickly if the US stopped supporting it. However, President Trump, when asked about Israel’s full occupation of Gaza, said, “I really can’t say. It is going to be pretty much up to Israel.”

There have been numerous images and reports about starvation and famine in Gaza. When asked, “To what extent are you personally troubled or not troubled by the reports of famine and suffering among the Palestinian population in Gaza?”, 79% of Israeli Jews responded that they were “not so troubled” or “not troubled at all.”

Israeli officials previously announced a plan to build a concentration camp in a tiny area of southern Gaza with the goal of forcing the entire civilian population into it. Netanyahu’s ultimate goal ios the removal of the Palestinian people from Gaza, which they. now call the Trump plan. No regional countries have stepped forward to take in the Palestinians who are being pushed out.

Jimmy Dore explained that no matter what Hamas does, Israel is pursuing land grabs for ‘Greater Israel’, which has been planned for years. He said that the war was used as a pretext to clear Gaza and take the land.

From The Jewish Independent:

Most Israeli Jews untroubled by reports of Gaza famine, survey finds

A new Israeli public opinion survey has revealed a sharp divide between Jewish and Arab citizens regarding the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, the credibility of the IDF’s reports, settler violence in the West Bank, and concerns over rising antisemitism abroad.

Conducted by the Viterbi Family Centre for Public Opinion and Policy Research at the Israel Democracy Institute, the survey followed increasing reports and images pointing to a severe humanitarian disaster in Gaza, including widespread famine.

When asked, “To what extent are you personally troubled or not troubled by the reports of famine and suffering among the Palestinian population in Gaza?”, 79% of Israeli Jews responded that they were “not so troubled” or “not troubled at all.” In contrast, 86% of Arab Israelis said they were either “very troubled” or “somewhat troubled” by the situation.

These findings align with coverage in the Israeli mainstream media, which for months largely denied or downplayed the scale of hunger in Gaza. However, according to Ruth Margalit in The New Yorker, a shift may be underway. “Even for (Israeli) politicians and journalists who are sympathetic to Netanyahu, it has become permissible to acknowledge that [the hunger crisis] is real,” she wrote. Whether this softening in tone will influence public opinion remains to be seen.

Read full article here…

from: https://needtoknow.news/2025/08/netanyahu-confirms-he-plans-full-israeli-take-over-of-the-gaza-strip/

MAybe It’s Time Really To Own Something

Posted on August 10, 2025 by marcia

You’ll Own Nothing and Be Happy. They’ll Own Everything and Be Rich.

What Replaced the American Dream – And How It Was Monetized

JOSHUA STYLMAN

AUG 09, 202

A video trending on social media this week shows a woman breaking down over her student loans:

This isn’t a failure of personal responsibility. This is the designed outcome of a system built to drain your wallet.

After I published my previous essay, readers shared their own moments of realization. Mine came years ago at a car dealership when I tried to pay cash and they looked horrified. I was proud I’d saved enough to pay in full, but that pride turned to confusion when they treated my cash like a problem to be solved. The salesman spent ten minutes trying to convince me to finance at some absurd rate, and I left confused. That’s when I understood – they don’t want transactions anymore, they want relationships. Permanent, extractive relationships.

The woman in the video – her 17% student loans and my confused car dealer are the same system – built to keep us paying forever. Both scenarios reveal the same truth: the economy has been restructured to prefer debt over ownership, subscription over purchase, permanent extraction over finite transactions. She’s paying $1,500 monthly on loans that only grow. She’s not failing the system – the system is rigged against her.

Not that long ago, I genuinely believed fractional ownership could democratize access to assets. Coming from tech, I was naive about who would control these systems and how they’d be weaponized. What I documented in The Boomer Mirage (which showed how ownership was systematically priced out of reach) was just the setup. Today I want to show you the punchline: how the people promising “you’ll own nothing and be happy” engineered a world where they own everything and get rich.

The American Dream wasn’t killed – it was privatized.

The New Paradigm Revealed

The goal was never a secret. It became the defining mantra of the era, famously captured by tech analyst Tom Goodwin in 2015: “Uber, the world’s largest taxi company, owns no vehicles. Facebook, the world’s most popular media owner, creates no content. [Amazon], the most valuable retailer, has no inventory. And Airbnb, the world’s largest accommodation provider, owns no real estate. Something interesting is happening.”

What was ‘interesting’ was a sophisticated money grab disguised as innovation.

The Bait and Switch

It took me years to realize they hadn’t just priced us out – they’d rebranded exclusion as lifestyle choice. Cultural institutions aided the switch. Magazines, TED Talks, influencers all praised “freedom from stuff.” Suddenly ownership became materialist while minimalism evolved.

The pitch was seductive. “What if you could share your city?” Airbnb’s founder asked at a 2016 TED Talk. They sold the idea of belonging and overcoming stranger-danger bias. But the financial model wasn’t about sharing – it was about creating a global platform to monetize spare rooms and, eventually, entire homes, turning community assets into revenue streams for distant shareholders, one 15% service fee at a time.

People were taught to think “Why would I want to be tied down to a mortgage?” without realizing they were choosing permanent rent instead. The pitch felt liberating on the surface, but step back and the timing reveals everything. This wasn’t accidental messaging. The rebranding happened precisely as ownership became mathematically impossible.

The Generational Handoff

When I mapped the timeline from my previous analysis, the coordination became obvious. As rates fell during the Boomer era, many in my parents’ generation built wealth through ownership – buying homes, owning cars outright, financing that decreased over time. Gen X caught the tail end of that system. Millennials and Gen Z were offered ‘access’ instead.

The generational trends are stark. While Boomers participated in systems that built wealth, younger generations largely participate in systems built to extract wealth – renting everything, subscriptions forever, financing that never ends.

A few years ago, I did an audit of my finances and realized I was paying $400 monthly for software I used to own. Adobe Creative Suite, which I’d bought once for $600, was now costing me $240 annually forever. That’s when the pattern became undeniable. This wasn’t market evolution – it was coordinated replacement of an economy they deliberately broke. The same institutions that killed homeownership now profit from the rental economy that replaced it.

The $3,000 Nowhere

My younger cousin makes $65,000 a year – decent money by most standards. He showed me where his money goes each month: $1,800 rent, $600 car lease, $400 in subscriptions, $200 in various app fees. That’s $3,000 monthly going purely to access and subscriptions – with zero assets to show for it.

His grandfather’s $3,000 monthly would have bought a house, built equity, created generational wealth – even adjusting for inflation. His $3,000 disappears into other people’s portfolios every month. This isn’t coincidence – it’s wealth extraction disguised as convenience.

When Fractional Ownership Works

I’ve seen fractional ownership work – when the community controls it. Community investment pools where local capital stays local. Cooperative models where members build actual equity stakes. Tool libraries with ownership shares. Community land trusts where members gain wealth while preventing speculation.

I became fascinated with DAOs and liquidity pools in 2020-21 because they seemed to offer genuine community ownership. But governance turned out to be the killer app – who controls the system determines whether it builds wealth for participants or extracts it.

The difference isn’t the technology – it’s who captures the value. These models work because participants gain equity, not just access.

When It Becomes Systematic Extraction

The math is simple and brutal. I tracked Airbnb’s money flow: host gets $100 per night, platform gets ~$15, community loses significant housing stock value. My car research showed leasing versus buying over ten years: $60,000 in payments versus $35,000 purchase with $15,000 residual value. I realized I’d paid Adobe $2,400 over ten years for what used to cost $600 once.

That car dealership epiphany became my lens. I started seeing the same financing-over-ownership push everywhere – local wealth flowing to distant platform owners. Every industry had flipped the same way. The “sharing economy” didn’t emerge randomly. It launched precisely as ownership became unaffordable. The founders weren’t hiding their extraction model – they were celebrating it.

The vision was laid bare in public filings like WeWork’s. Their mission wasn’t just to rent desks, but to create a “new ecosystem for how we work, live and grow.” They sold “access” to “community” and “inspiring spaces” – all intangible concepts – while capturing hard financial value from long-term leases. It was the perfect model: take on long-term assets, slice them up, and rent them back to a generation that could no longer afford them.

The Rent Is Watching You

But there’s another benefit of this model for those who oversee it: unprecedented data extraction. Rental relationships generate surveillance that ownership never did. Every transaction becomes trackable, every behavior monetizable. Car leases track where you drive, software subscriptions monitor usage, streaming services record preferences.

The pattern is clear from digital surveillance systems – rental often means monitoring. The data extraction isn’t accidental – it’s the business model. Your information becomes another revenue stream while you get poorer. Total visibility is the hidden cost of never owning anything.

The Debt Trap Amplifier

But the problem is deeper than cash flow. It’s about the systemic preclusion from building equity. The psychological weight of this system is crushing – watching your payments build someone else’s equity while you stay trapped. Student loans plus housing costs lock entire generations into permanent renter status.

This isn’t accidental. The debt trap feeds the rental economy perfectly: Can’t buy → must rent → wealth flows up → even less able to buy. It’s a self-reinforcing cycle designed to convert ownership into access, assets into subscriptions.

The Exit Strategy

The system may be rigged, but alternatives exist. Here’s what people can actually do:

Join existing community programs – Community land trusts, cooperative housing projects, local investment pools that keep wealth in the neighborhood.

Start cooperative buying groups – Pool resources with neighbors to purchase tools, equipment, even vehicles collectively with shared ownership stakes.

Investigate equity-building alternatives – Community-supported agriculture with ownership components, local time banks that build relationships and shared value.

Support platform cooperatives – Driver-owned alternatives to Uber, host-owned alternatives to Airbnb, cooperative alternatives to extraction platforms.

These aren’t utopian theories – they’re working models already building real wealth for participants instead of distant shareholders.

The Choice

Understanding the extraction machine is the first step toward starving it. The technology isn’t the problem – who controls it is. The same urgency from my previous analysis applies here: the outcome isn’t predetermined, it’s being decided right now.

Every “sharing economy” innovation should face one question: Who actually gets rich? We can build alternatives or keep enriching the extractors.

They’ve designed a system where they’ll own everything and be rich while you own nothing. But we can design something better.

From: https://stylman.substack.com/p/youll-own-nothing-and-be-happy-theyll?publication_id=24667&post_id=170493869&isFreemail=true&r=19iztd&triedRedirect=true&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

Alice – 2025? Really!!!

Posted on August 10, 2025 by marcia

From Hierarchy to Technocracy

ESC

AUG 09, 2025

The changes crept in so gradually that most people didn’t notice. Your freedom to travel now depends on having the right QR code. Your bank monitors your purchases and reports suspicious patterns to government agencies, all under the banner of safety and security. Social media platforms flag your posts as ‘misinformation’ if they question official policies, while your children learn in school that ‘individual rights’ must always be ‘balanced’ against ‘collective responsibility’. When you visit your doctor, everything you say gets entered into databases shared across agencies and institutions you’ve never heard of.

These aren’t separate policies responding to different problems. They’re connected pieces of a single framework that treats you not as a free human being, but as a data point to be monitored, measured, and managed for the stability of a larger system. The framework has a name, a structure, and a timeline that was laid out in remarkable detail nearly eight decades ago.

The 1947 Blueprint

IIn 1947, Alice Bailey published The Externalisation of the Hierarchy1, a book that most readers readily dismissed as fringe esoteric speculation. But Bailey wasn’t making predictions — she was documenting a plan. Writing with the clinical precision of someone with inside knowledge, she described exactly how human civilisation would be reshaped over the following decades. Her book reads less like prophecy and more like a project timeline — complete with phases, methods, target dates, and operational structures.

Bailey laid out a systematic approach to planetary transformation that would unfold over roughly 78 years. The plan wasn’t to destroy existing institutions, but to infiltrate and repurpose them from within, keeping their familiar names and symbols while redirecting their fundamental purpose toward global control. She described the construction of ‘triangular networks’ that would later link government, business, and civil society into unified command systems — precisely the public-private partnerships, multi-stakeholder governance structures, and UN coordination bodies that now dominate global decision-making. Global crises would serve as accelerators, creating the psychological conditions necessary for populations to accept rapid changes that would normally take decades to implement.

Writing with remarkable specificity about the timeline, Bailey stated:

Thus a great and new movement is proceeding and a tremendously increased interplay and interaction is taking place. This will go on until A.D. 2025. During the years intervening between now and then very great changes will be seen taking place, and at the great General Assembly of the Hierarchy—held as usual every century—in 2025 the date in all probability will be set for the first stage of the externalisation of the Hierarchy. The present cycle (from now until that date) is called technically ‘The Stage of the Forerunner’.

Her esoteric terminology masked what was essentially the same systems management architecture that would later emerge through McNamara’s Planning-Programming-Budgeting Systems and evolve into today’s global governance framework — the difference being that she understood it as spiritual hierarchy while technocrats would frame it as systems theory for scientific administration.

The ultimate goal was a planetary management system where unelected experts would make decisions for everyone, justified by appeals to collective good and scientific necessity. Advanced technology, data systems, and psychological techniques would monitor and shape human behavior on a global scale. Bailey wrote that a ‘decisive first stage’ of this transformation would be completed by 2025, marking the moment when this hidden network would stop working behind the scenes and begin openly directing world affairs.

In 2025, 194 nations agreed on the final wording of the core aspects of the WHO Pandemic Agreement, establishing a framework that is expected to give international health officials binding legal authority to override national governments during declared emergencies. Crucially, these ‘emergencies’ are not limited to actual disease outbreaks, but include computer-modeled hypothetical scenarios based on potential pandemic drivers — which, under the One Health framework, encompasses climate change, biodiversity loss, and virtually any environmental condition that algorithms determine might theoretically contribute to future health risks. For the first time in human history, unelected global bureaucrats gained the power to suspend individual rights based on predictive models rather than actual events.

The 78-year timeline was complete, right on schedule.

The Three-Step Transformation

The transformation required a fundamental shift in how human beings understand themselves and their relationship to authority. This shift happened in three overlapping phases, each building on the previous one to create the philosophical and practical foundations for global management.

The first phase involved removing higher truth from human consciousness. As long as people believed in God, natural rights, or moral absolutes, they would resist accepting human authority as final. The solution was a decades-long cultural campaign to convince populations that nothing exists beyond what can be measured and managed by experts. Science was transformed from a method of discovery into the ultimate moral authority, while education systems taught children that ethics were subjective opinions rather than universal truths. Once people stopped believing in transcendent sources of meaning, concepts like ‘human dignity’ became negotiable — defined by whoever controlled the institutional apparatus.

The second phase established official institutions as the only valid source of information about reality. Even without belief in higher truth, people might still think for themselves and reach different conclusions about policy or governance. The solution was to position dissent itself as a form of ignorance or extremism. Questioning official narratives became synonymous with spreading ‘dangerous misinformation’ or ‘endangering our democracy’. Media organisations, technology platforms, and academic institutions coordinated to ensure that populations heard a single, unified story on every major issue. The shift was subtle but decisive: asking questions about policy stopped being called ‘healthy skepticism’ and started being labeled immoral ‘anti-science’.

The third phase deployed the technological and legal infrastructure necessary to enforce compliance without appearing overtly totalitarian. Surveillance systems monitor behavior in real time, algorithms predict and prevent dissent before it can organise, and the eventual social credit systems reward compliance while punishing resistance. Emergency powers bypass normal democratic processes, allowing rapid implementation of restrictions that would be impossible under normal legislative procedures. People become components — cogs in the machine — designed for nothing short of maximum system efficiency.

The Timeline of Implementation

The transformation didn’t happen overnight. It followed a carefully planned sequence that can be traced through public documents, policy changes, and institutional developments over the past six decades.

The foundation was laid between 1961 and 1965 when Defense Secretary Robert McNamara introduced Planning-Programming-Budgeting Systems to the military, then President Johnson expanded this systems-based management approach across the entire federal government. This marked the moment when government stopped being primarily about serving people and started being about managing data flows and optimising systemic outcomes.

The concept of planetary management emerged between 1968 and 1972 through a series of international conferences and agreements. The UNESCO Biosphere Conference established the framework for treating Earth as a managed ecosystem requiring centralised administration. The Club of Rome formed during this period and soon published warnings of planetary collapse without coordinated global control. In a remarkable development, the United States and Soviet Union — supposedly locked in existential conflict — collaborated to create the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, who ultimately became responsible for ‘black box’ global modelling. This demonstrated that Cold War enemies could unite around planetary management objectives, later to become ‘Planetary Boundaries’, while the UN Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm cemented the idea that Earth needed centralised administration to prevent ecological collapse.

The 1980s and 1990s saw the conversion of ethics itself into a tool of global governance. ‘Rights and responsibilities’ frameworks began replacing absolute human rights in international law and academic discourse, with Leonard Swidler positioning these as the middle principles leading to Global Ethics. The Earth Summit embedded ‘sustainable development’ as a moral duty that could override traditional notions of sovereignty, while installing ‘soft law’ controls on carbon emission and sequestration through the UNFCCC and Convention on Biological Diversity. Global business ethics codes aligned corporate behavior with planetary goals rather than local communities or shareholders, an initiative later turbocharged as Enron collapsed in late 2001. Universities established degree programs in ‘global governance’, training the future expert class that would eventually run these systems.

Between 2001 and 2015, the philosophical groundwork was translated into operational policy. WHO ethics papers redefined ‘human dignity’ from an inherent right to something earned through compliance with collective objectives. The ‘One Health’ framework merged human, animal, and environmental governance into a single administrative domain while academic conferences and think tanks normalised the idea that individual rights could be suspended during emergencies for ‘the greater good’. By 2015, international organisations had official ethical frameworks that explicitly authorised overriding personal freedoms when experts determined it was necessary — with no realistic possibility of appeal.

The infrastructure was completed between 2015 and 2019 as surveillance systems, digital identity platforms, and emergency response protocols moved from pilot programs to operational readiness. International emergency protocols were harmonised across countries, though the details remained buried in technical annexes and working group reports that few people read. Everything was in place for activation when the right crisis presented itself.

COVID-19 provided that crisis in 2020, serving as the first global test of the new system. Emergency powers bypassed normal legislative processes, digital health passes demonstrated that populations would accept compliance-based freedoms, and government agencies, media organisations, and technology platforms operated with unprecedented coordination, seeking to censor any divergent point of view with strategic decision. The system worked exactly as designed — at least for a while, though a compliant police force was militarised against the people who objected.

Between 2021 and 2024, ‘temporary’ emergency measures became permanent features of governance. Legislative changes quietly extended emergency powers to cover climate change, artificial intelligence risks, and other global issues. International treaties and public-private partnerships fused health, finance, and environmental control into an integrated global management architecture. The pattern was established: each crisis expands the system’s reach, with climate emergencies, AI safety threats, and cybersecurity incidents already positioned as the next triggers for expanded global coordination.

The WHO Pandemic Treaty signed in 2025 represents the completion of this 78-year process. At present trajectory, international officials will eventually come to possess binding authority over national governments during declared emergencies — exactly as Bailey had outlined. The ‘externalisation’ is complete — global governance operates openly rather than behind the scenes.

The Choice Before Us

Understanding this history clarifies the choice we face. We are not heading toward this system of global management — we are already living within it, though it hasn’t yet had time to fully set. The question is whether we will accept it as inevitable and beneficial, or whether we will work to restore governance based democratic accountability while we still can.

Accepting the system means embracing a future where rights depend on compliance scores, where algorithms make decisions once reserved for human judgment, and where global bureaucrats can override local representatives whenever they declare an emergency that cannot be challenged. It means raising children who understand freedom as permission granted by authorities rather than an inherent birthright.

Rejecting the system requires rebuilding institutions based on different principles — transparency in emergency powers, genuine democratic consent for international agreements, full transparency and genuine accountability for public officials committing crimes, and recognition that human dignity cannot be conditional on compliance with expert recommendations. It means supporting alternatives that prioritise humanity over system efficiency, and teaching the next generation that rights do not derive from being well-behaved.

This is not a partisan political issue. People across the traditional political spectrum should recognise the difference between governance that serves the people and management that treats people as data points to be optimised. The system transcends conventional politics because it operates at the level of fundamental assumptions about human nature and the proper relationship between individuals and institutions.

The transformation succeeded because it happened gradually, then suddenly. For decades, each change seemed reasonable in isolation. But the cumulative effect has been to create a system where human agency is increasingly replaced by algorithmic authority, where local control gives way to global management, and where individual rights become conditional privileges.

The people who designed this transformation understood that change happens through accumulated precedents rather than dramatic reversals. They also understood that systems depend on participation. The global management apparatus requires local compliance to function effectively. This creates opportunities for resistance that don’t depend on controlling national governments or international organisations.

Every individual choice to resist redefinitions of basic concepts like freedom and dignity contributes to a larger cultural shift. Supporting businesses and organisations that operate according to human-centered rather than data-centered principles creates alternative networks. Engaging in local governance where human relationships still matter more than algorithmic optimisation builds foundations for different kinds of institutions.

The next crisis will undoubtedly be used to expand control further, just as previous crises have been. But understanding the pattern makes it possible to resist the psychological manipulation that accompanies emergency declarations. Knowing your rights before they’re suspended ‘temporarily’ — even if this is promised to be for only ‘two weeks’ — creates space for a response rather than mere reactiongloba

The 78-year plan succeeded because most people didn’t know it existed.

Now that it’s visible, the choice is ours: participate in our own management, or remember what it means to govern ourselves.

from: https://escapekey.substack.com/p/from-hierarchy-to-technocracy?utm_source=substack&utm_campaign=post_embed&utm_medium=email

It Looks as Though No One is Safe

Posted on August 3, 2025 by marcia

Same Self Replicating Nanotechnology Spheres Seen In C19 Unvaccinated Living Blood As In Deceased Embalmed C19 Vaccinated Blood With Rubbery Clots – What Will Humanity Do About This?

ANA MARIA MIHALCEA, MD, PHD

NOV 15, 2023

Image: Deceased blood with self replicating nanotechnology

I have shown my microscopy of embalmed blood of an individual who had died 8 months earlier with the long rubbery clots everyone that should be familiar with by now. They were featured in the documentary “Died Suddenly”.

The spheres that I filmed continue to replicate – and in the above image you can see how the spheres continue to develop. In the below video, I looked at the spheres at 4000x magnification. Clearly light emitting micro robots are seen. Considering the size of the surrounding red blood cells they are estimated to be several hundred nano meters in size.

Image: Oil Objective 4000x magnification Deceased blood with self replicating nanotechnology

I had shown how the spheres contain nano and micro robots that are emitting light in different frequencies and colors, as Quantum Dot polymer coated bidirectional biosensors would do – and have previously photographed them in C19 unvaccinated blood. I have also shown how these spheres construct the filaments we see in the blood.

Image: C19 unvaccinated blood sphere filled with Nano technology

Image: C19 unvaccinated blood sphere filled with Nano technology building hydrogel filaments

I have a lot of conversations with people. Still many are in denial. Doctors do not believe in nanotechnology and deny its existence. Supposedly people are still not ready to hear about nanotechnology that has self disseminated via shedding worldwide and is now causing the rubbery clots. We have proven that. They are made of rubber like material, a polymer that has self assembled.

Image: Rubbery Clot Development In C19 Unvaccinated Individual With Previous Deep Vein Thrombosis and Massive Pulmonary Emboli – While On Eliquis, Nattokinase, Lumbrokinase and Serreptase

My question is when will the denying doctors, scientists, politicians, attorneys and media decide people will be ready to know about this and start discussing it? When they are dead?

This is a live blood analysis of an individual who after air travel started having upper respiratory tract symptoms suggestive of “Covid”. I have in previous posts shown that acute Covid symptoms correlated with significant replication of the hydrogel filaments and excessive rouleaux formation. Therapeutic dose Ivermectin quickly resolved the symptoms. In live blood analysis one can see that Ivermectin helps resolve the rouleaux, but does not diminish micro bots or hydrogel production. The individual now had a follow up live blood analysis a week later.

I filmed how the blood was being transformed by the same spheres filled with nanotechnology. The blood was loaded with these spheres. You can see the movement and the optical light emission. Red blood cells surrounding this are in severe oxidative stress – they are dying. This is the same magnification as the deceased C19 vaccinated blood above – Oil Objective 4000x. While the nano robots are tiny, you can see them emitting light and moving.

Here is another view:

Here is the same blood with many of these small spheres that are between 5-10 micron in size but can become much larger. The blood is transformed into a polymer mesh network.

Image: C19 unvaccinated blood 200x magnification

These spheres in the blood are not air bubbles. They are hydrogel nanotechnology construction sites. You can see in the video below many spheres that are perfectly round interconnecting and extracting the life out of the red blood cells.

The blood cells that clearly show oxidative stress, are being transformed under the coordinated effort of micro robots. These can be recognized by its blinking lights coordinating smaller nano robots. If you think that one red blood cell is about 5-7 micrometers, some of the very small swarming nano bots are estimated around 500 nanometers. Watch the blinking lights, those are robots.

Summary:

I talk to people, give interviews, work on legal strategies as much as I can, and give of my time freely in the hopes the world will become aware of this threat. The response after all of these many months of writing hundreds of substacks is still remarkably apathetic. I seriously am asking the below question to those who do not want to bring this knowledge to the forefront.

Addressed are all the colleagues, organizations and legal representatives that are presumably fighting on the same side of history as I am in the “freedom movement” – and whose antidotes I look at under the microscope and find no effect on the nanotechnology:

With all consideration for the future of humanity in mind, when do you think people are ready to hear about this?

The answer – when they are dead – is a bit late in my opinion.

I invite all to take another look at the evidence, and consider the ramification of these findings.

from: https://anamihalceamdphd.substack.com/p/same-self-replicating-nanotechnology?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=956088&post_id=138901671&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1el38u&triedRedirect=true

Working to Put AI in Charge

Posted on August 3, 2025 by marcia

Trump The Technocrat Releases ‘America’s AI Action Plan’

PATRICK WOOD

The White House has just released its official policy document, America’s AI Action Plan, defining the future of AI development. Admittedly, Trump doesn’t have any real understanding of AI, but he has totally caved in to the Technocrats he appointed in the first place. Indeed, Technocracy is being forced down our throats whether we want it or not.

The first pillar of America’s AI Action Plan focuses on removing regulatory barriers and eliminating unnecessary review processes. Superficially, this appears as a push against bureaucratic inertia, but in reality, it amounts to an explicit transfer of authority from elected bodies to expert committees and interagency working groups.

The second pillar includes a comprehensive scheme for AI literacy and workforce retraining. At first glance, investment in skill development and rapid-response training may appear benevolent. Yet the Plan prescribes a narrowly defined set of competencies—data labeling, model auditing, grid operations—determined by federal projections of industrial demand. Such top-down workforce engineering tracks precisely with technocratic ideology, which regards citizens as variables in an optimization problem. Rather than empowering individuals to shape their own vocational paths, the Plan channels labor into predetermined slots within a digital economy overseen by experts.

The third pillar of the report extends the domestic technocratic agent to the world. By exporting American AI frameworks, hardware standards, and regulatory templates to allies, the Plan seeks to cement a global regime of expert rule.

The last item on the last page of the Plan contains real paydirt for Technocracy and Transhumanism:

AI will unlock nearly limitless potential in biology: cures for new diseases, novel industrial use cases, and more. At the same time, it could create new pathways for malicious actors to synthesize harmful pathogens and other biomolecules. The solution to this problem is a multi-tiered approach designed to screen for malicious actors, along with new tools and infrastructure for more effective screening. [Remember nose swabs for COVID screening? – Ed.] As these tools, policies, and enforcement mechanisms mature, it will be essential to work with allies and partners to ensure international adoption.

Recommended Policy Actions

Require all institutions receiving Federal funding for scientific research to use nucleic acid synthesis tools and synthesis providers that have robust nucleic acid sequence screening and customer verification procedures. Create enforcement mechanisms for this requirement rather than relying on voluntary attestation.

Led by OSTP, convene government and industry actors to develop a mechanism to facilitate data sharing between nucleic acid synthesis providers to screen for potentially fraudulent or malicious customers.

Build, maintain, and update as necessary national security-related AI evaluations through collaboration between CAISI at DOC, national security agencies, and relevant research institutions.

Therefore, DNA screening will become commonplace across government agencies.

Who Wrote This Technocratic Screed, Anyway

Not surprisingly, the report’s lead authors are listed as Michael Kratsios and David Sacks, with Secretary of State Marco Rubio included as an official with clout.

Michael Kratsios, Technocrat

Currently, Kratsios is listed as Assistant to the President for Science and Technology. In the first Trump Administration, he served as the Chief Technology Officer (CTO). Appointed in August 2019 at age 33, he was the youngest person ever to hold the federal CTO position.

In this role, he led the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy’s efforts to advance emerging technologies—most notably artificial intelligence, 5G wireless networks, quantum computing, and data privacy—across the federal government. He coordinated interagency AI initiatives, helped develop the American AI Initiative, and convened industry, academic, and civil-society stakeholders to guide national technology policy.

David O. Sacks, Technocrat

Sacks is listed as Special Advisor for AI and Crypto. He was a co-founder and the first Chief Operating Officer (COO) of PayPal, alongside Peter Thiel and Elon Musk. As such he was a prominent member of the so-called “PayPal Mafia.” He is heavily invested in the AI industry through his company, Craft Ventures.

Sacks’ authority is questionable. He was originally listed as a “Special Advisor to the President” under a protocol that ran for 133 days, which has long expired. On this report, his title has changed to “Special Advisor for AI and Crypto.” I conducted an exhaustive search to determine that David Sacks has no current position with any government entity and is, therefore, a private citizen. So, what is his name doing on this report?

Apparently, Sacks is self-appointed to be the “Crypto and AI Czar”. Yes, self-appointed. Today’s arch-Technocrats are so sure of themselves that they don’t need official appointment to assert themselves.

from: https://patrickwood.substack.com/p/trump-the-technocrat-releases-americas?publication_id=721283&post_id=169068711&isFreemail=true&r=19iztd&triedRedirect=true&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

Relics of the Past ?

Posted on August 3, 2025 by marcia

17 Out-Of-Place Artifacts That Suggest High-Tech Civilizations Existed Thousands (Or Millions) Of Years Ago

Authored by Tara MacIsaac via The Epoch Times,

According to our conventional view of history, humans have only walked the Earth in our present form for some 200,000 years. Much of the mechanical ingenuity we know of in modern times began to develop only a couple hundred years ago, during the Industrial Revolution. However, evidence today alludes to advanced civilizations existing as long as several thousand years ago—or possibly even earlier.

“Oopart”—or “out-of-place artifact”—is the term given to numerous prehistoric objects found in various places across the world today that show a level of technological sophistication incongruous with our present paradigm.

Many scientists attempt to explain these ooparts away as natural phenomena. Yet others say that such dismissive explanations only whitewash over the mounting evidence: that prehistoric civilizations had advanced knowledge, and this knowledge was lost over the ages only to be developed anew in modern times.

We will look at a variety of ooparts here, ranging from millions to hundreds of years old in purported age, but all supposedly demonstrating advancement well beyond their time.

Whether these are fact or merely fiction we cannot say. We can only offer a glimpse at what’s known, supposed, or hypothesized regarding these phenomena, in the spirit of being open-minded and geared toward real scientific discovery.

17. 2,000-Year-Old Batteries?

Clay jars with asphalt stoppers and iron rods made some 2,000 years ago have been proven capable of generating more than a volt of electricity. These ancient “batteries” were found by German archaeologist Wilhelm Konig in 1938, just outside of Baghdad, Iraq.

Right: An illustration of a Baghdad battery from museum artifact pictures. (Ironie/Wikimedia Commons) Background: Map of area surrounding present-day Baghdad, Iraq. Cmcderm1/iStock/Thinkstock

“The batteries have always attracted interest as curios,” Dr. Paul Craddock, a metallurgy expert at the British Museum, told the BBC in 2003. “They are a one-off. As far as we know, nobody else has found anything like these. They are odd things; they are one of life’s enigmas.”

16. Ancient Egyptian Light Bulb?

A relief beneath the Temple of Hathor at Dendera, Egypt, depicts figures standing around a large light-bulb-like object. Erich Von Däniken, who wrote “Chariot of the Gods,” created a model of the bulb which works when connected to a power source, emitting an eerie, purplish light.

The light-bulb-like object engraved in a crypt under the Temple of Hathor in Egypt. Lasse Jensen/CC BY 2.5

15. Great Wall of Texas

In 1852, in what is now known as Rockwall County, Texas, farmers digging a well discovered what appeared to be an ancient rock wall. Estimated to be some 200,000 to 400,000 years old, some say it’s a natural formation while others say it’s clearly man-made.

A historic photo of the “wall” found in Rockwall, Texas. Public Domain

Dr. John Geissman at the University of Texas in Dallas tested the rocks as part of a History Channel documentary. He found they were all magnetized the same way, suggesting they formed where they are and were not moved to that site from elsewhere. But some remain unconvinced by this single TV-show test and call for further studies.

Geologist James Shelton and Harvard-trained architect John Lindsey have noted elements that seem to be of architectural design, including archways, linteled portals, and square openings that resemble windows.

14. 1.8-Billion-Year-Old Nuclear Reactor?

In 1972, a French factory imported uranium ore from Oklo, in Africa’s Gabon Republic. The uranium had already been extracted. They found the site of origin to have apparently functioned as a large-scale nuclear reactor that came into being 1.8 billion years ago and was in operation for some 500,000 years.

Nuclear reactor site, Oklo, Gabon Republic. NASA

Dr. Glenn T. Seaborg, former head of the United States Atomic Energy Commission and Nobel Prize winner for his work in the synthesis of heavy elements, believed it wasn’t a natural phenomenon, and thus must be a man-made nuclear reactor.

For uranium to “burn” in a reaction, very precise conditions are needed. The water must be extremely pure, for one—much purer than exists naturally. The material U-235 is necessary for nuclear fission to occur. It is one of the isotopes found naturally in uranium. Several specialists in reactor engineering have said they believe the uranium in Oklo could not have been rich enough in U-235 for a reaction to take place naturally.

13. Sea-Faring Map Makers Before Antarctica Was Covered in Ice?

A map created by Turkish admiral and cartographer Piri Reis in 1513, but sourced from various earlier maps, is thought by some to depict Antarctica as it was in a very remote age before it was covered with ice.

A portion of the Piri Reis map of 1513. Public Domain

A landmass is shown to jut out from the southern coastline of South America. Captain Lorenzo W. Burroughs, a U.S. Air Force captain in the cartographic section, wrote a letter to Dr. Charles Hapgood in 1961 saying that this landmass seems to accurately show Antarctica’s coast as it is under the ice.

Dr. Hapgood (1904–1982) was one of the first to publicly suggest that the Piri Reis map depicts Antarctica during a prehistoric time. He was a Harvard-educated historian whose theories about geological shifts earned the admiration of Albert Einstein. He hypothesized that the land masses shifted, explaining why Antarctica is shown as connected to South America.

Modern studies refute Hapgood’s theory that such a shift could have taken place within thousands of years, but they show it could have happened within millions of years.

12. 2,000-Year-Old Earthquake Detector

In 132 A.D., Zhang Heng created the world’s first seismoscope. How exactly it works remains a mystery, but replicas have worked with a precision comparable to modern instruments.

A replica of an ancient Chinese seismoscope from the Eastern Han Dynasty (25-220 A.D.), and its inventor, Zhang Heng. Wikimedia Commons

In 138 A.D., it correctly indicated that an earthquake occurred about 300 miles west of Luoyang, the capital city. No one had felt the quake in Luoyang and dismissed the warning until a messenger arrived days later, requesting aid.

11. 150,000-Year-Old Pipes?

Caves near Mount Baigong in China contain pipes leading to a nearby lake. They were dated by the Beijing Institute of Geology to about 150,000 years ago, according to Brian Dunning of Skeptoid.com.

A file photo of a pipe, and a view of Qinghai Lake in China, near which mysterious iron pipes were found. NASA; Pipe image via Zhax/Shutterstock

State-run media Xinhua reported that the pipes were analyzed at a local smeltery and 8 percent of the material could not be identified. Zheng Jiandong, a geology research fellow from the China Earthquake Administration, told state-run newspaper People’s Daily, in 2007, that some of the pipes were found to be highly radioactive.

Jiandong said iron-rich magma may have risen from deep in the Earth, bringing the iron into fissures where it may have solidified into tubes; though he admitted, “There is indeed something mysterious about these pipes.” He cited the radioactivity as an example of the strange qualities of the pipes.

10. Antikythera Mechanism

A mechanism often referred to as an ancient “computer,” which was built by Greeks around 150 B.C., was able to calculate astronomical changes with great precision.

The Antikythera Mechanism is a 2000-year-old mechanical device used to calculate the positions of the sun, moon, planets, and even the dates of the ancient Olympic Games. Marsyas/CC by SA 3.0

“If it hadn’t been discovered … no one would possibly believe that it could exist because it’s so sophisticated,” said Mathematician Tony Freeth in a NOVA documentary. Mathias Buttet, director of research and development for watch-maker Hublot, said in a video released by the Hellenic Republic Ministry of Culture and Tourism, “This Antikythera Mechanism includes ingenious features which are not found in modern watch-making.”

9. Drill Bit in Coal

John Buchanan, Esq., presented a mysterious object to a meeting of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland on Dec. 13, 1852. A drill bit had been found encapsulated in coal about 22 inches thick, buried in a bed of clay mixed with boulders about 7 feet thick.

File image of coal (Kkymek/iStock) File image of a drill Konstik/iStock; edited by Epoch Times

The Earth’s coal is said to have formed hundreds of millions of years ago. The Society decided that the instrument was of a modern level of advancement. But it concluded that “the iron instrument might have been part of a borer broken during some former search for coal.”

Buchanan’s detailed report did not include any signs that the coal surrounding the instrument had been punctured by drilling.

8. 2.8-Billion-Year-Old Spheres?

Spheres with fine grooves around them, found in mines in South Africa, have been said by some to be naturally formed masses of mineral matter. Others have said they were precisely shaped by a prehistoric human hand.

Top left, bottom right: Spheres, known as Klerksdorp spheres, found in the pyrophyllite (wonderstone) deposits near Ottosdal, South Africa. (Robert Huggett) Top right, bottom left: Similar objects known as Moqui marbles from the Navajo Sandstone of southeast Utah. Paul Heinrich

“The globes, which have a fibrous structure on the inside with a shell around it, are very hard and cannot be scratched, even by steel,” said Roelf Marx, curator of the museum of Klerksdorp, South Africa, according to Michael Cremo’s book, “Forbidden Archaeology: The Hidden History of the Human Race.” Marx said the spheres are about 2.8 billion years old.

If they are mineral masses, it is unclear how exactly they formed.

7. Iron Pillar of Delhi

To read the rest, go to: https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/17-out-place-artifacts-suggest-high-tech-civilizations-existed-thousands-or-millions

Genius (For Whom or What) Act, Stablecoins,

Posted on August 3, 2025 by marcia

GENIUS Act Becomes Law. Stablecoins Are a Tool for Financial Warfare and Land Grabs

July 20, 2025 Redacted and Solari Report 5

China has been dumping US treasuries, while Trump has been gunning for Jerome Powell at the Fed, and central bank digital currency (CBDC) was banned by Congress. Trump signed the the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for US Stablecoins (GENIUS) Act into law. Stablecoins are a type of cryptocurrency that are backed by assets considered to be reliable such as a national currency.US-dollar backed stable coins make US dollars easier to use globally, settle transactions faster, and record transactions on a blockchain ledger. Clayton Moore said that this is how Trump plans to keep the US as the world’s reserve currency, not by printing more money, but by making the dollar more useful than anything else. There is much skepticism and Catherine Austin Fitts criticized stable coins early on, saying that they are a backdoor to central bank digital currency (CBDC).

Fitts said that stablecoin is a way to turn on helicopter money like you have never seen it turned on before. She added, “the guys who control how that money flows can literally buy up the world.” Mark Goodwin warned against the tokenization of real world assets, including land and nature.

[Note: Need To Know News does not endorse any investment offers]

Catherine Austin Fitts criticized stable coins as a backdoor to CBDC. Here are a few short videos from Catherine Austin Fitts and Mark Goodwin:

Blockchain is simply a ledger/ accounting system. Mark Goodwin said that digital money can be traced in that public ledger and can be used as a tool for warrantless surveillance.

He explained that a cash dollar bill can only be spent by an individual once because it is given away, whereas a digital dollar could be represented on two separate ledgers that will create more money [and fraud].

Catherine Austin Fitts said that stable coins are the new tool for financial warfare and and a great land grab. She said that stable coin is a way to turn on helicopter money like you have never seen it turned on before. She added, “the guys who control how that money flows can literally buy up the world.”

Digital currencies are not tangible and can be destroyed.

Goodwin warned against the tokenization of real world assets, including land and nature.

A critic wrote, “What is the difference between between stable coin and CBDC? They’re both digital currencies, which is bad in the long term. According to the GENIUS Act, it will eliminate paper bill at the federal level. So what do you think it is going to happen later down road in state level? Cashless.”

from: https://needtoknow.news/2025/07/genius-act-becomes-law-stablecoins-are-a-tool-for-financial-warfare-and-land-grabs/

Thiel, Epstein, Vance

Posted on August 3, 2025 by marcia

Is Peter Thiel the NEW Jeffrey Epstein?! Discover His Links and Similarities to Epstein

July 20, 2025 James Li 2

James Li investigates whether Peter Thiel is the next Epstein—exposing his ties to private islands, youth blood infusions, and surveillance tech that’s quietly taking over the US government. Thiel had financial ties with Epstein and he held academic symposiums at Epstein’s Little St. James island. Some of the girls that Epstein brought to the island reported that they were the subjects of scientific experiments.

Peter Thiel was the co-founder of PayPal alongside Elon Musk. He was also the first major investor in Facebook, which was introduced the same day DARPA ended its lifelog program that was a program that sought to “trace the threads of an individual’s life in terms of events, states, and relationships.” Thiel co-founded Palantir, a data analytics and surveillance company used by many government intel and military agencies, including the CIA, NSA, ICE, and the IDF. Now, Thiel, like Epstein, was reported to have hosted “debaucherous” sex parties while in his prime that were legendary in gay circles. There are no records implicating Thiel in sexual activity with underage minors or sex trafficking.

Thiel is building his own island in French Polynesia to establish a kind of a non-governmental colony.

A podcaster revealed that Thiel held academic symposiums at Epstein’s Little St. James island. Scientific experiments were reported to have been conducted on some of the young girls Epstein brought there.

Thiel is involved in transhumanism research and development and is alleged to spend $40,000 per quarter on blood transfusions from 18-year olds.

Carbyne is an Israeli tech firm that market themselves as a next-gen 911 platform with software that gives governments and agencies the ability to access individuals’ smartphones, cameras, and mics in real time and integrates biometric tracking, geolocation, and live streaming into a single feed that is sent directly to law enforcement or intelligence hubs. This company was funded by Peter Thiel, Jeffrey Epstein and former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak.

In 2015 and 2016, Epstein put $40 million into two funds managed by Veilar Ventures, a New York City venture capital firm that was co-founded by Peter Thiel!

Vice President JD Vance is a protege of Peter Thiel, who funded Vance’s US Senate campaign.

from: https://needtoknow.news/2025/07/is-peter-thiel-the-new-jeffrey-epstein-discover-his-links-and-similarities-to-epstein/