Timeless Empath Readings – INTRODUCING MY NEW CHANNEL!

Awesome Lada, subscribing now! Very excited to participate in your Timeless Readings. 🙂

Futurist Trendcast


Timeless Empath Readings

By way of an intro, enjoy the first video, just freshly published!


INTRODUCING MY NEW CHANNEL! Lada’s Personal Reading Demo

(This is my personal reading, which I am sharing publicly as an intro to my Timeless Readings on YouTube!)

Click on video title or thumbnail to view the live video reading!



Welcome to my new channel, TIMELESS EMPATH READINGS with LADA, where I’ll regularly post my positive and uplifting tarot/oracle card readings, revelations and predictions for you!

Timeless readings for my subscribers to follow tomorrow! I plan to post every week, and sometimes more often!

Are Lada’s Timeless Empath Readings for you?

NOTE! This new channel may not be for everyone! If you are strictly into geopolitics and nothing else, this may not be for you. In that case, see you on…

View original post 102 more words

I can’t wait until these people are in charge of healthcare…

Last week at a Bernie Sanders campaign stop, someone ask him a question that began with, “Yesterday, oligarch David Koch passed away…”

The Bolshevik crowd interrupted immediately with ebullient cheers, joyfully celebrating the death of a man they had never met and knew nothing about.

If you hadn’t heard, multi-billionaire David Koch died last week at the age of 79 after a prolonged battle with cancer.

Along with his brother Charles, David Koch was co-owner of Koch Industries, one of the largest private companies in the world.

Did you know? You can receive all our actionable articles straight to your email inbox… Click here to signup for our Notes from the Field newsletter.

Forbes magazine estimated his net worth at more than $40 billion, making him one of the wealthiest people on the planet.

That was Strike 1. Because we know how much Bolsheviks hate wealthy people.

Also, Koch Industries is primarily engaged in the oil business. And that was Strike 2. The only thing Bolsheviks hate more than wealthy people are wealthy people who make their money from oil.

I suspect the Bernie Sanders crowd would have had less of a problem with David Koch if he had become wealthy from clubbing baby seals.

David Koch was also a heavy donor to conservative causes.

Although his politics could be described more as libertarian– he favored sensible spending and limited government, was pro for gay rights, in favor of ending the war on drugs, and against foreign intervention– the Bolsheviks labeled him as a Republican donor.

And that was strike #3. Bolsheviks hate when wealthy people spend their own money on issues they find important.

(It’s perfectly fine, of course, for Bolsheviks to spend other people’s money on causes and issues that fit with the Bolshevik agenda.)

And for those reasons, a crowd of bitter, angry, ignorant strangers cheered Koch’s death.

Elizabeth Warren also decided to take a shot at Koch, the day after he passed away. The crowd at her campaign rally booed the recently deceased.

All across social media, tolerant and enlightened Bolsheviks gloated over Koch’s death. Despite the fact that he gave over $1 billion to charity… all they knew was that he was rich, he made it from oil, and he donated to non-Bolshevik causes.

These people love to celebrate ‘diversity’, as long as that diversity doesn’t include intellectual or ideological diversity.

In response, one columnist remarked on Twitter, “I can’t wait until the people who celebrate the death of their political opponents are in charge of healthcare.”

I couldn’t agree more.

And this sort of behavior is a pretty stark warning for everyone, regardless of how you feel about socialized healthcare, the Koch brothers, or anything else in politics.

When it gets to the point that “leaders” preside over celebrating the death of their political opponents, it’s time to take notice.

It reminds me of “two-minutes hate” from 1984.

Each day, the citizens of Oceania are directed to ritualistically scream, snarl, and froth at the mouth toward whoever their leaders tell them to hate. They’ve never met these supposed enemies. They don’t know anything about them apart from what they have been told by Party officials.

But if the leadership says to despise someone, the people do so without any independent thinking to reach their own conclusions.

This is what our society is decaying into. If you have a different opinion, other people want you to die.

It’s not the first time in history that society has become so fractured, and unfortunately it won’t be the last.

Throughout history, every time society reaches this point, intelligent people who see the writing on the wall take steps to protect themselves and their families from this type of madness.

Maybe it all blows over and people come to their senses. Perhaps they realize that death, chaos, and hate are not the answer.

Maybe everyone mellows out.

It’s also possible that the vitriol becomes much worse. And if it does, you want to be ready.

That’s what a Plan B is all about– taking sensible steps to safeguard what you have worked your entire life to build. It means preserving your family’s way of life by doing things that make sense no matter what happens or doesn’t happen next.

That means having some emergency savings deposited in a safe jurisdictionthat’s out of the legal reach of those who may intend you financial harm.

A good Plan B could mean having a second residency abroad, or a second passport. You might even already qualify for a second citizenship just based on your ancestry.

We also talk a lot about gold and silver, both great hedges in times of uncertainty.

If you don’t have a Plan B, all your eggs are in one basket. And in a time where crowds gloat over the death of people with differing political opinions, that is a substantial risk to your freedom and prosperity.

In case you’re looking for some guidance about how to get started, take a look at our complimentary Perfect Plan B guide.

We’re Listening to the Wrong Voices on Syria

By Maj. Danny Sjursen

August 26, 2019 “Information Clearing House” – Once upon a time, Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbardtraveled to Syria and met with the strongman President Bashar Assad. She considered her willingness to engage all sides of the country’s bloody civil war to be an important step toward peace. For this bold action, she was widely pilloried at the time and considered by some an authoritarian apologist or outright traitor. The claim was repeated again recently by the ever-so-mainstream California Sen. Kamala Harris, a fellow Democratic presidential hopeful. The attacks on Gabbard’s Syria record have been quite regular among Washington insiders, who considered the congresswoman foolish. But was she? More than two years later, given events in Syria, one must conclude that she certainly was not. Indeed, Gabbard was right all along.

Recently, Assad’s Syrian Arab Army (SAA) has squeezed the anti-regime rebels in their last major stronghold of Idlib, in the country’s northwest. Thus, the latest phase of Syria’s civil war is nearly over. And Assad, along with his Russian and Iranian backers, have won. Perhaps that’s not such a bad thing. Un-American blasphemy, right? Hardly.

For years, the West and its Gulf State theocratic partners decried the admittedly brutal Assad and sold their populations the fantasy that there were “moderate,” non-Islamist rebels. The reality is that the rebels were infused with, and quickly dominated by, various jihadist fighters from the very start. Yes, Assad is a veritable monster; but what of the Nusra Front (an al-Qaida franchise) and the even more extreme Islamic State—are they not equally deplorable, and, frankly, more of a transnational threat to the U.S.? Of course they are. Assad, at least, posed no serious threat to the United States (neither did his neighbor, Saddam Hussein, by the way) and both suppressed Sunni jihadism and protected Syria’s plethora of Christian, Allawi and other minority populations.

Yet, as journalist Max Blumenthal made clear in two illuminating chapters of his latest book, “The Management of Savagery, the U.S. and its European and Arab “partners” spent most of the brutal civil war backing the very Islamists that most threatened America. As such, the Western-Gulf alliance enabled, even caused, the “Talibanization” of huge swaths of Syria, especially in the oil-rich east.

Are You Tired Of The Lies And Non-Stop Propaganda?

Get Your FREE Daily Newsletter

No Advertising – No Government Grants – This Is Independent Media

It worked like this: The CIA set up shop across the border in Turkey and Barack Obamaauthorized $500 million in military aid—including anti-armor TOW missiles—which ended up in the hands of the Nusra Front and an array of other Islamist groups. At the peak of the mission, $1 in every $15 the CIA spent went to the Syria assistance mission. The blowback, so to speak, was the resurrection of al-Qaida, the empowerment of Islamic State, and the turning of much of Syria into a jihadi stronghold.

It all bore disturbing similarity to Operation Cyclone, the failed, 9/11-catalyzing, CIA assistance mission to the equally theocratic Afghan mujahedeen in its battle against the Soviets from 1979 to 1988. In this tragic counterproductive redux, Turkey stood in as Pakistan, once the way station for arms and cash to the mujahedeen. The U.S., Western Europe and the Gulf States performed an encore as the largest backers of rebels, and all the blowback was essentially the same—if no worse—in the Syria reprise.

This time around, Israel counterintuitively lent a hand to empower the Nusra Front and even Islamic State. It bombed Syrian targets over the years and funded some Islamists along its Golan Heights border. Indeed, one right-wing, Netanyahu-allied scholar published an op-ed titled, “The Destruction of the Islamic State Is a Mistake.” What’s more, as a former Israeli defense minister emphatically stated in 2016, “In Syria, if the choice is between Iran and the Islamic State, I choose the Islamic State.” This was all patently ridiculous, since Islamic State’s ideology poses an enormous threat to Israel’s future, whereas Iran is a boxed-in, sanctions-riddled, non-nuclear power. Yet it reflects exactly the prevailing Israeli—and, by extension, American and Gulf State—strategic dogma in the region.

U.S. policymakers, furthermore, had ample evidence early in the civil war that the rebels were infused with and rapidly dominated by Islamists. Even hyperconservative Defense Intelligence Agency head (and later Trump national security adviser) Michael Flynn reported this, as did the United Nations. It all pointed to the massive empowerment of Islamists, including Islamic State.

Gabbard knew this—saw it, even—from the start. Anyone with a willingness to study recent history should have, though most didn’t. She wasn’t exactly alone, of course. Reliably antiwar Dennis Kucinich, a former Ohio representative, once flippantly, but astutely, asked whether U.S. aid to rebels and strikes on Assad didn’t essentially turn the U.S. into “al-Qaida’s Air Force.” More surprisingly, in what was, at the time, considered one his notorious gaffes, then-Vice President Joe Biden admitted that “[t]he problem is our allies [the Gulf States and Turkey] … they poured in [money and weapons] … and the people who were being supplied were Al-Nusra and Al-Qaeda and the extremist elements of jihadis coming from other parts of the world.” For this nugget of truth, Uncle Joe was sent on an “apology tour” around the region.

If Gabbard and Kucinich were right, it’s clear who was very, very wrong: the late and now canonized John McCain. The wildly hawkish Arizona senator visited rebel groups a number of times. During one visit, he exclaimed, “Thank God for the Saudis and Prince Bandar and for our Qatari friends.” Bandar, conveniently, was the very same Saudi official who had spearheaded support for the mujahedeen, and later the Taliban, in Afghanistan. On another trip, McCain was photographed with a small group of rebel fighters. It was a nice, touching scene. Problem was, two of the rebels posing beside him were Islamists previously implicated in the kidnapping of Shiite pilgrims. McCain never apologized or disavowed his firm support for the rebels, even after he knew full well that Islamists had gotten their hands on most of the U.S. aid and arms. And, of course, he was never attacked as traitorous, the way Gabbard was—and is.

All in all, Gabbard was pilloried precisely because she was uncomfortably and rationally correct about the rebels and the course of the war in Syria. Gabbard is no doubt imperfect, but she is remarkably consistent—even when it is politically unpalatable—in her anti-interventionist stances. In this, she’s all but alone in the bloated Democratic primary field; that’s exactly why she’s the most intriguing presidential hopeful. It’s also partly why she’s unlikely to last much longer in the race to the top.

An alliance of beltway insiders, interventionist think-tankers, corporate arms dealers and mainstream Democratic Party stalwarts feel they have to sink her campaign. It must be stillborn, in fact, because they fear her and all she stands for. She seemed to know that while Assad, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Iran’s ayatollahs aren’t exactly America’s friends, they did, and do, possess goals in common with the U.S. The Assad-backing coalition also fights terrorists, both native Syrian and transnational. Furthermore, though the generals and admirals will never admit it, the SAA and Russian air force acted as a veritable anvil to the U.S. and Kurdish hammer that rolled back Islamic State in its eastern Syrian stronghold.

To further disturb reflexively liberal friends, Donald Trump—though he did meaninglessly bomb a Syrian runway, leading CNN journalist Fareed Zakaria to declare The Donald presidential—seems to also partly recognize the real score in Syria. Though 2,000 U.S. troops foolishly remain in place in the country, he hasn’t escalated conflict with Russia per se and appears to understand the common goals between the otherwise implacable opponents.

Nevertheless, the situation on the ground in Syria is dangerous as all hell. Through its counterproductive policies, Washington ended up with the worst of all worlds: a costly war with an empowered Islamic State, a hair-trigger standoff with Russia and Iran along the Euphrates River, and another perilous military footprint in an unstable Mideast quagmire. Bravo, America!

In a wildly byzantine and absurdly self-defeating redux of the 2003 Iraq War folly and the 1980s anti-Soviet campaign in Afghanistan, the U.S. again fueled Islamism in the region before subsequently turning on the Frankenstein’s monster of Sunni jihadism to justify “forever war” anew. In retrospect, it was almost as if Washington wanted Syria to collapse, for the war to rage on indefinitely, and for a new, bigger, Islamist boogeyman to rise like the mythical phoenix (though I loathe how conspiratorial that sounds).

All told, at present, Islamic State is hardly gone and is again gaining strength; Russia, Assad and Iran hold all the high cards in the civil war; U.S. troops remain enmeshed in the East; and the Kurdish question has yet to be solved (and could even lead to a war with Turkey). Moreover, an entire people, and a region, are once more shattered.

That, as recent history demonstrates, makes America less safe and has led to hundreds of thousands of dead brown bodies, for which the U.S. public hardly cares. Which means Tulsi Gabbard, almost alone, was right from the start. And that’s precisely why America’s perpetual warfare state must destroy her.

Maj. Danny Sjursen is a retired U.S. Army officer and former history instructor at West Point. He served tours with reconnaissance units in Iraq and Afghanistan

This article was originally published by “TruthDig” – 

Do you agree or disagree? Post your comment here

==See Also==

Note To ICH Community

We ask that you assist us in dissemination of the article published by ICH to your social media accounts and post links to the article from other websites.

Thank you for your support.

Peace and joy

Negative interest rates are coming and they are downright terrifying

What if I said I wanted to borrow $100 from you and pay you back $99 five years later? Would you do it?

Hell no!

And yet this is exactly what’s happening right now in the banking systems of Japan, Germany, France, and other European countries.

Negative interest rates — where the lender gets paid back less than they’ve loaned — now add up to 30%, (and counting), of the global tradable bond universe, according to JPMorgan (JPM). You may have seen for instance that Germany just sold the first negative yielding 30-year bond issue.

In case you’re wondering, yes, this is crazy.

“It’s really unusual and really distorting the global financial system,” says Torsten Slok, chief economist at Deutsche Bank Securities (DB). “I spend all my time talking about it.”

This is not going to end well

Negative rates are counterintuitive, unprecedented — and to my mind — mind-bendingly insane and downright scary. They are like a parallel universe where everything you’ve ever learned about finance and human behavior is turned upside down.

Negative interest rates could spell serious trouble for the financial markets. Image: Getty
Negative interest rates could spell serious trouble for the financial markets. Image: Getty

Worse, negative rates are being normalized by economists, bankers, and commentators.

Worst, I have a funny feeling this will end badly. Negative interest rates have all the hallmarks of serious trouble for the financial markets; an anomaly growing in scale which seemingly came out of nowhere that is under-recognized, poorly understood and dismissed as not consequential. (Flashing red lights here.)

In the U.S. we aren’t particularly aware of negative rates because they haven’t made their way to our shores … perhaps yet.

Yes, the U.S. ten year Treasury yields 1.59%, not close to 0%, but negative rates seem to be creeping ever closer. For instance, negative interest rates haven’t come to U.S. corporate debt, but Euro-denominated bonds issued by the likes of blue-chips Apple (AAPL), McDonald’s (MCD), and Pepsi (PEP) carry negative yields.

And in Europe, it was postulated that negative rates would never fly in the consumer sphere in terms of banks paying back depositors less than they put in their savings accounts, but that’s now changing. Banks in Denmark and Switzerland are now charging customers to hold deposits. And on the flip side, and also in Denmark, mortgages with negative rates are available. That’s right, you get a mortgage from the bank, and the bank essentially pays you each month. A three-year adjustable rate mortgage priced at negative .28% there recently.

“Helt vildt,” as the Danes might say. Translation: “Totally nuts.”

‘I don’t think the U.S. can resist the pull’

None of this gives Timothy Duy, an economics professor at the University of Oregon, a warm and fuzzy feeling. “The issue right now is the rest of the world seems to be going deeper and deeper into negative interest rates, and I don’t think the U.S. can resist that pull,” he says.

By now, if you are like me, your head is swimming with questions:

-How, when, and why did negative rates come about?

-Are negative rates bad?

-How will this end?

Let’s tackle the first couple of questions first. It appears that negative interest rates are a modern phenomenon that was first implemented to spur sluggish economies that couldn’t get traction coming out of the Great Recession. (Yes, brought to you by central bankers.) Denmark’s Nationalbank, (the Danes again) in July 2012 was one of the first, followed by the European Central Bank in 2014, the Bank of Japan, and now much of the rest of Europe.

A cyclist passes the entrance of the Danish central bank, also known as Danish Nationalbank, in Copenhagen, January 22, 2015. REUTERS/Fabian Bimmer (DENMARK - Tags: BUSINESS)
A cyclist passes the entrance of the Danish central bank, also known as Danish Nationalbank, in Copenhagen, January 22, 2015. REUTERS/Fabian Bimmer (DENMARK – Tags: BUSINESS)

These negative rates were “paid” (or levied really) on banks’ deposits in central banks. The point was to penalize banks from keeping too much money in central banks and thereby encourage them to lend. Negative rates then spread to government bonds — especially in Europe — and to corporate bonds, as well. That’s because prices for these financial instruments (which move in the opposite direction of rates) went higher and higher as investors were willing to pay more and more for safe places to park their money. Rates turned negative on these bonds when investors were so anxious for safety they would even accept less than 100% of their investment back.

Paul Davies of the Wall Street Journal put it succinctly when he wrote: “It is a stark illustration of how ultra loose monetary policies have turned debt investing into a choice about how to lose the least amount of money.”

I know, it’s all whack.

Negative rates could ‘break things’ in the U.S.

Exactly how big is the negative rates universe now? According to Deutsche Bank’s Slok, there’s some $15 trillion of negative yielding bonds in the world (out of a total of some $115 trillion), up from zero five years ago. All German government bonds are negative yielding now. And if you exclude the U.S., some 45% of the worlds’ bonds have negative yields. So not chicken feed.

Mohamed El-Erian would sound the alarm if negative interest rates came to the U.S. REUTERS/Phil McCarten/File Photo
Mohamed El-Erian would sound the alarm if negative interest rates came to the U.S. REUTERS/Phil McCarten/File Photo

The same financial talking heads who say negative rates can’t come to the U.S. remind me of the people who said Boris Johnson would never be Prime Minister of the UK and Donald Trump would never be President. And speaking of President Trump, in case you haven’t noticed, he engendered a trade war and has been relentless in calling for lower rates, both of which have slowed global growth and pushed rates down. Mike Davis, an economics professor at the Cox School of Business at Southern Methodist University, notes that President Trump is “creating massive amounts of uncertainty in markets,” which he thinks has companies questioning whether they should make investments. Again, that puts downward pressure on rates.

Also keeping a lid on rates are aging populations that don’t spend, as in Japan, for instance. Plus a lack of investment by companies. In this post-industrial world, where expensive property is contracted out or in the case of internet giants, not needed at all, there is much less need for capital spending. The result is that many corporate giants have massive cash troves; such as Facebook (FB) with $48 billion, Berkshire Hathaway (BRK-ABRK-B) with $112 billion and Apple with a staggering $245 billion.

What would happen if rates go negative in the U.S.? Who knows. Allianz Chief Economic Adviser Mohamed El-Erian, for one, says he would sound the alarm if treasury yields dip into negative territory. “If we do I’m going to be really worried because negative yields in the U.S., the world’s biggest financial market, will break things,” he told Yahoo Finance.


President of European Central Bank, Mario Draghi , second left, is on the way to a news conference in Frankfurt, Germany, Thursday, June 5, 2014. (AP Photo/Michael Probst)
President of European Central Bank, Mario Draghi , second left, is on the way to a news conference in Frankfurt, Germany, Thursday, June 5, 2014. (AP Photo/Michael Probst)

The serious negative effects of negative rates

So if negative rates were a policy tool put in place by bankers, how do we assess their work? Have negative rates been a success or a failure?

The answer is a bit complicated. You sure can’t argue that negative rates have greatly boosted the economies of Japan or Europe. (Maybe you could make the case that they would be in worse shape without negative rates, but that’s sheer speculation.)

On the other hand, I think it’s clear there are some pretty serious negatives, certainly from the standpoint of uncertainty. A recent note by JPMorgan lays out nine unintended consequences; including lower bank profitability, lower credit creation, paradoxically higher rates in some instances (banks need to make up for lower income), reduced liquidity and functionality of credit markets, increased deficits in pension funds, and even exacerbation of wealth and income inequality.

But wait, there’s more.

Bank of America Merrill Lynch (BAC) postulates that, “…if banks ever start passing negative rates onto retail depositors, the effect would be similar to inflation — cash today would be worth more than cash tomorrow. Consumers might respond by consuming more and saving less, boosting GDP growth in the short run. But this “substitution effect” could be offset by what economists call a negative “income effect”: expected erosion of savings could actually make households more conservative, pulling back on consumption both today and in the future.”

I would add to that an even bigger problem: The unknown and the uncertainty that comes with it.

Here’s Bank of America Merrill Lynch again: “Government yield curves and credit spread curves are losing their information content. In our opinion, the fact that the 3m10y or 2y10y UST spreads have inverted is less of a reflection of U.S. recession risks and more of a reflection of the desperation for yield by foreign investors flocking into USD denominated bonds as bond yields turned more negative in Europe and Japan.”

Translation: Trying to interpret the U.S. Treasury yield curve becomes meaningless.

So regardless if negative rates ever come to the U.S., there’s already an impact. Expect more to come.

What about that last question: How will this end? As you can tell, my take is, badly. But I’m not sure what form the ugliness will take or, more vexing, what we should do about it.

One thing is I think governments will have to turn away from monetary policy and rely more on fiscal policy, not just tax cuts, but government spending on much needed infrastructure to stimulate the economy and drive rates back up. Those cash rich companies may need to unlock their coffers, too.

But that may be after governments are forced into action in the wake of some sort of meltdown or crises. I hope not not. But I wouldn’t bet against it.

“At what point are interest rates so low, a financial system predicated on positive returns doesn’t work anymore?” asks Duy of the University of Oregon.

Good question. I sure hope we don’t find out.

Andy Serwer is editor-in-chief of Yahoo Finance. Follow him on Twitter: @serwer.

Read more:

Why life is better in places economists hate

Why big tech is the new Wall Street, Washington’s whipping boy

Jamie Dimon: Donald Trump should ‘walk away’ if he can’t get a good deal with China

Inner Terrain vs. Outer Terrain: Which Do You Emphasize for Good Health?

Your Inner Terrain

defines you and your state of health. Your microbiome, which consists of bacterial cells that outnumber your human cells 10:1, is the key to your health. This is why natural health and medical experts have declared that your gut is like your second brain. However, the last thing that Big Gov and Big Pharma want you to understand is how powerful you are. Stories of a bad bacterium or virulent virus are far more sensational, sexy and scary – far more of an easy sell – than the plain old truth that you have to work to consciously foster and create a healthy inner terrain to ward off disease. What money can Big Pharma make by telling you to carefully take more micronutrients (e.g. minerals, vitamins, enzymes, cofactors, etc.) to build strength? It’s far better for them if you believe the world is full of scary micro-creatures and diseases, and that there’s nothing you can do other than take their products – vaccines, synthetic pills, radiation and more. Yes, there is truth in both perspectives, but if you only focus on the outer terrain and germ theory, and minimize or forget about the inner terrain, you are playing right into their hands. The whole debate of inner terrain vs. outer terrain goes back at least to the days of Louis Pasteur and Antoine Bechamp in 19th century France, so let’s take a closer look at what happened there to understand where we are now.

inner terrai bacteria
 Do you know the importance of the inner terrain vs. outer terrain for your health?                                                           Does it really make sense to fear germs & bugs the way you have been?

Pasteur vs. Bechamp

French scientists Louis Pasteur and Antoine Bechamp became bitter rivals as they advocated completely different theories of disease and infection. Pasteur proposed the idea of germ theory which taught that disease was caused by pathogenic microbes which invaded the body. He pioneered heating substances like raw milk to very high temperatures to kill the germs (this technique named pasteurization is still used today and named after him). This approach went hand-in-hand with Western Medicine’s drug-based approach, since it’s all about killing the germs before they kill you. On the other hand, Bechamp proposed the idea of host theory which taught that microbes are opportunistic and only attack and gain a foothold in organisms which are already weakened. Bechamp saw germs as the footnote to the disease, the end product of a longer process which started with the person already weakening their inner terrain. This could have been done through lack of nutrition, lack of exercise, lack of sleep, stress, emotional imbalance, poor lifestyle choices and exposure to toxins. Bechamp realized that people already have bacteria and viruses in their bodies all the time, yet the balance of beneficial bacteria keeps the harmful bacteria in check.

So, according to host theory, you don’t ‘catch’ germs that make you sick. Disease-causing germs arise opportunistically and begin to thrive in you only after you have already developed an internal weakness or imbalance in your body. They are a byproduct of the disease, not the cause of the disease. Bechamp theorized that germs were actually the chemical byproducts, dead tissue and degenerative aspects of a body’s unbalanced state. He stated living entities called microzymas (tiny enzymes) created bacteria in response to host and environmental factors. I often avoid using the heavily-biased Wikipedia for information (and in this area it is very pro-germ theory, pro-allopathy and pro-vaccine), however in this specific paragraph it does a good job summarizing Bechamp’s idea:

“Claiming discovery that the “molecular granulations” in biological fluids were actually the elementary units of life, Béchamp named them microzymas—that is, “tiny enzymes”—and credited them with producing enzymes and were the builders of cells while “evolving” amid favorable conditions into bacteria. Denying that bacteria could invade a healthy animal and cause disease, Béchamp claimed instead that unfavorable host and environmental conditions destabilize the host’s native microzymas, whereupon they decompose host tissue by producing pathogenic bacteria.”

inner terrain vs oute terrain-germ-theory-vaccines

Germ Theory Triumphs; People Forget about the Inner Terrain

Germ theory prevailed over host theory in the minds of many at the time, especially within the medical community. Despite this, that it is reported that, on his death bed, Pasteur renounced germ theory and admitted that Bechamp had been right all along (“Le microbe n’est rien, le terrain est tout.” [“The microbe is nothing, the terrain is everything”]). In my opinion, the acceptance of germ theory and the denigration of host theory has had disastrous effects for human health. It has conditioned people to be fearful of germs, to focus on the outer terrain and to look outside of themselves to antibiotics, petrochemical drugs, vaccines, radiation, chemotherapy and other allopathic interventions to save them from disease. Yes, there is a time and place for some of these measures, but the side effects are horrible, including vaccine-induced damage and the rise of antibiotic-resistant superbugs, a whole new class of microbes which are on the verge of rendering antibiotics useless.

Béchamp got the bigger picture. He understood it was all about balance. He realized the importance of the inner terrain environments we create. As mentioned above, there are many factors that go into the creation of your bio-terrain, but the primary factor is the food you ingest. Food is medicine. Food can either strengthen or weaken your bio-terrain, and that means the difference between supporting health and ease or supporting sickness and disease.

Virus and Epidemic Hoaxes: The Fear Racket

Over the last 2 decades or so, Big Government (via the WHO [World Health Organization], branch of the UN) has hyped quite a few virus epidemic scenarios, such as the swine flu hoax, the ebola hoax and the zika hoax. In all of these cases, there was a massive amount of fear and disinformation promulgated by the MSM to encourage people to buy the latest Big Pharma product to supposedly ‘protect’ themselves from a virulent virus. However, if you dug a little deeper, you found suspicious behavior by the CDC (not accurately counting all the cases), poisons being sprayed beforehand in the area (authorities sprayed the insecticide pyriproxyfen beforehand in the zika breakout areas) and even evidence of bioweapons(zika was a Rockefeller-created virus). In this context, it’s important to remember this quote:

“Traditionally, the power of medical sciences has been based on the fear of disease, particularly infectious disease.”

– Peter Duesberg, author of Inventing The AIDS Virus

It’s also important to consider host theory here. What if epidemics were not really about the rise of a virulent virus but rather an indication of the collectively poor inner terrain environment of a group of people? What if they were evidence of mass poisoning? Jim West investigated these and other issues and came up with some startling conclusions:

“The vaccination programs are irrelevant to the decline of polio, while pesticides correlate perfectly with polio. The unfunded, ostracized theory of poison causality far exceeds all other theories in simplicity, exactitude, and directness regarding correlations within all data areas: dosage, physiology, etiology, epidemiology, economics, and politics.”

“Orthodox virology omits toxicology, and is thus void. Toxicological causation is obvious and toxicology is avoided by the media like the plague. Forget the intellectual, scientific intrigue of virology. Without toxicology, virology is a mind-trap. Virology is the deadly virus. Orthodoxy could claim that a “virus” has any number of fearful characteristics, but those characteristics are meaningless if the victims are poisoned. Without poisoning, perhaps the virus is a nutrient.  Perhaps there is no virus. Most likely, the “virus” is harmless human nucleic acid, rearranged as a response to poisoning, and thus always a test for said “virus” would be positive during periods of poisoning.”

“Epidemics are biomarkers for pollution.”

– Jim West


Heal the Patient, Not the Infection

We need to radically readjust our worldview if we want true lasting health. We need to lessen our fear of germs and bugs, and return to what we do have control over – our inner terrain. Health is not about killing germs, but restoring balance and strength so that germs cannot invade, infect or arise in your body again. Here is what one holistic and chiropractic health clinic has found works with their patients:

“Bechamp was indeed right when he said that as health returns to the patient, the germs and infections leave on their own and do not come back unless health becomes compromised again. We have found this approach to be very satisfying in terms of results for the patient.

We feel that it is a mistake to try to kill the infection directly rather than searching for the cause as to why that person’s immune system did not handle the infection on its own … We feel that if all you do is kill the infection without addressing the dysfunction in the patient’s immune system (which allowed the infection to manifest in the first place), the patient will simply become sick again at a later date.

Another problem with this approach is that in chronic infections you almost never see just one type of infection. When a person’s immune function becomes compromised, one infection such as a bacteria will open the door to other infections such as viruses, parasites, and fungi.”

Parallels Outside the World of Health

This idea of emphasizing the inner world over the outer world does not just apply to health. It is a key concept in other areas of life. For example, in the well-known book 7 Habits of Highly Effective People by Steven Covey, the author lists 1 of the 7 habits as the habit of focusing on what you can control. The idea is to focus on your sphere of influence, because it is there you can make the biggest difference. Of course, your sphere of influence starts with you, even before it extends to your inner circle of family and friends. This idea is also summed up in the phrase think globally, act locally; it is important to have a broad view of the overall picture, but when it comes to doing, you have more control over actions at a local level. It can be disempowering to be constantly focused on how a tiny NWO cabal are plotting more and more centralization of power; it can be empowering to act in your community to thwart this agenda by pushing forward decentralization of power in whatever way you can.

There are also parallels in the sphere of spirituality, religion and life in general. How many people in your life do you know who are always looking outside of themselves for some kind of “salvation”? This could be in the form of drugs, sex, money, material acquisition, adrenaline rushes or the next romantic relationship; it could even be some patriarchal, judgemental “God” who allegedly promises them eternal life (+72 virgins) in the afterlife. Much of organized religion emphasizes that God is outside of you not inside of you, thus further promoting the tendency to look outside rather than to look within when confronted with challenges, obstacles or an existential crisis. Imagine if, by default, all children were taught to look within, and all people started to practice looking within, whenever a problem arose?

Conclusion: Time to Elevate the Importance of the Inner Terrain

It’s time to bring back host theory into our understanding to counterbalance germ theory. This doesn’t mean throwing out germ theory altogether, but rather lowering it to its rightful position so that our focus can return to building our health from within. According to current UN WHO stats, 71% of all deaths globally are from NCDs (non-communicable diseases). These don’t require synthetic drugs to wipe out a bug. That means over 7 out of 10 people are dying from preventable disease! This website highlights humanity’s predicament:

“Germ theory does not acknowledge how powerful your diet can be for preventing and treating diseases (especially chronic diseases or non-communicable diseases … such as cancer, heart disease, lung disease, diabetes, etc.). Some drugs are needed for infectious diseases, which is a completely different category. Infectious diseases, including HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria, polio, and tropical diseases are easily spread through personal contact, water, air, and even mosquitoes and flies. But even these are looking for a more opportunistic host — someone with a compromised immune system or area of internal weakness to exploit.”

All this is more reason than ever to look within, on all levels – physically, emotionally, mentally and spiritually. Fortunately, this is within the control of each and every person.


Makia Freeman is the editor of alternative media / independent news site The Freedom Articles and senior researcher at ToolsForFreedom.com. Makia is on Steemit and FB.