Category: Personal Liberty

Guccifer 2.0 Leaks DNC ‘Pay-To-Play’ Donor List

“After addressing a cybersecuirty conference in London, notorious hacker ‘Guccifer’ shared over 500Mb of documentsdetailing 100,000 DNC donors contact info and donations. A large number of the largest donors received senior diplomatic or political positions following thge donations, ranging from UK Ambassador to Assistant Attorney General. The DNC released a statement pre-emptively claiming that this was the work of Russia (and reigniting Trump’s links to Putin).

Probably just coincidence…


The dcoments contained detailed lists of 100,000 alledged donors, addresses, and phone numbers, and well as amounts donated…

Source: imgur

Here is the first cut of the alleged major donors on the leaked documents and the positions they received (via

  • #1 Matthew Berzun … Ambassador to UK
  • #2 Julius Genachowski … Former chairman to FCC
  • #3 Frank Sanchez…. Under secretary of commerce
  • #8 Kirk Wagner… Ambassador to Singapore
  • #9 Alan Solomont … Ambassador to Spain
  • #11 John Roos… Ambassador to Japan
  • #12 Nicole Avant… Ambassador to Bahamas
  • #13 Eileen Chamberlain Donahoe … Ambassador to the UN
  • #16 Steve Westly – CFO of California
  • #17 Don Beyer – Ambassador to Switzerland
  • #21 Don Gips – Ambassador to South Africa
  • #22 Howard Gutman – Ambassador to Belgium
  • #24 Cynthia Stroum – Ambassador to Luxembourg
  • #27 Mark Gilbert – Ambassador to New Zealand
  • #31 Norm Eisen – Ambassador to Czech Republic
  • #37 Bruce Oreck – Ambassador to Finland
  • #43 Tony West – deputy Attorney General
  • #45 Bill Kennard – Ambassador to EU


The DNC responded to the latest hack claim Tuesday through its Interim Chair Donna Brazile, who stated that the“DNC is the victim of a crime,” which she blamed on “Russian state-sponsored agents,” while also cautioning that the hacked documents were still being authenticated by the DNC legal team, as “it is common for Russian hackers to forge documents.” DNC pre-emptively published a statement in an attempt to change the narrative…

Once again blaming Russia (and Trump)… As RT reports, it’s not the first time that the name of Vladimir Putin has been brought up in the US presidential campaign, but this time the US president used this “argument” while openly campaigning for Clinton against Trump. The situation has become “really ludicrous and it borders on the ridiculous,” believes Gregory R. Copley, editor of Defense & Foreign Affairs.”

Read More At 

Continue Reading

Perceptional Responsibility In The Age of Information

In a recent podcast interview, the libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson spoke about some of the issues of running for the U.S. presidency. In particular, he spoke about the fact that if you’re not in the polls and not in the debates, you’re unable to have any standing to win the presidency since you’re not able to obtain enough influence and not even capable of entering the paradigm of electability. In that way, the U.S. presidency is controlled by third party entities that create a stranglehold over the perception of the masses. It is no wonder, therefore, that a former president would claim the U.S. is an oligarchy and a study from Princeton University would provide evidence for it.

A great example of how these third parties can control the perception of the masses is the blatant media bias and neglect that was displayed during Ron Paul’s presidential candidacy. It was so blatant that it was even featured as a skit on The Daily Show.

Perception becomes reality. That’s the problem. However, this is a problem that can be solved through perceptional responsibility. It is the responsibility of individuals to correct disinformation and subversion. Unfortunately, since people aren’t well-versed in these matters, they do not understand how to prevent these issues. In their eyes, to ignore these things would only permit them but in reality, ignoring these matters is what disempowers them. To defeat the perception that comes to inform reality you must ignore that perception or not allow it to become accepted as reality.

For example, if theoretically, I don’t support Hillary Clinton then I won’t acknowledge her existence. I will not protest her presidential candidacy. I will not transfer information about her even if it were information that mocks her. In that way, I am not empowering her. Likewise, if I believe the U.S. is an oligarchy and therefore, feel no necessity to be involved in politics, then I do not speak about politics nor do I bother to vote or even talk about voting or not voting. By agreeing or disagreeing with it, you’re still perceptionally democratizing it into reality and therefore, empowering it whether you agree with it or not. It becomes the old cliche, “There’s no such thing as bad publicity.” The mere exposure whether it’s good or bad allows for support to gather.

This type of thinking is always met with denial and resistance because people do not understand that the name of the game is perception and not necessarily the objective reality that we want to imagine when we envision these things. Even more complex is the irony of having to acknowledge these things so that others understand that they should not acknowledge them.

That is the biggest problem in the age of information, understanding how to navigate it and how to take perceptional responsibility.

These matters extend far beyond the political arena and enter our daily lives on a regular basis. If say, you share nothing but unverified news stories from fraudulent sources, constantly post negative thoughts, never contribute to the world in a positive way, etc… then you are lacking perceptional responsibility and are only harming other individuals who may be subjected to the false information and perception that you’re projecting.

Continue Reading

WikiProject: Christianity And The Revision Of Occult History

The ongoing redefining of history and context is best epitomized by a recent editing project being conducted by WikiProject Christianity. According to Wikipedia itself, many entries pertaining to ancient history, spirituality and myth have become part of ‘WikiProject Christianity’ which is a “collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia.”
One particular example which has fallen victim to this revisionism is the Wiki entry for the history of the Chi-Ro symbol. (1.)

The Christian interpretation of the Chi-Ro is well described in the Wiki piece and we will not go into it here except to say that throughout his life Constantine was not a Christian so to say he used the symbol in any evangelical sense is contradictory to the facts. Most scholars agree that there is little to no evidence that Constantine even converted on his death bed. The only account of this comes from Eusebius who being a bishop and known as the “historian of the church” makes his bias hard to ignore. Unfortunately, much of the original and authentic Chi-Ro history has been selectively ignored in order to propagate a Christian bias, some of which we will look at here.

This symbol is mentioned in Plato’s Timaeus where he describes the Chi-Ro cross as being indicative of the world soul or Anima Mundi. This idea is reflected in the Hindu notion of Brahman and Atman as well as other ancient systems such as Taoism and Buddhism. (2.) The combination of the Chi and Ro stood for Chreston which means ‘good’ or ‘anointed’. Another example of pre-Christian usage is on coins dated to that of Ptolemy III (fl. 246-220 BCE), in which the Chi-Rho symbol is shown between the eagle’s legs on the reverse side.

Chrestos was also used in conjunction with the Greek god and goddess Hades and Persephone as oracles of the underworld as well as, and potentially more intriguing used to describe Hermes as a guide to the afterlife. (3.) (4.)

A prototype of the Chi Ro also occurs in a Neolithic pictograph dating thousands of years before the advent of Christianity and was documented by Dr. Walter O. Moeller in 1978.


Moeller writes, “The stick-man, which is also a Chi-Rho of sorts…has fingers at the ends of both arms, a line slanting down through the upright and a leg extending down from the upright to the right. The slanting line has been correctly identified as a spear and the whole figure, therefore, as a representation of a saviour-god. But in this case the deity cannot be the Christ but must be instead Odin-Wotan who hanged himself on a tree for nine days and nine nights with a spear in his side as a sacrifice to himself. The slanting line makes the stickman also a prototypal St Stephan’s Cross. Somewhat similar to this Neolithic symbol from Northern Europe is a stick-man figure from predynastic Egypt.” (5.)
Regular readers and students of world mythology will immediately spot the parallels between the Anima Mundi, as Plato describes the Chi-Ro and the figure of Odin and the world tree. We can continue this parallel of the primordial man on the world tree through Kabbalistic descriptions of Adam Kadmon.
Another pre-Christian deity associated with the Chi-Ro was Chronos who was the god of astronomical time among other attributes and identifications. This horizontal and vertical association again brings us neatly back to the axial properties of the Anima Mundi. (6.)

Unfortunately, this Christian revisionism project has potentially thousands of participants and is very difficult to correct; legitimate history is being whitewashed to fit the views and dogma of a relatively recent faith. In this context, we are all the poorer for the loss and corruption of our shared myths, art and cultural traditions.
Other Wiki entries to suffer the same revisionist fate are those of Easter and the Solstice among many others. In these particular examples, the astronomical and ancient Pagan origins have been excluded and refuted by biased sources. Hopefully by bringing attention to this revisionist project, historians, scientists and students and practitioners of other non-Christian faiths, as well as those of none, can try to counteract this.

David Halpin (c) 2016


(2.) Plato. Timaeus, 8.36b and 8.36c
(3.) Chrestos: a religious epithet; its import and influence : J. B. Mitchell. Williams and Norgate, 1880
(4.) Ancient Angels: Conceptualizing Angeloi in the Roman Empire by Rangar Cline. P. 94.
(5.) Hommages à Maarten J. Vermaseren (v. 2; Leiden, E.J. Brill, 1978) “Marks, Names and Numbers.”

Continue Reading
Skip to toolbar