Gravity Does Not Exist!

If you fill a balloon with helium, a substance lighter than the nitrogen, oxygen and other elements which compose the air around it, the balloon will immediately fly upwards.  If you fill a balloon with hydrogen, a substance even lighter than helium, the balloon will fly upwards even faster.  If you blow a dandelion seed out of your hands, a substance just barely heavier than the air, it will float away and slowly but eventually fall to the ground.  And if you drop an anvil from your hands, something much heavier than the air, it will quickly and directly fall straight to the ground.  Now, this has absolutely nothing to do with “gravity.”  The fact that light things rise up and heavy things fall down is simply a natural property of weight.  That is very different from “gravity.”  Gravity is a hypothetical magnetic-like force possessed by large masses which Isaac Newton needed to help explain the heliocentric theory of the universe.

“Most people in England have either read, or heard, that Sir Isaac Newton’s theory of gravitation was originated by his seeing an apple fall to the earth from a tree in his garden.  Persons gifted with ordinary common-sense would say that the apple fell down to the earth because, bulk for bulk, it was heavier than the surrounding air; but if, instead of the apple, a fluffy feather had been detached from the tree, a breeze would probably have sent the feather floating away, and the feather would not reach the earth until the surrounding air became so still that, by virtue of its own density, the feather would fall to the ground.”  -Lady Blount, “Clarion’s Science Versus God’s Truth” (40)

Wilbur Voliva, a famous flat-Earther in the early 20th century, gave lectures all over America against Newtonian astronomy.  He would begin by walking on stage with a book, a balloon, a feather and a brick, and ask the audience: “How is it that a law of gravitation can pull up a toy balloon and cannot put up a brick?  I throw up this book.  Why doesn’t it go on up?  That book went up as far as the force behind it forced it and it fell because it was heavier than the air and that is the only reason.  I cut the string of a toy balloon.  It rises, gets to a certain height and then it begins to settle.  I take this brick and a feather.  I blow the feather.  Yonder it goes.  Finally, it begins to settle and comes down.  This brick goes up as far as the force forces it and then it comes down because it is heavier than the air.  That is all.”

“Any object which is heavier than the air, and which is unsupported, has a natural tendency to fall by its own weight. Newton's famous apple at Woolsthorpe, or any other apple when ripe, loses hold of its stalk, and, being heavier than the air, drops as a matter of necessity, to the ground, totally irrespective of any attraction of the Earth. For, if such attraction existed, why does not the Earth attract the rising smoke which is not nearly so heavy as the apple? The answer is simple - because the smoke is lighter than the air, and, therefore, does not fall but ascends. Gravitation is only a subterfuge, employed by Newton in his attempt to prove that the Earth revolves round the Sun, and the quicker it is relegated to the tomb of all the Capulets, the better will it be for all classes of society.”  -David Wardlaw Scott, “Terra Firma” (8)

“The ‘law of gravitation’ is said by the advocates of the Newtonian system of astronomy, to be the greatest discovery of science, and the foundation of the whole of modern astronomy.  If, therefore, it can be shown that gravitation is a pure assumption, and an imagination of the mind only, that it has no existence outside of the brains of its expounders and advocates, the whole of the hypotheses of this modern so-called science fall to the ground as flat as the surface of the ocean, and this ‘most exact of all sciences,’ this wonderful ‘feat of the intellect’ becomes at once the most ridiculous superstition and the most gigantic imposture to which ignorance and credulity could ever be exposed.”  -Thomas Winship, “Zetetic Cosmogeny” (36)

Einstein’s theory of relativity and the entire heliocentric model of the universe hinges upon Newton’s “law of gravitation.”  Heliocentrists claim that the Sun is the most massive object in the heavens, more massive even than the Earth, and therefore the Earth and other planets by “law” are caught up in the Sun’s “gravity” and forced to orbit perpetual circles/ellipses around it.  They claim that gravity also somehow allows people, buildings, the oceans, and all of nature to exist on the under-side of their “ball-Earth” without falling off. 

Now, even if gravity did exist, why would it cause both planets to orbit the Sun and people to stick to the Earth?  Gravity should either cause people to float in suspended circular orbits around the Earth, or it should cause the Earth to be pulled and crash into the Sun!  What sort of magic is “gravity” that it can glue people’s feet to the ball-Earth, while causing Earth itself to revolve ellipses round the Sun?  The two effects are very different yet the same cause is attributed to both.

“Take the case of a shot propelled from a cannon.  By the force of the explosion and the influence of the reputed action of gravitation, the shot forms a parabolic curve, and finally falls to the earth.  Here we may ask, why - if the forces are the same, viz., direct impulse and gravitation - does not the shot form an orbit like that of a planet, and revolve round the earth?  The Newtonian may reply, because the impulse which propelled the shot is temporary; and the impulse which propelled the planet is permanent.  Precisely so; but why is the impulse permanent in the case of the planet revolving round the sun?  What is the cause of this permanence?”  -N. Crossland, “New Principia”

“If the sun is pulling with such power at the earth and all her sister planets, why do they not fall down upon him?”  -A. Giberne, “Sun, Moon, and Stars” (27)

Furthermore, this magnetic-like attraction of massive objects gravity is purported to have can be found nowhere in the natural world.  There is no example in nature of a massive sphere or any other shaped-object which by virtue of its mass alone causes smaller objects to stick to or orbit around it!  There is nothing on Earth massive enough that it can be shown to cause even a dust-bunny to stick to or orbit around it!  Try spinning a wet tennis ball or any other spherical object with smaller things placed on its surface and you will find that everything falls or flies off, and nothing sticks to or orbits it.  To claim the existence of a physical “law” without a single practical evidential example is hearsay, not science.

“That bodies in some instances are seen to approach each other is a fact; but that their mutual approach is due to an ‘ attraction,’ or pulling process, on the part of these bodies, is, after all, a mere theory. Hypotheses may be sometimes admissible, but when they are invented to support other hypotheses, they are not only to be doubted but discredited and discarded. The hypothesis of a universal force called Gravitation is based upon, and was indeed invented with a view to support another hypothesis, namely, that the earth and sea together make up a vast globe, whirling away through space, and therefore needing some force or forces to guide it in its mad career, and so control it as to make it conform to what is called its annual orbit round the sun! The theory first of all makes the earth to be a globe; then not a perfect globe, but an oblate spheroid, flattened at the ‘poles’; then more oblate, until it was in danger of becoming so flattened that it would be like a cheese; and, passing over minor variations of form, we are finally told that the earth is pear-shaped, and that the ‘elipsoid has been replaced by an apoid!’  What shape it may assume next we cannot tell; it will depend upon the whim or fancy of some astute and speculating ‘scientist.’”  -Lady Blount and Albert Smith, “Zetetic Astronomy” (14)

How is it that “gravity” is so strong that it can hold all the oceans, buildings and people stuck to the under-side of the ball-Earth, but so weak that it allows birds, bugs, smoke, and balloons to casually evade its grips completely!?  How is it that “gravity” holds our bodies clung to the under-side of the ball-Earth, but yet we can easily raise our legs and arms, walk or jump and feel no such constant downward pulling force?  How is it that “gravity” can cause planets to revolve elliptical orbits around a single center of attraction?  Ellipses by nature require two foci, and the force of gravitation would have to regularly increase and decrease to keep planets in constant orbit and prevent pulling them into direct collision courses!

“That the sun’s path is an exact circle for only about four periods in a year, and then of only a few hours - at the equinoxes and solstices - completely disproves the ‘might have been’ of circular gravitation, and by consequence, of all gravitation … If the sun were of sufficient power to retain the earth in its orbit when nearest the sun, when the earth arrived at that part of its elliptical path farthest from the sun, the attractive force (unless very greatly increased) would be utterly incapable of preventing the earth rushing away into space ‘in a right line forever,’ as astronomers say.  On the other hand, it is equally clear that if the sun’s attraction were just sufficient to keep the earth in its proper path when farthest from the sun, and thus to prevent it rushing off into space; the same power of attraction when the earth was nearest the sun would be so much greater, that (unless the attraction were very greatly diminished) nothing would prevent the earth rushing towards and being absorbed by the sun, there being no counterbalancing focus to prevent such a catastrophe!  As astronomy makes no reference to the increase and diminution of the attractive force of the sun, called gravitation, for the above necessary purposes, we are again forced to the conclusion that the great ‘discovery’ of which astronomers are so proud is absolutely non-existent.”  -Thomas Winship, “Zetetic Cosmogeny” (44-45)

“We are asked by the Newtonian to believe that the action of gravitation, which we can easily overcome by the slightest exercise of volition in raising an hand or a foot, is so overwhelmingly violent when we lose our balance and fall a distance of a few feet, that this force, which is imperceptible under usual conditions, may, under extraordinary circumstances, cause the fracture of every limb we possess?  Common-sense must reject this interpretation.  Gravitation does not furnish a satisfactory explanation of the phenomena here described, whereas the definition of weight already given does, for a body seeking in the readiest manner its level of stability would produce precisely the result experienced.  If the influence which kept us securely attached to this earth were identical with that which is powerful enough to disturb a distant planet in its orbit, we should be more immediately conscious of its masterful presence and potency; whereas this influence is so impotent in the very spot where it is supposed to be most dominant that we find an insurmountable difficulty in accepting the idea of its existence.”  -N. Crossland, “New Principia”

Heliocentrists claim the ball-Earth is perpetually spinning on its axis at a mind-numbing 1,038 miles per hour, or 19 miles per second, and somehow people, animals, buildings, oceans, and other surface phenomena can stick to the under-side of  the spinning ball without falling or flying off.  Take a ride on the “Gravitron” at your local amusement park, however, and notice how the faster it spins, the more you are pushed away from the center of spin, not towards it.  Even if the centripetal (inward pulling) force of gravity did exist, which it does not, the centrifugal (outward pushing) force of the ball-Earth’s supposed 19 mile per second spin would also exist and have to be overcome, yet neither of these opposing forces have ever been shown to have any existence outside the imaginations of heliocentric “scientists.”

“Gravitation is the term now used to ‘explain’ what common-sense people look upon as inexplicable.  Globularists say that all orbs in space are globes gravitating towards each other in proportion to their magnitude and power of attraction - there being a ‘centripetal’ force (tending towards the center) and a ‘centrifugal’ force (tending from the center); but how inert matter can set up any automatic force, and cause one body to gravitate towards another body, has never yet been made palpable to the senses.  It belongs to the regions of Metaphysics (‘existing only in thought’).”  -Lady Blunt, “Clarion’s Science Versus God’s Truth” (40-41)

“We are not like flies which, by the peculiar conformation of their feet, can crawl on a ball, but we are human being, who require a plane surface on which to walk; and how could we be fastened to the Earth whirling, according to your theory, around the Sun, at the rate of eighteen miles per second?  The famed law of Gravitation will not avail, though we are told that we have fifteen pounds of atmosphere pressing on every square inch of our bodies, but this does not appear to be particularly logical, for there are many athletes who can leap nearly their own height, and run a mile race in less than five minutes, which they could not possibly do were they thus handicapped.”  -David Wardlaw Scott, “Terra Firma” (3)

“The attraction of gravitation is said to be stronger at the surface of the earth than at a distance from it.  Is it so?  If I spring upwards perpendicularly I cannot with all my might ascend more than four feet from the ground; but if I jump in a curve with a low trajectory, keeping my highest elevation about three feet, I might clear at a bound a space above the earth of about eighteen feet; so that practically I can overcome the so-called force (pull) at the distance of four feet, in the proportion of 18 to 4, being the very reverse of what I ought to be able to do according to the Newtonian hypothesis.”  -N. Crossland, “New Principia”

Newton also theorized and it is now commonly taught that the Earth’s ocean tides are caused by gravitational lunar attraction.  If the Moon is only 2,160 miles in diameter and the Earth 8,000 miles, however, using their own math and “law,” it follows that the Earth is 87 times more massive and therefore the larger object should attract the smaller to it, and not the other way around.  If the Earth’s greater gravity is what keeps the Moon in orbit, it is impossible for the Moon’s lesser gravity to supersede the Earth’s gravity at Earth’s sea-level, where its gravitational attraction would even further out-trump the Moon’s.  Not to mention, the velocity and path of the Moon are uniform and should therefore exert a uniform influence on the Earth’s tides, when in actuality the Earth’s tides vary greatly.  Furthermore, if ocean tides are caused by the Moon’s gravitation, how is it that lakes, ponds, and other smaller bodies of standing water remain outside the Moon’s grasp, while the gigantic oceans are so effected!?

“If the moon lifted up the water, it is evident that near the land, the water would be drawn away and low instead of high tide caused.  Again, the velocity and path of the moon are uniform, and it follows that if she exerted any influence on the earth, that influence could only be a uniform influence.  But the tides are not uniform.  At Port Natal the rise and fall is about 6 feet, while at Beira, about 600 miles up the coast, the rise and fall is 26 feet.  This effectually settles the matter that the moon has no influence on the tides. Tides are caused by the gentle and gradual rise and fall of the earth on the bosom of the mighty deep.  In inland lakes, there are no tides; which also proves that the moon cannot attract either the earth or water to cause tides.  But the fact that the basin of the lake is on the earth which rests on the waters of the deep shows that no tides are possible, as the waters of the lakes together with the earth rise and fall, and thus the tides at the coast are caused; while there are no tides on waters unconnected with the sea.”  -Thomas Winship, “Zetetic Cosmogeny” (130-131)

“It is affirmed that the intensity of attraction increases with proximity, and vice versâ. How, then, when the waters are drawn up by the moon from their bed, and away from the earth's attraction,--which at that greater distance from the centre is considerably diminished, while that of the moon is proportionately increased--is it possible that all the waters acted on should be prevented leaving the earth and flying away to the moon?  If the moon has power of attraction sufficient to lift the waters of the earth at all, even a single inch from their deepest receptacles, where the earth's attraction is much the greater, there is nothing in the theory of attraction of gravitation to prevent her taking to herself all the waters which come within her influence. Let the smaller body once overcome the power of the larger, and the power of the smaller becomes greater than when it first operated, because the matter acted on is nearer to it. Proximity is greater, and therefore power is greater … How then can the waters of the ocean immediately underneath the moon flow towards the shores, and so cause a flood tide? Water flows, it is said, through the law of gravity, or attraction of the earth's centre; is it possible then for the moon, having once overcome the power of the earth, to let go her hold upon the waters, through the influence of a power which she has conquered, and which therefore, is less than her own? … The above and other difficulties which exist in connection with the explanation of the tides afforded by the Newtonian system, have led many, including Sir Isaac Newton himself, to admit that such explanation is the least satisfactory portion of the ‘theory of gravitation.’ Thus we have been carried forward by the sheer force of evidence to the conclusion that the tides of the sea do not arise from the attraction of the moon, but simply from the rising and falling of the floating earth in the waters of the ‘great deep.’ That calmness which is found to exist at the bottom of the great seas could not be possible if the waters were alternately raised by the moon and pulled down by the earth.”  -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not a Globe!” (159-175)

“Even Sir Isaac Newton himself confessed that the explanation of the Moon's action on the Tides was the least satisfactory part of his theory of Gravitation. This theory asserts that the larger object attracts the smaller, and the mass of the Moon being reckoned as only one-eighth of that of the Earth, it follows that, if, by the presumed force of Gravitation, the Earth revolves round the Sun, much more, for the same reason, should the Moon do so likewise, instead of which that willful orb still continues to go round our world. Tides vary greatly in height, owing chiefly to the different configurations of the adjoining lands. At Chepstow it rises to 60 feet, at Portishead to 50, while at Dublin Bay it is but 1 2, and at Wexford only 5 feet … That the Earth itself has a slight tremulous motion may be seen in the movement of the spirit-level, even when fixed as steadily as possible, and that the sea has a fluctuation may be witnessed by the oscillation of an anchored ship in the calmest day of summer. By what means the tides are so regularly affected is at present only conjectured; possibly it may be by atmospheric pressure on the waters of the Great Deep, and perhaps even the Moon itself, as suggested by the late Dr. Rowbotham, may influence the atmosphere, increasing or diminishing its barometric pressure, and indirectly the rise and fall of the Earth in the waters.”  -David Wardlaw Scott, “Terra Firma” (259-260)

“Bearing this fact in mind, that there exists a continual pressure of the atmosphere upon the Earth, and associating it with the fact that the Earth is a vast plane ‘stretched out upon the waters,’ and it will be seen that it must of necessity slightly fluctuate, or slowly rise and fall in the water.  As by the action of the atmosphere the Earth is slowly depressed, the water moves towards the receding shore and produces the flood tide; and when by the reaction of the resisting oceanic medium the Earth gradually ascends the waters recede, and the ebb tide is produced.  This is the general cause of tides.  Whatever peculiarities are observable they may be traced to the reaction of channels, bays, headlands, and other local causes … That the Earth has a vibratory or tremulous motion, such as must necessarily belong to a floating and fluctuating structure, is abundantly proved by the experience of astronomers and surveyors.  If a delicate spirit-level be firmly placed upon a rock or upon the most solid foundation which it is possible to construct, the very curious phenomenon will be observed of constant change in the position of the air-bubble.  However carefully the ‘level’ may be adjusted, and the instrument protected from the atmosphere, the ‘bubble’ will not maintain its position many seconds together.  A somewhat similar influence has been noticed in astronomical observatories, where instruments of the best construction and placed in the most approved positions cannot always be relied upon without occasional re-adjustment.”  -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Earth Not a Globe, 2nd Edition” (108-110)

In the past several decades, NASA has shown video of astronauts, supposedly in low-Earth orbit, experiencing complete weightlessness, or “zero gravity,” how is this weightless effect achieved if gravity doesn’t exist?  As it turns out, for the past several decades, NASA together with Boeing have been perfecting so-called “Zero G planes” and “Zero G maneuvers,” which are able to produce weightlessness at any altitude.  Aboard modified Boeing 727’s specially trained pilots perform aerobatic maneuvers known as parabolas.  Planes climb with a pitch angle of 45 degrees using engine thrust and elevator controls, then when maximum height is reached the craft is pointed downward at high speed.  The period of weightlessness begins while ascending and lasts all the way up and over the parabola until reaching a downward pitch angle of 30 degrees, at which point the maneuver is repeated.  Therefore all NASA’s footage of astronauts aboard “space shuttles,” or “the International Space Station” can be easily hoaxed and simulated in Earth-atmosphere aboard a Zero G plane.  In fact, watching footage of Zero G plane flights alongside footage of NASA astronauts supposedly floating around their “space shuttles” and “space stations,” no observable difference can be seen between the two.

Astronomers claim to have measured all the planets distances, shapes, orbits, weights, relative positions, and times of revolution all based on the “law of gravitation” and without gravity, their entire cosmology folds under its own weight.  Without gravity, people cannot stand upside-down on a ball-Earth! Without gravity, the Earth and planets cannot be revolving around the Sun!  Without Newtonian gravitation, Einsteinian relativity, Copernican heliocentricity, and the entire Big Bang ball-Earth mythos cannot exist and falls to pieces.  Gravity, both metaphorically and quite literally, just does not hold any water; not as a sound theory of cosmology, and not as a law supposedly responsible for holding in the world’s oceans!

“Man's experience tells him that he is not constructed like the flies that can live and move upon the ceiling of a room with as much safety as on the floor: - and since the modern theory of a planetary earth necessitates a crowd of theories to keep company with it, and one of them is that men are really bound to the earth by a force which fastens them to it ‘like needles round a spherical loadstone,’ a theory perfectly outrageous and opposed to all human experience, it follows that, unless we can trample upon common sense and ignore the teachings of experience, we have an evident proof that the Earth is not a globe … If we could - after our minds had once been opened to the light of Truth - conceive of a globular body on the surface of which human beings could exist, the power - no matter by what name it be called - that would hold them on would, then, necessarily, have to be so constraining and cogent that they could not live; the waters of the oceans would have to be as a solid mass, for motion would be impossible. But we not only exist, but live and move; and the water of the ocean skips and dances like a thing of life and beauty! This is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.”  -William Carpenter, “100 Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe” (21-88)

“Nearly a hundred years ago Kepler had suggested that some kind of unknown force must hold the earth and the heavenly bodies in their places, and now Sir Isaac Newton, the greatest mathematician of his age, took up the idea and built the Law of Gravitation. The name is derived from the Latin word ‘gravis,’ which means ‘heavy,’ ‘ having weight,’ while the Law of Gravitation is defined as ‘That mutual action between masses of matter by virtue of which every such mass tends toward every other with a force varying directly as the product of the masses, and inversely as the square of their distances apart.’  Reduced to simplicity, gravitation is said to be ‘That which attracts every thing toward every other thing.’ That does not tell us much ; and yet the little it does tell us is not true; for a thoughtful observer knows very well that every thing is not attracted towards every other thing . . . The definition implies that it is a force; but it does not say so, for that phrase ‘mutual action ‘ is ambiguous, and not at all convincing.”  -Gerrard Hickson, “Kings Dethroned” (14-15)

“The system of gravitation which makes the sun the moving centre of the Universe, the awkward principles of which are anything but certain since they apply to invisible circumstances so that they cannot be checked, is here replaced by the old geocentric system, universally accepted until the 17th century in view, of course, of its undisputable obviousness, and in which the earth, in a state of immobility and surrounded by the planets visibly moving round it including the sun, is at the centre of our Universe. These two facts which explain almost everything are firstly, the positive existence above the earth of a solid dome constituting the sky; and secondly, the non-material nature of the planets and constellations, which are not physical masses, but merely luminous manifestations without substance. These are the two circumstances which lead today to the fundamental transformation of astronomy.”  -Gabrielle Henriet, “Heaven and Earth” (vi)

“The theory that motions are produced through material attraction is absurd.  Attributing such a power to mere matter, which is passive by nature, is a supreme illusion.  It is a lovely and easy theory to satisfy any man’s mind, but when the practical test comes, it falls all to pieces and becomes one of the most ridiculous theories to common sense and judgment.”  -Professor Bernstein, “Letters to the British Association”

Debunking the Spinning Ball Earth

One of heliocentrist’s favorite “proofs” of their ball-Earth theory is the ability for ships and planes to circumnavigate, to sail or fly at right angles to the North Pole and eventually return to their original location.  Since the North Pole and Antarctica are covered in ice and guarded “no-fly” zones, however, no ships or planes have ever been known to circumnavigate the Earth in North/South directions, only East/West; And herein lies the rub, East or West-bound circumnavigation can just as easily be performed on a flat plane as it can a globular sphere.  Just as a compass can place its center-point on a flat piece of paper and trace a circle either way around the “pole,” so can a ship or plane circumnavigate a flat-Earth.  The only kind of circumnavigation which could not happen on a flat-Earth is North/South-bound, which is likely the very reason for the heavily-enforced flight restrictions.  Flight restrictions originating from none other than the United Nations, the same United Nations which haughtily uses a flat-Earth map as its official logo and flag! 

“Circular sailing no more proves the world to be a globe than an equilateral triangle. The sailing round the world would, of course, take very much longer, but, in principle, it is exactly the same as that of the yachtsman circumnavigating the Isle of Wight. Let me give a simple illustration. A boy wants to sail his iron toy boat by a magnet, so he gets a basin, in the middle of which he places a soap-dish, or anything else which he may think suitable to represent the Earth, and then fills the basin with water to display the sea. He puts in his boat and draws it by the magnet round his little world. But the boat never passes over the rim to sail under the basin, as if that were globular, instead of being simply circular. So is it in this world of ours; from the extreme South we can sail from East to West or from West to East around it, but we cannot sail from North to South or from South to North, for we cannot break through intervening lands, nor pass the impenetrable ramparts of ice and rocks which enclose the great Southern Circumference.”  -David Wardlaw Scott, “Terra Firma” (68)

“A very good illustration of the circum-navigation of a plane will be seen by taking a round table, and fixing a pin in the centre to represent the magnetic pole. To this central pin attach a string drawn out to any distance towards the edge of the table. This string may represent the meridian of Greenwich, extending due north and south. If now a pencil or other object is placed across, or at right angles to the string, at any distance between the centre and the circumference of the table, it will represent a vessel standing due east and west. Now move the pencil and the string together in either direction, and it will be seen that by keeping the vessel (or pencil), square to the string it must of necessity describe a circle round the magnetic centre and return to the starting point in the opposite direction to that in which it first sailed.”  -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not a Globe!” (226)

The ball-Earther’s logical argument is that only a globe can be circumnavigated, the Earth has been circumnavigated, and therefore the Earth is a globe.  This is indeed a logical modus ponens statement, but the conclusion is rendered invalid because the first premise - that only a globe can be circumnavigated - is categorically false.  Another similarly logical but unsound argument ball-Earther’s make is that only on a globe would one gain or lose time when sailing/flying East or West, time is gained or lost when sailing/flying East or West, and therefore the Earth is a globe.  Again, the logical conclusion is rendered invalid and the argument unsound because the first premise is incorrect.  The same effect would be experienced on a stationary flat-Earth as it would on a spinning ball-Earth.

“The gaining and losing of time on sailing ‘round the world’ east and west, is generally referred to as another proof of the earth's rotundity. But it is equally as fallacious as the argument drawn from circumnavigation, and from the same cause, namely, the assumption that on a globe only will such a result occur. It will be seen by reference to the following diagram, that such an effect must arise equally upon a plane as upon a globe.  Let V, represent a vessel on the meridian of Greenwich V, N; and ready to start on a voyage eastward; and S, represent the sun moving in an opposite direction, or westward. It is evident that the vessel and the sun being on the same meridian on a given day, if the ship should be stationary the sun would go round in the direction of the arrows, and would meet it again in 24 hours. But if, during the next 24 hours, the ship has sailed to the position X, say 45 degrees of longitude eastward, the sun in its course would meet it three hours earlier than before, or in 21 hours--because 15 degrees of longitude correspond to one hour of time. Hence three hours would be gained. The next day, while the sun is going its round the vessel will have arrived at Y, meeting it 6 hours sooner than it would have done had it remained at V, and, in the same way, continuing its course eastward, the vessel would at length meet the sun at Z, twelve hours earlier than if it had remained at V; and thus passing successively over the arcs 1, 2, and 3, to V, or the starting point, 24 hours, or one day will have been gained. But the contrary follows if the ship sails in the opposite direction. The sun having to come round to the meridian of Greenwich V, S, N, in 24 hours, and the ship having in that time moved on to the position fig. 3, will have to overtake the ship at that position, and thus be three hours longer in reaching it. In this way the sun is more and more behind the meridian time of the ship as it proceeds day after day upon its westerly course, so that on completing the circum-navigation the ship's time is one day later than the solar time, reckoning to and from the meridian of Greenwich.”  -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not a Globe!” (229-230)

“The Sun, as he travels round over the surface of the Earth, brings ‘noon’ to all places on the successive meridians which he crosses: his journey being made in a westerly direction, places east of the Sun's position have had their noon, whilst places to the west of the Sun's position have still to get it. Therefore, if we travel easterly, we arrive at those parts of the Earth where ‘time’ is more advanced, the watch in our pocket has to be ‘put on’ or we may be said to ‘gain time.’ If, on the other hand, we travel westerly, we arrive at places where it is still ‘morning,’ the watch has to be ‘put back,’ and it may be said that we ‘lose time.’ But, if we travel easterly so as to cross the 180th meridian, there is a loss, there, of a day, which will neutralize the gain of a whole circumnavigation; and, if we travel westerly, and cross the same meridian, we experience the gain of a day, which will compensate for the loss during a complete circumnavigation in that direction. The fact of losing or gaining time in sailing round the world, then, instead of being evidence of the Earth's ‘rotundity,’ as it is imagined to be, is, in its practical exemplification, an everlasting proof that the Earth is not a globe.”  -William Carpenter, “100 Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe” (100)

Another favorite “proof” of ball-Earthers is the appearance from an observer on shore of ships’ hulls being obfuscated by the water and disappearing from view when sailing away towards the horizon.  Their claim is that ship’s hulls disappear before their mast-heads because the ship is beginning its declination around the convex curvature of the ball-Earth.  Once again, however, their hasty conclusion is drawn from a faulty premise, namely that only on a ball-Earth can this phenomenon occur.  The fact of the matter is that the Law of Perspective on plane surfaces dictates and necessitates the exact same occurrence.  For example a girl wearing a dress walking away towards the horizon will appear to sink into the Earth the farther away she walks.  Her feet will disappear from view first and the distance between the ground and the bottom of her dress will gradually diminish until after about half a mile it seems like her dress is touching the ground as she walks on invisible legs.  The same happens with cars speeding away, the axles gradually get lower and the wheels vanish until it appears as if the car is gliding along its body.  Such is the case on plane surfaces, the lowest parts of objects receding from a given point of observation necessarily disappear before the highest.

“This law of Perspective meets us on every hand; and cannot be gainsaid. If, in a straight line, we look at a frozen lake from a certain distance, we shall observe people who appear to be skating on their knees, but, if we approach sufficiently near, we shall see them performing graceful motions on their feet. Farther, if we look through a straight tunnel, we shall notice that the roof and the roadway below converge to a point of light at the end. It is the same law which makes the hills sink, to the horizon, as the observer recedes, which explains how the ship's hull disappears in the offing. I would also remark that when the sea is undisturbed by waves, the hull can be restored to sight by the aid of a good telescope long after it has disappeared from the naked eye, thus proving that the ship had not gone down behind the watery hill of a convex globe, but is still sailing on the level of a Plane sea.”  - David Wardlaw Scott, “Terra Firma” (75)

Not only is the disappearance of ship’s hulls explained by the Law of Perspective, it is proven undeniably true with the aid of a good telescope.  If you watch a ship sailing away into the horizon with the naked eye until its hull has completely disappeared from view under the supposed “curvature of the Earth,” then look through a telescope, you will notice the entire ship quickly zooms back into view, hull and all, proving that the disappearance was caused by the Law of Perspective, and not by a wall of curved water!

“On any frozen lake or canal, notably on the ‘Bedford Canal,’ in the county of Cambridge, in winter and on a clear day, skaters may be observed several miles away, seeming to glide along upon limbs without feet--skates and boots quite invisible to the unaided eye, but distinctly visible through a good telescope. But even on the sea, when the water is very calm, if a vessel is observed until it is just ‘hull down,’ a powerful telescope turned upon it will restore the hull to sight. From which it must be concluded that the lower part of a receding ship disappears through the influence of perspective, and not from sinking behind the summit of a convex surface.”  -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not a Globe!” (216)

Ball-Earthers will often quip that “if the Earth were flat, then we could see all over it!” but this is of course ignorant and inaccurate.  If you stand on the beach, a plain or prairie, you will find the horizon extends about three to six miles around you depending on the weather and your eyesight.  The range of the human eye, our field of vision is from 110 to 1 degree, and the smallest angle under which an object can still be seen is 1/60 of 1 degree, so that when an object is 3000 times its own diameter away from an observer, it will cease to be visible.  So for example, the farthest distance at which one can see a 1 inch diameter penny, is 3000 inches, or 250 feet.  Therefore, if a ship’s hull is 10 feet above the water, it will disappear from the unaided eye at 3000 times 10 feet, or 6 miles.  This has nothing to do with the supposed “convexity” or “curvature” of the Earth and everything to do with the common Law of Perspective.

“The horizon of an observer is distant or near according to the greatness or otherwise of his elevation above the surface of the supposed globe.  If he stands 24 feet above sea level, he is said to be in the center of a circle which bounds his vision, the radius of which in any direction, on a clear day, is six miles.  A local gentleman tells me that he has watched a boat-race in New Zealand, seeing the boats all the way out and home, the distance being 9 miles from where he was standing on the beach.  I have seen the hull of a steamer with the naked eye at an elevation of not more than 24 feet, at a distance of 12 miles, and in taking observations along the South African coast, have sometimes had an horizon of at least 20 miles at an elevation of 20 feet only.  The distance of the horizon, or vanishing point, where the sky appears to touch the earth and sea, is determined, largely by the weather, and when that is clear, by the power of our vision.  This is proved by the fact that the telescope will increase the distance of the horizon very greatly, and bring objects into view which are entirely beyond the range of vision of the unaided eye.  But, as no telescope can pierce a segment of water, the legitimate conclusion we are forced to arrive at, is that the surface of water is level, and that, therefore, the shape of the world cannot be globular, and on such a flat or level surface, the greater the elevation of the observer, the longer will his range of vision be, and thus the farther he can see.”  -Thomas Winship, “Zetetic Cosmogeny” (56)

“On the shore near Waterloo, a few miles to the north of Liverpool, a good telescope was fixed, at an elevation of 6 feet above the water. It was directed to a large steamer, just leaving the River Mersey, and sailing out to Dublin. Gradually the mast-head of the receding vessel came nearer to the horizon, until, at length, after more than four hours had elapsed, it disappeared. The ordinary rate of sailing of the Dublin steamers was fully eight miles an hour; so that the vessel would be, at least, thirty-two miles distant when the mast-head came to the horizon. The 6 feet of elevation of the telescope would require three miles to be deducted for convexity, which would leave twenty-nine miles, the square of which, multiplied by 8 inches, gives 560 feet; deducting 80 feet for the height of the main-mast, and we find that, according to the doctrine of rotundity, the mast-head of the outward bound steamer should have been 480 feet below the horizon. Many other experiments of this kind have been made upon sea-going steamers, and always with results entirely incompatible with the theory that the earth is a globe.”  -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not a Globe!” (46)

In the mid 19th century a Frenchman named Léon Foucault became famous for swinging pendulums and claiming their consequent motions were proof of the Earth’s diurnal rotation.  Since then “Foucault Pendulums” have regularly been swinging at museums and exposition halls worldwide purporting to provide everlasting perpetual proof of the heliocentric spinning ball-Earth theory.  The truth is, however, unbeknownst to most of the duped public, that Foucault’s pendulum is a failed experiment which proves nothing but how easy it is for pseudo-science to deceive the malleable masses. 

“This pendulum, modern scientists tell us, affords a visible proof that we are living on a whirling globe, which, according to a ‘work on science’ now before me, is spinning upon its so-called axis at the rate of over 1,000 miles an hour at the equator; and, in addition to other motions, is rushing on an everlasting tour round the sun (the diameter of which is said to be 813,000 miles, and its weight 354,936 times greater than the earth from which it is said to be about 93,000,000 miles distant,) at the rate of over 1,000 miles per minute.  Now to prove that the earth really has these motions a pendulum is suspended at the show; the showman sets motion, and bids the gaping world of thoughtless men and women to ‘behold a proof’ that we are living on a whirling globe which is rushing away through space!”  -Lady Blount, “The Romance of Science” (7)

“Astronomers have made experiments with pendulums which have been suspended from the interior of high buildings, and have exulted over the idea of being able to prove the rotation of the Earth on its ‘axis,’ by the varying direction taken by the pendulum over a prepared table underneath - asserting that the table moved round under the pendulum, instead of the pendulum shifting and oscillating in different directions over the table! But, since it has been found that, as often as not, the pendulum went round the wrong way for the ‘rotation’ theory, chagrin has taken the place of exultation, and we have a proof of the failure of astronomers in their efforts to substantiate their theory.”  -William Carpenter, “100 Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe” (73)

To begin with, Foucault’s pendulums do not uniformly swing in any one direction.  Sometimes they rotate clockwise and sometimes counter-clockwise, sometimes they fail to rotate and sometimes they rotate far too much.  Scientists who have repeated variations of the experiment have conceded time and again that “it was difficult to avoid giving the pendulum some slight lateral bias at starting.”  The behavior of the pendulum actually depends on 1) the initial force beginning its swing and, 2) the ball-and-socket joint used which most-readily facilitates circular motion over any other.  The supposed rotation of the Earth is completely inconsequential and irrelevant to the pendulum’s swing.  If the alleged constant rotation of the Earth affected pendulums in any way, then there should be no need to manually start pendulums in motion!  If the Earth’s diurnal rotation caused the 360 degree uniform diurnal rotation of pendulums, then there should not exist a stationary pendulum anywhere on Earth!

“First, when a pendulum, constructed according to the plan of M. Foucault, is allowed to vibrate, its plane of vibration is often variable - not always.  The variation when it does occur, is not uniform - is not always the same in the same place; nor always the same either in its rate or velocity, or in its direction.  It cannot therefore be taken as evidence; for that which is inconstant cannot be used in favor of or against any given proposition.  It therefore is not evidence and proves nothing!  Secondly, if the plane of vibration is observed to change, where is the connection between such change and the supposed motion of the Earth?  What principle of reasoning guides the experimenter to the conclusion that it is the Earth which moves underneath the pendulum, and not the pendulum which moves over the Earth?  What logical right or necessity forces one conclusion in preference to the other?  Thirdly, why was not the peculiar arrangement of the point of suspension of the pendulum specially considered, in regard to its possible influence upon the plane of oscillation?  Was it not known, or was it overlooked, or was it, in the climax of theoretical revelry, ignored that a ‘ball-and-socket’ joint is one which facilitates circular motion more readily than any other?”  -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Earth Not a Globe, 2nd Edition” (153)

“We believe, with all due deference to the pendulum, and its proprietor, that it proves nothing but the craftiness of the inventor; and we can only describe the show and showman as deceptions.  A thing so childish as this ‘pendulum proof’ that it can only be described as one of the most simple and ridiculous attempts to gull the public that has ever been conceived. It has been said that the pendulum experiment proves the rotation of the earth, but this is quite impossible, for one pendulum turns one way; and sometimes, another pendulum turns in the opposite direction.  Now we ask does the earth rotate in opposite directions at different places at one and the same time?  We should like to know.  Perhaps the experimenters will kindly enlighten us on this point … If the earth had the terrible motions attributed to it, there would be some sensible effects of such motions.  But we neither feel the motion, see it, nor hear it.  And how people can stand watching the pendulum vibrate, and think that they are seeing a proof of the motions of the earth, almost passes comprehension.  They are, however, brought up to believe it, and it is thought to be ‘scientific’ to believe what the astronomers teach.”  -Lady Blount, “The Romance of Science” (8-10)

Also in the mid-19th century, another Frenchman named Gaspard-Gustave Coriolis performed several experiments showing the effect of kinetic energy on rotating systems, which have ever since become mythologized as proof of the heliocentric theory.  The “Coriolis Effect” is often said to cause sinks and toilet bowls in the Northern Hemisphere to drain spinning in one direction while in the Southern Hemisphere causing them to spin the opposite way, thus providing proof of the spinning ball-Earth.  Once again, however, just like Foucault’s Pendulums spinning either which way, sinks and toilets in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres do not consistently spin in any one direction!  Sinks and toilets in the very same household are often found to spin opposite directions, depending entirely upon the shape of the basin and the angle of the water’s entry, not the supposed rotation of the Earth. 

“While the premise makes sense - that the earth’s eastward spin would cause the water in a toilet bowl to spin as well - in reality, the force and speed at which the water enters and leaves the receptacle is much too great to be influenced by something as miniscule as a single, 360-degree turn over the span of a day.  When all is said and done, the Coriolis effect plays no larger role in toilet flushes than it does in the revolution of CDs in your stereo.  The things that really determine the direction in which water leaves your toilet or sink are the shape of the bowl and the angle at which the liquid initially enters that bowl.”  -Jennifer Horton, “Does the Rotation of the Earth Affect Toilets and Baseball Games?”  Science.HowStuffWorks.com

The Coriolis Effect is also said to affect bullet trajectories and weather patterns as well, supposedly causing most storms in the Northern Hemisphere to rotate counter-clockwise, and most storms in the Southern Hemisphere to rotate clockwise, to cause bullets from long range guns to tend towards the right of the target in the Northern Hemisphere and to the left in the Southern Hemisphere.  Again, however, the same problems remain.  Not every bullet and not every storm consistently displays the behavior and therefore cannot reasonably be used as proof of anything. What about the precision of the sight aperture, human error, and wind?  What about Michelson-Morley-Gale’s proven motion of the aether’s potential effect?  Why does the Coriolis Effect affect most storms but not all?  If some storms rotate clockwise in the North and counter-clockwise in the South, how do those storms escape the Coriolis force?  And if the entire Earth’s spin is uniform, why should the two hemispheres be affected any differently?  Coriolis’s Effect and Foucault’s Pendulum are both said to prove the Earth moves beneath our feet, but in reality only prove how easy it can be for wolves in sheep’s clothing to pull the wool over our eyes.

Norway Joins the Dark Side As 666 Is Coming to America

He has his own TV show on Fox and he is slowly taking over the world’s money supply. Who is he? Let’s just say that Biblical prophecy is being fulfilled in our time.

Norway Is Forsaking Cash: The Mark of the Beast Is Near

Norway’s largest bank, DNB, has said that cash is the byproduct of drug dealers and money launderers. In order to eliminate everyday Norwegians from participating the black market and being engaged in money laundering schemes, it is important to stop using cash as a medium of exchange all together.

Bank executive Trond Bentestuen told VG the following:

“Today, there is approximately 50 billion kroner in circulation and [central bank] Norges Bank can only account for 40 percent of its use. That means that 60 percent of money usage is outside of any control. We believe that is due to under-the-table money and laundering.”

This is such a dangerous precedent because the Norwegian banks can say your money is worth what they say. By changing the value of the digitized currency, both bail-ins and bail-outs could in effect be executed and the average Norwegian would be none the wiser. Such a practice gives the bankers exactly what they want.

These beliefs are present in America and the same fate could be in store for the dollar. And by the way, when cash disappears from the market place, what you had in the bank is worth whatever “they” say its worth. It is a safe bet to conclude that the value of the Norwegian money is not going to go up. The anti-Christ has invaded Norway as the average Norwegian will not be able to buy and sell without using the Devil’s currency.

America Is Ripe for a Currency Devaluation

When something is secret and kept from you, it is usually very bad for you.

Very soon, America will lose 448,000 jobs when the TPP takes effect, says various researchers. Sold as an economic stimulant, TPP proponents have told the public that the trade deal would be a boon to the economy. When nearly five million jobs are lost in the first few weeks of the TPP,  the crippled economy will demand extreme reaction by TPTB. Every austerity rule will be on the table including the Mark of the of the Beast.

Americans Are Already Reeling

The second Pew brief found that “More than half of households (54%) could not replace one month’s income using their liquid savings,” concludes . “Over a quarter of households do not have enough liquid savings to replace even one week of income.”

The news is even more dire as the Pew Center’s research indicates that 25% of high-income households have “less than 13 days’ worth of income in liquid savings.” Further, a full 25% of households making less than $25,000 a year have no liquid savings at all. In these instances, the typical household in this income bracket has only six days’ worth of income in liquid savings.
Below is a telling video from an economic expert. He clearly tells the viewers that they should be buying previous metals. However, people are not buying because the prices are flat. Instead, they are letting their cash waster away as the value tremendously decreases. There are none so blind as those that will not see.
Recently, a friend asked me what would I recommend his daughter major in as she begins college this fall.  I thought for a moment and answered “welfare”.  The father was quite taken back as I took out my IPAD and forwarded him some of my files which contains our recent economic statistics.
There are 35 states in this country in which it is better to accept welfare than work at an entry level job. Much like crack cocaine or heroin addicts, much of our nation is hopelessly addicted to living in the welfare state. This has real implications for the emotional and even spiritual health of our nation. The most distressing aspect of the present economic conditions we find ourselves mired in, is the fact that we are allowing our young people to have their dreams and their very sense of hope stolen away from them. Fear monger, naysayer, doomsday profit are terms ascribed to people who dare to criticize the existing economic system and speak about the real implications for our people. I dare the most liberal of you to read the following facts, engage in your own fact checking and then not to be able to conclude that the American dream, for most of our people, is dead and buried.

The Average American Is Taking a Beating

It is not just our nation that is taking a beating, our individual financial situations in this country have grown to a crisis level. America is no longer just in a depression. We have entered third world status, a kind of permanent depression, if you will. Yes, we have skyscrapers and modern technology, but only the elite control these resources and the average Americana’ standard of living is in a state of economic free fall.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, more than 146 million Americans are either “poor” or “low income”. Stunningly, more than 100 million Americans are enrolled in at least one welfare program run by the federal government, not including the massive entitlement programs of Social Security or Medicare. The number of people on food stamps has grown to 47.79 million Americans. In 2008, when Obama first took office, only 32 million Americans were on food stamps. Approximately, 20.2 million Americans spend more than half of their incomes on housing, which represents a 46% increase from 2001. Parents under the age of 30 experience poverty rates consisting of 37 percent. The number of Americans living in poverty has grown to one out of every six US citizens. Can you say “turn out the lights, the party is over.”

It No Longer Pays To Go To Work

Of all the facts that serve to describe the economic chaos, there is one fact that stands out among all others.

FOR MOST AMERICANS, IT NO LONGER PAYS TO GO TO WORK FULL TIME. THE AMERICAN DREAM IS DEAD AND BURIED

Ninety million unemployed Americans are no longer even looking for work. The next time you go into DMV, please realize that you are subsidizing a driver’s license for about a third of the people. You are also paying for their health care, food stamps and shelter. And many of these lower class, poverty-stricken “Americans” are living a higher standard of living than you are and this is by design courtesy of Obama’s policies of Marxian social justice and wealth redistribution. If you are a liberal, you are probably fine with giving away your paycheck to people who will not work. If you are over 40, possess common sense, have an IQ higher than room temperature, then you realize that this is national suicide to keep doing what we are doing.

The Numbers Do Not Lie

Wayne Emmerich found that the family breadwinner who works only one week a month at minimum wage makes 92% as much as the breadwinner  grossing $60,000 a year.Emmerich’s stats demonstrate that by working only one week a month  can save a lot of money in child care expense. But topping the list is Medicaid, which is accessible to minimum wage earners and the program has very low deductibles and co-pays. In short, by working only one week a month at a minimum wage job, a minimum wage earner is able to get total medical coverage for next to nothing courtesy of you and me.
The middle class is not as  lucky as the $60,000 breadwinner pays out approximately $12,000 per year in health insurance costs with an addition $4,500 in co-pays. And if anyone in the part-time minimum wage earning family is disabled, SSI pays out an additional $8,088 per year. When one begins to calculate the expenses incurred by a typical breadwinner making $60,000 per year, compared to the part time minimum wage worker, coupled with minimum wage earners tax supported federal bailouts for these freeloaders, the poor have more discretionary income than those who pay the taxes that run the country. And if the part time minimum wage worker is willing to cheat and participate in the underground economy, they will have significantly more discretionary income than their hard-working $60,000 per year counterpart who actually works for a living. In short, if you are a full-time employee making above minimum wage, you paying for your own economic demise. The numbers here suggest that we’d be better off staying home and living off of the labors of what’s left of the middle class.
America is no longer the land of opportunity as the United States is not even in the top ten. In fact, the United States only ranks 20th in terms of overall gross pay! Yet, what we do have is a plethora of young people hopelessly mired in student loan debt when they graduate and a federal government that is more than happy to garnish their wages and, in some cases, even SWAT team them for nonpayment.

Good vs. Evil

I have a question for all liberals who are still drinking from the Obama Kool-Aid; do you really think the banksters are ever going to allow the people to repudiate these debts without a war or the implementation of some  extreme form of martial law crackdown against resistance to the present status quo?
Consistently, this column has proven its dedication to reform and change through nonviolent means. However, the small group of central bankers who have enslaved nearly every country on this planet with insurmountable debt will never let go of this control without a fight.This is why I am advocating for not participating in their bankster controlled institutions (e.g. Bank of America, WalMart, etc.). However, at the end of the day, the obvious bankster counter would be the well known, much anticipated practice of accepting the mark and you will not be able to buy and sell without it. Ultimately, at its root, this is a spiritual war between good and evil. If you do not think that Satan does not have his hand on this situation, then you are not paying attention. The Mark of the Beast is here. It is only a matter of time.

Libya: From Africa’s Wealthiest Democracy under Gaddafi, to US-NATO Sponsored Terrorist Haven

In 1967 Colonel Gaddafi inherited one of the poorest nations in Africa; by the time he was assassinated, he had transformed Libya into Africa’s richest nation. Prior to the US-led bombing campaign in 2011, Libya had the highest Human Development Index, the lowest infant mortality and the highest life expectancy in all of Africa.

Today, Libya is a failed state. Western military intervention has caused all of the worst-scenarios: Western embassies have all left, the South of the country has become a haven for ISIS terrorists, and the Northern coast a center of migrant trafficking.

Egypt, Algeria and Tunisia have all closed their borders with Libya. This all occurs amidst a backdrop of widespread rape, assassinations and torture that complete the picture of a state that is failed to the bone.

Libya currently has two competing governments, two parliaments, two sets of rivaling claims to control over the central bank and the national oil company, no functioning national police or army, and the United States now believes that ISIS is running training camps across large swathes of the country.

On one side, in the West of the nation, Islamist-allied militias took over control of the capital Tripoli and other key cities and set up their own government, chasing away a parliament that was previously elected.

On the other side, in the East of the nation, the “legitimate” government dominated by anti-Islamist politicians, exiled 1,200 kilometers away in Tobruk, no longer governs anything.

The democracy which Libyans were promised by Western governments after the fall of Colonel Gaddafi has all but vanished.

Contrary to popular belief, Libya, which western media routinely described as “Gaddafi’s military dictatorship” was in actual fact one of the world’s most democratic States.

Under Gaddafi’s unique system of direct democracy, traditional institutions of government were disbanded and abolished, and power belonged to the people directly through various committees and congresses.

Far from control being in the hands of one man, Libya was highly decentralized and divided into several small communities that were essentially “mini-autonomous States” within a State.

These autonomous States had control over their districts and could make a range of decisions including how to allocate oil revenue and budgetary funds.

Within these mini autonomous States, the three main bodies of Libya’s democracy were Local Committees, Basic People’s Congresses and Executive Revolutionary Councils.

The Basic People’s Congress (BPC), or Mu’tamar shaʿbi asāsi was essentially Libya’s functional equivalent of the House of Commons in the United Kingdom or the House of Representatives in the United States.

However, Libya’s People’s Congress was not comprised merely of elected representatives who discussed and proposed legislation on behalf of the people; rather, the Congress allowed all Libyans to directly participate in this process.

Eight hundred People’s Congresses were set up across the country and all Libyans were free to attend and shape national policy and make decisions over all major issues including budgets, education, industry, and the economy.

In 2009,  Gaddafi invited the New York Times to Libya to spend two weeks observing the nation’s direct democracy.

The New York Times, that has traditionally been highly critical of Colonel Gaddafi’s democratic experiment, conceded that in Libya, the intention was that:

“Everyone is involved in every decision… Tens of thousands of people take part in local committee meetings to discuss issues and vote on everything from foreign treaties to building schools.”

The fundamental difference between western democratic systems and the Libyan Jamahiriya’s direct democracy is that in Libya all citizens were allowed to voice their views directly – not in one parliament of only a few hundred wealthy politicians – but in hundreds of committees attended by tens of thousands of ordinary citizens.

Far from being a military dictatorship, Libya under Mr. Gaddafi was Africa’s most prosperous democracy.

On numerous occasions Mr. Gaddafi’s proposals were rejected by popular vote during Congresses and the opposite was approved and enacted as legislation.

For instance, on many occasions Mr. Gaddafi proposed the abolition of capital punishment and he pushed for home schooling over traditional schools. However, the People’s Congresses wanted to maintain the death penalty and classic schools, and the will of the People’s Congresses prevailed.

Similarly, in 2009, Colonel Gaddafi put forward a proposal to essentially abolish the central government altogether and give all the oil proceeds directly to each family. The People’s Congresses rejected this idea too.

For over four decades, Gaddafi promoted economic democracy and used the nationalized oil wealth to sustain progressive social welfare programs for all Libyans. Under Gaddafi’s rule, Libyans enjoyed not only free health-care and free education, but also free electricity and interest-free loans.

Now thanks to NATO’s intervention the health-care sector is on the verge of collapse as thousands of Filipino health workers flee the country, institutions of higher education across the East of the country are shut down, and black outs are a common occurrence in once thriving Tripoli.

Unlike in the West, Libyans did not vote once every four years for a President and an invariably wealthy local parliamentarian who would then make all decisions for them. Ordinary Libyans made decisions regarding foreign, domestic and economic policy themselves.

America’s bombing campaign of 2011 has not only destroyed the infrastructure of Libya’s democracy, America has also actively promoted ISIS terror group leader Abdelhakim Belhadj whose organization is making the establishment of Libyan democracy impossible.

The fact that the United States has a long and torrid history of backing terrorist groups in North Africa and the Middle East will surprise only those who watch the news and ignore history.

The CIA first aligned itself with extremist Islam during the Cold War era. Back then, America saw the world in rather simple terms: on one side the Soviet Union and Third World nationalism, which America regarded as a Soviet tool; on the other side Western nations and extremist political Islam, which America considered an ally in the struggle against the Soviet Union.

Since then America has used the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt against Soviet expansion, the Sarekat Islam against Sukarno in Indonesia and the Jamaat-e-Islami terror group against Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto in Pakistan. Last but certainly not least there is Al-Qaeda.

Al Qaeda: The CIA’s Computer Data Base

Lest we forget, the CIA gave birth to Osama Bin Laden and breastfed his organization throughout the 1980′s. Former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook told the House of Commons that Al Qaeda was unquestionably a product of western intelligence agencies.

Robin Cook explained that Al Qaeda, which literally means “the base” in Arabic, was originally the computer database of the thousands of Islamist extremists who were trained by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to defeat the Russians in Afghanistan.

The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) used to have a different name: Al Qaeda in Iraq.

Read: America Created Al-Qaeda and the ISIS Terror Groups

ISIS is metastasizing at an alarming rate in Libya, under the leadership of one Abdelhakim Belhadj. Fox News recently admitted that Mr. Belhadj:

“Was once courted by the Obama administration and members of Congress” and he was a staunch ally of the United States in the quest to topple Gaddafi. In 2011, the United States and Senator McCain hailed Belhadj as a 'heroic freedom fighter' and Washington gave his organization arms and logistical support. Now Senator McCain has called Belhadj’s organization ISIS, “probably the biggest threat to America and everything we stand for.”

Under Gaddafi, Islamic terrorism was virtually non existent and in 2009 the US State Department called Libya “an important ally in the war on terrorism.”

Today, after US intervention, Libya is home to the world’s largest loose arms cache, and its porous borders are routinely transited by a host of heavily armed non-state actors including Tuareg separatists, jihadists who forced Mali’s national military from Timbuktu and increasingly ISIS militiamen led by former US ally Abdelhakim Belhadj.

Clearly, Gaddafi’s system of economic and direct democracy was one of the 21st century’s most profound democratic experiments and NATO’s bombardment of Libya may indeed go down in history as one of the greatest military failures of the 21st century.