Skip to content

The Migrant State of Psychedelic Gurus


“It is the word by which the depraved steal the virtue of the good, by which the weak steal the might of the strong, by which the fools steal the wisdom of the sages…” ~Ayn Rand – Anthem

Terence McKenna’s Explanation of Why Our Culture is Killing Itself

What would it look like if our culture died out, as it was dying out, somewhere between coherency and harmony and the end point of chaos and dissolution? Would it perhaps resemble the divisive, vitriolic, excessively controlling, self-destructive world we live in today?

Often pondering the future, contemporary sage Terence McKenna spoke on this matter in many of his talks and writings, frequently chastising culture as a supplanted psychic operating system which dooms us by failing to incorporate the novel and chaotic elements of the human experience.

“This is something, culture is not your friend. Culture is for other people’s convenience and the convenience of various institutions, churches, companies, tax collection schemes, what have you. It is not your friend. It insults you. It disempowers you. It uses and abuses you. None of us are well treated by culture.” ~Terence McKenna

Elaborating on the future and the stultifying effects of culture, McKenna sat down with Ralph Abraham and Rupert Sheldrake in a talk at Esalen in 1992. Some 25 years ago, his remarks at this conference are particularly prescient and ironic against today’s backdrop of social insanity.

“As we approach the millennium its going to be increasingly important to, if not control, certainly regulate and monitor the irrational element among us. Which is a curious concept because largely we are the irrational element.” ~McKenna

“It’s the disgrace of 20th century social philosophy that the only two innovative social ideas the 20th century can claim as its own are Freudian psychoanalysis… and fascism. These are the two authentic ideological contributions of the 20th century.” ~McKenna

As scholar Joseph Campbell is famous for affirming, myth, symbol, and story, beyond language, are the universal communicative tools of the human psyche, a realization which helps to understand the development of the individual and of the collective.

The images and symbols on which we are focused, whether consciously or subconsciously, are the foundation of whatever future we construct, be it a livable future or otherwise. McKenna understood that the guiding images and symbolism of today have been regressive for far too long, indicating the historically inevitable descent towards ruin.

At present, the music, entertainment and propaganda industries are rife with images of violence and spiritual annihilation. Our institutions, even our currencies, are polluted with the dark symbolism of the occult, and zooming out a bit, our collective conscience is fixated on images of domination, destruction and death, which drive even our technological evolution.

“What we’re really caught in is a clash of values, where the traditionalist side is getting an unhealthy handicap because of calendrical coincidence. Just being born or living through the clothes of the second millennium poses all kinds of problems for societies that are trying to preserve humanist social values.

“For centuries now, we’ve been focused on symbols of destruction, guided by symbols that look only to the past, not to the future, therefore our psychic awareness is antiquated and incapable of adaptation.” ~McKenna

But who among us is capable of renewing our vision, when the highest social institutions of our day are so obviously and backwardly misguided and corrupt?

“I think the recent election in England, and the election we’re enduring here prove that we cannot expect to hear any kind of meaningful reformist rhetoric from politicians and have there be any hope of it actually being winning at the polls. So that leaves dissidents like ourselves to try and offer something other than, you know, UFO rescue or utter despair as the two poles of the political dialogue.” ~McKenna, 1992

The answer is the individual. It is you.

In the absence of meaningful leadership, and in the presence of mutually assured destruction, we are free to engage in individualism as the last stand against the rise of a technocratic control matrix. In this light, the demise of the present culture is our greatest opportunity to incorporate everything the human race has thus far learned and achieved on planet earth, and to employ it in the creation of something extraordinarily more livable than we have now.

“We have to create culture, don’t watch TV, don’t read magazines, don’t even listen to NPR. Create your own roadshow.” ~Terence McKenna

[Byline Dylan Charles]

02 February 2017

This article (Terence McKenna’s Explanation of Why Our Culture is Killing Itself) was originally created and published by Waking Times and is published here under a Creative Commons license with attribution to it author Dylan Charles and WakingTimes.com

See Also

Official Reality is Psychotic – You Are Not

“One of the methods used by statists to destroy capitalism consists in establishing controls that tie a given industry hand and foot, making it unable to solve its problems, then declaring that freedom has failed and stronger controls are necessary.” –Ayn Rand

‘quid pro quo’ ? ‘poetic justice’ ? …How about those chickens?


‘curses are like chickens; they always come home to roost’

Liberal Judges Unwittingly Declare ObamaCare Religious Mandate Unconstitutional

They don’t realize it, but liberals have just declared that Obama’s HHS mandate — which forced Catholics to cooperate with providing abortion and contraception — is unconstitutional.

The new interpretation of the Establishment Clause espoused by the activist judges who are striking down Trump’s EO is that anything that has a disparate impact on a religious group is unconstitutional.

The rulings by activist judges declaring Trump’s EO on immigration to be unconstitutional were based on arguments that if the EO/law had a disparate impact on any faith, or that if the person behind the EO/law ever said anything that could be construed to violate the new liberal interpretation of the establishment clause, then the EO/law in question was unconstitutional.

Clearly since many religious groups believe that contraception and abortion are morally licit while the Catholic Church, and some Protestant denominations, believe that contraception and abortion are not morally licit any EO/law that requires funding contraception and abortion will have a disparate impact on Catholics since it forces them to violate their deeply held religious beliefs.

Further, even if liberals argue that the HHS mandate is not discriminatory on its face all conservatives have to do is show that anyone involved in generating it ever said anything negative about the Church’s stance on abortion to meet the criteria set by the activist judges.

After all the liberal judges admitted that Trump’s EO itself is not discriminatory but that because Trump supposedly said discriminatory things during the campaign the EO is unconstitutional.

Interestingly, that means that if the exact same EO had been issued by Obama, Bush, Clinton, or any other president it would have been Constitutional.

Even the ultra-liberal Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren recognized that it’s not sane to strike down a law which is on its face legal, as the Hawaiian judge admitted, because of supposed illicit motives:

“This Court will not strike down an otherwise constitutional statute on the basis of an alleged illicit legislative motive.”

This newly found liberal orthodoxy is germane to other aspects of the liberal judicial agenda.

For example saying that Christian bakers must supply cakes to gay weddings is clearly unconstitutional for two reasons, the first being that not all religions object to gay weddings, hence the ruling on the face of it violates the Establishment Clause by having a disparate impact on different faiths and second because supporters of the rulings forcing Christians to go against their beliefs have publicly stated that they disagree with those Christian’s beliefs.

Hence judicial fiats demanding that Christians go against their beliefs with respect to gay weddings fail both of the criteria established by the liberal judicial activists; they have an explicit disparate impact on different faiths and the supporters of these rulings have publicly expressed a bias against Christian beliefs and a desire to make exercising those beliefs illegal.

Another example is that under the new Establishment Clause interpretation any law that rejects school vouchers is unconstitutional. That’s because some faiths have schools and some don’t. Hence denying vouchers has a disparate impact since the faiths that don’t have schools aren’t impacted while faiths that do have schools are.

Further, it’s a historical fact that the Blaine amendments banning financial support to religious schools were passed by lawmakers who openly declared that the objective was to prevent funding Catholic schools, which makes those laws unconstitutional under the new liberal view.

One last example, of the many that are available, is that any attempt to force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions is clearly unconstitutional under the new interpretation of the Establishment Clause, since non-Catholic hospitals will not be impacted by such laws while Catholic ones will. But that clearly shows a disparate impact and of course the people who push for such laws are quite open in announcing their disdain for Catholic beliefs.

The reality is that this new view of the Establishment Clause can be used to eliminate almost the entire liberal agenda on social issues.

While we know that a core belief of liberalism is a deeply seated hypocrisy, and hence liberals will argue against applying the “reasoning” about the EO to anything they like using the logical consequences of liberal “reasoning” may help convince low information voters of the absurdity of the liberal position.

Also, if the activist rulings about Trump’s EO are not overturned then conservatives can use the new interpretation to legally assail much of the anti-religious agenda of the activist judges who are striving to impose their personal beliefs on America via fascist processes.

Understanding the implications of the latest bit of judicial activism makes it clear that the liberals have handed us a win/win situation.  If the courts uphold the latest bit of fascist overreach by activist judges then conservatives can use that to dismantle a great deal of previous judicial activism.  On the other hand if the courts strike down the insane reasoning of these activist judges conservatives win because the legal coup against Trump will have failed.

[Byline Tom Trinko]

23 March 2017
American Thinker

“… the laws of mathematics are not suggestions. You can’t get rid of a cost by making someone else pay it”


It’s Socialized Medicine, so?

Go Ahead — You Own It

[Byline Karl Denninger, via  The Burning Platform]
22 March 2017

I had an “interesting” debate on Twitter last night with someone who is involved in the health insurance game in some way and apparently has cancer patients as clients.  He is a strong shill for the “Obamacare Repeal/Replace” process.

The debate was plenty fun and decent right up until I pointed out that on the math the Federal Government spent $1,417 billion last fiscal year on Medicare and Medicaid, up from $380 billion in 1998, which incidentally was 37% of all federal spending — and it’s accelerating at ~9% a year as it has been for the last several decades.

At this rate it will cross $2,000 billion, or more than half (by a good margin) of the current federal budget within 5 years.  That will blow a $600 billion additional annual deficit hole in the budget into a rising rate environment which the government will not be able to finance.

That’s math, not politics.

For this I was told I was a conspiracy nut and belonged on Infowars.  Never mind that every one of my figures came from the Treasury itself in the form of its official published balance sheet.  If that’s tinfoil…..

 Yeah.

Following my assertion that the AHCA does zero to address cost, which he admitted is correct, and that if we do not address cost and thus drop that $1,417 billion precipitously the government’s budget will be destroyed and thus collapse on the clear evidence and trends published by our government’s own Treasury Department he declared that he was storming off and blocking me — and did exactly that.

So what do we have here?  When I bring up arithmetic and facts that are published by our own government along with the published growth rates and what that will inevitably lead to, pointing out that there is exactly one way to stop what is otherwise inevitable predicated on the laws of mathematics I get called a conspiracy nut?

30 year trends in data published by our own government is a conspiracy?  A statement that we cannot finance another $600 billion a year rising to somewhere around $2.5 trillion a year within five more in a rising rate environment is open to question?

REALLY?

Or is the truth that the light came on in his head — he is shilling for a bill that is an outrageous and open fraud upon the public since it will not address cost (which he admits) but will further advance the collapse of our federal government’s ability to fund itself, and thus operate!

It’s a hell of a lot easier to just slam the door than take on the math and either find an error in it (in which case you win) or admit you’re wrong and change your position, especially after you’ve been lobbying lawmakers, eh?

If you’re wondering why despite my repeated public statements (including right here, again) that I’m willing to show up in DC (or anywhere else for that matter) and have this debate in public, under oath if the body sponsoring same would like it that way and hash it all out there have been no takers among the political class you now know why.  Most of those in the political class do know what the math shows — they’re simply intentionally sticking their fingers in their ears and repeating “na-na-na-na-na-na” because the minute they stop the entire charade they’ve been running on health care comes crashing down around them.

It’s damn hard to continue supporting stupid once you admit it’s stupid and won’t work – so the entire game is to refuse to have the debate at all in an effort to prevent being tagged with the label “financial rapist” by everyone around you.

Here’s a bit of history — all fact, not conjecture.  The insurance and medical industry was in the beginning stages of collapse in 2008.  Annuities are funny things; you promise to pay X, you take in Y, you invest it with a return of Z in a bond ladder and the books balance.  You hope.

You get in a lot of trouble when the promise to pay X ends up as X+ and the return Z doesn’t materialize.  You can get in lethal trouble that way, in fact, and quite easily.  This is how the pension systems in our states, cities and private instances have blown up, and most of it has come from health care.

Then there are all the pigs at the trough in health care itself.  See, while health care counts toward GDP, and is nearly 20% of it today (up from about 3% 30ish years ago) most of it doesn’t produce anything.  Not one car, one house, one television set.  Oh sure, it might allow someone to keep making those things — maybe — but at what cost?  Yes, there are exceptions, but most of those exceptions (e.g. childbirth) are actually quite cheap in percentage terms.

The ugly part is that much medical care is actually negative to GDP.  Why?  Consider the drug addict who mainlines opiates and destroys his heart valves. “Fixing” it costs upward of $500,000, all said and done. Will that person ever produce more value than that with their remaining life?  Definitely not if they keep using drugs; they’ll die.  The sad reality is that most of them do exactly that.

How about the Type II diabetic that winds up running through a quarter-million bucks in drugs, amputations, dialysis, blindness and death because they won’t change their food intake and stop eating carbohydrates?  How far does he or she go before the ability to produce is destroyed, at which point they’re on disability and go from producing something to a net consumer of everyone else’s production?  By the way that specific instance when you add it all up nets out to somewhere around $400 billion a year for Medicare and Medicaid now!  That’s crazy on any objective basis; you could literally give everyone in the country — man, woman and child $1,000 a year instead with money left over — or adequately feed everyone who is hungry in sub-Saharan Africa (all ~230 million of them!) with a lot of money left over.

I’m not going to talk ethics in this regard in this post because that’s a thorny discussion indeed!  But you can’t escape the math.  There are plenty of people in the lower and middle economic strata — in fact, most — who can easily wind up being a net negative to GDP and the problem becomes much worse when medical costs ramp by a factor of six compared against GDP.

Eventually you run out of people who can and will pay when exponential cost growth happens like this, especially when at the same time you ramp cost the income base you rely on to pay taxes to fund same is being destroyed one drug addict or Type II diabetes sufferer at a time.

Always.

It was starting in the 1990s and early 2000s and everyone in the industry, never mind anyone running a company (like me) knew it.  The so-called “High Risk Pools” were collapsing.  That’s a fact, and it was cited as one of the reasons we had to pass the PPACA – to put a stop to their collapse by forcing everyone into paying for those who were very sick or nearly dead!  The stories of people who were unable to get into those pools at all due to lack of funding were well-circulated and the crimp put on treatments paid for by them were both well-documented and publicized — again, due to lack of funds.

I wrote article after article on this in the 2009 timeframe with the facts and figures from our own government and those making similar claims.  The PPACA was basically a bailout of the medical industry engineered to force a more-level slam of the cost on everyone in the country.

But… it failed.  It failed because nothing was done about the actual problem and costs continued to ramp.  The negative GDP problem got worse rather than better and moved even further up the income scale.  The government tried to finance that through even more deficit spending but doing so just destroyed productivity and tax receipts.

The funny thing about cost-shifting is that it can never solve a cost problem.  It just moves the problem somewhere else.  Where it moved it was on the back of productivity and tax receipts, both of which have been horrifyingly bad since the 2008 crash.  Last fiscal year tax receipts rose by less than 1% despite all the new taxes in the PPACA and higher rates generally while productivity improvements have all but disappeared.

The AHCA cannot resolve this problem because it intentionally refuses to address the driver of the problem in the first instance.  Returning to “High Risk Pools” is idiotic because those very pools were on the verge of collapse prior to the PPACA and were a big part of why Obamacare was written and passed!  The insurance and medical lobbies wrote the PPACA to get rid of those problems and pools, or so they thought.

They tried denying math but failed because the laws of mathematics are not suggestions. You can’t get rid of a cost by making someone else pay it; you simply move it and eventually it comes back and bites you.

The answer to the problem cannot lie in “more insurance” or “restructuring” health insurance and let me remind you that my debate “partner” admitted the AHCA will do nothing to address the total cost of health care.  It just moves money around, something I noted back when it was first released (and much to the detriment of state budgets.)

The answer to the problem is, and can only be, a return of the medical industry to its historical 3-4% of GDP.

How?

Enforce the damn law — specifically, 15 USC and State Consumer Protection laws.  Enforce them in a simple fashion: Everyone must post a price and everyone pays the same price; any sort of hiding, collusion, cost-shifting or similar is met with indictments, prosecution and prison for consumer fraud, racketeering along with violations of the Sherman, Clayton and Robinson-Patman acts.

What your insurance covers is between you and the insurance company; the provider of service has nothing to do with it.

Doing that will force competition into the market immediately.

Costs will drop like a stone.

We need no legislation to do any of that — just enforcement.

We do, however, need some legislation as well.  Specifically, we need to repeal the reimportation ban on pharmaceuticals, and we need to add to Robinson-Patman inclusion of international sales.  That will force “best price” everywhere and pharmaceutical costs will fall like a rock here in the United States.  Oh, those other nations?  They’ll get to pay their ratable share of the development of drugs — and it’ll be about damn time.

In terms of legislation it’s pretty easy — you can see some ideas here and here.

Note the dates.

If we fail to address cost in this manner then it matters not whether the AHCA passes.  I hope it doesn’t, simply because bad laws are worse than no laws, and I’m not vindictive.

You see, if they pass it they own it — and everything that comes after it as a result.

Reposted from The Burning Platform

Related

How The Government Ruined U.S. Healthcare (And What We Can Actually Do About It)

Hypothetically speaking …


What if we were to arbitrarily begin killing off Muslims for what they believe?

Thought so.

***************

Need a change of perspective?

Erdogan Threatens Europeans: You ‘Will Not Walk Safely On The Streets’

As Islamic extremists declare Britain’s first Sharia law zone, the worrying social and moral implications

“Truth will come to light; murder cannot be hid long”
~ Shakespeare, Merchant of Venice

Jesus has a gun

“Vengeance is mine…”

There is no coexisting with those wanting to destroy us from within …


There is this:

Nunes ‘Unmasking’ Report Vindicates Trump Claims on Surveillance

And this:

FBI Director James Comey unmasked as a Deep State Black Hat Operative.

It Took a Freshman GOP Congresswoman To Pull The Mask From FBI Director Comey…

Representative Elise M. Stefanik is a young, freshman republican congresswoman from the Albany New York area.  And using a probative questioning timeline, she single-handily pulled the mask from FBI Director James Comey, yet no-one seemed to notice.

[…]

Director Comey intentionally obfuscates knowledge of the question from Rep Stefanik; using parseltongue verbiage to get himself away from the sunlit timeline.

The counter-intel investigation, by his own admission, began in July 2016.  Congress was not notified until March 2017.  That’s an eight month period – Obviously obfuscating the quarterly claim moments earlier.

The uncomfortable aspect to this line of inquiry is Comey’s transparent knowledge of the politicized Office of the DNI James Clapper by President Obama.  Clapper was used rather extensively by the Obama Administration as an intelligence shield, a firewall or useful idiot, on several occasions.

[…]

Occam’s Razor – Because the question(s), the brutally obvious question(s), then lead to the follow-up:  If the only criminal activity is the sourcing of the leak, and the two people giving testimony are potential suspects in that criminal activity, then: A)  How can we trust their testimony, and B) Why are we even having this hearing”? (with two people who are suspects in an ongoing investigation)…

The answers reveal the current intention of the intelligence committee is not to actually investigate, but rather to give the outward illusion of investigation.

If they were not merely giving an illusion….  Congress would be pointing out that FBI Director James Comey has a direct and specific conflict of interest that is so glaringly obvious it’s unfathomable no-one see it.

Director Comey, and to a lesser extent Rogers, would have been in direct contact with the prior administration individuals, and entities acting on their behalf, who were politicizing the information being gathered and lying about (ie. leaking to the media) the content therein.

[…]

Summary:  Hillary Clinton political operatives manufactured the illusion of a computer connection between Russian entities (financial banks) and the Trump campaign/organization.  Those manufactured points of evidence were then passed along to White House entities who used the political intel community (Clapper to Comey) to open an investigation of nothingness – to nowhere.  The mere existence of that investigation was then used as the originating point for a series of media intel leaks (the narrative) intended to cloud and damage the Trump campaign/organization. FBI Director James Comey, as head of one of the investigative agencies, became part of that political apparatus.  Now, usefulness exhausted and with the media engaged, it’s CYA time all around for the originating entities.

FBI Director James Comey has singularity of knowledge and has cleverly placed himself in a position where there is no “oversight” of his claims.

“Because of the sensitivity of the matter”  ~ James Comey

[Excerpts from The Last Refuge ] Read full article …

“The truth can be dangerous. Some extremists will go to great lengths to keep the truth from coming out, even if that means threatening harm to to their opponents.”


Once again time has revealed the foundation on which the Obama and his Administration was constructed. The level of the domestic abuse of power instigated by this administration is unprecedented.

This administration sought to stifle all opposition and used its power to silence dissent. What the IRS, BLM, NSA, EPA and other high-level agencies are doing, and have done is organized, planned and deliberate. These are things that violate the most basic tenets of the Republic and it’s Constitution. The use of government agencies to silence political opposition is tyranny and is the greater threat to freedom from those adhering to totalitarian precepts. Those that have done these things should be imprisoned, indeed these crimes should be at the least capital offenses, if not more serious treasonous actions.

What is being experienced by the American people, is the differences encountered between isolated treason and  an outright coup, and those responsible for the destruction of the country are expected to be trusted managing the it? Yet there is an increasing amount of  loathing for the people who have done harm to the US, but is simply not comparable to the erupting undercurrent of revulsion they now have in store for them.


One thing to remember about objective evidence is it always stands alone and because of its self explanatory nature there is a simplicity to it. The evidence is damning and it addresses the reality of what happened. Evidence itself, like truth, is always waiting to be discovered or realized. We as humans are the ones who create rules to deflect the reality and the perception of the evidence. Commonly government will demonize the messenger to deflect from the fact that they have no defense against the presented objective evidence. –Bernie Suarez via TheSleuthJournal

Liberal/Marxist Constitutional scholar and career comedian Sen. Al Franken (D) MN, schools Supreme Court nominee (sort of)


Franken Takes Shot at the Late Antonin Scalia’s Understanding of the Constitution

Sen. Al Franken (D., Minn.) questioned the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s understanding of the Constitution on Monday during the confirmation hearing for President Trump’s nominee to the high court, Judge Neil Gorsuch.

Franken began his line of questioning to Gorsuch by discussing Trump’s “litmus test” for his Supreme Court nominee.

“In fact, he openly discussed his litmus test. He said that he would ‘appoint judges very much in the mold of Scalia’ during the final presidential debate,” Franken said. “Then-candidate Trump said, ‘The justices I’m going to appoint will be pro-life. They will have a conservative bent.'”

Franken then praised Scalia before taking a shot at his knowledge of the Constitution.

“Justice Scalia was a man of great conviction and, it should be said, a man of great humor,” Franken said. “But Justice Scalia embraced a rigid view of our Constitution, a view blind to the equal dignity of LGBT people, and hostile to women’s reproductive rights, and a view that often refused to acknowledge the lingering laws and policies that perpetuate the racial divide.”

Franken acknowledged that nobody can dispute the late Scalia’s love for the Constitution, but he went on to say “the document he revered looks very different from the one I have sworn to defend.”

“It troubles me that at this critical juncture in our nation’s history, at this moment when our country is so fixated on things that divide us from one another, that President Trump would pledge to appoint jurists whose views of our founding document seek to reinforce those divisions rather than bridge them,” Franken added.

Scalia, who unexpectedly passed away last February, served on the Supreme Court for three decades. Prior to serving on the nation’s highest court, Scalia was appointed Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

He was chairman of the American Bar Association’s Section of Administrative Law from 1981 to 1982 and served as a senior figure in the Justice Department in the 1970s. The late Supreme Court justice previously was a professor at multiple top law schools and received his law degree from Harvard University.

Franken did not attend law school or practice law before entering the Senate in 2009.

[Byline Cameron Cawthorne]

20 March 2017
Washington Free Beacon

==========

…the power elites who now control the media, academia, and Hollywood seem to understand social psychology well enough to exploit it on a massive scale. They have engaged in psychological warfare against the private mind by inducing “collective belief formation.” There’s really nothing new here. Conditioning and nudging the masses into groupthink is a very old trick of all wannabe dictators. The bloody twentieth century is filled to the gills with examples..” –Stella Morabito, The Federalist


Nuclear Event – Unusual Event: Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Unit 1, Wisconsin


North America – USA | State of Wisconsin, Two Rivers, Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Unit 1
Location: 44°16’52.0″N 87°32’12.0″W
Present Operational Age: ~47 years
Event:  UNUSUAL EVENT/FIRE ALARM IN CONTAINMENT

Emergency Class: UNUSUAL EVENT
10 CFR Section:  50.72(a) (1) (i) – EMERGENCY DECLARED

Nuclear Event in USA on Monday, 20 March, 2017 at 16:20 [CDT].

UNUSUAL EVENT DECLARED FOR FIRE ALARM IN CONTAINMENT

“At 1620 [CDT], an unusual event was declared due to a smoke detector alarm in Unit 1 containment. [There were] no indications of any other detector alarms, no abnormal equipment indications, and containment parameters are normal (temperature, humidity).

“At 1631 [CDT], visual inspection [of the] 66 ft. hatch indicated no smoke or abnormal smell.

“At 1640 [CDT], local inspection of Unit 1 containment verified no fire or hot spots.”

The licensee has notified the NRC Resident Inspector.

Notified DHS SWO, FEMA Ops Center, DHS NICC. Notified FEMA National Watch and Nuclear SSA via E-mail.

* * * UPDATE FROM RYAN RODE TO DONG PARK AT 2208 EDT ON 3/20/2017 * * *

“Event transmitted under ENS # 52627 is terminated at 2022 [CDT on] 3/20/17.”

The NRC Resident Inspector has been notified.

Notified R3DO (Orlikowski), NRR EO (Miller), and IRD (Stapleton). Notified DHS SWO, FEMA Ops Center, DHS NICC. Notified FEMA National Watch and Nuclear SSA via E-mail.

Source: NRC  Event Number:  52627