Facades

When walking past a house after dark, it’s always the big windows that are lit. Is this diversion or hubris? Governments display these same traits.

What’s unseen… what’s underground? What’s behind the facade, the empty room, the well-lit space?

designboom_tezuka_architects_interview_005

More to come.

Nebra Sky Disk: Made In Asia, Embellished In Wales?

The Nebra sky disk was found in Germany, near Nebra, and ever since, European scholars have used it to advance the notion of Euro-centric superiority. It has been dated to the mid-late Bronze Age, at approximately 1600 BC. The claim is that it was made in Germany.

The Nebra sky disk features the oldest concrete depiction of the cosmos worldwide. In June 2013 it was included in the UNESCO Memory of the World Register and termed “one of the most important archaeological finds of the twentieth century.””

The only problem with this theory is that the disk was probably made in Asia and altered not such a long time ago, in Wales. (This is only my surmise, for the moment; you will see why, below.)

From Wikipedia (emphasis mine):

  • At some later date, two arcs (constructed from gold of a different origin, as shown by its chemical impurities) were added at opposite edges of the disk. To make space for these arcs, one small circle was moved from the left side toward the center of the disk and two of the circles on the right were covered over, so that thirty remain visible. The two arcs span an angle of 82°, correctly indicating the angle between the positions of sunset at summer and winter solstice at the latitude of the Mittelberg (51°N).

  • The final addition was another arc at the bottom, the “sun boat“, again made of gold from a different origin.

The only ‘proof’ of the disk’s European provenance are the gold bands of eighty-two degrees which were added at a later date. How much later is uncertain. I think it was much much later, probably just after it was discovered. In fact, two of the ‘stars’ were even moved to accommodate the gold bands, so how can it be claimed that the knowledge conveyed by them dates to 1600 BC? We have fraud on three levels: provenance; age; forgery.

*UPDATE*

However, an analysis conducted more recently discovered that the gold used was from the United Kingdom – from the river Carnon in Cornwall.

Too bad you can’t date gold.

Jesus’ uncle dealt in tin and traded with the those who inhabited what is now England.

The tin content of the bronze in the disk was also from Cornwall.

How co-incidentally convenient. That’s why they would have it embellished in Wales, just outside (but not really) English jurisdiction.

[Keep your eye on photo4.]


In this video (6:03) [part three of a series of three short films] professor Green displays a mosaic of photos of the disk on her restoration laboratory wall. In these photos, the curved gold object at the bottom of the disk (said to be a solar barge or boat) is both there, and isn’t.

This is the mosaic she assembled with photographs she claims she had nothing to do with creating. Notice how photo 5 is offset to the right.

Nebra_disc2

I superimposed photo 5 onto photo 4 at 50% opacity which is what can be seen in the yellow circle below – “The boat should be here.”

Nebra_disc

When confronted with these images, professor Green had this to say, “But half the boat is visible on the bottom left picture, exactly where it should be. i may be missing your point but I don’t see the problem.[sic]

There was clearly nothing in the bottom-left photo. Of course, this is up to one’s interpretation of the meaning of the word ‘left.’ Whereas I meant left as it is viewed – ‘house left’, she may have meant left as in ‘stage left.’ It seems to me that when one is attaching pictures to the wall, the one on the left is self-evident. In all fairness, and given the number of lectures she has probably given, it is entirely possible that this is the whence from which the confusion sprang:

stage_diagram(1)

Now, to her credit, professor Miranda Aldhouse-Green is a very reputable scientist, archaeologist, and religious historian. She is professor emeritus and has written a great number of books. She is perhaps best known for her work on the peat bog mummies. I, in no way intended to offend her, defame her, or accuse her of any untoward behaviour. Her reputation is unassailable, after all. I simply wanted to know why her fingerprints were on photos of an obviously trafficked historical artefact posted on the wall of her own restoration laboratory, why she did not notice the obvious anomaly (none of the thousands who viewed these videos on YouTube ever noticed it before I did either, I might add,) and if she had any part to play in the trafficking of said object. Unfortunately, after a brief email exchange with me, she thought my questions too aggressive, was resentful of my implications, and did not, “wish to get into this.” She claims not to remember much about it at all, it having happened so long ago, that she had no part in the imaging of the disk, and that she was merely there to offer commentary about the meaning of the disk.

This is odd considering the disk is considered to be one of the most significant discoveries of the 20th century, but if you’ve seen one, I suppose you’ve seen them all, or so the saying goes. She has asked me not to contact her again. Given her status and her reputation, I will, of course, honour that request. I meant no offense and was simply seeking answers to my numerous and decidedly direct questions. On the other hand, it seems to me that when one is presented with five images of a thing and a large enough table, the first thing one does is to put them together like the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle, in which case the anomaly would have been obvious to anyone, let alone an expert such as herself, as it had been to me after having only seen the video images for a few seconds. Nevertheless, I suppose this one slipped by the expert.

[I am in no way ‘out to get’ Dr. Green, which is why I gave her a chance to respond – which she seriously blew. I will continue to give her the benefit of the doubt; that is, until she admits her complicity or her incompetence in this whole sordid affair.]

Perhaps she had a restricted time budget. Those documentary film shooting schedules can be very tight, no seriously, and she is probably a very busy woman. It is more than just plausible (deniability.) [Please forgive me the sarcasm. It is one of the few joys of writing.] In all seriousness however, if she had been given just five minutes to shoot the clip, and she had already done her research about the disk ahead of time, she may not have noticed the anomalies. Fair enough. Then again, she did offset photo 5 by a considerable amount in order to isolate the boat for the sake of commentary (she did it quite deliberately,) and had she not done so, this article would have been far less interesting, admittedly. But having said that, why put up photo4 first, as it contained no information besides the information contained in its lack thereof? Are you still following this? Mysteries abound. Onward.

If there is any doubt as to the photographic evidence presented above, this is a découpé  of the images on the video, taken at different times.

3c

… I ask you, where is the boat? Even the sun is missing from photo 4. (photo 4 is the one on the bottom left, house left, to be precise.)

The only conclusion one can come to is that the photos show the disk in different stages of manufacture. In case you are wondering about photo-manipulation, the patina under the spots where both the boat and sun should be does not show any repeating pattern similar to anywhere else on the disk, as far as I can tell.

This is not to say that Heinrich Wunderlich, the man who authenticated the corrosion on the bronze parts of the disk (see video #1) was incorrect. The disk could very well be authentic and his estimate of the age of the bronze could very well be accurate. As far as I know, he only analyzed the bronze portion of the disk since oxidation does not occur on gold. Remember that the gold leaf depicting the three arcs was definitively added afterwards, and perhaps more. Perhaps, indeed, all of it was.

What about the holes punched around the outside of the disk? What is their purpose? This disk, it would seem to me, was probably an adornment originally made as a breastplate. Adding some of the gold leaf in order to further the story of Euro-centric knowledge of the stars would not have been difficult, especially for someone with a lab full of specialized restoration equipment, as exists in Cardiff. Did I mention that professor Green was from the University of Cardiff in Wales?

The Saracens, Indians, Persians, Ottomans, and even Genghis Khan all wore similar breastplates. These designs were not typical of European armour. This would explain the holes punched around the circumference of the disk which could serve as attachment points to the rest of the armour. [n.b. Note the top-left image below. On that particular breastplate, there seems to be a band along the bottom which is very similar to the bands on either side of the Nebra disk. It could have been made with leather, as is shown in this example, or with a separate piece of metal. It may have served as either a re-enforcement or in order to limit wear on the ‘stitches.’ Maybe it was simply decorative. In any case, it looks pretty darn close to 82°. This particular armour suit is, ironically, housed in the Kunsthistorisches Museum in Wien, Austria. [Not Germany, but close enough.] How have all the experts missed this simple fact? It is simply supposition on my part; nevertheless, it should be retained as a possibility.

The Nebra disk is not as ornate as these examples, but perhaps it was not destined to adorn a general, either.

The crescent was well used in the iconography of the Ancient Near East and was used transplanted by the Phoenicians in the 8th century BC as far as Carthage in modern Tunisia. The crescent and star also appears on pre-Islamic coins of South Arabia.

The combination of star and crescent also arises in the Ancient Near East, representing the Moon and Ishtar (the planet Venus), often combined into a triad with the solar disk. It was inherited both in Sassanian and Hellenistic iconography.

(Keep in mind that the sun symbol on the disk seems to have been added later. It may originally just have been a star and crescent design, if anything at all.) Triads can be depicted with five, six, or eight-pointed stars, and sometimes even more.

header-start_oben

An obvious triad combining the sun, the moon, and one star – not seven stars. See below. Why this is assumed to be the Pleiades is beyond me. In 1600 BC, with no light pollution or smog, I would think that more than seven of the stars in that constellation would have been visible. Galileo noted a total of thirty-six. The cluster actually contains over one thousand stars, fourteen of which can be seen with the naked eye. Interestingly, the cultures of Japan and India (amongst others) associate the Pleiades with the number six.

Coin_of_Phraates_V_of_Parthia

Above is a Parthian (Iranian) coin from the first century BC Note the moon and star motif. (The star depicted on the coin above appears to be six-pointed with a bar connecting the star to the moon, as is often the case. It looks a lot like our Pleiadean group, does it not?)

Could the disk have originally belonged to an Asian invader? Did the Huns bring it to Europe as some sort of inspirational and motivational artefact in their attempt to overrun ancient Germany? Did it arrive much earlier as an object for barter or an adornment for clothing? If some of the elements on the disk are authentic, are they of Asian origin or design? The 51st parallel runs right through Inner Mongolia, after all. The Asian astronomical tradition is ancient and well-reputed, and trade routes from the Indus Valley, Mongolia, and all over the near-east to the Mediterranean are well-established, once camels had been domesticated in the early to mid Bronze Age.

Metallurgical_diffusion

“On 20 June 2007 a multimedia visitor center was opened near the discovery site at Nebra.” This center obviously cost a great deal of money to build, and tourists pay a fee to visit.

KONICA MINOLTA DIGITAL CAMERA

However, the disk is part of the permanent exhibition in the Landesmuseum für Vorgeschichte (State Museum of Prehistory) in Halle. The museum states that the disk is an object from the early Bronze Age. Even in the technologically late-blooming Europe, 1600 BC must be considered mid-late Bronze age. The Bronze Age started much sooner in the east, after all.

If there has been a forgery of the disk, it has cost the people of Germany, the tourists to Germany, and the people of Asia, where it belongs, quite a lot of money. The people have a right to know whether this object is authentic or not, and an investigation into this matter should begin immediately. There must have been many people involved in this scheme.

So, an Asian artefact, found in Europe seems to have been dressed up to look like it was local, and the myth of European supremacy lives on. The people of Europe, and the rest of the world for that matter, may have been duped. Asian knowledge has, as it would seem, once again been appropriated by the west for nothing more than bragging rights.

Erdogan: Richest Man On Earth?

Maybe ‘the most powerful man on Earth’ would be more appropriate. Let me explain.

Turkey and the EU have been in limbo now for almost thirty years. Turkey has wanted to join, but there have been doubts about its stability… well-founded doubts.

Recently, the west’s relationship with Turkey has soured. Erdogan has been playing both sides of the conflict in Syria. There is little doubt that he has sponsored mercenary forces to overthrow Assad, that he has moved Daesh oil, and that he has attacked both the Russians (by downing a Sukhoi) and the Americans in Syria:

“The Turkish statement clearly dismissed speculations that Ankara forces hit US-backed fighters in Syria by mistake.”

It would seem that Turkey has said goodbye to its EU aspirations, and perhaps the EU has also:

“The European Union has warned that the bloc could redefine the entire status of its relations with Turkey in light of recent developments in the country and amid growing disputes between the two sides.”

As I have written in past articles, if Turkey looks to the west, America wins in the middle-east along with its allies Israel and Saud. They would essentially control all the pipelines through Turkey, the Euphrates river, and the Mediterranean. Assad would be ousted, eventually. The Russians would lose access to the Mediterranean, and would be blocked at the Bosporus. New terror groups would undoubtedly spring up to threaten Russia from Georgia and Chechnya. This would give the west more power over Ukraine and Crimea, where the focus would undoubtedly shift. The globalists would win, too, by the way.

If Turkey looks east then the New Silk Road will be a ‘fait accompli’ giving China land access to the EU and giving Russia more say about what happens near its borders (with Georgia and Ukraine.) New pipelines would be built to bring Iranian oil to markets in the EU. The China/Russia/Iran/Kazakhstan connection would win over India, in time, as well as Saudi Arabia. The price of oil in America could quadruple overnight, shale or no shale. Populism would soar across the west and the EU, and Assange would be free to leave the Ecuadoran embassy in London.

Turkey looking east would almost instantly save Assad, sever the links between America and Saud, which would lead to the destruction of the petro-dollar scheme, which would kill the US dollar, which would, in turn, bring down all the central banks in the EU. The world’s derivatives markets are highly sensitive, especially these days, to the effects of any downturns with the central banks, just ask Douchebank (ahem) I mean Deutsche Bank. Actually, don’t; they’ve been very tight-lipped about the whole situation.

Deutsche Bank Tells Investors Not To Worry About Its €46 Trillion In Derivatives

 

The entire derivatives market is worth an estimated 1 quadrillion dollars, and if anyone of its substantial pillars were to fall, well, let’s just say that things would not end well. If the whole thing fell apart, it would be the end of America, and the EU, as we know it.

See here for a nice graphic representation.

So there we have it, Erdogan looking east would blow up the western world’s economy more assuredly than any bomb Russia could drop. Putin could end up beating the Americans simply by making nice with Erdogan. He wouldn’t even have to launch a missile. Good thing the west was thinking ahead, allowing a scapegoat like Trump, who would certainly be blamed, to win the white house.

Who’d have thought that the entire populist movement, the western banking system, and the fate of the western world, for that matter, depends not on Trump, or Le Pen, or on Farage, or even on Wilders, but rather on a paranoid dictator worth 1 quadrillion dollars headquartered in Turkey named Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, and all so he can kill some Kurds?

Putin maybe, but he’s always been good at chess, and there ain’t no Bobby Fischers left.


UPDATE

It would appear that Turkey and Russia are indeed getting closer…

Russia’s Gazprom CEO Alexei Miller said Wednesday that the energy giant will begin the offshore laying of the Turkish Stream pipeline in the second half of 2017 and plans to complete the construction of two legs by the end of 2019.

…much closer.

Turkey, Russia clinch agreement on S-400 air defense system deliveries

Russian President Vladimir Putin and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan will meet face-to-face in Sochi on May 3 to discuss these and other matters. Clearly, the rapprochement since Turkey shot down a Russian jet is going well, much to the dismay of the west.

Vladimir Putin believes that Russia and Turkey are restoring full-format relations

“I’m sure that those steps that we are taking together will change the fate of the whole region,” Erdogan said.”

And they lived happily ever after…


Follow up to this article is here.

The Cremation Of Care Goes Dutch

The title of this article “Cremation Of Care” (9:41) comes from the name of the ceremony held at the Bohemian Grove every July where some of the most powerful people in the world come together for… well, for who knows what?! In front of a giant owl-god, Molech, the concept of care is burnt in effigy.

The image is of the Kindlifresser (child-eater) in the Swiss capitol of Bern, feasting on a sack full of children.

You will soon see how these two notions relate to the upcoming video.

Do you remember “Confessions Of An Economic Hit Man” (Part 1 – 53:35) in which John Perkins claims to have played a role in an alleged process of economic colonization of Third World countries?
Well, consider that the first chapter. This is the second chapter. It’s much worse.
(Original in Dutch, with English subtitles.)

Behind the Curtain

I have written much over the last two years about US support for terrorist groups. I have also written about Kerry and Syria, Israel and Turkey, Saud and Wahhabism, the fact that Syria is not a divided democracy (there is no civil war there, and never has been – Assad has the support of his electorate,) (49:34) and that mercenaries from NATO have fomented the entire situation. I have stated that Russia, and Vlad Putin, really did save the world. It would seem I was not wrong.

If there is one story the world needs to hear about it is surely this one. As usual, the main-stream media dropped the ball (on purpose) on this next non-helicopter-delivered-bombshell. Please pass this on!!

John Kerry admits US support for terrorist groups in the Middle-East. War on Terror, indeed:  (36:56)

As Voltairenet.org (Thierry Meyssan) writes,

“The support that Kerry offers to Daesh violates several UN resolutions and constitutes proof of his responsibility and that of Obama in the crimes against humanity committed by the terrorist organisation.”

And to think that the only thing which prevented him from becoming president of the USA was the election of George Bush.

It looks like both these guys, one democrat, one republican, both had the war on terror in their sights. And they say we have a choice. Skull and Bones members might, but we sure don’t. Even the Nobel Peace prize recipient Barack Obama said the USA supports ISIL and nobody batted an eyelash. They’re all on the same side, and it isn’t the one we’re on. Maybe the only reason they killed Osama bin Laden (if they did) was so that they could take over his organization.

Now let’s see what happens in Ukraine once Turkey rejects NATO and takes sides with Russia, China, and Khazakstan to join the New Silk Road. The end of the American empire is upon us. Let’s just hope they don’t drag us all down with them. Long gold, long Rubles, long VIX, watch for oil prices to spike in Europe, and stock up on supplies – this could get even uglier.

PS. (0:14)

Setting Up For Failure??

With the past year’s electoral comedy festival coming to a close today, and with Obama’s economy (let’s face it) in the toilet, is it any surprise that the Dow went up this morning? Futures are up, PMs are up, even CNN’s ratings are up, hope is on the rise, and change is in the air… change not even Obama could have foreseen.

Whether you voted for a billionaire, a billionaire wanna-be, or you stayed home and didn’t vote (majority,) you have just witnessed the most vitriolic fight ever to have rocked the airwaves on CNN. But was it, as is all the other ‘news’ on CNN, all just a show? One of your candidates would have been beholden to Goldman-Sachs, the other will be sipping lemonade with them at his country club(s.) Some choice. Some democracy.

Billionaires have been moving their money out of the markets and into gold for the last year or so. Out of risky investments (they are all risky these days) and into wealth storage goes  the ‘smart’ money (I would call it the ‘informed’ money, but I digress) whereas the rest of us are being lulled into buying stock at the (obvious) top of the market. Someone is gonna’ make a killing, and somebody else is about to get fleeced… usually the sheep.

More and more experts are hedging against a catastrophic crash in the markets – they say it will make 2008 look like a minor hiccup – and betting on $5,000 gold, and many have been saying this for some time. Meanwhile, the manipulated markets are levitating on fumes. The crash is being postponed. Someone wants Obama to go out looking like a hero. Easy when unemployment numbers don’t include those who’ve stopped looking for work. Unemployment, by some estimates, could be as high as 20%, and with the national debt growing exponentially, population rates dropping, a soon-to-be-retired population aging fast, tax-havens for corporations, a growing prison population, and a bankrupt pension industry, the tax base is falling fast as spending (especially military) is going through the roof and government is growing faster and faster every year. Hell, even the cost of presidential libraries is more than doubling every term.

I used to think Trump was just thrown in to the mix in order to divide the Republican vote and get HRC elected. Could be, but Trump really was an anomaly. Did he really take the country by surprise, or were there those who had a plan all along? I’m starting to think that when Trump was first being seen as a champion for the people, others were taking advantage of the situation to further their own interests.

The economy could not be held up on ‘good news’ forever, they needed a way out of the downwardly-spiraling miasma beyond blaming the weather, or at least someone to pin it on. So the economy was propped-up for the exit of the Nobel prize-winner, and once Trump is inaugurated, the wheels will be allowed to come off. The end of 2017 could see the VIX at 100!

Since Brexit and talk of other countries leaving the EU, the big debate around the planet this year has been about one thing – globalism versus the dangers of populism. What if globalists are using Trump as a fall guy, a scapegoat to blame the coming crash on? What if they have their fingers on the markets just waiting to pull the plug? What better way to defeat populism than by using its own best champion to bring it down? “You see? We told you that he was dangerous, didn’t we? We told you globalism would prevail. Now show us your papers.” And that’s just the economic side… there’s also this situation in the middle-east involving Russia, Saud, Turkey, et al, but that’s another story.

Would it surprise me? No. Nothing, at this point, would surprise me.

*Update*

via Zerohedge: “Mario Draghi Hints Trump Will Be Responsible For The Next Financial Crisis

The Trump Collapse Scapegoat Narrative Has Now Been Launched

The media was building the foundation of the narrative from the moment Trump won the election. Bloomberg was quick to publish its rather hilariously skewed propaganda on the matter, asserting that Trump was lucky to inherit an economy in ascendance and recovery because of the fiscal ingenuity of Barack Obama. This is of course utter nonsense. Obama and the Fed have created a zombie economy rotting from the inside out, nothing more. But, as Bloomberg noted rightly, any downturn within the system will indeed be blamed on the Trump administration.

Fortune Magazine, adding to the narrative, outlined the view that the initial stock rally surrounding Trump’s election win was merely setting the stage for a surprise market crash.

I continue to go one further than the mainstream media and say that the Trump administration is a giant cement shoe designed (deliberately) to drag conservatives and conservative principles down into the abyss as we are blamed by association for the financial calamity that will occur on Trump’s watch.

Personally, I think it less about left vs. right and more about us vs. them. It’s a class thing. Both conservatives and liberals will suffer through the next major crisis, but populism will be pummeled.

Kissinger, Egypt, Syria, and the EU

The EU has suspended talks on whether or not to include Turkey.

Brazil and South Africa’s currencies were simultaneously annihilated – like Greece’s was, now BRICS will show what it’s really all about: the New Silk Road. [I have covered this topic several times in other articles.]

If the USA is in Syria, Turkey belongs to Europe. If Russia is in Syria, Turkey belongs to Asia.

Additionally, Turkey controls all the on-land pipelines into southern Europe, and most of the water into the ME. (Ukraine controls the rest of the pipelines into Europe.)

You can’t make war in the Middle East without Egypt and you can’t make peace without Syria.

Henry A. Kissinger

[Wikiquotes says that the above quote remains unsourced; other sites disagree. Whether he said it or not, it is a prevalent idea, and it makes the point.]

Recent reports have Egypt going one step beyond simply supporting Al-Assad to providing Syria with pilots and generals.

Lebanese newspaper: Egypt ‘deploys pilots to Syria’

This seems like a bit of fake news. Maybe there was a translation problem from the original article.

Egypt denies sending military troops to Syria after Al-Sisi explicitly supports Al-Assad

Despite denying the military facts behind the reporting, the fact that Al-Sisi openly showed support for Al-Assad (instead of just the Syrian people – as he had previously done) means that the US’s former puppet/ally has just rejected American hegemony in favour of a pan-Asian alliance between China, Russia, Kazakhstan, India, Iran…

With Egypt (long-time foe of Israel) and Turkey (lynchpin of Eurasia) joining the ‘dark side’ and bringing Syria with them, America will be surrounded and will either be stuck in Iraq for a very long time, or they will go home, like the Russians did, from Afghanistan. Either way, Saudi and Israel are shaking in their boots at the prospect.

Trump: The Most Misunderstood Man in ‘Merca

Donald Sterling, of ‘Los Angeles Clippers Owner’ fame, was branded a racist. He had been recorded making racist remarks; he admitted to them and apologized. His English grammar skills are mediocre, at best. After his explanation, he came out looking very bad.

Some people, whose family smoked in the house while they were children, became addicted to nicotine before they ever started smoking. It was just ‘in the air.’ Do you see where I’m going with this?

Donald Sterling was raised in a racist environment (as was everybody else back then) and even if it was a passively racist environment, his father would have been raised in a much stricter one. He knew it was wrong, and he hid it publicly, he tried to suppress his urge to smoke. He never explained himself in this way. If he had, he might still own the Clippers.

I’m not defending Donald Sterling, but he was an old man, and his talk would have been normal at the country club. ‘I don’t mind them, per se, just don’t bring them home.’

However, when refering to how tough HRC’s father was, phrases like, “…but it was a different time back then…” and, “…he was old-fashioned…” sprung up apologetically.

Trump finds himself in very much the same position, only, it relates to sexual harassment against women, which is now a very touchy subject. The problem is that it wasn’t considered sexual harassment at the time, it was tolerated and even encouraged to a large extent, so why should he be held to that standard? Some of the women who allowed it, in order to further their careers in a male-dominated world, benefited greatly and ‘played the game.’ That should not need to happen in a civilized society, but then again, sex sells… it always has.

And a paid escort suing him for kissing her?!?

It’s hard to blame a billionaire for indulging; you just know that their tastes for exotic things and experiences often lead them to debauch. Even a sixteen year old with a Ferrari will be tired of ‘just’ banging super-models by his mid-twenties. When one can afford anything, what won’t they be tempted to try? How far will they go?

He is a braggart and pompous and spoiled. He should own it more. So should Sterling have. He tends to talk in hyperbole. He gets picked on a lot for this, but as for Donald Trump’s language skills, I think the man truly has a great deal of trouble translating what’s in his head into words. He didn’t study much English at Wharton. I suspect many politicians and public figures have this same problem. I’m not saying that all his foibles are attributable to his poor communication skills, there are some old vestiges in there, of times long past when you could dry hump a girl on roller-skates while doing a line on the table. Nobody cared what you did. Everybody has done something embarrassing. Billionaires just have more opportunities to, and the spotlight on them when it does. But compared to all the allegations against the Clintons from Whitewater to Pay-to-Play and the implications thereof, he’s just a street-smart buffoon, she’s a diabolical lawyer, and she is very good at what she does. So was Madoff, until he got caught.

[A no-fly zone in Syria (which HRC supports and Trump does not) will undoubtedly lead to WW3 with the Russians.]

Still, when pundits misinterpret an already flawed message, the results can be very far from those intended.

Trump’s a businessman who takes advantage of the laws in place, and has had to compete with others all his life. But now he’s put himself on the other side of that. He knows what needs fixing. I’m not an apologist for any of the stupid things he’s said, I just think that he needed help in framing his very general ideas. It took forty-three minutes to get a minute of locker-talk out of him. He was bragging and I think he probably did grab a lot of women; I’m not condoning that, but it was a far lesser offence forty years ago. And he has always skirted the law, as a rule, always seeking the greatest advantage. Isn’t that sort of thing supposed to be revered, or are people so depressed economically that anyone who gets more than their share is vilified. Is this a struggle over capitalism itself, or rather just our version of capitalism today? Implied socialism ??

I don’t think he’s as radical as they make him out to be, and yes, the media and the establishment show great bias, but it really shines a light on the people on either side. The Hutu knew who the Tutsi were… and vice-versa.

The issue of the American election, and of Brexit before, and the colour revolutions throughout the ME, and even the situation in Ukraine have all led to the inevitable binary showdown: Globalism vs. Populism.

Is this the start of WCW (World Class War?) Or are we avoiding a war with Russia/China/Iran/Kazakhstan? Which way will the Saudis align themselves? Is Syria the tipping point? What the hell is Trump gonna’ do about that? He has to withdraw pressure on Syria immediately, put Erdogan in his place (impossible – the Turks have had their land much longer than ‘Merca’s been a country – it controls all the pipelines and most of the water in the ME,) make nice with the Russians by withdrawing NATO and removing missiles, leave the South China Sea, and withdraw into a protectionist shell, like Iceland, saving the world from globalism.

I don’t pretend to know what’s about to happen to the world, but a lot of people feel like it’s not going to be good; it’s as if all the animals know that the earthquake is coming and start to scatter. But where is there left to go?

Gold is one place left to go. Silver is another.

COP 22 – Marrakech

With all the hoopla surrounding COP 21 in Paris, you’d think there would be some media coverage of COP 22 in Marrakech. Not a word. That always makes me nervous. Huge deals signed in the dark always will.

I’ve always wondered how the cities get picked for these events. Today, Julian Assange let slip that King Mohammed VI of Morocco has given the Clinton Global Initiative twelve million dollars (24:52). On the other hand, that means nothing. Maybe there is a better reason to hold it there. There is a lot of dissent in Morocco, at the moment, and might prove to be a good staging area against populism in Africa. That’s a legitimate reason. You see, not everything has to be a conspiracy.

Then again, there could be more to it than that… there always is.

Morocco Buys Hillary Clinton and Western Sahara Suffers

*Update*

BOMBSHELL – NOAA whistleblower says Karl et al. “pausebuster” paper was hyped, broke procedures

via WUWT:

“In an exclusive interview, Dr Bates accused the lead author of the paper, Thomas Karl, who was until last year director of the NOAA section that produces climate data – the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) – of ‘insisting on decisions and scientific choices that maximised warming and minimised documentation… in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming pause, rushed so that he could time publication to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy’.

Dr Bates was one of two Principal Scientists at NCEI, based in Asheville, North Carolina.

Official delegations from America, Britain and the EU were strongly influenced by the flawed NOAA study as they hammered out the Paris Agreement – and committed advanced nations to sweeping reductions in their use of fossil fuel and to spending £80 billion every year on new, climate-related aid projects.”

Assange Bakes HRC’s Beans

Another must watch video, this one features world-renowned journalist and film-maker John Pilger, interviewing Julian Assange about the recent email dump.

A concise summation of the email question, the thread that runs through them all, and why it is so important.

Secret World of US Election: Julian Assange talks to John Pilger (FULL INTERVIEW)

(24:52)

.

The story behind this, and ignoring Weiner’s sexting (coulda’ been a set-up – man’s got his kinks – distraction piece,) Anthony Weiner seemed to be some sort of errand-boy for the Clintons. A subordinate with those perversions says much about their level of tolerance to such things. He is married to ‘Huma’. This is the real story. Huma Abedin’s mother and father are very interesting characters as well, and Huma’s rise was exceptional. Working for HRC is the only job she’s ever had in the USA. Her husband was Bill Clinton’s introduction. I’m not sure that ‘arranged marriage’ is the appropriate term here, but…

It was opined that a vagina nearly took out Bill Clinton. It now seems that a Weiner might take out Hillary. Bill Maher will then murder Mr. Weiner, presumably on air.

Clinton knew that Saud and Qatar financed terror, had terrible human rights records, treated women very badly, tortured prisoners… but accepted their cash and favours to the Clinton Global Initiative – which appears to be a giant money-laundering fraud. Even Chomsky said NGOs like them were the real problem in Haiti, although he didn’t name them.

Huma worked by HRC’s side for twenty years, she knew everything. Did she keep the back-ups on Weiner’s ‘puter for protection, as some sort of way to avoid jail? Some say she’s a planted spy or that HRC is really a secret muslim or a witch or a pervert?!? Well, at this point, nothing would surprise me. Would it shock me? Sure, but it wouldn’t surprise.

Of course, I will not go into the more sordid details of occult practice and paederasty said by some to be enjoyed by the Clinton inner circle, and really, the entire Washington inner circle, for that matter – see the film, “Conspiracy of Silence” (55:13). No surprise where Bill is concerned, but HRC’s involvement brings it to another level, entirely. You’d want your eyes wide shut for that.

Now, what if HRC wins? A woman whose mentor was KKK chapter founder and senator who tried to prevent the passing of the Civil Rights Act, Robert Byrd. For one, Bill might be appointed US ambassador to the UN. That’s been their plan all along according to Larry Nichols. That’s where the real money is after all, Brussels. (see the documentary “The Brussels Business.”)

After his term, Justin Trudeau could be appointed Secretary General. António Guterres only had to wreck Portugal’s economy to get the job, and severe economic times are foreseen for Canada. Wrecking your own countries’ economy is the ultimate test of loyalty. His father, Pierre, privatized money creation in Canada, I wonder what JT has in store. He has the drive, he’s definitely going for it. It’s just a matter of time. Youngest SecGen ever? Who else would it be in eight to ten years after Guterres? (Surely not a woman. GAWD!! /sarc) Say it ain’t so…

Unveiled in Syria

Kerry’s got some ‘splainin’ to do:

MUST WATCH: American peace delegation goes to Syria, sees opposite of what MSM reports. No civil war in Syria; Syria united under Assad.

(49:34)

See here for clarification on the barrel bomb question (by the obviously biased reporter who didn’t identify herself.)

Here is Vanessa Beeley’s blog.

Here is Eva Bartlett’s blog.

And see here for some back-up from Global Research.

 

Change…

…pocket change that is, is changing.

One dollar coins (Loonies) were popular as a forgotten novelty; two-dollar coins (Toonies) were not. I remember working in the service industry back in those days. Everyone complained about the amount of change they would have to carry around in those money belts. The money belts grew more robust. Waiters today are in for a surprise.

The nickel and the quarter will be eliminated in favour of a twenty cent piece, called a “Twenny.” (I don’t know that for sure, in fact, I just coined the phrase. Nevertheless, I think it sounds catchy. In France they are called “des pièces de vingt centimes” but then everything takes more words to say in French… maybe that’s what makes it romantic.)

This move, on it’s own, will likely lighten waiters’  loads (and necessitate another re-design of the money belt,) but there’s more.

The five dollar bill will be replaced by a coin. $5 bills represent just under 2% of the Canadian money supply. [It won’t be long now for the tens.] A two-hundred dollar bill will also be introduced. And all this for 2017. What ever happened to banning the ‘C’-note? In the cancellation of a bill, is a demand for it not being created? As they cancel more and more bills, and create new ones, won’t they be feeding the monster they wish to slay? Getting people to hoard cash is not good for banks. The Bank of Canada eliminated the thousand-dollar bill in 2000 for this purpose, and put the blame squarely on drug-runners and money-launderers. Movement of physical cash is closely watched at the borders and at all points of entry. Are they developing cover for a digital monetary system? Are they really going to ban cash? These recent actions lead us to believe that they will not, but sometimes an event must be manufactured with nothing but ‘good intent’ behind it acting as a catalyst to ensure it’s quick demise. Kissinger might find it easier to pop the balloon rather than let it deflate on its own. That would require intervention. Intervention always incurs cost.

Either this brings us closer towards the European system, or the people at the Mint are preparing for inflation. You don’t think of the economy in the same way if it costs a million of something to buy a loaf of bread. Being a millionaire is easy in some places. Debasing currency (by lowering the cost of production,) even fiat, always leads to inflation. The central banks have been struggling to find a way to increase inflation to keep this sham system afloat, and it looks like this turned out to be their best-worst option. Will this replace the need for ‘helicopter money‘ or is it just an addition? Perhaps it’s all been scripted in order to introduce a global [?digital?] currency. Either way, UNPA member Justin Trudeau is paving the way for his ascension through the UN. [Read the “Welcome” message in the UNPA link.]

Portugal had to wreck its economy for the former Prime Minister (1995-2002) António Manuel de Oliveira Guterres (a notable socialist, ECFR, and Club of Madrid member – not to mention his long list of distinctions) to be elected Secretary General of the UN. That’s quite a cover charge for entry to the big boys’ club. I wonder if it was on a dare or a bet, or if it was just an initiation, of sorts. With that against him, his loyalty would be assured. Amongst other positions, he had previously served as the UN’s High Commissioner for Refugees.

Is Canada next? The Asian money doesn’t seem to think so, but the Canadian government’s recent action in the Vancouver housing market was a clear signal for Asian markets to ‘keep away.’ The manipulation practiced by Wells-Fargo, Shkreli, Volkswagen, and the gold market pale by comparison. Where’s RICO when you need him?

It looks like the Lone Ranger is gonna’ need some more silver bullets, and gold ones; or maybe Dorothy could just click her heels… rubies and sapphires might have some value, but emeralds are not a good investment.

Like Barrel Bombs and Helicopters

Like barrel bombs and helicopters, everything else is also untrue, on both sides. There’s their public angry face, their country club polite face, and their, “Let’s do business.” face.

Assad has been accused, by John Kerry and everybody else, of using chemical weapons against his citizens by way of helicopters to drop chemical-filled barrel bombs, and lacing artillery shells with toxins (like depleted uranium? – no, that’s a US thing – and don’t get me started on anthrax…)

Even Wikipedia is in on it:

Barrel bomb

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A barrel bomb is an improvised unguided bomb, sometimes described as a flying IED (improvised explosive device). They are typically made from a large barrel-shaped metal container that has been filled with high explosives, possibly shrapnel, oil or chemicals as well, and then dropped from a helicopter or airplane.[1] Due to the large amount of explosives (up 1,000 kilograms (2,200 lb)), their poor accuracy and indiscriminate use in populated civilian areas (including refugee camps), the resulting detonations have been devastating.[2][3][4] Critics have characterised them as weapons of terror and illegal under international conventions.[5]

Lots of options on the content, not many options on the delivery system.

“…indiscriminate use…” but by whom?

Here’s Kerry:

“Accordingly, we have taken unprecedented steps to declassify and make facts available to people who can judge for themselves.” -John Kerry

There might be some problems with his story.

What does ‘declassify’ mean, in this context? Invent?

Official U.S. government report on the alleged use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government against rebels on Aug. 21.The document proposes a possible motive for the attack — a desperate effort to push back rebels from several areas in the capital’s densely packed eastern suburbs — and also suggests that the high civilian death toll surprised and panicked senior Syrian officials, who called off the attack and then tried to cover it up.

While unusually detailed, the assessment does not include photographs, recordings or other hard evidence to support its claims. Nor does it offer proof to back up the administration’s assertion that top-ranking Syrian officials — possibly including President Bashar al-Assad — were complicit in the attack.

“This assessment will certainly evolve as we obtain more information,” the report said.

The material, prepared by senior intelligence officials, was said to reflect the judgments of the CIA, National Security Agency and other intelligence agencies involved in gathering information on the Syrian conflict. Using understated phrasing typical of bureaucratic reports, it asserts with “high confidence” that the Assad government launched a chemical weapons attack, using what it said was “nerve agent,” a class of chemical munitions that includes sarin.

Oh, and about sarin gas, the [US] military variant is known as VX.

As it turns out, there was some truth in that report, and it was all backwards. The barrel bombs and the gas and all the WMDs are coming from the West-backed rebel side. Saddam got his chemicals from the US (ask Rumsfeld what Iraq was about covering up,) as did other allies in the region. Kerry didn’t really do anything about it either, apart from shaking his fist quite a bit.

[Next three photos are from a VT article; commentary is mine.]

These men are not Syrian government forces, they are US-backed rebels. They are not packing the bombs with explosives or the man on the left would not be smoking.

266C3E0B00000578-0-image-a-117_1425815580348-640x426

Hmm… but it can’t be the rebels. How do they drop those things if they don’t have helicopters?

All the newspapers said the same thing all along, “unguided barrel bombsdropped from Assad’s helicopters (’cause he’s the only one who had helicopters.) Remember?

gas-cylinders-explosives-1-1

Action shot.

“Seems to be coming from the clubhouse.” With that golf cart in the background, there’s gotta’ be at least a couple of white guys around… maybe four. “Just look what those Assad bastards did to the practice green. War is hell!”

aleppo-terrorist-3-warpress-info-640x461

Fighting has intensified around Aleppo and its neighboring provinces since the government sealed off the final route into rebel-controlled neighborhoods of the city. The United Nations said the encirclement of rebel-held areas of deeply divided Aleppo traps nearly 300,000 residents, making it the largest besieged area in war-torn Syria.

The rebels have launched a counteroffensive, clashing with government forces on a number of fronts. They detonated at least one large tunnel bomb underneath a government position on the southern outskirts of Aleppo on Tuesday evening, in a renewed attempt to break the government’s siege on the city’s east.

Smoke in the sky; for defense or for targeting, or for an alibi? Were they setting tire fires around hospitals?

MideastSyriaSurvivingInAleppo-dd7a7

All these articles use many terms differently. They also suggest that west-backed rebels (USA’s ISIL, al Qaeda, al Nusra, etc.) are the real thugs in this failed regime change. Turkey’s, Georgia’s, Saudi’s, Israel’s, and America’s deep states are synced in Syria. Whether or not they succeed is up to Syria (and Russia.)

After Shocking Beheading, “Moderate” Rebels Allegedly Unleashed Chemical Weapons In Syria

Syrian rebels used Sarin nerve gas, not Assad’s regime: U.N. official

NEO – Don’t Cry For Me in Aleppo

US-backed Syrian rebels responsible for toxic gas attack in Aleppo – Russian military

Aleppo Siege: Russia Claims Rebels Used ‘Toxic Gas’ in Battle for Syria’s Second City

Syrian government and rebels trade gas attack accusations

Chemical Weapons in Syria: Methods of Waging Information Wars

Chemical weapons “red line” crossed in Syria – but not by Assad!

There are different levels of funding; ISIS, ISIL, Daesh, Al Nusra, Al Qaeda, (the special forces of the rebel world) look like they live pretty high on the hog. They must all benefit from the best funding. Note the plastic wrap still on the headrest, the faux wood dash, and even a disco ball hanging off the mirror…

ISISStill

…and the lack of battle scars on any of their gear.

ISISStill3_0

These images looks like the Neiman-Marcus catalogue for zealots. This is the propaganda of Jihad and its manipulation by the West …just as long as the rifles are Russian, everything is copacetic. The repeated “We’re Number 1” kinda’ tips the bit. [They may be pointing up.]

The financing cannot be denied, however, and most of the gear and ammo comes from Uncle Sam via Incerlik and Saud. The medical care comes from Israel, mainly.

The Brits know what’s going on, they’ve even helped, but, “Tight lips sink ships” and all that.

GettyImages-520144294

The innocent victims, on the other hand, are getting little to no support. Perhaps a magnanimous superbug will come along and end it quickly for them all.

*Update*

Confirmations

*Update*

American peace delegation goes to Syria on a fact-finding mission – UN. Must watch video for the truth about Syria:

Peace Group ; NATO & U.S. Spreading ‘Disinformation on Syria’ (49:34)

 

BBC News Caught Staging FAKE News Chemical Attack In Syria (13:20)

 

Intelligence and Military Sources Who Warned About Weapons Lies Before Iraq War Now Say that Assad Did NOT Launch Chemical Weapon Attack

 

“Khan Sheikhoun incident totally fabricated..the U.S. is not serious in achieving any political solution”

Samurai Scissors

Why does Japan’s Emperor Akihito want to quit?

0023ae6cf3690c9c4b252b

Did he just fall on his sword (or cut his own guts out) by acquiescing to the International Order? (Those hand signs are really disconcerting.) Will there even be another emperor, or will the son turn out to be another Obama or Trudeau, a young(er) and popular sell-out to globalism and world parliament?

Maybe the son is a war-hawk, and Emperor Akihito disagrees that Japan’s military should be used elsewhere than in defense of Japan. Japan just decided the issue of ‘collective defense‘. This is all after Trump accused Japan of not paying its fair share for American defense. (The Yen isn’t enough reparations for having been bombed into the stone age? /s)

Has Japan been castrated?

Continue reading “Samurai Scissors”

Clinton Cash

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t support Trump or Clinton. I don’t have a horse in this race (anymore than anyone under the influence of the US economy does.) I believe that they’re all a bunch of psychopaths. Only psychopaths are willing to put in the time and effort necessary to rise to such positions. Only psychopaths wish to rule over others. True leaders want to help others, to serve others, and to protect others. Psychopaths want money, power, and control over the lives of all who surround (and outnumber) them. Psychopaths are cowards who hide their cowardice through excessive aggression.

Having said this, there is a You Tube video which came out just two days ago. Short of bringing hard evidence (plausible deniability is not an accidental occurrence,) the documentary paints a pretty compelling picture about the Clintons and their misdeeds around the world while occupying positions of power in the USA.

The documentary below doesn’t even mention Mena Arkansas, or Bill’s near-pederasty, Whitewater, or any of their other well-documented scandals or social deviancy, but focuses on international donorship to the Clinton foundation by states and NGOs while the Clintons were in power as either POTUS, FLOTUS, or Secretary of State.

Clinton Cash” (1:04:56)

From Congo, to Haiti, to Kazakhstan, it is difficult to imagine a more corrupt organization (without referring to the WWF – more on this coming soon) than the Clinton Global Initiative.

With no good choices in this year’s electoral cycle, perhaps Americans should elect a council instead of an executive, or splinter into city-states. Maybe we should all collectively push the ‘big red button’ – not the nuclear launch button, rather the button marked RESET.

There has been a groundswell of political revolution all across the world. From the Arab Spring (yes, yes, nevertheless…,) to Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump, to a mass movement against the corrupt and complicit mass media, an awakening is being fueled by the internet and the dissemination of information nobody but the privileged have been privy to in the past. This must continue to the next level if the word ‘freedom’ is ever to regain its true meaning again.

Ingushetia Where?

The dark green-striped republic in the above image.

Caught between Russia to the north and Georgia to the south, North Ossetia to the west and Chechnya to the east, lies a small Caucasus republic called Ingushetia. The president of Ingushetia is Yunus-Bek Yevkurov. He’s the bad-ass’s bad-ass. He’s like Bond’s Jaws.

Some background on Yunus-Bek Yevkurov.

Yevkurov was recently (October 11, 2015) invited to sit in on a meeting between Vladimir Putin and Mohammad bin Salman Al Saud. Mohammad bin Salman Al Saud is the deputy crown prince of Saudi Arabia, second deputy prime minister and the youngest minister of defense in the world. Also included in the meeting were foreign minister Sergei Lavrov, industry and trade minister Denis Manturov, energy minister Alexander Novak, and defence minister Sergei Shoigu.

Turkey has ties to the Ukraine just as it has ties to Georgia. Turkey also has ties to IS which is seen from Syria to Chechnya. Georgia is known for many things, some of which involve smuggling. People, drugs, weapons, and now viruses have become black market currency in and through Georgia. This is why picking Sochi for the winter olympics in 2014 was such a brave move (despite being somewhat shielded by Abkhazia.) It was a move of great strength and one of great defiance. If the terrorists could be contained, Russia was impenetrable – a claim America could not make.

Ingushetia has always been used to cushion against/contain Chechen rebels. It’s a rough neighbourhood. It is, in essence, nothing but a military outpost, as it needs to be. It acts as a buffer zone between Russia and Chechyn ‘terrorists.’ It is also a passage from Russia to Turkey and Greece (Europe) through Georgia. Ingushetia is the Gibraltor of the Caucasus. If Russia ever secures South Ossetia, the focus may then shift away from Ingushetia, to a certain degree. Either that or a block will be formed of the two.

Why was Ingushetia included in this meeting? What do Saud and Caucasus terror have in common? What is Israel’s role?


This article may shed some light on the subject.

Ingushetia Proposes Measures To Crack Down On IS Recruitment, Blowback

“Local militants have shifted their allegiance from the local Islamist insurgent group, the Caucasus Emirate, to IS. In June, IS’s leadership accepted pledges of allegiance from militants in the North Caucasus, including in Ingushetia, and declared an IS “province” in the region called Wilayat al-Qawqaz.”


This article may provide some context. (Ignore the title and the call for funding at the top of the page and scroll down for the main article.)

“Washington continues to force its European vassals to impose sanctions on Russia based on the false claim that the conflict in Ukraine was caused by a Russian invasion of Ukraine, not by Washington’s coup in overthrowing a democratically elected government and installing a puppet answering to Washington.”


Finally, this article explains much.

The president of Ingushetia, who is recovering from an attempt on his life, accused on Monday the United States, Britain and Israel of seeking to destabilize the situation in the North Caucasus.

“I am miles from believing that Arabs are behind this. There are other, more serious forces there… We understand whose interests these are: the United States, Britain, and Israel too,” President Yunus-Bek Yevkurov said in an interview with the Russian News Service (RSN) radio.


Size means nothing in the world of geo-politics; what really counts is location, location, location.


 

Don’t Believe ANYTHING You See, Hear, or Read

The “Code of Ethics” of the Society of Professional Journalists states: “Ethical journalism should be accurate and fair. Journalists should examine the ways their values and experiences may shape their reporting. Journalists should support the open and civil exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.”

In the spirit of transparency and openness, which is touted by the mainstream media, wouldn’t it be in the best interest of everyone involved for journalists (read: reporters,) when doing a political piece, to state which party or candidate they support beforehand? If a reporter has a vested interest in the outcome of an election, and does a hit piece on one of the candidates, a conflict of interest necessarily arises.

The politics of journalism are pervasive in every election cycle. Cenk Uygur, in a recent interview on CNN, said it loud and clear. He accused CNN of bias in its reporting. There is no such thing as the concept of ‘fair and balanced’ in the mainstream media anymore. There hasn’t been for a long, long time. Media outlets have long distorted their stories, fabricated the news, misrepresented facts, and tried to dumb-down the population by spoon-feeding them un-truths, half-truths, and outright lies.

There are many examples of this, even outside the realm of politics. Photos are routinely re-labeled for use in completely unrelated stories. Many articles about military actions, political demonstrations, government coups, and even environmental effects, have photos attached which were taken months or years before in different countries portraying different events, altogether. Photos attached to a story about the consequences of a Russian bombing campaign in Syria could actually have been taken from an American sortie in Iraq. Photos of a mass student rally in South America could be used to make it look like a mass uprising in the middle-east. Photomanipulation also plays a key role in some instances.

Ambiguous retractions (offered only when the evidence is publicly debunked) are often buried or said in passing, and only once. For example, after days of non-stop coverage of ‘Assad’s chemical weapons strike,’ CNN aired an interview with a man (who could hardly speak any English) refuting the claim that Assad’s forces were responsible, based on a report from Médecins Sans Frontières. The report was aired once and at 4am EST. They did not, based on this new evidence, change their tune. The MH-17 tragedy was reported on in much the same manner, neglecting to mention conflicting reports simply because John Kerry (based on no evidence) proclaimed it to be so. Most of the information about the situation in Ukraine and Russia’s ‘incursion’ into the Crimea is also suspect. Is the western news media beholden to the State Department? It would appear so.

An excellent article from Global Research with many examples on the subject can be found here.

Many examples of government lines being spun by the media in order to further a political agenda can be found. There are almost as many examples of those stories having been proved biased, mis-leading, incomplete, out of context, or just plain wrong. Stories about 9/11, terrorism, Ukraine, Russia, China, Israel, the Federal Reserve, economics, the middle-east, ISIS, the environment, refugees, prominent suicides, plane crashes, and anything involving John Kerry seem disproportionately affected.

Vocabulary is another tool which the media use to villify others and push their version of the truth. Jake Tapper recently categorized Donald Trump’s ‘attack*’ of an American judge of Mexican descent as being, “…the definition of racism.” He (Jake Tapper) specifically said that ‘Mexican’ was a race. Trump did not. Trump was also accused of ‘attacking’ Latinos and women when he commented that because of a tripling in food stamps, the governor (who is both) should do a better job. I do not support Trump, (nor do I support Clinton,) but none have had their words twisted to the extent that he has. Many bastardizations, miscategorizations, and ignorance of context and nuance are used routinely to bend the words of guests, pundits, and newsworthy individuals. The ‘loose’ translations of speeches and statements by foreign dignitaries is an easy way to achieve this goal, as well. (Religious scholars have been using this trick for millennia.) The word literally, literally, has a new meaning. Words are often mis-pronounced in order to show who’s on which side of the debate. Divisive (div/iss/ive vs. div/ice/ive) is a classic – btw, the former is correct.

Case in point:
*attack
verb
take aggressive action against (a place or enemy forces) with weapons or armed force, typically in a battle or war.
noun
an aggressive and violent action against a person or place.
note: If words are defined as weapons, this definition might be true, but it certainly goes against the spirit of the definitions presented.
 The financial news is perhaps the area in which the most manipulation and cherry-picking occur. Negative stories about the state of the economy are played down, positive stories are played up, and complexities are never truly examined or explained (mostly because of the lack of financial knowledge on the part of the reporters.)

The complete story behind the markets, the American economy, the global economy, the actors involved, and much more can be found here, on ZeroHedge.

And then there is the stuff they just make up.

a1b

Television news has been corrupted. Bought and paid for by corporate and political interests and financed through advertising by these same entities. “Support our candidate or we will advertise on another station.” “Portray the new congressional bill in a positive light or we will cut your funding.” “Support our wars of conquest or you will be labeled as subversive, or worse.” Scratch our backs and we will scratch yours is the mantra that pervades that which passes itself off as news.

Of course, they mainstream news tries to blame the prevalence of fake stories on the internet. “How the internet misled you in 2015”-BBC. This is certainly a valid point. The reality, though, is that much of what is viral first came from a news desk. Not all their mistakes are attributable to conspiracy theorists and subversive forces. Fake social media stories can easily be ignored; those from reputed (Reuters, AP etc) and state-run news agencies (CBC, BBC etc) cannot. The implications are far too important.

News agencies must vett their sources, check their facts, verify their media, do their own research, and double-check everything otherwise the 1st Amendment (and other statutes similar to it) are left hollow, bereft of any meaning in a free and democratic society. Either that or they should admit to being an entertainment program and lose the ‘News’ moniker, altogether. Either way, honesty and integrity need to find their way back into the daily lives of the masses. They simply don’t have time to check.

Is it any wonder why news media outlets are so mis-trusted? Is it any wonder why politicians often use distrust of the news media to deflect, to distract and to deceive? And for those of you who think that this used to happen, but doesn’t anymore…

CNN_Busted_For_Faking_Satellite_Interview__151708

Both these people still make regular appearances on the cable news network. I guess their budgets are not what they used to be. I wonder why.

…do a search with these terms, “cnn fake parking lot.”

Actually, just watch this short video. (26:11)

Some more images (some viral, some from the news) for your consideration.

AGW – Calamity or Strategy?

There are those who believe that ‘global warming’ is a consequence of natural forces, there are those who believe that ‘global warming’ is man-made, and there are some who don’t believe it is happening at all.

Most reputable scientists seem to agree that there was a warming trend noticed in the mid-eighties (when satellite data became ‘de rigueur’) which lasted until 1998. Most would also agree that this warming has plateau’d and that the average global temperature has been steady for the last two decades. Many say that CO2 is to blame, many don’t.

Let’s, for the sake of argument, put all that aside for the moment. It really doesn’t matter, anyhow. What does matter in the AGW (anthropogenic global warming) debate is whether or not there are some people who have been trying to get the earth to warm up. Dane Wiggington is of the opinion that the earth is warming and that the result will be catastrophic. He also believes that geo-engineering is (partly) to blame. The implications are surreal.

There are three reasons for which this scenario is plausible: derivatives; market share; and commodities.

Derivatives (without getting too technical) are insurance. They are side bets made by financiers in order to protect themselves against investments gone bad. A farmers’ crops may be worth a million dollars, but if a natural disaster strikes, the failed crop might be worth two million through the derivatives market. This is the basis for ‘disaster capitalism.’ The derivatives market is said to be worth hundreds of trillions. Profits depend on failures in more traditional enterprises.

Market share is what drives corporations to monopoly. The more market share, the more customers, the more sales. Companies such as Monsanto have been developing techniques which would assure them almost complete market dominance. They, along with their partners, have been researching seed technology which could grow in almost any condition such as drought, flood, and even radiation.

Commodities are everything the world uses. They are raw materials. They are food. They are mineral resources such as gold (debatable,) oil, uranium, and coal. Some say that they are running out, or at least, that the low-hanging fruit has already been picked. There could be a new source of commodities, though. There could be an entire ocean of virgin ground awaiting exploration.

This would satisfy all three conditions.

If the world was warming, the polar ice caps would melt. This would wreak havoc with the global economy and the derivatives market would prove very profitable for the psychopaths praying for (and betting on) plague conditions. Environmental devastation would also prove very profitable for large conglomerates that could supply (very expensive) food which could not be grown anywhere else anymore. Thirdly, if the poles did melt, great swaths of new land would be exposed and exploited immediately.

This doomsday scenario begs the question, are there those who would sabotage the world for their own gain? If history is any indication, the answer is a resounding, “Yes!” If these people do exist, are they presently putting their resources to work in trying to achieve this goal? Is geo-engineering being used to warm the planet further and faster?

Whether or not this is being implemented, the people in Davos have just put together a plan to ensure that whatever happens, they will control the outcome. “Scott Minerd (who before Guggenheim worked at Credit Suisse and Morgan Stanley) …joined a World Economic Forum advisory council. Its task? Develop guidelines for those nations looking to do business at the top of the world. That framework is to be released Thursday, in Davos.”

“The Arctic guidelines are voluntary, like many other sustainable investment initiatives, including the Principles for Responsible Investment or even the WEF’s own work on “sustainable competitiveness.” How does anyone expect to protect the Arctic environment in such a gold rush? The project is designed to complement the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, and while the green earth is littered with do-good business pledges, the notion received a shot in the arm recently. In December, almost 200 nations agreed in Paris to adhere to the first-ever universal climate goals. How nations contribute to progress toward them is their call, since there are no binding demands to cut greenhouse gas emissions.”

The above taken from Bloomberg’s “The World Has Discovered a $1 Trillion Ocean.”

So cui bono? Who are the people who would benefit from a world destroyed, what tools would they employ to see such a strategy implemented, and just how far would they go to dominate and control the earth and its resources?

One would expect to find the answer just north of 66 degrees.

Cloud Atlas – Freedom or Collectivism?

(The quote in the above image, as was said by several characters throughout the movie, was actually, “I will not be subjected to criminal abuse.”)

It is always odd to see such a movie as this get so little press. Even the reviews have been bereft of any deep interpretation. What is it about ‘Cloud Atlas’ which elicits such hesitation, such muted detachment, such reverence?

Normally, a Hollywood movie (directed by Tom Tykwer and the Wachowskis) with an A-list cast (Tom Hanks, Halle Berry, Susan Sarandon, Hugo Weaving, Hugh Grant,) based on such an excellent book (by David Mitchell,) commanding such an enormous budget, and with arguably one of the best, most innovative screenplays (Tom Tykwer and the Wachowskis) in a long time would be hyped ad nauseum. Normally, the reviews of such a film would tear into the plot, dissecting it, explaining every motif, exposing every hidden nuance. Normal does not seem to be a word one can easily associate with this film.

Roger Ebert had nothing to say. The New Yorker review read like a history of the Wachowskis and only mentioned the plot in the second paragraph of a much too long article, going on to drop names of other great movies for lack of any constructive analogies. Salon broke the movie down chronologically and descriptively, did an FAQ style article, but failed to give any meaningful interpretation of the plot. Why such hesitation on telling an admittedly confused public what the movie was really about?

The New York Times, surprisingly, does a better job. At least it uses the words others shy away from using: freedom; slavery; deprivation; political; humanity; hope. Perhaps here are we getting closer to the ‘true-true’ reasons for such quiet praise.

There is one common thread in this movie and that is freedom. It underlies each scene and every word. Every character is at once a subject and a master. Confinement and escape are in every action. Even gravity is portrayed as an oppressive force, as well as one which brings everything together (the bridge, the cliff, the walkway, and the comet.) Yet, in the end, all are bound to each other, to the universe, and to time itself.

Collectivist ideals are rampant throughout the film through cliques, tribes, classes, and societies, yet the individual struggle to affect the whole is put front-and-center.

The film is highly politicized, as could be expected from the Wachowskis, but the lack of pre-release hype is itself telling. In this world of geo-political duplicity and main-stream propaganda, has Hollywood shown its hand as far as support for political agendas goes? It is obvious that the media wants us to feel, not think, and that subdued masses are what is needed to further the goal of societal change on a global level. One wonders if the film would have been shown at all had the story-line been any less confusing.

The film ‘Cloud Atlas’, much like ‘The Matrix’, is as close to a call-to-action as one could hope to find in a film of this scope. Truly the world needs more block-busters like this, if only to feed the divide between those who know and those who believe. Division is, after all, the goal of any socio-political movement. The modern politics of Washington are no different in this respect. Even the fabricants’ hair displays a red and a blue striped marking (which Sonmi is shown cutting off when her understanding grows.) Hopefully, there are still those amongst us who will look deeper into the message than just ‘stunning visuals’ and ‘an all-star cast.’ Hopefully, there are those who will heed the call to act when individual liberty and state sovereignty are the prize at stake.

“The weak are meat, and the strong do eat.”

Ottoman Insulation

Turkey’s recent (and seemingly inexplicable) foray into the spotlight of middle-eastern affairs has baffled many international observers. Turkey’s provocations against Syria, Russia, and now Iraq, and their alleged support of terror groups in support of their energy industry appear to have angered Washington (and NATO,) have puzzled Kazakhstan, irked China, and have put Europe in a difficult situation. Nobody seems to know what Erdogan is up to.

Resources are the default excuse, but cultural ties to the region’s other local actors play an important part. Is Turkey creating a buffer zone between Russia and the middle-east in order to inflate its importance? How many of the ‘-stans’ are on his side?

“In concrete terms, the only achievement was the announced agreement to launch the Trans-Anatolian Natural Gas Pipeline (TANAP). «Trans-Anatolian gas pipeline – TANAP can be launched sooner than it was initially scheduled», said Mr Ahmet Davutoglu at a joint press conference with Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev.

Some 6 billion cubic meters of gas of 16 billion cubic meters will go to Turkey, while some 10 billion cubic meters of gas will go to Europe. TANAP will connect the giant Shah Deniz gas field in Azerbaijan to Europe through the South Caucasus Pipeline (SCP), TANAP and the Trans Adriatic Pipeline (TAP).”

Is Turkey using Azerbaijan to further its goal of regional dominance or is Turcic concern for its neighbours genuine? The move north and east puts several other states, especially Georgia, into harm’s way. No wonder Putin included Yunus-Bek Yevkurov in its meeting with the Saudi defense minister Mohammad bin Salman Al Saud. This aggrandization of the empire would serve as a bonding agent solidifying Turkey’s plan for regional dominance. Turkey already controls all the land-based pipelines into Europe from the middle-east and seems to have no qualms about using less legitimate groups to help further its agenda. The term ‘deep-state’ was coined in reference to Turkey, after all. (Note the black Turkish flag in the above image.)

“The rulers of re-emerged Ottoman Empire are trying to rekindle the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh. The fighting between Armenian and Azerbaijani forces has escalated recently. The Paris Armenia-Azerbaijan summit slated for December 1 was indefinitely postponed.”

Turkey has many battle-fronts now; they look to start conflict with everybody it would seem. A war forces states to take sides, and with Turkey controlling a great deal of European energy, as well as the water from the Euphrates river, perhaps Erdogan is trying to force his ally’s hands. He thought he had NATO support, but that is as yet uncertain; Turkey did fight a war against Poland in the 17th century. He seems to have Washington’s, in any case. But will Russia and the US both fall for the ploy, or will the two super-powers turn against him? He may well take Assad’s place as the next Gadaffi. Turkey’s role is at least as important as Ukraine’s, and they just got about the same amount of money from Europe as the IMF gave the Ukraine. Will we see increased terror attacks across the Caucasus as Putin has feared since the Sochi games? Time will tell.

*Update*

Just to push the point of Caucasus-ISIS young men with no better options than to make war with each other… The trickle-down is military, minute, and manipulative. War is a job; it comes with training, decent pay, glory and valour, and it leaves more women for the surviving (or conquering) men. The nomadic mercenaries are the Highlanders of the middle-east.

Russia says rebel killed in Caucasus was trained in Syria

“Turkey, the US, Russia, Syria – all these countries, the Kurds are all involved in the struggle against ISIS in Syria and in Iraq.

Yes, yes they are – and maybe that’s part of the reason why Erdogan despises them more now than ever.”

– Tyler Durden

Divisiveness

Everything in life which has been given importance works to divide us.

Capitalism leads to competition, it divides us into competing groups (corporations) or competitive entrepreneurs, who must each compete with each other by increasing service while decreasing cost. It is conflict which drives each market, sector, and industry. We must even compete for our jobs. We must all be better by working more and getting less value for our own time, and all for the greater good of society. Time is, after all, the only thing with which we are all born. Time is the ultimate non-renewable resource. Good is also a relative term. The more time we spend working for the good of our family, the less time we have to spend at home to raise our families properly. Since we cannot do it ourselves, the state must do it for us. Through babysitters, day-care workers, teachers, tutors, coaches, mentors, religious leaders, and nannies do we educate our children by using their morals, values, ethics, and philosophies as proxy to our own. Is this actually good? Does this lead to the betterment of society or simply a ‘lowest common-denominator’ way of looking at education. Does this improve the independance, empowerment, and decision-making ability of our kids or does it hinder their development? Increased competition has led to both parents being away from their children just to maintain the same level of comfort our parents enjoyed. We also have less time for our friends, of which we have more now. Can this be considered inflationary economics vis-a-vis relationships and familial life?

Thanks to the hightened sense of capitalistic values (or the negative view on communistic ones,) committee work is sneered at. A committee is considered to result in the lowest common denominator of the decision process instead of leading to a greater coverage of the areas involved. Ayn Rand had much to say on this subject. Capitalism has always been pitted against communism (democracy and socialism are terms of governance) as if there were no alternatives other than those two, as either can lead to fascism (which is a state solution to competition as it eliminates all forms of conflict through authoritarian rule, much like Monarchy.)

Democracy, which has become synonymous with capitalism in the west, also leads to factions: there’s the right and the left, the red and the blue, the Republicans and the Democrats, all very Jungian. Factions of factions are also present and evolving; centrist (fence-sitting,) center-right, center-left, and all the attendant sub-categories lead to more and more levels upon which to disagree. Whether you’re an elephant or a donkey, it’s always a fight against the other team (or combination of other teams) instead of working together to find common solutions.

Religious sects are a perfect example of this be they Catholics versus Protestants, Sunni versus Shia, Reform and Orthodox Judaism, or Hinduism, which is a veritable cacaphony of conflicting ideologies.

Sports, either individual or team, also bring the dualistic paradigm into sharp focus. Even reality shows are a competition. Sure, the teams must work together at times, but the end result is always the elimination of certain members such that in the end, there can be only one, the so-called winner. Victorious and alone, like the Highlander, confined to a life of solitude. This is better?

Sex is the ultimate competition. Whose genes will be passed on? What is the goal here, to solely populate the earth with one gene pool? This is surely not better. We all compete for the best mate but then lose interest after a decade or so only to start competing again, but this time with lesser resources. This has less to do with progeny than with ego, though. But ego has led to many people bringing competition in this market to the level of changing themselves physically, often with terrible consequences. Is fake ‘perfect’ better than real unique?

Everything, it would seem, is a war now. The war on terror, the war on drugs, the battle for the environment, it would seem as though the competition has been brought to its ultimate level in all aspects of our lives. Advertising displays this violent mentality better still – “We must beat the competition to bring you the best.” Wouldn’t working with the competition bring about a better deal in the end?

A good example of this is the automotive industry. It can be argued that without cars, there would be no pollution, no oil dependancy, no wars, and a lot less stress. This may be stretching things somewhat, but a case could be made. The point is that public transport would be at a far higher level than it is at today because if all those companies that try to build a ‘better’ car would have worked together and pooled their resources from the start, we’d be able to go anywhere in the world in an hour, and for a pittance. The basic structure of our thinking which has produced this economy that glorifies our duality and competitive ‘nature’ is at fault.

Is it in our nature to compete or is it more akin to humanity to work together? Different societies will have differing views on this, but beneath all that, beneath the modern constructs and psychological affectations, have societies and whole civilizations not arisen by working together? Is that not what is meant by community?

The truth of the matter is that we have been influenced, to a great extent, by those who would have us working more such that they may work less. They don’t want us working together, that’s how revolutions happen. They want us focused on bringing each other down so that we cannot climb upon our brothers’ and sisters’ shoulders for a glimpse at our own emancipation. The lazy rise to the top in our society, not the hard-working. It is always through top-down pressure that terms like team-player, overtime, austerity, trickle-down, and company-man find favour. We have been conditioned to think like those we wish to emulate. We have forgotten, it would seem, that it does tend to be lonely at the top. When team-work is given the true status it deserves, it can get to be quite dangerous there, as well.

 

 

 

Does Terrorism Even Exist?

Terrorism itself has had many uses and gone through many transformations throughout the ages. Terrorism has been used in order to subvert, manipulate, silence, coerce, influence, persuade, and otherwise intervene in both the operations of nation-states and the interruption of such operations. Terrorism has been used by both sides, small and large, weak and strong, defender and aggressor, antagonist and protagonist, over many issues, and in many theatres. Terrorism is a relative term.

Consider, for a moment, its definition, roughly: the act of instilling fear in order to serve a specific purpose. Thus terrorism has been used in advertising (buy this before we run out,) in child-rearing (do you want to be punished?,)  in religion (avoid this or you will go to hell,) in politics (they will hurt the economy,) and in environmentalism (the consequences would be disastrous.) Truly, terrorism has been used in all aspects of all of our lives. The degree to which it has is simply a matter of scale.

However, when we speak of or hear the term in our daily lives, we understand it to mean something more sinister, more dire, and more violent.

Terrorism is always used to describe the tactics of an opponent no matter which side of a conflict they find themselves on. One would never describe one’s allies as terrorists. Al-Qaeda would not describe members of ISIS as terrorists, just as NATO would not describe the Turkish government as such (even though some Kurds might.)

Terrorism is also a tool. Just as a hammer can be used to build a house or to tear one down, terror can be used for the purpose of (perceived) good or (perceived) evil. It all depends on whether the terrorists themselves use terror tactics or they are used by proxy. Terrorists refer to themselves as rebels or freedom fighters whereas their opponents who use those same acts by proxy refer to them as mercenaries. When acts of terror are used against one’s self, they are called false flag attacks.

Although terror has been used against populations for millenia, the nineteen-seventies saw terror take on new and different forms. For one thing, the television played a big part in bringing attention to many unknown causes, opinions, and state actors. Terrorism would fizzle out very quickly were it not for the mass media making its case. For another thing, the terrorists in the seventies knew who to target (they often went after pertinent individuals,) but the governments did not. Now the tables have been turned. The government (supposedly) knows about plots before they happen (when it is to their benefit,) governments target individuals, and the terrorists attack helpless civilians instead of those in positions of power.

One must ask the question, why do the terrorists never attack the wealthy, the elite? Why are F1 races and polo matches and horse races and film festivals not attacked? Why has Monaco never been attacked (the worse that can be said of Monaco is that there is an underlying threat from terrorism? ) Why are certain buildings never targeted, buildings in which decisions concerning global policy are struck? They must be much easier to hit than buildings like the Pentagon, the Murrah, and the big three in New York. With ISIS destroying ancient art, why are museums and art galleries never hit? Buildings like bank headquarters and world trade associations are not targeted… nobody ever hits an NGO, just civilians.

It is said that terrorists hate our freedom, but it can’t be just that (if it is at all) because there are many groups, each with their own issues. They can’t all be against freedom and only against freedom. Don’t they have other demands like sovereignty, food, peace, freedom from resource-driven oppression, water, education… ? They seek freedom too, after all, freedom from western intervention.

Terrorists used to want to get the general public on their side. They wanted sympathy towards their cause. Attacking a population is what you do when you want minorities to leave your town, or when you want to start a race war. When you have a political message to send, you target those involved, like they knew to do way back in the seventies – the ‘golden age’ of terror.

If government wanted us NOT to be afraid, state-run news agencies would ignore the attacks, not produce free advertising for the terrorists (like when they withhold a name so as not to fan the popularity fire.)

So what do we make of terror perpetrated ON the masses while being shown ad infinitum TO the masses and never injuring ANY of the elite? Conditioning? Advertising? But what are they selling? Dominance, perhaps.

We must therefore assume that terrorism, these days, is not the work of terrorists, but of ‘other’ groups that want us scared, obedient, and docile. <sarc>Who could that possibly be? And why? Why? </sarc> Of course we all know the answers to the questions posed in New York, Madrid, London, Boston, Newtown, Paris, San Bernadino, et al.; it is high time we started admitting that to ourselves. There may never have been a legitimate act of terror perpetrated in the west outside of the IRA, ever (actually, the IRA WAS involved in talks with the British government… hmmm?!)

Besides, don’t ISIS have websites? Couldn’t their ISPs shut them down or, at least, identify them? It’s not like ISIS has its own satellites.


*Update*

Another truly excellent article by ZH’s George Washington:

False Flags Are Just a Conspiracy Theory … Admitted Fact

“Most terrorists are false flag terrorists or are created by our own security services.”


*Update*

Arjun Walia,
Waking Times Media

“The latest whistleblower is David Steele, a 20-year Marine Corps intelligence officer, and the second-highest-ranking civilian in the U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence. He is a former CIA clandestine services case officer, and this is what he had to say:”

Most terrorists are false flag terrorists, or are created by our own security services. In the United States, every single terrorist incident we have had has been a false flag, or has been an informant pushed on by the FBI. In fact, we now have citizens taking out restraining orders against FBI informants that are trying to incite terrorism. We’ve become a lunatic asylum.

Trickle-Up Carbon Taxes

Here are some points about carbon taxes which may have passed under the radar gleaned from Canada’s Ecofiscal Commision (a Canadian think-tank.)

The commission had what they refered to as a debate today between Chris Ragan, chair of Canada’s Ecofiscal Commission and Merran Smith, Executive Director or Clean Energy Canada moderated by the Globe and Mail’s Editorial Page Editor Tony Keller. It wasn’t much of a debate, it was more like publicity. The live event was aimed at corporate oil sector executives.

The participants mostly echoed each others’ comments. Even pre-recorded clips and guest questions simply regurgitated the day’s talking points. They were few, but seemed to encourage oil companies to accept the incentivization programs aimed directly at them. The public, and its concerns, were for the most part, ignored.

The one point which kept coming up was that carbon taxes should be revenue-neutral. What this means is that while companies would be taxed for their share of carbon emissions (again, there was no distinction between CO, CO2, and CH4) at about $30/tonne, the money would then come back to the company through special programs, tax breaks in other areas, or subsidies. BC’s cement industry was cited saying that some $25M had already been given in order to reduce GHG emissions. So is the government trying to get some of its money back, or is it trying to get corporations to pay for their own subsidies?

BC uses a revenue-neutral system whereas the system in Quebec is cap and trade (Quebec carbon is taxed at about $14/tonne.) The problem here is the perception of oil companies; if they feel the taxes are not revenue-neutral, the ‘debators’ conceded, there would be an exodus of mostly manufacturing jobs towards cheaper emerging markets. In other words, ‘the working man’ suffers.

They then pointed out that manufacturing jobs were being replaced with other jobs (in Ontario total hires went up.) If those jobs are being replaced with better jobs (R&D,) (re)education will cost more for the workers and saddle them with more debt – if Canadians are even qualified to do these jobs – which is doubtful. But if the jobs (as is more probably the case) are being replaced with lesser jobs (service sector) as is the current trend, again it is ‘the working man’ who suffers.

Emerging market countries have been quick to point out that most of this ‘pollution’ was made by developed market countries who then counter that the pollution from the next fifty years will be mostly EM, and much worse. We got it on credit, but you have to pay up front.

Finally, the ‘leftover’ taxes would be used to help subsidize public transport. Since less people will be able to afford cars, this seems reasonable. Again it is ‘the working man’ who suffers. Those who can afford it will be encouraged to buy newer cleaner cars. More money being spent by the public which already owes a tremendous amount of new car debt in favour of the car companies who produce the pollution in the first place. This is all getting rather circular. Who suffers? You guessed it.

All this is based upon the notion that this entire carbon market will not be a free market, but a highly manipulated one; one in which the price of carbon can never be high enough, much like the already carbon-tax-laden airline ticket. Prices will be set, because if the market were left to its own devices, and it turns out that CO2 does nothing to raise global temperatures, the >$1T market would collapse taking everything out with it.

Canada’s Ecofiscal Commision has no literature referencing sources for CO2 harm, cites no peer-reviewed papers backing up its claims, will not provide any references, and says the science is settled which negates the need for any pesky proof.

The commission has also indicated that all forms of carbon emissions should be subject to taxation. Get ready for a breathing tax, Canada.

 

Who Cops the COP?

In light of the recent attack in Paris, and with police claiming they cannot ensure the security of the many participants to COP 21 including the pope and other heads of state, no public demonstrations will be allowed. Period.

The emphasis has been on the hundreds of thousands of supposed supporters who had been expected to march in solidarity with the aims of the conference (whether or not it would have manifested.) No mention has been made, however, of those who oppose the conference and its goals. No mention will be made of them at all as they will, thanks to the new normal of global security, not even be allowed to show up. This has turned out to be a tremendously effective way to silence dissent. Is this the future of global governance?

The fear was that support for the ‘environmental’ goals would be overshadowed by those who denounce them. Public apathy on the subject is rampant and the arguments against anthropogenic global warming are gaining momentum. In no way did they want a repeat of many G-7/G-8/G-20 conferences in which protestors turned out ‘en masse’ while support for the policies was nowhere to be seen.

Surely their numbers must be substantial. The CO2 poll at the top of this blog shows that fully two thirds of respondants believe that the world would be better off if CO2 levels were not reduced.

One can only wonder, had the events of Nov. 13th in Paris not occured, just what the conference, or more precisely, the scene outside the conference, would have looked like. Just lucky, I suppose.

Since all demonstrations were banned for the reason of security (anti-terrorism,) all demonstrators will be seen as terrorists; hence, if you are a skeptic, you’re no better than a member of ISIS.

With the unelected writing policy to be sold by the elected to the electors, and with an absolute media blackout on dissent, it is difficult to see how the ‘international order’ could be headed towards a democratic future.

Sun Tzu wrote that the best way to win a war was not to fight in the first place. Wise words taken to heart in Paris. One more in a long list of debates which alarmists have done everything possible to avoid.


It all started here at COP 2.

1996: COP 2, Geneva, Switzerland

COP 2 took place in July 1996 in Geneva, Switzerland. Its Ministerial Declaration was noted (but not adopted) July 18, 1996, and reflected a U.S. position statement presented by Timothy Wirth, former Under Secretary for Global Affairs for the U.S. State Department at that meeting, which:

  1. Accepted the scientific findings on climate change proffered by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its second assessment (1995);
  2. Rejected uniform “harmonized policies” in favor of flexibility;
  3. Called for “legally binding mid-term targets”.”

Timothy Endicott Wirth

“In the State Department, he worked with Vice President Al Gore on global environmental and population issues, supporting the administration’s views on global warming. A supporter of the proposed Kyoto Protocol, Wirth announced the U.S.’s commitment to legally binding limits on greenhouse gas emissions. From 1998 to 2013, he served as the president of the United Nations Foundation, and currently sits on the Foundation’s board.”


“The United Nations Foundation was launched in 1998 with a $1 billion gift from Ted Turner to support the United Nations causes… The main issue areas that the Foundation addresses are child health, climate change & energy, sustainable development, technology, women, girls, and population, and supporting the United Nations.”


How is it that the philanthropists who are the most ardent supporters of medical programs to save more lives (especially in the 1/3 world) through health services, disease reduction, and mass vaccination, are the same alarmists who decry over-population as the number one threat to humanity in being the number one cause of climate change (0:58)? These Ehrlichians, these Holdrenites really need to clarify why they routinely spend billions funding these programs to save millions of lives while publicly stating that it is a death sentance to us all. In order for people to voluntarily agree to have no more than one or two children, poverty must be eradicated. Funding health services will only make that problem worse, if one listens to the men who share the views of the Ted Turners’ and the Bill Gates’ and the Al Gores’ of the world. When notable people say one thing yet do another, it should be noted. When objecting to these incongruencies is not tolerated, it should be feared.

 

 

Trump’s Second Chance

What’s going to happen when Trump retracts by saying he mis-spoke about the cheering Arabs? He will correct himself by saying that it was , in fact, Israelis who cheered (6:51) when the towers came down.

A damning article implicating Mossad, and this about the art students.

He will, of course, be right, and the media will have no choice but to report the fact that some Israelis claimed to have had fore-knowledge of the 9/11 attacks. This will re-open the wounds of 9/11 and all the truthers will team up with the bankster-haters to give him his landslide presidency.

After all, who knows more about New York real estate than the Donald? Who knows more building inspectors? Is this how he plans to reveal the truth about 9/11 to the American voters? In light of the current trend to buck the establishment types, perhaps this is just what the US secretly wants right now – a protectionist president who calls them like he sees them.

Expect talk of the USS Liberty to become a hot topic in the upcoming news/election cycle.

He didn’t capitalize the last time he had a chance to wrap up the election; will he do it this time?

*Update*

Step two is complete.

“The Donald: Israel, American Jews, Funding ISIS and World Terrorism

A Pound of Flesh?

The Canadian, Dick Pound, seems to have gotten his revenge. Spurred on by several Canadian athletes, and despite every country in the world using some form of performance enhancing drugs in their athletics programs or in some of their athletes, whether they know it or not, Dick focused almost entirely on Russia, and in peculiar particular, on Putin. Everyone knew. Putin must have been aware, complicit, and complacent. Will Russia be banned from the Olympics for this conspiracy of athletic terror? Gold medals are good for the economy, and if medals are stolen, so too is the cash with which they come. This has economic implications. What doesn’t? The Israelis used the same economic terror argument against Gaza.

Remember Sochi? Wow, the opening ceremonies were just… wow! And all they ever talked about was that malfunctioning snowflake. Sour grapes.

Ben Johnson (Canadian,) Lance Armstrong (American,) and thousands of others have been found to use steroids; what is interesting here is the timing of these releases. Ben was quickly stripped of his medal in favour of his American counterpart, and Lance revealed everything at the end of his career in order to sell more books.

This story is not a story about doping. This is a story of intimidation, coercion, strong-arming, and pretending-to-not.

Continue reading “A Pound of Flesh?”

Tru-d’oh

Justin Trudeau (born on Christmas day, 1971) just won a majority government for the Liberal party in Canada. It was a landslide… a blowout.

Another point to note is that Justin Trudeau has been involved in making the job of PM obsolete. Elizabeth May (Green Party leader) as well as former PMs John Turner and Paul Martin (who once famously said that if you pay taxes in Canada, you need to get a new accountant) are also part of the same United Nations group which wants to do away with national sovereignty here in Canada, as well as in the rest of the world. This group is the United Nations Parliamentary Assembly (UNPA.)

“The Campaign for the Establishment of a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly (UNPA) is a global network of parliamentarians and non-governmental organizations advocating citizen’s representation at the United Nations.

A United Nations Parliamentary Assembly (UNPA) would be the first parliamentary body directly representing the world’s citizens in the United Nations. It is envisaged as first practical step towards the long-term goal of a world parliament.”

Does this mean that the people would end up being represented (on the world stage, in this new global society) by politicians and corporations? The same NGOs responsible for the TPP and TTIP are going to tell the UN what people want and what they need.

Trudeau’s new job is a step in the right direction. Are there bigger things in store for ‘Pierre the technocrat’s’ son? It will be illuminating to see what he has to say about COP 21, the TPP, and the UNPA now, after his first day in office. He should be careful, though, because what he says might be treasonous, to his career.

Wouldn’t it be interesting to hear what a Prime Minister is told on his very first day on the job? One would expect them to be told which campaign ‘promises’ were just ‘not on the agenda’ anymore. It would also be interesting to see just who was doing the telling. Would it be a general or a bureaucrat, a scientist, a judge, a banker, the Governor General, or a guy in a black suit? Maybe the whole bunch of them with a security detail to ‘protect’ the leader and their family… for the rest of their lives.

If he gets his marching orders from inside Canada, or whether he does it on his own is one thing; should he start taking direction from the UN, its groups, or their members’ advice, he makes his own job moot. He is an intermediary for someone, the question is who? It’s not like he’s an expert in any of the above fields.

Montreal is part of the Strong Cities Network, which is:

“… the first global network of cities and other sub-national entities working together to build social cohesion and resilience to prevent violent extremism in all its forms. The Strong Cities Network provides a global platform to support local authorities to systematically share lessons learned, pool resources and build a community that can mobilize local action on a global scale.”

Is this Justin Trudeau’s idea of leadership, or governance?

As an afterthought, if this came as such a surprise to everybody reading the polls, it may be time for them to start getting some of their information from outside the mainstream. Why have Canadian news shows been so blind-sided on election data, lately? How can an analyst comment on something they didn’t see coming? How can they then laud it?

Can We Both Be Right?

I had an exchange with a climate alarmist the other day, an exchange for which I felt the need to apologize. I sent him an email today. The subject line read: “Apology”.

Yesterday, we had exchanged opinions and facts about climate change and couldn’t agree about any of it. Today, the day after our exchange, I found myself bothered by it. I wondered why we couldn’t get along? He is a damn good researcher; how could he be so wrong. Maybe he thought the same of me.

I was going through an article I had recently written, looking at a graph which showed temperature and CO2 levels over the past several hundred million years. I saw that both CO2 levels and global temperatures had very rarely ever been this low, and I thought that surely this would lead to desertification. After all, the tundra is a desert, despite its low temperature. How could he think that this natural uptrend after near-record cold was anything but normal, anything to be worried about, anything unexpected? It had since leveled-off, so no problem, right? Why did he look at it as record highs when it was clearly (near) record lows?

My short answer was that he must only have been looking at the local US surface temperature record over a very short time span, and I was looking at satellite data as well as long term data covering more of the history of the earth, and this is what led to his distorted view. If the charts start in the sixties, it’s been getting warmer. If the charts start six-hundred million years ago, brrr. On a planetary level, however, no big deal. This seemed to explain away the problem as well as all the sub-problems like sea-level rise, Arctic ice extent, storm activity, etc. etc. etc. He was the American alarmist who took the ‘nothing outside our borders matters’ and the ‘we have the best equipment so everyone else is wrong’ view, and I was the voice of reason with a view to the world. Typical US-Canada relations.

I went for a walk to clear my head. Why was this still bothering me? I had figured out the problem; I had my answer. But there was more to it than that. There was something missing. As I walked around my neighbourhood, I thought about power structures and relationships, I thought about hegemony and what it can do to one’s perspective, I thought about the philosophy behind the situation when it hit me: Hegel – Mondrian – binary code. What if we were both right?

Continue reading “Can We Both Be Right?”

322

This article is dedicated to the memory of Tim Russert, as he was the only journalist to have had the courage to ask both 2004 presidential candidates (0:54) about the implications of their involvement in the same secret society while in university. He died, on the job, of heart failure in 2008. He was fifty-eight years old.

Occultism features prominently in many secret societies. One of the best known is a Yale club called ‘Skull and Bones‘ whose members meet in a clubhouse called the tomb. It is the oldest senior class landed society at Yale. It owes its notoriety to the fact that both of the presidential candidates in the US elections of 2004, namely John Kerry and George W. Bush (who, incidentally, are also 9th cousins, twice removed,) are members.

The society’s alumni organization, the Russell Trust Association, owns the society’s real estate and oversees the organization. From 1978 until his death in 1988, business of the Russell Trust Association was handled by its single trustee, Brown Brothers Harriman & Co. partner John B. Madden. Madden started with Brown Brothers Harriman in 1946, under senior partner and senator Prescott Bush (Bonesman 1917,) who was the step-brother of George Herbert Walker Jr. (Bonesman 1927,) father to George H.W. Bush (Bonesman 1948 [nickname: Magog,] head of the CIA, and 41st president,) father to Jonathan James Bush (Bonesman 1953 banker,) and grandfather of George W. Bush (Bonesman 1968 [nickname: Temporary] 43rd president.) As a sidenote, U S Federal District Court Judge John Walker (Bonesman – not listed on Wikipedia’s list) 1st cousin to Bush 41 and, once removed, to Bush 43 was a judge in April Gallop’s law suit against Dick Cheney for his failure to evacuate the Pentagon on 9/11. Prescott Bush was also a founder of the Union Banking Corporation which was seized by the United States under the Trading with the Enemy Act for its business ties with Nazi Germany.

Franklin D. Roosevelt’s fortune was inherited from his maternal grandfather Warren Delano. In 1830 he was a senior partner of Russell & Company. It was their merchant fleet which carried Sassoon‘s opium to China and returned with tea. John Kerry‘s maternal grandfather, James Grant Forbes, was born in Shanghai, China, where the Forbes family of China and Boston accumulated a fortune in the opium and China trade. Kerry’s paternal grandfather, Frederick A. Kerry (born Fritz Kohn), was born in the Czech Republic. The Kerry-Kohns were Jewish, but the family concealed its background upon migrating to the United States, and raised the Kerry children as Catholics. Richard John Kerry, John’s father, also graduated from Yale.

Yale happens to have had a great number of these clubs throughout its long history. The three most exclusive are perhaps ‘Skull and Bones,’ ‘Scroll and Key,’ and ‘Wolf’s Head.’ The logo of ‘Skull and Bones’ features the number 322 displayed under, you guessed it, an image of a skull and crossbones. Of the three, ‘Skull and Bones’ members were said to be the ones who took care of the ‘dirty work.’ Many members went on to very high ranks in diverse fields, but there did seem to be a lot of athletes amongst them.

Continue reading “322”

Climate Change – Conservancy Or Governance?


Margaret Thatcher    “Nothing is more obstinate than a fashionable consensus.”

“Consensus: “The process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values, and policies in search of something in which no one believes, but to which no one objects; the process of avoiding the very issues that have to be solved, merely because you cannot get agreement on the way ahead. What great cause would have been fought and won under the banner: ‘I stand for consensus?”


Before getting into details, some very basic questions on the topic answered briefly:

1- Who are the chief actors?

  • Pro AGW actors will herein be known as ‘alarmists.’
  • Con AGW actors will herein be known as ‘doubters.’ ‘Deniers’ is seen as derogatory and has been replaced in the mainstream media (MSM.) Skeptics is still prefered by some.

2- Is the global climate changing?

Yes. It always has and it will continue to do so. This is why there have been ice ages.

3- Is this change due to human activity?

No. (see question 4, below) The sun is the primary determinant of climate as this is where the planet gets almost all its energy.

4- Does human activity contribute to warming or cooling trends?

Otherwise stated, is anthropogenic global warming or anthropogenic climate change (AGW or AGCC) a legitimate concept? On the face of it, probably not, but if it is, the effect is truly minimal. The rub here is whether or not we consider geo-engineering (besides a slight mention, geo-engineering is not a substantial part of this article) as part of this equation? If so, the effect would be to increase the amount of influence man has on his environment, although very slightly. In which direction, though, is still not known.

5- Is CO2 pollution or plant food?

CO2 is most definitely not pollution by any definition of the word. Conflation between carbon monoxide (CO – which is pollution) and carbon dioxide (CO2 – which is plant food) and basic scientific ignorance seem to be at fault here. See this article for disambiguation.

6- Does the economy have an effect on the science?

Just as with politics, when money is introduced into a problem, it tends to aggravate the situation by bringing up new problems. The economy affects everything. Governments need revenue to fund research and address issues. Corporations need investors in order to continue doing business. Universities and think-tanks need government (and private) money to continue their research. Magazines, journals, and publishing houses need advertising revenue to continue to publish. Scientists need money to support their families. There are many points along this chain in which to introduce money as a corruptive factor. Money can indeed influence science, and has.

7- Does politics control policy, or do the facts?

It would seem that there is an agenda at work behind the question. The IPCC (the UN’s main deliberative body on climate change) was, at its inception, created with a mandate. The IPCC is a political body and not a scientific one and was created with specific goals and objectives to attain. Their own literature attests to this fact. Scientists who participate with the IPCC do so as consultants and advisors only. Motions put forth by the UN are written by lawyers, bureaucrats, translators, and policy-makers, not scientists.

8- Is there bias in the debate?

Both sides of this question are subject to biases (scroll down to the comments section where professor Brown references these biases) when reporting on the data. Everybody who works in this field has a horse in the race, so to speak, and everybody wants their horse to come out ahead. However, there are several documented instances of outright fraud concerning manipulated data which all seem to come from one side of the table in particular – the alarmist side. (More on this later) And yes, many people on the internet lie or are mis-informed, on both sides.

9- How much carbon dioxide is there in our atmosphere?

400 ppm = 0.04% That is to say that four one-hundredths of one percent of our atmosphere is composed of carbon dioxide.

Some basic facts about CO2 concentrations:

  • 70,000-100,000 ppm (unconsciousness within an hour)
  • 7000-8000 ppm (earth’s historic high)
  • 5000 ppm (US Occupational CO2 exposure limits – 8 hrs.)
  • 3000-4000 ppm (poorly ventilated indoor spaces)
  • 2000-2500 ppm (well ventilated indoor spaces)
  • 2000-2500 ppm (Jurassic era levels)
  • 800-4000 ppm (optimal greenhouse targets)
  • 360 – 410 ppm (earth’s atmosphere today)
  • 250 ppm (earth’s historic low)
  • 200 ppm (IPCC target level)
  • 150 ppm (level under which plants start to die)
  • 0 ppm (where Bill Gates wants it)

If you only click one link in this entire article, make it the following:

Chistopher Monckton Keynote – ICCC9 July 9, 2014 (47:11)

Start at the 20:00 mark if you don’t have much time. In this video, Lord Christopher Monckton lays bare the language of the agreements reached at several climate summits demonstrating the true intent behind these schemes. He then goes on to suggest some very positive actions which we all can take in order to guarantee legitimacy and transparency in these international tribunals governed by non-elected bodies accountable only to their own interests. With the COP-21 United Nations Conference on Climate Change in Paris quickly upon us (November 30 to December 11, 2015) there is precious little time to act.

Let’s put an end to global warming.

Continue reading “Climate Change – Conservancy Or Governance?”

Бейбітшілік пен келісім сарайы - Astana

Astana Mean-Time?

Kazakhstan is an interesting place with a broad and diverse history. From Genghis Khan’s invasion to Stalin’s deportation of undesirables from the west of the country (which contributed to the region’s ethnic diversity) as inmates of the gulags to the unilateral dismantling of their nuclear program in the post-Soviet era, Kazakhstan has been down a long road to its present form of democracy/dictatorship.

The image above is of the The Palace of Peace and Reconciliation, a.k.a. Pyramid of Peace and Accord. Among its many features are stained glass panels at the top showing three doves in the middle triangle, two doves on the right, and two doves on the left. This motif is echoed below by lozenges, again three in the middle, two on the right and two on the left.

The Pyramid was specially constructed to host the Congress of Leaders of World and Traditional Religions. It contains accommodations for different religions: Judaism, Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Daoism and other faiths. It also houses a 1,500-seat opera house, a national museum of culture, a new “university of civilization”, a library and a research center for Kazakhstan’s ethnic and geographical groups. This diversity is unified within the pure form of a pyramid, 62m (203ft) high with a 62x62m (203x203ft) base. The building is conceived as a global center for religious understanding, the renunciation of violence and the promotion of faith and human equality.”

1368351596_11!!-!!12 Park640

Kazakhstan has, of late, been on a building spree which would put pre-crisis Spain to shame. Financed by Kazakh supplies of oil, gold, and uranium (the world’s second largest producer and America’s largest supplier) as well as massive amounts of foreign investment (from the likes of Warren Buffet, no less,) universities, infrastructure projects, religious institutions, and sky-scrapers have all been popping up at a phenomenal rate. But there’s more. They have been building trade deals and international relationships, as well.

One of these deals was the foundation of the IAEA Low Enriched Uranium (LEU) Bank in Oskemen. “The IAEA LEU Bank, operated by Kazakhstan, will be a physical reserve of LEU available for eligible IAEA Member States. It will host a reserve of LEU, the basic ingredient of nuclear fuel, and act as a supplier of last resort for Member States in case they cannot obtain LEU on the global commercial market or otherwise.”

“The establishment and operation of the IAEA LEU Bank is fully funded through US $150 million of voluntary contributions from the Nuclear Threat Initiative, the United States, the European Union, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Norway and Kazakhstan.”

Strangely enough, there are some other ‘improvements’ of note, which may seem, at first glance, contrary to the Kazakh stance on WMD. The USA is funding a bio-weapons research lab with the goal of fighting global terror. The lab will also serve as a storage facility for some of the most harmful and virulent strains of disease known (such as bubonic plague, yellow fever, anthrax, cholera, smallpox et al..) The BSL-2/3 (the highest level is BSL-4) lab will not only protect the diseases studied within from being stolen, but also protect the bio-chemists and engineers (and the knowledge they possess) from being hired by shady groups. There has been much unemployment in this field since the collapse of the Soviet Union, after all.

There is also the possibility that the US is funding the lab with other intentions in mind…

Russia Questions Peaceful Nature of US Biological Research

*Update* The CDC reports unususally high rates of bubonic plague (black death) in the US.

“The United States must target all attributes of the biothreat, using all available tools–from the cognitive realms of transparency and partnerships which have the potential to shape and dissuade, to the firm reality of denial and punishment through vaccinations and kinetic responses as necessary.”

But more on this later. *Update – some evidence of this plan coming to light: America has attacked a power plant and a water treatment facility in Aleppo, Syria with no military value against ISIS. This could lead to an outbreak of cholera.

Russia currently pays Kazakhstan $115 million annually to use Baikonur Cosmodrome, plus $50 million every year for maintenance, under a deal signed in 2004. That agreement is slated to expire in 2050.” This is a pretty good deal considering the following, “NASA Administrator Charles Bolden sent a letter to Congress Wednesday saying the agency would need to pay $490 million to Russia for six seats on Soyuz rockets for U.S. astronauts to fly through 2017. That comes to nearly $82 million a seat, up from $71 million a seat. Since the retirement of the space shuttle in 2011, NASA has relied on Russian federal space agency Roscosmos to provide seats on its Soyuz spacecraft to send U.S. astronauts to the space station.” Further, “At the moment, Russia is the only nation capable of launching astronauts to the International Space Station. Russia’s crew-carrying Soyuz spacecraft all launch from Baikonur…” In addition, the US buys its rocket engines used for satellite launches from Russia and will need to do so for years to come. The American space program seems to be completely dependant on both Russia and Kazakhstan. What would happen if they decided to cut the Americans off?

See also: “US Badly Needs Russia’s Technology to Keep Its Space Program Afloat

With all the new investment opportunities (mostly from the USA) as well as the very close ties to Russia, it seems odd that Nursultan Nazarbayev (who also attended a NATO summit on Afghanistan in 2010) would say the things he said at the UN during a speech he gave on September 28th (which, oddly enough, is not on the UN’s video channel,) to wit:

  • That the world should move towards a global currency (thus stripping the USA of its reserve currency status.)
  • That the International Monetary Fund (IMF) should be removed from USA control and folded into the UN.
  • That the headquarters of the UN should be moved from New York to somewhere in Asia (he did not say where.)

Granted, these recommendations were to take place over a rather long period of time, nevertheless, it demonstrates either a cunning international play against the hand feeding it, or a willingness to accede to a plan already long in the making. He did sign on to help in America’s ‘War on Terror’, after all.

Putin also said, during an interview with Charlie Rose, that there could be room for change at the UN, and the French and Mexican delegations pushed for a reform of the veto rules at the Security Council’s meetings, as well. It would seem that the winds of change are blowing squarely into American faces.

*Update

Now Putin is turning his nose up at the Saudis after a meeting in Russia. And what was Ingushetia’s Yunus-Bek Yevkurov doing there with the others’ Defense Ministers?

Harper, the Niqab, and the Concept of Hijab

There has been much talk about the niqab as it relates to the swearing-in portion of citizenship ceremonies. Everyone seems to be missing the point on this subject, especially Stephen Harper.

First, let’s get the facts straight; identification is done through paperwork, not facial recognition. Yes, there is an aspect of facial recognition to the identification process, but ultimately, it comes down to documentation. This is very simply demonstrated with the example of triplets at the border; they don’t all use the same passport simply because they look alike.

Second, the swearing-in ceremony is a chance for people who are new to the country to present themselves as they are. It is an opportunity to introduce themselves to their peers, and if the goal is to be recognizable, then their appearance must reflect who they are even moreso than what they look like. They will not be forced to go through the procedure for a second time should they fall victim to a disfiguring injury, for example. They must, therefore, present their public face. Whether that face is veiled or not, it is their own personal choice and it reflects their own personal identity.

Third, the niqab is not a disguise. Wearing a mask at a protest march is a change in one’s public face in order to hide one’s identity. Wearing a niqab (or a burqa, chador, dupatta, tichel, snood, babushka, or veil) is a celebration of one’s cultural identity, not a duplicitous attempt to conceal it.

Fourth, there are some who would say that because some women are forced to wear such coverings by the males in their social groups, this behaviour should not be encouraged. However, this is not the issue at hand. Surely women who are oppressed by men have avenues available to them in order to help them break free from these bonds. Replacing such bondage by governmental oppression is not an acceptable option.

Fifth, a person should have the right to personal freedom of expression. Furthermore, a person should have the right to adorn one’s body as one sees fit, and to practice the religion of their choice, if this is the case. Be it cultural garb, mandated medical procedures, abortion, prostitution, or euthanasia, a person should have exclusive rights over their bodies and the way these are portrayed, displayed, treated, and cared for. If wearing something cannot be forced upon us, not wearing something should not either.

Sixth, the right to determine one’s own lifestyle should never rest with the state.

A final thought – when a government equates a form of dress with a certain pattern of behaviour, be it overtly or not, that is a form of discrimination and has no place in a modern society. Whether it is stated directly or not, equating the idea of a niqab with a sense of fear from terrorism is no different than identifying a religious group with a special ‘brand’ in the hopes of generating the same feelings of uneasiness. We should all be disgusted that some feel this debate is necessary or even appropriate.

Update – Zunera Ishaq just took the oath of citizenship while displaying her niqab-adorned ‘public face.’ This represents a victory for human rights in Canada, although, the court decision risks being overturned when a new government is elected.

While You Weren’t Listening

The first and current President of Kazakhstan is Nursultan Nazarbayev. In his speech to the UN today, he made several recommendations to the council. They were monumental in scope, especially considering the limited international status of his 25 year old country. Then again, based on what Putin said about the UN (or rather, didn’t say,) perhaps there are things in the works about which we don’t yet know.

“When the Soviet Union collapsed in December 1991, Kazakhstan inherited 1,410 nuclear warheads and the Semipalatinsk nuclear-weapon test site. By April 1995, Kazakhstan had returned the warheads to Russia and, by July 2000, had destroyed the nuclear testing infrastructure at Semipalatinsk.”

“On 2 December 2009, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and the Republic of Kazakhstan designated 29 August as International Day against Nuclear Tests, anniversary of the date the Semipalatinsk test site closed in 1991.”

Kazakhstan is the largest landlocked country in Asia and has the strongest economy in central Asia. They have enormous oil reserves and are a leading exporter of uranium (ironic as that is.) It is also a world leader in coal, iron, and gold production.

Their elections have been largely considered to be unfair and anything but free in the eyes of international observers.

Kazakhstan is vying for a non-permanent seat on the UN Security Council in 2017. They enjoy good diplomatic relations with both Russia and the Ukraine.

He proposed five main points:

  1. That there be one global currency to replace the favoured status of a reserve currency and the unfair advantages it confers upon the country that controls it.
  2. That the IMF be folded into the UN’s mandate removing it from US control (since they won’t have the reserve currency, anyways.)
  3. That the IAEA Low Enriched Uranium (LEU) Bank in Oskemen, Kazakhstan (agreement signed this August,) which removes the need for individual countries to enrich their own uranium by centralizing the distribution thereof, be the only source for enriched uranium. A kind of central bank for fissile material. This bank would be overseen by, and indeed, folded into the UN and included in its mandate.
  4. That nuclear weapons be banned, outright.
  5. That the UN headquarters be moved out of the US and into Asia.

Given that France and Mexico et al. have proposed that the veto right of the permanent members of the UN Security Council be severely limited, It doesn’t look like the world is going to leave a lot of meat on the bone for the US to cushion its fall from grace. Could this be the impetus for WWIII which the UN was formed to avoid?

There is a short follow-up article here.

Sex and the Disabled

Should prostitution be legalized? This question has always been met with controversy, but here is an example of the good prostitutes can do for the less fortunate.

Disabled people have always been subject to social stigma and discrimination. Be it for issues of work, mobility, or equal rights, handicapped people have it rough. It is much more difficult for them to hold down good jobs and to participate in society on an equal footing with the rest of the able-bodied population. Does this mean that many of them should die virgins, without ever having experienced what some would describe as the summum bonum of human relations? They have enough hardship as it is; why should they be denied sex given that they must obviously have a very difficult time finding people interested in having a relationship let alone wooing people into their bedrooms?

What a woman (or any consenting non-minor) does with her body is still a topic of debate within several subjects such as: abortion; wearing of the niqab/burqa; euthanasia; mandated medical treatment; and, of course, prostitution. Only religion (despite its good intentions) and government and their historical and cultural significance can be shown to object to this most fundamental human principle. Of course people should have a right to decide their own futures as long as they are not coerced.

The Netherlands considers sex a human right and prostitution legal. This combination has led to legislation which allows for and pays for, in some cases, the services of a prostitute for the disabled of their country. Should this modern attitude towards mercy not be available in more places? It’s only human, after all.

Putin and the UN – Is Change in the Air?

Based on a recent interview with Charlie Rose, Vladimir Putin made some subtle comments regarding the status of the UN and what the future might hold in store. This is simply speculative interpretation, but did he hint at the possibility of an overhaul of the foundations of global governance? The BRICS association analogy may be a valid comparison to draw at this point.

“…I will have to say a few words about…the fact that the United Nations remains the sole universal international organisation designed to maintain global peace. And in this sense it has no alternative today.”

This is an interesting comment. Of course, everybody knows that the UN is unique, so why mention it here? Is there a plan amongst the developing economies to overhaul the UN, or is the plan to replace it with a less partisan body? His qualification of the comment with the word ‘today’ leads one to believe that tomorrow might be a different story. With Russia being a founding member (since its inception at Yalta after WWII,) and if Russia can convince the other members of the BRICS countries to follow suit, they could withdraw from the UN and create their own body to uphold international law without granting the US veto power over all its decisions. On the 25th of September, Putin met with the other members of the UN’s security council to discuss the situation in Syria, as well as current domestic policy issues. One wonders what these issues might be, but given recent comments by Putin (such as those given at Valdai) as well as those given by Assad (here and here,) not to mention the rift which is developing between Germany and France against the US over NATO’s involvement in the Ukraine and US involvement in Syria indicate that the world’s opinion about the US and its activities in the middle-east and elsewhere are changing (or worsening, depending on your point of view.)

“It is also apparent that it should adapt to the ever-changing world, which we discuss all the time: how it should evolve and at what rate, which components should undergo qualitative changes. Of course, I will have to or rather should use this international platform to explain Russia’s vision of today’s international relations, as well as the future of this organisation and the global community.”

It is very clear, based on these statements that the UN is an ever-evolving entity, but it is also clear, given the prevalence of this comment at the beginning of the interview, that there is a will amongst the participants (not including the US) to reform the role of the UN in the near future.

“…in my opinion, provision of military support to illegal structures runs counter to the principles of modern international law and the United Nations Charter. We have been providing assistance to legitimate government entities only.”

This comment was clearly meant to demonstrate US support for the forces opposing Assad – ISIS/ISIL et al. – and its illegality. Will the international community continue to allow the Western forces’ ‘carte blanche’ towards the middle-east, and will it stand idly by as Syria is turned into Libya v2.0? It would not appear to be the case. China has also decided to support Assad’s forces by sending its navy to the port at Tartus in Syria. Has the BRICS military coalition started?

“There is only one regular army there. That is the army of Syrian President al-Assad.”

And in another quote from a past interview,

“It’s my deep belief that any actions to the contrary in order to destroy the legitimate government [of Syria] will create a situation which you can witness now in the other countries of the region or in other regions, for instance in Libya, where all the state institutions are disintegrated. We see a similar situation in Iraq,” Putin stressed.

“There is no other solution to the Syrian crisis than strengthening the effective government structures and rendering them help in fighting terrorism. But at the same time, urging them to engage in positive dialogue with the rational opposition and conduct reform.”

The Russian leader stressed that US-led coalition partners need to understand that only the Syrian people are entitled “to decide who should govern their country and how.”

With this, Putin is upholding the democratic process by which Assad was elected, and legitimizes his presence in the discussion.

That which the future holds, only time will reveal, but clearly the winds of political change are blowing squarely in the face of the US, its official policies, NATO, and the UN.

*Update* Given what the Kazakh president said at his speech to the UN, there are more massive changes coming to the ‘International Order’ as we know it. Buckle up!

Funkhadafi

Yes Muammar Muhammad Abu Minyar al-Gaddafi was a dictator (despite the fact that he did not consider himself as such and that his Libya was a direct democracy with socialism at its core.) Yes he was brutal in his rule. Yes he lived very well at the expense of the treasury. However, considering the salaries and bonuses of successful CEOs taken from their investors for a job well done, as well as the harm that many of these industries do to the public, perhaps, by Western standards, he deserved to.

Ten things you don’t know about Gaddafi’s rule, and the conditions within Libya.

CNN parroting the above. CNN officially claims that these reports cannot be verified, but they can be, and they have been.

Global Research published an illuminating article about Gaddafi highlighting the plans he had for his country and the opposition to his will expressed and implemented by the international community.

Additionally, Gaddafi was instrumental in liberating telecommunications in Africa.

“The Regional African Satellite Communication Organization (RASCOM) will provide telecommunication services, direct TV broadcast services and Internet access in rural areas of Africa. Under an agreement with RASCOM, RascomStar-QAF (a private company registered in Mauritius) will implement RASCOM’s first communications satellite project. This joint African project is expected to lower the continent’s dependency on international satellite networks such as Intelsat.”

Mercenaries could have been paid to assassinate Gaddafi and claim that the people wanted him dead. Or the people themselves, who enjoyed many of the astounding benefits seen in the above links, could have suddenly gone crazy. Unproven, either way.

It seems more likely that he was killed for the same reason Lincoln, Jackson (almost,) Garfield, Kennedy, and Hussein were killed… money. More correctly, the protection of American money – namely the dollar. Gaddafi was in talks to develop a pan-African gold-backed currency. Congressman Larry McDonald and senators John Heinz and John Tower all died in plane crashes after having criticized the Federal Reserve and called for audits. Chavez was also villified for his stance on re-patriating Venezuela’s gold.

The truth is that Gaddafi was an ardent supporter of direct democracy and a champion for his people. Bashar al Assad is supported by most of the Syrian population (saying that life was better with Assad than it is with ISIS) and it would appear that he will soon face the same fate as Gaddafi if the Americans get their paws on him. And don’t forget what happened to Arbenz, Mossadeq, Allende, Roldos, Torrijos, Aristide, not to mention Yanukovych… the list goes on.


*Update*

Article from Zerohedge:

British Parliament Confirms Libya War Was Based On Lies … Turned Nation Into a “Shit Show” … Spread Terrorism

Re-published here:

Parliamentary Report Confirms What the Alternative Media Has Been Saying for Years

The UK Parliament just confirmed what the alternative media has been saying for years.

Specifically, a new report from the bipartisan House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee – based on interviews with all of the key British decision-makers, review of documents, and on-the-ground investigations in Africa – found that Libyan war was based on lies, that it destroyed the country, and that it spread terrorism far and wide.

The War Based On Bogus Intelligence … Like the Iraq War

Initially, the report finds that the threat to civilians from Libyan  government forces was dramatically overstated:

Former French Foreign Minister Alain Juppé, who introduced Resolution 1973 [imposing a no-fly zone over Libya, and laying the groundwork for overthrowing the government], asserted in his speech to the Security Council that “the situation on the ground is more alarming than ever, marked by the violent re-conquest of cities”. He stressed the urgency of the situation, arguing that “We have very little time left—perhaps only a matter of hours.” Subsequent analysis suggested that the immediate threat to civilians was being publicly overstated and that the reconquest of cities had not resulted in mass civilian casualties.

 

***

 

The proposition that Muammar Gaddafi would have ordered the massacre of civilians in Benghazi  [which was the basis for the West’s war to overthrow Gaddafi] was not supported by the available evidence. The Gaddafi regime had retaken towns from the rebels without attacking civilians in early February 2011 …. Gaddafi regime forces targeted male combatants in a civil war and did not indiscriminately attack civilians. More widely, Muammar Gaddafi’s 40-year record of appalling human rights abuses did not include large-scale attacks on Libyan civilians.

 

***

 

On 17 March 2011, Muammar Gaddafi announced to the rebels in Benghazi, “Throw away your weapons, exactly like your brothers in Ajdabiya and other places did. They laid down their arms and they are safe. We never pursued them at all.” Subsequent investigation revealed that when Gaddafi regime forces retook Ajdabiya in February 2011, they did not attack civilians. Muammar Gaddafi also attempted to appease protesters in Benghazi with an offer of development aid before finally deploying troops.

 

***

 

An Amnesty International investigation in June 2011 could not corroborate allegations of mass human rights violations by Gaddafi regime troops. However, it uncovered evidence that rebels in Benghazi made false claims and manufactured evidence. The investigation concluded that much Western media coverage has from the outset presented a very one-sided view of the logic of events, portraying the protest movement as entirely peaceful and repeatedly suggesting that the regime’s security forces were unaccountably massacring unarmed demonstrators who presented no security challenge.

***

 

In short, the scale of the threat to civilians was presented with unjustified certainty. US intelligence officials reportedly described the intervention as “an intelligence-light decision”.

Just like the ginned up intelligence used to justify the Iraq war. And the “humanitarian wars” waged over the last couple of decades.

The Libyan Government Was Fighting Terrorists

The report also notes that the Libyan government really was – as Libyan dictator Gaddafi claimed at the time – fighting Islamic terrorists based in Benghazi:

Intelligence on the extent to which extremist militant Islamist elements were involved in the anti-Gaddafi rebellion was inadequate.

***

Abdelhakim Belhadj and other members of the al-Qaeda affiliated Libyan Islamic Fighting Group were participating in the rebellion in March 2011.

Secret intelligence reports from 2011, written before and during the illegal US-led attack on Libya and recently obtained by the Washington Times, state:

  There is a close link between al Qaeda, Jihadi organizations, and the opposition in Libya…

Indeed, the Libyan rebel commander admitted at the time that his fighters had links to Al Qaeda.  And see this.

We reported in 2012:

The U.S. supported opposition which overthrew Libya’s Gadaffi was largely comprised of Al Qaeda terrorists. According to a 2007 report by West Point’s Combating Terrorism Center’s center, the Libyan city of Benghazi was one of Al Qaeda’s main headquarters – and bases for sending Al Qaeda fighters into Iraq – prior to the overthrow of Gaddafi:

The Hindustan Times reported last year:

 “There is no question that al Qaeda’s Libyan franchise, Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, is a part of the opposition,” Bruce Riedel, former CIA officer and a leading expert on terrorism, told Hindustan Times.

 

It has always been Qaddafi’s biggest enemy and its stronghold is Benghazi.

***

(Incidentally, Gaddafi was on the verge of invading Benghazi in 2011, 4 years after the West Point report cited Benghazi as a hotbed of Al Qaeda terrorists. Gaddafi claimed – rightly it turns out – that Benghazi was an Al Qaeda stronghold and a main source of the Libyan rebellion.  But NATO planes stopped him, and protected Benghazi.)

The Daily Mail reported in 2014:

A self-selected group of former top military officers, CIA insiders and think-tankers, declared Tuesday in Washington that a seven-month review of the deadly 2012 terrorist attack has determined that it could have been prevented – if the U.S. hadn’t been helping to arm al-Qaeda militias throughout Libya a year earlier.

 

‘The United States switched sides in the war on terror with what we did in Libya, knowingly facilitating the provision of weapons to known al-Qaeda militias and figures,’ Clare Lopez, a member of the commission and a former CIA officer, told MailOnline.

 

She blamed the Obama administration for failing to stop half of a $1 billion United Arab Emirates arms shipment from reaching al-Qaeda-linked militants.

 

‘Remember, these weapons that came into Benghazi were permitted to enter by our armed forces who were blockading the approaches from air and sea,’ Lopez claimed. ‘They were permitted to come in. … [They] knew these weapons were coming in, and that was allowed..

 

‘The intelligence community was part of that, the Department of State was part of that, and certainly that means that the top leadership of the United States, our national security leadership, and potentially Congress – if they were briefed on this – also knew about this.’

 

***

 

‘The White House and senior Congressional members,’ the group wrote in an interim report released Tuesday, ‘deliberately and knowingly pursued a policy that provided material support to terrorist organizations in order to topple a ruler [Muammar Gaddafi] who had been working closely with the West actively to suppress al-Qaeda.’

 

‘Some look at it as treason,’ said Wayne Simmons, a former CIA officer who participated in the commission’s research.

The West and Its Allies Directly Supported and Armed the Rebels

The UK report confirms that the West and its allies directly supported and armed the rebels:

The combat performance of rebel ground forces was enhanced by personnel and intelligence provided by states such as the UK, France, Turkey, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. For example, Lord Richards told us that the UK “had a few people embedded” with the rebel forces.

 

Resolution 1973 called on United Nations member states to ensure the “strict implementation of the arms embargo”. However, we were told that the international community turned a blind eye to the supply of weapons to the rebels. Lord Richards highlighted “the degree to which the Emiratis and the Qataris … played a major role in the success of the ground operation.” For example, Qatar supplied French Milan anti­tank missiles to certain rebel groups. We were told that Qatar channelled its weapons to favoured militias rather than to the rebels as a whole.

The REAL Motivation for War

The real motivation for the war?  The Parliamentary report explains:

A further insight into French motivations was provided in a freedom of information disclosure by the United States State Department in December 2015. On 2 April 2011, Sidney Blumenthal, adviser and unofficial intelligence analyst to the then United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, reported this conversation with French intelligence officers to the Secretary of State:

 

According to these individuals Sarkozy’s plans are driven by the following issues:

 

  1. A desire to gain a greater share of Libya oil production,
  2. Increase French influence in North Africa,
  3. Improve his internal political situation in France,
  4. Provide the French military with an opportunity to reassert its position in the world,
  5. Address the concern of his advisors over Qaddafi’s long term plans to supplant France as the dominant power in Francophone Africa.

 

The sum of four of the five factors identified by Sidney Blumenthal equated to the French national interest. The fifth factor was President Sarkozy’s political self-interest.

Gaddafi Tried to Step Down … But the West Insisted On Violent Regime Change

Gaddafi had offered to hand over power, but the West instead wanted violent regime change. (The British report notes: “By the summer of 2011, the limited intervention to protect civilians had drifted into an opportunist policy of regime change.”)

The Parliamentary report notes that Gaddaffi may have been attempting to flee the country when he was killed:

Muammar Gaddafi might have been seeking an exit from Libya in February and March 2011. On 21 February 2011, for example, Lord Hague told reporters that he had seen credible information that Muammar Gaddafi was on his way to exile in Venezuela. Concerted action after the telephone calls conducted by Mr Blair might have led to Muammar Gaddafi’s abdication and to a negotiated solution in Libya. It was therefore important to keep the lines of communication open. However, we saw no evidence that the then Prime Minister David Cameron attempted to exploit Mr Blair’s contacts.

 

***

 

Political options were available if the UK Government had adhered to the spirit of Resolution 1973, implemented its original campaign plan and influenced its coalition allies to pause military action when Benghazi was secured in March 2011. Political engagement might have delivered civilian protection, regime change and reform at lesser cost to the UK and to Libya. If political engagement had been unsuccessful, the UK and its coalition allies would not have lost anything. Instead, the UK Government focused exclusively on military intervention. In particular, we saw no evidence that it tried to exploit former Prime Minister Tony Blair’s contacts and influence with the Gaddafi regime.

The U.S. and France were also hell-bent on regime change.  And the New York Times confirms that Hillary Clinton is largely responsible for the violent regime change in Libya.

Why Should We Care?

Why should we care?

Well, the House of Commons report confirms that the Libyan war has wrecked the country:

The Libyan economy generated some $75 billion of gross domestic product (GDP) in 2010. This economy produced an average annual per capita income of approximately $12,250, which was comparable to the average income in some European countries. [The former Indian representative to the U.N. notes that, before the war, Libya had less of its population in poverty than the Netherlands.  Libyans had access to free health care, education, electricity and interest-free loans, and women had great freedoms that were applauded by the U.N. Human Rights Council]. Libyan Government revenue greatly exceeded expenditure in the 2000s. … The United Nations Human Development Report 2010—a United Nations aggregate measure of health, education and income—ranked Libya as the 53rd most advanced country in the world for human development and as the most advanced country in Africa.

 

***

 

In 2014, the most recent year for which reliable figures are available … the average Libyan’s annual income had decreased from $12,250 in 2010 to $7,820.  Since 2014, Libya’s economic predicament has reportedly deteriorated. Libya is likely to experience a budget deficit of some 60% of GDP in 2016. The requirement to finance that deficit is rapidly depleting net foreign reserves, which halved from $107 billion in 2013 to $56.8 billion by the end of 2015. Production of crude oil fell to its lowest recorded level in 2015, while oil prices collapsed in the second half of 2014. Inflation increased to 9.2% driven by a 13.7% increase in food prices including a fivefold increase in the price of flour. The United Nations ranked Libya as the world’s 94th most advanced country in its 2015 index of human development, a decline from 53rd place in 2010.

 

***

 

In 2016, the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs estimated that out of a total Libyan population of 6.3 million, 3 million people have been impacted by the armed conflict and political instability, and that 2.4 million people require protection and some form of humanitarian assistance. In its World Report 2016, Human Rights Watch stated that Libya is heading towards a humanitarian crisis, with almost 400,000 people internally displaced and increasing disruption to basic services, such as power and fuel supplies. Forces engaged in the conflict continued with impunity to arbitrarily detain, torture, unlawfully kill, indiscriminately attack, abduct and disappear, and forcefully displace people from their homes. The domestic criminal justice system collapsed in most parts of the country, exacerbating the human rights crisis

People-trafficking gangs exploited the lack of effective government after 2011, making Libya a key transit route for illegal migration into Europe and the location of a migrant crisis. In addition to other extremist militant groups, ISIL emerged in Libya in 2014, seizing control of territory around Sirte and setting up terrorist training centres. Human Rights Watch documented unlawful executions by ISIL in Sirte of at least 49 people by methods including decapitation and shooting. The civil war between west and east has waxed and waned with sporadic outbreaks of violence since 2014. In April 2016, United States President Barack Obama described post-intervention Libya as a “shit show”. It is difficult to disagree with this pithy assessment.

The Parliamentary report confirms that the Libyan war – like the Iraq war – has ended up spreading terrorism around the globe:

Libyan weapons and ammunition were trafficked across North and West Africa and the Middle East.

 

***

 

The United Nations Panel of Experts appointed to examine the impact of Resolution 1973 identified the presence of ex-Libyan weapons in Algeria, Chad, Egypt, Gaza, Mali, Niger, Tunisia and Syria. The panel concluded that “arms originating from Libya have significantly reinforced the military capacity of terrorist groups operating in Algeria, Egypt, Mali and Tunisia.” In the 2010-15 Parliament, our predecessor Committee noted that the failure to secure the Gaddafi regime’s arms caches had led to “a proliferation of small arms and light weapons, and some heavier artillery, across North and West Africa”. It identified that Libyan small arms had apparently ended up in the hands of Boko Haram militants.

 

***

 

In January 2014, Egyptian Islamist insurgents used an ex-Libyan MANPAD to shoot down an Egyptian Army helicopter in the Sinai.

 

***

 

The FCO told us that “Political instability in Libya has led to a permissive environment for terrorist groups in which to operate, including ISIL [i.e. ISIS] affiliated groups”.   Professor Patrick Porter, Professor of Strategic Studies at the University of Exeter, agreed with the FCO analysis, stating that “a lack of effective government is creating opportunities for the Islamic State.”

 

***

 

ISIL has used its presence in Libya to train terrorists. For example, Sefeddine Rezgui, the gunman who killed Western holidaymakers in Tunisia in June 2015, was trained by ISIL at its base in Sabratha along with the two gunmen who killed 22 tourists at the Bardo museum in Tunis. ISIL’s plans may extend beyond terrorism. Vice-Admiral Clive Johnstone, a Royal Navy officer and NATO commander, commented that:

We know they [ISIL] have ambitions to go offshore … There is a horrible opportunity in the future that a misdirected, untargeted round of a very high quality weapons system will just happen to target a cruise liner, or an oil platform, or a container ship.

And the UK report confirms that the Libyan war has created a tidal wave of refugees:

The International Organization for Migration (IOM) estimated that some 1 million migrants were present in Libya in June 2016. This estimate comprised 425,000 internally displaced Libyans, 250,000 non-Libyan migrants and 250,000 returnees. Most non-Libyan migrants travelled from West Africa, the Horn of Africa, South Asia and the Middle East. The most common countries of origin for non-Libyan migrants were Niger, Egypt, Chad, Ghana and Sudan. Between 1 January and 31 May 2016, 47,851 migrants arrived in Italy after crossing the Mediterranean from Libya. A similar number of migrants attempted the crossing over the same period in 2015. Despite the increased resources committed to Operation Triton, however, crossing the Mediterranean is becoming increasingly hazardous for migrants transiting through Libya. The IOM recorded 2,061 migrants as dead or missing between 1 January and 31 May 2016, which showed a 15% increase in fatalities compared with the same period in 2015.

In other words – just like the Iraq war – the Libyan war was based on fake intelligence, was carried out for reasons having little to do with national security or protecting civilians, destroyed a nation and created a “shit show”, spread terrorism far and wide, and created waves of refugees.


The following are selected quotes from Gaddafi (translated from French by yours truly:)

“La lutte politique qui aboutit à la victoire d’un candidat, avec, par exemple 51% de l’ensemble des voix des électeurs, conduit à un système dictatorial, mais sous un déguisement démocratique. En effet, 49% des électeurs sont gouvernés par un système qu’ils n’ont pas choisi, et qui, au contraire, leur a été imposé. Et cela c’est la dictature. Cette lutte politique peut aussi aboutir à la victoire d’un appareil ne représentant que la minorité, notamment lorsque les voix des électeurs se répartissent sur un ensemble de candidats dont l’un obtient plus de voix que chacun des autres considéré à part. Mais si l’on additionnait les voix obtenues par les « battus », cela donnerait une large majorité. Malgré cela, c’est celui qui a le moins de voix qui est proclamé vainqueur, et son succès est considéré comme égal et démocratique ! Mais en réalité il s’instaure une dictature sous des apparences démocratiques. Voilà la vérité sur les régimes politiques qui dominent le monde actuel. Leur falsification de la vraie démocratie apparaît clairement: ce sont des régimes dictatoriaux.”

“The political struggle which ends in the victory of one of the candidates, with, for example 51% of the total of electors’ votes, leads to a dictatorial system, but under the guise of a democratic system. In effect, 49% of the voters are governed by a system they have not chosen, and which, to the contrary, was imposed upon them. And this is dictatorship. This political struggle can also end in the victory of a system which represents the minority, most notably when the electors’ votes are spread out over a certain number of candidates where one gets more votes than any of the others individually. But if we add up the votes of all the “beaten” candidates, it would show a large majority. Despite this, the one with the lowest tally is proclaimed victor, and his success is considered equal and democratic! But in reality, a dictatorship is installed through a disguise of democracy. Here is the truth about the political regimes which dominate the world, today. Their falsification of true democracy appears clearly: these are dictatorial regimes.”

“La démocratie directe, quand elle est mise en pratique, est indiscutablement et incontestablement la méthode idéale de gouvernement. Comme une nation, quelle que soit sa population, ne peut être rassemblée pour discuter, étudier et décider de sa politique, les sociétés sont détournées de la démocratie directe, qui est demeurée une idée utopique éloignée de la réalité. Elle a été remplacée par de nombreuses théories de gouvernement, telles que les assemblées parlementaires, les coalitions de partis, les référendums. Toutes ont conduit à isoler le peuple de l’activité politique, à usurper sa souveraineté, et à confisquer son pouvoir au profit d’ « appareils de gouvernement » successifs et en conflit, qu’ils soient individu, classe, secte, tribu, Parlement ou parti.”

“Direct democracy, when put into practice, is incontestably the ideal method of government. But as a nation, whoever makes up the population, cannot all be reunited to talk about, study, and plan its policies, the idea of direct democracy is illusory and utopian and is divorced from reality. This concept has been replaced by numerous theories of government, such as parliamentary assemblies, party coalitions, referendums; all of which have served to isolate the people from their political activities, to usurp their sovereignty, and confiscate its power to the profit of successive ‘government apparatus’ and conflict, be they individual, class, sect, tribe, Parliament (sic,) or party”

“La propriété pourrait bien changer de mains, le résultat serait le même: le travailleur demeure un salarié tant qu’il n’a pas été rétabli dans son droit sur sa propre production, et que celle-ci continue à être détournée au profit de la “collectivité” ou de l’employeur.La solution finale à ce problème consiste à abolir le salariat, par la libération de l’homme de l’asservissement dans lequel celui-ci le maintient.”

“Property could change hands, the result would be the same: the worker remains a salaried employee as long as he has not reclaimed the rights of his personal production, and so long as it continues to be usurped to the profit of the ‘collective’ or the employer. The final solution to this problem consists in abolishing the working class by the liberation of the man in a condition of servitude through which he is held.”

“Celui qui possède la maison que vous habitez, la voiture dans laquelle vous vous déplacez et qui assure votre salaire pour votre subsistance, s’approprie en fait votre liberté, ou du moins une partie de celle-ci. Or, la liberté est indivisible.”

He who owns the house you live in, the car you drive in, and who assures you a salary for your subsistence, is, in fact, appropriating your freedom, or, at least, a part thereof. However, liberty is indivisible.”

“LE LOGEMENT est une nécessité pour l’homme et sa famille. Il ne doit appartenir à personne d’autre qu’à lui. Un homme n’est pas libre quand il habite une maison louée. En matière de logement, la politique suivie par les Etats a consisté à réglementer la location en bloquant ou en augmentant les loyers. La seule solution radicale et définitive est l’accession à la propriété. Dans la société socialiste, nul ne peut être maître des besoins de l’homme. Personne ne peut dans cette société, bâtir un logement autre que pour lui-même et ses héritiers. La maison de l’individu étant un de ses besoins fondamentaux, nul ne peut construire dans le but de louer.”

“Housing is a neccessity for man and his family. His house must belong to no other but him. A man is not free when he inhabits a rented house. Where housing is concerned, the policies followed by the State consists in regulating rental by stopping or raising rents. The only definitive solution, be it a radical one, is accession of property. In socialist society, none can be master of the needs of man. Nobody, in this society, can build housing for anyone but himself and his heirs. The individuals house being one of his fundamental needs, none can build with the goal of renting.”

“L’éducation obligatoire et standardisée constitue en fait une entreprise d’abrutissement des masses. Tous les Etats qui déterminent officiellement les matières et les connaissances à enseigner et qui organisent ainsi l’éducation, exercent une contrainte sur les citoyens. Toutes les méthodes d’éducation en vigueur dans le monde devraient être abolies par une révolution culturelle mondiale visant à émanciper l’esprit humain de l’enseignement du fanatisme et de l’orientation autoritaire des goûts, du jugement et de l’intelligence de l’être humain. Cela ne veut pas dire qu’il faille fermer les écoles ou, comme pourrait le supposer un lecteur superficiel, tourner le dos à l’éducation. Cela veut dire, au contraire, que la société devrait fournir toutes sortes d’activités éducatrices, permettant aux jeunes de choisir spontanément et librement les matières qu’ils souhaitent étudier.”

“Mandatory and standardized education consists of, in fact, an enterprise of mass-stupification of the masses. All states which officially determine the subjects and knowledge to be taught and who thereby organise education, exercise a certain constraint upon the citizens. All the methods of education in the world should be abolished by a worldwide cultural revolution which should aim to emancipate the human spirit from the teaching of fanaticism and the authoritarian orientation of human tastes, of human judgement, and of human intelligence. This does not mean that we must close the schools or, as a merely superficial reading would indicate, turn our backs to education. To the contrary, this means that society should supply all sorts of educational activities, such that children could spontaneously and freely choose the subjects which he wishes to study.”

-Mouammar KADHAFI

Quagmire [kwaɡˌmī(ə)r] – An Awkward, Complex, or Hazardous Situation

American Imperialism is alive but perhaps not so well in the middle-east. There are many stories about the region and its mind-boggling complexity in the news these days, but there doesn’t seem to be any over-arching analysis of the entire situation which stretches from the Crimea to the Yellow Sea. The big picture is frightening in scope and potential.

Let’s start with some basic facts:

Upon further reflection, the rest of this article will be left to the reader’s imagination. However, the main takeaway should certainly be the fact that this quagmire in Asia has (to a large extent) been engineered to protect the US Dollar. It may not work out that way, in the end.

To Vote Or Not To Vote…

The CBC has been on a fact-finding mission; they want to know why so many people, and young people in particular, are uninvolved in politics. They have asked ‘experts’ (self-proclaimed, no less) to chime in, they have brought forth their own opinions, they have even tried to compare politics to sporting events. None of it has brought them any closer to the truth.

There are many legitimate reasons for the lack of interest, but none of these have been considered. Young people are not uninterested in politics; young people are uninterested in politicians. If anyone doubts this, they need only try to tell a young person what to do (or what not to do.) The youth are fiercely independant and do not easily subject themselves to the trappings of authority, to their credit. The youth have always been an energetic and enthousiastic voice for change when it was needed (do you remember the ‘Printemps Érable’?) They just don’t like the system as it stands, and they are simply not hypocritical enough to use it for the obtention of their objectives. After all, politics is full of old people, and old people don’t listen to the young.

This is not about apathy. If the youth understood to what extent politics affects their lives, they would say so aggressively. Futility is probably a better word. No matter how hard we push, some things never get done, some promises are never kept, and some people can never be trusted. In essence, trust in the government is a more important consideration. Dissatisfaction with the results of misplaced trust is another leading factor. Politicians tend to promise many things which they cannot deliver, whether or not they know this when making those promises speaks to the trust issue once again. Is it ignorance or deception? If we do not know, we will assume the worst. Neither do we seem surprised if it is deception. For once, we might say, expectations were met. If the above reasons are true (or can be shown to have some merit,) the only conclusion we can come to is that there is a tremendous waste of time and money involved.

With apathy not being the case, and futility, dissatisfaction, and mis-trust being the key issues, how can we re-engage the populace to take more action when it comes to picking a leader? Given that most leaders tend to act in similar fashion when elected, and that most of them are not particularily charismatic to begin with, perhaps, as was positied by one of the CBC’s guest analysts, all which needs be done is to jazz up the look of advertising. Saying that the young are so superficial that an improved ad campaign would change everything is naive and insulting. The truth is that the ads reflect the state of politics: black and white and boring, the way it should be. We certainly don’t need to put lipstick on this pig; we need to explain that this is where bacon comes from.

Continue reading “To Vote Or Not To Vote…”

“My Taxes Pay Your Salary”

The main problem with the “My taxes pay your salary so I want you to take action on my behalf” argument is that the top 20% pay more taxes than do working-class citizens, and often, the actions they want taken are contrary.

The government has to do what’s in the public interest. What most people don’t realize is that there are many publics, each with their own interests. The government only chooses which interests from which publics they will act upon.

2010_US_Tax_Liability_by_Income_Group_-_CBO

As can be seen in the above chart, the top 20% of earners pay almost 70% of individual taxes. The bottom 80% account for only about 30% in the USA.

So beware that when using the, “I pay your salary” argument, you probably don’t; but by saying so, you justify being ignored.

Why Privacy Matters

“If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.”

That line has been parroted by government officials, law enforcement officers, and members of the media, but there is a flaw in this argument; in fact, there are several.

We have all done things we would like to change. There are episodes in all of our lives we are less than proud of. Haven’t we all picked our noses at some point in time? That surely does not mean that we want it displayed on YouTube. However, these indiscretions are not crimes. In the light of public opinion, and with the ubiquitous and timeless nature of the internet, we will end up being judged for these indiscretions longer than a murderer will have to serve a sentance. Getting a job could be jeopardized forever over some small indiscretion which may become taboo in the near future, despite being harmless.

There are cultural considerations, too. What if something is normal in one society but scandalous in another? Wouldn’t job prospects then be limited in a global marketplace despite being later sensitized to such a thing? Ignorance, it is said, is no escape from the law; can it then be considered the same way for a cultural peccadillo?

Perhaps this is what is meant by original sin?!?

The recent hacking scandal in which the USA lost millions of personnel records and millions of fingerprints was attributed to Chinese hackers (if the Chinese could do such a thing, wouldn’t they be able to make it look like the Russians did it.) No matter who did it, the point is that as with all digital technologies, the ability to hold those records safely is non-existant. If it can be programmed, it can (and will eventually) be hacked. Be it software, hardware, databases, or websites, there will always be an entry point – otherwise it couldn’t be programmed or updated. The result of this is that now some hacker has the biometric information of millions of Americans. If one loses their password, it can be changed. What does one do when their fingerprints are stolen? And what was the security clearance of the person who lost those prints? Entry into some of the countries most secure locations can be attained with a 3-D printer and a silicon glove. The more secure (unique) the information stolen is, the more dangerous it becomes.

Continue reading “Why Privacy Matters”

Did Trump Miss His Best Chance?

With Donald Trump’s appearance in Alabama on Friday night, and with the Dow’s 500 point ‘correction’ that day (about 1000 points down that week,) he may just have missed his best opportunity to win the election outright. If he had said “Liquidate!” (whether markets were going to crash or not) he would have caused the crash and would have secured the election instantly.

* Update

This is the master stroke.

.

What the NSA Could Tell Us (If They Wanted To)

.

If the NSA stores all of our email, wouldn’t it be safe to say that they could very easily verify what Hillary sent, when she sent it, to whom she sent it, and whether or not it was classified? Come to think of it, maybe they could check on Lois Lerner’s email, as well.

.

Ok, maybe not the NSA directly, but any one of the other ‘Five Eyes’ could, legally. England, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand all share information; somebody’s got it.

.

So Megyn Kelly was asking the wrong question. Maybe the question should have been,

“Could the NSA request this information from one of its partners?” Information is international now. It can be recorded by proxy (the NSA can’t do it, but they can hire someone to do it for them,) It can be split and stored in multiple locations, it can be moved and shared and monitored and intercepted quite easily.

.

*Update – Well, it took a while (almost a year,) but the truth has finally come out, from no less than William Binney himself.

“Binney was an architect of the NSA’s surveillance program. He became a famed whistleblower when he resigned on October 31, 2001, after spending more than 30 years with the agency.”

Welcome Back Qatar

The recent drop in the price of oil has had widespread negative consequences for Canada and many other net oil-exporting countries. It has also had dire consequences for the United States. The fracking industry has seen lay-offs, rig closures, and the beginnings of consolidation; the smaller outfits are becoming more and more attractive to large corporate buy-outs as their over-leveraged business models are being slaughtered by dwindling margins. We have been told that lower gas prices are good for the average consumer, but how good can it be if it takes out their entire economy? The petro-dollar scheme, it would appear, is showing signs of stress.

Meanwhile, strategic reserves and storage facilities are filling up fast. It has been estimated that all the extra storage space left in the USA will be full by the end of May. According to the American Petroleum Institute (API) last month saw the biggest build-up of US oil reserves in 34 years (at least.) Most countries that can afford to buy more oil are also adding to their reserves; and who can’t at these prices? Stockpiles are at an all-time high, and not just in the USA; China is also buying a lot of oil while the prices are near record lows. When all the storage capacity is used up, oil will be dumped onto the market driving the price down even further. Yet, the algos aren’t crashing; nobody is putting much pressure on the Saudis to cut production, the markets are not in a panic, and there seems to be a laissez-faire attitude towards the whole debacle. Surely this must be temporary. Maybe things will turn out for the best, but how? We’ll get back to this in a moment.

The Arab spring has brought about many changes in the middle-east. Egypt, Bahrain, and Yemen have seen meaningful change since 2011, and they are not alone. There has been a political awakening in some parts of the region, and there are now new actors taking the stage. ISIS has become a force thanks to the backing (either direct or indirect) of the Saudi and American governments; a renewed call for a caliphate has re-awoken a new generation of Arabs who want to assert themselves internationally. There are grass-roots political movements springing up all around the region and even spilling into northern Africa. It seems that change is all around.

Continue reading “Welcome Back Qatar”

Science Is Always Wrong

Science does have its foibles. Unless mathematical, it is very difficult to prove beyond any doubt that what you assert is actually true. Even the best physicists have this problem. Einstein famously disagreed with himself about the existence of the cosmological constant referring to it as his greatest mistake. It later turned out to be correct, as far as we now know; and Newton didn’t agree that light behaved as a wave; rather, he thought it acted like a corpuscle (particle) alone which we now know to be false.

Science, as it were, is forever wrong. Every good scientist who comes along ends up dis-‘proving’ his/her predecessor. Just look at the evolution of the model of the atom; every model (except the present one – and that’s just a matter of time) has been wrong. Atoms were considered by the ancient Greeks to be the smallest particles (their name even means indivisible) until the advent of Thomson’s plum pudding model, the discovery of the nucleus and the proton by Rutherford, quarks by Gell-Mann and Zweig, and strings (largely based on Heisenberg’s work) by Susskind et al. Things have only gotten more complex since.

Science is based on developing theories based on the prevailing evidence, and then trying to support those theories by repeatable experiment (Young’s double-slit,) mathematical proofs (Huygens/Copernicus,) or some other type of irrefutable evidence (Mendel/Darwin??) In this sense, when there is a lack of good data, much science truly is done by consensus (IPCC.)

A (more or less) recent trend in physics echoes an older system of mathematics: probabilities. The compilation of statistics leads to the calculation of probabilities, or in a lesser sense, possibilities. [I digress here to make the connection to information gathering and mass surveillance as this is the same process of statistical analysis which leads to both concepts of ‘thought crime’ and ‘future crime.’ The types and/or the likelihood of criminal behaviour can be determined for any individual by such factors as: past record; social class; credit; intelligence; location; education; health; self-worth; piousness; lineage/eugenics. Now, our main character traits can all be calculated and cross-referenced with everything we’ve ever written, every job we’ve ever had, everyone we’ve ever known, everything we’ve ever bought, everywhere we’ve ever gone, and practically every idea we’ve ever had. Pre-dispositions to certain traits do indeed exist; but it is how those propensities are controlled which make us moral or ethical people. It cannot be assumed that every citizen is a potential threat. How can the government operate in this environment? Who does it represent? It becomes fascistic by definition as it has no other choice. The government must have the trust of its people; otherwise it is serving other interests.]

As the above notion of public interests is akin to the problem of competing interests; on the one hand there is the truth, on the other hand is that which the patron of the project expects to find, and then there is the effect which the discovery will have on these stated goals. Any discovery which would cause the re-writing of an entire branch of science (and showing all others going before to have been wrong) will clearly not be accepted outright despite the evidence, no matter how axiomatic it may be. In modern science, there are often multiple sponsors, who each have their own interests, goals, expectations, limitations, backgrounds, and opinions. Again, the beast of complexity readies its bottomless maw.

Corruption is also a factor. Many would claim that science, and by extension, scientists are incapable of any type of fraud or skullduggery since their interests lie with the truth. Well, as it turns out, scientists also have families to support, bills to pay, praise to garner, awards to win, and patrons to please. As Wyndham wrote, “It is an old maxim that every man has his price…” and that price can take many forms and can be collected in many ways. Nobody can be said to be above corruption, not (in ascending order, from least to worst,) corporations that sell poison, doctors who push pills, priests who abuse children, nor librarians who cheat on their taxes. The ‘climate-gate’ scandal demonstrates this point perfectly.

Eugenics is a good example of the effect of popular thought on science. Since the end of WWII, even scientists who believe it to be true and provable can no longer state so publicly (although it is still written about extensively.) Public opinion weighs in on more and more of that which we call science, and any attempt to silence it is called snobbery. Nicholson’s famous phrase, “You can’t handle the truth!” has never rung more true. The facts are that most people who lack a scientific education and the appropriate training can simply not follow the logical reasoning upon which modern science is based. They let emotion and instinct creep into the mix, which foreshadow the death of any scientific notion right off the bat.

Scientists* think science is always right, yet all scientists are almost always all wrong. Religious* groups trust scientists to back up their claims that science is always wrong. The truth is that the largest part of science is research, or should be. There are thousands of dedicated researchers and their staff who try to answer unanswered questions, who make learning interesting, and who do concretely lead to new developments in a wide variety of fields. However, science isn’t ALL fun and glamour and fame (ahem.) For many on the larger projects, science can be like a factory job. For those in smaller labs, the schedules can be as hectic as any office job. Doing science is no different than any field in which some people claim a special proficiency. We plod on until we find a problem, fix it, and move on.

All this is not to say that science is bad, and that we should put an end to it as soon as possible, to the contrary, we have a tendency to put science on a pedestal; perhaps we should view it as a discipline filled by people just like the rest of us, capable of error, oversight, poor judgment, and pure genius. Science essentially means, “As much as we know… as far as we know it… it could all be wrong. Check back tomorrow.”


* – gross generalizations

How Wrong Rights Are

Self-defense is not a right, it is a necessity. For example, Israel does not have a right to self-defense, it has the obligation of it… unless there is something we do not know.

A right is a freedom granted. Any freedom granted can be un-granted. This implies subservience.

When you say, “I have a right to _____, it’s the law! ” you tacitly agree to be ruled and have your rights doled-out to you by the ruler. Real rights do not require anybody’s permission for them to have effect, thereby making any request moot. Nor can they be taken away; although, they can be (and often are) ignored. Our rights can not be enforced by statute, only our liberties can. We are ultimately responsible for the claims we make, but we can only hold them passively.

Our voice is our only tool, in this sense, until we are threatened – in which case all bets are off.

“It is not wisdom but Authority that makes a law.” – Thomas Hobbes

For example, the right to water is a necessity, no water can be denied us if we are in need, otherwise we will surely die. Nobody can rightly force us to our death. Access to clean drinking water, on the other hand, is not a right, it is a convenience. The value added is what we cannot claim. The problem arises when there is no alternative source.

All rulers are oligarchic by nature; and sometimes their oligarchy is limited to one person, which makes it a tyranny. Either way, it can only be pleasant for them. Their claim to rights is vastly greater than is ours, but theirs is a legal construct; ours is merely a manifestation of our will.

With absolute power DOES NOT come absolute responsibility, but absolute discretion.

“For the fate of Charles the First hath only made kings more subtle—not more just.” – Thomas Paine

Anno Lucis

This article should be viewed as a thought experiment and taken with an enormous grain of salt. The following is subjective and philosophical, at best.

As you may or may not be aware, 2015 was designated as the International Year of Light and Light-Based Technologies by the United Nations. 2015 is also the International Year of Soils. As disparate as these two topics might appear, their relationship is interesting inasmuch as it relates to food production. There seems to be a whole lot more emphasis on the Year of Light, however. Much has been said of late regarding light, light-bearers, and Armageddon.

What exactly does the term ‘light’ imply? It can be said that in the universe, there is matter and there is radiation. Under this broad definition, light can be seen as all types of radiation. Visible light is only a small sliver of the electro-magnetic radiation spectrum. Alpha, beta, gamma, microwave, x-ray, infrared, ultraviolet are all manifestations of waves at different frequencies. Many technologies depend on this notion; cell-phones, smart meters, lasers, radar, telescopes, microscopes, and many others rely on these basic principles which govern their use.

As the topic is a very broad one, the focus here will be on those technologies which cater to the needs of the greatest number of us, either directly or indirectly; and also those which affect the planet in the most meaningful ways. Some of the most important aspects of life on earth are (arguably) economics, health, environment, and governance.

Continue reading “Anno Lucis”

Truth As a Commodity

Information is a commodity. By extension, truth can also be said to be a commodity. The concept of sharing information is a very recent development. Traditionally, many organizations have sponsored the search for knowledge. Some have done so in order to advance their own positions, others have gathered knowledge with the goal of ultimately hiding it. Still others have funded research with the intention of suppressing the information it contradicts, whether it was true or simply popular. There are many other reasons for the ownership of truth, but the main goals have always been profit and control.

Many institutions have been at the forefront of research in the past. Scholars, philosophers, religions, governments, and corporations have all engaged in information gathering all for their own purposes; but general education is never and has never been the final aim. Some groups, such as the Jesuits, have been at the cutting edge of information gathering as well as being known as ‘educators.’ The filters which are engaged in order to teach that desired knowledge to those who need to know are of crucial importance here. An interesting illustration of this point can be seen in the hundreds of secret societies which have existed throughout the course of history. Every ascent to a higher level (or degree) is accompanied by new information which often contradicts that which was learned previously. So where is the truth in all this? At the highest level, of course. It can thus be assumed that ignorance is the main mechanism of control over those lower down in the pyramidal hierarchy of these organizations.

Nevertheless, we must not assume that only secret societies operate in this way. Truly, all organizations use this system in order to preserve the authority of those at the higher levels. Examples of this structure can be gleaned from all aspects of life. Militaries keep information from governments, governments keep information from the public, and the public keeps information from themselves and each other. Universities keep information to themselves, as do corporations, and even go so far as to take out copyrights or patents on this form of intellectual property. This shows that information is private and the information gathering industry has been, to a very large extent, privatized.

Just as Darwinism helped fuel eugenics, information is only released when its dissemination furthers a global cause.

Continue reading “Truth As a Commodity”

Does Hate Speech Go Both Ways?

Is it only considered hate speech if the people doing it disagree with mainstream opinion? Is it like terrorism in this respect?

For example, Stephen Harper made it illegal to speak badly of the state of Israel (the political body, not its status) and thus called it a hate crime to ‘anything but support’ Israel. He also donned a yarmulke and prayed at the Western Wall. Doesn’t this just go to show that politicians will go to any lengths, even hypocritical religion, to get some support for their plans?

“But he also flatly refused to say whether Israeli settlements on occupied land are illegal, even though he also said Canada’s official policy – opposing them – has not changed.”

The question one must ask is, “Does he support Jews, does he support Israel, or does he support Zionism; and in what ratio?” The context is also important.

Following Bibi’s failed senate speech (despite the pomp,) most would agree that his political future is limited. ‘Real Jews,’ whoever they may be, will not (it seems) let any one man represent their faith to the world. So, who are the Jews he represents? For the most part (90 %) those in question are American, and for the greatest part, they come from three American families (50 %.) Should the USA have such influence over the electoral process of a sovereign nation? It seems only fair considering the heft that the Israeli lobby has in the USA. Sure beats an overthrow, an assassination, or a war. As long as the voting in the UN stays the same – 191-2 ?, Israel can ‘defend’ herself, the ‘War on Terror’ is continued, the economy is ‘trickle-up,’ and carbon is pollution, everything is copacetic.

Continue reading “Does Hate Speech Go Both Ways?”