Tuesday, 21 December 2010
From those who work a little harder assembling the raw material, opinions and facts, from which they draw their own reasoned conclusions, other than just entirely drawing a ready made paradigm from a compliant 'mainstream media', WikiLeaks is being broadly decried as nothing less than a sham. A propaganda operation with a clear agenda.
There are not two but three conclusions to draw of WikiLeaks; 1. they damage 'western' security and interests, 2. they are providing an important 'check and balance' - exposing misdeeds, or 3. they have been deliberately feed information and the process of (so called) 'redaction' is a further control in the process to manage the effect of the release for optimum political effect.
The key rafts of independent 'truth' opinion, available almost exclusively via the internet, study and consider apparent falsehoods behind; the attacks of 9/11 including subsequent events, man-made climate change and, steaming from both of these, the recognition of a drive toward an authoritarian neo-socialist global governance. WikiLeaks is no ally to these campaigns to expose these truths.
WikiLeaks has made statements which clearly attempt to deny the veracity of such truth movements and has not ever been first to release any documents which assist either movement's case. Indeed it is now becoming evident WikiLeaks has been and continues to be fostered by some of the very elite considered to be the forces serving and behind the agendas these truth campaigns have set-out to expose.
Aside from the immediate political agenda actually being served, by the managed release of these selected and censored documents, the wider danger is the resultant demand for a new series of international legal mechanisms to police the content of the internet.
Thursday, 16 December 2010
On one hand it is important that the freedom to spread information, and opinions, of a sensitive political nature is preserved; is not degraded or amended especially via the internet. It is important political force is not unduly wheedled. International authorities handling of WikiLeaks should not be allowed to set any precedents and must not be prejudicial, which currently it looks very much to be. Potentially spurious allegations should be dealt with as they would for any other individual of political significance who may be a target for false attacks.
On the other hand none of this situation means Julian Assange should be considered to actually be that which he appears, is cast, to be. He should not be taken to be anything less than a covert mouth-piece of a US/Israeli imperial/militaristic agenda. The information he is dispersing, these so called US diplomatic cables, can be seen to be not actually doing the US or Israel any real significant or lasting harm. Any harm is almost entirely reserved for other parties and indeed whilst little 'new' material is being revealed it can be seen to only consolidate a certain 'world view' - very conveniently.
Julian Assange and WikiLeaks warrant one's extremely close factual background examination before going too far down the line of 'being on side' with them; of thinking what they reveal represents a meaningful alternative world view.
Indeed any general damage to journalist's confidence and freedom, to result from this apparent debacle, could be no less a part of a predestined outcome also.
Wednesday, 15 December 2010
We cannot complain about Bush, his NeoCon masters, the CIA, Mossad, Blair (spit), the shower of MP's and senators who should have asserted their power, the military, the MOD, the UN, the Hutton & Chilcots and even the hoods who are allowed to own or control the worlds media (including the BBC). Such human faeces will always float to the surface and it is the duty of the news' commentators to help clean such foul detritus away.
I am just an everyday fellow but one who has taken serious note of events, studied and learnt, since the, so called, attacks of 9/11 and have since reached solemn conclusions, available to all who take the trouble to seek it out, about the nature of world leadership - especially today.
The War You Don't See? If any of this documentary is news to you you are a mainstream-media junky; you need to start to develop your own understanding and opinions. People are dying at the hands of those who are acting in our name; don't you know?
In unison there is a tough challenge before journalists and commentators. I am sure John Pilger could speak far more plainly than this documentary portrays, speak of how this outrageous violence has come about, but if he did the program would not be on TV. So he gets what part of the message he can across in the best way he can - the rest is up to you.
Monday, 13 December 2010
Julian Assange’s glaringly FALSE assertion that Wikileaks had anything to do with the original release of the (so called) ‘Climategate’ Climatic Research Unit (CRU) emails.
The CRU emails were first anomalously uploaded to a server belonging to ‘RealClimate’ and subsequently a file-share server in Russia. If this had been carried out by WikiLeaks, as Assange perhaps is attempting to impress, why would they not just have posted the files to the public via their own server?
Why does Assange feel it necessary to comment of the significance and veracity of the revelations within?
Wikileaks and Julian Assange - Another False Flag Operation? Who Are behind Them?http://euro-med.dk/?p=18863
Just who is Julian Assange?
Friday, 10 December 2010
If we generously consider the EU economists were not all blithering idiots it must have been clear to them the current situation was indeed ultimately inevitable. In other-words this path to economic failure was deliberately planned.
WHY? The objective of the EU is, and always has been, ever deeper political integration, to dismantle the national sovereignty of the nation member states and build a federal EU soviet state. The EURO was one step to that goal but did not give the EU total control of the member-state’s economies - that would have been a ‘bridge too far’ at the time of establishing the currency.
So instead a deaf-ear was turned to those who proclaimed the eventual outcome could only be economic meltdown. Not because they were not right in the assertion but because this was actually the covert intention.
I am rather taken with the following video which goes far into explaining so much of what has happened to the EU economy:
- just for fun!
As a matter of sensible precaution I strongly recommend when you spot such rhetoric you fact check every aspect of the item you are reading before you accept any part as meaningful or valid. Otherwise dismiss it as being propagandistic brainwashing.
For a further example of the pro-man-made global warming lobby’s thinking see:
This film was created by vastly successful director Richard Curtis and with the involvement of his ‘partner’ Emma Freud, great-granddaughter of psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud. Her younger brother, Matthew Freud, is the husband of Rupert Murdoch’s daughter Elisabeth Murdoch.
Wednesday, 8 December 2010
I remember learning in school history lessons that people used to hold fairs on the frozen river Thames in Tudor times, that the Romans grew grapes in York and even against Hadrian’s Wall between England and the wild tribes of today’s Scotland. Where Britain now stands has been both tropical and under ice sheets. Climate changes I do not deny. A warming climate may produce higher historically recorded levels of CO2 as a result of increased vegetation.
I reckon that a majority of those most deeply concerned with the effect of man-made CO2 climate change are the same people who are generally concerned with the environment, wildlife, pollution, the squandering of natural resources, reduction of habitat and so on. This is my finding when I talk to such folk.
Those who are old enough to have formed opinions on such matters before the ‘man-made greenhouse climate global change warming’ paradigm took-off were previously, in the vast majority, all strongly anti nuclear-power yet are now, in the main, reluctantly accepting or even advocating it.
These CO2 warriors and worriers even support the plethora of ‘Carbon Taxes’ and ‘Carbon Trading’ that have been piggybacked in with the CO2 paradigm, (designed to keep governments and corporates on side with a package of benefit for them too).
Accept or not my assertion CO2 warming is a fake, public support for nuclear energy has reached a record high as policy leaders voice the ‘need’ for new nuclear power plants.
See report: http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/documentlibrary/publications..........
That has not occurred because people are now convinced nuclear power is clean and green but rather because they are told it does not contribute to global warming. Such is the power of propaganda to brainwashing the people of the world.
First you are influenced, secondly you change and thirdly you influence. Its a knock-on effect.
We do not need a violent revolution to knock our world back on track. All we must do is assimilate verifiable facts, understand how matters come about and draw our own reasoned conclusions. When confident; express yourself clearly, communicate!
Do not allow your opinion to be formed by others. When sufficient of us start this process off we become an unstoppable force. Together we can change the world, individually it is a more daunting task.
Tuesday, 7 December 2010
The drive to the EU is but a staging-post before the formation of a system of global governance for a global plethora of desperate non-sovereign semi-autonomous regions. And the people are considered too stupid, too tribal, too territorial and too self-interested to understand to poetic allure of the ambition so hence they are to be kept in the dark and feed ****.
Julian Assange may appear to be being dragged around the floor as revenge for WikiLeaks' recent and ongoing US diplomatic cable leaks but these rape allegations have been ongoing for over three months - although he clearly appeared to be no friend of the US administration since before then too. Is Assange a victim of reprisal false allegations or honey trap?
Nothing WikiLeaks revealed yet has looked like a knock-out blow to this US administration or to its Bush/NeoCon predecessors. Indeed nothing has greatly tarnished the US diplomatic service or whispered squat-diddle of its uglier underbelly - the CIA. Funny that!
In a world of smoke and mirrors I would ignore the relevance and veracity or these cables or selection thereof. Even Assange's lawyer admitted on BBC News-Night that WikiLeaks were being careful to 'redact' details that may damage individual's security. (who, one may wonder, are they troubling to lookout for; Americans or everybody).
Bitter pills they may appear to be but every cable leaked so far can be seen also to assert the US view on the world, mostly at the expense of other leaders and nations.
If these documents had found their way directly into the hands of say a UK National newspaper they may have been resistant to publishing them. Now they know it would meet with the wrath of the US.
If independent news media publishers are confronted with leaked information to publish or whistle-blower's information, they too have now seen the writing on the wall. Indeed the US will use this episode to help them justify tighter controls of the internet.
As Franklin D. Roosevelt is attributed to have said "In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way."
Monday, 6 December 2010
The point is that we still do not know what really happened with reasonable and correct certainty because the circumstances of Kelly's death were not correctly examined by Lord Hutton and yet his inquiry was used to supplant the process of the corners inquest, which was the correct mechanism but was not allowed to draw a conclusion.
Hutton usurped the inquest and then acted upon a prejudicial conclusion of suicide as though such a finding had already been correctly drawn. Lord Hutton certainly appears to have whitewash on his hands.
The people must demand nothing less than allowing a full coroner's inquest to draw a verdict. Continued denial of an inquest is most suspicious.
Monday, 29 November 2010
The European Convention on Human Rights is an international treaty which only member States of the Council of Europe may sign.
The Convention, which establishes the Court and lays down how it is to function, contains a list of the rights and guarantees which the States have undertaken to respect.
Domestic courts have to apply the Convention otherwise, in the event of complaints by individuals about failure to protect their rights, the European Court of Human Rights would find against the State.
The judges are elected by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe from lists of three candidates proposed by each State.
Judgements finding violations are binding on the States concerned and they are obliged to execute them. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe monitors the execution of judgements.
Although the Council of Europe and the European Union now both share a common flag and an anthem, their roles, functions and aims are quite distinct.
The Council of Europe is an intergovernmental organisation which today has 47 member states. It is concerned primarily with protecting human rights, democracy and the rule of law.
The European Union currently has 27 members that have delegated some of their sovereignty so that decisions on specific matters of joint interest can be made democratically at European level.
No country has ever joined the European Union (EU) without first belonging to the Council of Europe.
The Council of Europe is not to be confused with the European Council which is a regular meeting (at least twice a year) of the heads of state or government from the member states of the European Union for the purpose of planning Union policy.
The Council of Europe: An Overview http://bit.ly/fM299a
European Court of Human Rights : Questions and Answers http://bit.ly/fJ5rIX
The Council of Europe in brief - Do not get confused http://bit.ly/9D2waN (OK Mummy)
Council of Europe flag
All facets of the same EU coin. http://bit.ly/hWoFXV
Wednesday, 24 November 2010
Initiatives such as www.the-eu-and-me.org.uk site and 'Europe Direct' exist only because we are made to pay for it - it is easy to spend our taxes.
These are not in place to 'help' the EU public, it is only, cynically, to make the EU public 'feel' as thought the EU is useful and connect with it.
This is addressing an apparent weakness of the EU: near anybody with at least half-a-brain thinks it is a useless waste of our money - and it is.
So the issue is addressed with a marketing campaign - which is the definition of propaganda & how a public is brainwashed. Simple.
Tuesday, 23 November 2010
22 November 2010 Open Europe
The Irish government yesterday announced that it would seek a bail-out from the EU and the IMF amid concerns over Ireland's banks and public finances.
Open Europe has today published a briefing looking at the different bail-out options on the table, arguing that none of them will solve the fundamental problems of either Ireland or the eurozone as a whole - although they can buy Ireland valuable time.
Open Europe's Director Mats Persson said:
"The real problem Ireland and other weaker eurozone economies are facing is how to regain competitiveness once stuck inside a monetary union, without the option of currency devaluation at their disposal. Temporary loans or stricter budget rules will do very little to solve this problem."
"A healthy Irish economy is clearly in the UK's interests but while there's a case for granting bilateral assistance to Ireland, any involvement in an EU-led bail-out completely lacks democratic legitimacy in the UK, particularly as such a bailout is legally questionable in the first place."
"In the absence of regained growth and competitiveness in Ireland and elsewhere, Britain will remain exposed to shaky eurozone economies and the single currency's inherent flaws in future. The UK government should now design an economic policy which assumes that the eurozone is unsustainable and work with EU partners to find a more viable monetary arrangement for Europe."
To read the briefing click here: http://www.openeurope.org.uk/research/irelandbailout.pdf
· Ireland's problems - while owing to several factors - have been locked in by the loss of competitiveness arising from its EMU membership. Since joining the eurozone, Ireland has lost over 27% in competitiveness relative to Germany, according to some measures. In many ways, the Irish debt bubble is a symptom rather than the cause of the real problem.
· Ireland is clearly in a better position to rebound from the current problems than Greece and Portugal, due to its relatively open economy. However, there are five reasons why a one-off bailout for Ireland will not solve the eurozone's problems - although it could buy Ireland some valuable time:
1. Temporary loans or greater budget discipline across the eurozone will do very little to help countries such as Greece, Ireland or Portugal regain competitiveness, the main problem these countries face.
2. In essence, what was asked of Greece, and soon Ireland, is two-thirds of a traditional IMF package - cuts in expenditure and increased taxes. However, the third, vital ingredient - currency depreciation - isn't permitted within a single currency. Instead, currency devaluation has to be replaced by so-called "internal depreciation", meaning even more squeezes to jobs and wages which aren't politically or socially affordable.
3. The ECB is likely to continue to pursue a German-style monetary policy, leading to an undervalued currency for Germany (fuelling German export-led growth) but an equally overvalued currency for the weaker economies such as Portugal and Spain (although Ireland itself could be helped by a weaker euro). This, in turn, locks in a multi-speed eurozone, with the same type of tensions we've seen over the last year coming to the fore again in future.
4. The politics of a loan bail-out and stronger supranational budget rules are unsustainable. The lending countries, most importantly Germany, can only sell a de facto debt union to their electorates if it comes with strict rules and terms. But such terms imposed from the outside seriously undermine the ability of the borrowing countries to democratically govern themselves.
5. The role currently being played by the ECB is untenable, both for political and economic reasons:
a) Politically, the ECB's decision back in May to start buying 'junk' government bonds from the secondary market has compromised its independence - which the Germans were promised would never happen. A bailout using loan guarantees from other EU states may allow the ECB to withdraw its emergency funding for now, but without a long-term solution the ECB is likely to be called on again to prop up ailing states.
b) Economically, the situation is unsustainable as well. The Eurosystem of eurozone central banks that underpins the ECB is leveraged 24 times, while the average hedge fund is only leveraged 3 to 4 times. A fall in assets of only a few percent would wipe out the ECB's reserves, which could lead to the ECB itself being in need of a "bail-out".
· There are no obvious long-term solutions that do not come with huge political and economic costs. The dilemma facing the eurozone remains whether it is to become a fully fledged United States-style fiscal and therefore political union with huge continuous transfers from the German-led bloc to those on the periphery - which would inflict serious damage on the German economy; or prepare for a messy divorce possibly in the form of a two-tier euro and even some countries exiting altogether.
· Germany is keen on a bail-out package for Ireland, as it wants to decrease Ireland's dependency on the ECB, replacing the current support measures with government-backed loans, which can be linked to specific demands, such as a restructuring of the banks or changes to the tax system. The ECB's generous liquidity supply also goes against the 'hard currency' philosophy that Germany was promised when giving up the Deutschemark in the 1990s and strikes to the heart of worries that the ECB is becoming a "bad bank" itself.
· The UK is hugely exposed to Irish banks and debts. However, the decision on whether the UK is involved in a bailout is largely out of the UK Government's hands because the EU bailout fund, partly underwritten by British taxpayers, can be activated by majority voting, meaning that Britain could be outvoted. This means that the EU rescue mechanism of which the UK is part completely lacks democratic legitimacy in Britain. The UK is also likely to provide bilateral support and contribute through its membership of the IMF. Reports suggest that the total amount guaranteed by Britain in an Irish bail-out will be in the area of £7 billion. However, in the absence of regained growth and competitiveness in Ireland, and the other weaker economies in the eurozone, the UK will remain exposed to future failure in EMU.
See also item: 'Secrets of the Wizard of Oz' http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7933175.stm
Monday, 22 November 2010
Civilisation enables man to exceed nature's maxim of 'winner takes all'. There is no place for a hereditary oligarchy proportioning to be enshrined by legislated institution.
Monday, 15 November 2010
Why? Different groups have different objectives. Some believe the only route to global harmony is a one world government and to reach the aim there must be a common global economy. Others use the afore-mentioned sentiment to help realise their objective of global economic and political domination.
Thursday, 4 November 2010
Too stupid a herd are people that the manifold benefits perceived for the full integration of old-style nations into continental supra-national unions and further into one omnipotent world governance would simple pass them by. Humans instinct for tribal loyalty and racial grouping would surmount and stifle any reasoned call with the supposed logic for the ultimate formation of a newly ordered single world authority.
By its formation's very nature, that of its being assembled of illiberal covert means, it stands equal opportunity of, when ultimately realised, becoming a manifestation of the ugliness of which it is being born. All resistance will be at best futile and worst deemed necessary to completely oppress.
Wednesday, 3 November 2010
Better, more durable, is to let everyone of maturity and sound mind vote. Those languishing in jail may have a better understanding of what it was that got them there in the first place and vote for a better society that helps preclude the spiral of crime.
Of cause the EU care not who votes and what they vote for since, in the EU, a vote counts diddly-squat anyway.
Wednesday, 20 October 2010
Monday, 18 October 2010
The pro-warming lobby can define all the bla-bla-bla terminology they wish for between themselves, but they may not cook-up that which describes their dissenters. That's for me, and my like, to define.
I am a global-warming dissenter, I am a climate-change atheist. I am not an carbon-footprint agnostic.
To describe anyone and everyone who is not just a lock, stock and barrel climate-warming zombie (or grubby-fingered benefactor) by use of such a handy little catch-all catch-phrase terminology as 'sceptic' is more than just a lazy writer's falsehood. It is a contribution to the carbon-warmer's PR brainwashing agenda. A cog in the grinding-wheel, consciously granted or not.
The term 'sceptic' is a detractor devised to take-away any depth of objection from those who call-out against the imposition of this unscientific tyranny to which our so called political representatives fain nothing but the most feeble and tepid of stances.
sceptic - a person inclined to question or doubt accepted opinions
doubt - a feeling of uncertainty or lack of conviction - archaic fear; be afraid
rhetoric - the art of effective or persuasive speaking or writing, especially the exploitation of figures of speech and other compositional techniques - language designed to have a persuasive or impressive effect, but which is often regarded as lacking in sincerity or meaningful content
Saturday, 16 October 2010
September 16, 2009
An article in the journal, Sociological Inquiry, casts light on the effectiveness of propaganda. Researchers examined why big lies succeed where little lies fail. Governments can get away with mass deceptions, but politicians cannot get away with sexual affairs.
The researchers explain why so many Americans still believe that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11, years after it has become obvious that Iraq had nothing to do with the event. Americans developed elaborate rationalizations based on Bush administration propaganda that alleged Iraqi involvement and became deeply attached to their beliefs. Their emotional involvement became wrapped up in their personal identity and sense of morality. They looked for information that supported their beliefs and avoided information that challenged them, regardless of the facts of the matter.
In Mein Kampf, Hitler explained the believability of the Big Lie as compared to the small lie: “In the simplicity of their minds, people more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have such impudence. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and continue to think that there may be some other explanation.”
What the sociologists and Hitler are telling us is that by the time facts become clear, people are emotionally wedded to the beliefs planted by the propaganda and find it a wrenching experience to free themselves. It is more comfortable, instead, to denounce the truth-tellers than the liars whom the truth-tellers expose.
The psychology of belief retention even when those beliefs are wrong is a pillar of social cohesion and stability. It explains why, once change is effected, even revolutionary governments become conservative. The downside of belief retention is its prevention of the recognition of facts. Belief retention in the Soviet Union made the system unable to adjust to economic reality, and the Soviet Union collapsed. Today in the United States millions find it easier to chant “USA, USA, USA” than to accept facts that indicate the need for change.
The staying power of the Big Lie is the barrier through which the 9/11 Truth Movement is finding it difficult to break. The assertion that the 9/11 Truth Movement consists of conspiracy theorists and crackpots is obviously untrue. The leaders of the movement are highly qualified professionals, such as demolition experts, physicists, structural architects, engineers, pilots, and former high officials in the government. Unlike their critics parroting the government’s line, they know what they are talking about.
Here is a link to a presentation by the architect, Richard Gage, to a Canadian university audience. The video of the presentation is two hours long and seems to have been edited to shorten it down to two hours. Gage is low-key, but not a dazzling personality or a very articulate presenter. Perhaps that is because he is speaking to a university audience and takes for granted their familiarity with terms and concepts.
Those who believe the official 9/11 story and dismiss skeptics as kooks can test the validity of the sociologists’ findings and Hitler’s observation by watching the video and experiencing their reaction to evidence that challenges their beliefs. Are you able to watch the presentation without scoffing at someone who knows far more about it than you do? What is your response when you find that you cannot defend your beliefs against the evidence presented? Scoff some more? Become enraged?
Another problem that the 9/11 Truth Movement faces is that few people have the education to follow the technical and scientific aspects. The side that they believe tells them one thing; the side that they don’t believe tells them another. Most Americans have no basis to judge the relative merits of the arguments.
For example, consider the case of the Lockerbie bomber. One piece of “evidence” that was used to convict Magrahi was a piece of circuit board from a device that allegedly contained the Semtex that exploded the airliner. None of the people, who have very firm beliefs in Magrahi’s and Libya’s guilt and in the offense of the Scottish authorities in releasing Magrahi on allegedly humanitarian grounds, know that circuit boards of those days have very low combustion temperatures and go up in flames easily. Semtex produces very high temperatures. There would be nothing whatsoever left of a device that contained Semtex. It is obvious to an expert that the piece of circuit board was planted after the event.
I have asked on several occasions and have never had an answer, which does not mean that there isn’t one, how millions of pieces of unburnt, uncharred paper can be floating over lower Manhatten from the destruction of the WTC towers when the official explanation of the destruction is fires so hot and evenly distributed that they caused the massive steel structures to weaken and fail simultaneously so that the buildings fell in free fall time just as they would if they had been brought down by controlled demolition.
What is the explanation of fires so hot that steel fails but paper does not combust?
People don’t even notice the contradictions. Recently, an international team of scientists, who studied for 18 months dust samples produced by the twin towers’ destruction collected from three separate sources, reported their finding of nano-thermite in the dust. The US government had scientists dependent on the US government to debunk the finding on the grounds that the authenticity of custody of the samples could not be verified. In other words, someone had tampered with the samples and added the nano-thermite. This is all it took to discredit the finding, despite the obvious fact that access to thermite is strictly controlled and NO ONE except the US military and possibly Israel has access to nano-thermite.
The physicist, Steven Jones, has produced overwhelming evidence that explosives were used to bring down the buildings. His evidence is not engaged, examined, tested, and refuted. It is simply ignored.
Dr. Jones’ experience reminds me of that of my Oxford professor, the distinguished physical chemist and philosopher, Michael Polanyi. Polanyi was one of the 20th centuries great scientists. At one time every section chairman of the Royal Society was a Polanyi student. Many of his students won Nobel Prizes for their scientific work, such as Eugene Wigner at Princeton and Melvin Calvin at UC, Berkeley, and his son, John Polanyi, at the University of Toronto.
As a young man in the early years of the 20th century, Michael Polanyi discovered the explanation for chemical absorbtion. Scientific authority found the new theory too much of a challenge to existing beliefs and dismissed it. Even when Polanyi was one of the UK’s ranking scientists, he was unable to teach his theory. One half-century later his discovery was re-discovered by scientists at UC, Berkeley. The discovery was hailed, but then older scientists said that it was “Polanyi’s old error.” It turned out not to be an error. Polanyi was asked to address scientists on this half-century failure of science to recognize the truth. How had science, which is based on examining the evidence, gone so wrong. Polanyi’s answer was that science is a belief system just like everything else, and that his theory was outside the belief system.
That is what we observe all around us, not just about the perfidy of Muslims and 9/11.
As an economics scholar I had a very difficult time making my points about the Soviet economy, about Karl Marx’s theories, and about the supply-side impact of fiscal policy. Today I experience readers who become enraged just because I report on someone else’s work that is outside their belief system. Some readers think I should suppress work that is inconsistent with their beliefs and drive the author of the work into the ground. These readers never have any comprehension of the subject. They are simply emotionally offended.
What I find puzzling is the people I know who do not believe a word the government says about anything except 9/11. For reasons that escape me, they believe that the government that lies to them about everything else tells them the truth about 9/11. How can this be, I ask them. Did the government slip up once and tell the truth? My question does not cause them to rethink their belief in the government’s 9/11 story. Instead, they get angry with me for doubting their intelligence or their integrity or some such hallowed trait.
The problem faced by truth is the emotional needs of people. With 9/11 many Americans feel that they must believe their government so that they don’t feel like they are being unsupportive or unpatriotic, and they are very fearful of being called “terrorist sympathizers.” Others on the left-wing have emotional needs to believe that peoples oppressed by the US have delivered “blowbacks.” Some leftists think that America deserves these blowbacks and thus believe the government’s propaganda that Muslims attacked the US.
Naive people think that if the US government’s explanation of 9/11 was wrong, physicists and engineers would all speak up. Some have (see above). However, for most physicists and engineers this would be an act of suicide. Physicists owe their careers to government grants, and their departments are critically dependent on government funding. A physicist who speaks up essentially ends his university career. If he is a tenured professor, to appease Washington the university would buy out his tenure as BYU did in the case of the outspoken Steven Jones.
An engineering firm that spoke out would never again be awarded a government contract. In addition, its patriotic, flag-waving customers would regard the firm as a terrorist apologist and cease to do business with it.
In New York today there is an enormous push by 9/11 families for a real and independent investigation of the 9/11 events. Tens of thousands of New Yorkers have provided the necessary signatures on petitions that require the state to put the proposal for an independent commission up to vote. However, the state, so far, is not obeying the law.
Why are the tens of thousands of New Yorkers who are demanding a real investigation dismissed as conspiracy theorists? The 9/11 skeptics know far more about the events of that day than do the uninformed people who call them names. Most of the people I know who are content with the government’s official explanation have never examined the evidence. Yet, these no-nothings shout down those who have studied the matter closely.
There are, of course, some kooks. I have often wondered if these kooks are intentionally ridiculous in order to discredit knowledgeable skeptics.
Another problem that the 9/11 Truth Movement faces is that their natural allies, those who oppose the Bush/Obama wars and the internet sites that the antiwar movement maintains, are fearful of being branded traitorous and anti-American. It is hard enough to oppose a war against those the US government has successfully demonized. Antiwar sites believe that if they permit 9/11 to be questioned, it would brand them as “terrorist sympathizers” and discredit their opposition to the war. An exception is Information Clearing House.
Antiwar sites do not realize that, by accepting the 9/11 explanation, they have undermined their own opposition to the war. Once you accept that Muslim terrorists did it, it is difficult to oppose punishing them for the event. In recent months, important antiwar sites, such as Antiwar.com, have had difficulty with their fundraising, with their fundraising campaigns going on far longer than previously. They do not understand that if you grant the government its premise for war, it is impossible to oppose the war.
As far as I can tell, most Americans have far greater confidence in the government than they do in the truth. During the Great Depression the liberals with their New Deal succeeded in teaching Americans to trust the government as their protector. This took with the left and the right. Neither end of the political spectrum is capable of fundamental questioning of the government. This explains the ease with which our government routinely deceives the people.
Democracy is based on the assumption that people are rational beings who factually examine arguments and are not easily manipulated. Studies are not finding this to be the case. In my own experience in scholarship, public policy, and journalism, I have learned that everyone from professors to high school dropouts has difficulty with facts and analyses that do not fit with what they already believe. The notion that “we are not afraid to follow the truth wherever it may lead” is an extremely romantic and idealistic notion. I have seldom experienced open minds even in academic discourse or in the highest levels of government. Among the public at large, the ability to follow the truth wherever it may lead is almost non-existent.
The US government’s response to 9/11, regardless of who is responsible, has altered our country forever. Our civil liberties will never again be as safe as they were. America’s financial capability and living standards are forever lower. Our country’s prestige and world leadership are forever damaged. The first decade of the 21st century has been squandered in pointless wars, and it appears the second decade will also be squandered in the same pointless and bankrupting pursuit.
The most disturbing fact of all remains: The 9/11 event responsible for these adverse happenings has not been investigated.
Friday, 15 October 2010
Professor of Physics at the University of California's letter of resignation to the American Physical Society.
When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago). Indeed, the choice of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinence—it was World War II that changed all that. The prospect of worldly gain drove few physicists. As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there were zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists. We were therefore able to produce what I believe was and is an honest appraisal of the situation at that time. We were further enabled by the presence of an oversight committee consisting of Pief Panofsky, Vicki Weisskopf, and Hans Bethe, all towering physicists beyond reproach. I was proud of what we did in a charged atmosphere. In the end the oversight committee, in its report to the APS President, noted the complete independence in which we did the job, and predicted that the report would be attacked from both sides. What greater tribute could there be?
How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d’être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.
It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.
So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it. For example:
1. About a year ago a few of us sent an e-mail on the subject to a fraction of the membership. APS ignored the issues, but the then President immediately launched a hostile investigation of where we got the e-mail addresses. In its better days, APS used to encourage discussion of important issues, and indeed the Constitution cites that as its principal purpose. No more. Everything that has been done in the last year has been designed to silence debate
2. The appallingly tendentious APS statement on Climate Change was apparently written in a hurry by a few people over lunch, and is certainly not representative of the talents of APS members as I have long known them. So a few of us petitioned the Council to reconsider it. One of the outstanding marks of (in)distinction in the Statement was the poison word incontrovertible, which describes few items in physics, certainly not this one. In response APS appointed a secret committee that never met, never troubled to speak to any skeptics, yet endorsed the Statement in its entirety. (They did admit that the tone was a bit strong, but amazingly kept the poison word incontrovertible to describe the evidence, a position supported by no one.) In the end, the Council kept the original statement, word for word, but approved a far longer “explanatory” screed, admitting that there were uncertainties, but brushing them aside to give blanket approval to the original. The original Statement, which still stands as the APS position, also contains what I consider pompous and asinine advice to all world governments, as if the APS were master of the universe. It is not, and I am embarrassed that our leaders seem to think it is. This is not fun and games, these are serious matters involving vast fractions of our national substance, and the reputation of the Society as a scientific society is at stake.
3. In the interim the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news, and the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity. Effect on the APS position: none. None at all. This is not science; other forces are at work.
4. So a few of us tried to bring science into the act (that is, after all, the alleged and historic purpose of APS), and collected the necessary 200+ signatures to bring to the Council a proposal for a Topical Group on Climate Science, thinking that open discussion of the scientific issues, in the best tradition of physics, would be beneficial to all, and also a contribution to the nation. I might note that it was not easy to collect the signatures, since you denied us the use of the APS membership list. We conformed in every way with the requirements of the APS Constitution, and described in great detail what we had in mind—simply to bring the subject into the open.
5. To our amazement, Constitution be damned, you declined to accept our petition, but instead used your own control of the mailing list to run a poll on the members’ interest in a TG on Climate and the Environment. You did ask the members if they would sign a petition to form a TG on your yet-to-be-defined subject, but provided no petition, and got lots of affirmative responses. (If you had asked about sex you would have gotten more expressions of interest.) There was of course no such petition or proposal, and you have now dropped the Environment part, so the whole matter is moot. (Any lawyer will tell you that you cannot collect signatures on a vague petition, and then fill in whatever you like.) The entire purpose of this exercise was to avoid your constitutional responsibility to take our petition to the Council.
6. As of now you have formed still another secret and stacked committee to organize your own TG, simply ignoring our lawful petition.
APS management has gamed the problem from the beginning, to suppress serious conversation about the merits of the climate change claims. Do you wonder that I have lost confidence in the organization?
I do feel the need to add one note, and this is conjecture, since it is always risky to discuss other people’s motives. This scheming at APS HQ is so bizarre that there cannot be a simple explanation for it. Some have held that the physicists of today are not as smart as they used to be, but I don’t think that is an issue. I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club. Your own Physics Department (of which you are chairman) would lose millions a year if the global warming bubble burst. When Penn State absolved Mike Mann of wrongdoing, and the University of East Anglia did the same for Phil Jones, they cannot have been unaware of the financial penalty for doing otherwise. As the old saying goes, you don’t have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing. Since I am no philosopher, I’m not going to explore at just which point enlightened self-interest crosses the line into corruption, but a careful reading of the ClimateGate releases makes it clear that this is not an academic question.
I want no part of it, so please accept my resignation. APS no longer represents me, but I hope we are still friends.
Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, former Chairman; Former member Defense Science Board, chmn of Technology panel; Chairman DSB study on Nuclear Winter; Former member Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Former member, President’s Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee; Chairman APS study on Nuclear Reactor Safety
Chairman Risk Assessment Review Group; Co-founder and former Chairman of JASON; Former member USAF Scientific Advisory Board; Served in US Navy in WW II; books: Technological Risk (about, surprise, technological risk) and Why Flip a Coin (about decision making)
Wednesday, 13 October 2010
So what has the lad from the Emerald Isle got to say on this matter? "Eurosceptics have been harping on for decades about how the EU is an assault on national sovereignty" damn and darn those silly indecisive sceptics, always 'harping on' about disundat they are.
He continues; "In fact, there is nothing inherently wrong with the idea of EU integration but it must only proceed on a democratic basis". Well that's a 'fact' then Jason, a fact to be sure.
PRESSEUROP.EU's own, so called, EDITORIAL CHARTER confesses to a clear agenda of intent; 'to present public discussion of a wide range of issues relating to the European Project and “bring the European Union to life” through the prism of press coverage'. http://bit.ly/919yNy
Now I do not think I am dealing with semantics here if I take this to mean they want to “bring the European Union to life” - like Dr. Frankenstein - and are conversely clearly not wanting to 'kill the wretched thing off' nor, one can reasonably assume, do they really want to report in a fair and balanced way and see if it is actually 'living or dead' at any given moment.
In fairness they sort-of do admit to it actually being not alive, from the outset, as you cannot bring to life something that is already alive - if you get my drift.
The EU can define all the bla-bla-bla terminology they wish for between themselves, but they may not cook-up that which describes their dissenters. That's for me, and my like, to define.
I am an EU dissenter, I am an EU atheist. I am not an EU agnostic.
To describe anyone and everyone who is not just a lock, stock and barrel EU zombie (or grubby-fingered benefactor) by use of such a handy little catch-all catch-phrase terminology as 'sceptic' is more than just a lazy writer's falsehood. It is a contribution to the EU's PR brainwashing agenda. A cog in the grinding-wheel, consciously granted or not.
The term 'sceptic' is a detractor devised to take-away any depth of objection from those who call-out against the imposition of this undemocratic tyranny to which our so called political representatives fain nothing but the most feeble and tepid of stances.
sceptic - a person inclined to question or doubt accepted opinions
doubt - a feeling of uncertainty or lack of conviction - archaic fear; be afraid
rhetoric - the art of effective or persuasive speaking or writing, especially the exploitation of figures of speech and other compositional techniques - language designed to have a persuasive or impressive effect, but which is often regarded as lacking in sincerity or meaningful content
Thursday, 7 October 2010
Toxicology results awaited in Taser firm boss’s inquest probe - Local - Northampton Chronicle & Echo
FURTHER tests are being carried out to find the cause of death of a Northampton-based company director whose firm supplied Tasers used during the stand-off with gunman Raoul Moat, an inquest has heard.
An inquest into the death of Peter Boatman, 57, director of operations for Pro-Tect Systems, heard that post-mortem examinations are awaiting toxicology and histology tests.
Northamptonshire coroner Anne Pember said Mr Boatman had been discovered by a friend.
No members of Mr Boatman’s family were present at the inquest at Northampton General Hospital yesterday and during the short hearing the coroner adjourned the inquest to a date to be fixed.
Mr Boatman was found dead at his home in Reynard Way, Kingsthorpe, Northampton, on Friday, only three days after the Home Office revoked Pro-Tect Systems’ licence to import and sell Taser stun guns.
The move came after it emerged that the firm breached the terms of its licence by supplying X12 Tasers, which were still being tested by Government scientists, directly to police involved in the Moat manhunt.
On Friday, Mr Boatman’s business partner said the former police officer was “destroyed” by the furore. Pro-Tect’s managing director Kevin Coles said there was “no doubt” his colleague’s apparent suicide was linked to the week’s events.
Mr Boatman was previously in charge of assessing the merits of Tasers as head of operational training for Northamptonshire Police before leaving to join Pro-Tect.
Mr Boatman had been awarded the Queen’s Police Medal for his commitment to officer safety.
Pro-Tect breached its licence by supplying the X12 Tasers and XRep ammunition, which were still being tested by the Home Office, directly to two police forces.
Home Secretary Theresa May revoked the firm’s licence to import and sell Tasers following an investigation into the use of the weapons at the end of one of Britain’s biggest manhunts.
The company was facing possible action by Northamptonshire Police over the breach of the licence. Armed police fired two Tasers at Moat in an “effort to stop him taking his own life” in Rothbury, Northumberland, in the early hours of July 10.
The firm also breached the rules “governing the secure transport of the devices and ammunition”.
Taser boss's wife refuses to believe he took his life
Peter Boatman was found dead in his garden shed at his home on Reynard Way, Northampton, by his wife of 32 years Stephanie.
He was found slumped in a garden chair and had been killed by the fumes of a sit-on lawn mower that was running in the outhouse.
He shot dead one man and injured his ex-girlfriend and a police officer, before shooting himself in a stand-off with cops.Secretary Theresa May after it was found to have supplied Tasers that were still being tested to Northumbria Police in the chase of wanted killer Moat in July 2010.
Mrs Boatman told the inquest how she recalled Mr Boatman being on the phone before the Moat incident to Northumbria Police.
During that conversation the chief constable of Northumbria Police sanctioned the order of X-12 and XREP Tasers which were used against Moat.
Mrs Boatman told the inquest how they had watched the siege of Moat on the television and that Mr Boatman felt some responsibility for what had happened.
She said that Mr Boatman had had trouble sleeping after the event as he was worried about what would happen to the company. He had been to see his doctor who had prescribed some anti-depressants and he was also taking Nytol to help him sleep but they had made him drowsy during the day.
The inquest heard how Mr Boatman had organised several holidays in the months prior to his death with his daughter and grandchildren and a trip to Arizona with his wife.
Despite a loss of confidence he had never talked about taking his life.
Mrs Boatman said: “I will never know what happened, he may have fallen and I cannot believe that he took his own life. It’s inconceivable, he absolutely idolised me.”
His business partner Kevin Coles said that he would have made the same decisions to supply the weapons if he had been in Mr Boatman’s position.
Mr Coles said: “The most serious issue we were facing was prosecution but that wasn’t going to happen. “He was financially secure and even offered to work and give me the money because he said he could live comfortably on his pension. “Maybe something went ‘pop’ in his head? Did he fall asleep? Anyone who knew him would know he wouldn’t take his own life.”
Recording an open verdict, Coroner Ann Pember said: “Mr Boatman was found in his garden shed which was not locked, with his iPod in his ears. “I cannot say with reasonable doubt that Mr Boatman wished to end his life and I cannot presume this is was an accident and therefore return an open verdict.”
Wednesday, 6 October 2010
(As it is I have my phone full of free podcasts and never want for excellent music or talk 'programs' when on the move - indeed I don't think I will ever catch-up with what I have yet to listen to).
The problem is not artists, big corporate music companies or the few big cogs in the current digital music distribution market. It is the consumer. The consumer has become stupefied and soporific; how can I say this kindly? I can't. They are stupid and lazy. They are programmed to march to the comforting and predictable drum-beat of the big branded spoon-feeding money-relieving machines.
The opportunity is to offer an environment where people, consumers, realise it is OK to search, filter, discover and enjoy the enormous wealth of music that is 'out there'. Independently created, historic, global and varied. Right now they are so stuffed with the idea that it is only today's music, today's big name, that is valid. That is the paradigm that was sold by the record companies and is now almost hard-wired into the public's psychology. The fact is though; it actually does not need to be crafted-fashion 'branded' celebrity to be good, with-it, edgy, sexy or profitable. The task is to sell, or un-sell, that to the market.
I submit, frustrating though it may be, the fundamental core of the wish to MAKE people pay for content (music, film, news or whatever), the angry petulant desperate demand, is a dated paradigm.
The correct desire should be no more than to provide the best service possible; and along the way people will pay for a good service. The correct desire should be to provide that service at a price which reflects no more than the essential commercial margin in addition to the true, nuts and bolts, cost of provision (to allow for investment, development and a return).
It does not matter what you were selling the stuff for in the past. It matters not what you think something is worth or even what you can resoundingly prove enough people will be happy to pay for it to make a viable profit.
It is only by having an absolute monopoly, over all the content people want and over all the means of distribution people use, that the market can be forced to comply with price. That monopoly exists with copyright but not with distribution. It is the opening-up of distribution that is the game-changer so far.
The next step will be a further and enormous proliferation of available content. Presently the market, the customer, still thinks they have to draw their media from the traditional sources - but the market just takes time to adjust. It is the current content providers that must predict and adapt to the new paradigm.
People will pay for good content. Some people will pay a good price for the content they want. Most people, nearly everybody, will pay a peppercorn price for unlimited access to unlimited content.
King Canute the Great knew this. He sat in the sea to make clear he could not stop the tide no-matter how Great he was thought to be. Miss the boat and today's content providers will become tomorrows historic media archives.
It is reasonable to assume that the prime objective was not because of the threat of (so called) WMD. This tissue of lies was patently cooked-up to attempt justify an otherwise unjustifiable attack.
It is reasonable to assume it was not carried-out to serve any interest of the civilian population of Iraq. They are in a manifold worse situation now, as a result of our attacking, and we cannot even answer how many innocents have died as a result (the murder and manslaughter of between 110,000 IBC to 1,100,000 Lancet).
If the object is thought to be related to ‘the war on terrorism’ this is manifestly false. Any form or threat of terrorism has only occurred as a result of attacking Iraq.
We can assume that these solemn truths will never be fully or broadly recognised because the resulting reparations due to and deserved by the people of Iraq would bankrupt us.
If the objective was related to the interests of Private Military Contractors, the complex of industries supplying Military requirements, oil production interests, central bankers and such; all their interests have been served, and served at the expense of the taxpaying public along with the populous of Iraq since and into the future. It has been a successful enterprise.
If the objective was to strengthen the security of Israel in a Middle East hostile to their presence and actions, as argued by Mark Weber here in: ‘Iraq-A War For Israel’ http://bit.ly/ccII7m then the outcome has been to reduce the threat to Israel considerably.
If the objective was to break a middle east nation that, whilst held together by a grossly unpalatable and harsh regime, did have a high standard of education, health care, women’s rights, self-determination and enterprise, a nation that had the potential to utilise its own petrochemical (and water) resource and enter the world-stage of developed nations, the attack and subsequent CPA mandate has achieved this aim.
If the objective was to demonstrate that disobedience towards the US/CIA imperialistic interests, such as that demonstrated by Iraq under Saddam Hussain, will not pass unpunished, that aim has been succinctly dealt.
For all those involved the British and American attack of Iraq has been a failure. But for all those who have stood-by whilst these events have taken place and subsequently reaped the rewards it certainly can be painted as a success.
But; who knows what is a man’s heart?
I fancy that, however it may have been achieved, GW Bush was steered absolutely by those who advised him, those who were also a part of the political lobby group known as the Project for the New American Century (PNAC).
To read those named on the PNAC founding Statement of Principles is illuminating: http://bit.ly/9gOQcJ – The names included Jeb Bush (brother of GW), Dick Cheney, I. Lewis Libby (Scooter), Dan Quayle, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz amongst others.
PNAC’s stated aim was to make the case and rally support for: “American global leadership, [to] shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire”.
To President Clinton they wrote: ‘The only acceptable strategy is one that [removes] Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy. http://bit.ly/a82Sr9
In their report ‘Rebuilding America’s Defenses’ http://bit.ly/bU2a0F (PDF file) they wrote: ‘Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor. (Report-P51 PDF-P63)
On the 11th of September 2001 Robert Kagan, co-founder of PNAC, wrote in The Washington Post a piece titled ‘We Must Fight This War’ proclaiming “an attack far more awful than Pearl Harbor” http://bit.ly/9HvCSZ
It is against this background that we must comprehend Britain’s part is cast. It would be clear that the US was primed to react to the attack of 9/11 in the manner prescribed by those who dominated the political administration and in a manner that had too been expressed with resounding clarity.
For Blair here was a simple choice. Would we have stopped them? I doubt it. Would the world be a better place with the US operating in isolation, without seeking any backing from the UN, without the veil of credence offered by its old comrade and diplomatic good cop. Take Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, Fallujah, extraordinary rendition, water-boarding, torture by proxy, shock and awe, black sites, depleted uranium, cluster bombs for some examples and imagine how the US would have behaved if utterly unrestrained.
If Blair had stood-back and demanded a clear UN mandate to attack, how would the situation have stood if then Britain was immediately struck by its own ‘Pearl Harbour’ and perhaps one of even more devastating effect?