Sunday, 28 February 2010
Some of the delicious wingnut reactions to this:
"You care about the state of the economy? Are you planning to protest Obama's spending, too?"
"These commies cry about a war that their leftest hero's allowed to happen. (Clinton, Gore)"
"How can conservitives be fascists when a former true fascist. George Soros is contolling the left? Funny how uneducated you are."
"It's funny that this same crowd despises those evil "teabaggers" who are protesting for conservative values, but find the same tactics (on steroids) perfectly acceptable. LIBERAL HYPOCRISY."
If you don't understand that many people, more than you might think, are both anti-war (pro-freedom) and anti-socialism (pro-freedom), then you need to ditch the corporate news ASAP. All of it. Fken FOX, BBC, AlJizzear, all of it, just unplug the matrix. Left and Right is a sham and a shell game, both camps as eager to violate your rights as each other.
George Soros is a crook.
Karl Rove is a mass murderer.
And I actually like the Tea Parties even when "Freedom"Works is astroturfing them into something that they weren't originally. It's a lot better than nothing.
Speaking of Tea Parties, Hannan wants to start them over here. Mixed reception followed, but hey it's interesting.
THIS is what the TV networks should be delivering, but aren't. And it's obvious that the few AGW 'deniers' there are more informed.
(I also find it funny that LaRouche blames everything on the British. Come on, we're not that bad! lol)
The GW activists are the nicest people - but my, are they brainwashed.
The Christian Gnostics believed in reincarnation and the preexistence of the soul. They refused to believe in a resurrection of corpses at the end of time. They emphasized meeting Jesus on a spiritual level to become liberated and attain permanent citizenship in heaven. The Church of Rome of the second century A.D., on the other hand, declared that those who deny a Last Day resurrection of corpses are heretics.
A thought provoking dialogue on what Icke calls 'the different levels of the conspiracy'. (Was he right?)
Say what you like, these guys are as genuine as it gets. You can see it in them, whatever 'it' is. They believe in what they're saying, no Glenn Beck fake crying here. The point is absolutely not to blindly follow anyone but to assess the information people present rather than just the person themselves. And nobody is going to present perfect information, there will be mistakes and people will self-censor for reasons. Blindly following people was what got us into this situation in the first place.
As Icke frequently cites,
"You can't solve problems with the same level of consciousness that created them" - Albert Einstein
Saturday, 27 February 2010
"The Long--and Largely Untold--History Of Jewish Opposition to Zionism"
detailing what people stuck in the Anti-Semitism vs Zionism way of thinking need to know.
To equate Zionism to Judaism is like trying to equate Nazism to Christianity.
The only difference is nobody tries to equate Nazism to Christianity on a constant basis.
The political movement of Zionism depends on creating the illusion that Zionism and Judaism are synonymous.
This is the actual cause behind much of the perceived and/or real anti-Jewish racism in the present day.
Which in turn gives Jews the impression everyone is out to get them, thus reinforcing the popularity of Zionist-Talmudic racist beliefs that everyone who is non-Jewish is 'goyim' (cattle).
Racial division producing more racial division.
I know the real Zionists were in bed with the Nazis during WW2.
"Repeat a lie often enough and people will believe it"
"Divide and Rule", just like Hitler did.
Friday, 26 February 2010
oh, and a real life version...
As the article below says, if you want an insight into the decadence and immorality of the next generation (that's my generation), look no further than lamebook.com.
u no wat i mean its theiluminate their dummin us al down. or mayb i dunno ^_^
Are there other dots around it just waiting to be joined up? Grab your reality pencils and have a go. No-one knows the truth.
Or, switching metaphors, here's a shovel. Start digging.
Part 1 - Part 2 - Part 3 - Part 4 - Part 5
Icke was/is right about a lot of things, ya know. As I say, is he a crazy genius or just crazy? I tend toward the former.
Little side note re part 2: I think it's fantastic that Jones and Icke started to unite and not in-fight a few years ago. I am not one of those who believes either of these figures to be a 'shill', they just have different opinions and ways of reaching people. And they are flawed average human beings in fairly difficult circumstances that would drive many others insane. I'll have to write about my views on Jones soon enough...
As for the racists and neo-Nazis, well they're always going to be around, much like racist black people or for that matter racist Zionist Jews or racist Nazi Germans or racist Fundamentalist Islamists. The agenda of groups like the ADL has nothing to do with stopping racism and everything to do with setting a precedent to crush free speech.
1. Ban freedom of expression for Nazis, Holocaust Deniers etc.
2. Equate every other dissenting view that exists with Nazism and Holocaust Denial. (maybe make them wear little yellow stars?)
3. EnDgAmE Nazi Style Thought-Police State.
"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for those we disagree with, we don't believe in it at all" (that includes Holocaust Deniers who are currently imprisoned, by the way, or do your principles not apply to everyone?)
If you want to hear more of Icke's actual views, not what some anti-free speech cranks think are his views, see his (7hrs long) presentation here. Perhaps have some kind of drinking game - drink every time he mentions 'Jews'. Guarantee you'll finish sobre. And perhaps a little more aware of...many things. (That thing took me a week to get through, lol)
Thursday, 25 February 2010
The EU isn't internationalised enough, no we need a world constitution. To fix the economy...
Wednesday, 24 February 2010
Maybe it's time to support the troops who get thrown in military prison for 'desertion' or as it used to be called 'cowardice'? We used to shoot military men who were 'cowards' (WWI).
No other example more perfectly illustrates the polar opposites that are
'Supporting The Troops'
'Supporting The War'.
They are incompatible opposites. You can't have it both ways. Supporting the war is betraying the troops.
Natural News - Toyota's consumer safety problems are dwarfed by body count of Big Pharma's deadly drugs
Sure, Toyota made some engineering or manufacturing mistakes. But in Toyota's case, that's a rare departure from its longstanding core philosophy of quality and safety. For Big Pharma, ducking responsibility and selling dangerous products is the status quo -- it's the way the drug industry does business every single day: Bribing researchers, falsifying data, overbilling state Medicaid programs, bilking consumers with monopoly pricing, burying negative studies that it doesn't want the public to see, paying doctors "consulting fees" to prescribe more of its name-brand drugs, and so on. This is business as usual in the pharmaceutical industry.
Tuesday, 23 February 2010
Monday, 22 February 2010
[See full page at Natural News]
Although I am personally opposed philosophically to vaccines because I do not believe they saved us, the most important thing is choice. Parents should be allowed to perform their role of making decisions for their children, which is the only case (non-adults) that one person should assume the right to make a rational decision for another. Certainly the government has no place making decisions on behalf of others, assuming the role of 'parent' or 'nanny' (but that's pretty much all government ever does if you think about it).
But the vaccine agenda is related to the many other ways we are wilfully poisoning ourselves. Or is that not happening? Do you not think it is? Maybe I am making it up as I go along. After all, why would government want a population of chemically lobotomised serfs? (well why do you think?)
To quote the article linked,
Once you combine the toxicity of vaccine adjuvants, chlorine in the water, BPA in plastics, non-stick cookware chemicals, antibacterial soaps and the chemicals in foods and medicines, you have a brain-numbing toxic stew that is now being spoon-fed to mainstream America [and other countries]. With their brains chemically suppressed by this onslaught of chemicals, most people find it impossible to think for themselves, so they go along with whatever they're told, oblivious to the truth that they are being fed daily poisons through the water system, the food supply, prescription medications and the mainstream media.
The following is a clip from the documentary Endgame.
I saw that video at The Conspiracy Exposed - good blog there, check it out.
The question is, who/what/when will be the "100th monkey" that tips the balance on all this?
Sunday, 21 February 2010
To that I would add that falling back on the whole thing about 'being more environmentally responsible' is crap, it implies that everyone who disagrees with AGW doesn't give a damn about anything except where the next oil field is.
I don't care about your sissy invyroments! - GW sceptic stereotype? Some truth to it I guess.
It's one thing to be 'more environmentally responsible'. Recycling is good! Using less stuff you don't need is good! As are all the new sources of energy. Fantastic. And you get to rely less on the corrupt oil monopolist thugs. Also good.
But that is not what AGW is about. We are told that cow farts and SUVs are responsible for creating 'global warming'/'climate change'/'climate chaos' and so we must be slapped across the face with big punishing taxes and ultimately population control to save us from ourselves. The oceans are acidifying, the glaciers are melting, polar bears are going to die, the globe is warming, the globe is warming!!! (Now Pay Me)
There needs to be a reconciliation between environmentalists (real ones, not Blood and Gore) and those who oppose carbon taxes. Because this $cam is designed partially to drive people back into their korporate kontrolled konsumerism, which may not be 'killing the planet', not imminently anyway, but it is a large part of what's killing Western society (the cheap plastic crap from China rears its ugly head again...can you spell 'trade deficit' and 'deindustrialisation'?).
Were I a part of Ron Paul's base of supporters, I'd be alternately laughing and seething at the GOP's attempts to co-opt the energy of the RP/libertarian movement; their symbols, their linguistic identifiers, their oxygen. 'Course, the libertarians aren't alone in that experience. Digby has documented the Right's appropriation of many of the symbols and linguistic identifiers of the Left, too. Not unlike the rattlesnake that appropriates a prairie dog's burrow, the Right takes what others have built, and chameleon-like change their colors to support their apparent familiarity to those they wish to attract. In that way, the GOP has become a political parasite and dependent on unwitting or unwilling hosts. Their own agenda is so bankrupt it can't survive in the marketplace of ideas on its own.
I sure hope you're right about this.
For that reason, it's only a matter of time before the fundamental incompatibility of the "tea party movement" and the political party cynically exploiting it is exposed.
I think that's true for Ron Paul's core supporters, but I'm less optimistic about the ability of those more recently recruited by the libertarian poseurs like Glenn Beck. It'd be a delicate waltz for the Paul cohort to allow Beck to promote the principles, while hoping those recruited that way are sufficiently discriminating to recognize Beck, and others like him, for the frauds that they are.
It seems mass immigration is designed to more easily take away our rights by playing racial groups off against one another, inciting hatred which then is used as a justification for desecrating freedom of speech; also by spreading 'white guilt' and non-white 'oppression complex' which themselves cause racial tension...when will people learn there is no such thing as Positive Discrimination? And that Multiculturalism means we bring in people from all over the world to practice their culture but intimidate you (native people) for practicing yours?
Do not blame the international peasants who have come to this country. Better targets for responsibility are found in government, academia, mass media and the general societal attitude that whites are racist opressors and all others are opressed by whites. This view is a post-Colonial cultural dinosaur that can't die off quickly enough, not least because it is contradicted by countless examples of racist attacks and repressions against white people by non-whites. These just don't appear in the major media, which prefer to focus solely on white racist crimes.
Old Colonialism was done along racial lines.
New Colonialism ('international socialism' and 'global finance') is the banking government screwing everybody...there is no master race except those who can print money for themselves.
Racism isn't dead, rather many modern 'anti-racists' are themselves the most racist people imaginable. We must get beyond racial issues, yes, but that isn't going to happen when political correctness tries to make everything a racial issue and sees white racism everywhere, then advocates anti-white racism known as 'positive discrimination' (aka 'affirmative action') as a 'solution'. You can't put out a fire with petrol.
Oh and one more thing...THAT'S RACIST!!! (points finger)
Thursday, 18 February 2010
San Francisco Chronicle - Get ready for foggier summers (6 July 2009)
The Bay Area just had its foggiest May in 50 years. And thanks to global warming, it's about to get even foggier.
That's the conclusion of several state researchers, whose soon-to-be-published study predicts that even with average temperatures on the rise, the mercury won't be soaring everywhere.
"There'll be winners and losers," says Robert Bornstein, a meteorology professor at San Jose State University. "Global warming is warming the interior part of California, but it leads to a reverse reaction of more fog along the coast."
The study, which will appear in the journal Climate, is the latest to argue that colder summers are indeed in store for parts of the Bay Area.
Telegraph - Fog over San Francisco thins by a third due to climate change (15 Feb 2010)
The sight of Golden Gate Bridge towering above the fog will become increasing rare as climate change warms San Francisco bay, scientists have found.
The coastal fog along the Californian coast has declined by a third over the past 100 years – the equivalent of three hours cover a day, new research shows.
And it is not just bad for scenery, the reduction in the cooling effect of the fog could damage the health of the huge Redwood Forests nearby.
"Since 1901, the average number of hours of fog along the coast in summer has dropped from 56 per cent to 42 per cent, which is a loss of about three hours per day," said the study leader Dr James Johnstone at the University of California.
He said that it was unclear whether this is part of a natural cycle of the result of human activity, but the fog is receding because of a reduction in the difference between the temperature of the sea and the land.
"A cool coast and warm interior is one of the defining characteristics of California's coastal climate, but the temperature difference between the coast and interior has declined substantially in the last century, in step with the decline in summer fog," he added.
His findings, published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, came from weather records kept at airports along the coast.
Professor Todd Dawson, co-author, said the decline could be disastrous for the nearby ecosystems.
"Fog prevents water loss from Redwoods in summer, and is really important for both the tree and the forest," he said. "If the fog is gone, we might not have the Redwood forests we do now."
Wednesday, 17 February 2010
They are said to have been disguised with wigs and false beards to make it difficult for their later identification by authorities.
Reports have suggested that their victim was barbarically electrocuted to death in his hotel room.
They escaped successfully, and were so confident that they had got away with what they had done that their boss announced to the world that nobody could prove who was responsible.
Some of the British people whose identities had been stolen for the operation were horrified to learn that their details had been stolen by terrorists. One said, "I don't know how they got my details, who took them, I haven't left the country, I think, for two years and I've never been to Dubai ever. I don't know who's behind this. I am just scared, these are major forces".
The only details I missed out?
- the political leader brutally murdered was from Hamas.
- the terrorists were Israelis from "Al-"Mossad.
(ooh, the shoe is on the other foot...)
Full MSM bullshit available here
We need a modern version of Simon Wisenthal (sp?) hunting down alleged Nazis who went into hiding after WW2. The Neocon Hunter, haha...
So what exactly does a "Pro Defence Libertarian" stand for? Well, they're a 'libertarian' except that we need a massive military state to protect us from Cave Dwelling Donkey Riders by invading their country. Because the Cave Dwelling Donkey Riders hate us for our freedom, so drones must bomb their weddings incessantly, which will help to alleviate extremist attitudes amongst Muslims.
Funny how everything the state does has the exact opposite effect of what it is 'supposed' to do, hmm? It's why libertarianism appeals in the first place. Because the state is the greatest thieving mass murderer in existence. No 'libertarian' can logically support thieving and mass murder. Remove your sheep's clothing and admit you're one of Tarpley's "neocon fascist madmen".
Pro Defence means Pro Attack. A strong national defence in where? AfghanIraqistan? How is it national defence to attack entire nations? Ah, but the terrorists could be anywhere, right? That's the propaganda. Pro defence. 1984 is a bloody documentary today.
Look at the history of how the word liberal became corrupted. It used to mean what libertarian does now, but of course some manipulative thugs took the word liberal to camouflage their socialist agenda. All of a sudden it was liberal to have political correctness, liberal to have huge taxes, blah blah...
Now it is 'libertarian' to support war. Hah! The true libertarian understands that the primary source of violence in the world is the state, and that only by shrinking the power belonging to the state, especially (not except) the Warfare State, can peace and therefore freedom and prosperity thrive.
Tuesday, 16 February 2010
Does anyone give a damn that the Iraq sanctions killed up to a million people (the UN's own figures say half a million children) during the 90s and early 2000s? But, they're not human anyway, so waste them en masse, right? But oh, if we sanction your country, declare it a 'no-fly' zone patrolled by our aircraft, and you shoot at them, that's a violation of sanctions and 'International Law'. What crap.
Can you imagine if the EU, Russia and China sanctioned the US, shut off all oil trade, declared that the if the American People didn't like it, they should overthrow their leader and put in someone more ChiCom-friendly? (yes more ChiCom friendly than Obama). You know what you would do.
But that wouldn't happen, right? You are Untouchable America. The World Police.
You are not the world police. For this be grateful. It is not your duty to die trying to stop rogue nations. Good. No-one deserves to be given that dirty task.
Sanctions are an act of WAR. We used to call them blockades before political correctness Newspeak messed with the language. No one gets in or out. That is an initiation of WAR. Get it through your thick skulls before shrapnel goes through the skulls of more of (probably not your) American kids. Your government is not trying to protect you, they want you distracted from the economic pillaging going on closer to home. And they sure as hell don't give a flying F-16 about the troops.
But who will protect Israel?...
Israel, as all nations (including Iran, by the way) has a right to defend itself. Anyone attacks Israel, they have their own nukes including their infamous Samson Option which would mean even if Israel got nuked (not as frikkin likely as some people seem to think) they would annihilate whoever did it. Let MAD work like it did in the Cold War.
And by the way, it's a little rich that Israel complains Iran might have secret nukes, when they actually do have secret nukes and are still holding that guy who was a whistleblower on the secret Israeli nuclear project. But they're not Muslim, so one rule for 'them' and another rule for 'us' ("Judeo Christians", as the neocons view it) right?
But let's suppose you're really racist or whatever and you think all Muslims must die. (Strange considering how much you same people were all in love with the CIA backed Green Revolution, huh?) Now, there are other minority groups in Iran too. Much is made of Iranian Jews, for example. Sanctions against Iran hurt them too. What about the family of Neda, the 'green martyr'? They are affected also. How many of the anti-Ahmadinejad protestors turn against the US because of the impact of the sanction on their life? How many turn around and back Ahmadinejad, because it looks like he's the only one who will oppose US intervention in Iran?
The only sound foreign policy is a leave-alone policy. Nation building is a joke, as Afghanistan and Iraq have showed. Sanctions on Iran harm the very people who could help, and I don't like to use the Newspeak term, 'reform' that nation.
Friday, 12 February 2010
(One example of a subversive 9/11 troof picture. Actually, it shows how little the troofers know - the joke is a 'good one', because jet fuel didn't do 9/11, Islamic Terrorists did.)
Back in the last century, it was simpler. We could just declare a war and people would turn up to fight when told to. However, since Vietnam, hippies have tried to subvert the culture of patriotism that keeps us fighting the good fight. The fight against Commies, Liberals, Foreigners and Independent Rogue Nations. It almost makes me weep to think of the flag, think how free we are because of all the wars we fight. If we were whiny pacifists we would be enslaved by Commies.
Now there are some people who say that war is the health of the State. But let me tell you that I have it on good authority these people are the same Commies, Hippies and Whiny Liberals who have been working to weaken our proud military and stab our troops in the back for decades. Now I know that some veterans are anti-war too, but that just shows how prevalent the Commie anti-troop propaganda is. We need to inform them that what they did was right, and that their comrades did not die in vain. They died so that we could be free. If they had not died, in fact, we would not be free at all. You could say that the more troops die, the freer we get.
So the latest far-left dangerous fad on the Internet is 9/11 truth. This sickening, unpatriotic movement blames America for 9/11. I tell you, when I look up at a flag and pledge myself to it, I do not think of a nation ruled by people who could do such things. I look up and see patriotic leaders (except the Liberal pussies) who work hard to defend the nation from all subversives. It is not possible that 9/11 could have been an inside job; what's more, it distracts from the real threat which are the Afghan cave dwellers. They are the primary threat to freedom, and must be eradicated or converted to Christianity so that they appreciate freedom as much as we do.
Communist propaganda says that Joseph McCarthy was an agent of tyranny; that his purge of suspected Communists was detrimental to liberty. I say, when it comes to eradicating threats to our security, the ends justify the means.
So who's up for having an Inquisition into who may have ties to the Terrorist 9/11 Truth movement? You'll need lie detectors, pitchforks, lots of water, and a flag (if you're not using it to waterboard someone, you can always wrap yourself in it).
Your country's future depends on it.
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
Apparently "they will also consider if the e-mail exchanges between researchers show an attempt to manipulate or suppress data "at odds" with scientific practice." Wouldn't want to forget that slight concern now, would we...
This is every bit as much a cover up as the ludicrous Iraq "inquiry" with Bliar sat there defending his part in the treasonous invasion of Iraq. Over a hundred of his fellow countrymen, by the way, were not able to attend because they died during the five or so years British troops were present in that far away land, all based on lies. Remember "45 Minutes"?
Cover-ups, it seems, are the norm when government commits crimes.
Others have said it, and it is true - Climategate was the scandal, more than any other, that proved "the conspiracy theorists" were right. Here we have an attempt by governments all over the world, out of their own self interest, essentially faking an environmental crisis in an attempt to gain power over their own citizens and to bring in, by force and fraud, 'global governance'...kind of like how a Bond villian lusts after world domination. I mean, it really is that ridiculous. But it could have happened. It may still happen. Thankfully, most people are now aware that their environmental 'solutions' (primarily a carbon tax system) would in fact not help even if CO2 is a problem. Which I do not believe to be so. Their conspiracy has been exposed, leaving a burning question...
If all of what the government and big media tell us about 'manmade' global warming (that "the science is settled") is false, and for years those derided as crazy lunatics because they held an opposing view were in fact right,
What Else Is The Government Lying About?
Thursday, 11 February 2010
Well, at least they're better than The Sun.
Pro-war fascists vs anti-war fascists, tee hee...
However, contrary to the usual accusation of 'those crazy people on the Internet', the crazy paranoia sold by our government and ruling class, causing fearmongering relating to topics such as terrorism, pandemics, guns, small crime, and certain environmental crises including 'manmade' global warming, is much much worse for a couple of reasons:
1. There is almost always naked self-interest in creating panic. Compare this to anything you read from allegedly fearmongering sources on the web...although there will always be disinformation or incorrect information, broad scams are much harder to pull off due to the decentralised, diverse nature of the Internet media...
2. People look up to establishment media as an authoritative source, and are therefore more likely to fall for what is said (thankfully less so today, since many are becoming aware that these people sometimes lie blatantly to get what they want)
A good example of mainstream media being openly used to push government-corporate interests is the whole scam over Swine Flu gonna get ya, millions are gonna die, unless you stick this needle in your arm and then you'll be safe. Naked self-interest. UN, WHO and complicit Media push vaccination, people and governments buy vaccines, big drug companies suckle on the profits.
By contrast, the web was awash with speculation and general (not necessarily unhealthy) paranoia about what was in the vaccine, was it possible to use wider needles to inject microchips into people, the ever present threat of using the pandemic as a justification for martial law, what happens if vaccination is forced, was the vaccine a bioweapon (well all vaccines are bioweapons, but you know what I mean), was the pandemic going to lead to WHO/UN intervention in the affairs of individual nations, etc.
I do not understand the people who are repulsed by 'all that paranoia' on the Internet. People are not perfect. You've got to understand that when you have been spoonfed cosy sleepwalking state propaganda for years, having to switch on your critical brain again is not an easy task. There are always mistakes. MSM mistakes and omissions are doublethink'd away and to their zombified viewers never existed, while mistakes made by web warriors are fully visible, on record for all to see (though, thankfully, the web is also a fine record of MSM mistakes, omissions, and lies).
Also, there is a very positive reason why one should always start with the worst when it comes to things their government may be doing.
- Historical precedent. Did you know government is the leading cause of unnatural death? That governments killed around 200 million of their own people in the 20th century? (there are varying estimates but 200m is good enough for me) High crimes committed by authority are still routine...just not as overt or bloody as they used to be.
- Preventative measure. If the worst is discussed, and the wider public becomes somewhat aware of the potential issue, then that helps prevent the worst from happening.
Anyway, this was inspired by two articles that hopefully you will see fit together with this opinion piece:
Tuesday, 9 February 2010
Sunday, 7 February 2010
Now I interpret that graph differently than the BBC do. They have another graph showing 75% of people believe climate change is happening. Well, duh! The climate does change. Few will argue that. However if you combine the last three categories, you find that 74% of people do not think it is established that man is largely causing climate change. On a BBC poll! That is the key number, to me at least.
(You know public opinion is shifting when the media has to - reluctantly - acknowledge it...)
Saturday, 6 February 2010
1. Of, relating to, or dealing with supernatural influences, agencies, or phenomena.
2. Beyond the realm of human comprehension; inscrutable.
3. Available only to the initiate; secret: occult lore.
4. Hidden from view; concealed.
2001 MSM report on Skull and Bones:
As for the first comment on there, I can only refer to:
Israel's foreign ministry organises volunteers to flood sites with pro-Israel comments
Friday, 5 February 2010
Conflict of interest? Green poverty pimping?
OK, so to be fair to Mr Yeo, he's not all bad. He's against the child kidnapping racket.
This is often invoked by pro-war people to imply that peace constitutes a surrender to socialism. (odd, since I don't think there's anything more socialist than the military...state run, funded by theft, tells its minions they have no rights, tells them to just follow orders and become part of the 'hive mind'...)
I see the quote as being a fallacy not unlike the same claims of neocon fascists:
peace is the absence of opposition to Merika.
peace is the final victory of Judeo-Christian Oceania over those Islamic Eurasian vermin.
(when will that be, dear leader?)
well, it's going to take a long time of your continued unquestioning support for me...
Marx says socialism will herald peace, and that nothing else will.
Quite to the contrary, what happened when socialism came to Russia? Mass butchery. Germany? Uber butchery. (and don't even try that 'Nazis weren't socialists' rubbish, yes they were.) Nazis and Soviets engaged in a border dispute that resulted in the biggest mass battlefield butchery the world has ever witnessed. Even Che was a meat cleaving son of a, but he is cool so his crimes are forgotten and people buy his capitalist T-shirts.
No, Marx's peace was the tyrant's peace. Not what you or I would understand the term 'peace' surely to mean. He meant the peace a police officer gets when a suspect is handcuffed on the floor with a knee in their back. Not peace per se, rather a lack of resistance to 'authority'. Peace without freedom is no peace worth having.
But is that not what most people mean by 'peace'? Are we not all guilty of the same logical fallacy, just on smaller scales than Karl was? Perhaps by saying that we want a government that steals from us in order to safeguard our rights (how Orwellian), we are all making the same error. Many authoritarians, typically right-wingers, would say that order (they hate that damn hippy word 'peace', so probably would replace it with 'order') can only be upheld by a mighty force ready to stomp on anyone at any time. That in order to make peace, a climate of fear must be created...but does that not undo any prospect of real peace in the first place?
For all their supposed opposition to one another, the authoritarian police state lovin' right-wingers and Marx have a lot in common. Collectivists, what you gonna do.
Hate the anarchists if you want, but hate is all you can do, not debate - their logic is sound and the logic defending the state is not. IMHO
Thursday, 4 February 2010
the Soros agenda:
• promoting the view that America is institutionally an oppressive nation
Overall good, with the caveat that other nations are generally more oppressive
•promoting the election of leftist political candidates throughout the United States
•opposing virtually all post-9/11 national security measures enacted by U.S. government, particularly the Patriot Act
•depicting American military actions as unjust, unwarranted, and immoral
Good (it's time someone did)
•promoting open borders, mass immigration, and a watering down of current immigration laws
Promoting freedom of movement OK, promoting mass immigration bad
•promoting a dramatic expansion of social welfare programs funded by ever-escalating taxes
•promoting social welfare benefits and amnesty for illegal aliens
•defending the civil rights and liberties of suspected anti-American terrorists and their abettors
•financing the recruitment and training of future activist leaders of the political Left
None of my damn business
•advocating America’s unilateral disarmament and/or a steep reduction in its military spending
Disarmament bad, cutting spending good
•opposing the death penalty in all circumstances
I lean good on this one
•promoting socialized medicine in the United States
Bad bad bad
•promoting the tenets of radical environmentalism, whose ultimate goal, as writer Michael Berliner has explained, is ’not clean air and clean water, [but] rather … the demolition of technological/industrial civilization”
•bringing American foreign policy under the control of the United Nations
•promoting racial and ethnic preferences in academia and the business world alike
•promoting taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand
•advocating stricter gun-control measures
Off the scale, crimes-against-humanity bad
•advocating the legalization of marijuana
Good (shame he chickens out on legalising heroin and crack, in my opinion)
I would like to add a few:
- Telling the left they can simultaneously oppose one military atrocity in Iraq, yet defend another identical occupation in Afghanistan
- Promoting pro-Israel, pro-ethnic cleansing views amongst the left wing
- Profiting from others' misfortune to the extent that you can proclaim you are 'having a great crisis' (which you clearly were involved in creating since you saw it coming)
That will do. Did I mention Soros was a Nazi collaborator who pretended to be a Christian during the Holocaust, but at the same time had no problem with serving his more pure masters? Then he was whisked off to Britain, the real global Nazi HQ, straight after the war to be trained as I guess a replacement for Goebbels. A Jewish Nazi. Interesting.
Michael Mann as innocent as OJ – possibly more so – finds internal Penn State investigation
Penn State University has completed its internal investigation into potential wrongdoing by its star professor Michael Mann, creator of the most discredited graph in scientific history – the incredible, completely made-up Hockey Stick.
And guess what? Turns out the guy hasn’t done anything wrong at all.
Well, probably. There’s one area, the University has decided, which merits closer investigation:
“Decision 4. Given that information emerged in the form of the emails purloined from CRU in November 2009, which have raised questions in the public’s mind about Dr. Mann’s conduct of his research activity, given that this may be undermining confidence in his findings as a scientist, and given that it may be undermining public trust in science in general and climate science specifically, the inquiry committee believes an investigatory committee of faculty peers from diverse fields should be constituted under RA-10 to further consider this allegation.”
And what do you reckon their eventual conclusion is going to be? As robust as SUNY Albany’s response to Doug Keenan’s allegations of wrongdoing by Professor Wei-Chyung Wang, perhaps? Or as forthright as the Information Commissioner’s response to lawbreaking at the Climatic Research Institute?
I know in the past I’ve been optimistic about the possibility of prosecutions arising from the myriad cases of alleged fraud exposed by Climategate. Instead, what we’re seeing both at scientific institutions and in government is a closing of ranks, and a fierce determination that regardless of evidence or reason the AGW gravy train must roll on at all costs and that no guilt should be admitted by any of the offending parties.
"Just as 9/11 caused voters to forget George W. Bush’s meandering early months, a strike on Iranian facilities would dispatch Obama’s feckless first year down the memory hole and transform the domestic political scene...
"It would sideline health care, prompt Republicans to work with Democrats, make netroots squeal, independents reconsider, and conservatives swoon."
The bloodlust is strong in this one!
In the event of any irrational, stupid war with Iran, Pipes can saddle up first. Put his kids in the firing line. But he wouldn't do that...some are more equal than others, eh?
As for any of you soulless bastards who would honestly 'swoon' at such an action, you make me sick. It's people like you that get decent men and women killed. Flag wavin' morons.
By the way, don't rule out the possibility of staged terrorist attacks on a scale greater than 9/11, if it really looks like Obama won't hold down the people for four years so the tyrannical baton can be passed to someone else. I'm just saying, be aware of the possibility. Don't jump to conclusions if it does happen. Ask, 'who benefits'?
Wednesday, 3 February 2010
Best comment from a YouTuber:
This isn't a debate... No one can debate Monckton. The guy is an encyclopedia. Posner is a... global warming pamphlet.
Tuesday, 2 February 2010
Biased BBC: Fingers In Pies...
Guess what? The man responsible for looking after the fat pensions of the boys and girls at the BBC is a climate change fanatic, and he is part of an international group of investment managers who bust a gut to invest in 'climate change' schemes. He's called Peter Dunscombe, and he runs the £8.2bn corporation pension fund, advising trustees on a day-to-day basis about their investments. Mr Dunscombe, who addresses conferences about 'ethical investments', is also chairman of the Institutional Investment Group on Climate Change(IIGCC), which has 47 members and manages four trillion euros' worth of investments; yes, four trillion. Their goal is to find as many 'climate change' investment opportunities as possible:
The IIGCC Investor Statement on Climate change was launched in October 2006. Asset owners and asset managers who signed the Statement committed to increasing their focus on climate change in their own processes and in their engagement with companies and governments.
So now we really know why BBC staffers are so fanatical about 'climate change'. It's naked self-interest. In 2008, there were 18,736 contributors to the BBC pension fund; every man jack of them benefits from climate alarmism.
(h/t anonymous eagle-eyed B-BBC contributor)
Update: I've been going through the latest BBC Pensions Trust report, and it reveals that Helen Boaden, who is the overall boss of the BBC's news and current affairs operation, was appointed to the trust in 2008. So the woman who tells environment reporters such as Roger Harrabin and Richard Black that the science is settled also works to maximise the returns of the pension fund with Peter Dunscombe. I thought that needed spelling out fully, just in case any subtleties might be missed.
- "Karl Rove, You Are A Bad Man Sir"
- What Was COP15 Really Like?
- Heresy! - Christian Gnostics
- David Icke and Alex Jones, Over Time
- The Untold History of Jewish Opposition to Zionism...
- Chemtrails: A Mystery
- Dr. Evil Wasn't Counting on Fiat Monetary Inflatio...
- Lamebook - Rebellion of the Stupid
- Another Interesting 'Fnord'
- David Icke, the Lizards and the Jews
- Cheers, Globalist Gordon
- How to Eradicate a Disease - Change Its Name
- Nigel Farage: Who is Herman van Rompuy?
- British Soldiers: 17000 AWOL cases since 2003
- So Ridiculous I Had To Post It
- Toyota vs Big Pharma
- Who Got The Tea Parties Started?
- More Doctors Prefer the AK-Vaccine-47 Rifle by Mer...
- One Thousand Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Tru...
- An excercise in doublethink: Global Weirding
- Ron Paul vs Fascist Ex-Bushies
- Megadeth: 44 Minutes (North Hollywood Shootout)
- Epic Beard Man: a folk hero
- Daily Mail: Mass Immigration is a Multiculturalist...
- Global Warming will cause...er...something
- How Did These Terrorists Get British Passports?
- "Pro Defence Libertarian"
- Iran Sanctions, just like Iraq, right?
- Why We Should Witch Hunt 9/11 Truthers
- The UK's So-Called Climategate "Inquiry"
- Local BNP Activism
- No, it's the Conspiracy Theorists who peddle the p...
- David Icke on Bohemian Grove
- BBC Poll: Climate Scepticism Rising
- Mark Dice on the Roots of the Illuminati
- "Israel Please, No More Bin Laden Tapes, Nobody Is...
- How dare you expose my corruption on TV! - Tim Yeo...
- What did Marx really mean by Peace? What do we all...
- Propaganda: Mixing of the Good and the Bad
- Michael Mann as innocent as OJ
- Obama can save Presidency...by Bombing Iran!
- Lord Monckton debates Climate Change on Aussie rad...
- The BBC's Huge Financial Stake In Climate Change A...
- ▼ Feb 2010 (43)
- ► 2009 (555)
And You Tell Me There's No Suppressed Technology?
It's another of those 'conspiracy theories' that good citizens don't notice. Imagine the standard of living if all the secret technology was released to the public...we'd be "free and independent" as JFK said! No more poverty anywhere! Can you imagine being sick enough to withhold such technology from society just to maintain your position of control? (Bearing in mind that we don't know just how much technological capability is being withheld, because, duh, it's secret.) What did Nikola Tesla really develop?
Individual Liberty? But that's "selfish"!
No, we need to look after each other voluntarily without having a government do all that at gunpoint. Sounds absurd at first but soon you realise that the reason it sounds so is because of the very unfree nature of our current existence. Envision greater possibilities! Ok, some kind of massive wake-up would be needed before this kind of free, responsible, uncontrollable society could emerge. And that's what we are seeing day by day in the world - a massive waking up of the previously enslaved masses (including myself I must add!)