Anaxagoras and Other Bits of Cut and Paste

The Mole had been working very hard all the morning, spring-cleaning his little home. First with brooms, then with dusters; then on ladders and steps and chairs, with a brush and a pail of whitewash; till he had dust in his throat and eyes, and splashes of whitewash all over his black fur, and an aching back and weary arms.

Spring was moving in the air above and in the earth below and around him, penetrating even his dark and lowly little house with its spirit of divine discontent and longing. It was small wonder, then, that he suddenly flung down his brush on the floor, said 'Bother!' and 'O blow!' and also 'Hang spring-cleaning!' and bolted out of the house without even waiting to put on his coat.

Something up above was calling him imperiously, and he made for the steep little tunnel which answered in his case to the gravelled carriage-drive owned by animals whose residences are nearer to the sun and air. So he scraped and scratched and scrabbled and scrooged and then he scrooged again and scrabbled and scratched and scraped, working busily with his little paws and muttering to himself, 'Up we go! Up we go!' till at last, pop! his snout came out into the sunlight, and he found himself rolling in the warm grass of a great meadow.

The Wind in the Willows, Kenneth Graham

The weather forecast for CanSpeccy's patch of the sub-boreal zone is for another six days of sunshine, which means 'Bother!' and 'O blow!' and also 'Hang blogging!' Instead we will continue to plagiarize our-self, with some swift bits of cut and paste.

Anaxagoras
(ca. 500 BC–428) b. Clazomenae, Ionia (Modern Turkey)

Iconoclastic speculation
The moon is not a god but a great rock and the sun a hot rock. It is the sun that puts brightness into the moon.*

John Burnet, Early Greek Philosophy, 3rd edn., A & C Black, London, 1920.

* As a native of Ionia, Anaxagoras was heir to the Milesian school of philosophy founded by Thales. He migrated to Athens, where he became a friend and teacher of Pericles. He sought to explain meteorological and celestial phenomena. He believed that celestial bodies are made of soil and rocks just like the earth, an idea that may have been prompted by the fall of a large rocky meteorite at Aigos Patamos on the Hellespont in the year 468–457 BC. He believed the sun to be a fiery mass larger than the Peloponnese, Greece's southern peninsular. The Peloponnese has an area of 21,549.6 square kilometers, whereas the sun is about 70 million times larger — even larger, perhaps, than Anaxagoras imagined.

The Athenians were intolerant of such speculation and condemned Anaxagoras to death for impiety. He managed, however, to escape Athens, probably with the aid of Pericles. Socrates, who acknowledged the influence of Anaxagoras on his own teaching, was also convicted by the Athenians of impiety, but unlike Anaxagoras, did not escape the ultimate penalty.

Source: A Short Dictionary of Scientific Quotations

Of Men, Apes and Civilization

Alfred Burdett, April 20, 2012: The close DNA sequence similarity between men and apes has led some to suppose that a man is no more than a wimpy chimp with a slightly swollen head. Further, it has been suggested, since the difference between men and apes is so trivial, there must be creatures somewhere in the limitless expanse of the universe at least as superior in intellect to us as were are to chimps. So, according to this line of thinking, despite the modest enlargement of the human fore-brain, we have little to be swelled-headed about. But this view reflects a misunderstanding of the difference between men and apes and the significance of that difference.

Both men and apes are mammals, which means that they are built to the same plan. They have liver and lights, stomach and spleen, four limbs, a head and a tail. At the cellular level the similarity of design is even closer: the same membranes, organelles, nucleic acids and enzymes. So inevitably men and apes share much the same DNA sequence, as they do with horses and hamsters, and even with reptiles and fishes, fungi and forest trees.

There is a underlying biochemical unity to the life of this Earth. But that does not make the fangs of a tiger and the molars of a camel functionally equivalent. Small changes in the proportions and slight differences in the elaboration of a basic design can result in fundamental differences in function.

Likewise with the brains of man and chimp. In the lobes and their connections the two are largely similar. But the human brain has approximately twice the mass of the brain of a chimp, and there is a many-fold difference between the two in the size of particular features. The human brain is thus adapted to functions unknown to the mind of a chimp.

And it is possible for very slight genetic changes to result in qualitatively transformational changes in function. For example, a single-gene mutation that results in one additional round of cell division in a portion of the embryonic brain would double the final volume of this or that portion of the brain.

Why, then, it might be said, if the only thing distinguishing a man from an ape is a small collection of single gene mutations, the difference between us is trivial indeed. But that is to misunderstand the evolutionary step that man has made and which no other ape can ever make.

To evolve a larger brain, an organism must have a use for a larger brain. The brain is an energy intensive organ, requiring a continuous infusion of glucose and oxygen. A chimp with a brain like that of a human would be at a severe disadvantage. It would want to sit around and think but it would need to work harder than every other chimp to obtain the food necessary to keep its costly brain alive. The only way such a chimp could survive would be to invent language, create a civilization and its associated technologies thereby raising the chimp living standard while lowering the hours of hard physical work necessary to physical survival. That is what mankind achieved. And that is what no other species on Earth can achieve while mankind exists because mankind has preempted the resources of the entire planet.

As to the claim that an extraterrestrial intelligence would likely consider the mind of man as feeble a thing as we humans are inclined to consider the mind of a chimp, the answer should be, “give us time.” It took humans about one hundred thousand years to exchange the lifestyle of an ape for that of a yuppie. But most of that transformation occurred, with exponential acceleration, in the last ten thousand years.

Humanity is now at a critical point in its existence. We have a technology, the Internet, that puts the entire accumulated knowledge of the species at the fingertips of every one of seven billion humans at practically zero cost. The result is an ongoing explosion in technological innovation that will likely either destroy us within a matter of decades or grant us the power of gods. Not only do we have the ability to educate every receptive mind to a point far beyond the reach of Aristotle or Newton, but to build intelligent machines that can outperform the human intellect by orders of magnitude.

This is precisely the transformation that any intelligent civilization created by organically evolved creatures anywhere in the universe must have undergone. It is the transformation from advancement through haphazard accumulation of mutations and genetic rearrangements that yield short-term survival advantage, to the engineered improvement of the human organism and its enveloping civilization.

And once evolution is intelligently planned, it likely follows the same course anywhere in the universe. We are about to become a species of the gods, provided we avoid destroying ourselves before we figure out how to manage technology for our own good.

Killing Moss, Homer as Harry Potter for Adults, and F.W. Maitland, The Free Society and the New World Order

I have posted nothing during the last week, which suggests the possibility of spontaneous remission of the blogging obsession.

In the meantime, I have been usefully engaged in such things as killing moss. With a bottle of ferrous sulfate solution that comes with a siphon and spray nozzle attached, I just connected to the hose and sprayed. Within a an hour, the moss had turned black, evidence of death of moribundity, I assume, while the grass acquired that attractive blue-green color of newly laid turf, or sod as we call it hereabouts. An amazing product: sixteen dollars plus applicable taxes for one liter of mostly water. But it works.

Also I finally got around to reading the complete works of Homer — the prose translation by Samuel Butler. I'd never thought much of Butler, a morose and self-centered character chiefly famous as the author of a novel called Nowhere (spelled backwards). But with Homer, he did a great job. It's Harry Potter for adults: sex, war, barbequed prime rib, wine, and magic.

There's nothing crudely Hollywood about the sex. It's left to the imagination, but the delights of comely maidens and other mens' wives stolen in battle is the main thing. Plus there's always the chance of getting laid with a goddess.

The war stuff is fun. Much boasting about high-tech bronze-tipped spears, shields made with seven layers of ox hide, and chariots with oaken axles and gold-plated wheels, although sometimes they were reduced to hurling sharp rocks. There's lots of uncoordinated dashing about, everyone doing their own thing according as how they felt at the particular moment.

Chariots were as much a means to exit the scene of battle as a conveyance to the front: spear a couple then high-tail it back to town for a visit with wifey and the babe-in-arms, to perform hecatombs to the gods, enjoy a feast and the boon of sleep then, at the crack of rosy fingered dawn child of the morning, back to nailing Acheans, Trojans, whoever.

F.W. Maitland of Trinity College
Cambridge (1850–1906). Image source.

 

 

 

Even more fascinating though, has been reading Alan MacFarlane's short work, F.W. Maitland and the Making of the Modern World, which was kindly drawn to my attention by a learned friend (available in PDF here). Here is explained how, via the British Empire and the United States, English law of the Thirteenth Century gave rise to the modern world, the open society and individual liberty.

From Maitland's remarkable insights into the processes of social transformation, one sees how today, the post-modern neo-totalitarians, the social democrats, the neo-liberals, the Blair's and Bush's, the Cameron's and Obama's, are taking power back from the civil society and restoring it to the center, the state, the security services, international criminal networks and the globalist entities.

Whereas, during the emergence of a free society, independent associations created churches, schools, universities, sports associations, stock markets, insurance markets, scientific and philosophical societies, charitable institutions of all kinds and business enterprises, today the trend is all the other way. Independent schools, the English grammar schools for example, are undermined or fully absorbed by the state, home schooling is seen as a form of dissidence, members of religious groups are ridiculed, blasphemy is unpunished promoted, universities have become adjuncts of the state, unprecedentedly high taxation starves private charitable organizations and constricts the range and effectiveness of their actions, the "free press" is anything but, the narcotics trade is an intelligence services profit center, US prisons have become a gulag, and the US Homeland Security has become an agency for the intimidation and sexual humiliation of the populace.

That is the New World Order. It signals the end of the free society. Opposition cannot come through electoral processes that place in power the puppets of the globalist conspiracy. The only means of push back is through the re-invigoration of civil society and the recreation of powerful independent citizen associations to take back schooling from the bureaucrats, to take back hospitals and charitable works from the state, to restore the dignity of churches, to recapitalize independent scientific and research bodies, and to create political associations free of deep state penetration. The chances of success are slight, but Maitland indicated the only way in which success could be achieved.

Those BBC Bastards Pissed On My Church

The BBC, is a haven not only for terrorists, child molesters and rapists, but is also big on blasphemy, in which connection, Archbishop Cranmer draws our attention to a recent and contemptible assault by Britain's state broadcaster on England's national church. In a televised skit, the new Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, is mocked as an unbelieving trendy fool who tells us, among other things, that prayer doesn't work and that Jesus prefers the word "shag" to "fuck."

Typically, the cowardly scoundrels and liars at the BBC, facing widespread condemnation, promptly deleted the video from their own Web site and have had it taken down at U-Tube. But the damage will have been done. Millions saw the insult to the established church and the ridicule directed at both believers and Christ, but few indeed will be aware of the gutless way in which the BBC concealed the evidence of its vile action as soon as signs of a backlash were detected.

Henry VIII. You say those BBC bastards
pissed on my Church?

As Archbishop Cranmer well knows, his old boss, King Henry VIII, who founded the Catholic Church of England, would have known what to do with those responsible for this outrage: the BBC Director General, Tony Hall—the third Director General in about as many weeks, as one scandal overtakes another—the program producers, and the actor Rowan Atkinson. Old Harry would have had their guts for garters or, to be more specific, he'd have had them hanged, drawn, and quartered. One can only think it is a pity old Henry Eight is not still around to wield some stick.

But, in fact, the scum at the BBC would be better hanged for treason than blasphemy, for their attack on the Anglican Church is primarily an attack not on religion, but on one of the institutions of the English nation, undertaken as part of the genocidal assault on the nation state by a puppet government of the New World Order. Henry VIII would no doubt have agreed. He was into building a nation, not tearing one down.

Let's hope all Anglicans will take a stand against blasphemy and refuse to pay the BBC license fee.

See also:

Cameron accused of betraying Christians: Astonishing Easter attack on the PM by former Archbishop of Canterbury

Archbishop of Canterbury: I Am Not a Spy

Creating Financial Chaos: For the Want of a Lousy Six Billion Euros

For the want of a lousy Six billion Euros to fund the Cypriot Bank bailout, the Troika, which is to say the EU Council, The European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund, have created a potentially catastrophic crisis of confidence in the global banking system.

Instead of laying out the trivial sum of another ten Euros per citizen of the Eurozone, the Troika have decreed that, in flagrant denial of a government deposit guarantee, Cypriot bank depositors must lose at least 6% percent and up to 15% of their money to stabilize the institutions in whose hands they have placed their savings.

Now lets think about this. The Cypriot banks are supposed to be regulated by the governments of Cyprus and the EU. So if those banks are run by crooks or incompetent fools, whose fault is it? Obviously, it is the fault of those governments that have failed in their regulatory duty  and, as a failure of government, the cost of that fault should be borne collectively, i.e., by government, not haphazardly, by individuals according as whether or not they have saved their money.

Citizens of a modern state have no option but to deposit their savings in a bank. It may not be illegal to save cash under the mattress, but to be in possession of large quantities of cash is treated by government as a prime indicator of possible criminal or terrorist intent, for which reason banks are required to report to government all large cash transactions, either deposits or withdrawals.

And it is government that has declared gold, silver and copper, the age old measures of value, to be no longer legal tender.

The provision of a trustworthy monetary system is thus a fundamental responsibility of government, and dishonesty or incompetence in the management of money is a deadly destroyer of government legitimacy. If you doubt that, think of Zimbabwe or Weimar Germany.

What then must Western governments do to restore credibility in their management of money?

 A solution is not technically difficult, but it is all but impossible politically because it means sharply curbing the money power, which funds all  so-called democratic, elections in the West.

But here's the solution.

Every central bank will offer a retail savings bank service. This would be strictly online. Your account with the Bank of England, the Fed, the EU Central Bank or whatever, would be where your pay check would be deposited. There your money would be absolutely secure. The bank can never run out of funds to pay you back because it has the legal right to print money in any amount.

To access your central bank account, you'd have a cash or credit card, or where checks are still used, a check book.

Central bank accounts might pay nominal interest, just as the US Fed pays interest on surplus reserves deposited with it by the commercial banks.

Where Would You Go For a Loan?

The business of lending would remain with the commercial banks. But instead of lending money deposited by savers, they would lend funds borrowed from the Central Bank.

This would bring an end of fractional reserve banking, whereby banks lend so many times the cash in reserve, an entirely mythical system under which banks, in fact, lend as much as they like, conjuring the money out of thin air, the amount limited only by the banks' judgement of what loans it is safe to make, i.e., which borrowers can be relied upon to repay the debt.

And they don't have to worry about the ability of the borrower to repay where governments have been so irresponsible as to guarantee stupendous quantities of private debt, as for example, the trillions in mortgage debt guaranteed by the GSEs in the US, and the hundreds of billions guaranteed by Canada's CMHC.

Real Control of the Money Supply at Last

The amount loaned by the central banks to the commercial banks would be based not only on a judgement of how much it was safe to lend any particular bank, but also a judgement of the needs of the economy, i.e., the optimum quantity of money.


To determine the creditworthyness of the commercial banks, the central bank would have the power to audit banks, to determine the responsibility of their lending practises.

The overall amount of central bank lending to the commercial banks would be regulated through control of the lending rate. The rate would be such as to permit lending for productive investment, while preventing lending for mainly speculative investments that lead to the creation of a bubble or Ponzi economy.

Thus the central bank would have absolute control of money supply. Moreover, it would have the means, presently lacking, to "push on a piece of string." If the economy were in recession, interest rates would be lowered to encourage borrowing and thus stimulate spending and aggregate demand. If zero interest rates on loans to the commercial banks failed to stimulate sufficient demand, the central bank could apply a negative interest rate. For every dollar borrowed, the commercial banks would receive so many cents from the central bank, thus allowing further scope for downward adjustment in retail loan rates.

The same negative interest rate would, necessarily, be applied to commercial bank reserves to prevent hoarding of money bearing negative interest. Negative interest rates would, however, never apply to individual cash deposits, since that would destroy public confidence in the monetary system.

Elimination of Theft, Fraud, Bribery and Illicit Drugs

How would central banks prevent commercial banks from lending money they don't have, the practice in which they engage today?

Easily. All money would be created by the central bank, which would give each unit of currency a digital identifier, making each unit traceable at every instant, since all money at all times would consist solely in a number or a set of numbers in a data bank stored on a highly redundant and nuclear blast-proof computer system.

For example, a commercial bank borrows cash from the central bank to finance its loan program, each dollar borrowed having its own identity number. When you borrow from the commercial bank to buy a car the money can be tracked as it moves from the central bank to the commercial bank's central bank account, through your central bank account, to the central bank account of the car dealer.

In fact, every dollar in any account can be traced from the moment of its creation. Thus if politician X receives funds via lobbyist Y who works for company Z, the money can be traced and the police can make any relevant inquiries. If millions are going to the account of a Mexican citizen without no apparent legitimate means of support, via a bunch of ne'er-do-wells in Los Angeles or Toronto, the narcotics police can easily spot the trail. And if a hacker were to remove every cent from your bank account, the missing funds could instantly be located and returned to you.

This, of course, is no fun at all, since it would rob the financial "services" sector of the freedom to print their own money and generally mug the populace while buying the silence of the politicians.

Still, the perfectibility of society is something worth considering once in a while, if only as an meaningless diversion.

Postscript
In the event, the final settlement of the Cyprus banking crisis:

spares bank accounts below the insured limit of 100,000 euros. It imposes losses that two EU officials said would be no more than 40 percent on uninsured depositors at Bank of Cyprus Plc, the largest bank, which will take over the viable assets of Cyprus Popular Bank Pcl (CPB), the second biggest.

Cyprus Popular Bank, 84 percent owned by the government, will be wound down. Those who will be largely wiped out include uninsured depositors and bondholders, including senior creditors. Senior bondholders will also contribute to the recapitalization of Bank of Cyprus.(Source)

Some large depositors escaped the crash thanks to a tip-off by the President of Cyprus Nikos Anastasiades:

Cypriot president Nikos Anastasiades 'warned' close friends of the financial crisis about to engulf his country so they could move their money abroad, it was claimed on Friday.

The respected Cypriot newspaper Filelftheros made the allegation which was picked up eagerly by German media.

Italian media said the 4.5 billion euros left the island in the week before the crisis. (Source)

 See also:
Canspeccy: The Numero: Beyond Gold and Fractional Reserve Banking

Self-Determination and Self-Defense in Cherán, Michoacán

From El Enemigo Comun - by Simòn Sedillo

Anarchist News, January 8, 2013: On December 11, 2012, the US Justice Department announced that banking giant HSBC was immune from prosecution despite overwhelming evidence that they consistently failed to implement controls against money-laundering. Assistant attorney general Lanny Breuer said: “Had the US authorities decided to press criminal charges, HSBC would almost certainly have lost its banking license in the US, the future of the institution would have been under threat and the entire banking system would have been destabilized.”

The entire banking system would have been destabilized?



The Department of Justice opted rather to charge HSBC a record-breaking 1.9 billion dollar fine, and ordered the bank’s activities monitored for five years. The 1.9 billion is equivalent to five weeks’ worth of HSBC earnings, in other words, a drop in the bucket. The saddest part of the story in the mainstream media, is the focus on money laundered and money fined, as opposed to lives lost and crime legitimized in one of the most grotesque admissions of complicity with organized crime in the so-called war on drugs. Basically what was announced to the world by the US Justice Department was that the money ran too thick, and the criminals were too powerful. The global economic impact of prosecuting a bank where the dirty money has been going, was too dangerous to risk. “Sorry kids, but we guess the bad guys win.”

In Cheran, Michoacan, Mexico the news of HSBC’s immunity from criminal prosecution and US sanctions comes as no surprise. Organized crime has been prevalent in the community since 2000. After a 2008 mayoral race that left a PRI (Institutional Revolutionary Party) candidate in office, illicit activity increased substantially. The community learned that organized crime is an integral part of local politics and economics everywhere. Cheran is a beautiful small indigenous Purepecha mountain community surrounded by precious forests, that knows the true cost of those profits laundered. Immediately after the 2008 mayoral race the community began experiencing the devastating effects of dog eat dog capitalism of which organized crime is only another part.

The illegal logging industry began to ravage the community’s most precious forests, which have been traditionally respected as a spiritual connection by the Indigenous Purepecha people to their territory. The logging began to look a lot more like pillaging and when community members began to attempt to defend their forests, they were met with a real life nightmare: the loggers were not only aided and protected by government agencies and local police, the entire logging operation was being coordinated by members of a major organized crime syndicate. [To this day I am told by community members not to name the actual syndicate in anything I write or say, or risk an almost certain death.]

The first community members who began to defend their forest were simply and quickly assassinated. From 2008-2011 the situation only became worse. Criminals charged protection to run even a small business in the community of Cheran. The forest was raped and terror reigned as anyone felt at risk. The city would become a ghost town by sunset. This is a reality confronted by too many communities in Mexico every day.

Murders, disappearances, kidnappings, the criminal amounts of illegal logging and the reign of terror came to a head on the early morning of April 15th, 2011. A group of women had begun quietly organizing in the days before an action to bring the ravaging of their town to a halt. On April 15th, with children and youth at their sides, the women rose up and attempted to detain loggers traveling through town. The loggers tried to run the women over and in response the community reacted as a whole, and began burning the loggers’ vehicles and began detaining the loggers themselves.

It is at this point that the community recognized the complicity of the local police when it was police officers who guided organized crime thugs to the place where the loggers were being held, in an attempt to violently release them. The community erected “fogatas” or bonfire barricades throughout town in order to prevent violence against community members. Within days the community decided that it no longer trusted any politicians from any political party or any of the local and state police. They began to organize for self-determination and self-defense and chose to return to their traditional Purepecha forms of self governance.

A general council of community elders was elected and commissions were formed in order to carry out the community’s logistical, social, economic, and political needs. Community members simply say that they referred to their history and referred to their elders in order to return to the way the community was organized before political parties, police, and organized crime existed. The general council is legally recognized as the governing body of Cheran, Michoacan today.

The community has maintained that they only have three demands: safety, justice, and the reforestation of their territory. They have actively been reforesting the entire region and take that aspect of their struggle very seriously, and remind us that for them protecting the forest is both a traditional and a spiritual obligation. Cheran does not believe that anybody will ever be able to bring them justice for their dead, disappeared, and displaced as a result of the conflict, nor do they expect anyone in power to understand the justice they seek for the forest. Today Cheran knows that justice is something that they will have to take care of obtaining on their own from now on. When it comes to safety, the world is able to see what it looks like for a community to take responsibility for its own safety through traditional indigenous forms of self governance and self-defense.

Read more

Archbishop of Canterbury: I Am Not a Spy

Last week, as details of Justin Welby's career in some of the world's most dangerous countries came to light, Lambeth Palace "laughed off" suggestions that the newly appointed Archbishop of Canterbury may have been working for the Secret Intelligence Service.

Oh well then, nothing to worry about concerning the cold war role of the Centre for International Reconciliation at Coventry Cathedral, then headed by Justin Weby, or Welby's dealings with Al Qaeda and his briefings thereon  to the US Government, or those high level dealings with the Nigerian government on behalf of that virginally pure oil co., Elf Aquitaine, the training in map memorization and codes. No, that was all just good clean Christianity.

As a spokesman for Lambeth Palace said today:

The Archbishop does not work for MI6 and never has done. He has never had any association with them.

That's great: sort of like the Pope announcing he believes in God — all concern on the question is immediately put to rest.

But then they might have commented on the Archbishop's possible connections with other intelligence agenices, British or foreign: the CIA, for instance.

Welby's father apparently made his money, some of it anyhow, bootlegging communion wine in the US during the prohibition era. How amusing. But it might be a good idea for the Anglicans to keep an eye on the communion wine — perhaps the silver and other church treasures too.
 
See also: 

The Archbishop and the oil sharks: A 'slick' young Justin Welby, the shady 'Monsieur Africa' and a £6billion mission to snag Nigeria's oil riches.

... a Mail on Sunday investigation has found that far from working on the margins of Elf Aquitaine, Justin Welby was one of its finance ‘sharks’ – and employed on a morally questionable plan to protect the firm’s oil interests in Nigeria in the early Eighties.

Named Bonny LNG, the plan involved persuading the country’s leaders that Elf and other major oil companies were poised to invest £6 billion in an energy project that had scant hope of being realised.

Throughout this period, the French state-owned company – which later became synonymous with corruption and scandal – was allegedly committing human rights abuses against the people of the oil-abundant Niger Delta.

Mr Welby, who made regular visits to the country’s capital for meetings at the time, strenuously denies being aware of the claims – or the true motivation for the Bonny LNG project.

During Mr Welby’s five years at Elf he worked under a number of colourful characters, none more so than the Corsican-born oil executive Andre Tarallo, dubbed Monsieur Africa.

Tarallo, who was in charge of African operations, would later feature in a massive fraud inquiry that tore the company apart in the Nineties. He was jailed for four years in 2003 for paying millions in bribes to African leaders in return for oil contracts.

‘Some of my other colleagues had contact with Tarallo and they were caught with their pants down,’ said Mr Welby’s former boss, Kjell Skjevesland.

‘Justin would have had direct contact with him. Justin would have been in the meetings with him, probably as the only non-French guy in there.’ However, Mr Welby denies meeting Tarallo in person.

When he joined the company in the late Seventies, the Nigerian government was planning to nationalise the country’s oil fields, something Elf, Shell, BP and others were desperate to prevent.

They attempted to talk the government out of it by dangling a giant carrot – a promise to invest £6 billion between them in a project that involved shipping natural gas from Nigeria to Europe.

But Bonny LNG collapsed before it began, just as the ‘investors’ knew it would. ‘Everyone was scrambling for crude at the time and everyone wanted to please the Nigerians,’ said Mr Skjevesland. ‘This project was way, way off and unrealistic.’

He said that the oil companies were simply ‘playing games’ with the Nigerian government to ensure they could ‘still get the crude out’.

Thomas Knutsen was another Elf finance executive who worked with Mr Welby. Asked if the project was designed to trick the Nigerian government into believing it would go ahead, when in all likelihood it would not, Mr Knutsen replied: ‘I think that is a good assumption.’

Asked if Mr Welby was aware of the tactic, Mr Skjevesland replied: ‘Yes, of course he was.’ But the Archbishop insists he ‘believed it to be a genuine project .  .  . and nothing [he] learned about it at the time suggested otherwise’.

After Bonny LNG’s demise, the plan to nationalise the industry was halted, ensuring the oil companies’ Nigerian interests were saved. They enjoyed massive profits, while the majority of Nigerians continued to lead impoverished lives.

Fifth Date Set for Emma West's Trial for Hateful Truth Speech

Emma West, the English woman charged with "racially aggravated harassment" for remarks made while riding a Croydon tram, has received a fifth trial date, of April 9, 2013, sixteen months after her alleged offense and initial incarceration for politically incorrect speech.

The repeated postponements have been at the request of the prosecution, suggesting either uncertainty about how to proceed with a tricky case of truth as hate speech, or the hope that, through demoralization by delay, Emma West could be persuaded to plead guilty — always the desired outcome in a political trial, since it relieves the prosecution of the necessity of devising plausible grounds, or any, grounds for conviction.

the following notes refer to what the Daily Mail claimed to be a transcript (see below) of Emma West's "horrific" remarks, as videoed by another passenger:

Notes:

1. In the Daily Mail transcript, the word fucking has, in a laughable pretense of modesty, been rendered as ****ing. I have not followed this affectation by the Daily Mail, a prime contender for the title of Britain's most prurient newspaper.

2. The Daily Mail omitted from the transcript comments by other passengers to which those of Emma West were, in part, a response.

3. The accuracy of the transcript is open to question. Statements that may have been mis-transcribed or incorrectly attributed to Emma West are in bold face, with corrections or interpolations sourced here in italics.

4. Many of Emma West's remarks are in response to comments by other passengers, which raises the possibility that she would not have spoken at all if not prompted to do so by an unrecorded comment or action of another passenger. Certainly, the statement that "I work" was in response to a black person's racist taunt "If we don't come here you don't want to work... go and work."

The Transcript
 
 What has this country come to? A load of black people and a load of fucking Polish. 

A load of fucking, yeah… you’re all fucking do you know what I mean?

The italicized words are not spoken by Emma West at all, but by a nearby male, and he says: "Still to say our name." Emma was hesitating for the words to describe the immigrants. He meant, 'You have yet to say our name.' He was probably deliberately goading and tempting her to use a racial epithet. It could possibly be: "Y'gonna say our name?" or "Y'wanna say our name?" But it's definitely not Emma speaking, and "say our name" is definitely there.

‘You ain’t English. No, you ain’t English either. You ain’t English. None of you’s fucking English. Get back to your own fucking… do you know what sort out your own countries, don’t come and do mine.

This is incorrect in several instances. It's more like this:

"(---) (what)" So (work/riot) your own countries. Don't come and see mine."

The two paren'd words, the first unclear to me, are at 0:25 in this upload.

There is no way the first two questionable words are "do you know what." It' just two syllables. It sounds, to American ears, like "Jay wot" or "jai what." It could be "Say what." Opinions from those familiar with her accent, are invited. She clearly says "see mine," not "do mine.")

‘It’s nothing now. Britain is nothing now. Britain is fuck all. My Britain is fuck all.

(This is one of the most unfortunate errors that started circulating. Because when you know what she says you know more how she feels, what motivates her, that she has seen the riots and the problems brought by immigration. Emma clearly says:

"Britain is suffering now. Britain's f*** all. My Britain is f*** all now."

You can hear clearly the "s" and "r" of "suffering" in this video, the Emma West "Warlock Tribute". It's at 1:04, enhanced. With a bit of reverb and the right EQ "suffering" is clear.)

‘Yeah its fine. I have got a little kid here. Have respect? I have a little boy here. fuck you. I dare you, I fucking dare you.

‘Don’t watch my language.

('Don't watch my language."

She really says:

"I've watched my language.")

Go back to where you come from, go back to fucking Nicaragua or where ever you come from. Just fucking go back.

‘I work, I work, I work, this is my British country until we let you lot come over.

When the African says (not included in the Daily Mail transcript)

"If we don't come here you don't want to work... go and work"

Emma first responds:

"Eh really? I work! This is my British country."

Her wry "Eh, really" has been left out of the Daily Mail transcript.

Further, she does not say:

"Until they let your lot come over." It's definitely "they let" not "we let." 

No, someone's got to talk up for these lot.

(It's simply:

"No, somebody's got to talk up!"

The "somebody's" goes very fast but that's it. There is no "for these lot.")

Look the whole fucking tram, look at them. Who is black and who is white. 'There is all black and fucking burnt people.'

Many errors there. I have listened to this pandemonium many times. Most became very clear. Lengthy details here.

Emma West's recorded comments were made in part if not in their entirety, in response to comments by others on the tram, it is therefore difficult to see any moral or legal basis for prosecution on a charge of harassment.

The comment of the black lady who said "If we don't come here you don't want to work... go and work" appears to have been the only racist comment recorded, whereas Emma West's comments concerning the other occupants of the tram were purely factual, i.e., that they were "not English." This claim appears to have been correct if by English one means members of the indigenous population with roots in the British Isles going back thousands of years. (That  England is the homeland of the English, the only one they have, is an obvious reality that Britain's treasonous liberal-Con-Left elite refuse to acknowledge, calling racist all those who object to their own genocide.)

That Emma West was initially incarcerated "for her own protection," while the police did nothing as far as is known to prosecute those on Twitter and elsewhere on the Web who made criminal threats to rape or knife her, makes it clear that Emma West's trial is a political event, a show trial to enforce the rule of politically correct (i.e., undeviatingly supportive) speech on the question of mass immigration, and that she has been targeted precisely because what she said about the ethnic cleansing of the English in England's working class neighborhoods is the truth.

Already a quarter of births in Britain are to foreign born mothers. But mass immigration cannot be questioned without breach of the rules of political correctness. Political correctness is a polite term for the tyrannical denial of free speech. Political action, spoken or otherwise, to stem the tide of settlers from throughout the World who are occupying the European nation states is not a permitted option.

Genocide of the nation state for the sake of global governance is a fundamental, all-party principle of the British and EU government. Pointing out the crime of genocide must, therefore, itself be criminalized, which is easily enough done by calling it racism. That is to say, it is racist to oppose the destruction of one's own people, culture and national identity.

The children of Newham, England. Nice kids, no doubt,
but mostly they're not English and most likely they have
parents who don't speak English. Image source.

In London, and England's second city, Birmingham, the proportion of children born to foreign-born mothers is over 50%. In London, Leicester, Luton, the English are now a minority in their own home, and these cities will soon to be joined by Birmingham, Bradford and many others. In some urban areas, for example, the London borough of Newham the majority of the population cannot speak English.

Under the lightweight, Blair substitute, globalist puppet, David Cameron and his liberal stooges, the genocide of the English in the cause of global plutocratic rule is set to continue unabated.

And a Wise American, On the Destruction of America


See also:

Robert Henderson, Emma West’s trial scheduled for the sixth time


Robert Henderson, Emma West, immigration and the Liberal totalitarian state

Robert Henderson, Emma West trial scheduled for the fifth time

CanSpeccy, Self-hating white racism

Truth: The New Hate Speech

By James Tracy

The Southern Poverty Law Center[1] is advising the US government of the alleged “domestic terror threat” posed by political conservatives, “conspiracy theorists,” and others skeptical of their government’s policies and behavior. A March 5, 2012 letter to the US Departments of Justice and Homeland Security points to the group’s recent report, “The Year in Hate and Extremism.” The study uses SPLC data to point to an almost one thousand percent upsurge in “militias and radical antigovernment groups … from 149 in 2008 to 1,360 in 2012.”

The publicity has an ominous historical precedent. In October 1994 the SPLC’s “KlanWatch” program issued a similar warning to the federal government on the purported threat of militias and prompted a steady drumbeat of US newspaper reports.[2] Six months later on April 19, 1995 the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City was bombed. Such coverage set the national stage for the “domestic security threat” that would crystallize in Timothy McVeigh and subdue the growth of an increasingly popular movement. Shortly after the bombing SPLC director Morris Dees delivered the organization’s oft-repeated claim of how there had been a “gradual infiltration” of citizen militias “by neo-Nazi and white supremacist groups.”[3]

Twenty years later the organization continues to exercise significant credibility, particularly among major press outlets that unquestioningly accept its claims. Yet it casts such a wide net in the effort to catalog supposedly dangerous organizations that even groups such as “We Are Change”–a national association of activists whose main offense is insisting upon a genuine investigation into 9/11–is classified as a “hate group” and placed alongside a cartoonish array of white supremacist and neo-Nazi outfits.[4]

When the SPLC’s “The Patriot Movement Explodes” was released in March 2012 the New York Times carried a piece promoting the report by Times‘ Atlanta bureau chief Kim Severson.[5] When I contacted Severson to assess her understanding of the paper’s methodology she referred me to SPLC “Senior Research Fellow” Mark Potok. I felt that an explanation of such methods and contact information for the purportedly dangerous groups listed on the “Hate Map” were especially important since independent observes could not touch base with many listed groups to confirm their existence, inquire upon their motivations to “hate,” and thereby confirm the study’s findings. “We don’t make any special effort to collect that kind of information,” Potok wrote, “although we do sometimes have it … The groups for which we do not give a location beyond the state are groups that report only a ‘statewide’ chapter without giving any location. Generally, we know they’re active, but can’t prove exactly where they’re headquartered.”[6]

Potok further explained how some entities were included merely based on “Internet activities, including pages, forums, and, often, email groups.” Given the subjective criteria for what constitutes “hate” and the nontransparent ways in which the SPLC conducts its inquiries, just about any loose affiliation leaving some traces on the web may be designated as exhibiting “hate” and thus qualify for the list.

Read more

Democracy Shamocracy

Everyone thinks democracy is a good idea. Well at least everyone has a good opinion of their own opinion.

So just about everyone thinks they know what government ought to do, and thinks they ought to have the right to vote, if not on the issues, then at least on the people who will decide the issues.

But who's actually taken the time, amid the daily round of work, family concerns and entertainment, to study the relevant evidence on any major policy issue, thought the thing through and come to a defensible conclusion?

Who among the populace pays sufficiently close attention to political affairs to know what the vitally important policy issues are?

Government deals with many and complex questions. Doing what's best for the nation, if any government ever cared about that, is difficult. In fact it is so difficult that even a totally well-intentioned government may as often as not to get things wrong.

Which means that putting the average citizen in charge of public policy would be about as crazy as putting Hani Hanjour at the controls of a Boeing 757 and expecting him to perform high-speed aerobatics at ground level and at near super-sonic speed — which he did, so the ruling elite and the media they own are insistent that you believe.

So what exactly is this democracy that just about everyone is so enamored of that Americans, Canadians, Europeans, those petty dictators of the Gulf States, and the Saudi autocracy (where women are not allowed to drive and slavery is, or was until quite recently, legal) support endless wars to deliver the same wonderful system of government to the nations of North Africa, the Middle-East and Central Asia?

Well first off, as Mr. Average Joe might say, it gives everyone a say in the government.

How so?

Because everyone can vote for the candidate of their choice, i.e., a democrat or a Republican or some guaranteed third-party loser.

Which is to say, since the major parties when in power are virtually indistinguishable, everyone can have the warmonger and monied-interest-puppet of their own chosing?

So is there anything else that's so great about democracy?

Yes. The rulers have to suck-up to the plebs. Yer know, appear in public, shake thousands of hands, smile a lot.

But is that really sufficient reason for putting around half the GDP at the disposal of a bunch of bought psychopaths whose only concern for the masses is to keep them dumbed down, brainwashed and firmly in their place.

Prof. James Tracy has a good blog post explaining the way in which the media work to discredit independent though by the unacredited members of the populace. Received opinions as dispensed by the media are not open to question. Uppity proletarians who ask questions are dismissed as conspiracy theorists or, even more contemptible, "truthers," as recently demonstrated here (and here, and here, and here) in the case of those who questioned the pathetically incomplete and contradictory mainstream media reporting of the Sandy Hook Elementary School Massacre.

... several years ago Project Censored directors Peter Phillips and Mickey Huff identified and explained the “truth emergency” that is among the greatest threats to civil society and human existence. This crisis is manifest in flawed (or non-existent) investigations into 9/11 and other potential false flag events, fraudulent elections, and illegal wars vis-à-vis a corporate-controlled news media that fail to adequately inform the public on such matters. While neglecting or obscuring inquiry into such events and phenomena major media disparage independent and often uncredentialed researchers as “conspiracy theorists” or, more revealingly, “truthers.”

...as Leibniz observed, reason marks our humanity, suggesting a portion of the soul capable of a priori recognition of truth. With this in mind the modern individual in the mass has been rendered at least partially soulless through her everyday deferral to the powerfully persuasive notion and representation of expertise. However narrowly focused, under the guise of objectivity the institutionally-affiliated journalist, academic, bureaucrat, and corporate spokesperson have in many instances become the portals of reason through which the public is summoned to observe “truth.”

Thus underlying our much vaunted democratic system, is a hidden elite, operating through the news, entertainments, and publishing industries that they own and the politicians whose elections they fund and whom they reward on departure from office, that tell the masses what to think, while deriding those who attempt to think for themselves, and outlawing the most persistent critics of the system as terrorists.

The rulers tell the people what to think and for whom to vote. The people vote as they are told. 

That's not a democracy, it is oligarchy with no respect for, or shared interest with, the mass of humanity. It is a a soft tyranny that employs techniques of mind control and propaganda that greatly surpass those of the old-line dictatorships of Stalin and Hitler. There's nothing crude or blatant about it. Elections are not won with 99% of the vote as under the old Commie regimes. No, its always a tight race between elite-picked candidates without a difference.

Such a form of govenment has many evil consequences. Since the appearance of legitimacy requires only a voting plurality, the propaganda is chiefly directed at the young and innocent and the incorrigibly unteachable, i.e., the stupids, which leaves those with experience and a capacity for analysis and rational judgment essentially side-lined in the political process.

Such contempt for the thoughtful citizen promotes “conspiracy theory.” In turn, conspiracy theories drives much elite paranoia, which in turn generates a determination by the elite to achieve more direct control of thought and speech through domestic spying, promotion of political correctness and, in extreme cases, the designation of opponents as terrorists liable to extermination without due process.

Mass democracy has thus clearly been a mistake. A better system would grant a highly visible role in government to those who now exercise invisible power without responsibility by financing elections, providing after-office payoffs to politicians who have served their real masters, and by other means.

To that end, the Senate, to take the US as an example, might be replaced by a House of Plutocrats, comprising 100 individuals making the largest personal tax payments. Then the Rockefeller's, the Soros's, the Buffet's and the Gates's, and other more dynamic members of the money-making elite, would, assuming that they pay taxes, have to speak for the policies they impose on the nation and justify them in terms of the public interest. 

Reform of the US House of Representatives would be more of a challenge, but a restriction of the voting franchise would be a prerequisite, which might reasonably be based on a tax payment threshold.

Many would howl at the denial of universal suffrage, but in America and every other capitalist society, upward mobility is open, at least theoretically, to everyone. To those born poor, the chance to become a member of the House of Plutocrats always exists. And at least the chance to earn enough to pay tax and thus earn the right to vote, would surely be real enough.

And to safeguard the interests of the masses, voting or otherwise, the Presidency could remain a popular contest, but subject to strict control and complete visibility of campaign finance.

See also: 

Smoking Mirrors: The Gatekeepers and Vipers Among us

The Genocide of the Irish In the Name of the Holocaust

The only great obstacle to the project for global governance is the nation state. Thus it is that the agents of globalization seek the destruction of the nation state as a racial and cultural entity and as a distinct identity. The term applied to the destruction of a nation is genocide. That term was coined by the Jewish legal scholar, Raphael Lemkin. In defining precisely what he meant by the word, he wrote: The crime of wantonly and deliberately wiping out whole peoples is not utterly new in the world ... is so new in the traditions of civilized man that he has no name for it. It is for this reason that I took the liberty of inventing the word, “genocide.” The term is from the Greek word genes meaning tribe or race and the Latin cide meaning killing. Genocide tragically enough must take its place in the dictionary of the future beside other tragic words like homicide and infanticide. As Von Rundstedt has suggested the term does not necessarily signify mass killings although it may mean that. More often it refers to a coordinated plan aimed at destruction of the essential foundations of the life of national groups so that these groups wither and die like plants that have suffered a blight. The end may be accomplished by the forced disintegration of political and social institutions, of the culture of the people, of their language, their national feelings and their religion. It may be accomplished by wiping out all basis of personal security, liberty, health and dignity. When these means fail the machine gun can always be utilized as a last resort. Genocide is directed against a national group as an entity and the attack on individuals is only secondary to the annihilation of the national group to which they belong. Today, we see the globalist puppet regimes of Europe deliberately destroying their own peoples through mass immigration of Asians, Africans and Middle Easterners more fertile than the indigenous population, by enforced multiculturalism and by criminalization of the expression of ethnic and cultural nationalism. In this process of global genocide, we see that Jews are most prominent. In Britain, the son of an illegal Jewish immigrant, Ed Miliband, leader of the Labor Party, seeks to define English Nationalism in terms of openness to relentlesse genocidal mass immigration, which has already made the English a minority in their great capital city of London, and which will make Birmingham, England's second city, majority ethnic within a a decade. According to Miliband, the only good Englishman is brainwashed whimp, anxious to see the planet rid of the English race. Most extraordinarily, as recounted in the article excerpted below, in Ireland, the genocidists have a Jewish champion, a staunch supporter of Israel's genocidal war against the indigenous Palestinians, who champions genocide of the Irish in the name of the Holocaust. CS

By Camillus

The Occidental Observer, March 2, 2013: For the past two years Ireland’s immigration policy has been in the hands of Alan Shatter, a Jew and an outspoken partisan of Israel. Alan Shatter, born and bred in Dublin of Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe, has made it Irish policy to increase Third World immigration to the Emerald Isle. As Minister of Justice, Equality, and Defence, Shatter is exerting his considerable clout to skew the Republic’s Middle East policy, formerly supportive of the Palestinians and critical of Israel, toward Zionist aims.

Before Shatter, the Irish government had taken steps to reduce non-European immigration, including abolishing automatic citizenship for children born to foreigners in Ireland and drastically reducing the admission of asylum seekers. Since taking office in early 2011, after his Fine Gael party ousted the ruling Fianna Fail amid Ireland’s continuing economic woes, Shatter has busied himself with increasing the numbers of Africans and Asians resident in Ireland.

Immigration to Ireland from outside Europe during 2011 was twice that of the previous year. Last year, the Irish Naturalisation and Immigration Service granted visas to 91 percent of the 88,000 non-Europeans who applied for them (citizens of the twenty-six other member states of the European Union can travel to Ireland without having to obtain a visa). An additional 115,000 migrants from outside Europe were given permission to remain in Ireland in 2012, with India, China, Nigeria, Turkey, and the Philippines among the top six countries of origin. To be sure, the number of permits to non-Europeans to reside in Ireland has declined over the previous two years—but only because Shatter’s ministry has been granting them citizenship, at several times the rate of the preceding years.

Shatter is aggressively promoting new measures to further increase non-European immigration, including making immigration easier for investors and entrepreneurs and their families. More ominously still, he is working industriously to replace existing Irish legislation on foreign immigration, including applications for asylum, with a bill that will, according to Shatter’s stated priorities for the current year, will “radically reform and modernize” Irish immigration law.

Shatter has attempted to veil his immigration policies under the subterfuge of streamlining administrative procedures. After all, while exposed to the same globalist propaganda and pressures as America, the Republic of Ireland is a small and still largely homogeneous nation. It is also a land in which cant about “a nation of immigrants” won’t sell: until only a couple of decades ago, Ireland was a nation of emigrants. And today, Irish unemployment continues to hover at around 15 percent, twice the stated rate in the U.S.

What was Shatter to do? Why play the Holocaust trump card, of course!

Now, Ireland has not been known for its role in World War II anti-Jewish measures. Like most countries at the time, however, including Germany’s fiercest opponents, Ireland was reluctant to accept large numbers of Jewish immigrants.

So, last fall, in a speech in honor of Raoul Wallenberg, the Swedish businessman who traveled to Hungary at American instigation in 1944 to impede deportation of Jews to German concentration camps, Ireland’s Jewish immigration czar attempted to justify flooding his homeland with Third World immigrants by attacking Ireland’s World War II immigration policy:

There were many who did nothing in the face of the industrialised genocide and the destruction of European Jewish civilisation. Indeed the Irish Government of the day sat on its hands. And even after the death camps were liberated, the Irish Government denied Jews refuge in Ireland.

It won’t surprise TOO readers to learn that, for all his efforts to pass as a champion of universalist ethics (“It is not enough to bear witness. We must also honor our fundamental moral obligation to protect our common humanity against inhumanity.”), Shatter has been anything but a protector of the Palestinians’ humanity. What may surprise is that, in a nation virtually devoid of Jews, and one which has been more supportive of the Palestinians than most Western countries, the extent to which Shatter has been a strident voice in defense of Israel’s ruthless policies, in the Gaza Strip or on the West Bank.

As a member of the Irish legislature, Shatter defended Israel’s brutal 2009 invasion of Gaza. He opposed the “freedom flotillas” organized in 2010 and 2011 to breach the Israeli blockade of the already impoverished Gaza strip, although each of the aid expeditions included a ship from Ireland (although Shatter did a brief turnabout after Israeli commandos killed nine men aboard a ship in the first flotilla). He has opposed visas for members of organizations hostile to Israeli policies, and resoundingly condemned calls for the Irish to boycott performances in Israel as “cultural fascism.”

Read more

William Cobbett - a common man for all seasons

By Archbishop Cranmer

From Brother Ivo:

For much of this week His Grace has been offering sound advice to our brothers and sisters of the Roman Catholic Church to assist them out of some of their current difficulties, but we must not neglect the temporal. There is still a pressing need, and significant work to be done in challenging and reforming the United Kingdom’s political elites.

Brother Ivo loves his paradox, and has long noted that the post-modern search for cultural 'individualism' appears to render folk ever more homogenised. Nevertheless, our political leaders are presently puzzling that at the same time as they are struggling to identify and capture the fabled 'middle ground' of British society, the political climate is drifting away from them towards a degree of independent thinking for which the English once used to once pride themselves. Ukip surges, Carswell analyses, Galloway confounds.

Even so, our cussedness has still not quite reached the point where we routinely ‘spit on the poop deck and call the Pope our father’, as was done in former days.

In celebration of that rugged individualism, Brother Ivo would like to invite His Grace's communicants to mark the 250th anniversary of the birth of William Cobbett today, 9th March, by raising a glass of beer to the memory of a fine example of a prototype individual Englishman.

We might have hoped that our national broadcaster would be planning a suitable marking of this occasion, but this weekend sees the 50th anniversary of Cliff Richard's 'Summer Holiday' topping the charts, so.. you know.. priorities., etc.

The beer is appropriate, because Cobbett was a plain man born in a public house in Farnham, Surrey, to a family of modest means. Without the assistance or protection of the NUT, a private education, or Ofsted, he was nevertheless taught to read over the kitchen table before he began to demonstrate a quintessential story of social advance by a man of patience, hard work and talent.

His CV includes working as a farm labourer, gardener at Kew, legal clerk, soldier, farmer, agrarian innovator, pamphleteer, journalist, author and Member of Parliament for Oldham. His early publishing of parliamentary debate began the enterprise which became the Hansard reports of today.

Plainly, our political class might feel discomforted by such a rich life before politics, so perhaps that is why they may be content that he be left in the shadows lest they be placed in his. Mary Seacole is so much less threatening.

He was a man of his times, defending bull-baiting and slavery, but he also confounded those who suggest that, once on the wrong side of history, those of traditional values must be incapable of compassion. His early brush with notoriety began when he championed soldiers of the Ely militia who were were flogged unjustly by the Hanovarians, and he was imprisoned for treasonous libel as a consequence. Men of principle do not simply posture; they take risks and suffer the consequences. On other occasions his outspoken free thinking had him exiled in France and America.

He was at times both Conservative and Radical. He spoke up for under-paid and abused soldiers, campaigned against the Corn Laws, championed the common labourer, and argued the British case whilst resident in the United States in revolutionary times.

On return, he opposed the Peterloo massacre, supported the Reform Act of 1832, issued some of the earliest warnings against the national debt, refused to bribe voters at a time when this was commonplace, and denounced sinecures and Rotten Boroughs. While imprisoned, he wrote the pamphlet 'Paper into Gold', which was one of the earliest to warn of the dangers of granting government the power to issue paper money.

Notwithstanding being largely self-taught, he was an educator, writing a book on grammar which would greatly improve our public culture of spin if they paid heed to his words: 'Grammar, perfectly understood, enables us not only to express our meaning fully and clearly, but so to express it as to enable us to defy the ingenuity of man to give to our words any other meaning than that which we ourselves intend them to express.'

Read More

The F35: Is Canada's New Warplane a Joke?

The F-35 Guide to Avoiding Radars, Accountants, and Reality

By Joe Saklatvala

 

The Producers tells the story of a theater producer and an accountant who want to create a Broadway flop. They borrow outrageous amounts from investors, knowing that nobody follows the money after a failure. After this pre-ordained disaster, they intended to abscond to Brazil as millionaires. The plan goes terribly wrong when the show turns out to be a surprise hit. Despite a pro-Nazi theme and a terrible cast, it succeeds. How did they get going wrong so wrong? Lockheed Martin and the Pentagon would take no such risks.

Here are the golden rules of making a successful fighter plane, which have been proven repeatedly over the last ninety years (with few exceptions):

1. Fighters must be fast and agile
2. ‘Multi-role’ aircraft seldom are, don’t try
3. You can’t make a fighter out of a bomber (make it a fighter first, then later develop a ground-attack version)
4. Never rely on any unproven concepts as linchpins
5. Don’t start production until the aircraft works

The F-35 has broken all of them.

Has the F-35 been schemed by a joker seeking to highlight the insanity of military procurement? Or maybe somewhere there are two men in Hawaiian shirts packing suitcases? Even without any catchy show tunes, the F-35 is my favorite comedy.  It’s probably less funny to taxpayers around the world, however. (Check how much your country has already invested in the program before you feel too smug.)

Read more

Floridal Atlantic University Prof. Investigates Actors' Role in Sandy Hook Massacre

Prof. James Tracy of Florida Atlantic University is, with others, investigating the role, if any, of actors in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings.

Prof. Tracy and associates have found similarities in appearance between some Sandy Hook victims and other persons, believed to be actors, whose images have appeared on the Web.

Thus the hypothesis being investigated is that the Sandy Hook Massacre was a charade and that actors we’re deployed to play key roles in the event, including that of victims and their families.

But if Sandy Hook was a charade, one objective may have been to make fools of conspiracy theorists. In that case, participants with a double could have been used to great effect. Doubles might be virtual entities, monozygotic twins, or just folks who look like someone else.

In the first place, independent investigators would be led to identify certain victims or their relatives as actors whose images had been found on the Web. Later, the resemblances could be dismissed as a mere coincidental similarities between victims and other persons — perhaps professional actors — who it can be conclusively shown to be in no way connected with Sandy Hook.

But Aangirfan has spotted an interesting trail between one of the Web images brought to attention by Prof. Tracy and friends, which seems to connect Robbie Parker, the strangely cheerful just bereaved father of a Sandy Hook victim, and top people very close to the CIA. But is that really Robbie Parker partying with Anne Levitman Greenberg? As the late great journalist Malcolm Muggeridge contended, "the camera always lies."

Postscript

Since the above item was posted, Prof. Tracy has made the following statement.

Memoryholeblog.com and James Tracy are not affiliated with “US Intelligence Information Center.” Nor do they approve of the methods, allegations, findings or conclusions of “Preliminary Investigative Report: Actors Involved with the Sandy Hook Massacre” or “An Independent Investigation Into the Events Surrounding Sandy Hook.” James Tracy sincerely apologizes to readers for any confusion caused by the posting of this article.


See Also:

The Curious Case of Sandy Hook Victim, Rachel D'Avino

Adam Lanza, Ryan Lanza? Curious Image of Unknown Origin

James Fetzer, Conspiracy Theories, and the Defence of the State Against the People

And these links via Aangirfan:

Did Sandy Hook Hire "Phony" Teachers?

Exposed: CNN Guilty of False Reporting:Adam Lanza's Barber Exposed as a Fraud

Why Freedom Was Greater Under the Absolute Monarchy of Elizabeth I, Than Under the Democracy of Barak Obama

The West is at war with the Rest to establish a global system of governance subject to the  clandestine control of the money power.

The only effective resistance to this criminal war of aggression is provided by the independent nation states. All nation states, as independent political entities, are thus targeted for destruction, their natural and human resources to be appropriated in the drive for global empire.

The first nations to fall, were the European states, effectively occupied by the US, despite some French resistance, since the end of World War II.

These nations are now all more or less tightly bound into the globalist system, under the control of globalist plutocracy and their puppet rulers and systems of transnational integration, including NATO, the EU, and the WTO.

Thus destruction of the racial and cultural identities of the European peoples is well advanced and is almost certainly now irreversible, the process being driven by mass immigration, propaganda delivered under the guise of education, and legally enforced political correctness aimed at the demoralization of the indigenous populations and the near criminalization of Christianity, the moral system that dominated Western thought during Europe's age of greatness.

The European settler states are likewise in an advanced stage of disintegration as outpost of European civilization, the European majorities fast fading to powerless and more or less discriminated against minorities throughout the Americas, as in Africa and Australasia.

The Muslim states are now the primary target for assimilation to the global system, those that have proved resistant to internal subversion being subject to direct Western military intervention and the installation of globalist puppet regimes. Meanwhile, no opportunity is lost to incite destructive conflict among the most independent and assertive Asian powers.

Among the brainwashed of the West, the globalist transformation of the world through universal national genocide is largely justified by the spread of the West's supposedly most precious attributes: freedom and democracy. Yet such attributes are mutually exclusive.

Thus, Thomas Jefferson said of democracy:

It is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%.

 To James Madison, a pure democracy

can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party. Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.

 Most percipiently, John Adams wrote:

Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There was never a democracy that did not commit suicide.

So much for the globalist causus belli: mere rubbish to flatter the propaganda-addled masses into believing that those in power somehow, against all the evidence, actually give a damn about what they, the plebs, think.

And, in fact, the thoughts of the masses, stupefied as they are by endless propaganda force-fed as education, political correctness, TV lies, degrading entertainment, and bogus Hollywood history, are not products of independent thought or moral conviction, but only the end product of the process of mental conditioning to which the masses have been subjected.

Election outcomes are determined by the ruling elite through mind-control of the electorate.

The absurdity of confusing the West's so-called democratic forms of a government with some ideal notion of what those forms of government are supposed to be, is nicely expressed by Thomas, Lord Macaulay in his essay on William Cecil, 1st Baron Burghley, Elizabeth I's chief political adviser throughout her reign.

It has long been the fashion, a fashion introduced by Mr. Hume, to describe the English monarchy in the sixteenth century as an absolute monarchy. And such undoubtedly it appears to a superficial observer. Elizabeth, it is true, often spoke to her parliaments in language as haughty and imperious as that which the Great Turk would use to his divan. She punished with great severity members of the House of Commons who, in her opinion, carried the freedom of debate too far. She assumed the power of legislating by means of proclamations. ...

Such was this government. Yet we know that it was loved by the great body of those who lived under it. We know that, during the fierce contests of the sixteenth century, both the hostile parties spoke of the time of Elizabeth as of a golden age. That great Queen has now been lying two hundred and thirty years in Henry the Seventh’s chapel. Yet her memory is still dear to the hearts of a free people.

The truth seems to be that the government of the Tudors was, with a few occasional deviations, a popular government, under the forms of despotism. At first sight, it may seem that the prerogatives of Elizabeth were not less ample than those of Louis the Fourteenth, and her parliaments were as obsequious as his parliaments, that her warrant had as much authority as his lettre-de-cachet. The extravagance with which her courtiers eulogized her personal and mental charms went beyond the adulation of Boileau and Moliere. Louis would have blushed to receive from those who composed the gorgeous circles of Marli and Versailles such outward marks of servitude as the haughty Britoness exacted of all who approached her. But the authority of Louis rested on the support of his army. The authority of Elizabeth rested solely on the support of her people. Those who say that her power was absolute do not sufficiently consider in what her power consisted. Her power consisted in the willing obedience of her subjects, in their attachment to her person and to her office, in their respect for the old line from which she sprang, in their sense of the general security which they enjoyed under her government. These were the means, and the only means, which she had at her command for carrying her decrees into execution, for resisting foreign enemies, and for crushing domestic treason. There was not a ward in the city, there was not a hundred in any shire in England, which could not have overpowered the handful of armed men who composed her household. If a hostile sovereign threatened invasion, if an ambitious noble raised the standard of revolt, she could have recourse only to the train-bands of her capital and the array of her counties, to the citizens and yeomen of England, commanded by the merchants and esquires of England.

Likewise (to paraphrase Macaulay), it has long been fashionable to describe the Western form of government as democratic and Western society as free, as undoubtedly appears to be the case to a superficial observer. Barak Obama and other Western leaders, it is true, often speak to the public in language as humble and ingratiating as that which an accused person might address to a judge.

 ... Yet we know that such government is not loved by the great body of those who live under it. ...The truth seems to be that the democratic government of the West is with a few occasional deviations, a despotic government, under the forms of democracy. Despite outward marks of servitude to the popular will, the authority of Obama, Cameron, Hollande and their likes rests solely on the support of the police, the army, the security services, and the great bureaucracies of state that consume most of the wealth of the nation, while the hostility of the people is perpetually feared and continuously guarded against, with drones, surveillance cameras, spies, torture, assassination, agents provocateurs, and false flag terrorism.

Those who say that the power of Western governments is not absolute do not sufficiently consider in what that power consists. It depends on the legally enforced obedience of subjects to codes of conduct and speech that are antithetical to their fundamental beliefs and interests, the resort to all the standard means of control deployed by tyrants throughout the ages, but greatly enhanced through the application of advanced technology, and a sense of general insecurity induced in the populace through state-sponsored violence against innocent persons. These are the means, and the only means, which "democratic" governments have at their command for carrying their decrees into execution, for destroying the resistance of the people, and for creating hatred for those foreign nations yet to be destroyed.

The Curious Case of Sandy Hook Victim, Rachel D'Avino

Rachel D'Aveno was a teacher's aid slain by Adam Lanza during his rampage at Sandy Hook Elementary School on December 14, 2012, so the mainstream news media reported.

She had been employed at Sandy Hook for only one week prior to her death.

Such a short time. Few people at the school would have been aware of her existence.

In fact, did she exist at all?

On his facebook page, a Mike D'Avino has posted photos of his neices, Sarah and Rachel D'Avino.

They look rather alike. In fact, it has been claimed that they are identical.

Monozygotic twins? The media have never mentioned that.

Sister and Mother, Sarah and Mary D'Aveno receive
Presidential Citizens Medal on behalf of their sister
and daughter, Rachel. Image Source.

Reddit Photo Of Slain Sandy Hook Teacher's Empty Seat
At Christmas Dinner Gets Harsh Response. Image source.

This is reminiscent of the claim that Adam Lanza was really Ryan Lanza.

Was Sandy Hook a hoax?

Or is the evidence of a hoax a hoax? Which would mean there was a real massacre made to look like a hoax.

Or was it a hoax massacre, with faked evidence intended to make it appear faked, so anyone questioning the evidence would be led to believe that there was a real coverup of a real massacre?

And the point of it all?

According to Richard Cottrell, former member of the European Parliament and author of Gladio: NATO's dagger at the heart of Europe, the purpose is

to intimidate and manipulate ordinary citizens and convince them that the state which is actually behind the commission of these acts is their ultimate protector.

If that is correct, the the strategy of tension is not merely a weapon used by the United States to keep the peoples of Europe behind their puppet masters, the Blairs and Sarkozys, the Camerons and Rajoys, but also to keep the people of the United States behind their puppet Bush's and Obamas.

The broader goal, in all cases, is the racial and cultureal genocide of the European peoples and all those others who come under the control of the US/NATO alliance, leading to the New World Order: a global system of government serving the dynamic components of the plutocratic elite and exercised through well-rewarded military, intelligence, and police instruments, subject to the political control of wholly-owned political assets.

For an outline of how it works, see: Aangirfan, The CIA Run Italy.