Ending unemployment. Part 1: The Negative Income Tax

Image source

The US economy is contracting. US unemployment is at an all time, post-WW2 high of around 18% when discouraged workers and workers only partially employed are included (US Bureau of Labor Statistics: U6 measure of unemployment).

How is it that people who are able to work, who want to work and who need to work, cannot work?

Because no one wants to hire them.

Why does no one want to hire them?

Because folks borrowed too much during the FED-driven housing boom, and are now paying down their debts as their assets, particularly houses, decline in value.

This debt deleverage means reduced consumption, reduced consumption means reduced demand for labor.

The result: idle workers, idle factories, underutilized public infrastructure.

The Keynesian solution?

Increase aggregate demand by deficit government spending covered by money printing.

Is this bad?

In theory, not necessarily. In practice, almost certainly.

Why is it good in theory?

Because it can create something of value from resources that would otherwise be wasted.

Why is it almost certainly bad?

Because government spending is almost always hugely wasteful. As a consequence, money is spent but little if any benefit results. The expenditure must, nevertheless, be paid for by someone, and it is normally paid for by the employed workforce through the inflation tax: the money the government printed to pay for the deficit spending creates inflation that cuts the value of the money that those with jobs are able to earn.

In theory, as noted, this need not be the case. If deficit spending resulted in some new and valuable public infrastructure that increased the productivity of the work force, the efficiency of energy use, or the quality of life, the cost would be recovered in kind. This, however, rarely occurs due to corruption, ineptitude and the near universal lack of imagination in the administration of government programs.

The inflationary effect of deficit spending can to some extent be limited by tax cuts that stimulate the supply of goods and services. This phenomenon was recognized during the Reagan era (supply side economics), and has since been applied to limit the inflationary impact of Keynesian policies.

But whatever the potential benefits, the Keynesian response to unemployment is of diminishing effectiveness in a globalized world economy where jobs in high wage economies are off-shored to places were labor can be had for pennies an hour. Deficit spending simply means bigger trade deficits as increased consumption sucks in cheap consumer goods from abroad, with little impact on domestic manufacturing employment.

What alternatives are there?

The Austrian economists say, let those who borrowed too much go broke, so that the assets they control — land, houses, businesses, etc. —can be acquired by better managers for pennies on the dollar. Then with indebtedness slashed, and mismanaged assets redeployed, the economy will grow and unemployment will fall.

There is undoubtedly merit in this approach. It keeps bankers honest by making them vulnerable to failure as the price of reckless lending, it makes borrowers cautious in the knowledge that there is no government safety net should their speculative ventures fail, and it makes savers disinclined to deposit their money with any but the most conservatively managed banks.

The problem with the Austrian "solution" is that in the process of renewal through widespread bankruptcy, banks would go under, savers would be wiped out and most wealth would end up in the control of a handful of astute speculators who might have little interest in reviving the consumer society.

The effect of the Austrian "solution" applied without restraint would likely be a catastrophic depression followed by massive social unrest, if not war or revolution.

Is there another approach?

Yes.

If it's jobs that are needed, governments should pay for them directly.

How?

Easily enough!

First, eliminate minimum wage laws.

Second, extend the income tax table into negative territory.

Earn less than a living wage? Then the IRS will supplement your income to enable personal and family survival.

How much would this cost?

Not as much as you might think.

Let us suppose that all 30 million unemployed Americans (US Labor Department U6 definition of unemployment) were able to find work at a wage between one cent per hour and the minimum Federally established living wage, which we will take to be $8.00 per hour (with variation according to circumstances, such as dependents, place of residence, etc.). Let us suppose that on average, these workers are able to command a market wage of only half the Federally established living wage. In that case, the Federal wage subsidy would be, approximately, $6,400 per person per year, or a total program cost of $192 billion per year, or about 7% of the 2011 US Federal Budget.

Seven percent of the 2011 US Federal Government budget is not chicken feed. But it's a lot less than the $700 billion banksters' bail out fund. And from it would be deducted substantial amounts that would otherwise have had to be spent on food stamps and other welfare programs, law enforcement, prisons, mental healthcare, and other costly consequences of mass unemployment.

Furthermore, the availability of 30 million American workers at third-World wages would provide American industry a huge shot in the arm, allowing many producers to repatriate jobs, capital and technology presently off-shored to India, China, and other low wage countries.

An expansion in American manufacturing and revival at home of off-shored or outsourced service industries would add substantially to US corporate profits and thus to US Government tax revenues.

So why is this solution not adopted?

Because Wall St. owns the Government and Wall St. wants the Austrian solution.

It's interesting. The top financial entities can borrow ten-year funds at rates as low as 1.75%. So what's to stop the financial elite borrowing the funds to buy up the stock market -- at least that part of it with decent income. BP, for example, with a price to earnings ratio currently at 5.6 looks like a good bet.

At, say, 3% you could finance the purchase of BP, which has yearly earnings of $20 billion, for a mere $3.7 billion per year.

Cool, hey. Let those dumb unemployed Americans starve.

But hold it. We can buy cheaper than this. See there's a run developing on the European banks. Talk it up. Panic, everybody. Just a few million more unemployed. A big bankruptcy. A Greek default. Yay, we'll own everything for really, really cheap.

See also:
Ending unemployment. Part 2: Tradeable Wage Subsidies
Why economics is bunk
America's inflationary depression
USA versus China: Wage Convergence, Wealth Divergence and Global Hegemony
US Economy: Expecting the Unexpected
USA Boom or Bust: The Next Decade
Why China Booms While America Slumps
China's Economy Already Larger Than America's

9/11 Truth? Can't you guys just forget 25,000 years of professional experience?

In a letter to a 9/11 skeptic, Julius Sequerra draws attention to this evaluation by professional architects, engineers, fire prevention experts, physicists, and other scientists of the collapse of the Twin Towers and World Trade Center Building 7 on September 11, 2001.



Conclusion: the NIST report on the collapse of the Twin Towers is based on a tissue of lies.

... in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily, and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods.
Adolf Hitler

Difficult, certainly, for Americans to accept that their government is Hitlerian. For many, better to call the truthers traitors.

Then there are those who know full well that 9/11 was a Hitlerian psyop and fully support its purpose, which was to kick start a war for global hegemony, a war in which more than a million have died already, and many millions more have been maimed, or driven from their homes.

To these pro-war patriots, the death of three thousand Americans was merely an unfortunate necessity: the catalyzing event to trigger a world war.

Whether these Dubya loyalists fully understand what it is they condone is open to question. Nine-eleven marked the death of democracy in America and the imposition of a system of soft tyranny, a tyranny imposed by psychological manipulation of the most gullible half of the population, whose votes negate those of more thoughtful citizens who might have made something meaningful of the term American democracy.

One wonders, also, if those loyal patriots who so readily accept the sacrifice of 3000 American lives for the sake of an effective public relations exercise, understand who's interest will ultimately be served by the war for global empire.

Will it be Americans? An American elite? Or perhaps not necessarily Americans at all?

For is not America merely a tool -- the most powerful presently available instrument for violent transformation of the World, to be used in the service of a deracinated, international plutocratic elite that aims to control all governments through the purchase of elections and the bribery of officials?

Demonstrating thermate cutting steel:


See also:
The New American World Order: How It Works
Afghanistan: They attacked us on 9/11, which is fortunate because the country is a mining treasure house ripe for exploitation
9/11 Crime Scene Evidence Was Destroyed - Firefighters For 9/11 Truth
Defending the Indefensible: Noam Chomsky's 9/11 Spin
Stupid Truthers

Blogger: Stats you can trust?

There is something distinctly odd about the usage stats provided by Blogger for this site. Page views surge and fall abruptly for no apparent reason.  A post about the New World Order is ranked by Blogger as the most popular one day, then a  much older post about the London riots suddenly emerges at the top of the list, and the former and more recently written top post drops overnight to near the bottom of the list, yet none of this surge in hits for the older post is due, apparently, to links from other Web sites. Rather, it would seem that the newly popular page is suddenly coming up in multiple Google searches, yet there seems no reason for a wave of new interest in the London riots. Very odd.

Another oddity is that whereas my Blogger usage stats might indicate, say, 500 page views on a particular day, if I run Google ads on my pages, Adsense will tell me that my page views are only about one tenth of that number.

Odder still, most page views are the result of links from Google, whereas there are virtually not links from Bing.com and non whatever from Yahoo.com or other search engines. So am I being favored by Google in some way, or are my blog posts invisible to most other search engines, or are my blog stats simply wrong?

Altogether, these anomalies induce a slight sense of paranoia. Perhaps there are simple explanations. If any one can suggest an explanation, I'd be glad to hear from them.

Naturally, I'd ask Google if I could, but Google is decidedly unapproachable should you wish to pose a simple question to an actual human being. I guess that would involve employing people, something the modern American corporation seems extremely reluctant to do.

Canada-US Border Deal Threatens Sovereignty

James Corbett reviews the dismantling of Canadian sovereignty in light of the proposed cross-border "security" agreement between Canada and the US, which is expected to be unveiled in the coming weeks. Don't look for any interference from Canada's pathetic new official opposition.

They already rubber stamped the destruction of the sovereign state of Libya, with not a single NDPer voting against the last extension of Canada's participation in NATO's mission to bomb Libya's infrastructure to Hell.

Why would such a bunch of gutless wimps get in the way of the demolition of Canada?

America after 9/11: a nation ruled by emotion, not law

By Paul Craig Robers
From Vdare.com

In the US on September 11, 2011, the tenth anniversary of 9/11, politicians and their presstitute media presented Americans with “A Day of Remembrance,” a propaganda exercise that hardened the 9/11 lies into dogma.  Meanwhile, in Toronto, Canada, at Ryerson University the four-day International Hearings on the Events of September 11, 2001, came to a close at 5pm.

During the four days of hearings, distinguished scientists and scholars and professional architects and engineers presented the results of years of their independent research into all aspects of 9/11 to a distinguished panel consisting of the honorary president of the Italian Supreme Court who was an investigative judge who presided over terrorism cases and three distinguished scholars of high renown and judgment. The distinguished panel’s task is to produce a report with their judgment of the evidence presented by the expert witnesses.

The Toronto Hearings were streamed live over the Internet.  I was able to watch many of the presentations over the four days. I was impressed that the extremely high level of intelligence and scientific competence of the witnesses was matched by a high level of integrity, a quality rare in US politics and totally absent in the American media.

As I stressed in my recent interview about 9/11 with Jim Corbett and Global Research, I am a reporter, not an independent researcher into 9/11.  I pay attention when the fact-based community finds problems with the official propaganda. Perhaps this reflects my age.  My generation was raised to believe in evidence and the scientific method.  George Orwell and other writers warned us of the consequence of succumbing to government propaganda as a result of disinterest in the truth or government manipulation of one’s patriotism.

My ability to serve as a reporter of scientific evidence is enhanced by my having a Bachelor of Science from Georgia Tech, a Ph.D. from the University of Virginia, and post-graduate education at the University of California, Berkeley, and Oxford University, where my professor was the distinguished physical chemist and philosopher, Michael Polanyi. In the 1960s, I was appointed Visiting Assistant Professor of Chemical Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, where together with Polanyi, I was to deliver a course in Polanyi’s unique contributions to knowledge. Polanyi’s illness prevented the course from happening and condemned me to being a mere economist.

This does not mean that I am infallible or that my reporting is correct. If my reporting stimulates you, go to the presentations, which I believe will continue to be available online, and if not, some edited CD will be available. Try here.

As one whose own contributions to economics, now belatedly recognized, are “outside the box,” I am responsive to those who can escape peer pressure in order to advance truth.  Here are some of the important things I learned from the Toronto Hearings.

The NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology, a government agency) reports on the Twin Towers and Building 7 are fraudulent.  Witnesses at the Toronto Hearings proved that Building 7 was a standard controlled demolition and that incendiaries and explosives brought down the Twin Towers. There is no doubt whatsoever about this. Anyone who declares the contrary has no scientific basis upon which to stand. Those who defend the official story believe in miracles that defy the laws of physics.

A nano-chemist from the University of Copenhagen, who together with a scientific team spent 18 months investigating the chemical and physical properties of dust from the Towers, found evidence of nano-thermite in the dust and quantities of particles not naturally formed by office or normal building fires that indicate another explosive was also present.

These findings explain the extreme high temperatures that produced the molten steel for which indisputable evidence exists. In the orchestrated cover-up, NIST denies that molten steel is present as its presence is inconsistent with the low temperatures that NIST acknowledges building fires can produce.

Physicist David Chandler proved beyond all doubt that the visible part of Building 7 (other buildings obscure the bottom floors) fell at free fall speed, an unambiguous indication that explosives had removed all supporting columns simultaneously.There is no possibility whatsoever according to the laws of physics that Building 7 fell for the reasons NIST provides. The NIST account is a total denial of known laws of physics.

Many other powerful points were made at the conference that I will not report, at least not at this time, because the revelation of malevolence is so powerful that most readers will find it a challenge to their emotional and mental strength.

Psychologists explained that there are two kinds of authority to which people submit. One is to the authority of people in high positions in the government. The belief that “our government wouldn’t lie to us” is pervasive, especially among patriots.  The other source of authority is experts.  However, to believe experts a person has to be educated and open-minded and to trust scientific, professional, and scholarly integrity.

In recent years in America, scientific and scholarly authority has come into disrepute among Christian evangelicals who object to evolution and among anti-intellectual Tea Party adherents who object to “elitists,” that is, objection to knowledge-based persons whose knowledge does not support Tea Party emotions.

In other words, qualified, knowledgeable people who tell people what they do not want to hear are dismissed as “the enemy.” Much of the American population is set up to believe government propaganda. Without an independent media, which the US no longer has, people are taught that only “conspiracy kooks” challenge the government’s story. Even on the Internet, this is a main theme on Antiwar.com and on CounterPunch.org, two sites that protest America’s wars but accept the 9/11 propaganda that justifies the wars.

This is the reason that I think that the US is moving into an era where the emotional needs of the population produced by government propaganda overwhelms science, evidence, and facts. It means the abolition of accountable government and the rule of law, because protection from terrorists is more important.

The fact-based world in which “we are not afraid to follow the truth wherever it may lead” is being displaced by dogma. Anyone who doubts “our government” is an anti-American, Muslim-loving, pinko-liberal commie, who should be arrested and waterboarded until the culprit confesses that he is a terrorist.

The event of 9/11 is now outside the realm of fact, science, and evidence.  It is a dogma that justifies the Bush/Cheney/Obama war crimes against Muslims and their countries.

Obama regime appointee Cass Sunstein, a Chicago and Harvard Law School professor, thinks the 9/11 movement, for challenging the official “truth”, should be infiltrated by US intelligence agents in order to shut down the fact-based doubters of government propaganda.

When a law professor at our two most prestigious law schools wants to suppress scientific evidence that challenges government veracity, we know that in America respect for truth is dead.

The notion that a country in which truth is dead is a “light unto the world” is an absurdity.

David Cameron, Serving Britain or Israel

By: Rachel Lowenburg

For those spiritual and those not, the words of the Bible contain common sense and truth. Take for instance the simple words of advice that “No man can serve two masters - for he will love one and despise the other.”

Just how then can the British Prime Minister vow to serve both Britain and Israel? Could it now be that David Cameron’s blatant and accelerating dismantling of the British nation, its Constitution, defence, values, morality, history and customs is a sign that he has come to despise the British?

For those who are sensitive about mention of Israel, it is worth emphasising that this article is not about the rights or wrongs of Israel as a nation or its people - our interest and attention is directed to David Cameron, Britain as a Sovereign nation and the Conservative Party. In particular we believe that the British public are entitled to know and understand what their Prime Minister is doing - especially where National loyalty, conflict of interest and treason are concerned.

Starring on the front page of Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI) website, British Prime Minister David Cameron’s boyish face is partly hidden in shadows and flanked by Israeli flags - it’s a powerful and emotive media image. But aimed at whom?

The headline is equally robust and more telling - Prime Minister David Cameron: “In me, you have a Prime Minister whose belief in Israel is indestructible.”

Read more

Why the Globe and Mail Is Mostly Bollocks

A newspaper publisher, you'd think, would aim to make a profit. In fact, the directors of any newspaper owned by a public company have a legal obligation to the shareholders to maximize profit.

However, the Globe and Mail, Canada's self-proclaimed national newspaper, is 85% controlled by the Thomson-family-owned private company, Woodbridge. Perhaps this explains why, instead of publishing news that people might be glad to pay for, it publishes politically correct bollocks about the terrifying incidence (not) of anti-Semitism in Canada, ridiculous war propaganda, and last week, the need for British Columbia to spend billions on a totally uneconomic scheme to eliminate all carbon emissions in the supply of electricity, notwithstanding that British Columbia is among the World's largest producers of green power. Thus, last Thursday, the G and M's British Columbia section led with an article: Hydro policy threatens to collapse climate-change progress, scientist says:

The Clark government appears poised to adopt a new policy that would roll back the province’s requirements to ensure it can meet its domestic electricity needs even in extreme drought conditions.

Andrew Weaver, the Nobel laureate climate scientist, said Wednesday that would be a mistake, forcing the province to rely on imports from coal-fired plants rather than building up the clean energy sector that the province has been seeking to develop under its Clean Energy Act.

Quite scary As Marvin Shafer points out in a commentary at rabble.ca, if true.

But there is no basis for the story that was told and little need to be concerned. There was no science in the scientist's reported remarks. It was sadly just another effort, sponsored by the Independent Power Producers (IPP) lobby, to encourage the government to retain the now widely discredited "self-sufficiency" policy that is forcing BC Hydro to buy more power than it needs to ensure reliable supply.

The policy issue is not, as characterized by Justine Hunter in the Globe, whether BC Hydro should be able to meet its requirements in drought conditions. Of course it must be able to do that. BC Hydro must ensure reliable supply under all water conditions. The issue is how that can best be done.

The government's self-sufficiency policy requires BC Hydro to guard against the risk of drought by entering into long-term firm power purchase contracts with British Columbia IPPs -- power that in many years it will not need and be forced to sell at a loss. It precludes BC Hydro from even considering more cost-effective and in many ways less environmentally damaging options -- in particular relying on the spot market for electricity in those years that its own hydro production is limited by drought.

Oh, and that bit about "Andrew Weaver, the Nobel laureate climate scientist?"

There is no Nobel Prize for climate science.

Professor Andrew Weaver is not a Nobel Prize winner.

The Nobel Prize referred to is not a science prize.

The Nobel Prize the Globe and Mail is talking about is the 2007 Peace Prize, which was awarded jointly to Al Gore and the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), members of which include 194 countries, but no individuals. In other words, an almost totally meaningless prize that insults 194 countries by association with Al Gore's bogus claims about climate science.

Although thousands of scientists have participated in writing the IPCC's periodic climate change assessment reports, none of them are, or could be, members of the IPCC, which means that none of them are Nobel Prize winners by virtue of their participation in the the preparation of the IPCC's tendentious and scientifically questionable reports.

Other brilliantly inspired choices for the Nobel Peace Prize made by the Norwegian politicians making up the Peace Prize selection committee include Barak Obama (2009), author of various extensions to the war on terror, Menachem Begin (1978), Irgun terrorist, author of the King David Hotel bombing that left 93 dead, and war criminal, Henry Kissinger (1973), author of the mass killing by illegal bombing of Cambodia (1969-1975).

Libya: The real war starts now

By Pepe Escobar
Voltairenet.org

Political, economic and social instability in Libya did not end with the fall of Tripoli and the alleged victory of NATO rebels. Gaddafi’s decision to go underground has caught everyone by surprise. The unfolding scenario is reminiscent of Omar Mukhtar’s legacy, the Libyan leader who struggled against Italian colonialism for nearly twenty years, from 1912 to 1931. Everything can still change in a country where most of the population hasn’t said its final word yet and the neo-colonial powers in place are very fragile.

Gaddafi (left) vs Abdel Hakim Belhadj (right).
Gaddafi could become the new «Lion of the Desert»

Enough about The Big G’s downfall. Now comes the real nitty-gritty; Afghanistan 2.0, Iraq 2.0, or a mix of both.

The "NATO rebels" have always made sure they don’t want foreign occupation. But the North Atlantic Treaty Organization - which made the victory possible - can’t control Libya without boots on the ground. So multiple scenarios are now being gamed in NATO’s headquarters in Mons, Belgium - under a United Nations velvet cushion.

According to already leaked plans, sooner or later there may be troops from Persian Gulf monarchies and friendly allies such as Jordan and especially NATO member Turkey, also very keen to bag large commercial contracts. Hardly any African nations will be part of it - Libya now having being "relocated" to Arabia. ...

Read more

See also:
Tony Catalucci: Genocide, rebel infighting, failed offensives mark third week of NATO's "victory" in Libya

James Petras: NATO War crimes in Libya

We will never heal. We have to demand a new investigation

Image source

Architects & Engineers - Solving the Mystery of WTC 7 - AE911Truth.org


David Chandler of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth


Robert Scheer: How Little We Know About the Origins of 9/11

Tony Cartalucci:The War on Terror is a Fraud

Winter Patriot: Ten years of murderous nonsense

Former Malaysian PM: Bush lied about 9/11 

Paul Krugman: Bush, Giuliani and the other fake heroes of 9/11 

The Onion: Remembering 9/11 A Pleasure For Nation Compared To Remembering Past 10 Years

The following video, All you all you need to know about 9/11 in less than five minutes, provides a brilliant satirical commentary on the official 9/11 conspiracy theory (narrator, James Corbett).



And Paul Craig Roberts' provides a razor sharp logical dissection of the contentions of three prominent anti-Truthers: The "Critics" of 9/11 Truth. Do They Have a Case?

The ideology of Tony Blair, imperialist

Bringing on the NWO: "A catastrophic and catalyzing event".

Former Uk Ambassador, Craig Murray, who was booted from the UK diplomatic service for his opposition to the use by the UK Government of information gained through torture by the notorious, boil 'em alive, billionaire President of Uzbekistan, Islam Karimov, today launched a brief but violent blog assault on former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, by whose government he was sacked.

The pretext for the attack was this report of Blair's cheer leading for war on Syria and Iran. Blair, Murray suggests, is best understood as a serial killer addicted to mass murder like Hitler, Stalin or Pol Pot.

This, I suggest is nonsense. Tony Blair is unquestionably a serial liar whose lies were critical in the launch of an unjust war on Iraq. But to understand what drives Blair, one need to consider the ideology that motivates him or those who pull his strings.

The Project for the New American Century (Authors: Dick Cheney, Jeb Bush and misc. NeoCons) stated in 1997 that America must seek global hegemony through a massive military build-up which is likely to be long delayed "absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event -- like a new Pearl Harbor" (i.e., we need 9/11 now).

It is in this context that Blair's actions are intelligible. He is a mouthpiece for the NWO, as announced by George H.W. Bush in 1991, and as driven by the World Trade Organization and the GATT round (signed by Bill Clinton) and the War on Terror (Bush/Blair/Obama).

So folks must decide: do they believe in a New World Order, under which the nations of the world, as racial, cultural and religious entities are crushed out of existence, and where a plutocratic elite control the world through a system of pseudo-democracies and elite-controlled media and education establishments, or do they want to preserve the 20th century system of often somewhat democratic nation states, with the inherent risk that such a system entails of repeated international conflicts.

the RULING elites in the NAFTA, EU and NATO states have opted for the New World Order. Consistent with that decision, these states must seek to co-opt or crush all states seeking to preserve their sovereignty, and their distinctive political, cultural and religious traditions. The essentials of this policy were spelled out in 2002 in a Guardian newspaper article by Tony Blair's foreign policy adviser Robert Cooper.

The most logical way to deal with chaos, and the one employed most often in the past, is colonisation. But this is unacceptable to postmodern states. Empire and imperialism are words that have become a form of abuse and no colonial powers are willing to take on the job, though the opportunities - perhaps even the need - for colonisation is as great as it ever was in the nineteenth century. Those left out of the global economy risk falling into a vicious circle. Weak government means disorder and that means falling investment.

All the conditions for imperialism are there, but both the supply and demand for imperialism have dried up. And yet a world in which the efficient and well-governed export stability and liberty seems eminently desirable.

What is needed is a new kind of imperialism, one compatible with human rights and cosmopolitan values: an imperialism which aims to bring order and organisation but which rests today on the voluntary principle.

We already have voluntary imperialism of the global economy through institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank. These multilateral institutions provide help to states wishing to find their way back into the global economy and into the virtuous circle of investment and prosperity. In return they make demands which, they hope, address the political and economic failures that have contributed to the original need for assistance.

There we have it. The Blair policy: to all those who challenge US/NATO the message is: you will be assimilated -- resistance is futile.

In Libya, Britain attempted voluntary co-option, but the patience of the French appears to have been exhausted when Gaddafi cancelled arms purchases from France in favor of deals offering better value for money with Russia and China. Obama supported France and assimilation by force is now underway. As a consequence, Blair has moved on to the next phase of the drive for global empire, the assimilation of Syria and Iran.

Even now, it may not be too late for either country to join the Empire of the Willing. No doubt Tony Blair, Middle East envoy on behalf of the US, Russia, the UN and the EU, would be happy to meet with representatives of these recalcitrant states and attempt to work out a deal.

See also:
The beautiful people who rule the World

Cecil Rhodes' secret society for Anglo-Saxon global empire and Alex Jones--Master of Misdirection

John Buchan, Canadian Governor General (1935 - 1940) On Conspiracies Driving World Events

London Riots, John Cleese, Breivik, Norway: Islam, rape and "whores"

It's hard to call a Muslim immigrant a racist for speaking out against his fellow Muslims...

Meaning that criticism of the mores and behavior of immigrants to Europe by European natives is racist?

The European genocide by means of lib-left psychological warfare is truly well underway.

But at least a few aging liberals are beginning to have some vague intimation of the harm that they have wrought.

London is no longer an English city

says John Cleese

I don't know what's going on in London, because London is no longer an English city. ...

I had a Californian friend come over two months ago, walk down the King's Road and say, "Where are all the English people?"

I mean, I love having different cultures around. But when the parent culture kind of dissipates, you're left thinking, "Well, what's going on?"

Pathetic, really. Cleese is a man of great talent -- as an actor. But what he demonstrates by these comments is that the media custom of treating the political views of the stars of the entertainment world as though they were of some special merit worthy of report is both absurd and detrimental to the public interest.

Politically, Cleese is a moron. He sees the English, his own people, displaced from their own capital city by 2.7 million immigrants and several million children of immigrants and he says:

I don't know what's going on.

LOL.

Bloody fool.

The English are being ethnically cleansed. That's what's going on, John.

"I mean, I love having different cultures around. But when the parent culture kind of dissipates, you're left thinking, 'Well, what's going on?'"

Bloody fool squared.

The British culture is not the parent of Islam, it is not the parent of violent black identity culture, it is not the parent of Hinduism or any of the other wonderful different cultures that Cleese loves "having around."

The obvious fact that this damn fool celebrity fails to understand is that when you ethnically cleanse the English from London, English culture is eradicated and foreign culture take its place.

If you love diversity, you'd better damn well keep the diverse cultures, races, breeds of dogs or whatever it is that you so love to be diverse well separated. There's nothing racist about this, unless you call opposition to genocide racism -- as liberals do.

You'd think anyone could understand that. And over 70% of the British population do. But it is too difficult to understand, apparently, for the slimy globalist tools like David Cameron, Nick Clegg and the celebrity fools who get the media coverage and dictate the political agenda.

Peak Oil Postponed

Image source.

Worldwide proven oil reserves are estimated at around 1.35 trillion barrels, or 43 years production at current rates. However, that excludes Canadian and Venezuelan tar sands with 3.6 trillion barrels of recoverable oil, or 116 years production at current rates. Tar sands oil costs around $31 a barrel to extract and upgrade to the quality of conventional crude. So as long as the price of oil stays over $31 (currently $85.00), peak oil will likely be postponed until: (a) output in one of the major oil producing regions is terminated by a political or geological catastrophe, or (b) a convenient and cheaper alternative to oil becomes widely available.

Natural gas seems most likely to replace oil at some point this century. World reserves total about 190 trillion cubic meters or 1.1 trillion barrels of oil equivalent, enough to substitute for oil at present consumption rates for about 30 years. And that's not counting conventional gas reserves yet to be discovered, or shale gas, or deep water gas, or gas in tight sedimentary deposits that new technology is now making available, or methane hydrates, which exist in vast abundance on the seafloor throughout the temperate and polar regions, which might keep the World powered for another hundred years or so.

In fact, natural gas is already a lot cheaper than oil. At around $4.00 a thousand cubic feet, gas in North America is less than a third the price of oil on an energy equivalent basis (6000 cubic feet having the same energy content as a barrel of oil). Natural gas is bulky, however, which makes it expensive both to transport and to store, and unsuitable for some applications, e.g., as a motor or aviation fuel. Moreover, the major gas producing regions of the World are mostly remote from the densely populated and industrialized areas of high energy demand.

But as new methods are applied to the extraction of gas from shales and other unconventional sources, supplies will increasingly be developed close to places of use. In addition, the World's infrastructure for gas transportation and storage will continue to expand in range and capacity. We can expect, therefore, to see natural gas continually encroach on the market for oil.

In addition, there is solar power, a source of the highest quality form of energy: electricity. Both solar thermal and photoelectric generation can achieve efficiencies of more than 40%, which means that global energy demand could be met by solar installations covering only a tiny fraction of the World's land (desert) area. Cost, however, remains high, which means that solar power will continue to be of only marginal significance, without major cost reductions in photovoltaic cell manufacture, and major technical advances in battery technology and electrical transmission systems, including perhaps, the development of World-wide superconducting grids, ensuring the availability of solar power 24/7 during every season of the year.

With the disaster of Fukushima spreading poison around the World, let us hope that the nuclear option will be abandoned altogether.

The State of Climate Science: Have We Passed Peak Civilization?

Scientists: Clouds reflect sunlight. Could it be true? Image source

A recent empirical study by Spencer and Braswell published in the journal Remote Sensing (RS), challenges beliefs about human-caused climate warming with evidence that climate warming predictions ignore a significant role of clouds on surface temperatures.

This conclusion is vehemently denied by a number of prominent climate modellers and has resulted in the resignation of the RS's Editor in Chief. It has also prompted a rebuttal that passed RS's peer-review process like a dose of salts, and a rebuttal video, that ends with these reassuring words:

Results that purport to overturn decades of science are almost always wrong.

Oh, well then, no need for further observation or experiment.

Except now we have the rebuttals of the rebuttal, some of which are, if nothing else, entertaining, including this from philosophy of science grad, Tallbloke, and this by physicist Luboš Mot.

To a non-specialist, a striking feature of this controversy is that it pits warmist modellers and curve fitters against skeptical experimenters, which raises the question of whether "climate science" as the term is used by the warmist camp is, perhaps, a misnomer. In particular, one may ask, what is scientific about a modeling exercise that makes predictions about the climate fifty or a hundred years hence, which cannot be tested except over a similar time-scale?

All that can be tested today are some of the components of the climate models, for example, how things like cloud cover, solar activity, or sea surface temperature are related to air temperature. This is the work of experimentalists such as Richard Linzen, Willie Soon or John Christie.

Generally what the experimentalists find does not seem to support the conclusions of either the modellers, or the curve fitters, such as Kevin Trenberth, Phil Jones, or Michael Mann.

Without questioning anyone's integrity, the conflict between these groups suggests that much of what goes under the name of climate science is not so much science as futurology based on some questionable techniques that produce questionable predictions.

Is this a sign of the times? Is science morphing into something else? A branch of politics, perhaps? Have we, as some observers suggest, reached "peak civilization," and begun the descent into the New Dark Age?

See also:
Al Gore's assault on the integrity of science

Why we're bombing Libya

By Stephen Gowans

While the class character of regimes under siege by Western powers is often explored in analyses of imperialist interventions and is frequently invoked to justify them, it neither explains why capitalist imperialist powers intervene nor stands as a justification for their actions.

The relevant consideration in explaining why interventions occur is not the political orientation of the government under siege, nor its relations with its citizens, but whether it accommodates the profit-making interests of the dominant class in the intervening countries. Does it welcome foreign investment, allow repatriation of profits, demand little in the way of corporate income tax, open its markets, and offer abundant supplies of cheap labor and raw materials? Or does it impose high tariffs on imports, subsidize domestic production, operate state-owned enterprises (displacing opportunities for foreign-private-owned ones), force investors to take on local partners, and insist that workers be protected from desperation wages and intolerable working conditions?

Much as it might be supposed that imperialist interventions target worker and peasant-led governments alone, this is not the case. Regimes that promote national bourgeois interests by denying or limiting the profit-making interests in their own countries of the dominant class of other countries are routinely targeted for regime change, especially if they are militarily weak or have pluralist political systems that afford space for destabilization and political interference. Since the effects are the same in imperialist countries of a local regime, say, expropriating a foreign-privately-owned oil company, no matter whether the company is turned over to local business people, the state, or the company’s employees, it is a matter of supreme indifference to imperialist countries whether the expropriation is carried out by communists, socialists or radical nationalists. Whether you’re inspired by Marx and Lenin, 21st century socialism, or the actually-existing capitalist policies that the United States, Germany and Japan followed to challenge Britain’s industrial monopoly, if you’re going to mess with the profit-making opportunities of an imperialist country’s capital class, it will mess with you.

Al Gore's assault on the integrity of science

I am skeptical of long-term forecasts about global warming. According to Al Gore, this makes me a "denier", a term implying that I not only reject alarmist claims about human-caused climate change, but that I am a Holocaust "revisionist," which is to say an anti-Semitite and, therefore, a racist.

In an interview with an Alex Bogusky, Gore makes absolutely clear his intention to draw a parallel between skepticism about anthropogenic climate warming and racism.

Although this is a claim of astounding asininity, it is, presumably, an effective tactic in what Gore terms "winning the argument," an argument in which he has a huge personal financial stake.

But it is much more than that. It is an obscene attack on civilized and rational discourse.

Climate change projections are just that, projections. There is nothing settled about projections that cannot be definitively tested in less than the time over which the projections have been made.

Yes, science is about projections. But what scientific illiterates such as Al Gore like to call "settled science" is about projections that have been experimentally verified with such certainty that they are described as laws, although even as laws they are subject to skepticism, for otherwise they would not be a part of science. But there is no way that a 50- or 100-year projection of climate variation can be tested with absolute certainty in less than 50 or 100 years.

And even then, confirmation of a projection is not proof of the principles underlying the projection. In the case of climate projection, proof of the underlying principles appears to be theoretically impossible, since the climate is a complex, non-linear system. It was precisely the realization of the non-linearity of climate models that gave rise to chaos theory, which reveals the fundamental unpredictability of most of what happens in the World.

But there are much simpler reasons for skepticism about alarmist predictions of climate warming. Such predictions are based, for the most part, on attempt to project the effect on climate of human-caused increases in the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide. But as experts in the field readily acknowledge, there are many other effects of human activity that impact climate, but which current climate models fail to adequately consider.

Black carbon, for example, or soot, a product of fossil fuel and vegetation burning, also traps energy in the atmosphere, thereby exacerbating the warming effect of carbon dioxide, whereas atmospheric sulfur pollution adds reflective white sulfate particles to the atmosphere, which have a direct cooling effect while serving as nuclei for water droplet, and hence cloud, formation.

Clouds, have a large effect on the Earth's energy balance by blocking outgoing radiation between Earth and space and reflecting incoming solar radiation. Such cloud effects are likely much greater than those of  either carbon dioxide or black carbon.

The variable activity of the sun must also be considered. For example, the sun's magnetic field affects the amount of cosmic radiation reaching the Earth's upper atmosphere. The mesons, to which cosmic rays give rise in the atmosphere cause water vapor nucleation and cloud formation. Moreover, long-term fluctuations in the Sun's magnetic field seems to explain historic changes in global temperature rather well. This and other solar effects need to be fully evaluated before climate change models could possibly have significant long-term predictive value.

Another great uncertainty concerns the fate of anthropogenic carbon dioxide once it has been added to the atmosphere. Some of it is assimilated by vegetation and increases the pool of carbon in soils and plants. Some dissolves in the ocean. Some is sequestered through geological processes. We know rather little about how changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration affect the rates at which these various sinks for carbon dioxide function.

Therefore, the one thing we can say with certainty about the effect of human activity on climate, is that we cannot predict it with any certainty.

This is not to say we should be unconcerned about human effects on the environment. There is merit in the precautionary principle, and I firmly believe we should aim to reduce the human impact on the environment. But we cannot turn the World's economy on a dime and we should not be focusing on carbon dioxide very largely to the exclusion of all else. Technology is advancing rapidly across the spectrum of industrial activity. Recycling is intensifying, resource use efficiency is increasing. We may need to encourage these trends in some areas. But we should be motivated on the basis of rational discourse, not by insults from self-serving bullies.

Image source

Al Gore's participation in the debate about climate change constitutes a serious threat to the integrity of science. His resort to blind brutal partisanship encourages bad science by inhibiting vigorous criticism of research that supports the climate alarmist view, while promoting vicious attacks on scientists with the temerity to investigate ideas that counter the climate alarmist program.

And it should be remembered that Al Gore's Nobel prize was not a science prize. It was a "peace" prize awarded by the same corrupt or unbelievably stupid Norwegian politicians who awarded the "peace" prize to President Barak O'Bomber.

See also:
Climate Science: Peak Civilization?

How odd was it to pack 17 Navy Seals in one helicopter as backup to Army Rangers on a routine mission?

On August 6, 17 members of the US Navy's elite commando SEALs Team 6 died when the Chinook helicopter they were in was brought down in Afghanistan by insurgent rocket fire. The SEALs were providing back-up to an Army Ranger raid on an "insurgent cell." All 38 people aboard the aircraft died, resulting in the greatest one-day loss of American life during the Afghanistan war.

Bad luck, one might think, but neatly balanced by the good luck that the very same Navy SEALs Team enjoyed on May 2nd when their helicopter "malfunctioned as it approached Osama bin Laden’s compound at about 3:30 p.m. ET Sunday, stalling as it hovered." Fortunately, the pilot was able to "set the machine down gently inside the walls of the compound, but then couldn’t get it going again."

It was a heart-stopping moment for President Barack Obama, who had been monitoring the raid in the White House Situation Room since 1 p.m., surrounded by members of his war cabinet.

Obviously, everyone was thinking about Black Hawk Down and Desert One,” a senior administration official recalled.

But not to worry.

The SEALs disembarked.

The assault team went ahead and raided the compound, even though they didn’t know if they would have a ride home”

The special forces put bombs on the crippled chopper and blew it up, then lifted off in a reinforcement craft just before 4:15 p.m., capping an astounding 40 minutes that gave the United States a tectonic victory in the 10-year war on terror touched off by 9/11.

“The world is safer. It is a better place because of the death of Osama bin Laden,” Obama said at the White House Monday.

1980, Desert One helicopter crash

That happy outcome was good luck not only for the SEALs, who got to live another 95 days, but for President Obama who took the credit for authorizing the SEALs intrepid incursion into the sovereign territory of America's ally, Pakistan, during which they bravely assassinated the sick and aging former US ally, Osama bin Laden, shot bin Laden's wife in the leg and, for no apparent reason, killed bin Laden's son Khalid.

Had that stalling helicopter crashed and the SEALs Team 6 been wiped out, Obama's chances of reelection in 2012 would have been as dismal as Jimmy Carter's chances of a second term following the failed Iran hostages rescue mission, which ended in disaster when a helicopter crashed into a C-130 Transport, killing eight servicemen.

But not everyone believes things went so well for the SEALs at Abbottabad. As Paul Craig Roberts reported:

The Pakistani News Agency has provided a live interview with an eye witness to the US attack on the alleged compound of Osama bin Laden. The eye witness, Mohammad Bashir, describes the event as it unfolded. Of the three helicopters, "there was only one that landed the men and came back to pick them up, but as he [the helicopter] was picking them up, it blew away and caught fire." The witness says that there were no survivors, just dead bodies and pieces of bodies everywhere. "We saw the helicopter burning, we saw the dead bodies, then everything was removed and now there is nothing."

Which naturally raises the question, how come no SEALs were reported killed during the Abbottabad raid?

If they died, the news was surely bound to come out. So what point would there have been in failing to report such deaths at the time?

In order to fake a more satisfactory account of their deaths at another time and another place?

As we noted earlier:

Helicopters go down all the time in Afghanistan. Four Chinooks, and several other types this year already. So it would have been simple enough to conceal losses in Pakistan -- just add the names to the list of those killed in the latest crash, and return some well charred bodies for burial. Without a DNA test, the deception would be undetectable.

Now it seems, not everyone in the US military is satisfied by the account of the way in which Seal Team 6 met its end. Thus, the The New York Times reports, Admiral William H. McRaven, the  new commander of American Special Operations forces, has had to defend the use of 17 members of  the elite Navy Seals Team 6, to back up the August 6 raid by Army Rangers on an Afghanistan "insurgent" cell, which ended in disaster when the chopper was brought down by enemy fire.

According to the Times,

 The commander, Adm. William H. McRaven, said “there was nothing unusual about this mission” to warrant the sustained criticism heard from some retired commandos and military analysts, who have questioned how the operation was planned and carried out and whether it was an appropriate use of the vaunted Navy Seals.

 Furthermore, said the admiral the most highly trained Navy and Army commando teams are "regularly assigned to support commanders of units in a local area of combat if that contributed to the overall mission."

“We have to be fungible as a force,” Admiral McRaven said. “And if we are not fungible as a force, then we are not of value. It is not unusual at all for Seals or Rangers or Army Special Operations forces to be part of a quick-reaction force, as in this case.”

So there you have it. Nothing odd about a crack special forces team being wiped out while serving as back-up during a routine anti-insurgency mission in Afghanistan. Just fungibility.

Libya: No need for pith helmets

Manuel Noreiga: jailed since 1989

In his article, Take Up the White Man's Burden, Eric Margolis adopts the "re-colonization of Libya" meme. But the notion is hopelessly misleading.

There will be no return to the tropics of pith-helmeted white men bound to serve "their captives' need." There are plenty of Libyan Ph.D.'s in economics and politics and all the rest of the technical twaddle deemed necessary for the management of a modern government.

Post-Gaddafi, the Government of Libya will be of the people, by the people, and ostensibly for the people, provided that the presumed interests of the people happen to coincide with those of the New World Order.That is to say, there will be an elected government, the members of which will find it richly rewarding to conform to the wishes of the multinational corporations so anxious to reconstruct Libya after the recent unfortunate deconstruction by aerial bombardment.

Saddam hanged: Image source

The Libyans who make up the government will enjoy all the perquisites of office, including the after-office payoffs that make puppetry such an rewarding occupation for the likes of Blair/Brown/Cameron/Sarkozy/Obama. And should they ever think to betray their corporate masters, they have the horrible examples of Saddam, Manuel Noriega, and now Gadhafi to remind them of their own true interest.

They will be assimilated: Resistance is futile

Image source

In Libya, so many are saying, we are witnessing the recolonization of Africa.

NATO’s operation in Libya is a perfectly planned political spectacle which marks the beginning of the second colonization of Africa

so says Lode Vanoost, former deputy speaker of the Belgian Parliament.

But this is to misunderstand what is happening not only to Libya, not only to Africa, but to the entire World.

Colonization is about Lebensraum. It is the process of occupying land for the purpose of establishing populations derived from that of the occupying power. Colonization is about nationalism and the expansion of strong nations at the expense of the weak.

What is happening in Libya and throughout most of the World today has nothing to do with nationalism or the expansion of living space for the dominant nations of the World. What we are seeing is the exact opposite of nationalism. It is the assimilation of all nations into a single melting pot controlled by a corporate, mainly financial, elite in collaboration with the great Western foundations established by robber barons, past and present.

The objective is not to establish European, or American or Chinese colonies in Africa. The objective is to impose a global system of monopoly capitalist control.

There is nothing nationalistic or racist about this system. Anyone can join the racket. Europeans, Russians, Indians, Chinese, Africans, all are welcome to join the ruling elite, provided only that they have a billion or two behind them and they are prepared to sacrifice the interest of their own people without limit.

Locally, US/NATO installs a compliant native group in government. Members of the puppet regime, the African or central Asian equivalents of Blair/Brown/Cameron/Sarkozy/Obama enjoy both the perquisites of government and the bribes and after-office payoffs of the corporate interests that are to receive unfettered access to national resources and markets.

Gadhafi was, in contrast, an old-fashioned tyrant who believed in building up his country's infra-structure, educational system, and industry. He had the daft idea that Libya is somehow for the Libyans. Well bollocks to that racist poison: hence, We Came, We Saw, He Died.

But once assimilated into the globalist collective, Libyans will, apparently, be able to look forward to a brighter future under the leadership of the Al Qaeda terrorist commander Abdel Hakim Belhadj.

Or as Tony Cartalucci says in a post headed Libya: The Greatest Betrayal:

...let's not labor under any delusions. Obama, Cameron, and Sarkozy are heads of state in name only. It is the depravity and megalomania amongst the banks, corporations, and the institutions they have contrived, that are responsible for the most egregious betrayal in Western history. For 10 years the West's leadership have stirred up hatred and fear amongst their populations to justify a lengthy and very costly global war that has sent US, British, Canadian, German, French, and many other troops, around the world, into dangerous adversity, and ultimately to their graves to fight "the forces of terror."

Now, almost as if savoring the irony, the New York Times, on behalf of the corporate-financier oligarchs that presume dominion over the Western world, fully admit that Al Qaeda terrorists, men who literally killed US troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan are now in Libya and are the benefactors of billions of dollars in Western aid, diplomatic recognition, training, weapons, the lending of intelligence assets, the full unwavering support of the West's "media," NATO-member air support, and even graced with Western special forces fighting side-by-side with them on the ground. This timely confession is also in response in part to revelations that the Libyan rebel commander now filling the streets of Tripoli with indescribable horror is a hardcore Al Qaeda leader, reported first in the Telegraph months ago, and again this week on RT and covered in depth by respected geopolitical analyst Dr. Webster Tarpley...

Read more

On the Libya NATO is in the process of destroying, Aangirfan reports here.

On the chief of the plutocratic oligarchy that seeks power in Libya now, Aangirfan reports here.

Utoya, Norway - Breivik Atrocites: The police were running an exercise

Source: Aftonpost, August 26, 2011

Trente på Utøya-scenario 22. juli

 Norwegian to English translation

On July 22, only hours before Anders Behring Breivik began shooting children on Utøya, the police emergency squad concluded an exercise in which they enacted an almost identical scenario.

AVANDREAS GROUND FOSS

Four days in advance, and also the same Friday that the [Breivik] attacks were carried out, a trained police special unit carried out a terror attack exercise that corresponded almost exactly to the situation that hours later met the 22 police officers in the emergency squad on Utøya. 

Aftenposten has confirmed from key sources in the management of the Oslo police that the exercise was terminated at 1500 hours that same Friday. 

All officers from the emergency squad that participated in the government quarter of Oslo following the car bombing and later came ashore on Utøya and arrested Anders Behring Breivik had earlier that same day and in the previous days participated in training on a very similar scenario.

The training involved: a mobile terrorist attack in which one or more perpetrators only goal would be to shoot as many people as possible and then shoot the police when they arrive.

Massacre 
Police special unit trains continuously. But every quarter, they train to different types of scenarios. 
These are different scenarios police envisions might occur where the emergency squad must be inserted. There may be actions indoors, in cities or out in other environments. 

According to police, this is a scenario they train on several times a year and has trained for several years, especially after some events in other countries.

The similarity with what actually happened on Utøya, was mere coincidence, says a key police source, who declined to be quoted by name.

26 minutes
The car bombing in the government quarter of Oslo occurred only 26 minutes after the emergency exercise ended.

At 17.30 staff of the Oslo police were told a shooting at Utøya. 

The Emergency squad set out for the North Buskerud Police District, but at 18.02, six minutes before they arrived, they were advised to meet with local police at Storøya. 

Seven people from the emergency squad and three officers from Nordre Buskerud Police District climbed into a 4.9 meter long police dinghy, but the boat was so heavily loaded that it began taking on water. The police then transferred to a privately-owned boat and headed for Utøya.

See Also:

Norway's 9/11: The Horror Is In The Message Winter Patriot

THE PEOPLE BEHIND THE NORWAY ATTACKS, AND 9 11 Aangirfan

Norway’s Terror as Systemic Destabilization: Breivik, the Arms-for-Drugs Milieu, and Global Shadow Elites Peter Dale Scott

The violent videos of Breivik's 'mentor' Telegraph

CONFIRMED: Libya War is CIA Op 30 Years in the Making

An article by Tony Cartalucci, confirms the CIA/private think tank pedigree of the war on Libya.

In a separate piece, Tony Cartalucci exposes the current NATO operations inside Libya as a desperate psychological war with the corporate media explicitly deceiving the public with misleading headlines under which facts are buried by mountains of minutia, carefully worded propaganda, unverified innuendos, and outright lies.


Photo: Images and reports are beginning to trickle in as NATO-backed genocide unfolds throughout Tripoli's streets, indicating the destruction of infrastructure and the specific targeting of black Africans written off by the corporate media as "suspected mercenaries." Benghazi rebels have been long reported to harbor extremist ideologies and an intense ethnic & racial hatred.

And here's Webster Tarpley on the Al Qaeda pirates taking over of the Mediterranean (U-Tube Vid).

And Chris Floyd on Dead Sirte: Another Murderous Twist in NATO's Coil of Lies