A conch is the shell of a mollusc or shell fish. The Bivalvia, known in previous centuries as the Lamellibranchiata and Pelecypoda," comprise, so Wikipedia informs, "a class of marine and freshwater molluscs that have laterally compressed bodies enclosed by a shell consisting of two hinged parts. They have no head."
Well never mind about the head or lack thereof, just think about the shell, the two hinged parts spread wide and viewed from the outside. What do you see? Well, to some, what they see is reminiscent of the vulva, the external female genital organs of a mammal, in particular the labia majora located on either side of the vagina. No surprise, therefore, to learn from the Urban Dictionary that in Spanish, "conch" is slang for "cunt" and "conchita" means "little cunt."
Which naturally draws attention to the last name of the European song contest winner of our title, namely, "Wurst." As most readers will know, a wurst is a German or Austrian sausage, so few will be surprised to learn from the Urban Dictionary that "wurst" is also a slang term for penis. Hence my question: would the judges of the European song contest have been so enthused by the performance of the man with tits, or is a it a woman with a beard and penis, had he/she been introduced not as the pleasant sounding — to the English speaker's ear — Conchita Wurst, but as the rather less charming, Little Cunt Penis, or some variant of the same? Just asking.
Thursday, June 18, 2015
Tuesday, June 16, 2015
It's Not Professor Sir Tim Hunt, FRS, Nobel Laureate, Who's Sexist, But the PC Idiots Who Say He Is
On 9 June 2015, Tim Hunt gave a speech at the 2015 World Conference of Science Journalists in Seoul, Korea, entitled "Creative Science—Only a Game?"
Obviously, you have to be a total idiot or a contemptible liar to say that Professor Hunt's 37 words were sexist.
Hunt merely stated something about the sociology of a research lab. If you do a regular thirty-five-hour-a-week job, taking your yearly vacation allowance, a few sick days, maybe some flex days, etc., it is nevertheless likely that at some time in your career you will have taken a more than purely professional interest in one or other of the more attractive people of the opposite sex with whom you worked.
Well such a work environment as you are probably familiar with is nothing like that of a high-powered research lab. There you're likely to find people work twelve-hour days and seven-day weeks, and who will pull an all-nighter if that's what the experiment demands. There you will find people who have taken no holiday in years. And these are people trying to solve a real puzzle: they will likely be engaged in an unending conversation with co-workers, students, and technicians: how to tackle the problem experimentally, the innumerable technical snags and glitches whatever the approach, the evaluation of the data, the public presentation of the findings, the rebuttal of criticism, etc.
Now decide whether what Professor Hunt said makes sense, whether in fact, he was merely stating the obvious. Where men and women engage together in such intense effort as productive research requires, sexual tensions are inevitable and and can be powerfully disruptive. There's nothing discriminatory in saying that.
But what about the last bit: "and when you criticize them, they cry."
First, is it true or not? Here's what my wife, with over forty years of administrative experience, from running a high-powered research lab to editing journals to university administration told me: when a woman asks me for an evaluation of her performance "I ask whether they really want a candid appraisal or if that will make them cry."
So what's discriminatory about noting that female psychology, or is it physiology, can militate against effective discipline? Nothing, obviously.
So how is one to characterize the response of the Royal Society, which "acted to distance itself from the reported comments by Sir Tim Hunt."
Here's what they said:
Professor Hunt expressed no objection whatever to the employment of women in science, which is hardly suprising since his wife is a distinguished scientist whose graduate studies he supervised.
But the irrelevantly offensive stupidity of the Royal Society's "distancing" of itself from one of its most distinguished members was nothing compared to the actions of University College London, where Hunt held an honorary, that is to say unpaid, position. They got him to resign by bullying his wife, Professor Mary Collins who, speaking with the Guardian, said:
Here we have a case of a distinguished, old, white guy being publicly humiliated for no better reason than that he is a distinguished, old, white guy, i.e., exactly the sort of successful, racially unmixed, hard-working, responsible person most hated by the mis-educated, multi-culturalized, self-hating British moronocracy. And the elite at the Royal Society, the University of London, and the folks at the European Research Council, who also fired Hunt, are right behind the mob: a mob of sexist, racist, anti-intellectualist British yahoos.
But then where are the Brits? To judge by some press reports, the Brits seem to have been entirely ethnically cleansed:
His remarks included the following:
Let me tell you about my trouble with girls … three things happen when they are in the lab … You fall in love with them, they fall in love with you and when you criticise them, they cry.The next day, according to Wikipedia, "numerous media outlets reported the story and criticized Hunt's remarks as sexist."
So what's sexism? Here's Wikipedia's description of Hunt's alleged crime:
Sexism or gender discrimination is prejudice or discrimination based on a person's sex or gender. Sexism affects both men and women, but primarily women. It has been linked to stereotypes and gender roles, and may include the belief that one sex or gender is intrinsically superior to another. Extreme sexism may foster sexual harassment, rape and other forms of sexual violence.So where's the discrimination in Professor Hunt's remarks? Where's the incitement to rape?
Obviously, you have to be a total idiot or a contemptible liar to say that Professor Hunt's 37 words were sexist.
Hunt merely stated something about the sociology of a research lab. If you do a regular thirty-five-hour-a-week job, taking your yearly vacation allowance, a few sick days, maybe some flex days, etc., it is nevertheless likely that at some time in your career you will have taken a more than purely professional interest in one or other of the more attractive people of the opposite sex with whom you worked.
Well such a work environment as you are probably familiar with is nothing like that of a high-powered research lab. There you're likely to find people work twelve-hour days and seven-day weeks, and who will pull an all-nighter if that's what the experiment demands. There you will find people who have taken no holiday in years. And these are people trying to solve a real puzzle: they will likely be engaged in an unending conversation with co-workers, students, and technicians: how to tackle the problem experimentally, the innumerable technical snags and glitches whatever the approach, the evaluation of the data, the public presentation of the findings, the rebuttal of criticism, etc.
Now decide whether what Professor Hunt said makes sense, whether in fact, he was merely stating the obvious. Where men and women engage together in such intense effort as productive research requires, sexual tensions are inevitable and and can be powerfully disruptive. There's nothing discriminatory in saying that.
But what about the last bit: "and when you criticize them, they cry."
First, is it true or not? Here's what my wife, with over forty years of administrative experience, from running a high-powered research lab to editing journals to university administration told me: when a woman asks me for an evaluation of her performance "I ask whether they really want a candid appraisal or if that will make them cry."
So what's discriminatory about noting that female psychology, or is it physiology, can militate against effective discipline? Nothing, obviously.
So how is one to characterize the response of the Royal Society, which "acted to distance itself from the reported comments by Sir Tim Hunt."
Here's what they said:
The Royal Society believes that in order to achieve everything that it can, science needs to make the best use of the research capabilities of the entire population. Too many talented individuals do not fulfil their scientific potential because of issues such as gender and the Society is committed to helping to put this right. Sir Tim Hunt was speaking as an individual and his reported comments in no way reflect the views of the Royal Society.Does that have anything to do with what Professor Hunt said, or what? Well actually nothing at all. But they're distancing themselves from Professor Hunt, anyhow.
Professor Hunt expressed no objection whatever to the employment of women in science, which is hardly suprising since his wife is a distinguished scientist whose graduate studies he supervised.
But the irrelevantly offensive stupidity of the Royal Society's "distancing" of itself from one of its most distinguished members was nothing compared to the actions of University College London, where Hunt held an honorary, that is to say unpaid, position. They got him to resign by bullying his wife, Professor Mary Collins who, speaking with the Guardian, said:
I was told by a senior that Tim had to resign immediately or be sacked – though I was told it would be treated as a low-key affair. Tim duly emailed his resignation when he got home. The university promptly announced his resignation on its website and started tweeting that they had got rid of him. Essentially, they had hung both of us out to dry. They certainly did not treat it as a low-key affair. I got no warning about the announcement and no offer of help, even though I have worked there for nearly 20 years. It has done me lasting damage.How is one to characterize people who act so despicably? Morons? Arse holes? Nazis? Well, actually, I think "Sexists" is the right term. What we are seeing in the triumph of political correctness over sanity and decency is the rise of something like the mentality of ancient Rome, where people were thrown to the lions for the amusement of the masses.
Here we have a case of a distinguished, old, white guy being publicly humiliated for no better reason than that he is a distinguished, old, white guy, i.e., exactly the sort of successful, racially unmixed, hard-working, responsible person most hated by the mis-educated, multi-culturalized, self-hating British moronocracy. And the elite at the Royal Society, the University of London, and the folks at the European Research Council, who also fired Hunt, are right behind the mob: a mob of sexist, racist, anti-intellectualist British yahoos.
But then where are the Brits? To judge by some press reports, the Brits seem to have been entirely ethnically cleansed:
 |
| A greeting for Michelle Obama during a visit to a London school. Source Daily Mail. Nice-looking kids. But they're NOT ENGLISH. |
Thursday, May 28, 2015
Petro Poroshenko to Share Nobel Peace Prize
As long expected, this year`s Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded to Petro Poroshenko, the US-appointed Ukrainian war leader who has courageously pursued the genocide of the Russian people of Eastern Ukraine despite the near universal desertion of all but the most incompetent/drunken members of the Ukraine Armed Forces.
The award was shared with John, Bomb-Iran, McCain and, perhaps surprisingly to some, ISIS, the cannibalistic, head chopping, prisoner-burning agent of US influence in the Middle East.
Probably the only real disappointment felt as the result of today's announcement will be among those who had hoped that the prize would be awarded to ex-Middle-East Peace Envoy, Tony Blair, or posthumously, to Jack the Ripper.
Related:
CanSpeccy: Stevie Harper Invites Ukie Oligarch to Address Canadian Parliament in Show of Support for Nazi Genocide
The award was shared with John, Bomb-Iran, McCain and, perhaps surprisingly to some, ISIS, the cannibalistic, head chopping, prisoner-burning agent of US influence in the Middle East.
Probably the only real disappointment felt as the result of today's announcement will be among those who had hoped that the prize would be awarded to ex-Middle-East Peace Envoy, Tony Blair, or posthumously, to Jack the Ripper.
Related:
CanSpeccy: Stevie Harper Invites Ukie Oligarch to Address Canadian Parliament in Show of Support for Nazi Genocide
Saturday, May 16, 2015
The Scotch Nats at Westminster: A Party Without Power or Purpose
The Scottish National Party is a separatist, or as our friends in Kiev would say, terrorist, movement: its objective to tear Scotland, a lightly populated rocky outcrop at the northernmost tip of the British Isles, from the democratic, historically linked, linguistically unified, ethnically related, physically united natural geopolitical unit of the United Kingdom with the objective of inserting it into the undemocratic, multi-lingual, multi-ethnic, civil war prone, European Union where the interests of the Scottish people as a national entity would be regarded as of no consequence whatever.
In pursuit of the Will-'o-the-wisp of Scottish national fulfillment within the continental European Union the Scotch Nats have taken their campaign to the Parliament in Westminster, achieving a near sweep of Scotland in the 2015 general election, and sending 56 MP's to London. But in terms of practical politics this doesn't mean a thing. In Westminster the Nats can vote whichever way they want but without the slightest influence on the course of the majority Conservative government.
Moreover there is nothing that the Nats at Westminster can tell the government in Westminster that the Nats ruling in Edinburgh cannot tell the government in Westminster directly. All that the SNP members can do in Westminster is fester. And, of course, collect their pay cheques and submit their claims for expenses when making shopping trips to London.
No doubt Nats will try to divert attention to themselves in various ways, all of which will amount to nothing more than Scotch whinging. In time, SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon will become known as the female equivalent of the Scotsman with a grievance, who as P.G. Wodehouse noted, is not difficult to distinguish from a ray of sunshine.
Related:
Daily Mail: Vicious Scotch Nats Drive Successful Entrepreneur Into English Exile
Daily Mail: Goonish, drunken antics of Westminster's new SNP Members
CanSpeccy: UK 2015: Weird Election Math
CanSpeccy: Why the UK Election Changes Nothing
CanSpeccy: The 2015 UK Pre-election Leaders’ Debate
In pursuit of the Will-'o-the-wisp of Scottish national fulfillment within the continental European Union the Scotch Nats have taken their campaign to the Parliament in Westminster, achieving a near sweep of Scotland in the 2015 general election, and sending 56 MP's to London. But in terms of practical politics this doesn't mean a thing. In Westminster the Nats can vote whichever way they want but without the slightest influence on the course of the majority Conservative government.
Moreover there is nothing that the Nats at Westminster can tell the government in Westminster that the Nats ruling in Edinburgh cannot tell the government in Westminster directly. All that the SNP members can do in Westminster is fester. And, of course, collect their pay cheques and submit their claims for expenses when making shopping trips to London.
No doubt Nats will try to divert attention to themselves in various ways, all of which will amount to nothing more than Scotch whinging. In time, SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon will become known as the female equivalent of the Scotsman with a grievance, who as P.G. Wodehouse noted, is not difficult to distinguish from a ray of sunshine.
Related:
Daily Mail: Vicious Scotch Nats Drive Successful Entrepreneur Into English Exile
Daily Mail: Goonish, drunken antics of Westminster's new SNP Members
Without either power or purpose in Westminster, the SNP were bound to lose credibility. But that they would discredit themselves the day the arrived was more than anyone could have hoped. The Scottish people will surely soon regret, if they do not regret already, choosing such clowns to represent them.Stuart Littlewood: UK General Election: the Dust Hasn’t Settled Yet
CanSpeccy: UK 2015: Weird Election Math
CanSpeccy: Why the UK Election Changes Nothing
CanSpeccy: The 2015 UK Pre-election Leaders’ Debate
Thursday, May 7, 2015
Why the UK Election Changes Nothing
Man is a predator that preys on his own kind: hence the social hierarchy — the working class works and the ruling class rules.
In Britain, during the 19th century, workers increasingly concentrated in large numbers in mines, shipyards, and factories posed a threat to the authority of the ruling class. The resulting class struggle culminated in the passage of the Trade Union Act of 1871, which gave British workers the legal right to organize for the purpose of bargaining with employers over wages and working conditions.
Funded by compulsory dues imposed on all workers within organized industries, labour unions became a major political force able to finance election campaigns and sponsor parliamentary candidates, mainly drawn from their own ranks.
The result was an anomaly in the arrangement of society. While workers continued to work, the rulers, which is to say the owners of capital, found themselves, under the influence of labour's representation in Parliament, heavily burdened by taxes to support social programs of all kinds intended to benefit the workers.
But within a hundred years of the passage of the Trade Union Act, the social tide again turned due to the forces of globalization to which the British were ruthlessly submitted by Prime Ministers Heath, Thatcher, Major, Blair and Cameron. As a result, British workers were forced into competition with cheap labor both abroad, as the result of the off-shoring of jobs, and at home, as the result of mass immigration; the pace of which now constitutes a genocidal flood that has made the English a minority in their own capital city of London, and in many other towns and cities, including Leicester, Luton, Slough and, soon, England's second city of Birmingham.
Inevitably, the export of jobs combined with a glut of cheap labor at home destroyed the power of the labour unions. As a result, the Labour Party is now a party of slick lawyers and agents of foreign interests, the present leader (at the time of writing) being a staunch Zionist who asserts that welcoming foreigners is the essence of British Nationalism. Yeah, right: tell that to the million unemployed unskilled youths of Britain and the millions of low-paid workers competing for jobs not only with African, Asian and Middle-Eastern migrants, but with some of the best and the brightest ex-Soviet citizens of Eastern Europe, tens of millions of whom have the unimpeded right of immigration to Britain.
Thus, today, there is no party in Britain that could or would alter the economic course of events in any significant way. The Tories, if they remain in power, will continue to lie about their intention to curb immigration as they have during the past four years. Cheap labour, after all, is the basis of the money power that now owns not only the Tories but all the major British political parties and politicians.
The liberals will continue to applaud mass immigration as a process of value in and of itself, eliminating the British from the face of the Earth as they are outbred by a mass of philoprogenitive Third worlders. and the Labour Party, which initiated the current immigrant deluge, will lie like the Tories as serves the need of the money power that pays for their election campaigns and rewards the leadership with payoffs after they leave office.
Meantime, UKIP, supposedly the champion of lower immigration, blathers continually about the benefits of immigration and, for God's sake, the need for more Indians: not that anyone in Britain dislikes Indians, far from it. But when more than half the population of my father's home town of Leicester is of Indian extraction, most Brits think it would be best to love Indians in India, not England, so who the Hell's gonna vote UKIP?
Likewise, the Scotch separatists, or SNP, have no more idea of serving the interests of the people of Scotland than anyone else. Their greatest desire, apparently, is to be admitted to the EU, there, along with the many other trivialities such as Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia, Luxembourg, etc., etc., to accept unquestioningly the dictates if the Brussels mandarins. But whether inside the UK or out, as members of the EU the Scots will have no choice but to compete for work with any number of Poles, Lithuanians, Latvians Albanians, Romanians, etc.,who chose to come and take what job they can from a native Scot.
In addition there are several other nonsense parties headed, like the Scotch Nats by women, who as I argued before, would best be tied in sacks and dumped in the Bosphorus. Certainly, if spared from drowning, these parties will accomplish nothing for the workers as they strive to create more jobs for members of the political class that serves the globalist plutocratic elite.
Related:
CanSpeccy: UK 2015: Weird Election Math
In Britain, during the 19th century, workers increasingly concentrated in large numbers in mines, shipyards, and factories posed a threat to the authority of the ruling class. The resulting class struggle culminated in the passage of the Trade Union Act of 1871, which gave British workers the legal right to organize for the purpose of bargaining with employers over wages and working conditions.
Funded by compulsory dues imposed on all workers within organized industries, labour unions became a major political force able to finance election campaigns and sponsor parliamentary candidates, mainly drawn from their own ranks.
The result was an anomaly in the arrangement of society. While workers continued to work, the rulers, which is to say the owners of capital, found themselves, under the influence of labour's representation in Parliament, heavily burdened by taxes to support social programs of all kinds intended to benefit the workers.
But within a hundred years of the passage of the Trade Union Act, the social tide again turned due to the forces of globalization to which the British were ruthlessly submitted by Prime Ministers Heath, Thatcher, Major, Blair and Cameron. As a result, British workers were forced into competition with cheap labor both abroad, as the result of the off-shoring of jobs, and at home, as the result of mass immigration; the pace of which now constitutes a genocidal flood that has made the English a minority in their own capital city of London, and in many other towns and cities, including Leicester, Luton, Slough and, soon, England's second city of Birmingham.
Inevitably, the export of jobs combined with a glut of cheap labor at home destroyed the power of the labour unions. As a result, the Labour Party is now a party of slick lawyers and agents of foreign interests, the present leader (at the time of writing) being a staunch Zionist who asserts that welcoming foreigners is the essence of British Nationalism. Yeah, right: tell that to the million unemployed unskilled youths of Britain and the millions of low-paid workers competing for jobs not only with African, Asian and Middle-Eastern migrants, but with some of the best and the brightest ex-Soviet citizens of Eastern Europe, tens of millions of whom have the unimpeded right of immigration to Britain.
Thus, today, there is no party in Britain that could or would alter the economic course of events in any significant way. The Tories, if they remain in power, will continue to lie about their intention to curb immigration as they have during the past four years. Cheap labour, after all, is the basis of the money power that now owns not only the Tories but all the major British political parties and politicians.
The liberals will continue to applaud mass immigration as a process of value in and of itself, eliminating the British from the face of the Earth as they are outbred by a mass of philoprogenitive Third worlders. and the Labour Party, which initiated the current immigrant deluge, will lie like the Tories as serves the need of the money power that pays for their election campaigns and rewards the leadership with payoffs after they leave office.
Meantime, UKIP, supposedly the champion of lower immigration, blathers continually about the benefits of immigration and, for God's sake, the need for more Indians: not that anyone in Britain dislikes Indians, far from it. But when more than half the population of my father's home town of Leicester is of Indian extraction, most Brits think it would be best to love Indians in India, not England, so who the Hell's gonna vote UKIP?
Likewise, the Scotch separatists, or SNP, have no more idea of serving the interests of the people of Scotland than anyone else. Their greatest desire, apparently, is to be admitted to the EU, there, along with the many other trivialities such as Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia, Luxembourg, etc., etc., to accept unquestioningly the dictates if the Brussels mandarins. But whether inside the UK or out, as members of the EU the Scots will have no choice but to compete for work with any number of Poles, Lithuanians, Latvians Albanians, Romanians, etc.,who chose to come and take what job they can from a native Scot.
In addition there are several other nonsense parties headed, like the Scotch Nats by women, who as I argued before, would best be tied in sacks and dumped in the Bosphorus. Certainly, if spared from drowning, these parties will accomplish nothing for the workers as they strive to create more jobs for members of the political class that serves the globalist plutocratic elite.
Related:
CanSpeccy: UK 2015: Weird Election Math
Wednesday, May 6, 2015
I'm Sorry Russia?
Over at Rock Solid Politics, Canadian political scientist and former soldier, Brad Cabana, apologizes to Russia for the Harper Government's insolent refusal to send an official representative to this Saturday's Moscow Victory Day Parade that honors the colossal sacrifices of the Russian people in their epic struggle to defeat Nazi Germany during World War 2.
It should be remembered, though, that it was the Soviets, by their agreement to the August 23, 1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop pact for the gang-rape of Poland, that precipitated the war. It just happened that Hitler, Stalin's partner in crime, turned against him (or possibly Hitler acted to preempt a Soviet plan to attack Germany), which suited the West since it resulted in the trashing of Germany, then the main threat to US and British power. For this reason it was, for many years, deemed appropriate in the West to praise the Russian war effort.
But today, Russia's revival as a world power threatens to block the Eastward expansion of US/NATO in its drive to establish a corporate-controlled global empire, hence the Western military pressure being brought to bear on Russia, and the Western cultivation of Russophobia.
For the people of the West, therefore, the question today (insofar as the people in the West have any relevance to government action, which is doubtful) is whether they favor the corporate-owned global empire in which the nation states as racial and cultural entities are to be destroyed by mass migrations and enforced multiculturalism, or would prefer to remain part of a multipolar world of racially and culturally homogeneous, democratic, sovereign nation states as championed by the Putin and the other BRICs nations. If the latter, they should join with Brad Cabana in apologizing to Russia for the Harper Government's shameful display of contempt for the dreadful sacrifices of the Russian people during World War 2.
It should be remembered, though, that it was the Soviets, by their agreement to the August 23, 1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop pact for the gang-rape of Poland, that precipitated the war. It just happened that Hitler, Stalin's partner in crime, turned against him (or possibly Hitler acted to preempt a Soviet plan to attack Germany), which suited the West since it resulted in the trashing of Germany, then the main threat to US and British power. For this reason it was, for many years, deemed appropriate in the West to praise the Russian war effort.
But today, Russia's revival as a world power threatens to block the Eastward expansion of US/NATO in its drive to establish a corporate-controlled global empire, hence the Western military pressure being brought to bear on Russia, and the Western cultivation of Russophobia.
For the people of the West, therefore, the question today (insofar as the people in the West have any relevance to government action, which is doubtful) is whether they favor the corporate-owned global empire in which the nation states as racial and cultural entities are to be destroyed by mass migrations and enforced multiculturalism, or would prefer to remain part of a multipolar world of racially and culturally homogeneous, democratic, sovereign nation states as championed by the Putin and the other BRICs nations. If the latter, they should join with Brad Cabana in apologizing to Russia for the Harper Government's shameful display of contempt for the dreadful sacrifices of the Russian people during World War 2.
Friday, May 1, 2015
Bob Kerrey, 9/11 Commisioner: 9/11 Was the Result of a 30-Year Conspiracy
Now that pretty well everyone who's given the matter serious thought understands that 9/11 was a phony terrorist attack engineered by the U.S. of A. to justify wars on Afghanistan and Iraq, calling it a 30-year conspiracy takes some of the heat off Clinton, Bush and Cheney who were directly culpable.
Next, probably, we'll be hearing that the London Tube train bombings were the result of a 30-year conspiracy, thus taking the heat of Phony Blair.
Thursday, April 23, 2015
The USA, The Neocons and the Self Genocide of the West
Prof. Mujahid Kamran: Who Really Controls the World?
William Lind: Russia Says No to One-World Government
Paul Robinson: The West’s new ‘Cold War’ is with Dostoevsky’s Russia, not Stalin’s
So You`re About To Become a Minority:
Via Deep Resource
David Graeber: A Practical Utopian’s Guide to the Coming Collapse
Honest Political Ad:
Via Aangirfan
Deep Resource: Creating the New World Order: US/Polish Mass Murder in Kiev
Steve Sailer: The World's Most Important Graph
Tuesday, April 14, 2015
Recent Posts Elsewhere
i-Lucretius: The Real Jesus That Any Self-Respecting Christian Would Vote to Crucify
CanSpeccy on WordPress: Are the Liberal Bastards for the Destruction of the British Nation Running Scared?
CanSpeccy on WordPress: Was Germanwings Flight 4U 952 shot down by a French fighter jet after being remotely highjacked and targeted on a major hydro dam?
CanSpeccy on WordPress: Are the Liberal Bastards for the Destruction of the British Nation Running Scared?
CanSpeccy on WordPress: Was Germanwings Flight 4U 952 shot down by a French fighter jet after being remotely highjacked and targeted on a major hydro dam?
Tuesday, April 7, 2015
No Political Opinions Please, We’re Canadian
The Toronto Symphony has barred Ukrainian-born artist Valentina Lisitsa for commenting on the mainstream media's biased coverage of the Nazi-backed coup d'état in Ukraine and Kiev's genocidal war on ethnic Russians of South Eastern Ukraine.
As the Toronto Star reports:
Read more at CanSpeccy.WordPress.com
As the Toronto Star reports:
Read more at CanSpeccy.WordPress.com
Sunday, April 5, 2015
MH17, Dutch Gold, Kolomoisky, Botched Putin Assassination Attempt
Deep Resource notes the remarkable difference between the inquiry into the Germanwings airliner crash and the crash of Malaysia Airlines MH17 blown out of the sky in the Ukrainian war zone:
Two weeks after the Germanwings crash we know everything: what was on the audio tapes, the cause of the crash, the motivations of the co-pilot. There are no more open questions.How different with MH17. After 8 months they can’t even decide if it was a A2A or S2A missile that brought down MH17. We still don’t know what was on the tapes. Unlike the GermanWings plane, the US government immediately had an idea about who had done MH17: Russia. Just like the US government proclaimed to know within hours that bin Laden was behind 9/11.
Why the difference? Deep Resource offers two reasons:
Friday, April 3, 2015
The 2015 UK Pre-election Leaders' Debate
At the insistence of Prime Minister David Cameron, leaders not only of the significant national parties, but also of the Greens and the nationalists, both Scotch and Welsh, were included in this so-called debate, thus preventing any real one-on-one that could have seriously damaged the Tory leader.
The marginals, all female, filled much of the air time with the usual liberal-left drivel designed to extend the culture of entitlement not only to all citizens but to anyone who manages to set foot on British soil, including healthcare tourists, criminals and radical Muslims with a settler mentality. Obviously the best thing to do with the three of them would have been to tie them in sacks and dump them in the Bosphorus.
As for the males, Cameron`s performance was exemplary: a suave delivery of the lying bullshit to be expected from a war criminal, Libya bombing, treasonous Conservative Friends of Israel, bankster-enabling, son-of-a-bitch, Eton-Oxford product with a nasal whine and the look about him of an ill-tempered raccoon.
Clegg delivered the Liberal bullshit with charismatic elan: Wage compression for low-skilled Brits due to mass immigration? No prob., just raise the minimum wage. Yeah, Cleggy, and let 'em eat cake.
Milliband the ugly Jew with a reconstructed schnozz ...
Read more at CanSpeccy on Wordpress
The marginals, all female, filled much of the air time with the usual liberal-left drivel designed to extend the culture of entitlement not only to all citizens but to anyone who manages to set foot on British soil, including healthcare tourists, criminals and radical Muslims with a settler mentality. Obviously the best thing to do with the three of them would have been to tie them in sacks and dump them in the Bosphorus.
As for the males, Cameron`s performance was exemplary: a suave delivery of the lying bullshit to be expected from a war criminal, Libya bombing, treasonous Conservative Friends of Israel, bankster-enabling, son-of-a-bitch, Eton-Oxford product with a nasal whine and the look about him of an ill-tempered raccoon.
Clegg delivered the Liberal bullshit with charismatic elan: Wage compression for low-skilled Brits due to mass immigration? No prob., just raise the minimum wage. Yeah, Cleggy, and let 'em eat cake.
Milliband the ugly Jew with a reconstructed schnozz ...
Read more at CanSpeccy on Wordpress
Friday, March 27, 2015
The War of Lies Against Russia
R-I: Daniele Ganser Interview : America’s Objective in Ukraine to Set Germany Against Russia
HuffPo: Rick Mercer Rant: Either Jason Kenney Or NATO Is Lying About Russian Fighter Jets
TruthDig: Canadian, Former US State Department Advisor, James Carden: Vladimir Putin Not Responsible for Ukrainian Civil War
James Carden: "We have never sought to apply any pressure on Kiev."
LOL.
The Government of Canada has done just about everything it could get away with short of adopting the Wolfsangel in place of the maple leaf as the national emblem to inflame and intensify the Russophobia of Ukraine's Kiev junta, which is engaged in a genocidal struggle with the people of East Ukraine.
Related:
CanSpeccy: Reaping the Ukrainian Whirlwind: Tyranny in Kiev, Russian Nukes 90 Miles off America's Southern Shore
CanSpeccy: Stephen Harper in Europe to Relaunch the Cold War
CanSpeccy: Globalization, the Ukraine Coup, the Vilification of Russia and the Endless Printing of Money
CanSpeccy: Ukraine: Catapulting the Propaganda, the National Putz and Stephen Harper, the Mighty Mouse of the North
CanSpeccy: Why Stephen Harper Has Sent Canadian Armed Forces to Back a Nazi Government in Ukraine
CanSpeccy: Stephen Harper's Belligerent Russophobia
CanSpeccy: Ukraine: Nazi NATO Setting the Stage for a Proxy War on Russia
CanSpeccy: Harper Government backs Ukraine's Nazi Junta in Crushing Separtists: Quebec Separatists Take Note
CanSpeccy: Steve Harper's Friends in Kyiv Killing Their Own People in Eastern Ukraine
CanSpeccy: In Canada We're All Nazi-lovers Now
CanSpeccy: How Canada's Government Came to Love Ethnic Cleansers Wearing Swastikas
CanSpeccy: Canada Prepares for War in Europe: Sends Military Police to Kiev
CanSpeccy: Ukrainian Civil War — It's About Killing Ukrainians, Not Russians
R-I: Ukraine Signs Deal with Canadian Export Agency for $160 Million Loan
Fort Russ: Ex-Chancellor Schroeder attacks Merkel's Russia policy
HuffPo: Rick Mercer Rant: Either Jason Kenney Or NATO Is Lying About Russian Fighter Jets
 |
| Harper-backed Kievite Russophobes with Wolfsangel armbands. |
James Carden: "We have never sought to apply any pressure on Kiev."
LOL.
The Government of Canada has done just about everything it could get away with short of adopting the Wolfsangel in place of the maple leaf as the national emblem to inflame and intensify the Russophobia of Ukraine's Kiev junta, which is engaged in a genocidal struggle with the people of East Ukraine.
Related:
CanSpeccy: Reaping the Ukrainian Whirlwind: Tyranny in Kiev, Russian Nukes 90 Miles off America's Southern Shore
CanSpeccy: Stephen Harper in Europe to Relaunch the Cold War
CanSpeccy: Globalization, the Ukraine Coup, the Vilification of Russia and the Endless Printing of Money
CanSpeccy: Ukraine: Catapulting the Propaganda, the National Putz and Stephen Harper, the Mighty Mouse of the North
CanSpeccy: Why Stephen Harper Has Sent Canadian Armed Forces to Back a Nazi Government in Ukraine
CanSpeccy: Stephen Harper's Belligerent Russophobia
CanSpeccy: Ukraine: Nazi NATO Setting the Stage for a Proxy War on Russia
CanSpeccy: Harper Government backs Ukraine's Nazi Junta in Crushing Separtists: Quebec Separatists Take Note
CanSpeccy: Steve Harper's Friends in Kyiv Killing Their Own People in Eastern Ukraine
CanSpeccy: In Canada We're All Nazi-lovers Now
CanSpeccy: How Canada's Government Came to Love Ethnic Cleansers Wearing Swastikas
CanSpeccy: Canada Prepares for War in Europe: Sends Military Police to Kiev
CanSpeccy: Ukrainian Civil War — It's About Killing Ukrainians, Not Russians
R-I: Ukraine Signs Deal with Canadian Export Agency for $160 Million Loan
Fort Russ: Ex-Chancellor Schroeder attacks Merkel's Russia policy
Crackpot American Architects and Engineers: Why New York's World Trade Center Towers Collapsed
The resolution accepted for debate at the May 2015 annual convention of the American Institute of Architects (see text below) raises many questions including the following:
Did New York's Twin Towers plus World Trade Center Building 7 (a 49-story building not hit by an aircraft) collapse on 9/11 because they were designed by crackpot architects and engineers, thus becoming the first and only steel-frame high-rise buildings anywhere in the World to collapse because of fire (as claimed by the US Government-sponsored NIST report)?
Or are the architects and engineers who reject the conclusions of the NIST report on the collapse of Building 7 not crackpots at all?
And, if the Twin Towers and Building 7 collapsed on 9/11 due, not to office fires, but to explosives-driven demolition, then does that not transform the US Government's "War Against Terror" into the "Terror War Against Americans and the World"?
WHEREAS, under the AIA Public Policies and Position Statements, it is the responsibility of architects to design a resilient environment that can more successfully adapt to natural conditions and that can more readily absorb and recover from adverse events; and
WHEREAS, architects and others involved in the design and construction of buildings depend upon the information obtained from investigations into building failures to inform the development of model building codes; and
WHEREAS, on September 11, 2001, 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story high-rise building, suffered a complete collapse; and
WHEREAS, on November 20, 2008, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) released the final report of its three-year investigation into the complete collapse of 7 World Trade Center, which concluded that fires, an unprecedented cause of failure for a modern high-rise building, were the primary cause of failure; and
WHEREAS, the cause of failure identified by the NIST investigation would mean that hundreds of high-rise buildings in the United States are susceptible to similar failure from fire; and
WHEREAS, thousands of members of the architecture and engineering professions, including the 55 sponsors of this resolution, believe the NIST investigation did not adhere to the principles of the scientific method and, as a result, the conclusions of the NIST investigation are fatally flawed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the AIA Board of Directors shall adopt a Position Statement, to be published in the AIA Directory of Public Policies and Position Statements, stating:
Did New York's Twin Towers plus World Trade Center Building 7 (a 49-story building not hit by an aircraft) collapse on 9/11 because they were designed by crackpot architects and engineers, thus becoming the first and only steel-frame high-rise buildings anywhere in the World to collapse because of fire (as claimed by the US Government-sponsored NIST report)?
Or are the architects and engineers who reject the conclusions of the NIST report on the collapse of Building 7 not crackpots at all?
And, if the Twin Towers and Building 7 collapsed on 9/11 due, not to office fires, but to explosives-driven demolition, then does that not transform the US Government's "War Against Terror" into the "Terror War Against Americans and the World"?
Collapse of World Trade Center Tower 7: Resolution for Debate at the 2015 Annual Convention of the American Institute of Architects
WHEREAS, under the AIA Public Policies and Position Statements, it is the responsibility of architects to design a resilient environment that can more successfully adapt to natural conditions and that can more readily absorb and recover from adverse events; and
WHEREAS, architects and others involved in the design and construction of buildings depend upon the information obtained from investigations into building failures to inform the development of model building codes; and
WHEREAS, on September 11, 2001, 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story high-rise building, suffered a complete collapse; and
WHEREAS, on November 20, 2008, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) released the final report of its three-year investigation into the complete collapse of 7 World Trade Center, which concluded that fires, an unprecedented cause of failure for a modern high-rise building, were the primary cause of failure; and
WHEREAS, the cause of failure identified by the NIST investigation would mean that hundreds of high-rise buildings in the United States are susceptible to similar failure from fire; and
WHEREAS, thousands of members of the architecture and engineering professions, including the 55 sponsors of this resolution, believe the NIST investigation did not adhere to the principles of the scientific method and, as a result, the conclusions of the NIST investigation are fatally flawed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the AIA Board of Directors shall adopt a Position Statement, to be published in the AIA Directory of Public Policies and Position Statements, stating:
The AIA’s belief that incidents involving the catastrophic failure of buildings and other structures must be investigated using the highest standards of science-based investigation and analysis in order to provide accurate and meaningful information in the development of model building codes;BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that it is advised that this Position Statement be incorporated as Position Statement #3 under the Construction Industry Regulation Public Policy. The recommended language of this Position Statement is as follows:
The AIA’s recognition that many members of the architecture profession believe the NIST investigation into the complete collapse of 7 World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, did not adhere to the principles of the scientific method and, as a result, the conclusions of the NIST investigation are fatally flawed;
The AIA’s belief that this perspective merits further study; and
The AIA’s support for a new investigation into the complete collapse of 7 World Trade Center.
World Trade Center 7The AIA recognizes that many members of the architecture profession believe the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) investigation into the complete collapse of 7 World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, did not adhere to these principles and, as a result, the conclusions of the NIST investigation are fatally flawed. The AIA believes this perspective merits further study and supports a new investigation into the complete collapse of 7 World Trade Center.
The AIA believes that incidents involving the catastrophic failure of buildings and other structures must be investigated using the highest standards of science-based investigation and analysis in order to provide accurate and meaningful information in the development of model building codes. In adherence to the scientific method, investigations should:
Consider all available data;
Consider hypotheses that most readily explain the available data;
Test those hypotheses and analyze the results without bias; and
Provide for external review and replication by making all data available.
Tuesday, March 24, 2015
Jewish Power in America
In an interview with the Saker, former US Assistant Secretary to the Treasury, Paul Craig Roberts, said:
The United States is a plutocracy with the trappings of democracy. The money power finances election campaigns and owns the media. Mostly, the outcome of an election is determined before the vote is counted or the campaign begun through the selection of candidates committed to the interests of the money power. Insofar as elections matter at all, they amount only to faction fights among plutocrats, the outcome dependent on campaign funding and manipulation of opinion through control of the media.
First, then, what is the power of Jews within plutocratic America?
According to Forbes Magazine, more than one quarter of America's richest citizens are Jews, although Jews are said to account for less than 2% of America's population. Potentially, therefore, Jews have great power in America. That power can only be enhanced by the evident readiness of many rich Jews to contribute generously to political causes. Moreover, Jews have a tremendous sense of group identity, continually reinforced by the Holocaust Industry, which insures that their political influence tends to be concentrated on achieving quite specific and, among Jews, generally agreed objectives. It is reasonable to suppose therefore that Jews are the most powerful ethnic group in the USA.
Second, then, what are the political objectives of rich Jews in America.
Seemingly, most Jewish-American plutocrats are Zionists, which is to say they are committed to the interests of the state of Israel. But the state of Israel does not encompass all or even the majority of the Jewish nation, the greatest proportion of which resides in America. It is reasonable, therefore, to suppose that the primary objective of plutocratic Jews in America is to promote the interest of American Jews — in politics, academia, the bureaucracy and business.
To tribally-oriented Jews, it must be seen that this objective can be furthered by destroying the dominance in America of ethnic Europeans, an objective now approaching fulfillment through mass multiracial immigration, multiculturalism, and the suppression of white pride, the Christian faith and Western culture, the latter objectives being accomplished through brainwashing, aka education, and political correctness enforced by police and administrative action.
Not all Jews are committed to such a program, obviously, and some publicly oppose it. Among ordinary American Jews many, perhaps most, may be as clueless about what is really happening in their country as are the majority of Euro-Americans now well on their way to minority status, not only in what were formerly great American cities such as Detroit, Miami, Atlanta, St. Louis, Baltimore, Oakland, etc., but state by state and, within a generation, nationally.
Thus American government is powerfully influenced by a plutocratic Jewish minority, not only in the interests of Israel but in the interests of the Jewish nation in America and world-wide. This is not to say that others in America are without power. It is the case, however, that non-Jews in America are not only disinclined to think in racial terms but have for the most part been indoctrinated to believe that to serve first the interests of one's own people constitutes an intolerable evil. So long as that view prevails — which is to say, as long as that view continues to be effectively imposed — the European people, both in Europe and America will continue on the path to early extinction: inundated by aliens, out-reproduced, stripped of their culture and religious tradition, while their jobs and future prospects are off-shored and out-sourced by the money power, both Jewish and otherwise.
Related:
Occidental Review: A Review of Jewcentricity by Adam Garfinkle
Justin Raimondo: Espionage, Treason, and the Congressional Fifth Column
Sputnik: Weinstein Urges Jews to Get Organized 'As Mafia' to Take On Anti-Semites
Irish Savant: What's the deal with Jews and gun control?
Spiked: The Brit Media Hounding an Opponent of Political Correctness
HuffPo: The New American Order
All the evidence is that Israel controls the US, but only its MidEast policy.This I believe is incorrect. In particular I believe that the qualification "only its MidEast Policy", is incorrect.
The United States is a plutocracy with the trappings of democracy. The money power finances election campaigns and owns the media. Mostly, the outcome of an election is determined before the vote is counted or the campaign begun through the selection of candidates committed to the interests of the money power. Insofar as elections matter at all, they amount only to faction fights among plutocrats, the outcome dependent on campaign funding and manipulation of opinion through control of the media.
First, then, what is the power of Jews within plutocratic America?
According to Forbes Magazine, more than one quarter of America's richest citizens are Jews, although Jews are said to account for less than 2% of America's population. Potentially, therefore, Jews have great power in America. That power can only be enhanced by the evident readiness of many rich Jews to contribute generously to political causes. Moreover, Jews have a tremendous sense of group identity, continually reinforced by the Holocaust Industry, which insures that their political influence tends to be concentrated on achieving quite specific and, among Jews, generally agreed objectives. It is reasonable to suppose therefore that Jews are the most powerful ethnic group in the USA.
Second, then, what are the political objectives of rich Jews in America.
Seemingly, most Jewish-American plutocrats are Zionists, which is to say they are committed to the interests of the state of Israel. But the state of Israel does not encompass all or even the majority of the Jewish nation, the greatest proportion of which resides in America. It is reasonable, therefore, to suppose that the primary objective of plutocratic Jews in America is to promote the interest of American Jews — in politics, academia, the bureaucracy and business.
To tribally-oriented Jews, it must be seen that this objective can be furthered by destroying the dominance in America of ethnic Europeans, an objective now approaching fulfillment through mass multiracial immigration, multiculturalism, and the suppression of white pride, the Christian faith and Western culture, the latter objectives being accomplished through brainwashing, aka education, and political correctness enforced by police and administrative action.
Not all Jews are committed to such a program, obviously, and some publicly oppose it. Among ordinary American Jews many, perhaps most, may be as clueless about what is really happening in their country as are the majority of Euro-Americans now well on their way to minority status, not only in what were formerly great American cities such as Detroit, Miami, Atlanta, St. Louis, Baltimore, Oakland, etc., but state by state and, within a generation, nationally.
Thus American government is powerfully influenced by a plutocratic Jewish minority, not only in the interests of Israel but in the interests of the Jewish nation in America and world-wide. This is not to say that others in America are without power. It is the case, however, that non-Jews in America are not only disinclined to think in racial terms but have for the most part been indoctrinated to believe that to serve first the interests of one's own people constitutes an intolerable evil. So long as that view prevails — which is to say, as long as that view continues to be effectively imposed — the European people, both in Europe and America will continue on the path to early extinction: inundated by aliens, out-reproduced, stripped of their culture and religious tradition, while their jobs and future prospects are off-shored and out-sourced by the money power, both Jewish and otherwise.
Related:
Occidental Review: A Review of Jewcentricity by Adam Garfinkle
Justin Raimondo: Espionage, Treason, and the Congressional Fifth Column
Sputnik: Weinstein Urges Jews to Get Organized 'As Mafia' to Take On Anti-Semites
Irish Savant: What's the deal with Jews and gun control?
Spiked: The Brit Media Hounding an Opponent of Political Correctness
HuffPo: The New American Order
Sunday, March 22, 2015
Genocide: It's the Jewish Way — They Win Some, They Lose Some
The Times of Israel, March 11, 2015:
"20-30 nuclear bombs will assure the job gets done," opinion piece on right-wing Israel National News site says ...
Op-ed calls on Israel to nuke Germany, Iran
Thursday, March 19, 2015
The Neoconservative Threat to International Order
By Paul Craig Roberts
Washington’s reckless and irresponsible destruction of the trust achieved by Reagan and Gorbachev has resurrected the possibility of nuclear war.
Foreign Policy Journal, February 27, 2015: This week I was invited to address an important conference of the Russian Academy of Sciences in Moscow. Scholars from Russia and from around the world, Russian government officials, and the Russian people seek an answer as to why Washington destroyed during the past year the friendly relations between America and Russia that President Reagan and President Gorbachev succeeded in establishing. All of Russia is distressed that Washington alone has destroyed the trust between the two major nuclear powers that had been created during the Reagan-Gorbachev era, trust that had removed the threat of nuclear armageddon. Russians at every level are astonished at the virulent propaganda and lies constantly issuing from Washington and the Western media. Washington’s gratuitous demonization of the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, has rallied the Russian people behind him. Putin has the highest approval rating ever achieved by any leader in my lifetime.
Washington’s reckless and irresponsible destruction of the trust achieved by Reagan and Gorbachev has resurrected the possibility of nuclear war from the grave in which Reagan and Gorbachev buried it. Again, as during the Cold War, the specter of nuclear armageddon stalks the earth.
Why did Washington revive the threat of world annihilation? Why is this threat to all of humanity supported by the majority of the US Congress, by the entirety of the presstitute media, and by academics and think-tank inhabitants in the US, such as Motyl and Weiss, about whom I wrote recently?
Colleagues,
What I propose to you is that the current difficulties in the international order are unrelated to Yalta and its consequences, but have their origin in the rise of the neoconservative ideology in the post-Soviet era and its influence on Washington’s foreign policy.
The collapse of the Soviet Union removed the only constraint on Washington’s power to act unilaterally abroad. At that time China’s rise was estimated to require a half century. Suddenly the United States found itself to be the Uni-power, the “world’s only superpower.” Neoconservatives proclaimed “the end of history.”
By the “end of history” neoconservatives mean that the competition between socio-economic-political systems is at an end. History has chosen “American Democratic-Capitalism.” It is Washington’s responsibility to exercise the hegemony over the world given to Washington by History and to bring the world in line with History’s choice of American democratic-capitalism.
In other words, Marx has been proven wrong. The future does not belong to the proletariat but to Washington.
The neoconservative ideology raises the United States to the unique status of being “the exceptional country,” and the American people acquire exalted status as “the indispensable people.”
If a country is “the exceptional country,” it means that all other countries are unexceptional. If a people are “indispensable,” it means other peoples are dispensable. We have seen this attitude at work in Washington’s 14 years of wars of aggression in the Middle East. These wars have left countries destroyed and millions of people dead, maimed, and displaced. Yet Washington continues to speak of its commitment to protect smaller countries from the aggression of larger countries. The explanation for this hypocrisy is that Washington does not regard Washington’s aggression as aggression, but as History’s purpose.
We have also seen this attitude at work in Washington’s disdain for Russia’s national interests and in Washington’s propagandistic response to Russian diplomacy.
Read more
Related:
Sputnik: Nobel Piss Prize Committee kicks out leader who gave award to O'Bomber
Von Marco Maier: NATO Baiting Russia But the Bear Won't Bite
Washington’s reckless and irresponsible destruction of the trust achieved by Reagan and Gorbachev has resurrected the possibility of nuclear war.
Foreign Policy Journal, February 27, 2015: This week I was invited to address an important conference of the Russian Academy of Sciences in Moscow. Scholars from Russia and from around the world, Russian government officials, and the Russian people seek an answer as to why Washington destroyed during the past year the friendly relations between America and Russia that President Reagan and President Gorbachev succeeded in establishing. All of Russia is distressed that Washington alone has destroyed the trust between the two major nuclear powers that had been created during the Reagan-Gorbachev era, trust that had removed the threat of nuclear armageddon. Russians at every level are astonished at the virulent propaganda and lies constantly issuing from Washington and the Western media. Washington’s gratuitous demonization of the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, has rallied the Russian people behind him. Putin has the highest approval rating ever achieved by any leader in my lifetime.
Washington’s reckless and irresponsible destruction of the trust achieved by Reagan and Gorbachev has resurrected the possibility of nuclear war from the grave in which Reagan and Gorbachev buried it. Again, as during the Cold War, the specter of nuclear armageddon stalks the earth.
Why did Washington revive the threat of world annihilation? Why is this threat to all of humanity supported by the majority of the US Congress, by the entirety of the presstitute media, and by academics and think-tank inhabitants in the US, such as Motyl and Weiss, about whom I wrote recently?
The Threat Posed to International Relations By The Neoconservative Ideology of American Hegemony
Address to the 70th Anniversary of the Yalta Conference, Hosted by Institutes of the Russian Academy of Sciences and Moscow State Institute of International Relations, Moscow, February 25, 2015, Hon. Paul Craig RobertsColleagues,
What I propose to you is that the current difficulties in the international order are unrelated to Yalta and its consequences, but have their origin in the rise of the neoconservative ideology in the post-Soviet era and its influence on Washington’s foreign policy.
The collapse of the Soviet Union removed the only constraint on Washington’s power to act unilaterally abroad. At that time China’s rise was estimated to require a half century. Suddenly the United States found itself to be the Uni-power, the “world’s only superpower.” Neoconservatives proclaimed “the end of history.”
By the “end of history” neoconservatives mean that the competition between socio-economic-political systems is at an end. History has chosen “American Democratic-Capitalism.” It is Washington’s responsibility to exercise the hegemony over the world given to Washington by History and to bring the world in line with History’s choice of American democratic-capitalism.
In other words, Marx has been proven wrong. The future does not belong to the proletariat but to Washington.
The neoconservative ideology raises the United States to the unique status of being “the exceptional country,” and the American people acquire exalted status as “the indispensable people.”
If a country is “the exceptional country,” it means that all other countries are unexceptional. If a people are “indispensable,” it means other peoples are dispensable. We have seen this attitude at work in Washington’s 14 years of wars of aggression in the Middle East. These wars have left countries destroyed and millions of people dead, maimed, and displaced. Yet Washington continues to speak of its commitment to protect smaller countries from the aggression of larger countries. The explanation for this hypocrisy is that Washington does not regard Washington’s aggression as aggression, but as History’s purpose.
We have also seen this attitude at work in Washington’s disdain for Russia’s national interests and in Washington’s propagandistic response to Russian diplomacy.
Read more
Related:
Sputnik: Nobel Piss Prize Committee kicks out leader who gave award to O'Bomber
Von Marco Maier: NATO Baiting Russia But the Bear Won't Bite
Thursday, March 12, 2015
Impending Threat to Canadian Democracy: Harper Government’s “Anti-Terrorism Act” isn’t about Terrorism, it’s a Torture Act
Professor Michael Keefer
The Harper government’s Bill C-51, or Anti-Terrorism Act, has been in the public domain for over a month. Long enough for us to know that it subverts basic principles of constitutional law, assaults rights of free speech and free assembly, and is viciously anti-democratic.
Global Research, March 11, 2015: An unprecedented torrent of criticism has been directed against this bill as the government rushes it through Parliament. This has included stern or at least sceptical editorials in all the major newspapers; an open letter, signed by four former Prime Ministers and five former Supreme Court judges, denouncing the bill for exposing Canadians to major violations of their rights; and another letter, signed by a hundred Canadian law professors, explaining the dangers it poses to justice and legality.
As its critics have shown, the bill isn’t really about terrorism: it’s about smearing other activities by association—and then suppressing them in ways that would formerly have been flagrantly illegal. The bill targets, among others, people who defend the treaty rights of First Nations, people who oppose tar sands, fracking, and bitumen-carrying pipelines as threats to health and the environment, and people who urge that international law be peacefully applied to ending Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestinian territories. (Members of this latter group include significant numbers of Canadian Jews.)
But the Anti-Terrorism Act is more mortally dangerous to Canadian democracy than even these indications would suggest. A central section of the act empowers CSIS agents to obtain judicial warrants—on mere suspicion, with no requirement for supporting evidence—that will allow them to supplement other disruptive actions against purported enemies of Harperland with acts that directly violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and other Canadian laws.
The Harper government’s Bill C-51, or Anti-Terrorism Act, has been in the public domain for over a month. Long enough for us to know that it subverts basic principles of constitutional law, assaults rights of free speech and free assembly, and is viciously anti-democratic.
Global Research, March 11, 2015: An unprecedented torrent of criticism has been directed against this bill as the government rushes it through Parliament. This has included stern or at least sceptical editorials in all the major newspapers; an open letter, signed by four former Prime Ministers and five former Supreme Court judges, denouncing the bill for exposing Canadians to major violations of their rights; and another letter, signed by a hundred Canadian law professors, explaining the dangers it poses to justice and legality.
As its critics have shown, the bill isn’t really about terrorism: it’s about smearing other activities by association—and then suppressing them in ways that would formerly have been flagrantly illegal. The bill targets, among others, people who defend the treaty rights of First Nations, people who oppose tar sands, fracking, and bitumen-carrying pipelines as threats to health and the environment, and people who urge that international law be peacefully applied to ending Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestinian territories. (Members of this latter group include significant numbers of Canadian Jews.)
But the Anti-Terrorism Act is more mortally dangerous to Canadian democracy than even these indications would suggest. A central section of the act empowers CSIS agents to obtain judicial warrants—on mere suspicion, with no requirement for supporting evidence—that will allow them to supplement other disruptive actions against purported enemies of Harperland with acts that directly violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and other Canadian laws.
Sunday, March 8, 2015
German Government Calls American NATO Chief a Liar on Russia in Ukraine
Der Spiegel: Breedlove's Bellicosity: Berlin Alarmed by Aggressive NATO Stance on Ukraine
Meantime:
Zero Hedge: Crackpot Russophobic Pole and EU President, Claude Juncker, plus the looney Baltic trivialities, Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia, call for a European army to put Russia in its place
Related:
R-I: Seinfeld — To some, the fate of Ukraine is merely a game
Finian Cunningham: Berlin Rumbles Washington’s Hidden War Agenda
Ron Paul Institute: German Intel: Breedlove is Bonkers!
Mish: Warmongers United: Juncker Requests Creation of EU Army; Peace by War
Meantime:
Zero Hedge: Crackpot Russophobic Pole and EU President, Claude Juncker, plus the looney Baltic trivialities, Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia, call for a European army to put Russia in its place
Related:
R-I: Seinfeld — To some, the fate of Ukraine is merely a game
Finian Cunningham: Berlin Rumbles Washington’s Hidden War Agenda
Ron Paul Institute: German Intel: Breedlove is Bonkers!
Mish: Warmongers United: Juncker Requests Creation of EU Army; Peace by War
Thursday, February 26, 2015
Ukrainian Civil War — It's About Killing Ukrainians, Not Russians
Nato/EU and their Kiev puppets are waging war in Ukraine not on Russia or Russian-backed separatists but on Ukrainians. The instigation of civil war by the neo-Nazi-enabled Kiev junta is the manifestation of a genocidal project to eliminate as many Ukrainians as possible. Not only the eight million Russians in Ukraine that Yulia Tymoshenko wished to nuke, or the 50,000 Ukrainian Armed Forces personnel killed mainly by "friendly fire", or the thousands of Donbas civilians murdered by neoNazis, but also the many elderly throughout Ukraine who will die prematurely due to the stress of a collapsed economy, and the many who will not be born as economic failure drives a further slump in Ukraine's already catastrophically low fertility rate.
Purposefully, Ukrainians have been driven to kill one another. The beneficiaries are the oligarchs who will pick up the assets of the ruined middle class for little or nothing, while the principal functions of the increasingly dysfunctional Ukrainian state are transferred by the globalist tools Yatsenyuk and Poroshenko to the institutions of global governance, the UN, the WTO, NAFTA, TPP, NATO, SEATO, IMF, World Bank, etc.
This is the New World Order plan for all nation states: it is the neutron bomb option, which aims to destroy people, few of whom will be needed in the new economy of computerization, automation, robots and artificial intelligence, while leaving intact land and resources to be accumulated at minimal cost in the hands of plutocracy.
The globalist plutocracy is in the process of taking ownership of the World, which they will rule by way of the anti-democratic global institutions over which they have proprietary control. The common people, those that are allowed to remain, will exist chiefly as domesticated beasts to be bred, culled, and brainwashed as required by a ruthless elite of the very rich.
Related:
The Saker: Ukraine’s Right Sector Leader Wants Donbas Residents Deported
Russia-Insider: Confirmed by Kiev: Ukrainian Land Being Transferred to Oligarchs and Seed Companies
Investment Watch: Soros says ready to invest $1 billion in Ukraine if West helps
LOL, Ol' Break-the-Bank of England Soros ain't content with knock-down civil war prices for Ukrainian assets, but needs a government handout too.
Purposefully, Ukrainians have been driven to kill one another. The beneficiaries are the oligarchs who will pick up the assets of the ruined middle class for little or nothing, while the principal functions of the increasingly dysfunctional Ukrainian state are transferred by the globalist tools Yatsenyuk and Poroshenko to the institutions of global governance, the UN, the WTO, NAFTA, TPP, NATO, SEATO, IMF, World Bank, etc.
This is the New World Order plan for all nation states: it is the neutron bomb option, which aims to destroy people, few of whom will be needed in the new economy of computerization, automation, robots and artificial intelligence, while leaving intact land and resources to be accumulated at minimal cost in the hands of plutocracy.
The globalist plutocracy is in the process of taking ownership of the World, which they will rule by way of the anti-democratic global institutions over which they have proprietary control. The common people, those that are allowed to remain, will exist chiefly as domesticated beasts to be bred, culled, and brainwashed as required by a ruthless elite of the very rich.
Related:
The Saker: Ukraine’s Right Sector Leader Wants Donbas Residents Deported
Russia-Insider: Confirmed by Kiev: Ukrainian Land Being Transferred to Oligarchs and Seed Companies
Investment Watch: Soros says ready to invest $1 billion in Ukraine if West helps
LOL, Ol' Break-the-Bank of England Soros ain't content with knock-down civil war prices for Ukrainian assets, but needs a government handout too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)