---BREAKAWAY CIVILIZATION ---ALTERNATIVE HISTORY---NEW BUSINESS MODELS--- ROCK & ROLL 'S STRANGE BEGINNINGS---SERIAL KILLERS---YEA AND THAT BAD WORD "CONSPIRACY"--- AMERICANS DON'T EXPLORE ANYTHING ANYMORE.WE JUST CONSUME AND DIE.---
22. Gregory T. Angelo is the president of the Log Cabin Republicans, an advocacy group for gay Republicans.
Angelo says Donald Trump "is one of the best, if not the best, pro-gay Republican candidates to ever run for the presidency."
The LGBT pick for the GOP nomination: Donald Trump. 14. Donald Trump's close Jewish friends include Michael Cohen, Stewart Rahr, Charles Kushner and Jeffrey Epstein.
Jeffrey Epstein's Nadia learnt to fly at the same Mossad-linked airfield as the Hebrew-speaking Mohamed Atta.
We elected Mr. Obama who
has fundamentally changed America as promised, sending the country
darned near down the toilet in the process.
Reverend Jeremiah Wright castigated hard
working Americans who make this great country work, by telling the world
that America’s chickens were coming home to roost prior to the Obama
presidential election. He, like others who dislike America, said
“Right-on brother”, and the next thing you know, we elected Mr. Obama
who has fundamentally changed America as promised, sending the country
darned near down the toilet in the process. This week will mark the publication date of my latest book which was
co-authored by former North Carolina legislator C. Robert Brawley, who
served in the N.C. Army National Guard for more than twenty-four years
as a helicopter pilot achieving the rank of Lt. Colonel. The title of
the book is The Concept of America, a subject which I wrote about this past month. Mr. Brawley is challenging our North Carolina sitting governor in
this year’s gubernatorial election. Similar to what is happening all
over the country, America is simply fed up with the same-o-same-o politics as usual,
where those in office think no more about the promises they made to get
into office than ISIS does about cutting the throats of those who
disagree with them. Politicians, who have made lying a fine art of deception, are going to be facing their day of reckoning
by those of us who believe America is still worth fighting for. That is
what prompted Mr. Brawley to challenge our seated governor. What is happening here in North Carolina should surprise no one. We see it on the national scene where
the “outsiders” have struck a note that is registering with an
electorate that is flat-out mad, and justifiably so . . . and it isn’t
just those of us in the conservative column. Conservatives of course,
believe bankrupting the country to give our nation’s assets to anyone
and everyone who can get here (legally or otherwise) in an attempt to
purchase their vote, is not reasonable economic policy You can see it on the liberal side of the aisle as well. They’re
angry because their elected candidates haven’t taken America close
enough to the Marxist dream they are seeking and they’re probably angry
because they haven’t bankrupted America yet. In spite of running our
financial resources to the edge of the cliff – now amounting to about
nineteen trillion dollars in federal debt – they still clamor for more
out of the poor working schlepper, who has to pay the tax bill. As they (the leftists in the crowd) “claw like cats in a bag” to
nominate a known and admitted socialist, Bernie Sanders from Vermont, or
the country’s former Secretary of State, who believes telling a lie is
as good as the truth so long as the uniformed voters believe her, they
continue to demand more and more of the tax dollars from those of us who
are still working . . . and that number seems to be dwindling We have 95 million people who are not employed in America, giving us
the lowest work-force participation rate at any time since the Great
Depression. The government continues to tout the unemployment rate which
they claim is 4.9% using phony figures designed to fool the electorate in an effort to convince us that the economy is getting better. They don’t disclose the fact that the unemployment rate continues its
downward slide because every time someone drops out of the potential
labor force they are no longer counted as unemployed and the unemployment rate drops. What “jobs” they claim have been created by their booming economy,
are mostly, part-time low-paying jobs working less than 30 hours per
week. I know many who are now working two jobs just to make ends meet . .
. my wife included. Let’s put the numbers into terms that are easier to understand since
the whole purpose of the government’s statistics are to obfuscate the
issue of “unemployment” and confuse those who naively believe the government really cares about them. They are trying to convince the public everything is hunky-dory due to their excellent handling of affairs from Washington DC. In January 2008, the workforce participation was 66.2% of the eligible work force of approximately 250 million; today it is just 62.7% . . . yet they have the huevos to tell us the unemployment rate is only 4.9%, proving figures lie and liars figure. The workforce participation rate by the way, is the number of able-bodied potential workers aged 16 (not in school) to age 65. Regardless of your personal thoughts about the person, Donald Trump
hit the nail on the head when he claimed real unemployment in the U.S.
was over 40%. The Democrats claimed he was nuts and went ballistic, but
according to Fortune Magazine (owned by not-so-liberal, Time Inc.)
writer Chris Mathews states the Donald’s views can be supported by
actual statistics. “If you use the broadest definition of
unemployment, the ratio of people over the age of 16 with jobs to the
overall 16-and-over population, the Labor Department says that 40.6% of
the population is unemployed”. To put the rest the government’s claim as to just how great the economy is doing, according to Pew Research,
fully 85% of self-described middle-class adults say it is more
difficult now than it was a decade ago for middle-class people to
maintain their standard of living. For the middle-income group, the
“lost decade” of the 2000s has been even worse for wealth loss than for
income loss. The median income of the middle-income tier fell 5%, but
median wealth (assets minus debt) declined by 28%. So, back to life here in North Carolina which, as in most other
states, people are feeling the pinch of the worst economy that can be
remembered. The federal government continues to tell us – we the people –
there has been little inflation the past eight or so years, and
therefore there was no adjustment even considered in a cost-of-living adjustment for Social Security recipients, and government retirees (military et. al.). We the working stiffs out here trying to make it in America in spite
of an all-intrusive government out to confiscate more and more of the
weekly paycheck, we just don’t see it like our government overseers. Kate Horell, writing for Military.com posted on October 15, 2015 that,
“The 2016 cost of living adjustment (COLA)
for federal benefits will be zero for 2016. This is because the index
used to determine military retirement, Department of Veterans Affairs
(VA) disability payments, and social security shows that there has been
no overall inflation since last September. The dramatic decrease in the
cost of gasoline has cancelled out all the other price increases,
leaving a net negative Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and
Clerical Workers (CPI-W). This is the third time of no increase since
increases were made automatic in 1975. “Federal payments are received by about 80 million US residents
each year, including retired and disabled workers and their families,
disabled veterans, and federal retirees”. Ms. Horell went on to post, “The short version of what I’ve just said: no increase in military retirement, VA disability, or social security in 2016.”
If you are not driving 25-30,000 miles a year, the gasoline price savings just cannot offset the dramatic rise
in the cost of dairy products, eggs, beef, and the almost criminal
increase in the cost of all things, toilet paper . . . over $4.00 for a
36 roll package of 2-ply, at Sam’s Club. The increase in healthcare
costs which affect older people more than the young, are on the rise. Politfact
projects a national weighted average 12 to 13 percent increase across
49 states and Washington, D.C. Are the government numbers valid? I don’t
believe it for a moment. Let’s take the argument another step further and show that we the
taxpayers have an even bigger bone to pick with Washington and its
disregard for we the people. A quick validation of the people’s
case against Big Brother is the Congressional Budget Office’s own
report dated January 2012 in their ” Comparing the Compensation of
Federal and Private-Sector Employees”:
“Workers whose highest level of education was a
bachelor’s degree earned roughly the same hourly wages, on average, in
both the federal government and the private sector. However, federal
civilian workers with no more than a high school education earned about
21 percent more, on average, than similar workers in the private sector,
whereas federal workers with a professional degree or doctorate earned
about 23 percent less, on average, than their private-sector
counterparts.
“Average benefits were 46 percent higher for federal employees
whose highest level of education was a bachelor’s degree than for
similar private-sector employees and 72 percent higher for federal
employees with no more than a high school education than for their
private-sector counterparts. Among employees with a doctorate or
professional degree, by contrast, average benefits were about the same
in the two sectors.
“On average for workers at all levels of education, the
cost of hourly benefits was 48 percent higher for federal civilian
employees than for private-sector employees with certain similar
observable characteristics.”
So, a cost of living increase wasn’t justifiable for we peons of the
private sector masses, but it was perfectly okay for our bloated
bureaucratic workers nursing at the government teat in Washington . . . Eric Yoder
of the Washington Post reported on December 19, 2015 that Obama saw fit
to finalized a 1.3 percent pay raise for federal employees in January,
the last step in a year-long process. Obama issued an order Friday
evening making the raise effective for most federal employees, as of the
first full biweekly pay period of the new year, which will start Jan.
10 for most. It is time to throw them all out. We need to clean house in
Washington and our state houses, and get rid of everyone of the bozo’s
with ties to the status quo in politics. I may not like Donald Trump,
but he certainly is on to something! Hopefully this is the year for the
tsunami to overthrow the business as usual crowd ruling over us.
On
October 14, 1912, an unemployed saloonkeeper shot former president and
Progressive Party candidate Theodore Roosevelt outside a Milwaukee
hotel. Rather than being rushed to the hospital, Roosevelt insisted on
delivering his scheduled 90-minute speech. By slowing the bullet, those
lengthy prepared remarks may actually have saved his life.
Theodore
Roosevelt’s opening line was hardly remarkable for a presidential
campaign speech: “Friends, I shall ask you to be as quiet as possible.”
His second line, however, was a bombshell.
“I don’t know whether you fully understand that I have just been shot.”
Clearly,
Roosevelt had buried the lede. The horrified audience in the Milwaukee
Auditorium on October 14, 1912, gasped as the former president
unbuttoned his vest to reveal his bloodstained shirt. “It takes more
than that to kill a bull moose,” the wounded candidate assured them. He
reached into his coat pocket and pulled out a bullet-riddled, 50-page
speech. Holding up his prepared remarks, which had two big holes blown
through each page, Roosevelt continued. “Fortunately I had my
manuscript, so you see I was going to make a long speech, and there is a
bullet—there is where the bullet went through—and it probably saved me
from it going into my heart. The bullet is in me now, so that I cannot
make a very long speech, but I will try my best.”
Only
two days before, the editor-in-chief of The Outlook characterized
Roosevelt as “an electric battery of inexhaustible energy,” and for the
next 90 minutes the 53-year-old former president proved it. “I give you
my word, I do not care a rap about being shot; not a rap,” he claimed.
Few could doubt him. Although his voice weakened and his breath
shortened, Roosevelt glared at his nervous aides whenever they begged
him to stop speaking or positioned themselves around the podium to catch
him if he collapsed. Only with the speech completed did he agree to
visit the hospital.
The shooting had occurred just after 8
p.m. as Roosevelt entered his car outside the Gilpatrick Hotel. As he
stood up in the open-air automobile and waved his hat with his right
hand to the crowd, a flash from a Colt revolver 5 feet away lit up the
night. The candidate’s stenographer quickly put the would-be assassin in
a half nelson and grabbed the assailant’s right wrist to prevent him
from firing a second shot.
The
well-wishing crowd morphed into a bloodthirsty pack, raining blows on
the shooter and shouting, “Kill him!” According to an eyewitness, one
man was “the coolest and least excited of anyone in the frenzied mob”:
Roosevelt. The man who had been propelled to the Oval Office after an
assassin felled President William McKinley bellowed out, “Don’t hurt
him. Bring him here. I want to see him.” Roosevelt asked the shooter,
“What did you do it for?” With no answer forthcoming, he said, “Oh,
what’s the use? Turn him over to the police.”
Although
there were no outward signs of blood, the former president reached
inside his heavy overcoat and felt a dime-sized bullet hole on the right
side of his chest. “He pinked me,” Roosevelt told a party official. He
coughed into his hand three times. Not seeing any telltale blood, he
determined that the bullet hadn’t penetrated his lungs. An accompanying
doctor naturally told the driver to head directly to the hospital, but
Colonel Roosevelt gave different marching orders: “You get me to that
speech.”
X-rays
taken after the campaign event showed the bullet lodged against
Roosevelt’s fourth right rib on an upward path to his heart.
Fortunately, the projectile had been slowed by his dense overcoat,
steel-reinforced eyeglass case and hefty speech squeezed into his inner
right jacket pocket. Roosevelt dictated a telegram to his wife that said
he was “in excellent shape” and that the “trivial” wound wasn’t “a
particle more serious than one of the injuries any of the boys used
continually to be having.”
Even
before the shooting, the 1912 presidential campaign had been a raucous
one, with the former Republican president challenging his party’s
standard-bearer (and his handpicked successor), incumbent William Howard
Taft. The internecine fight, so fierce that barbed wire concealed by
patriotic bunting defended the podium at the Republican Convention, tore
the Grand Old Party apart. Roosevelt went rogue and ran under the
banner of the Progressive Party, nicknamed the “Bull Moose Party.”
Blasted by political opponents and elements of the press for being a
power-hungry traitor willing to break the tradition of two-term
presidencies, Roosevelt told the Milwaukee audience that the campaign’s
inflamed political rhetoric contributed to the shooting. “It is a very
natural thing,” he said, “that weak and vicious minds should be inflamed
to acts of violence by the kind of awful mendacity and abuse that have
been heaped upon me for the last three months by the papers.”
The
“weak” mind responsible for the assassination attempt belonged to
36-year-old John Schrank, an unemployed New York City saloonkeeper who
had stalked his prey around the country for weeks. A handwritten screed
found in his pockets reflected the troubled thoughts of a paranoid
schizophrenic. “To the people of the United States,” Schrank had
written. “In a dream I saw President McKinley sit up in his coffin
pointing at a man in a monk’s attire in whom I recognized Theodore
Roosevelt. The dead president said—This is my murderer—avenge my death.”
Schrank also claimed he acted to defend the two-term tradition of
American presidents. “I did not intend to kill the citizen Roosevelt,”
the shooter said at his trial. “I intended to kill Theodore Roosevelt,
the third termer.” Schrank pled guilty, was determined to be insane and
was confined for life in a Wisconsin state asylum.
Doctors
determined it was safer to leave the bullet embedded deep in
Roosevelt’s chest than to operate, although the shooting exacerbated his
chronic rheumatoid arthritis for the rest of his life. Even though the
attempted assassination unleashed a wave of sympathy for Roosevelt, the
Republican split led to an easy victory by Democrat Woodrow Wilson on
Election Day. Roosevelt came in second with 27 percent of the vote, the
highest percentage of any third-party candidate in American history.
I've
been a believer that the only good politician is the one with a bullet
hole in him because they are a threat to the criminal cabals of this
earth. Theodore Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan are two of my favorites.
They both knew there were four quarters in a dollar and knew the value
of a good rifle.
Scalia is a KEY FIRGURE in unlocking the
pedophile rings: Antonin Scalia Took Hundreds of Free Vacations Paid For
By God Only Knows Who
Veterans Today Editor’s Comment: Those
who don’t understand what the death of this man means need to wake up.
Scalia too the judiciary from constitutional oversight to a new height
of interventionism and corruption. Scalia’s real clients, other the his
Koch masters were the Belgian pedophile rings that infiltrated
Washington and the Pentagon during the 1980s, a series of Satanic cults
and the international drug cartels. Scalia was the most powerful man in
the world until a concerted effort brought him down, all based on one
little thing, a laptop computer. Read VT’s story, first in a series expose, to find out how and why this man lived and died. from Gawker:
When Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia died, he
was on a free hunting trip sponsored by a friend who had had business
before the Court the year before. Turns out Scalia took hundreds of
“free” trips—more than any other Supreme Court justice on the bench.
According to the New York Times,
which examined the Center for Responsive Politics database, Scalia went
on at least 258 so-called subsidized trips between 2004 and 2014. In
2014 alone, the paper reports, he took at least 23 free trips to places
like Hawaii, Ireland and Switzerland. (For comparison’s sake, the next most traveled justice over the same
time period was Stephen Breyer, who took 148 trips. John Roberts took
the least, with about 48 trips.) At least some of Scalia’s free trips were for business purposes like
“giving speeches, participating in moot court events or teaching
classes,” but not all—Scalia was reportedly participating in a group hunting trip with a secret all-male society when he died.
And at least some of those vacations were sponsored by people who had
or could reasonably be expected to have business before the Supreme
Court. In 2011, Scalia declined to recuse himself from the Citizens United
case after it came to light that he and Justice Clarence Thomas had
attended a Palm Springs retreat funded by Charles Koch and the
Federalist Group, which reportedly sponsored at least 21 trips for
Scalia to places like Park City, Napa, and Bozeman, Montana. The group,
which also sponsored a trip for Justice Samuel Alito, declined to fund
any trips for the more liberal justices. John Poindexter, the owner of the hunting ranch where Scalia died, is
also the owner of the Houston-based manufacturing firm, J.B. Poindexter
& Co. Last year a subsidiary of his firm, a company called Mic,
received a favorable outcome in an age discrimination case that reached
the Supreme Court. And it’s all totally legal. Justices can can pretty much do what they
want as long as they promise to be impartial. In fact, had Scalia
returned from the hunting trip, he might not even have had to tell
anyone he went—accommodations paid for by private individuals are
apparently exempt from disclosure rules.
Russia is making consequent its decision last fall to ban
the commercial planting of Genetically Modified Organisms or GMO in its
agriculture acreage. The latest decision, effective February 15, 2016
does not at all please Monsanto or the US Grain Cartel. by F.William Engdahl, NEO: On February 15, a Russian national import ban on soybeans and corn
imports from the United States took effect. The Russian food safety
regulator Rosselkhoznadzor announced that the ban was because of GMO and
of microbial contamination and the absence of effective US controls on
soybean and corn exports to prevent export of quarantinable grains, also
known as microbial contamination. The Russian food safety regulator
added that corn imported from the US is often infected with dry rot of
maize. In addition, he said, corn can be used for GMO crops in Russia.
The potential damage from import and spread of quarantinable objects on
the territory of Russia is estimated at $126 -189 million annually. Striking the heart of the GMO cartel The Russian decision is a huge blow to USA agribusiness. For decades,
the US grain cartel companies–ADM, Cargill, Bunge–have dominated the
global trade in soybeans and corn, the most widely used animal feed for
cattle, pigs, chickens because of its high protein content. Today, the contamination of national agriculture and the food chain
in different countries, even those banning planting of GMO crops,
typically comes in through a back door, namely, the free import of GMO
contaminated corn and soybeans. I’ve been told by people in a position
to know that EU agriculture policy is determined less by European farmer
organizations, for example, than by the large US agribusiness lobby of
Monsanto, DuPont, Syngenta, Cargill and friends. Similarly, though until
recently the Chinese government officially banned planting or licensing
of GMO crops inside China’s commercial agriculture, GMO has inundated
the country via a loophole that allows unrestricted import of GMO
soybeans. Today more than 60% of all soybeans consumed in China or used
for animal feed is GMO. The Russian decision, to my knowledge is the
first blow to be struck against the powerful GMO agribusiness cartel.
Thank US sanctions in effect that the crisis created the opportunity. As a long-term two year independent laboratory rat experiment has
demonstrated, a diet of GMO soybeans or GMO corn over a period of more
than six months produces virulent tumors in the GMO-fed rats and
excessive early mortality.
Were we to eat a diet of McDonald GMO-contaminated hamburgers for a six
month period, I shudder to imagine the human damage that would wreak.
McDonalds hamburger patties, I was told by an insider in the grain
trade, contains beef supplemented with up to 30% GMO soybeans. Today
almost 100% of soybeans on the world market are GMO, most from Monsanto. With this latest ban, the Russian authorities almost make complete
their decision, announced September 2015, to rid the country of GMO for
consumption by humans or animals. That decision still left a gaping loophole by not also banning GMO
soybeans and GMO corn. After this latest decision, now the only loophole
remaining, which is still significant, to rid Russian agriculture
entirely of GMO contamination, is to extend the GMO soybean and GMO corn
import ban to all countries which cannot conclusively demonstrate their
corn or soybeans are GMO free, using the same criteria used for US
soybean and corn imports. Today the USA is the world’s largest followed by Argentina and
Brazil. The three countries produce 85% of all world soybeans. And
almost all of that, aside from pockets of certified GMO-free acreage in
Brazil, is GMO contaminated. Then come India and China, each with around 5% of the world total.
China recently changed its GMO policy and seems intent on the dubious
policy of becoming a leading GMO soybean and maize producer with the $43
billion ChemChina takeover bid last month of Swiss GMO and pesticide
giant, Syngenta. Soybeans are high protein and are used in almost every industrial
food product today from chocolate bars (lecithin) to the feed for KFC
fried chicken, to soy drinks. Because of the power of the GMO lobby over
the past two decades, almost all that soybean food is GMO. As well, the
GMO comes into the food chain via so-called high protein “power feed,” a
mix of soybeans and corn. Soybean meal and soybean hulls are widely
used in animal feeds. This 44% – 48% protein meal is the most common
source of protein in feed used in poultry, hog and dairy rations. Corn
Gluten Meal, made from processing corn, has a 60% protein content and is
used widely for poultry and dairy cattle feed in the USA, Canada and
the EU. Despite the fact that a majority of EU member countries, including
Germany, have chosen to ban planting of GMO, a Brussels loophole permits
ADM and Cargill unlimited import of soybeans or corn that is GMO. That
way the food chain is contaminated via GMO in the animal diet. Since near 93% of USA corn today and 94% of its soybeans are GMO
today, a safe rule-of-thumb is the precautionary principle–ban it unless
proven GMO-free, which is precisely what Russian authorities have done.
The Precautionary Principle is simply that, if regulatory authorities
are not 100% certain it is GMO-free, prohibit it. The US-based agribusiness cartel, led by Cargill and Monsanto,
ensured that the World Trade Organization’s Agreement on Agriculture,
written by a former Vice President of Cargill, Daniel Amstutz,
prioritized the right of free trade above that of national food health
and safety. The latest move by the Russian Federation authorities shows
that a major food-producing nation, today surpassing the USA as world’s
largest grain producer, in part thanks to the foolish US sanctions on
Russia, is prioritizing the health and safety of its citizens above the
corporate interests of agribusiness. That’s a healthy development. F.
William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a
degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling
author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
New World Order Agents Are Psychopaths ~ hehe & that IS y ul·ti·mate·ly "they" will fail folks LOL "they" r fucking KOOKS the WHOLE fuck~in lot of em hehe maybe "we" will get lucky ...ya know when "they" r sitttin on TOP of the World "they" take a "selfie" & FALLLL the FUCK ...off Oops
New World Order agents
were so desperate last November that they even showed “footage of
Russian airstrikes passed off as American”! Doesn’t that show that NWO
agents envy Russia? Doesn’t that show that Russia is doing some good?
“You
know, I could sue New World Order agents for plagiarizing. Who gave
them the right to show ‘footage of Russian airstrikes passed off as
American’?”
Sometimes it is quite entertaining to observe New World Order
agents and their wicked plan. NWO agents are always in the state of
flux because they do not have anything to stand on. Truth is not on
their side. People of reason—not political prostitutes and mush-heads
like John McCain and Lindsey Graham—have already abandoned them. Now
they are freaking out because much of the world is watching how they are
acting like psychopaths or gangsters or thieves. Have you ever witnessed the reaction of a thief at a local store when
he suddenly discovers that he is standing next to a police officer? The
police officer may not even know that the guy is a thief, but because
he is in fact a thief and that his conscience has already condemned him,
he therefore has to react—sometimes violently. Remember what happened
to Michael Brown? NWO agents are finding themselves in the same situation. Since they
are working with a wicked ideology that does not allow them to see
things the way they really are, they are completely lost. As Daniel J.
Flynn put it,
“When ideology is your guide,
you’re bound to get lost. Ideology deludes, inspires dishonesty, and
breeds fanaticism. Facts, experience, and logic are much better at
leading you to the truth. Truth, however, is not everyone’s intended
destination.”[1]
Does the New World Order fit that description? Indeed. As we have argued elsewhere,
the New World Order is itself an ideology which has no respect for
reason and truth. In that sense, NWO agents are morally and politically
naked, and people of reason are watching them. They’ve got no serious
arguments, and they are committed to believe their own lies because they
have realized that they can convince multiplied millions of naïve
people that way. Here is something that may make you laugh: NWO agents were so
desperate last November that they even showed “footage of Russian
airstrikes passed off as American”![2] Doesn’t that show that NWO agents envy Russia? Doesn’t that show that Russia is doing some good?
“Aleister Crowley would have been proud of me and my husband. I really missed him.”
But there is more here. NWO agents are more than
willing to ally with any political party or even individual who vows to
advance their wicked ideology. In that sense, they have become true
psychopaths.[3] Take for example Marc Bennetts of Newsweek. He has recently
produced an article praising Alexei Navalny, a Russian opposition leader
who has “challenged” Vladimir Putin. Bennetts tells us that Navalny is
fighting for freedom and democracy. Quoting Vavalny himself, Bennetts
says, “‘To fight for your rights is easy and pleasant. There is nothing to
be afraid of,’ said Alexei Navalny, the opposition’s de facto leader, in
a message passed out of a Moscow detention facility. ‘Every one of us
has the most powerful and only weapon we need—a sense of our own
worthiness.’”[4] Bennetts has expanded on these views in his recent book on Putin. Bennetts is basically another Zionist shill who is desperately trying
to save the sinking ship. He does not tell his readers that Navalny’s
companies and some of their associates “are involved in thefts and are obscuring transparency.”
Bennetts promiscuously declares
that Putin is trying to destroy democracy, but Bennetts simply cannot
not address one nagging problem: 97% of Crimea voted for Putin![5]
So, what kind of democracy is this joker talking about here? Does he
mean to tell us that the 3% represents democracy? Aren’t people like
Bennetts psychopaths? Bennetts doesn’t stop here. He moves on to write an entire chapter in
his book supporting the Pussy Riot, the Trotskyite group which ended up
having sex orgy at the Timiryazev State Biology Museum in Moscow in February 2008. You see, if Bennetts puts these things in context, then his entire ideological project would collapse.[6]
He cannot address these issues contextually because he has been paid to
say weird things, crazy things, and psychopathic things. Moreover, if Bennetts uses his own standards on the
Neo-Conservative/Neo-Bolshevik ideology, the entire operation would also
collapse. And this is another major problem with New World Order
agents: they keep propounding that Russia threatens “the peace of
Europe,”[7]
but they will never tell us that the New World Order and their puppets,
most specifically the Zionist State of America, have been threatening
the peace of the entire world for decades. What is equally worse is that the masses in America have virtually no
clue of what is actually going on in politics. This allows NWO agents
to pursue their ideological worldview with little resistance on some
college campuses. For example, the average college student at George
Mason University is so in tune with Kim Kardashian that they do not
realize that they are being dragged into an ideological sinkhole.
Consider this:
Politically-Challenged: George Mason University
Kim Kardashian has been named “the Queen of Narcissism” by sociologist Pepper Schwartz of the University of Washington.[8]
Her greatest asset, which was put on display throughout the world in
2014, is her derriere. Like Iggy Azalea and Jennifer Lopez,[9] Nicki Minaj and others, she used her asset to gain entrance into the minds of countless young and impressionable people. These sex toys and machines are certainly dragging our young people
into a vortex which has no exit. And this was predicted long ago by
Scottish writer Andrew Fletcher (1655 – 1716):
“If a man were permitted to make
all the ballads, he need not care who should make the laws of a nation.
And we find that most of the ancient legislators thought they could not
well reform the manners of any city without the help of a lyrick, and
sometimes of a dramatick poet.”[10]
By mentioning “city,” Fletcher probably had ancient Greece in mind,
where Plato and Aristotle talk about the same issue. Plato himself said
in his famous work Laws that
“Through foolishness they deceived
themselves into thinking that there was no right or wrong in music —
that it was to be judged good or bad by the pleasure it gave. As it was,
the criterion was not music but a spirit of law-breaking.”[11]
Plato also suggested that this improper music has the potential to create dissonance, which “corrupted everything…”[12] This is exactly what the entertainment industry is doing. And this is
why prostitutes and whores and sluts like Kim Kardashian, Beyonce,
Taylor Swift, among others, are dangerous. No doubt that many of them
have been caught flirting with Aleister Crowley’s black magic.[13] And it is no coincidence that some of them have been doing exactly what Crowley was doing in places like Italy: sex orgy.[14] Schwartz was right in saying: “Instead of sending Kim K to the bank, let’s encourage her to go to a
really good therapist. This kind of narcissism needs to be treated, not
celebrated.”[15]
Taylor Swift: Shake It Off (Leviev Style)
[1] Daniel J. Flynn, Intellectual Morons: How Ideology Makes Smart People Fall for Stupid Ideas (New York: Crown Forum, 2004), 1. [2] “US Media Shows Footage of Russian Airstrikes Passed Off as American,” Sputnik News, November 21, 2015. [3] For a study on this, see for example Robert D. Hare, Without Conscience: The Disturbing World of Psychopaths Among Us (New York: Guilford Press, 1993); Kent A. Kiehl, The Psychopath Whisperer: The Science of Those Without Conscience (New York: Crown Publishers, 2014). [4] Marc Bennetts, “How Putin Tried and Failed to Crush Dissent in Russia,” Newsweek, February 16, 2016. [5] Charles McPhedran and Anna Arutunyan, “Crimea votes to join Russia; Ukrainians prepare for war,” USA Today, March 17, 2014; see also “Crimea referendum: Voters ‘back Russia union,’” BBC, March 16, 2014. [6] Marc Bennetts, I’m Going to Ruin Their Lives: Inside Putin’s War on Russia’s Opposition (London: One World Publications, 2014). [7] Dave Majumdar, “Electronic Warfare: Russian Gains Threaten to ‘Disconnect’ U.S. Forces,” National Interest, February 26, 2016. [8] Pepper Schwartz, “Kim Kardashian, Queen of Narcissism,” CNN, August 18, 2014. [9] “Kardashian photo plays off controversial black imagery,” USA Today, November 13, 2014. [10] Andrew Fletcher, Political Works (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 179. [11] For a historical study on this, see David Tame, The Secret Power of Music: The Transformation of Self and Society through Musical Energy (New York: Destiny Books, 1984); Curt Sachs, The Rise of Music in the Ancient World: East and West (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1943); Julius Portnoy, Music in the Life of Man (CT: Greenwood Press Publishers, 1963); Gilbert Rouget, Music andTrance: A Theory of the Relations Between Music andPossession (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1985); Willis Harman and Howard Rheingold, Higher Creativity: Liberating the Unconscious for Breakthrough Insights(New York: Jeremy Tarcher, 1984); Anthony Storr, Music and the Mind (New York: Ballantine Books, 1992); Robert Jourdain, Music, the Brain, and Ecstasy: How Music Captures our Imagination (New York: William Morrow Co., 1997);Subliminal Ad-Ventures in Erotic Art (Wellesely, MA: Branden Books, 1992); Julius Portnoy, The Philosopher and Music: A Historical Outline (New York: Decapo Press, 1980). [12] Plato, The Laws (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press,) 75. [13]
Richard Price, “Forget Scientology, celebs are now falling for an even
more sinister ‘religion’: Introducing the Satanic sex cult that’s
snaring stars such as Peaches Geldof,” Daily Mail, April 22, 2013. [14] Gail DeLaney, “Kim Kardashian West participated in orgy and shows her nude backside on Paper,” Examiner, November 12, 2014. For further study on Crowley, see Henrik Bogdan and Martin P. Starr, eds., Aleister Crowley and Western Esotericism (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012); Nevill Drury, Stealing Fire from Heaven: The Rise of Modern Western Magic (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011); Hugh B. Urban, Magia Sexualis: Sex, Magic, and Liberation in Modern Western Esotericism (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2006). [15] Pepper Schwartz, “Kim Kardashian, Queen of Narcissism,” CNN, August 18, 2014.
Investigating 9/11 and Naming Suspects. Evaluating Evidence ...an op within an op with in an op ???
When people ask me what more can be done to achieve 9/11 truth
and justice, I tell them to spend less time calling for a new
investigation and more time investigating. Even without subpoena power,
independent investigators can make a lot of progress. To help with that
effort, here are three steps for an independent investigation and an
objective way to evaluate suspects in the 9/11 crimes. The first step is to ask specific, well-formulated questions. What do
we need to know? We need to know things like how explosives got into
the WTC, how the North American air defenses failed, how the U.S. chain
of command and communication systems failed, how the alleged hijackers
got away with so much, and how the planes were hijacked. Here are examples of specific questions that will help answer these questions.
What more can we learn from the official accounts about transponder and autopilot use on 9/11?
Who was invited to the explosive disposal/terrorism meeting at WTC 7 on the morning 9/11 and what was the agenda?
What do the strip clubs, bars, and other businesses frequented by the alleged hijackers have in common?
The second step is to collect information that might help to answer
the questions. Good sources of information include the following.
Internet Search Engines: These are more useful for those who learn how to use search operators.
University libraries
The WayBack Machine: Wonder what a web page looked like 15 years ago?
It also helps to interview people who have detailed knowledge about
the events. Most of the people who were present at the time of the
attacks and during the official investigations are still alive and some
of them will answer questions. Additionally, useful information can be obtained through Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) requests. Direct requests to federal, state, or
local agencies using resources like these:
The third step to investigation is to collect the information,
analyze it, and then communicate it clearly and objectively. Collecting
the information is relatively easy. Analysis might include categorizing
or framing the information in ways that help to see linkages. Examples
include creating a timeline of events or a matrix of people and events,
and considering if the new information fits into the existing body of
knowledge. Once new information is ready to communicate to others, there
are a lot of venues for doing that. A good example is 911Blogger. Naming Suspects and Evaluating Evidence As answers are found or proposed, it becomes clear that there are
people who can be named as legitimate suspects in the 9/11 crimes.
Things can get a bit tricky here and it’s easy to be misled. What makes
someone a legitimate suspect? To answer that, it helps to understand
three different types of evidence: direct, indirect, and negative. Let’s start with five examples of what I would cite as direct evidence related to 9/11. Direct evidence
The suspect was in a position on 9/11 to directly facilitate the crimes.
Evidence exists that the suspect did something on 9/11 that directly facilitated the crimes.
Evidence exists to charge the suspect with a crime related to 9/11.
The suspect was in a position prior to 9/11 to facilitate the 9/11 crimes.
Evidence exists to charge the suspect with having done something prior to 9/11 that facilitated the 9/11 crimes.
All of the suspects in my book, Another Nineteen, were
named based on direct evidence. An example is Wirt Dexter Walker. As
the CEO of Stratesec, he was in position to provide access to those who
planted explosives in the WTC, as well as prevent that access from being
detected. Walker can also be charged with 9/11 insider trading. Another example is Ralph Eberhart,
who sponsored the military exercises that obstructed the air defenses
on 9/11. Eberhart also appears to have lowered the Infocon
(communications defense) level just hours before the attacks, and gave
orders that directly obstructed the interceptors. He also lied to the
U.S. Congress about having received documented notification of the
hijackings (a crime). When one or more of pieces of direct evidence are established for a
suspect, it makes sense to evaluate indirect evidence. Here are five
types. Indirect evidence
The suspect had foreknowledge of the 9/11 crimes.
The suspect benefited from the 9/11 crimes.
The suspect failed to cooperate with the official 9/11
investigations, obstructed those investigations, or lied to
investigators.
The suspect was an expert in the technologies that were required to
make 9/11 happen (e.g. communications systems, remote control
technology).
Evidence exists that the suspect was involved in other terrorist acts or previous U.S. deep state events.
An example of a suspect for which both direct and indirect evidence exists is Barry McDaniel,
the Chief Operating Officer of Stratesec. Besides having the power to
grant access to those who planted explosives in the WTC, McDaniel also
had expertise in the distribution of explosives from his days as the
U.S. Army’s director of Materiel Readiness. That same previous position
makes him a suspect in the Iran-Contra crimes. McDaniel benefited from
9/11 by starting a police-state supply company with Dick Cheney’s old
business partner, Bruce Bradley. Similarly, Ralph Eberhart is a suspect for whom there exists both
direct and indirect evidence. As CINCNORAD and CINCSPACE, Eberhart was
an expert on the air defense, communications, and possibly related
space, systems. He also failed to cooperate with the official
investigations, telling his staff to just change their responses to
investigators as those responses were shown to be invalid. Is it enough to use only indirect evidence? For example, is it enough
to say that the suspect benefited from the crimes? If so, there are
millions, or maybe billions, of suspects. This includes everyone who
profited from the 9/11 Wars or the police state policies that have
resulted. It might also include anyone who was threatened by the
countries that the U.S. has attacked since 9/11: Afghanistan, Iraq,
Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen. That would be a huge number
of people so the answer is no, benefiting from 9/11 is not enough to
make someone (or an entire country) a legitimate 9/11 suspect. Is foreknowledge of the attacks enough to name someone as a legitimate suspect? If so, the governments of at least a dozen countries
are all suspects. Therefore the answer is no, in the absence of direct
evidence foreknowledge is not enough to name a person (or an entire
country) as a 9/11 suspect. For instance, some people are convinced that Israel committed the
crimes of 9/11. When asked why they think this, the answer is usually
that Israel had foreknowledge as indicated by the “Dancing Israelis”
and that Israel benefited because of the countries that were attacked
after 9/11. However, as indicated above this reasoning is not convincing
and would certainly never stand up in a court of law. Both foreknowledge and benefiting are examples of indirect evidence.
And although indirect evidence can be helpful, direct evidence is needed
to charge someone with a crime. Moreover, the direct evidence must
focus on what actually happened on 9/11 that should not have happened,
and what did not happen that should have happened. And that means we
must focus on the specific people who were in position to make those
things so. Once direct evidence exists for a suspect, negative evidence can also
be used to build the case. Negative evidence related to the 9/11 crimes
includes the fact that some people did not do their jobs, either in
defending the country or in investigating the case afterward. For
example, Ralph Eberhart, for whom there exists both direct and indirect
evidence that he was involved, failed to implement military control over
U.S. airspace when he should have. In the end, it’s possible that only independent investigation will
reveal more of the truth about what happened on 9/11. But that power
exists within people who spend considerable time today calling for
others to investigate or posting strongly worded messages on social
media. If we can harness that power and direct it toward the logical and
objective answering of pertinent questions, we can make real progress. Kevin Ryan blogs at Dig Within.
Bees And Other Pollinators Are Facing Extinction~hehe so what's the plan folks ! we just gonna wait till "they"( elites evil fucking monsters) turn THIS Planet into the fucking MOON ...that It that's "our" ....plan ? HUH
Bees and other pollinators are in trouble — so much so that many of them are facing extinction, according to a new report. The report,
released Friday by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on
Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), is a two-year assessment of
the threats facing pollinators — both vertebrates, such as birds and
bats, and invertebrates, such as bees, butterflies, and other insects.
It noted that, in some regions, 40 percent of invertebrate pollinator
species are so threatened by myriad environmental impacts that they’re
facing extinction, with butterflies and bees seeing the highest risk.
Among vertebrates, 16.5 percent of species are threatened by extinction
worldwide. Pollinators are a major group: there are 20,000 species of
wild bees across the globe, the report notes, and many of them haven’t been identified yet. Pollinators are also a hugely important group of animals. Almost 90
percent of wild flowering plants depend on pollination by animals, and
75 percent of food crops around the world depend on pollination.
Globally, $235 – $577 billion worth of global crops are affected by
pollinators each year, the report found. “Without pollinators, many of us would no longer be able to enjoy
coffee, chocolate and apples, among many other foods that are part of
our daily lives,” said Simon Potts, co-chair of the assessment, said in a
statement.
A hummingbird hawk-moth. CREDIT: WIKIMEDIA COMMONS
IPBES, which looked at existing research to compile the report, cited
pesticides and disease as two threats posed to pollinators, especially
managed honeybees. Varroa mites, for instance, have become a plague on
honeybee colonies. They attach themselves to bees and suck out their
circulatory fluid, weakening the bees and spreading dangerous diseases.
Pesticides, especially the widely-used neonicotinoids, have been found
to damage bees’ brains and contribute to bee losses. The Environmental
Protection Agency in January released findings on
one neonic pesticide, imidacloprid, the most commonly-used neonic in
the United States. The agency found that, when applied to certain crops,
the pesticide was harmful to bees. The EPA is still looking into three
other neonicotinoids. The organization also listed land use changes, climate change, and
invasive species as threats to pollinators. Land use changes can turn
wildflower-covered fields into fields of just one or two crops, a switch
from a high-nutrition landscape to a lower-nutrition one. And climate
change can lead to
a shift in peak nectar flow for flowering plants. If managed honeybees
miss this nectar flow — if they’re delivered to beekeepers too late, for
instance — the hive can be weakened. The report also found that climate
change has already shifted distribution of bumblebees and butterflies
and pollinator-dependent plants. The report lists several approaches to help protect pollinator
populations, including creating more pollinator-friendly landscapes,
with diverse flowering plants, and reducing use of pesticides by finding
more pollinator-friendly forms of pest control. There are efforts to do
some of these things already: last October, for instance, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture set aside $4 million to
help farmers, ranchers, and forest landowners plant wildflowers, native
grasses, clover, buckwheat, and other pollinator-friendly plants on
their lands. Scientists and beekeepers are also researching new ways to
protect bees against varroa mites and other threats: beer hops have been found to repel the mites, and mushroom juice, too, could help protect bees against diseases.
Last year on Twitter, Monsanto Vice President Robert Fraley provided a link to an article
that implied those who are suspicious of genetically modified organisms
(GMOs), among other things, are confused, motivated by ideology or
misinformed as a result of access to the ‘university of Google’, or they
are simply conspiracy theorists. Fraley asked why people doubted
science and seemed to be taking a swipe at critics of GMOs, who the GM
sector and its mouthpieces like to depict as dealing in fear mongering
and relying on ‘pseudo-science’. The industry and its assortment of pro-GM activists in science and
the media have a view of the world that requires the public to bow to
some kind of scientific priesthood whose knowledge and opinions should
never be questioned (listen to this recent presentation
from the Oxford Real Farming Conference – from 17:00). They require us
to have unquestioned belief in science’s ability to solve humanity’s
problems. Deference and faith are key to the creed. The problem is that rich corporations and individuals have
manipulated the idea of science and have been able to distort scientific
research. They have translated their vast financial influence into
political clout and the control of science and scientific institutions.
The result is that science institutes, research programmes and
practitioners now too often willingly serve the interests of powerful
corporations. Far from liberating humankind the control of science and
scientific research and media-led rational debate in the public sphere
have become a tool of deception. The reason why so many people doubt science is because they can see
how science is corrupted and manipulated by powerful corporations. It is
because they regard these large corporations as unaccountable and their
activities and products not properly regulated by governments. Sociologist Robert Merton highlighted
the underlying norms of science as involving research that is not
warped by vested interests, adhering to the common ownership of
scientific discoveries (intellectual property), promoting collective
collaboration and subjecting findings to organised, rigorous critical
scrutiny within the scientific community. Secrecy, dogma and vested
interest thus have no place. The reality is, however, careers, reputations, commercial interests and funding issues all serve to undermine these norms. Twisted science, altered truth In 2014, US Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack called for “sound science”
to underpin food trade between the US and the EU. Consumer rights
groups in the US are pushing for the labelling of GMO foods, but Vilsack
said that putting a label on a foodstuff containing a GM product “risks
sending a wrong impression that this was a safety issue.” Despite what Vilsack would have us believe, many scientific studies
show that GMOs are indeed a big safety issue and what’s more are also
having grave environmental, social and economic consequences (for
example, see this about GM and pesticides in Argentina, this on how GM agriculture is drive ecocide and death in South America and this about the overall efficacy and impacts of GM). By not wanting to respond to widespread consumer demands to know what
they are eating and risk ‘sending a wrong impression’ (doublespeak to
English translation: sending out the right impression about GM being a fundamentally flawed and corrupt
endeavour), Vislack is trying to close down debate about issues that
his corporate backers find unpalatable: labelling would allow consumers
to reject the GMOs being fed to them. By attempting to side-line any
genuine open discussion of GM in this way, the aim is to conveniently
shut down any criticism of this technology and suppress scientific,
political and public debate about it. And have little doubt that the term ‘corporate backers’ applies in
this case: big agribusiness has captured, or at the very least seriously
compromised, key policy and regulatory bodies in the US, Europe, India and in fact on a global level (see this regarding control of the WTO). The concept of ‘sound science’ is being manipulated to deceive and
disguise the underlying agenda: GM as a strategy by global agribusiness
to control intellectual property and global supply chains. At the same time that Vilsack and others refer to some high-minded
notion of ‘sound science’, they are actively striving to debase it along
with its actual practice. The industry carries out inadequate,
short-term studies and conceals the data produced by its research under the guise of ‘commercial confidentiality’, while there is enough research that highlights the dangers and potential harmful effects of its products (see this and this). It has also engaged in fakery in India, bribery in Indonesia and smears and intimidation against those who challenge its interests, as well as the distortion and the censorship of science (see this and this). With its aim to modify organisms to create patents that will secure
ever greater control over seeds, markets and the food supply, the GM
sector is only concerned with a certain type of science which supports
these aims.If science is held in such high regard by these
corporations, why in the US don’t they label foods containing GMOs and
throw open their studies open to public scrutiny, instead of veiling
them with secrecy, restricting independent research on their products or
resorting to unsavoury tactics? If science is held in such high regard by the GM sector, why in the
US did policy makers release GM food onto the commercial market without
proper long-term tests? The argument used to justify this is GM food is
‘substantially equivalent’ to ordinary food. This is wrong (see this
as well). Substantial equivalence is a trade strategy on behalf of the
GM sector that neatly serves to remove its GMOs from the type of
scrutiny usually applied to potentially toxic or harmful substances. The reason why no labelling or testing has taken place in the US is
not due to ‘sound science’ having been applied but comes down to the
power and political influence of the GMO sector and because a sound
scientific approach has not been applied. The sector cannot win the scientific debate (although its PR likes to tell the world it has) so it resorts to co-opting key public bodies or individuals
to propagate various falsehoods and deceptions. Part of the deception
is based on emotional blackmail: the world needs GMOs to feed the
hungry, both now and in the future. This myth has been taken apart (see this, this and this).
In fact, in the second of those three links, the organisation GRAIN
highlights that GM crops that have been planted thus far have actually
contributed to food insecurity. Research, peer review and vested interests People’s faith in science is being shaken on many levels, not least
because big corporations have secured access to policy makers and
governments and are increasingly funding research and setting research
agendas. “As Andrew Neighbour, former administrator at Washington University
in St. Louis, who managed the university’s multiyear and multimillion
dollar relationship with Monsanto, admits, “There’s no question that
industry money comes with strings. It limits what you can do, when you
can do it, who it has to be approved by”.” Kamalakar Duvvuru The reality is Monsanto is funding the research not for the benefit
of either the farmer or the public, but for its own commercial
interests. Ultimately, it is not science itself that people have doubts about
but science that is pressed into the service of immensely powerful
private corporations and regulatory bodies that are effectively co-opted
and adopt a ‘don’t look, don’t find approach’ to studies and products
(see this and this) or are simply being pressured by the GM industry
to come up with findings that it finds acceptable; or in the case of
releasing GMOs onto the commercial market in the US, bypassing proper
scientific procedures and engaging in doublespeak about ‘substantial
equivalence’ then hypocritically calling for ‘sound science’ to inform
debates. We need look no further than the report Seedy Business
to see how science is swayed, bought or biased by agribusiness. This is
done by, for example, suppressing adverse findings, harming the careers
of scientists who produce such findings, controlling the funding that
shapes what research is conducted, the lack of independent US-based
testing of health and environmental risks of GMOs and tainting
scientific reviews of GMOs by conflicts of interest. This is a point that Claire Robinson develops:
“It’s no surprise that many public scientists and
organizations ally themselves with the GMO industry, as they rely
heavily on industry funding. GMO companies have representatives on
university boards and fund research, buildings and departments. Monsanto
has donated at least a million dollars to the University of Florida
Foundation. Many US universities that do crop research are beholden to
Monsanto. Some academic scientists own GMO patents and are involved in
spin-off companies that develop GM crops… Universities have become
businesses and scientists have become entrepreneurs and sales people.”
The same interests are moreover undermining the peer-review process
itself and the ability of certain scientists to get published in
journals – traditionally, the benchmark of scientific credibility.
Powerful interests increasingly hold sway over funding, career
progression as a scientist, journals and peer review (see this and this, which question the reliability of peer review in the area of GMOs). Consider what The Lancet Editor in Chief Richard Horton said in 2015:
“The case against science is straightforward: much of the
scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by
studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory
analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession
for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has
taken a turn towards darkness.”
Peer-review is often referred to as the ‘gold standard’ by with which
we should measure the validity of knowledge. As a result,
non-peer-reviewed articles, reports or research is too often cast aside
in favour of a process that, despite what some would like us to believe,
is massively distorted by commercial and career-related interests. As already noted, powerful corporations fund research programmes and
institutions and, by implication, provide a mapped-out career
progression for individual scientists. Through funding, they can shape the research agenda: which issues are
to be examined and which are not, as well as how research is to be
carried out. They are also able to divert funds to certain scientists
and can suppress certain findings and bring pressure to bear on
institutions and individual scientists. Corporations may also fund or
hold sway over journals, as the Seralini affair showed, and peer
reviewers themselves often have career or funding interests and have a
stake in pushing a certain technology and thus side-lining certain
findings or individual academics. Scientist as priest: uninformed personal opinion masquerades as fact Scientists do themselves or science no justice when they spout
rhetoric in support of GM. Although they may be respected within their
own particular discipline and are highly qualified, they seem to think
it is therefore legitimate for them to offer uniformed personal opinion
on virtually any other issue – and to be regarded as expert sources. Regardless of the fact that scientists may know about genetic
manipulation and the impacts on a particular organism in a laboratory,
we should hold them to account when they say that Greenpeace should be held accountable for crimes against humanity
because it is resisting GM technology. We should hold them to account
when they attack agencies or individuals on the basis that they are
acting like totalitarian political regimes that were responsible for the deaths of millions
merely because they disagree with GM and offer credible arguments and
science to support their claims about the negative impacts of this
technology. Since when did having a PhD in molecular biology or an associated
field make someone an expert on political systems or the history of
Cambodia, the USSR or some other country, which they are implicitly
referring to when making such a ridiculous statement? Since when did a molecular biologist become an expert in political
economy and, more specifically, on trade and development, commodity
markets, debt repayment, land speculation, export-oriented oil-dependent
agriculture, sustainable agriculture, the dynamics of structural
inequality and poverty or any of the other issues that impact on global
and regional food security and create food deficit areas? When they talk about feeding the world and attack critics of GM in
the way they do, they want to promote the notion that a bogus and flawed
techno quick-fix GMO solution is paramount and will suffice. Or perhaps
it is highly convenient for them to overlook all of the above issues,
which in reality, not in the fantasy world of the pro-GMO scientist,
determine humanity’s ability for feeding itself effectively and
properly. The reality is that this rhetoric is an attempt to shut down any criticism. It is also designed to side-line legitimate analyses of the root causes of hunger and poverty, genuine solutions for productive, sustainable agriculture that can feed humanity and those who argue for them. Readers might want to peruse this entertaining take-down of pro-GMO activist-scientists who seem to think they are experts on everything. The author states:
“… they are in fact not scientists at all but corporate
propagandists. They do nothing but knowingly tell lies, claim knowledge
where they have none, and… confuse the nature of every issue. All the
while they sanctimoniously insist that anyone who lacks formal
scientific credentials is unqualified to speak about GMOs. (This of
course… doesn’t apply to corporate executives or pro-GMO politicians and
media flacks.) The best proof of this… is that literally none of them…
stays within the bounds of their own disciplines when
pontificating about GMOs… every credentialed pro-GM activist evidently
feels free to spew the most ignorant, idiotic opinions on any subject
imaginable, no matter how unqualified they are according to their own
credentialist standard.”
Although the flamboyant style is done to maximise impact, the writer is making some key, valid points. For example, see this for a more sober account of Kevin Folta’s utterances on issues beyond his expertise. And yet, people like Richard John Roberts, Anthony Trewavas, Shanthu
Shantharam and others like pro-corporate/GM media mouthpiece Jon Entine
(‘The Chemical Industry’s Master Messenger‘) or pro-corporate/GM political mouthpiece like the UK’s Owen ‘Green Blob‘
Paterson seem to think some emotive talk about critics of GM engaging
in crimes against humanity, stealing food from the poor, engaging in
pseudo-science or some other sound bite designed for public consumption
is fine. If there is one thing these pro-GMO activists are truly expert at is
passing off ill-informed rhetoric for expert opinion, while hiding
behind a science PhD. This is nothing but spin that is designed to blur
the lines between fact and fiction, science and propaganda. Some people seem quite incredulous that people could doubt science. Perhaps Robert Fraley should try to convince us why we should not.
And while he’s at it, he might want to contemplate why we should take
anything he or his company says, does or promotes as ‘science’ given its
decades-long history of deceptions, cover ups and criminality.
The original source of this article is Global Research
the “outsiders” have struck a note that is registering with an
electorate that is flat-out mad, and justifiably so . . . and it isn’t
just those of us in the conservative column. Conservatives of course,
believe bankrupting the country to give our nation’s assets to anyone
and everyone who can get here (legally or otherwise) in an attempt to
purchase their vote, is not reasonable economic policy
e by the way, is the number of able-bodied potential workers aged 16 (not in school) to age 65.
rise
in the cost of dairy products, eggs, beef, and the almost criminal
increase in the cost of all things, toilet paper . . . over $4.00 for a
36 roll package of 2-ply, at Sam’s Club. The increase in healthcare
costs which affect older people more than the young, are on the rise. 
