Wednesday 22 October 2014

Elves


MULDER
Have you ever been to San Diego?

SCULLY

Yeah.

MULDER

Did you check out the Palomar observatory?

SCULLY

No.

MULDER

From 1948 until recently, it was the largest telescope in The World. 

The idea and design came from a brilliant and wealthy astronomer named George Ellery Hale. 

Actually, the idea was presented to Hale one night. 

While he was playing billiards, an elf climbed in his window and told him to get money from The Rockefeller Foundation for a telescope.



I quote The Enemy:

"Hale was a driven individual, who worked to found a number of significant astronomical observatories, including Yerkes Observatory, Mount Wilson Observatory, Palomar Observatory, and the Hale Solar Laboratory. At Mount Wilson, he hired and encouraged Harlow Shapley and Edwin Hubble toward some of the most significant discoveries of the time. He was a prolific organizer who helped create a number of astronomical institutions, societies and journals. Hale also played a central role in developing the California Institute of Technology into a leading research university. After retiring as director at Mount Wilson, he built the Hale Solar Laboratory in Pasadena, California, as his office and workshop, pursuing his interest in the sun.

Hale suffered from neurological and psychological problems, including insomnia, frequent headaches, and depression. The often-repeated myth of schizophrenia, alleging he claimed to have regular visits from an elf who acted as his advisor, arose from a misunderstanding by one of his biographers. 

He used to take time off to spend a few months at a sanatorium in Maine. These problems forced him to resign as director of Mount Wilson."


Honors and awards

1894 Janssen Medal from the Paris Academy of Sciences

1902 Rumford Prize from the American Academy of Arts & Sciences

1904 Henry Draper Medal from the National Academy of Sciences

1904 Gold Medal of the Royal Astronomical Society

1916 Catherine Wolfe Bruce Gold Medal from the Astronomical Society of the Pacific

1917 Prix Jules Janssen from the French Astronomical Society

1919 Elected an associate of Academie des Sciences, Institut de France

1920 Galileo Medal from the University of Florence

1921 Actonian Prize from Royal Institution of London

1926 Elliott Cresson Medal in Physics from the Franklin Institute of Philadelphia

1926 Arthur Noble Medal from the City of Pasadena

1927 Franklin Medal from the Franklin Institute of Philadelphia

1932 Sir Godfrey Copley Medal from the Royal Society of Great Britain

1935 Frederic Ives Medal from the Optical Society of America

Foreign Member of the Royal Society

Medal of Merit of the Order of Leopold from Belgium

Order of the Crown of Italy

Honorary Member of the Vienna Academy of Sciences











Pistorius



Well, first of all, by referencing the Simpson trial, you highlight the fact that both verdicts had absolutely nothing to do with race; only your oppinions of them, media bias and a very, VERY healthy dose of misandry.

Because OJ Simpson DIDN'T kill his wife, or Ron Goldman; you imply that he did and that the jury was too stupid to understand the evidence or not render a verdict based on their racial self-interest.

The jury heard ALL the forensic evidence, and fully understood it - concluding (correctly) that OJ didn't kill his wife, or Ron Goldman, the Police did, and then planted their blood in his car, after stealing his shoes and gloves, while he was more than 1500 miles away in Chicago - he actually has a cast-iron alibi. 

And that's even without being told (as they were not) that Ron Goldman was NOT his wife's lover, but was in fact her coke dealer and and also so screamingly gay, he was disowned by his own father (who Un-disowned him once he was dead, when there was a serious opportunity to cash-in).

Here, it's absolutely clear that Pistorious has absolutely no idea what happened to him and has just been repeating back to the court a story suggested to him by the Police (the chief detective of whom was, at the time, being investigated for having committed two actual MURDERS himself...)



What makes this Counter-Femninist screed (for that's what this is) mascarading as Feminism all the more represenible is that Deborah Orr clearly knows that - were she ignorant of this, she would have referred in error to the popular lie that Ron Goldman was Nicole Brown Simpson's lover, that OJ became aware of this and butchered the pair of them on her doorstep in a wild and jealous rage in the middle of a residential area at a ridiculously early hour; no, this was a tactical Neo-Nazi wet-team, dressed in black, working together, at least four of them. We know this, and the crime scene says so.

But no - Deborah Orr refers to Goldman visiting her house on "an errand", implying that he was merely in the wrong place at the wrong time. No.

The "errand" he was running was to deliver drugs, as all of the other waiters and serving staff at his place of work used to to, they were street-level couriers operating a massively lucrative cocaine distribution ring through the restaurant in West Holywood - which the LAPD clearly knew about and did nothing to disrupt.

And again, he was an absolute screaming homosexual - arresting officer Mark Fhurman was in the process of being fired, and was eventually convicted of perjury for lying about his whereabouts at the the time of the murder (he has no alibi), and in large part for his open membership of the group WASP which he organised within LAPD, White AngloSaxon Policemen; he was eventually fired for marking the lockers of colleagues engaged in inter-racial relationships with small Swazstikas, as well as the date of the MLK Day holiday on the Locker-room calendar - and the only thing they hate, despise and want to wipe out and cleanse from the Earth more than Jews, Blacks and Race-Traitors is screaming queers.

OJ Simpson has a cast-iron alibi and no motive - Mark Fhurman doesn't, and lied about it under oath.

Oh - and he also boasted all around the precinct locker-room that he had been boning Nicole Brown for some weeks before, as well - he had certainly visited the house, and had means, motive and opportunity to steal (and wear) OJ's shoes and gloves while he was there.



What makes this whole polemic even more egregious is the conscious blurring of violent crime and homicide and domestic violence.

Deliberate, pre-mediated murder has nothing to do with domestic violence; nor does negligent homicide.

"A verdict of culpable homicide is repellently inadequate..."

That isn't what you mean at all - how can an honest and sincere verdict be inadequate? The prosecution can be, but the considered oppinion of the jury panel cannot.

You don't mean that you think it's inadequate, you mean to say that it's wrong - which is, of course, legally actionable to say in print, and you clearly know that. 

The Guardian have good lawyers, and good subs.


Well, for one thing, the arresting officer was, at the time, already under investigating for committing two OTHER murders...

For another thing, HE was injured, and she was bludgeoned around the head with a big, heavy piece of wood, and THEN shot three times through the bathroom door with his gun - and he has no clear memory of what happened to him (although, he does keep a gun next to the bed for self-defence).

So, someone clearly attacked them both, took her out into the garden and probably attempted to rape her, beat her with a stick when she screamed, she ran away, hid in the bathroom, and they shot her through the door with his gun.

Otherwise, why would she be hiding in her own bathroom, with a fatal head wound, rather than running away from the man with the gun who has no legs?



Official - First time in history that the Guardian expresses full, unqualified confidence in the integrity of the ruling of a South Africa court. 

(even though the judge openly stated that she disagreed with the verdict, prior to sentencing.)

The jury was intelligent, listening and right - the judge is WRONG.

Tuesday 21 October 2014

"I Deny This Reality"

"I deny this reality - the reality is a computational Matrix!"


You are engaging in ascientific juvenile and immature wordsmithing.


You are "a skeptic" - people who have looked at either the same, or more information than you have and drawn different conclusions are "denialists".


Skepticism is not Science, it's critique, it's rhetoric and it's opinion.


The first Skeptics to go under that banner were not men of science, they were the Greek thinkers Diogenes and Pyrrho. They were contrarians.


Thus, a Skeptic can never be a Scientist, and likewise, a Scientist can never a Skeptic - a Skeptic never espouses or commits to an idea or theoretical model or philosophy of his own, he merely seeks to critique, deconstruct, unravel and find fault with those of others; thus, they never have a better theory to propose or submit to the same level of public scrutiny.


Science proceeds from the evidence, nothing more, nothing less.


Observable, objectively measurable and reproducible effects.


If the theory currently in vogue fails to consistently predict future results, then you are welcome to propose a better theory, if you have one.


If you do not have one, the extent to which you are able to make a useful contribution to any given matter is limited in the extreme.


If you can do better, then do so.


What you are NOT permitted to do is sit around, imagining possible explanations for why it may not be right.


If it's not right, we will easily be able to see that it s not right be repeating the experiment with different input values for the main variables to see if the results differ in the expected way, in accordance with the underlying theoretical assumptions of each given case.


The approach that you adhere to is NOT Science, it's dialectics.



"This is an illusion - I deny it!"



Total Oil


"A staunch defender of Russia and its energy policies amid the conflict in Ukraine, De Margerie told Reuters in a July interview that Europe should stop thinking about cutting its dependence on Russian gas and focus instead on making those deliveries safer.

He said tensions between the west and Russia were pushing Moscow closer to China, as illustrated by a $400bn deal to supply Beijing with gas that was clinched in May.

“Are we going to build a new Berlin Wall?” he said. “Russia is a partner and we shouldn’t waste time protecting ourselves from a neighbour … What we are looking to do is not to be too dependent on any country, no matter which. Not from Russia, which has saved us on numerous occasions.”

Total is one of the major oil companies most exposed to Russia, where its output will double to represent more than a tenth of its global portfolio by 2020. 

Total is one of the top foreign investors in Russia but its future there grew cloudy after the 17 July downing of a Malaysian passenger airliner over Ukrainian territory held by pro-Russian rebels. The disaster worsened the oil-rich country’s relations with the west and raised the threat of deeper sanctions.

Total said in September that sanctions would not stop it working on the Yamal project, a $27bn joint venture investment to tap vast natural gas reserves in north-west Siberia that aims to double Russia’s stake in the fast-growing market for liquefied natural gas.

De Margerie said then that Europe could not live without Russian gas, adding that there was no reason to do so.

Total is the fourth largest by market value of the western world’s top oil companies behind Exxon, Royal Dutch Shell and Chevron. Russia accounted for about 9% of Total’s oil and gas output in 2013.

The oil company had forecast in April that Russia would become its biggest source of oil and gas by 2020 due to its partnership with the Russian energy company Novatek and the Yamal project.

Total SA is France’s second-biggest listed company with a market value of €102bn.

Sunday 19 October 2014

Snipers



"Let's refer to the US marines we see in the foreground as 'sharpshooters,' not snipers, which carries a negative connotation" 

Fox News Senior Vice-President for News John Moody,
Message-of-the-Day Internal Memo
April 24th 2004


http://www.globalresearch.ca/unknown-snipers-and-western-backed-regime-change/27904

Unknown Snipers and Western backed “Regime Change”- A Historical Review and Analysis

By Gearóid Ó Colmáin


Unknown snipers played a pivotal role throughout the  so-called  « Arab Spring Revolutions »  yet, in spite of reports of their presence in the mainstream media, surprisingly little attention has been paid to  to their purpose and role.

The Russian investigative journalist Nikolay Starikov has written a book which discusses the role of unknown snipers in the destabilization of countries targeted for regime change by the United States and its allies. The following article attempts to elucidate some historical examples of this technique with a view to providing a background within which to understand the current cover war on the people of Syria by death squads in the service of Western intelligence.[1]

Romania 1989.

In Susanne Brandstätter’s documentary ‘Checkmate: Strategy of a Revolution’ aired on Arte television station some years ago,  Western intelligence officials revealed how  death squads were used to destabilize Romania and turn its people against the head of state Nicolai Ceaucescu.

Brandstätter’s film is a must see for anyone interested in how Western intelligence agencies, human rights groups and the corporate press collude in the systematic destruction of countries whose leadership conflicts with the interests of big capital and empire.

Former secret agent with the French secret service, the DGSE(La Direction générale de la sécurité extérieure) Dominique Fonvielle, spoke candidly about the role of Western intelligence operatives in destabilizing the Romanian population.

“how do you organize a revolution? I believe the first step is to locate oppositional forces in a given country. It is sufficient to have a highly developed intelligence service in order to determine which people are credible enough to have influence at their hands to destabilize the people to the disadvantage of the ruling regime”[2]

This open and rare admission of Western sponsorship of terrorism was justified on the grounds of the “greater good” brought to Romania by free-market capitalism. It was necessary, according to the strategists of Romania’s “revolution”, for some people to die.

Today, Romania remains one of the poorest countries in Europe. A report on Euractiv reads:

“Most Romanians associate the last two decades with a continuous process of impoverishment and deteriorating living standards, according to Romania’s Life Quality Research Institute, quoted by the Financiarul daily.” [3]

The western intelligence officials interviewed in the documentary also revealed how the Western press played a central role in disinformation. For example, the victims of Western-backed snipers were photographed by presented to the world as evidence of a crazed dictator who was “killing his own people”.

To this day, there is a Museum in the back streets of Timisoara Romania which promotes the myth of the “Romanian Revolution”.  The Arte documentary was one of the rare occasions when the mainstream press revealed some of  the dark secrets of Western liberal democracy. The documentary caused a scandal when it was aired in France, with the prestigious Le Monde Diplomatique discussing the moral dilemma of the West’s support of terror in its desire to spread ‘democracy’.

Since the destruction of Libya and the ongoing cover war on Syria, Le Monde Diplomatique has stood safely on the side of political correction, condemning Bachar Al Assad for the crimes of the DGSE and the CIA. In its current edition, the front page article reads Ou est la gauche? Where is the left ? Certainly not in the pages of Le Monde Diplomatique !

Russia 1993
During Boris Yeltsin’s counter-revolution in Russia in 1993, when the Russian parliament was bombed resulting in the deaths of thousands of people, Yeltsin’s counter-revolutionaries made extensive use of snipers.  According to many eye witness reports, snipers were seen shooting civilians from the building opposite the US embassy in Moscow.  The snipers were attributed to the Soviet government by the international media.[4]

Venezuela 2002
In 2002, the CIA attempted to overthrow Hugo Chavez, president of Venezuela, in a military coup. On the 11th of April 2002, an opposition March towards the presidential palace was organized by the US backed Venezuelan opposition. Snipers hidden in buildings near the palace opened fire on protestors killing 18. The Venezuelan and international media claimed that Chavez was “ killing his own people” thereby justifying the military coup presented as a humanitarian intervention.  It was subsequently proved that the coup had been organized by the CIA but the identity of the snipers was never established.

Thailand April 2010
On April 12th 2010, Christian Science Monitor published a detailed report of the riots in Thailand between “red-shirt” activists and the Thai government. The article headline read: ‘Thailand’s red shirt protests darken with unknown snipers, parade of coffins’.

Like their counterparts in Tunisia, Thailand’s red shirts were calling for the resignation of the Thai prime minister. While a heavy-handed response by the Thai security forces to the protestors was indicated in the report, the government’s version of events was also reported:

“Mr. Abhisit has used solemn televised addresses to tell his story. He has blamed rogue gunmen, or “terrorists,” for the intense violence (at least 21 people died and 800 were injured) and emphasized the need for a full investigation into the killings of both soldiers and protesters. State television has broadcast repeated images of soldiers coming under fire from bullets and explosives.”

The CSM report went on to quote Thai military officials and unnamed Western diplomats:

“military observers say Thai troops stumbled into a trap set by agents provocateurs with military expertise. By pinning down soldiers after dark and sparking chaotic battles with unarmed protesters, the unknown gunmen ensured heavy casualties on both sides.

Some were caught on camera and seen by reporters, including this one. Snipers targeted military ground commanders, indicating a degree of advance planning and knowledge of Army movements, say Western diplomats briefed by Thai officials. While leaders of the demonstrations have disowned the use of firearms and say their struggle is nonviolent, it is unclear whether radicals in the movement knew of the trap.

“You can’t claim to be a peaceful political movement and have an arsenal of weapons out the back if needed. You can’t have it both ways,” says a Western diplomat in regular contact with protest leaders [5]

The CSM article also explores the possibility that the snipers could be rogue elements in the Thai military, agents provocateurs used to justify a crack down on democratic opposition. Thailand’s ruling elite is currently coming under pressure from a group called the Red Shirts.[6]

Kyrgystan June 2010
Ethnic violence broke out in the Central Asian republic of  Kirgystan  in June 2010. It was widely reported that unknown snipers opened fire on members of the Uzbek minority in Kyrgystan. Eurasia.net reports:

“In many Uzbek mahallas, inhabitants offer convincing testimony of gunmen targeting their neighborhoods from vantage points. Men barricaded into the Arygali Niyazov neighborhood, for example, testified to seeing gunmen on the upper floors of a nearby medical institute hostel with a view over the district’s narrow streets. They said that during the height of the violence these gunmen were covering attackers and looters, assaulting their area with sniper fire. Men in other Uzbek neighborhoods tell similar stories

. « Among the rumours and unconfirmed reports circulating in Kyrgyzstan after the 2010 violence were claims that water supplies to Uzbek areas were about to be  poisoned. Such rumours had also been spread against the Ceaucescu regime in Romania during the CIA- backed coup in 1989. Eurasia.net goes on to claim that:

Many people are convinced that they’ve seen foreign mercenaries acting as snipers. These alleged foreign combatants are distinguished by their appearance – inhabitants report seeing black snipers and tall, blonde, female snipers from the Baltic states. The idea that English snipers have been roaming the streets of Osh shooting at Uzbeks is also popular. There’ve been no independent corroborations of such sightings by foreign journalists or representatives of international organizations.” [7]

None of these reports have been independently investigated or corroborated. It is therefore impossible to draw any hard conclusions from these stories.

Ethnic violence against Uzbek citizens in Kyrgyzstan occurred pari pasu with a popular revolt against the US-backed regime, which many analysts have attributed to the machinations of Moscow.

The Bakiyev régime came to power in a CIA-backed people-power coup known to the world as the Tulip Revolution in 2005.

Located to the West of China and bordering Afghanistan, Kyrgyzstan hosts one of America’s biggest and most important military bases in Central Asia, the Manas Air Base, which is vital for the NATO occupation of neighbouring Afghanistan.

Despite initial worries, US/Kyrgyz relations have remained good under the regime of President Roza Otunbayeva. This is not surprising as Otunbayeva had previously participated in the US-created Tulip Revolution in 2004, taking power as foreign minister.

To date no proper investigation has been conducted into the origins of the ethnic violence that spread throughout  the south of Kyryzstan in 2010, nor have the marauding gangs of unknown snipers been identified and apprehended.

Given the geostrategic and geopolitical importance of Kyrgyzstan to both the United States and Russia, and the formers track-record of using death squads to divide and weaken countries so as to maintain US domination, US involvement in the dissemination of terrorism in Kyrgyzstan cannot be ruled out. One effective way of maintaining a grip on Central Asian countries would be to exacerbate ethnic tensions.

In August 6th 2008, the Russian newspaper Kommersant reported that a US arms cache had been found in a house in the Kyrgyz capital Bishkek, which was being rented by two American citizens. The US embassy claimed the arms were being used for “anti-terrorism” exercises. However, this was not confirmed by Kyrgyz authorities. [8]

Covert US military support to terrorist groups in the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia proved to be an effective strategy in creating the conditions for “humanitarian” bombing in 1999. An effective means of  keeping the government in Bishkek firmly on America’s side would be to insist on a US and European presence in the country to help “protect” the Uzbek minority.

Military intervention similar to that in the former Yugoslavia by the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe  has already been advocated by the New York Times, whose misleading article on the riots on June 24th 2010 has the headline “Kyrgyzstan asks European Security Body for Police Teams”. The article is misleading as the headline contradicts the actual report which cites a Kyrgyz official stating:

“A government spokesman said officials had discussed an outside police presence with the O.S.C.E., but said he could not confirm that a request for a deployment had been made.”

There is no evidence in the article of any request by the Kyrgyz government for military intervention. In fact, the article presents much evidence to the contrary. However, before the reader has a chance to read the explanation of the Kyrgyz government, the New York Times’ writer presents the now all too horribly familiar narrative of oppressed peoples begging the West to come and bomb or occupy their country:

“Ethnic Uzbeks in the south have clamored for international intervention. Many Uzbeks said they were attacked in their neighborhoods not only by civilian mobs, but also by the Kyrgyz military and police officers”[9]

Only towards the end of the article do we find out that the Kyrgyz authorities blamed the US-backed dictator for fomenting ethnic violence in the country, through the use of Islamic jihadists in Uzbekistan. This policy of using ethnic tension to create an environment of fear in order to prop up an extremely unpopular dictatorship, the policy of using Islamic Jihadism as a political tool to create what former US National Security Advisor Zbigniew Bzrezinski called “ an arc of crisis”, ties in well with the history of US involvement in Central Asia from the creation of Al Qaida in Afghanistan in 1978 to the present day.

Again, the question persists, who were the “unknown snipers” terrorizing the Uzbek population, where did their weapons come from and who would benefit from ethnic conflict in Central Asia’s geopolitical hotspot?

Tunisia January 2011
On January 16th 2011, CNN reported that ‘’armed gangs’’ were fighting Tunisian security forces. [10] Many of the murders committed throughout the Tunisian uprising were by “unknown snipers”. There were also videos posted on the internet showing Swedish nationals detained by Tunisian security forces. The men were clearly armed with sniper rifles. Russia Today aired the dramatic pictures.[11]

In spite of articles by professor Michel Chossudovsky, William Engdahl and  others showing how the uprisings in North Africa were following the patterns of US backed people-power coups rather than genuinely popular revolutions, left wing parties and organizations continued to believe the version of events presented to them by Al Jazeera and the mainstream press. Had the left taken a left from old Lenin’s book they would have transposed his comments on the February/March revolution in Russia thus:

“The  whole course of events in the January/February Revolution clearly shows that the British, French and American embassies, with their agents and “connections”,… directly organized a plot.. in conjunction with a section of the generals and army and Tunisian garrison officers, with the express object of deposing Ben Ali”

What the left did not understand is that sometimes it is necessary for imperialism to overthrow some of its clients. A suitable successor to Ben Ali could always be found among the feudalists of the Muslim Brotherhood who now look likely to take power.

In their revolutionary sloganeering and arrogant insistence that the events in Tunisia and Egypt were “spontaneous and popular uprisings” they committed what Lenin identified as the most dangerous sins in a revolution, namely, the substitution of the abstract for the concrete. In other words, left wing groups were simply fooled by the sophistication of the Western backed “Arab Spring” events.

That is why the violence of the demonstrators and in particular the widespread use of snipers possibly linked to Western intelligence was the great unthought of the Tunisian uprising. The same techniques would be used in Libya a few weeks later, forcing the left to back track and modifiy its initial enthusiasm for the CIA’s “Arab Spring”.

When we are talking about the” left” here, we are referring to genuine left wing parties, that is to say, parties who supported the Great People’s Socialist Libyan Arab Jamahirya in their long and brave fight against Western imperialism, not the infantile petty bourgeois dupes who supported NATO’s Benghazi terrorists.  The blatant idiocy of such a stance should be crystal clear to anyone who understands global politics and class struggle.

Egypt 2011
On October 20th 2011, the Telegraph newspaper published an article entitled, “Our brother died for a better Egypt”. According to the Telegraph, Mina Daniel, an anti-government activist in Cairo, had been ‘shot from an unknown sniper, wounding him fatally in the chest”

Inexplicably, the article is no longer available on the Telegraph’s website for online perusal. But a google search for ‘Egypt, unknown sniper, Telegraph’ clearly shows the above quoted explanation for Mina Daniel’s death. So, who could these “unknown snipers’’ be?

On February 6th Al Jazeera reported that Egyptian journalist Ahmad Mahmoud was shot by snipers as he attempted to cover classes between Egyptian security forces and protestors. Referring to statements made by Mahmoud’s wife Enas Abdel-Alim, the Al Jazeera article insinuates that Mahmoud may have been killed by Egyptian security forces:

“Abdel-Alim said several eyewitnesses told her a uniformed police captain with Egypt’s notorious Central Security forces yelled at her husband to stop filming.

Before Mahmoud even had a chance to react, she said, a sniper shot him.” [12]

While the Al Jazeera article advances the theory that the snipers were agents of the Mubarak regime, their role in the uprising still remains a mystery. Al Jazeera, the Qatar-based television stations owned by the Emir Hamid Bin Khalifa Al Thani, played a key role in provoking protests in Tunisia and Egypt before launching a campaign of unmitigated pro-NATO war propaganda and lies during the destruction of Libya.

The Qatari channel been a central participant in the current covert war waged by NATO agencies and their clients against the Republic of Syria. Al Jazeera’s incessant disinformation against Libya and Syria resulted in the resignation of several prominent journalists such as Beirut station chief Ghassan Bin Jeddo[13]  and senior Al Jazeera executive Wadah Khanfar who was forced to resign after a wikileaks cable revealed he was a co-operating with the Central Intelligence Agency.[14]

Many people were killed during the US-backed colour revolution in Egypt. Although, the killings have been attributed to former US semi-client Hosni Mubarak, the involvement of Western intelligence cannot be ruled out. However, it should be pointed out that the role of unknown snipers in mass demonstrations remains complex and multi-faceted and therefore one should not jump to conclusions. For example, after the Bloody Sunday massacre(Domhnach na Fola) in Derry, Ireland 1972, where peaceful demonstrators were shot dead by the British army, British officials claimed that they had come under fire from snipers. But the 30 year long Bloody Sunday  inquiry subsequently proved this to be false.  But the question persists once more,  who were the snipers in Egypt and whose purposes did they serve?

Libya  2011
During the destabilization of Libya, a video was aired by Al Jazeera purporting to show peaceful “pro-democracy” demonstrators being fired upon by “Gaddafi’s forces”. The video was edited to convince the viewer that anti-Gaddafi demonstrators were being murdered by the security forces. However, the unedited version of the video is available on utube. It clearly shows pro-Gaddafi demonstrators with Green flags being fired upon by unknown snipers. The attribution of NATO-linked crimes to the security forces of the Libyan Jamahirya was a constant feature of the brutal media war waged against the Libyan people. [15]

Syria 2011
The people of Syria have been beset by death squads and snipers since the outbreak of violence there in March. Hundreds of Syrian soldiers and security personnel have been murdered, tortured and mutilated by Salafist and Muslim Brotherhood militants. Yet the international media corporations continue to spread the pathetic lie that the deaths are the result Bachar Al Assad’s dictatorship.

When I visited Syria in April of this year, I personally encountered merchants and citizens in Hama who told me they had seen armed terrorists roaming the streets of that once peaceful city, terrorizing the neighbourhood. I recall speaking to a fruit seller in the city of Hama who  spoke about the horror he had witnessed that day. As he described the scenes of violence to me, my attention was arrested by a newspaper headline in English from the Washington Post  shown on Syrian television: “CIA backs Syrian opposition”. The Central Intelligence Agency provides training and funding for groups who do the bidding of US imperialist interests. The history of the CIA shows that backing opposition forces means providing them with arms and finance, actions illegal under international law.

A few days later, while at a hostel in the ancient, cultured city of Aleppo, I spoke to a Syrian business man and his family. The business man ran many hotels in the city and was pro-Assad. He told me that he used to watch Al Jazeera television but now had doubts about their honesty. As we conversed, the Al Jazeera television in the background showed scenes of Syrian soldiers beating and torturing protestors. “ Now if that is true, it is simply unacceptable” he said. It is sometimes impossible to verify whether the images shown on television are true or not. Many of the crimes attributed to the Syrian army have been committed by the armed gangs, such as the dumping of mutilated bodies into the river in Hama, presented to the world as more proof of the crimes of the Assad regime.

There is a minority of innocent opponents of the Assad regime who believe everything they see and hear on Al Jazeera and the other pro-Western satellite stations. These people simply do not understand the intricacies of international politics.

But the facts on the ground show that most people in Syria support the government. Syrians have access to all internet websites and international TV channels. They can watch BBC, CNN, Al Jazeera, read the New York Times online or Le Monde before tuning into their own state media. In this respect, many Syrians are more informed about international politics than the average European or American. Most Europeans and American believe their own media. Few are capable of reading the Syrian press in original Arabic or watching Syrian television. The Western powers are the masters of discourse, who own the means of communication. The Arab Spring has been the most horrifying example of the wanton abuse of this power.

Disinformation is effective in sowing the seeds of doubt among those who are seduced by Western propaganda. Syrian state media has disproved hundreds of Al Jazeera lies since the beginning of this conflict.  Yet the western media has refused to even report the Syrian government’s position lest fair coverage of the other side of this story encourage a modicum of critical thought in the public mind.

Conclusion.
The use of mercenaries, death squads and snipers by Western intelligence agencies is well documented.  No rational government attempting to stay in power would resort to unknown snipers to intimidate its opponents. Shooting at innocent protestors would be counterproductive in the face of unmitigated pressure from Western governments determined to install a client regime in Damascus. Shooting of unarmed protestors is only acceptable in dictatorships that enjoy the unconditional support of Western governments such as Bahrain, Honduras or Colombia.

A government which is so massively supported by the population of Syria would not sabotage its own survival by setting snipers against the protests of a small minority.

The opposition to the Syrian regime is, in fact, miniscule. Tear gas, mass arrests and other non lethal methods would be perfectly sufficient for a government wishing to control unarmed demonstrators.

Snipers are used to create terror, fear and anti-regime propaganda. They are an integral feature of Western sponsored regime change.

If one were to make a serious criticism of the Syrian government over the past few months, it is that they have failed to implement effective anti-terrorism measures in the country.

The Syrian people want troops on the streets and the roofs of public buildings. In the weeks and months ahead, the Syrian armed forces will probably rely more and more on their Russian military specialists to strengthen the country’s defenses as the Western crusade begun in Libya in March spreads to the Levant.

There is no conclusive proof that the snipers murdering men, women and children in Syria are the agents of Western imperialism. But there is overwhelming proof that Western imperialism is attempting to destroy the Syrian state. As in Libya, they have never once mentioned the possibility of negotiations between the so-called opposition and the Syrian government. The West wants regime change and is determined to repeat the slaughter in Libya to achieve this geopolitical objective.

It now looks likely that the cradle of civilization and science will be overrun by semi-literate barbarians as the terminal decline of the West plays itself out in the deserts of the East.

Notes

[1] http://nstarikov.ru/en/
[2] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1l8qjX4SzBY&feature=related
[3]http://www.euractiv.com/enlargement/romania-says-poverty-reduction-impossible-target-news-468172
[4]http://www.truthinmedia.org/Bulletins/tim98-3-10.html
[5].http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-Pacific/2010/0412/Thailand-s-red-shirt-protests-darken-with-unknown-snipers-parade-of-coffins
[6] http://www.activistpost.com/2010/12/thailand-stage-set-for-another-color.html
[7]  http://www.eurasianet.org/taxonomy/term/2813?page=6
[8http://kommersant.com/p1008364/r_500/U.S.-Kyrgyzstan_relations/
[9] http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/25/world/asia/25kyrgyz.html
[10]http://articles.cnn.com/2011-01-16/world/tunisia.protests_1_troops-battle-unity-government-tunisia?_s=PM:WORLD
[11]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIFxqXPQEQU&feature=related
[12]http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/spotlight/anger-in-egypt/2011/02/201126201341479784.html
[13] http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4060180,00.html
[14] http://intelligencenews.wordpress.com/2011/09/21/01-828/
[15] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQtM-59jDAo&feature=player_embedded#!




Saturday 18 October 2014

The Gnosticism of Legos

The Man Upstairs (YAWH) / The Demiurge.

Q: Who is God in The Matrix?

A: In The Matrix, God is still God.

But The Architect is god of the Matrix, in The Matrix.

The Great Architect of the Universe 


There is some good research which suggests that Moses and the Pharoah Akenhaten (brother to Tutenkamen) were in fact one and the same person

You see "Moses" is a title - it means "Heir Aparent"; it isn't a name.

So "Moses" and his followers hook up with this entity, this "god" - who doesn't introduce himself properly.

"I AM THAT I AM!"

And Akenhaten's radical belief system, his Monotheism did not jibe with the prevailing Egyptian Consciousness at the time - and so, Akenhaten, and his Cult of YAWH, and their (uniquely partisan and intercessory) pet god out of Khmet (Egypt), out of Afrika, and into exile in West Asia.




A blog dedicated to finding every cup of Starbucks coffee in Fight Club

I see at least four in this picture.

It has quad cup-holders.


Wyldstyle: I don't think he's ever had an original thought... in his life.

Emmet: [chuckles] That's not true. For instance, one time I wanted a bunch of my friends over to watch TV, not unlike this TV that just showed up magically. And not everybody can fit on my one couch, and I thought to myself, well, what if there's such a thing as a bunkbed but as a couch? Introducing the double decker couch! So everyone could watch TV together and be buddies!

Wyldstyle: That's literally the dumbest thing I ever heard.

Vitruvius: Please, Wyldstyle, let me handle this. That idea is just the worst.



"Beer"

Matt: The generic packaging looks particularly striking when viewed alongside this summer’s crop of blockbusters and their grossly excessive product placement, from Vince Vaughn and Owen Wilson playing sidekicks to Google in The Internship to Superman fighting for truth, justice, and IHOP’s Rooty Tooty Fresh ’N Fruity Breakfast in Man Of Steel. In that context, “food,” “drink,” and the rest feel like a sharp jab at the future of brand integration, which had just begun to pick up steam in the wake of E.T. and his unquenchable thirst for Reese’s Pieces. As Tasha notes, the decision to use generic packaging was born of economic necessity, but it also functions as a defiant rebuke to the early days of product placement—a very punk gesture, indeed.

"Food"


Nathan: Product placement is all about creating favorable distinctions between products that are pretty much the same. But the emphasis on making everything generic in Repo Man makes all products seem equally shitty and flawed, just as the film reveals pretty much all belief systems and subcultures to be shitty and flawed, so there’s a furtive philosophical component to this running gag as well.

"Products"

Repo Man Forum: punk, consumerism, identity, and L.A.


Loki: Do you think the Bifrost is the only way in and out of this realm? There are passages between worlds to which even you, with all your gifts, are blind. 

Fabuland - Like Pepperland, only with crazy animal heads.

Emmet: Hey, uh, listen. Do you think you can explain to me why I'm dressed like this? And what those big words in the sky were all about? And, like, where we are... in time?

Lucy: Your home, Bricksburgh, is one of many realms in the universe. There's also this one, Pirates Cove, Knights Club, Vikings Landing, Clown Town, and a bunch of others we don't even mention. Lord Business, or as you think you know him, President Business, stole the Kragl, the most powerful object in the universe...

[in slow dreamy voice]
Lucy: ... blah, blah, blah. Proper name. Place name. Backstory stuff... I'm so pretty. I like you. But I'm angry with you for some reason...




"Yog-Sothoth knows the gate. Yog-Sothoth is the gate. Yog-Sothoth is the key and guardian of the gate. Past, present, future, all are one in Yog-Sothoth. He knows where the Old Ones broke through of old, and where They shall break through again. He knows where They have trod earth's fields, and where They still tread them, and why no one can behold Them as They tread."

—H. P. Lovecraft, "The Dunwich Horror"






Duplo: We are from the planet Duplo, and we're here to destroy you.

Emmet: Oh, man.

"Jews or Berries"



"They worshipped, so they said, the Great Old Ones who lived ages before there were any men, and who came to the young world out of the sky. Those Old Ones were gone now, inside the earth and under the sea; but their dead bodies had told their secrets in dreams to the first men, who formed a cult which had never died."



"... the Old or Ancient Ones, the Elder Gods, of cosmic good, and those of cosmic evil, bearing many names, and themselves of different groups, as if associated with the elements and yet transcending them: for there are the Water Beings, hidden in the depths; those of Air that are the primal lurkers beyond time; those of Earth, horrible animate survivors of distant eons."